Sitting of 1 December 1987

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords]
      GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (NO. 2) BILL [Lords]
      Orders for consideration, as amended, read. To be considered on Thursday 3 December.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Education Reform
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding his proposals for financial delegation to schools and colleges.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): There have been over 700 responses to the consultation paper on financial delegation to schools, and some 350 responses to the paper on further education.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Secretary of State aware that 87 per cent, of our schools—24,000 in all—have fallen into a state of disrepair and need exceptional repairs to put them back in order? As one who is entirely honest, because he went to the same school as I did, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us that his financial delegation will cure the backlog of repairs?
    Mr. Baker: I believe that the building that the hon. Gentleman and I shared as schoolboys has fallen down. To be more precise, it sank into the sands of Southport, and has been partly, indeed substantially, rebuilt. That is rather wide of the question, but the hon. Gentleman will know that I have secured for next year, in the financial settlement, a substantial increase in the capital allocations for schools, amounting to an increase of some 22 per cent, in the capital allocations over this year.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that delegations to schools will allow for the more efficient use of resources? It will allow parents, teachers and governing bodies to decide for themselves the priority of the school, which must be to the considerable advantage of education.
    Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is probably agreed on both sides of the House that the delegation of
    746
    budgets to governing bodies and heads should go ahead Indeed, it is going ahead very strongly at present. Practice will anticipate the provisions of the Bill in this respect.
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will outline his plans for the future of comprehensive education in England and Wales.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: It is for local education authorities to consider how to organise school provision in their areas. Where proposals for changes in the existing pattern come to me for decision, I shall continue to consider them on their individual merits.
    Mr. McAllion: The Secretary of State will be aware of the recent Edinburgh university study which was commissioned by the Scottish Office and which welcomed the improvement in the standards of Scottish education, brought about by the introduction of comprehensive schools. In particular, it welcomed the increase in the number of pupils staying on beyond the statutory school leaving age and the substantial increase in the number of pupils obtaining ordinary and higher grade qualifications.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore undertake to arrange for a similar study to be conducted for England and Wales? Does he accept that if he did so his time would be far better spent than it is now in trying to dismantle the comprehensive system south of the border through his great education reform Bill?
    Mr. Baker: The study to which the hon. Gentleman refers by no means shows a causal link between comprehensive reorganisation and examination success. However, as the hon. Gentleman has asked me to consider setting up a study in England and Wales, he should be aware of the Welsh study, published early this year, of a community where education was comprehensive in half the area and selective in the other half. The authors found that the selective schools were superior in a range of outcomes, including reading scores and examination results. Comprehensives failed most with pupils of average and below average ability.
    Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that our proposals for comprehensive schools are entirely in keeping with the findings of the second Vatican council, which concluded that parents who have the primary and inalienable right and duty to educate their children should have true liberty in their choice of schools?
    Mr. Baker: I am very glad to have support from the second Vatican council. I am encouraged to believe that it has pointed out in a clear way the importance of parental choice in education, which has appeared in the statute law of this country for several centuries. That is one of the main thrusts of the Bill that we shall be discussing later.
    Mr. Flanncry: Is it not a fact that although the Minister is asked about his future plans for comprehensive education, in fact his main plan is to utterly destroy it? Why does he not say so? Why is he waging a vendetta against it? Does he not realise that if he compares selective schools and comprehensive schools within a certain area, the so-called comprehensive schools cannot possibly be comprehensive if they are at the side of a selective system?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman should refer to the Welsh study. It drew considerable comment when it was published earlier this year. It is not our intention to destroy

    747
    comprehensive schools. There are many fine comprehensive schools which serve their communities and their children very well.
    Mr. Leigh: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals will be contained in the Education Reform Bill to promote greater choice in education in rural areas.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): The Education Reform Bill will increase the scope for informed choice in education among all parents. It will help to raise standards in all schools, wherever they may be located.
    Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend agree that the ability of parents to choose in rural areas is limited, not just by artificial limits set on the size of schools—that situation will be rectified by clause 17 of the Education Reform Bill —but by the cost of travel to a favoured school, which in an area such as Lincolnshire can be as far as 10 miles away? Will my hon Friend consider the creation of rural travel education vouchers to extend freedom of choice to parents?
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend will have to accept, as I do, that parental choice inevitably has to operate within the context of the area in which the school is situated. Even where there is only one school, for example, parents will still be able to apply to the Secretary of State for it to be withdrawn from local authority control. The advantages of the national curriculum and financial delegation will still obtain.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Minister recall that the Audit Commission, in its response to the Government's proposals about open enrolment, said that unless the Government instituted a system to extend home-school transport costs in rural areas poorer families would effectively be inhibited from having a choice because they would not be able to meet transport costs? What does he intend to do about that, or are poorer families not supposed to have a choice?
    Mr. Dunn: Whether a school is in a town or the country, positive improvements in achievement will result once the Bill, to be voted upon later today, becomes law. Many provisions will bite on the school to its advantage. The dark days of poor performance against international competition are over. Nothing is going to be the same again.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Will my hon. Friend pay close attention to the problems of transport? It is a real difficulty if genuine choice is to be maintained. The choice may be between schools that are four miles or seven miles away. Parents feel strongly about that and I hope that my hon. Friend will give the House an assurance that he will look carefully at the problem.
    Mr. Dunn: The provision of school transport is a matter for the local education authority. Current arrangements are not affected by the Bill, except that local education authorities will have to treat pupils equally, whether they attend local education authority or grant-maintained schools.
    Ms. Armstrong: Does the Minister recognise that some of the proposals contained in his Bill will mean that some rural schools will be under threat of closure because, to date, they have been supported by additional resources
    748
    from local education authorities and that LEA planning has kept numbers at a viable level? Will he tell the House whether he will put money into those schools to ensure that they are able to be retained in those areas?
    Mr. Dunn: The Government recognise that many small village schools have to be retained because of the geographical isolation of the communities they serve, especially where the alternative schools would necessitate unacceptably long journeys for young children. For some years we have had the sparsity factor in the allocation of grants from Government.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that Lancashire county council is wickedly proposing to try to close five rural schools near me? Is he further aware of the volume of opposition, which is growing hourly?
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend misses no opportunity to bring to the House the case of her constituents. I can assure her that when the Lancashire education authority proposes to close schools she will be given every opportunity to bring to me and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State her views and those of her constituents on the proposals for closure.

    University Dental Schools
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether there are any plans to reorganise university dental schools; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): A review of dental education by the University Grants Committee is now under way.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister recognise that the review is causing concern among those involved in dental care? Will he give an assurance that there will be no closure or enforced merger of existing dental schools?
    Mr. Jackson: I cannot anticipate the result of the report. It will have to take into account the fact that several dental schools are already at or below the minimum size that enables the curriculum to be adequately covered by economic staffing levels. The hon. Gentleman knows that the dental manpower review has recommended a 10 per cent, cut in intake.
    Mr. Holt: Would my hon. Friend care to speak to his colleagues about the number of dentists in training in Southern Ireland to see whether, under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, he can achieve a cut in the numbers in training in Ireland, just as the number training in this country was cut from 4,000 to 2,600? Ultimately, all our dentists could be Irish if something is not done about this.
    Mr. Jackson: We have no jurisdiction in the Republic of Ireland, but I promise my hon. Friend that I shall inquire into the matter.

    ILEA (South-West Quadrant Review)
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the Inner London education authority's south-west quadrant review.
    Mr. Dunn: Representations have been received from three hon. Members and a number of parents. Since the

    749
    Inner London education authority has not yet published statutory proposals for schools in the south-west quadrant, the matter remains one for the authority.
    Mr. Hughes: The Minister will be aware that the education committee and the authority have now made their decision and that it is on the way to his Department. Included in that decision is the proposal to amalgamate and thus end the life of the London Nautical school in my constituency. Parents, local hon. Members and, indeed, some members of the majority group in ILEA are greatly concerned that the London Nautical school might disappear. Will the Minister undertake that the decision whether to implement or to change the proposals of the education authority will be made speedily and that the London Nautical school in particular will receive favourable consideration from him and his colleagues?
    Mr. Dunn: Given the size of the proposals, which I have yet to receive, it may be some time before we can adjudicate upon them. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government attach considerable importance to increasing parental choice and that the extent of local support or opposition is a relevant factor in our consideration of proposals.
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: I note with pleasure my hon. Friend's response and I note, too, that he has rejected ILEA'S proposals in relation to the north-east quadrant. Will he take note that many parents in my constituency, and parents of children who go to school in my constituency, do not believe that tertiary education is the only way in which to deal with 16 to 19-year-olds? There is a place for sixth forms and for schools such as the London Nautical school and the William Penn school, both of which are matters of great concern.
    Mr. Dunn: I note my hon. Friend's fervour on the matter. I remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considers each proposal on its merits. In the case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), my right hon. Friend was not satisfied that the proposal relating to Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Islington offered good value for the considerable capital costs involved, or that it did enough to tackle the problem of surplus capacity in secondary schools in those areas.

    Primary and Secondary Schools
    Mr. Anthony Coombes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money is being spent per pupil in 1987 in primary and secondary schools, as compared with the sum spent in January 1979.
    Mr. Dunn: Based on a provisional distribution by sector of estimated total current spending by local authorities, an average of £1,115 was spent on each primary and secondary pupil in England in 1986–87, which is 30 per cent, more in real terms than in 1978–79.
    Mr. Coombes: I warmly welcome those figures. However, will my hon. Friend confirm that international experience, recent independent research, Her Majesty's inspectors' reports and the experience in some parts of ILEA have all confirmed the falsehood of the assertion that there is an automatic relationship between spending more money and achieving higher educational standards? Will he also confirm that what is really important is a
    750
    national curriculum, with unequivocal benchmarks, which are sensitively assessed, which give parents the confidence that they need in the educational system and make that system more responsive?
    Mr. Dunn: I answer yes on all counts. For too long the debate on the future of education in this country has been focused solely on what goes into a school. Our proposals in the Education Reform Bill will focus on what comes out of a school. Therefore, quality control will be an important vehicle in measuring delivery.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Would the Minister care to comment on certain figures that I obtained from the Library? During 1979–80, using 1986 prices, over £9 billion was spent. It was not until 1986–87 that more money was spent. In 1978–79 the average amount spent per pupil was over £1,100. It was not until 1986–87 that the figure went up to £1,300. That per pupil increase can be accounted for by falling rolls. There was no real increase in education spending until 1986–87.
    Mr. Dunn: I completely reject what the hon. Gentleman has said. Conservative and Labour authorities are spending more. We must establish whether expenditure is gaining results and reflects value for money.
    Mr. John Townend: How much money per pupil is spent by ILEA on secondary education? How does it compare with what is spent by shire counties? Does my hon. Friend consider that the quality of education in London justifies the differential?
    Mr. Dunn: No, I do not. I note that an article in today's Daily Mail states:
    "It costs more to educate a teenager at an inner London comprehensive school than the fees at some of the city's private schools."
    That statement challenges the Opposition to do something about spending in inner London.
    Mr. Straw: The Prime Minister herself has boasted of an increase in spending per pupil between 1979 and 1986. How does the Under-Secretary of State square that boast with the fact that, in real terms, the Government have cut their Exchequer contribution to the nation's education by 20 per cent, over those eight years?
    Mr. Dunn: The financing of local government through the rate support grant settlement is designed to make local authorities more accountable for their spending on services generally. It ill-behoves Opposition Members to condemn what we have done when we have achieved so much more in education in the past few years.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Barnet has the best A-level results of any authority in the country and that ILEA, which spends much more than Barnet, has among the worst results?
    Mr. Dunn: I confirm what my hon. Friend said. By comparison, Barnet makes other authorities seem so much worse.

    City Technology Colleges
    Mr. Fisher: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a further statement on the progress towards establishing city technology colleges.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): Sponsorships for four city

    751
    technology colleges have already been announced. The Kingshurst CTC will open next year, and the Nottingham CTC in 1989. We are making good progress in discussions with a number of other prospective sponsors.
    Mr. Fisher: How does the Minister account for the fact that, after such a long time, she can produce only such a microscopically small list of achievements? Does she attribute that to the unpopularity of the idea with business and parents, or to its total irrelevance?
    Mrs. Rumbold: It may disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but the initiative was announced just over a year ago by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We have four city technology colleges on the stocks. More city technology colleges will be commenced in the near future. We shall certainly make announcements about them in the not too distant future.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Did my hon. Friend see the article in last Friday's edition of The Times by Dr. John Rae, a former headmaster of Westminster school? He said that there were some disturbing implications in the sort of syllabus that would be in order at Kingshurst CTC. Will she confirm that we are looking for high standards at that school?
    Mrs. Rumbold: We are most certainly looking for high standards at Kingshurst and, with the appointment of Mrs. Valerie Bragg, I am confident that we shall achieve them.
    Mr. George Howarth: Is the Minister aware that any attempt to establish a CTC in Knowsley by scurrying around with officials like thieves in the night would be extremely ill-received by the population at large, teaching staff and parents in the area?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not know that the local education authority approached the Department to see whether it would be possible for us to visit the area to help set up a CTC.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Minister will know that the Government have deliberately excluded their pet CTCs from the state curriculum. Do they not have even that much faith in their own convictions?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. CTCs will be encouraged to follow the national curriculum, but they will have time allocated to them to pursue technology and science, which is what we expect from them.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the term "city technology college" is rather ambiguous? Might it not equally be used to describe Eton college, which teaches the technology of the City to would-be market makers and commodity dealers? Could that not be what the Old Etonian who tabled the question had in mind?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Sadly, I am unable to read the mind of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). I believe that the name city technology college is excellent and that it will attract many parents, as is the case at Kingshurst.
    Mr. Fatchett: Now that it is clear that the Government have failed to sell the scheme to industrialists, will the Minister say what criteria will be used in the only CTC that is off the ground and running — that in Solihull — to assess parents? We know that they are to be tested if their children are to gain a place there. What will happen if the
    752
    child passes the test and the parents fail? Does the Department have a view about whether the parent or the child should attend the college?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman displays much ignorance. A substantial number of industrialists—more since June — have expressed an interest in the idea of CTCs. It is with confidence that we shall establish the full 20 CTCs in the not too distant future. Children in comprehensive schools are being interviewed with their parents, as we have always made it clear that we want commitment from both. They should attend because CTCs provide the type of education that they want. At Solihull we now have more than 300 applicants for 180 places.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Archer: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will place in the Library copies of the representations which he has received in response to the White Paper "Higher Education — Meeting the Challenge".
    Mr. Jackson: There have been wide-ranging discussions surrounding the White Paper since its publication in April and there is no simple record. However, copies of organisations' responses to the three associated consultative documents are already in the Library.
    Mr. Archer: I am grateful to the Minister for his kindness. As the proposed criteria for the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council funding include a requirement that at least 55 per cent, of a college's students should be in the advanced further education category, and since many major mixed economy colleges will not qualify because of policies which they have deliberately pursued and have been encouraged to pursue, can the Minister assure the House that they will continue to receive adequate local authority funding, or does he intend that higher education should be hived off and become academically isolated and privatised?
    Mr. Jackson: It is certainly not the intention that higher education should be hived off. We believe that it is desirable that there should continue to be mixed economy colleges, and we shall look to local authorities to continue to support them.
    Dr. Hampson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are a great many people in higher education who do not see the point of creating two funding bodies — one for polytechnics and colleges and one for universities — which match each other? Can we not reconsider and have one funding body for the whole of higher education?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend asks a fundamental question. We must go back to the speech by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in 1966 about the different missions of the different institutions in the so-called binary system. We do not believe that it is right at this stage, when polytechnics and colleges are emerging into a new sector, to terminate the arrangement.
    Dr. Thomas: Is the Minister satisfied with the efficient management of the higher education system in Wales as it applies to his Department? The Welsh Office is in charge of higher education — with the exception of the University of Wales—but no structure exists within the proposed Universities Funding Council system for

    753
    separate consideration of the funding of the University of Wales. Such a structure exists in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
    Mr. Jackson: The representation of Welsh higher education institutions within the structure of the UFC is under consideration. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be able to say something about it in due course.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister agree that one of the best parts of the White Paper was the Government's commitment to greater access to education for adults? Will he say how much money the Government will put up to make it easier for adults to gain access to education? How will he co-ordinate the provision for adults returning to education between FE and HE colleges, polytechnics and universities? Do we not need a national co-ordinating body to allocate resources and courses for adults returning to education, or is it the Government's intention to apply competition so that these institutions compete for students and resources?
    Mr. Jackson: The Government's commitment to this matter is plain. There has been an increase of 160,000 students in the system since 1979, an 8 per cent. increase in UGC funding—following a 10·2 increase last year— and a 9 per cent. increase in funding for polytechnics and colleges this year. That is ample evidence of the Government's commitment to achieving their target.

    Education Reform
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science for how long he will be prepared to receive representations about the proposed Education Reform Bill; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: The consultation process that we embarked on in the summer was designed to inform the drafting of the Education Reform Bill. We shall continue to take account of comments received during the Bill's passage through Parliament, and after that as we get to its detailed implementation.
    Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on stimulating a long and unprecedented consultation and debate on the Education Reform Bill proposals before and during the general election, throughout the teachers' holidays — which are intended not only for teacher relaxation but for study—and throughout the autumn. For the benefit of Opposition Members, will he confirm that that consultation and debate will continue until the Bill becomes law and thereafter?
    Mr. Baker: I first spoke of the national curriculum over a year ago, and I spoke to the Select Committee in April of this year. These issues have been before the country for some considerable time, and during the formal period of consultation we received 17,000 responses to the various consultation documents, including 8,500 on the national curriculum.
    Mr. James Lamond: Is the Secretary of State aware that representations are coming in practically every day — certainly in my constituency — including one this morning from the elected board of governors of Fitton Hill junior school, who are saying that the speed at which he is trying to implement so many drastic changes in education is likely to cause instability in the education service?
    Mr. Baker: Throughout the centuries complaint has been made of many of my predecessors when they have tried to instigate education reform. We intend to take into account the various representations that are made as the Bill goes through the House. Many of the details of the Bill will depend on secondary legislation, and there will be further consultation on that as well.
    Mr. Boswell: Has my right hon. Friend learnt from representations that have been made on behalf of the classics, home economics and many other subjects the importance of non-foundation subjects in differentiating individual schools? Will he consider bringing forward proposals so that individual schools may emphasise their distinctive and different educational interests and attainments?
    Mr. Baker: Some representations that we received on the national curriculum dealt specifically with this point and wanted greater flexibility in the curriculum. I can assure the House that that is what we shall have. I shall be setting out our proposals in that regard in my speech later this afternoon.
    Mr. Madden: If the Education Reform Bill becomes law, what opportunities will be afforded to independent schools to opt into the maintained sector?
    Mr. Baker: On independent schools, may I make it clear that they are to be registered and when inspectors inspect them they will want to see that they conform broadly to the national curriculum. Many independent schools already have a curriculum very close to the national curriculum.

    Student Grants
    Mr. Marlow: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to replace the system of parental contribution in higher education.
    Mr. Jackson: The Government are currently reviewing the whole system of financial support for undergraduate students and plans to publish their proposals by the middle of next year.
    Mr. Marlow: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is quite wrong that the grant payable to an adult student somewhat past the age of majority should be dependent on his pedigree rather than on his personal circumstances. Will my hon. Friend join any individual or institution who would wish to take this injustice to the European Court of Human Rights? I know that my hon. Friend is a committed and enthusiastic European, so if not, will he say why not?
    Mr. Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am afraid that I could not personally associate myself with such an initiative.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Minister guarantee that students starting next September and the September after that will not have loans imposed on them?
    Mr. Jackson: I am afraid that I cannot anticipate in any way the results of the review. If we were to introduce any system of loans it would be necessary to introduce legislation. That would have certain effects on timing.

    Education Reform
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received on the subject of the opting out proposals in the Education Bill.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have received over 900 written responses to my recent consultation paper, from a wide range of sources, together with a variety of less formal representations.
    Mr. Evans: The representations are encouraging. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the Bill becomes law the inquiries will increase substantially and, furthermore, that pupils will at last be educated according to the wishes of their parents?
    Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that this will prove to be a very popular measure and will implement the very phrase in his question, which he drew from the Education Act 1944.
    Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Does the Secretary of State agree that the main objection to the opting-out proposals is not that they will increase parental choice or break the local education authority monopoly on education, but that they will reintroduce the possibility of selection by ability?
    Mr. Baker: I want to make it clear to the hon. Lady that when schools decide to opt out the Bill makes it clear that the character of the school will have to remain the same and the admissions policy will have to be agreed. The policy which the remnants of her party are putting forward represents a considerable extension of opting out. I think that the three of them in that party have now become experts in opting out.

    Schools (Local Firms)
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any further plans to encourage commercially run industrial firms to maintain a close interest in schools in their locality; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Rumbold: My colleagues and I miss no opportunity to encourage these links. A particularly valuable opening arises from the requirement on most schools from next September to have representation of the business community on their governing bodies. I hope that people will seize it.
    Mr. Favell: After years of bemoaning, with justification, the way in which young people are equipped for commerce and industry, is it not true that my right hon. Friend is presenting business with a great opportunity to do something about this?
    Mrs. Rumbold: It is absolutely true that my right hon. Friend is doing precisely that. It is also true that last month at its conference the CBI announced the creation of a new education task force that will look at ways of developing links between schools and industry. I hope that both initiatives will prove very successful.

    City Technology Colleges
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when it is anticipated that a date will be announced for the opening of the Teesside city technology college in Langbaurgh.
    Mrs. Rumbold: There has been considerable interest in the establishment of a CTC on Teesside. A number of possible sites have been suggested and are being examined. It is too soon to announce the date of opening.
    Mr. Holt: This is very disappointing, because the site at Langbaurgh was earmarked first. If the Government are putting CTCs in areas of greatest need in order to improve inner cities, Solihill does not seem to me to have quite the same priority as Langbaurgh. I hope that my hon. Friend will review her answer and come back with an early date.
    Mrs. Rumbold: I am sure that my hon. Friend will know that we are doing our best to make sure that Teesside has a CTC as soon as possible, so that his constituency and the parents of children there will be able to benefit from it.
    Miss Mowlam: In response to an earlier question about CTCs the Minister told us that she was keen that they should follow the national curriculum. If she is so keen, why was that not put in the Bill?
    Mrs. Rumbold: For the hon. Lady's information, the recommendation is that all the CTCs should follow the broad plans of the national curriculum and have plenty of opportunity within the time that is not so allocated to pursue those parts of technology and science that are important to them. They will have greater scope in their freedom to do that.

    School Closures
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any plans to change the procedures concerning school closures; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dunn: My right hon. Friend has no such plans.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend think it right that some schools should be under almost continuous threat of closure? Is he aware that Waterhouses and Warslow middle schools in my constituency, both of which were opened a mere seven years ago, are under threat of closure for the second time? Is that fair? What chance have those schools ever had?
    Mr. Dunn: How a local education authority reacts to a situation in which it may have to take schools out of use is a matter for the local education authority. My hon. Friend can make his point during the objection process to proposals that affect the future of a school or schools.
    Mr. Skinner: Will schools that are threatened with closure be able to opt out?
    Mr. Dunn: A school that is threatened with closure can apply to be considered for grant-maintained status alongside the proposals to close. We shall, of course, consider the application to opt out first before we decide on the second course.

    Education Reform
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received about his proposals to allow schools to opt out of local education authorities' jurisdiction.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans).
    Mr. Hayes: When considering whether a school should be grant-maintained, will my right hon. Friend take into account the effect of that on other schools, which may be efficient and popular, in the same area?
    Mr. Baker: In the process of opting out there will be time for the publication and advertisement of details, and the procedures under sections 12 and 13 of the Education Act 1980 will have to be followed. I have no doubt that the other schools in the area, and the LEA, will make representations to me or the holder of my office.
    Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us think that the schools that will opt out will be those in the posher areas, and perhaps those that are concerned with racial prejudice? Is he also aware that some of us who had no choice at any time in our education consider that we were fortunate when we look over on the other side of the House?
    Mr. Baker: I do not know how much further the hon. Gentleman would have gone if his parents had had greater choice in his education. I would only say to him that he is wrong to believe that it is only the schools in what he describes as the posher areas that will be interested in grant-maintained status. I think that all schools will be interested, and schools in our inner cities will welcome the opportunity, which they do not have now, for the parents and governing bodies, if they are so interested, to have a greater say in determining the education of their children, and, in many cases, improving it substantially.
    Mr. Gow: During the consultation period on opting out, what representation did my right hon. Friend receive from his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?
    Mr. Baker: I do not recall receiving any representations from my right hon. Friend on these matters. I know that he follows education matters closely and I am sure that we look forward to his contribution later today.
    Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State knows all about that, because he was the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Private Secretary.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the governors of a formerly comprehensive school which has opted out will be able to apply for a change in character of their school and so become selective?
    Mr. Baker: From the word go I have clearly said that when a school opts out and becomes grant-maintained, for five years from the date of application there will be no change in its admission policy, but after that time, if a school wishes to change its character, it can submit proposals under the procedures in sections 12 and 13 of the 1980 Act. However, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he thinks that comprehensive schools will necessarily want to become grammar schools. A grammar school may well want to become a comprehensive school and a comprehensive may well want to move closer to being a CTC.
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received regarding his proposals for a national curriculum.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The most recent count informs me that as at 27 November we had received 9,300 responses
    758
    dealing with the national curriculum, out of a total of some 18,500 for all the consultative papers. Of the 9,300, about 5,000 had been received by 30 September.
    Mr. Yeo: Is my hon. Friend aware that in addition to those organisations, such as trade unions, which are very quick to make representations, there exists a huge silent majority of parents who may not have made representations but who are passionately concerned with the quality of education in our schools, and that it is the existence of that silent majority that ensures that the Government's proposals for a national curriculum will be very widely welcomed?
    Mrs. Rumbold: It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend has observed, that there are large numbers of people who do not write in in response to consultation documents. There are many people who have spoken to me and to my right hon. and hon. Friends in wide and general support of our proposals for a national curriculum because they see it as an opportunity to improve educational choice and to procure the advancement of their children in schools.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with The Prime Minister of Denmark.
    Ms. Ruddock: What advice will The Prime Minister give to Gaynor Price-Rowlands, the intensive care nurse who is featured in the Today newspaper, who, after five years of training, is earning £7,600 on the National Health Service and who says that she could earn £5,000 more per annum in the private sector?
    The Prime Minister: First, I would say that nurses, including paediatric nurses in intensive care, are earning far more under this Government than they were under the last Labour Government. [HON. MEMBER: "Answer"].
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must have an opportunity to answer.
    The Prime Minister: Their earnings have risen by an extra 30 per cent, in real terms. Secondly, I would say that the very scheme that was criticised a few days ago from the Opposition Benches means that nurses working in key specialties such as intensive care stand to benefit from the proposals currently being considered in the nursing and midwifery negotiating council. For the first time the new structure will recognise—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Faulds: What is the right hon. Lady's advice?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is very bad form to shout like that.
    Mr. Faulds: Answer the question.
    The Prime Minister: Let us get the facts first — I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like them. For the first time, that structure will recognise the increasing clinical skills of nurses, midwives and health visitors and

    759
    those with specialist qualifications. Do not listen to the Opposition is the advice that I would give to the nurses. Listen to the party which has provided more for the nurses and which will provide an improved structure.
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pawsey: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity of reading reports in today's national press that the cost of educating children in the Inner London education authority is much the same as that of educating children in independent schools? Given the quality of education that comes from ILEA, does she agree that more funds and more resources do not equal better education? Does she further agree that the Education Reform Bill, which will be debated today, is the real signpost forward?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that the Inner London education authority is notorious for its extravagance, but not famous for the results that it obtains for children within its care. The Education Reform Bill will give London boroughs the chance to opt out of ILEA and also give any school the chance to opt out of ILEA or those boroughs. The Bill will therefore provide more choice and opportunity.
    Mr. Kinnock: When Britain's real interest rates are among the highest of all the developed countries, and when the pound is rising to levels that inflict serious disadvantages on our exporters, why will the Government not use their power to bring about a significant cut in interest rates?
    The Prime Minister: We shall reduce interest rates when it is prudent to do so. Any announcement will be made in the customary way, adopted by all Governments, through the Bank of England, but only when it is prudent to do so.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will The Prime Minister tell me what is prudent about imposing unnecessary cost burdens on British producers and British households? What is prudent about ensuring that the pound stays at a level that will make our export performance less advanced than it otherwise could be? Under The Prime Minister, British exports have risen by 30 per cent, and imports by 75 per cent. Is that the trend that The Prime Minister wants to see continue?
    The Prime Minister: Our financial policy has stood the test of eight years. It has a soundness and success that is envied by other countries and it has led to a higher standard of living than any standard previously enjoyed in this country. I find it somewhat ironic to hear about industrial costs from the right hon. Gentleman, when his Government put on a national insurance surcharge which we had to take off.
    Mr. Kinnock: One thing that can certainly be said about The Prime Minister's financial policy is that no one knows what it currently is. Is The Prime Minister talking about the medium-term financial strategy, which has now been utterly abandoned? Is she talking about M3, the money measure, which has now been utterly abandoned, or is she talking about not intervening in the currency markets when her Government are spending billions of pounds trying to save the dollar? If The Prime Minister wants to
    760
    be consistent in her belief that there should not be burdens on British industry, why does she not cut interest rates now?
    The Prime Minister: I have given the right hon. Gentleman the answer to his first question. If he does not know what our financial and economic policy is, he must be living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
    Mr. Brit tan: In view of yesterday's deeply deplorable French hostage deal, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today of re-affirming the Government's longstanding policy of not doing such deals with terrorists or their sponsors? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such deals virtually guarantee that more hostages will be taken in future?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that treating with terrorists only leads to more kidnappings and violence. That is why we will not do that. The best defence against terrorists is to make it clear that we will never give in to their demands. That has been, and will continue to be, our policy.
    Mr. Steel: When The Prime Minister goes to the European summit in Copenhagen next week will she raise this matter, as the European Community is supposed to have a common policy in this respect?
    The Prime Minister: The matter is bound to come up at the European summit later this week. I shall reiterate our policy then. I believe that our policy is the best and the only policy to defeat terrorists.
    Mr. Ken Hargreaves: To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.
    The Prime: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hargreaves: Many hon. Members and many thousands of people throughout the country who have been campaigning for Anna Chertkova, who has been imprisoned in a psychiatric hospital in Russia for 13 years simply for being a Christian, will share my delight at the recent announcement that she is likely to be released in January. When my right hon. Friend meets Mr. Gorbachev, will she thank him for the progress in Anna's case so far? Will she also urge him to ensure that the release takes place?
    The Prime Minister: I share my hon. Friend's hope that Mrs. Chertkova will be released. I am aware that a number of people have been released since I went to Moscow and indeed before that—[Interruption.]I am surprised that Opposition Members find this a laughing matter.
    I left a long list of cases with the Soviet Government, and a number of people have been released. However, there are many thousands more inside. We hope that Mrs. Chertkova will indeed be released in January. It will be a comparatively short meeting on Monday, at which I shall not be able to raise individual cases although, of course, human rights will be raised, as always.
    Mr. Vaz: Has The Prime Minister had an opportunity to read Saturday's edition of the Leicester Mercury,in which it was announced that £240,000 of Government money would be spent on a private hospital in Leicester? Is she as appalled as I am at that misuse of public money?

    761
    Does she not agree that if there is money to be spent on the Health Service it should be spent on National Health Service hospitals, and not on private hospitals?
    The Prime Minister: The money spent on the National Health Service has gone up enormously—[Interruption.]It is paid for, not by Governments, but by the great British taxpayer. The average family now pays £1,500 each year to the National Health Service. Any extra money that goes into private health does not take up beds in the Health Service, but adds to health care in this country.
    Mr. Nelson: To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nelson: When my right hon. Friend shortly meets Mr. Gorbachev, will she reaffirm that the existence of Britain's independent nuclear strategic deterrent is not up for negotiation in any wider talks that may follow on from the intermediate nuclear forces treaty? Does she agree that it is one thing for the United States and the USSR to talk about 50 per cent, reductions in their strategic weaponry, but quite another for us to consider abandoning totally our last remaining nuclear deterrent?
    The Prime Minister: We shall keep our independent nuclear deterrent. It is not part of the present negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the point. As I have had occasion to point out in the past, when we modernise our nuclear deterrent with Trident it will be a smaller proportion of Soviet nuclear forces than Polaris was in 1970, and that will be the case even after the 50 per cent, reductions in Soviet nuclear forces.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask The Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 1 December.
    The Prime: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Clarke: Does The Prime Minister think that it is fair that student nurses should have to pay 37 per cent, of their salaries towards rent before they qualify for housing benefit, and in respect of the poll tax for student nurses, does The Prime Minister consider them to be students or nurses?
    The Prime Minister: I replied to that question either at the last Question Time or the Question Time before. However, I shall do so again. Students on grants are treated differently from those who, during their training, receive pay for their work. Nurses come into the latter category, and all who receive pay for their work are treated in the normal way and will make the normal contribution, subject to the normal reliefs, towards paying for local government.
    Mr. Mates: Will my right hon. Friend consider today the implications of the extradition legislation that is at present before the Irish Parliament? Is it not in direct conflict with the European convention? Does it not represent a unilateral breaking of an agreement that has existed between our countries since 1965? Does not the application of the prime facie rule to United Kingdom warrants alone make us the least favoured nation in Europe in that regard? What possible justification can there be for the Irish Government, who profess to want better relations with us, taking such action?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Irish Government have taken a decision to ratify the European convention on the suppression of terrorism. However, they have unfortunately taken some further steps which we believe could make it much more difficult to secure extradition than in the recent past. We regret that, notwithstanding our representations, the Irish Government are taking additional measures that could make extradition more difficult. It is proposed to give a role to the Irish Attorney-General, whereby he must satisfy himself as to the intention to prosecute the fugitive and as to the sufficiency of the evidence. We are naturally concerned about the compatibility of that with the continuation of the viable extradition arrangements between the two countries.
    It is essential that we maintain effective extradition arrangements so that there is no hiding place for terrorists. I agree with my hon. Friend that what the Republic is doing by taking this step is making us the least favoured nation in this matter.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Is The Prime Minister aware that there is great public concern in Northern Ireland over the fact that the Southern Ireland Government are not now fully committed to the extradition of terrorists for so-called political crimes? Is she also aware the members of that Southern Ireland Government have recently said that they are not happy about legislation which they say is unacceptable, unworkable and unconstitutional? Will The Prime Minister assure the people of Northern Ireland that her Government have not gone soft on the principle of extradition from the Republic, given the war situation that exists in the Province?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that I have made it clear that there is a risk that extradition could become more difficult because of the new measures taken by the Irish Republic and that they would be a step backwards from the existing arrangements under which no application is made to a judicial authority for a warrant without there being a firm intention to prosecute based on sufficiency of evidence. Therefore, we are surprised that a need is perceived for any further procedural step.

Girobank
3.31 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for an immediate announcement of the results of the review by the Department of Trade and Industry about the future status of Girobank."
Yesterday, the Department of Trade and Industry confirmed that Ministers and officials have been investigating privatisation within the Post Office and that Girobank is the simplest and first choice for a sell-off. This is a specific matter because it refers to a Government review of the future of Girobank and concerns proposals to privatise Girobank that have not been presented to the House or been the subject of a statement from any Minister. This matter is urgent because 7,000 staff, working at the Girobank headquarters in my constituency of Bootle, need reassurance about the futue security of their jobs. If another bank was to buy Girobank, there would be no need for that bank to maintain Girobank's clearing bank facilities in Bootle as it would be duplicating its own existing facilities.
We need a statement, and we need to know where we are going. The 7,000 people employed on Merseyside, an area of high unemployment, need reassurance.
This is a specific and urgent matter because it is likely that, if Girobank was privatised, another bank would be the purchaser. Indeed, secret negotiations with other banks have already taken place. At least 7,000 jobs on Merseyside at that clearing bank would disappear. This is a specific matter because, unlike other privatisation proposals, what would be on sale would be Girobank's custom, customers and the 20,000 retail counter outlets in the country's post offices and sub-post offices.
The matter is urgent because plans have already been made by the management, in secret, to facilitate the privatisation proposals. There are proposals for a second centre outside Merseyside. Some three weeks ago the management visited South Africa to recruit middle management and computer staff to work at the Girobank headquarters in Merseyside—an area with 30 per cent, unemployment. That means that ready-made scabs will be brought in when privatisation takes place. This matter is urgent because secret negotiations have been taking place between Girobank management and the Visa organisation to facilitate privatisation.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the future of Girobank".
764
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order after the ten minute Bill.
Mr. Heffer: My point of order relates to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has just said.
Mr. Speaker: Very well, I shall take that point of order now.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a possibility that people in the constituencies of my hon. Friend and myself who are employed in Girobank will suddenly find themselves privatised and out of work. If it is not possible to debate the matter now, can you, Mr. Speaker, explain when something is a matter of priority, and when we can debate it?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here for as long as I have; he well knows the criteria under which Standing Order No. 20 debates can be granted. There are many other opportunities for raising matters of that sort, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is fairly adept at finding them.
Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During education questions earlier, the Minister of State said, during question 7, that Knowsley borough council had made approaches—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but that is a continuation of Question Time.
Mr. Howarth rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister of State said that, it has nothing to do with me. I cannot deal with matters to do with what Ministers may or may not have said. We have a debate today on education in which the hon. Gentleman may well wish to take part. About 60 other hon. Members want to take part in it, too. It is wrong to try to continue Question Time with the Chair on a point of order.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Amendment Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Durant.]

Elimination of Poverty in Old Age Etc
3.37 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to eliminate poverty in old age.
The Bill is important and timely, because there is much hypocrisy in the House and in society: we pretend to treat old people well at Christmas but ignore them for the rest of the year. The Bill is designed to bring forward a comprehensive series of measures to treat old people in the decent and civilised way that they deserve, rather than leaving them to the poverty and misery in which so many of them are forced to live now.
Last winter was one of unparalleled cold and misery for many old people. More than 200 deaths from hypothermia were registered at the registrar general of births, deaths and marriages. That figure grossly underestimated the real horror of that cold winter, because many old people who died from hypothermia had their deaths ascribed to something else on their death certificates.
We have a duty to listen to the pensioners in the winter and all the year round, to use our positions as Members of Parliament to try to improve the conditions of elderly people, rather than ignoring them, as the House has done for too long. There are approximately 10 million pensioners in this country and the number is increasing. If one believes the figures produced by the Department of Health and Social Security, their average weekly income is about £83, although I find it hard to discover pensioners in my constituency who have that sort of income. More than two-thirds of the average pensioner's income comes from state benefits. For working-class pensioners, 100 per cent, comes from state benefits, because they do not have the cushion of private incomes and expensive private insurance schemes that have been taken out during their working lives.
The whole trend of Government policy has been towards reducing the level of old-age pensions—in real terms—compared with other benefits. Thus, there is the serious problem of elderly people being forced to pay ever-increasing costs, because the retail price index for pensioners goes up faster than for the rest of the community. As a consequence, they suffer poverty. A good example is the change in household expenditure by pensioners. Since 1970, because of an increase in rents, expenditure on housing has gone up by 6 per cent. That has been paid for by old people reducing by 6 per cent, their expenditure on food, with consequent damage to their health. Until 1979, the value of the pension was linked to average earnings.
Mr. Tony Marlow: What does the hon. Gentleman's Bill do?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not intervene when a ten-minute Bill motion is being moved.
Mr. Corbyn: I have tried five times in the past to introduce Bills about pensioners and have always been met by the most violent sedentary interruptions by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). I ask him to be honest with the House for once and to vote against my Bill.
The link between earnings and pensions was broken in 1975. That means that in real terms the value of the old-age pension has declined and is now only 17 per cent. of
766
gross average earnings of male people in work. That percentage is one of the lowest in Europe. Between 1974 and 1979 there was an increase of 20 per cent, in real terms in old-age pensions. Since 1979, they have hardly gone up at all in real terms. If the earnings link had been maintained, single pensioners would now be £9·20 a week better off than they have beer since the Tory Government were elected. In western Europe, Britain's pensioners are among the lowest paid. As I have said, the British pension is 17 per cent, of gross average earnings. In France, the pension is over 50 per cent, of average earnings.
In eight simple ways, my Bill seeks to provide a framework for giving pensioners a decent living standard. First, it would fix old-age pensions for couples at half average industrial earnings, and for single people it would be a third. Those figures were put forward by the National Pensioners Convention and v/ere supported and accepted by many hon. Members when they were lobbied by pensioners in the past. If they support those figures, I invite them to support my Bill.
Secondly, my Bill would require central Government to appoint a Minister responsible for the co-ordination of policy on pensioners. Thirdly, it would require local authorities to produce a comprehensive annual report about their policies on pensioners and on the conditions of pensioners in their communities. Fourthly, every health authority would also be asked to do that.
Fifthly, the present anomalous system means that in some parts of the country where there are foresighted Labour local authorities there are concessionary transport schemes — free bus passes. They do not exist in some parts of Britain and the Bill would make them a national responsibility and they would be paid for nationally so that old people would not be forced to go through the present patchwork quilt arrangement. My sixth point is one of the most important. It is about the introduction of a flat-rate winter heating allowance instead of the nonsensical system of waiting for the cold to run from Monday to Sunday, and then if it is sufficiently cold a rebate is paid in arrears. Last winter that resulted in many old people living in homes that were too cold because they could not afford to heat them. If they did get any aid, it was far too late.
My seventh point concerns the abolition of standing charges on gas, electricity and telephones for elderly people. They are paying about £250 million a year towards the profits of the gas industry and those profits will be about £1·5 billion. Standing charges should be cancelled, unit prices maintained and the cost of the standing charge should be taken from the profits of the gas board or the electricity board — if it ends up being privatised. They could well afford to pay for that rather than forcing old people to live in cold and misery throughout the winter. Finally, the Bill would prohibit the cutting off of gas and electricity in any pensioner household.
In short, the Bill would radically change the attitude of our society towards pensioners. It would remove from them the fear of poverty and cold in the winter, and they would at last begin to be treated in the decent, civilised way in which they should be treated. It is up to the House not to wait for the cold of this winter and the deaths from hypothermia, but to act now to redress the poverty in which so many old people live by bringing forward a comprehensive measure to give pensioners the decent, civilised existence for which they have worked, creating wealth for us to enjoy—a life that they deserve.

767
I very much hope that the House will support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Chris Smith, Mr. Tony Benn, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Bill Michie, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Bob Clay, Mr. Tony Banks and Ms. Diane Abbott.

ELIMINATION OF POVERTY IN OLD AGE ETC.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented a Bill to eliminate poverty in old age: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February and to be printed. [Bill 61.]
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: This is an important point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. All points of order are supposed to be important.
Mr. Cryer: One of the important elements of the House, Mr. Speaker, is that hon. Members should be free to speakout. From the Conservative Benches, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has been shouting opposition to the Bill which has just been approved, and a Member of the Government Whips' Office has just sat next to the hon. Gentleman with, I believe, the aim of preventing him from opposing the Bill. That is a clear limitation of the right—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Who sits with whom is not a matter for me.
Later—
Mr. Terry Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may seriously affect his chances of being called in the Second Reading debate if he delays the House. After all, there are about 60 right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in it. If the hon. Gentleman's point of order is relevant to me, I will take it, but, if not, I am afraid he may suffer.
Mr. Lewis: I consider the point of order to be very serious and will take the risk, Mr. Speaker.
During the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) when he was presenting his Bill and the Conservative Members who were shouting from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), at a particularly sensitive part of my hon. Friend's presentation, said that the IRA ought to be brought in to do away with the pensioners to whom my hon. Friend was referring. I believe that that goes beyond the normal cut and thrust of this Chamber and is particularly offensive and ought to be withdrawn.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Fortunately, I do not hear everything that goes on below the Gangway. If the hon. Member for Tatton did say anything of that sort, it would be helpful if he would withdraw it.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: I thought that it was the sort of point that might appeal to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who was introducing the Bill.
Mr. Speaker: Order. In the interests of progress—
Mr. Hamilton: In deference to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, if anything I said might have offended the sensibilities of the more sensible Opposition Members, of course I will withdraw it.

Education Reform Bill
Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order, of which I have given you notice, about the hybridity of the Education Reform Bill. It arises in respect of clauses 130 to 136, which relate to provisions removing the security of tenure of academic staff.
A hybrid Bill is denned by "Erskine May" as
"a public Bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interests of other persons or bodies of the same category or class".
Clauses 130 to 136 contain various provisions for the removal of academic tenure in universities, including the appointment of commissioners to amend the statutes of universities and colleges. If and when the Bill receives the Royal Assent, the provisions will have retrospective force with effect from 20 November 1987, the day on which the Bill was published.
It is clear from the construction of the Bill that the category or class encompassed by the Bill is that of the academic staff of universities and colleges. However, the Bill wholly fails to take into account that, while some universities, by virtue of their statutes, at present have a choice in law as to whether to grant tenure, other institutions — including the university of London in respect of professorships and readerships — have no choice. The law will remain thus until the passage of the Bill.
In the former case, where a choice exists, the university authorities may be able lawfully to take into account the 20 November date set out in the Bill. But where, as in the latter case of the university of London and other universities and colleges, no such choices exist, the university authorities face an insoluble dilemma which will directly affect the private interests of one group of academic staff differently from the interests of others in the same category or class. The university authorities may decide to take note of the provisions of clause 132, and not grant tenure to those appointed after 20 November. In doing so, they would plainly be according quite different treatment to an individual in the same class, entitled to the same rights under the existing statute of the university.
770
To underline that differential treatment—contrary to the university's legal obligations, which will subsist until the passage of the Bill — if a member of staff was so discriminated against, he would be entitled to take the university to court. The defence that a Bill was before the House would not lie. In those circumstances, there appears to be a clear differentiation in treatment between staff who are appointed before 20 November and staff appointed after that date under the same statutes in force. In those circumstances, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to declare that part of the Bill as hybrid and to refer it to the Examiners.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice of his submission because it has enabled me to give the matter careful consideration.
The hon. Gentleman asks that I should find the Bill prima facie hybrid because the clauses dealing with academic tenure may result in some academic staff being affected differently from others in the same class. In particular, he submits that if some universities take note of clause 132 and do not grant tenure to anyone appointed after 20 November they will be singling out that individual from the remainder of the class for adverse treatment.
In considering the question of hybridity, I have to look at the terms of the Bill. Provided that the formula or description used in the Bill deals with a category or class which is relevant to the purposes of the Bill and the Bill does not expressly specify or single out an individual or corporation within the category for different treatment, the Bill is not hybrid. The fact that individuals are differently affected when they fall within a general description is not relevant. Indeed, any general legislation will probably affect different people in different degrees.
In the present case, the Bill creates two categories of academic staff: those appointed before 20 November 1987 —that is the date of the introduction of the Bill—and those appointed after 20 November. These categories are entirely general and the criteria used are germane to the Bill. The fact that those concerned may be differently affected is not relevant. I must, therefore, rule that the Bill is not prima facie hybrid.

Orders of the Day

  Education Reform Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.53 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Raising the quality of education in our schools is the most important task for this Parliament. Both The Prime Minister and I have made that clear. It was a previous Conservative Prime Minister, Disraeli, who said, speaking in this House in 1874:
  "Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends."
  The House will know that the programme of reform outlined in the Bill is the most far-reaching since the war.
  Our education system has operated over the past 40 years on the basis of the framework laid down by Rab Butler's 1944 Act, which in turn built on the Balfour Act of 1902. We need to inject a new vitality into that system. It has become producer-dominated. It has not proved sensitive to the demands for change that have become ever more urgent over the past 10 years. This Bill will create a new framework, which will raise standards, extend choice and produce a better-educated Britain.
  The need for reform is now urgent. All the evidence shows this — international comparisons, the reports of Her Majesty's inspectors and, most recently, the depressing findings on adult illiteracy. It must be a matter of regret for all hon. Members, on both sides of the House, to see the figures issued last week which suggested that 5·5 million of our people—13 per cent, of our population— had difficulty in reading and writing. The Manpower Services Commission also reported that 25 per cent, of the long-term unemployed are functionally illiterate. There is no doubt that people who have problems in such simple communication skills are more likely to be unemployed, and, alas, likely to remain unemployed for longer than those who have the skills. This is something that we should not tolerate in our society today.
  Lord Callaghan was alive to this more than 10 years ago when, in his Ruskin college speech, he drew attention to the need for change. But the so-called great debate produced no action. There is now a growing realisation that radical change is necessary. The ground has been prepared by the pioneering work of my two predecessors. My noble Friend Lord Carlisle extended the rights of parents with his 1980 Act, and was strongly attacked for doing so. My noble Friend Lord Joseph focused public attention on the central issue of quality and standards. He brought forward the GCSE, and, in the 1986 Act, substantially increased the role of parent governors. The best way of building upon their work is to give more substance and reality to the principle of the 1944 Act that pupils are
  "to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents".
  Mr. Jack Straw: I have listened with care to the Secretary of State's description of his predecessors' records. Will he confirm that Lord Carlisle opposes the idea of opting out and that Lord Joseph opposes the national curriculum, as he did in 1985?
  Mr. Baker: I have not heard the views of either of my noble Friends, but I should find it surprising if my noble Friend Lord Carlisle did not wish to extend the rights of parents, as in 1980 he brought to the statute book an Act that substantially increased parents' rights. My noble Friend Lord Joseph has said on many occasions that his ambition and purpose was to raise the basic quality of education. There can be no doubt that, in achieving that, one of our main purposes should be to introduce a national curriculum.
  If we are to implement the principle of the 1944 Act that children should
  "be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents"
  we must give consumers of education a central part in decision making. That means freeing schools and colleges to deliver the standards that parents and employers want. It means encouraging the consumer to expect and demand that all educational bodies do the best job possible. In a word, it means choice.
  The purpose of the Bill is to secure delegation and to widen choice. We want to see more decision making in the hands of individual schools and colleges. When governing bodies and heads control their own budgets, decisions will be taken at a local level. Schools and colleges will be free to make their own decisions on spending priorities and to develop in their own way. Grant-maintained schools will give parents and governors a new opportunity, should they wish to take it, to run their schools themselves. Grant-maintained schools and local authority-maintained schools will be subject to less control, not more. They will have more freedom, not less.
  Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall not give way. I generally like to give way, but since about 70 hon. Members wish to speak, it will be in the interests of the House if I give way as little as possible.
  Polytechnics and other higher education colleges will be set up as free-standing independent institutions. They, too, will benefit from greater responsibility for managing their own affairs. They, too, will be subject to less control, not more control.
  The proposals, taken together, represent a fundamental change in our education system. We set out the Government's policy during the general election. Since the election, the Labour party has sought to repackage its education policies. I am not surprised. So keen is the Labour party to move with the times that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), is now claiming credit for having invented the national curriculum in a memorandum that he wrote for the Labour party in 1973. He was kind enough to send me a copy. It is interesting and, in some places, a fine piece. He speaks first of a core curriculum, and secondly of tests at 7,11 and 14 years of age. Indeed, he developed that theme, which is so close to his heart, in an article in The Guardian in September. He stated:
  "There is no doubt that parents want some objective yardsticks against which to measure their children's achievement in education."
  I am staggered that such an outstanding contribution to the Labour party's policy was not acted upon from 1974 to 1979. The Labour party did not even take it up in opposition, for the Leader of the Opposition was then the

  773
  spokesman for education. Why did he not put forward his colleague's excellent ideas from 1979 to 1983? Clearly he was asleep at the wheel.
  Then we have Mr. Neil Fletcher, the Labour leader of the ILEA. He is another strong advocate of change. Indeed, so strong has been support for change along the lines of much of our Bill that Mr. McAvoy, the next general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, has said:
  "We can persuade both Neil Fletcher and Jack Straw of the errors of their ways. After all, they are only good men fallen temporarily among Thatcherites."
  The Labour party is not alone in claiming credit for the Bill. The Liberal party is now putting it about that it invented financial delegation to head teachers. Well, that is a whopper. But even so, if members of the Liberal party have that illusion, I welcome them on board. Furthermore, the Labour and Liberal parties are now committed to more parental involvement, though they are a bit short on how that will operate.
  So I am glad to see the growing consensus for many of the measures in this Bill. The opinion polls also clearly show its popularity with the people who count — the parents. That applies, above all, to the national curriculum, which is the bedrock of our reform proposals.
  The first chapter of the Bill is devoted to a national curriculum. I shall quote from clause 1(2) of the Bill. We are proposing a curriculum which

  "(a)promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society; and

  (b)prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life."

  Clause 1 provides the framework and the essential purposes against which the House should measure our proposals.
  I want to deal first with the content of the curriculum and with religious education.
  Dr. Alan Glyn (Windsor and Maidenhead): My right hon. Friend will be aware that, under the Butler Act— the Education Act 1944 — religious education is compulsory. That is still the case, but it is not specifically stated in the curriculum. Will he make a change to clause 1(2)(a) to deal with that?
  Mr. Baker: I confirm that religious education in our schools is secured in statute by the Education Act 1944. This Bill reinforces the position of religious education as a compulsory subject. I reassure my hon. Friend and all hon. Members on that point. Clause 6 places a duty on heads, governors and local education authorities to ensure that religious education is provided. That is an advance upon the 1944 Act. In addition, the complaints procedure for parents who are dissatisfied about the delivery of the national curriculum will apply equally to religious education. That, too, is an advance on existing practice.
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: I shall give way, but I am keen to press on.
  Mr. Duffy: While the Minister is on the subject of religious education, given what was said by the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), and given that religious education is required for all county schools and is regarded as an essential aspect of core
  774
  subjects for Church schools, why is it not given representation on the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council?
  Mr. Baker: I have just answered that point. It already has a statutory position. We are now strengthening its position as a subject that must be taught. Of course, it is taught in church schools. Each denomination will teach it in its own way. In respect of county schools, a local conference usually agrees the content that is to be taught. The churches have not asked for it to be a core or foundation subject. Core or foundation subjects will be determined precisely by secular bodies. I have considerably strengthened the position of religious education as a compulsory subject and ensured that it will have to be taught and delivered.
  I refer at this point to collective worship. I have accepted the advice of the Churches on this. I want to reiterate that we remain absolutely committed to a daily act of collective worship, but clause 79 ensures that if a school does not want to hold this first thing in the morning but at some other time during the day, it will be allowed to do so. If it wants a different act of worship for fifth formers from that for 11-year-olds, it will be allowed to organise that. This is the flexibility that the Churches have asked for.
  After religious education come the three core subjects of English, maths and science, and the seven other foundation subjects—history, geography, technology in all its aspects, a foreign language in secondary schools, music, art and physical education. In Wales, Welsh will have a firm place in the curriculum. Many of the representations that we have had were concerned that the national curriculum could become a straitjacket. That matter was raised at Question Time today. Let me put such fears at rest. We do not intend to lay down, either on the face of the Bill or in any secondary legislation, the percentage of time to be spent on the different subjects. This will provide an essential flexibility, but it is our belief that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for any school to provide the national curriculum in less than 70 per cent. of the time available. The remaining time will allow schools to offer other subjects — among them home economics, Latin, business studies, careers education, and a range of other subjects.
  Some teachers are worried that the national curriculum will prescribe how they go about their professional duties. Again, let me put such fears at rest. We want to build upon the professionalism of the teacher in the classroom—the professionalism of the many fine and dedicated teachers throughout our education system. We do not intend to lay down how lessons should be taught, how timetables should be organised, or which textbooks should be used. The national curriculum will provide scope for imaginative approaches developed by our teachers. For example, I am sure all hon. Members have visited primary schools in their own constituencies and have seen the enormous advance in the teaching of science in primary schools. We wish to continue to encourage that.
  In many secondary schools, the technical and vocational education initiative created a block of time for cross-curricular activity or project work—for example, how a business is run. The Bill does not stop or stifle worthwhile activities of that sort.

  775
  Another aspect about which concern has been expressed has been our proposals for assessment and testing.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: On the matter of the curriculum, are there any implications for university examining bodies? Will children aged between 11 and 16 years have to study certain subjects? Does it mean that the arrangements for GCSE by university examining boards will also be affected in respect of the subjects that can be offered?
  Mr. Baker: I do not think that there will be that knock-on effect. We are establishing the framework of a core curriculum and foundation subjects, and expect children to take those subjects to 16. For the first time, we shall require children to take science and technology, for example, to 16.I have visited some comprehensive schools where that already happens and we expect other schools to follow their lead.
  The purpose of the national curriculum is to provide a broad-based and relevant curriculum. The education systems in France and Germany do not narrow and specialise as does ours. They remain broad, and that is the thrust of the national curriculum and of the general certificate of secondary education examination. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's anxieties are well founded.
  I was about to speak about assessment and testing. I have set up a task group on assessment and testing which I hope will provide its main report by Christmas. I shall of course publish it. We seek a balanced package of assessment arrangements, including national tests. It has three purposes: first, to tell a parent or teacher what a child knows, is able to do and is able to understand; secondly, to identify problems which need further diagnosis and whether the child needs extra help or more demanding tasks; thirdly, to indicate through the results of assessment the achievements of schools and local education authorities generally. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I know that that last matter is controversial, but the point in all of this is that parents are entitled to know how their child is doing and how their school is doing. A great deal of testing already takes place in primary schools, for if a child's attainment is not assessed at about the age of 7 and the child is allowed to drift, he or she may never catch up again.
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Baker: I feel that this must be the last time that I give way.
  Mr. Nelson: My right hon. Friend has acknowledged the importance which many people attach to this matter. Although many people agree that the results achieved by a school ought to be known in toto and that the parents of children ought to know their results, is it intended that the results of individuals should be published?
  Mr. Baker: No, definitely not. It is not intended that the results showing a child's performance should be published, although they will remain available to the teacher and to the child's parent. Published results will be
  776
  on a class or school basis. We do not want the discrimination that publishing individual results could produce.
  Some people are concerned that our proposals give too much power to the holder of my office. I understand that concern. It would be constitutionally unacceptable for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to write or alter the national curriculum at his will or whim. The Bill provides a series of checks and balances.
  The critical clauses 3 and 4, which empower the Secretary of State to make orders about the substance of the national curriculum — attainment targets, programmes of study and the foundation subjects. Those clauses must be read with clause 11, which provides that, before any orders can be made, the Secretary of State must first put proposals to the National Curriculum Council, which will be under a statutory duty to consult widely. It will then give advice—which will be published—to the Secretary of State. He will bring forward draft orders, which are subject to a further period of statutory consultation, and publish any reasons for departure from the council's advice. At the end of that very open, public process, it will be for both Houses of Parliament to decide.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I feel that I must proceed.
  Mr. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: I am sorry, but I must resist the temptation to give way. I have already given way a great deal.
  Mr. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: No.
  The Bill also provides for the establishment of a School Examinations and Assessment Council, which will approve syllabuses and qualifications. I intend to set up both the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations and Assessment Council in shadow form —subject to the eventual approval of Parliament — so that they can begin the work of developing the substance of the curriculum and assessment arrangements.
  Chapter II deals with more open enrolment.
  Mr. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: With respect, I shall not. I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity later to say what he wishes to say.
  The proposal in chapter II is a natural extension of our concern to maximise parental choice. There are some 10,000 appeals every year by parents who do not get their preferred school. To judge by a recent Harris poll, many more parents accept with grim resignation what they are offered. According to a survey, nearly one quarter of parents in London and the home counties would like to send their children to another school, and the proportion is even higher for the ILEA area.
  I do not claim that all parents will get their first choice of school under our proposals — there can be no question of elastic walls — but I believe that we can remove some unnecessary barriers to parental satisfaction. At present, many schools have to turn away children because their local authority has decided to spread intakes evenly between popular and less popular schools. This means empty desks in popular schools, which cannot be right.

  777
  I hope to bring in the new arrangements for secondary schools in 1989, but I shall consult further about this timetable before I take a firm decision. I intend to work with local authorities for the orderly implementation of these provisions.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: This is genuinely the last time that I shall give way.
  Mrs. Taylor: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, if parental choice operates as he suggests, it may well lead to all black and all white schools, even within one mile of each other? Is this form of segregation in education something that he wishes to encourage?
  Mr. Baker: I do not accept the conclusion that the hon. Lady draws. No school, whether grant maintained, financially delegated or local education authority maintained, is allowed to select children on the basis of colour. To do so would be illegal.
  There are about one dozen schools in the United Kingdom where 100 per cent, of the children are drawn from ethnic minority communities, and there are a further 250 where about 75 per cent, of children are drawn from ethnic minorities. That has arisen because of the settlement patterns of immigrants coming to our country. Many schools with 75 per cent, ethnic minority children provide excellent education and many white parents are perfectly content to send their children there. I believe that they will continue to do so. Many parents from ethnic minority communities do not want the conclusion which the hon. Lady fears. I do not believe that it will occur.
  The clauses on financial delegation in chapter III will give all larger schools in the next few years responsibility for their own budgets. This has been widely welcomed. It is not surprising because many local authorities have already moved a long way down this road. The Government are responding to a healthy trend by prompting all authorities to follow the pioneers.
  We intend that every local authority should develop and make public a fair and rational formula for allocating its resources between all of its primary and secondary schools. That formula will have to be based first and foremost on the number and ages of registered pupils at each school, but account could also be taken of other factors because one school costs more than another to run —for example, because of the incidence of pupils with disadvantaged backgrounds, because schools serve remote rural areas or because of differences between types and sizes of school. The initiative will lie firmly with LEAs.
  With delegated budgets, governors will be responsible for the selection and dismissal of staff. These powers are closely modelled on those that the governors of voluntary-aided schools now exercise. The Bill will ensure that the professional advice of the chief education officer and his staff will be available to governing bodies in matters of appointment.
  There is a need for training to help governors and head teachers to take on these new responsibilities. The Government will be bringing forward proposals on this. I have agreed this week to make a grant to the National Association of Governors and Managers. By giving governors a responsible job to do, we will encourage more people to come forward.
  778
  The Government's objective is to have local authority schemes submitted by September 1989.I intend to consult further on this. I want to ensure that no authority drags its feet and that delegated budgets are general practice by the end of this Parliament.
  Chapter IV deals with the establishment of grant-maintained schools. Our proposals will allow all secondary schools, and primary schools with more than 300 pupils, to opt out of local authority control and to apply for direct funding. This will widen choice for many parents in the state-maintained sector for whom all too often the only choice is take it or leave it. This wider choice will help to improve standards in all schools, not just those which opt out. The LEAs will want to hold on to their schools and will, therefore, have a far greater incentive to respond to the wishes of parents. For the first time in 80 years they will face competition in the provision of free education, so standards will rise in all schools as we introduce a competitive spirit into the provision of education—and at no extra cost to the consumer.
  Meanwhile, let me stress and make clear that these schools will offer free education. They will be funded at the same level as they would have been had they remained under their local authority. There will continue to be an equality of public resourcing.
  When it opts out, a grant-maintained school will retain the character that it had and will continue to admit pupils on the same basis. During an exchange at Question Time this afternoon I made clear that in due course these schools will be able to make an application for a major change of character under the procedures that exist under sections 12 and 13 of the Education Act 1980.
  Grant-maintained schools will have to agree their admissions arrangements with the Secretary of State and these arrangements will have to be published annually so that parents will know how places will be allocated in the event of over-subscription. Parents who are refused a place for their child can have recourse to a complaints procedure.
  The detailed procedures set out in the bill ensure that opting out will be an open, democratic process. If a Church school decides to opt out, I shall give special attention to the views of the trustees and Church authorities. If I approve or the holder of my office approves an application from a Church school, the foundation or trust will continue to own and run the school and to appoint a majority of the governing body. That will preserve the distinctive religious character of Church schools.
  Mr. Roger Stott rose—
  Mr. Baker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way; I have been generous.
  The final clause in part I of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to enter into long-term agreements with the bodies that will run city technology colleges. This is another important element in our plans to create an education system that is better geared to the needs of a rapidly changing world. City technology colleges will increase choice for parents, particularly in the inner cities.
  Part II of the Bill implements the policies set out in our White Paper, "Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge'". Our objective is to see more of our young people staying on to get the benefits of further and higher education. When one compares our education system with those in

  779
  other developed countries such as France, Germany or America, one of the striking features is the low staying-on rate at 16 and 18 years. We intend to improve on that, and have set a target for this Parliament of a further 50,000 students in higher education. I suppose that the students who are marching to the House today are marching to demonstrate their support for this commitment.
  Mr. Kevin Barron rose—
  Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way any more.
  I want to pay tribute to the work that is already in hand to improve the efficiency and quality of our colleges, polytechnics and universities.
  The polytechnics and major colleges have come of age, and we propose that they should now become freestanding, statutory corporations, with charitable status. Hon. Members are proud of our polytechnics. They provide a splendid education, and last year there was an increase of over 20 per cent, in the number of first degrees that they gave. Those 48 institutions will transfer automatically from local authority control. Another seven institutions can transfer if their maintaining LEA consents.
  In addition, another 24 colleges that are presently funded directly by my Department will join this group. The Bill will increase their autonomy and they, together with the polytechnics, will be funded by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. I intend to establish the PCFC in shadow form next spring. I shall also be setting up an Education Assets Board in shadow form. It will start work on the complex task of transferring assets to the polytechnics and colleges.
  I wish to reaffirm the Government's support for the Church's continuing role in higher education through the voluntary colleges. I intend to ensure that the PCFC establishes a committee to advise it on issues of direct concern to the voluntary colleges.
  The Universities Funding Council will replace the University Grants Committee in line with the main recommendation of Lord Croham's review. The UFC will be asked to establish a Welsh committee along similar lines to the one that it has already been decided should be established for Scotland.
  Mr. Tarn Dalyell rose—
  Mr. Baker: I must resist the temptation to give way to an experienced parliamentarian.
  Another part of the Bill that deals with universities is clauses 130 to 136, which end the arrangements for strict tenure in some universities. Those arrangements severely circumscribe the flexibility and responsiveness of universities. The Bill proposes that all universities should be able to appoint new permanent staff without offering them strict tenure. Independent commissioners will revise university charters to give effect to this and to safeguard academic freedom.
  Chapter III of part II deals with colleges remaining with local authorities. Like schools, they will have delegated budgets. Their governing bodies will draw at least half of their members from business, commerce and the local community. This will bring in more business men and women, more industrialists and professionals. They are
  780
  precisely the sort of people we need to ensure that colleges are responsive to employers' needs. I welcome the statement by the director-general of the CBI, who is looking forward to businesses playing an even greater role in education in the future.
  Part III of the Bill will allow inner London boroughs freedom to run their own education services. ILEA has been a uniquely extravagant authority, spending far in excess of comparable inner-city authorities. It has 4 per cent, of the children in England in its schools, yet it accounts for 8 per cent, of LEA expenditure. The tragedy is that the money is not being spent in ways that meet the needs of London's children. For example, ILEA has two and a half times as many administrators per child as the national average. Yet it dares to talk about "economies of scale" when the performance of its schools is often dismal. An HMI survey of science in secondary schools in Greenwich concluded that
  "the teaching of science in most of these schools fails … to develop the levels of understanding … Over 50 per cent, of the lessons had some unsatisfactory features."
  Our proposals will give London's children a better deal. The Bill will allow boroughs to apply to opt out from 1 April 1990, or in subsequent years. I shall need to be satisfied that the borough has a full plan covering every aspect of the education service for its area. I emphasise that no borough can opt out of ILEA without specific parliamentary approval.
  Recently that matter was put to an electoral test. Ten days ago there was a by-election in Wandsworth in which the opting proposal on ILEA was the main issue. It was made the main issue by the Labour party and by ILEA, and many of ILEA'S staff campaigned in that by-election. It was the central issue and we won with an increased majority.
  Mr. Straw: If the Secretary of State has such confidence in the opinion of the people of London on the break-up of ILEA, why will he not submit these proposals to a referendum of parents in each borough and to the borough elections in 1990?
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman should have done better than that. When he was faced with the increased majority of the Conservative candidate in the Southfields ward of the Wandsworth borough council, he immediately said, "It's nothing to do with ILEA; it's all due to Red Ken." The hon. Member for Blackburn cannot blame all the problems of the Labour party on the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). It was a clear issue. It was put to the people and they decided clearly to vote for our proposals.
  The proposals which I have outlined to the House today constitute a major change. I would sum up the Bill's 169 pages in three words — standards, freedom and choice. The purpose of all these measures is to improve the quality of education for all our children and to increase opportunities for our children to go on to colleges, polytechnics and universities because a better educated nation is a more prosperous nation.
  I have no doubt that the Opposition parties share our wish to improve standards. But what they fail to understand is that one cannot improve standards without at the same time increasing choice and freedom. The people of this country understand that. They showed their understanding at the general election. The Opposition parties went to the country with a prospectus of no change.

  781
  They lost that election. The Conservative party went to the country with a programme of radical reform, and we won. I now invite the House to give effect to the people's choice and to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: There is no question more important than the education of the nation's children, but the Bill will severely damage that education. From beginning to end the Bill is based upon a deception. Its very title — "Education Reform Bill" — is a fraud; it should be called the "Education (State Control) Bill". Under the guise of fine phrases like "parental choice" and "decentralisation", the Bill will deny choice and instead centralise power and control over schools, colleges and universities in the hands of the Secretary of State in a manner without parallel in the western world.
  Under the guise of arguments for an agreed core curriculum, the Bill will seek to impose a centralised state syllabus. Under the guise of higher standards the Bill will label children as failures at the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16, impose selection and segregate children by class and by race.
  Outside the House, the Secretary of State has had the audacity to describe his Bill as the most important since the Education Act 1944. As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said, to compare the Bill "with what Rab Butler did would make that great man turn in his grave." — [Official Report, 2July 1987; Vol. 118, c. 670.]
  Not for Butler a few crude ideas and gimmicks so poorly prepared that two thirds of the way through the election campaign The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State had to make up the policy as they went along. Not for Butler the contempt for those who might have a different point of view or the mockery of a 10-week consultation period. Butler listened for two years; he learned; he gained agreement. Because of that, his Act has stood the test of time. His lasted; the Secretary of State's will not.
  The difference is that Butler was a one-nation Tory, a worthy successor to Benjamin Disraeli, whom the Secretary of State quoted. Butler recognised that it was only through equality of opportunity that talents could flower, that richness and diversity in our national life could occur, that individuals could be fulfilled and that one nation could be created. Butler spoke directly of egalitarianism. It is that which the Secretary of State now wishes to destroy. As he told the Tory party conference:
  "The pursuit of egalitarianism is over."
  The 1944 Education Act laid the foundation for the achievement of equality of opportunity and, yes, of raising the quality of the nation's education. While that Act did not prescribe this, the policy makers at that stage made one fundamental error — they provided for a segregated system by which some were stamped success but by which most were stamped failure. A large part of the purpose of the Bill is to recreate that segregated and divisive system which affected all a child's years from five to 16. Some of us remember what the 11-plus did to children, with bribes of bicycles, of holidays, of parental love and approval if they passed, and the humiliation and shame which families felt when children failed.
  It was out of the revulsion and unfairness of the old segregated system that there came the clamour for the comprehensive school. It was far from being an exclusively Labour idea. No Education Secretary before or since can
  782
  match the record of The Prime Minister for the number of comprehensive schools which were opened or for the number of grammar schools which were closed during her period of office: 1,059 comprehensive schools were opened and 363 grammar schools were closed.
  Ever since the right hon. Lady became Prime Minister, that progress has continued. In 1979, 79 per cent, of pupils were in comprehensive schools. At the end of last year, that proportion had risen to over 85 per cent. It is a mark of the extraordinary success of the comprehensive school that in eight years only two Conservative authorities, Solihull and Redbridge, have sought to reintroduce selection, and both failed because of the weight of parental opposition.
  Standards too have risen, as even the Department of Education and Science admits. The 1986 school leavers survey for England said of the period 1977–84:
  "The quality of school leavers has shown modest but steady improvement."
  The most thorough study of all, commissioned and paid for by the Government and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) referred at Question Time, has confirmed that success. In its report on comprehensives in Scotland, the university of Edinburgh said:
  "comprehensive reorganisation, fully implemented, has raised standards of attainment for children of all social backgrounds."
  That success has never fitted with the prejudices and fantasies of the Conservative right. So, from The Prime Minister downwards, there has been a constant campaign to instil a sense of distrust of state education and of the competence of the teaching profession. Sometimes the allegations have been pure fabrication. In her Conservative party conference speech on 9 October, The Prime Minister asserted:
  "Children who need to be able to express themselves in clear English are being taught political slogans."
  Challenged by me by letter to say where this had happened, The Prime Minister has been unable to name a single school—not one—to support that fabrication.
  While the Cabinet seeks to denigrate the achievements of our schools, the satisfaction of parents remains high. The Secretary of State quoted opinion polls supporting a core curriculum. Let me quote a Daily Telegraph Gallup survey published in early October, which showed that just 18 per cent, of parents were dissatisfied with their children's education, while 76 per cent, were satisfied. There can scarcely be any other service where satisfaction runs at such a high level.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: Would it not be more honest for the hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about the education service, to admit that, although standards have been rising steadily in this country, there has been a growing gap compared with what many of our competitor countries are achieving, particularly in maths and science? Does not he also accept, when he talks about comprehensive schools, that there is no such thing? Does not he agree that, since comprehensivisation, there has been a growing variety of so-called comprehensive schools in age, range and style? Therefore, there is a pressing case for a national curriculum, as he once used to think.
  Mr. Straw: We will discuss the national curriculum later.

  783
  I draw a distinction in the House, as I have done outside, between a core curriculum, which is flexible and based upon a consensus, and an imposed state syllabus. There is no dubiety about this on our part. My position, and the party's position, has always been clear. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) referred to other countries. Let us talk about West Germany. The difference is that in West Germany education between the ages of 16 and 18 is almost universal; it applies to every child. There is not a single provision in this Bill which will encourage children between the ages of 16 and 18 to stay on at school. As for comparisons with testing, as Her Majesty's inspectorate's report makes clear, there is a world of difference between the diagnostic testing in West Germany, which is teacher-based, and the testing which the Secretary of State has in mind.
  There was another revealing set of answers in the Daily Telegraph Gallup poll. When parents were asked separately who was responsible for the failings in the system, just 7 per cent, blamed local authorities, while almost seven times as many, 47 per cent., blamed central Government.
  The Secretary of State had a great chance with this Bill. He could have built upon the satisfaction of parents, the excellence and innovation, the best practice of so many good local education authorities, Conservative and Labour, and the proposals of the parents' associations. He could justly have earned and gained a reputation as a great reforming Secretary of State.
  Instead, it is to the Secretary of State's eternal shame that he has brought forth a Bill that will divide; that will set child against child, class against class, parent against parent, school against school, race against race. Yes, contrary to what the Secretary of State said, the proposals will, among other things, lead to educational apartheid —to racially segregated schools. When that was put to the Under-Secretary of State, the Baroness Hooper, her only response was to say that if we ended with a segregated system, "so be it".
  What should have been in the Bill? Universal nursery education should have been in it, for a start. I will give a prize of a free copy of Rab Butler's autobiography to any Conservative Member who can tell me who said:
  "The value of nursery education"—
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The Prime Minister.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has got the prize.
  "The value of nursery education in promoting the social development of young children has long been acknowledged. In addition we now know that, given sympathetic and skilled supervision, children may also make great educational progress before the age of five … Progress of this kind gives any child a sound basis for his subsequent education."
  That was what The Prime Minister said in her 1972 White Paper. We agreed with her then in her promise to make nursery education available for all
  "without charge … to those children of three and four whose parents wish them to benefit from it."
  We put that in our manifesto in 1987; the Conservative party left it out.
  The Government call this Bill reform, yet in all its 169 pages there is not a single line to give effect to that pledge to universal nursery education. The very children who need nursery education most, and who in Tory areas receive it least, are those who are also not favoured at the other end of the compulsory school system.
  Mr. David Sumberg: What did the hon. Gentleman and his party do for nursery education between 1974 and 1979?
  Mr. Straw: We expanded it. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will see that even under this Government Labour authorities have increased nursery education, while many Conservative authorities have cut it.
  Where in the Bill are the arrangements, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West, for making it the norm to provide education as well as training for those between the ages of 16 and 18? Where are the arrangements which recognise the intense financial pressures on many families to get their children to leave school at 16 to take any job that they can? Where are the arrangements for establishing educational opportunities for that one third of the population who never had them —the one third aged over 50 who left school before the Butler Act came into force? They depend on adult and continuing education, yet no sector has been more severely affected by Government cuts than that one.
  Ministers must know nothing of the system that they now wish to destroy if they do not know about the immense strides that have been made in many schools to involve parents day by day. Yes, we accept that a good deal more needs to be done. That is why my predecessor as education spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), spelled out months before the Secretary of State even mentioned the word our proposals for raising standards and for the real involvement of all parents; for a guaranteed and agreed common core curriculum; for termly school reports, incorporating clear assessments of effort and performance; for the right to a proper interview with teachers; for clear homework schedules; and for an education ombudsman. There is the widest support for those ideas, but virtually none of them appears in the Bill.
  I give just one small example of how skin-deep is the Secretary of State's commitment to parental involvement. For the first time this summer, there were annual parents' and governors' meetings. Some were well attended; most were not. I wrote to the Secretary of State to propose that he should establish, with the local authority associations, a study to identify the best practice of good authorities to see how we could encourage more parents to attend such meetings and to make that study widely available. The Secretary of State refused.
  The Bill, in short, is a wasted opportunity, which will waste the opportunities of the nation's young. The Secretary of State's rhetoric this afternoon has been about parental choice and variety, but the Bill is not about parents and pupils, but about power—the Secretary of State's power. The Bill contains 175 new powers in the hands of the Secretary of State; powers which portray
  "a frightening degree of secondary legislation and bureaucracy for years ahead";
  powers which would
  "set the curriculum in stone for twenty years or more"
  I quote from the very temple of Right-wing Toryism— the Institute of Economic Affairs.
  Nor will our further and higher education institutions escape from the heavy hand. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) will deal in more detail with those proposals when he winds up the debate. Our further education colleges are, as we heard from the Secretary of State, to be handed over to compliant

  785
  Conservative business men, and the universities are to be subject to the direct control of the Secretary of State. Academic tenure is to be abolished and no safeguards for academic freedom are written into the Bill.
  Behind the massive transfer of central power lies an obsessive vendetta against the rights of local communities and their elected representatives to run their own schools and colleges in the way which suits their own areas best. It is an obsession because, too often, the electors at local polls have either failed to vote Conservative or have voted for the wrong kind of Conservative, such as the chairman of a good Conservative education authority who described the Bill as
  "the product of inexperienced zealots."
  Had it not been for the determination of local communities to resist the Government, our education service would now be in wreckage. It is a mark of the Government's commitment to education that they have cut what they have been willing to spend on the education of the nation's children by 20 per cent. in real terms in the past eight years. Education spending has risen despite the Government, not because of them. It has risen only because of decisions of local councils rejecting the Government's policies and plans. The Government should hang their head in shame on their education record these past eight years.
  Nowhere is the vendetta against local communities more stark, more crude, than in respect of the Inner London education authority. A recent report on local education authority performance puts ILEA among the most cost-effective of education authorities, given its intake. It is no good the Secretary of State complaining about ILEA's expenditure. Three years ago he took central powers to control ILEA's budget and manpower. ILEA'S work to improve the quality of secondary, primary and special education and the involvement of parents has been acclaimed across the country. But throughout the past eight years, ILEA has had to do its work against the Government's unremitting hostility. Four times in eight years the Conservative party has sought ways to abolish ILEA, but each time—from the report of Lord Marshall to the decision of the Cabinet only two years ago—they have had to accept that ILEA should remain intact.
  The charge of consistency is not one which can easily be laid at the Secretary of State's door. From his passionate support for the continuation of the GLC through to his passionate support for its abolition; from his passionate support for the leadership battle of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to his passionate support for the Thatcherite nonsense in the Bill; from his statements during the election that only a few schools would opt out to his statements now that there is no difference between him and the Prime Minister, no one could ever accuse the Secretary of State of placing principle before the main chance. That even applies to his proposals for ILEA.
  Seven years ago, the Secretary of State chaired a committee on the future of London's education. The options were laid out in a report and were numbered one, two and three and six. Option six was to allow individual boroughs to opt out of ILEA—the Secretary of State's very proposal today. Option six was the one then rejected by the Secretary of State, who said:
  "Some boroughs may be willing to assume responsibility and ILEA would then become a rump of power-deprived
  786
  boroughs … In addition, since it is unlikely that economy of scale could be achieved in a partial ILEA, there may be an increase in administrative costs."
  That is what the Secretary of State said eight years ago.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State would now like to tell us why different considerations apply today. I offer him this chance to intervene.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: It is because the whole principle of funding of local authorities will be changed from April 1990. We will no longer have the redistributive effect of the special schemes for the Inner London education authority as now, nor the redistribution of the rate support grant in London. What will happen is that, post-1990, each individual London borough, like every other borough and local authority in the country, will receive three grants: the basic grant of the national business rate, the standard rate and the needs grant. That means that the redistribution which is done under the present system will be carried out not under local authority control but by central Government. That makes it possible to allow the London boroughs to opt out. I am quite sure that it will not only be the Conservative boroughs that decide to opt out. Some of the other boroughs may well want to opt out too.
  Mr. Straw: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for that explanation. If only he could have seen the faces behind him as he tried to get himself out of the hole. He did not want to deny that there could still be a rump of poorer, deprived boroughs which under his proposals would receive even fewer resources than they do under the existing financial arrangements.
  The Secretary of State's powers of advocacy for his case in favour of opting out are such that he has failed even to persuade his own supporters in Surrey. It is Surrey county council which has said of these proposals that education provision will be
  "fragmented in the name of educational choice"
  and that
  "opting out could well be to the disadvantage of a far greater number of children for whom the authority would remain responsible".
  It is Conservatives in the Prime Minister's own Barnet who believe that these proposals will
  "end with a system loaded against maintained schools in an indefensibly inequitable manner".
  The Bow Group can scarcely be described as being on the wet wing of the party, since its supporters include the Secretary of State for Foreign, and Commonwealth Affairs and, in the old days, the Secretary of State for Education and Science. It is the Bow Group which has criticised the "blinkered reasoning" of this Bill and which has called for it to be "shelved".
  Variety, initiative and enterprise can only come if different people are allowed to do different things. Rab Butler recognised that when, on Second Reading of his Bill, he said:
  "the variety and scope of the provisions must depend on local initiative".—[Official Report,19 January 1944; Vol. 396, c. 209.]
  It is that local initiative which the Bill will destroy and, with it, effective parental choice and variety in the provision of education. Opting out will be a fraud. Yes, schools will be able to opt out of locally led education, but they will opt not into independence but into state control of a direct and authoritarian kind. The Secretary of State will have direct control of these schools, including the power to close them. The local authority will have no power, only the duty to pay for them.

  787
  The proposed balloting procedures, under which a simple majority of parents voting can determine the future of a school, will be unbelievably divisive. What a contrast there is here between this casual and slipshod procedure and those that this Government introduced, for example, in respect of the closed shop. Justifying the rule that a closed shop had to be agreed by 80 per cent, of those eligible, or 85 per cent, of those voting, the then Minister for Employment, now the Government Chief Whip, said that the closed shop had to have
  "the overwhelming support of the work force"
  because of the
  "immense importance for individual rights". — [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 30 March 1982; c. 775.]
  But is not a decision about the future funding and character of a school of immense importance to individual rights of parents, children, teachers and the wider community not just today but in the future? What double standards about democracy this Government show.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the difference between a ballot on the closed shop and a ballot to opt out is that on the first it is to opt into servitude and on the second to opt into freedom?
  Mr. Straw: That is just a very silly point. In both cases, the decision of a majority will affect the rights of a minority. In the case of the closed shop, it was considered that the majority had to be so great as almost to encompass the minority; in this case, 51 per cent, of parents voting—fewer even than the majority of total parents—may determine the future of the school for all children. I do not call that democracy.
  Open admissions are another part of the fraud of this Bill, one which shows how the introduction of the market will damage opportunity and choice. Yes, a few schools will profit by this change, but many will be damaged and some will become educationally bankrupt, trapped in a vortex of fewer pupils, less money, fewer teachers, less choice, while still having to provide education for those children who remain. What local education authorities have to do, against a background of quixotic changes in the reputation of schools and the roller-coaster of pupil numbers, is to plan so as to ensure, as nearly as possible, that each child is treated as fairly as the next. This Bill will undermine that ability to plan and to be fair, and in doing so will destroy the opportunity and choice of a great many children.
  Mr. Barron: In September 1988, my third child will be going along to the local comprehensive school, while each one of the children, along with all those of 12 to 16 years of age in the community where I live, will all have an equal opportunity to go on to further education. Are not this Government and this Bill likely to bring back the days that I myself remember in the 1950s, when at 11 years of age, having failed a test, I was given a second-class education in that community?
  Mr. Straw: They will indeed, because, as the Secretary of State has said here, part of the purpose of the Bill is to reintroduce selection and to change comprehensives back into selective schools.
  The proposals for so-called financial decentralisation contained in the Bill illustrate another part of its deceit.
  788
  The Secretary of State has quoted me outside as supporting the idea. I have been right to say that many Labour local education authorities have pioneered sensible financial devolution in education as in other spheres—and so they have, ILEA among them. But the Secretary of State deceives no one but himself if he thinks that at any stage we have supported the proposals in this Bill.
  The local education authorities are indissolubly linked with local initiative, with different areas doing things differently. These proposals remove that local initiative and, irony of ironies, the Secretary of State takes clause after clause of central powers to impose his own schemes, regardless of local opinion, to impose per capita funding and to force schools — the teachers, parents and governors—to decide whether they keep a much-needed teacher, buy some books or decorate a classroom. That is not financial devolution, it is a mechanism to force on schools decisions about cuts that the Government have not the guts to make for themselves.
  Over all this, there will be the so-called national curriculum. The Secretary of State referred to my views about the national curriculum, and I have supported the idea of a flexible core curriculum rather longer than the Government have. The national curriculum has been one of the Prime Minister's many U-turns—only two years ago she endorsed emphatic rejection of a national curriculum in the White Paper, "Better Schools". Even the Secretary of State did not leak his disagreement at the time. My party called at the general election for a
  "flexible but clear core curriculum agreed at national level."
  Therein lies the difference. What we seek is flexibility, a framework; what the Government have been prescribing — at least until this afternoon — is some kind of straitjacket. What we seek is a national core curriculum; what we are to get is a state syllabus.
  In making the case for a national curriculum, the Secretary of State in his consultative document said that it should apply to all children. But it will not do so. It will apply by law to the children in the state sector of education only. It will not apply by law to fee-paying schools. Will the Secretary of State tell me why this state curriculum should apply by law to the finest comprehensives in the land but not to the worst of the fee-paying schools? Will he tell me why this state curriculum should apply by law to my children but not to his?
  At the centre of this straitjacket of the state syllabus are the proposals for testing children at 11, 14, 16 and now, in the words of the Secretary of State, at seven or thereabouts. Just as in the past the Secretary of State has tried to insinuate that parents have no choice in schools, he also insinuates that no testing takes place in schools. In this, he displays considerable ignorance. The first time that he has ever admitted that the daily round of teaching involves the testing and assessment of individual children was in his speech today. I know of no school which does not also use more formal and more regular tests to assess a child's progress. As I have said outside the House, parents have a right to know how their child is getting on against some broadly agreed national picture of how a child should be getting on.
  There is a world of difference between testing and assessment to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of individual children and having the resources to do something about them, and testing which sets child against

  789
  child, which tells them only how to compete against their peers and which labels them as successes or failures at age 11, 14, 16 or seven.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No.
  That will be the consequence of publishing class-by-class lists at the ages of seven, 11,14 and 16.
  The Secretary of State has denied that those tests will be competitive, but they must be because they play a central part in the hidden agenda of the proposals, which will not reform education, but will deform the system to recreate a system based upon selection.
  We do not need to muse about where the proposals will lead. We have the words of the proposals' authors, the Hillgate group, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the "no turning back group" of Conservative Back Benchers who want to replace the right to a free education with a giro or a voucher to help pay towards some part of children's education while parents have to pay towards the rest. The proposals for per capita funding, for open admissions and for opting out will take us straight down that road. The authors want an unregulated market in education.
  Education, like health, is a public good which, by its nature, is scarce because the demand for it will always exceed supply. It will always be rationed in some way. In the past, that rationing has taken place by need, by a partnership between central Government broadly determining the overall share of national wealth to be accorded it and local communities determining its local allocation. That system of allocation by need is now to be turned on its head. For need, we must read wealth.
  The Bill is a fraud, based upon prejudice and ignorance. Virtually the only thing that the Cabinet knows about the state system of education is how to opt out of it. Cabinet Ministers have been doing that for years. As the Mail on Sunday reported last week:
  "none of Mrs. Thatcher's Cabinet sends his children to state schools".
  So sensitive are Ministers to that fact, that the Mail on Sunday also told us that now all is to change. In case the Secretary of State's Cabinet colleagues are not aware of it, according to the Mail on Sunday,the Secretary of State has said that he now expects
  "Cabinet Ministers to send their children to the new schools".
  At last Cabinet Ministers will opt in, but only to the schools that opt out.
  What an inadvertently revealing admission that is. Does the Secretary of State realise the full implications of what he has said — that there has not been one local authority school in the country, not a comprehensive in Surrey, Harrow or Barnet or even a grammar school good enough for the education of Cabinet Ministers' children? Now everything will be OK for the sons and daughters of Cabinet Ministers, as the Secretary of State admitted in an interview and admitted again in the House today that opted-out schools will after all be able to change their character, to select and to become exclusive, and in doing so will be able to keep out the undesirables, the special needs children and those with educational handicap. Indeed, if Baroness Hooper has her way, they will be able to keep out the blacks as well.
  For how else could those opted-out schools make themselves suitable for the children of this Cabinet? How
  790
  else could they make themselves sufficiently different from the existing local authority schools which Ministers so despise? [HON.MEMBERS: "Shame".] If it is a shame, it is a shame on Baroness Hooper. She said that, not the Opposition.
  Section 1 of.Rab Butler's great Education Act 1944 places a duty on the Secretary of State
  "to promote the education of the people of England and Wales … and to secure … a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area."
  That section will not be amended by the Bill. By this Bill, the Secretary of State will fail in his duty under the 1944 Act in every particular.
  The Secretary of State bears a great responsibility on his shoulders for the education of this nation's children, for the provision of equality of opportunity, for ensuring that every child can reach his potential, for securing a skilled and articulate citizenry in the interests of both our economy and our democracy. By his speech this afternoon and by this Bill, the Secretary of State has shown that he is incapable and unwilling to measure up to those responsibilities. In place of Rab Butler's one nation, the Bill will create two nations in education. The only consensus or agreement that the Bill has achieved is the consensus against it from the Churches, Conservative councillors, governors, teachers and above all from parents and the children so precious to them. Yes, every parent wants a system that will better their child's chances, but they will not get that with this Bill.
  The Bill will damage educational standards. It will level down, not up. It will reduce opportunity, choice and variety for the majority of our children, and it will undermine local democracy. It will make the Secretary of State the commissar of educational control throughout the breadth of the country. We shall fight the Bill in the House and in the country and we shall vote against it in the Lobby tonight.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Edward Heath: This is a massive Bill of immense importance both to the future of today's children and the future of this country, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science explained when he began his speech by quoting Disraeli and his one-nation philosophy. Disraeli was followed by Balfour and Butler in creating our educational system. Throughout they were motivated by the doctrine of one nation. I very much hoped that my right hon. Friend would continue that philosophy in the changes that he wants to make in bringing the education system up to date. However, the procedures that have been followed in bringing the Bill before the House do not encourage one in that belief.
  Mr. Marlow: There was an election.
  Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend says that there was an election, and indeed there was, but whatever doctrine on the mandate that one likes to hold—and they are many and varied — that does not justify any Government failing to provide a proper opportunity for Parliament and in particular the House of Commons to discuss Bills. [Interruption.]There is no point in my hon. Friends chanting in that manner and grinning about it. This is a serious matter. Mr. Speaker has announced that 70 hon. Members want to speak in the debate and there is less than four hours in which they can do that. That cannot be

  791
  anything other than a caricature of parliamentary government. My hon. Friends should be ashamed. If their constituents hear about this, they will tell them so. Because the Opposition are incompetent, ill-led, ineffective and unable to get an extra day's debate out of the Government, that is no reason why hon. Members on the Government side should be limited in time. [Interruption.]There is no point in the Leader of the Opposition laughing about this. It is a tribute to his ineffectiveness that he cannot get an extra day. His predecessors would have been ashamed of themselves for putting the Labour party in a position in which they could not debate the Bill properly.
  There has been inadequate consultation over the summer and the Bill was published only seven working days ago. Organisations, especially the universities, have written to hon. Members to say that they are incapable of providing criticism of the Bill because there has not been time to consider or discuss it. That shows a lamentable respect for education and, I regret to say, for Parliament. Moreover, that allows another place every opportunity to say that the major issues were not fully debated in the House of Commons and therefore the Lords can take the matter in hand. Indeed, those who have discussed it on television have already taken that view. That is lamentable.
  The background to the Education Act 1944 has been mentioned. I want to emphasise a point in relation to what will happen under the Bill. Rab Butler and Chuter Ede created a triumvirate for parity of esteem — grammar schools, technical schools and secondary moderns. That enabled clever technicians to go to a good technical school as well as those who were less able. The clever academics could go to a good grammar school and those who were clever at general things could go to a secondary modern school. The point was that in each type of school pupils with considerable mental ability attended beside those who were not thus gifted.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heath: No, there is no time for interventions.
  The point was that the clever and the less clever would be together in the same school and one would lead the other. The danger is that under the new system the clever will go to one school, leaving the other schools with the less clever.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker indicated dissent
  Mr. Heath: I know that my right hon. Friend denies that, but he is wrong. The fact is that so much of a school, whether academic or sporting, depends on the leadership of those who are best at those pastimes. If the better children leave one school for another, which is what will happen under his system, that will be to the detriment of the children as a whole. That is the connection between the change from the Butler system and what will happen under this system.
  The Butler system was changed because, in the years after the war, the Labour Government did not have the resources to give the technical schools and secondary modern schools the ability to reach parity of esteem with grammar schools. That led to the pressure for comprehensive schools and is why they developed during
  792
  the 1960s and 1970s. They did away with the idea that children were going to a school of a higher status than other schools.
  The important question is what is required in education today and what is necessary to achieve it. I am sick to death of education in this country being knocked in the way that it is, largely for political purposes, and of teachers being constantly hammered. The great majority of our teachers are good and devoted people as I have found in my constituency and my home area. However, they are now completely demoralised because of the treatment that they have received.
  The inspectorate of the Education Department is also demoralised because no notice is taken of what it says. On its inquiries into ILEA, has not the inspectorate said that it should continue? However, its view has been ignored. The morale of the inspectorate is low, as is that of the headmasters who find that their views are not even solicited. Indeed, they will now be laboured with the financial control of schools. Anybody would think that they wanted that, but they do not.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Heath: No, I shall not give way because there is not sufficient time.
  Anybody would think that headmasters were begging for the opportunity to run the finances of their schools. However, they are not, not for one moment.
  Mr. Howarth rose—
  Mr. Heath: No, I shall not give way. I have not got the time to give way. If my right hon. Friend had given us two days for the debate, we could have had proper exchanges.
  Neither are the governors asking for the power to run the finances of schools. The great majority of education authorities run their financial arrangements satisfactorily. That raises another point about ILEA. If the rich boroughs opt out, undoubtedly the poorer boroughs will suffer. There cannot be any alternative. Why should the poorer areas of inner London suffer because the richer ones can opt out? That is against the entire trend of Conservative education policy over much of this century.
  Where there are poor and inadequate teachers, we must find a way to improve them. That means improving the qualifications of teachers on entry into the profession. That is what needs to be tackled. If it is necessary to have assessment of teachers later in life, we should do so, but that does not need the complete reconstruction of the entire educational system.
  I shall deal now with some specific points in the Bill.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Heath: No, I am enjoying myself too much to give way.
  There has long been an argument for having a national curriculum, but it must be flexible. The Secretary of State has moved in that direction, but he still has the power to dictate the national curriculum down to individual books. My right hon. Friend may smile, but one day, whether we like it not, a Labour Member may be in my right hon. Friend's place. Will he enjoy this situation so much then, when a Labour Minister inherits all the powers that the Secretary of State is taking unto himself? The Secretary of State has taken more powers under the Bill than any other

  793
  member of the Cabinet — more than my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Social Services. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is taking more direct power and that is why the universities are terrified. We all know what happens today to people who hold differing views from those held in Government circles. Academics can see quite clearly what will happen to them if they express their real views.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend may shake his head. He is connected with the universities and knows full well why academics have not spoken out about what is required of the universities. They are afraid that they will lose their jobs.
  The success of the national curriculum attainment tests will depend on how they are carried out. If they result in children being told that they are a pass or a fail they will be disastrous. If a child of seven has to go around with a "fail" tag on him for the rest of his life, the damage will be enormous. The Secretary of State must show the teaching profession and parents that his attainment tests will not lead to such judgments. Although many of my hon. Friends would like to see things go that way, I think that it would be fatal.
  Parental choice in the Bill is largely a confidence trick. I say that quite openly. My right hon. Friend has quoted public opinion polls. About 93 per cent, of parents stated in a Gallup poll that they always got the school of their choice. What happens to the other 7 per cent, if the school of their first choice is full?
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: They are not physically full.
  Mr. Heath: In my constituency they are physically full.
  Mr. McLoughlin: They are not physically full in mine.
  Mr. Heath: Many schools are physically full.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: If my right hon. Friend comes to my constituency, I shall show him some that are not.
  Mr. Heath: I turn now to the schools of my hon. Friends behind me. Why are they evened out? The Secretary of State knows full well that that happens for economic purposes to enable the local educational authority to run schools in which there are insufficient children and to fill all the schools. The schools are balanced out.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: For bureaucratic purposes.
  Mr. Heath: That is the biased view of my hon. Friend. However, that happens for economic reasons. We shall reach the stage at which it is possible to fill one school and close down another because that will be the inevitable consequence.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend give way just once?
  Mr. Heath: No, I shall not give way.
  Obviously, a school cannot be closed down immediately, but the time will come when it must be closed down. The majority of complaints in my constituency are
  794
  not about teachers or the local education authority but about the closures of good schools simply because the numbers have fallen, but that is inevitable.
  When my right hon. Friend says that the Bill will give parents greater choice, it can only give them greater choice if a school opts out, and, having opted out, changes the pupils whom it takes in. That is the only way in which there can be greater choice than they have at the moment, because there cannot be greater choice at the moment because the facilities are not there.
  That is why the voucher attempt was abandoned. It was quite obvious that the local education authority could not say to parents, "Yes, of course, you can have the school of your choice because we shall enlarge it and take them all." That was nonsense. Parental choice is in grave danger of turning out to be a confidence trick. Parents will not find that their choice has been increased. Indeed, 93 per cent, of them say that they get the school of their choice as it is. Very well then, there is no argument for opting out.
  Let us now consider the question of parent power. It is completely unrealistic. Again, the great majority of parents do not want to run the schools to which their children will be sent.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Heath: We have already heard that only 8 per cent, of parents attend the meetings—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way? He cannot be so undemocratic.
  Mr. Heath: If the hon. Lady had been democratic enough to force the Leader of the House to give us two days for this debate I would happily give way. [Laughter.]Parent power—
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman rose—
  Mr. Heath: Parent power is just a political slogan. It has no real meaning for today's educational system.
  I wish to deal with the vital question of opting out, because it destroys the system that was built up by Disraeli, Balfour and Butler. One of my hon. Friends on the Benches behind me said in an intervention that opting out represents the choice between freedom and not opting out. That implies that to remain in a local education authority is a form of tyranny. [HON. MEMBER: "It is."] Well, there it is. That reveals the real attitude of some of my hon. Friends behind me.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: Look at Brent,.
  Mr. Heath: I hear the cry, "Look at Brent" and that gets us to the point. We are going through the whole of this process because of the madness of Brent, Haringey and two or three others out of more than 100 education authorities. That is what it is all about. What will happen as a consequence? We shall see that schools will opt out. The next development will be that those schools can choose whom they take. They will not take from their areas, but will take the bright pupils wherever they find them. The next stage will be, "Yes, you can charge fees for doing that." We will move right away from our educational system to a fee-paying system of independent schools of choice.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker indicated dissent.
  Mr. Heath: Well, the Secretary of State may shake his head, but he knows perfectly well that that is the

  795
  philosophy behind the whole process. It is immensely damaging to the educational system of this country. It will be divisive and it will be fatal to the education of a large number of our children.
  Mr. Marlow: This is a mischievous speech intended to be damaging to the Government.
  Mr. Heath: When the Bill is in Committee, I ask my right hon. Friend to consider very seriously the large number of points that will be raised because they are serious.
  The extent of the Secretary of State's power will be overwhelming. Within the parliamentary system, no Secretary of State should ever be allowed to hold such a degree of power. He should surrender that power. There is no confidence in the claim that all the processes of consultation that the Secretary of State has mentioned will be effective or that the Secretary of State will take any notice of them.
  Opting out should be dropped completely. It will undermine the whole of the basic educational system of this country. The proposition of dictating to the universities what they should do, how they should do it and what will happen to their staff must also go.
  There is so much to be done and the Secretary of State could create a record for himself akin to that of Balfour and Butler. He will not do it this way. I beg my right hon. Friend to look at his predecessors and follow the line, both practical and philosophical, taken by them.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Giles Radice: I should like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) on his extremely penetrating speech. It was not received with universal welcome on the Conservative Benches, but it was extremely welcome to the Opposition and indeed to the country as a whole, because he was speaking up for the education system.
  I should also like to congratulate my successor, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), on his very fine speech. He is doing an excellent job not only for the Labour party, but for all those parents who are deeply concerned about what is happening to education under this Government.
  The Secretary of State often compares his Bill, in a self-congratulatory manner, to the Education Act 1944. Let us make that comparison. In 1944 there was a national consensus about what was needed to be done in education. There was a generally held view that educational opportunities needed to be widened. There had been authoritative official reports that illustrated both the need and the way ahead. R. A. Butler, ably supported by his Labour understudy, Chuter Ede, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has reminded us, was able to build on those reports and on the national consensus to provide secondary education for all. That was the background to the 1944 Act.
  Certainly, in 1987, there is a widely shared view that educational standards need to be raised. Eleven years ago, the Labour Prime Minister, James Callaghan, in his famous Ruskin speech, expressed his concern that pupils were leaving school without a proper grounding in literacy and numeracy. He therefore called for a debate on education and especially whether—as he believed—there
  796
  was a need for a core or national curriculum. So much for the charge that Labour has jumped on the curriculum bandwagon. We started it rolling.
  A glance at the Department of Education and Science background papers for the 1977 regional education conferences illustrate the themes that we are still discussing in 1987. The headings ran:
  "The school curriculum from 5 to 16."
  "The assessment of standards."
  "The education and training of teachers."
  "School and working life."
  Before the election, when I was chief education spokesman for the Labour party, I always made clear my party's commitment to raising standards. For example, I welcomed the Sheffield speech of Sir Keith Joseph, the then Secretary of State for Education. I said that we would give him our full support.
  In 1985, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I launched a policy statement called "A charter for pupils and parents". That spelled out our plans for raising standards. In September 1986 I published a Fabian pamphlet entitled "Equality and Quality". That argued the case for a common core curriculum — yes, before the Government did—improved teacher performance and closer home-school links; that is extremely important for raising educational standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has also pointed out that, in February 1987, I published a charter for parents' rights to underwrite good quality education for all.
  On a number of occasions my successor, the hon. Member for Blackburn, has eloquently stressed our commitment and his commitment to quality, standards and performance in education. He is absolutely right. Of course it is true that, over the past decade, educational standards have risen significantly at all levels. So much for those who knock comprehensives and, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup rightly said, so much for those who knock teachers. In evidence I quote DES statistics on examination results for the past decade.
  However, from a number of studies we are aware that many children are not fulfilling their full potential at school. We know that, in similar areas with similar levels of funding, some schools are performing considerably better than others. As a result of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research's report findings, we are aware that pupils in other countries are achieving higher standards, especially in mathematics, than pupils in this country. So, if we are to survive and prosper in the 21st century, the raising of educational standards for all must be a top national priority. We can all agree about that.
  We can all also agree—at any rate most of us can— on the case for a national core curriculum. If the Bill contained only clauses on the curriculum, we would welcome it. Of course there would be arguments about what should be in it, about flexibility and about how it was to be controlled. In this context, as in that of higher education, the Secretary of State has revealed himself in his true colours—as a centraliser and an authoritarian.
  But sadly, unlike the 1944 Act, the Bill also contains highly controversial proposals that have been almost universally rejected. The Secretary of State cannot claim a mandate for the opt-out proposals. He knows perfectly well that the main reason why the Tories ran behind us on education during the election was those proposals. He knows that all the public opinion polls show that there is no majority support for opt-out proposals.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman referred to public support, and he was right. The opinion poll published in The Daily Telegraph on 7 October showed that no fewer than 66 per cent, of parents opposed the opt-out proposals.
  Mr. Radice: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for getting the figures precisely right. I am also grateful for his help during the general election, when we pinned down the Secretary of State on the opt-out proposals and showed that he made them up as he went along.
  Despite the Secretary of State's fine words, and in contrast to the 1944 Act, the Government are not proceeding on the basis of consensus, particularly on the opt-out proposals. The Government do not believe in real consultation, or they would have taken the consultation process and what people said to them seriously. They have not done that, and they have not been concerned to take people with them. They are trying to get this controversial piece of legislation through in the first session of Parliament as quickly as they can. That is their legislative strategy.
  The political strategy behind the opt-out proposals was mapped out clearly in an interview with the Prime Minister in The Independent on 14 September. She clearly hopes that the opt-out proposals will appeal to voters in the same way as the sale of council houses did in her first and second terms. To put it in her language, she wants to create a society in which
  "those who want to get out of the socialist queue approach should be able to do it".
  Clearly the Prime Minister has never liked the idea that everyone should have a fair turn, because she is so used to barging her way through to the front.
  She believes that most schools will opt out:
  "It is meant to be as big a revolution as the one million transfer from the public sector into owner-occupation".
  But if most schools—or a large minority of them—opt out, there will be a two-tier state school system, with the opt-out schools as the elite establishments and the remaining schools as the inferior, sink schools. Inevitably, there will also be a return to selection, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup pointed out.
  To give her her due, the Prime Minister accepts that. She positively revels in the idea of a return to selection. To her, the golden days were those of grammar schools and the 11 -plus. She always forgets about the other schools — the secondary moderns—to which those who failed the 11 -plus went. She forgets the heartache, the division and the sheer waste of talent which report after report to this Parliament revealed. She forgets that what this nation needs is not only an education system that prepares the elite but one that provides a good education for the whole nation. That is what we should be aiming for.
  What does the Secretary of State think? Of course, he is influenced by the Prime Minister and the Conservative Right. I do not blame him: he is an ambitious politician. I want to give the Secretary of State the benefit of the doubt, and at least give him credit for political acumen. He is far more aware of the dangers of a mass exodus from the local authority system than is his leader. That is why there were those differences of opinion during the general election.
  I remember that a radio programme that I shared with him was delayed for half an hour while the Secretary of State communicated with the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who relayed to him what the
  798
  Prime Minister had said during her press conference. The Secretary of State grew paler and paler as he spoke to the right hon. Member for Chingford on the telephone. It was very embarrassing for the Secretary of State, and I felt extremely sorry for him.
  The right hon. Gentleman continues to play down the opt-out proposals. It is significant, for example, that the opt-out proposals barely got a mention in the Tory party political broadcast last week. We heard about the national curriculum and about testing, but not about opt-out. The Secretary of State presents it as a safety valve, a check on the performance of local education authorities and a legitimate extension of choice. If that were all there was to it, perhaps we could dismiss the proposals as irrelevant. My fear is that they are likely to be used in a way that will be highly destructive to the education system and harmful to our main goal—raising educational standards for all.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): Does the hon. Gentleman know whether the proportion of places in universities that is given to blue-collar workers' children today as compared with 1926 is more, less or about the same?
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman said that there had been a rise in standards over the past decade. Has he done his research to establish how largely the independent schools have contributed to that rise in standards in terms of examination results?
  Mr. Radice: I am talking about exam results from state schools, and it is clear that the proportion of children achieving examination success at all levels has increased. The Secretary of State's predecessor used to admit that freely to me, so I am surprised that the Minister has raised the point.
  As to universities, I should have thought that the Minister, who went to a polytechnic himself, would have remembered that the polytechnics have been invented. Taking polytechnics and universities together, a higher proportion of working class children go into higher education now than at the date to which he referred.
  I return to the opt-out proposals. I want to consider the schools that are likely to be prime candidates for opt-out. First, there are the schools that are told by local education authorities that they will have to close because of falling rolls. The Audit Commission has already warned the Secretary of State that the proposals for open enrolment, combined with the opt-out proposals, will seriously slow down the process of school rationalisation and add to costs. We have heard nothing about that from the Secretary of State, so it is likely that less popular — perhaps even less good—schools will be able to survive through opt-out.
  Then there are the grammar schools. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn pointed out, everyone knows that the Prime Minister, when Secretary of State for Education and Science, was the champion closer of grammar schools—and for good reason. Some were too small, or were no longer providing an effective or broad enough education. When the right hon. Lady was Secretary of State, most education authorities were Conservative-controlled, and when they applied to close grammar schools, she agreed and gave them the go-ahead. Under opt-out, the grammar schools will have an escape route.

  799
  Then, there are the secondary schools that are confronted with the tertiary scheme. The Secretary of State has made it clear that, at a time of falling rolls, a tertiary system is the best means of maintaining the curriculum and raising standards. I agree. Now, however, a school that is faced with the closure of its sixth form will immediately agitate for opt-out. So the opt-out proposals are likely to mean delay, muddle, uncertainty and extra cost. They will certainly not widen choice in any meaningful sense, or assist in the introduction of a national curriculum, or help to raise standards across the board.
  A less controversial Bill without the opt-out proposals, one that concentrated, as it should, on raising standards, could well have performed the same constructive role and function in the 1990s as the Butler Bill performed for the future over 40 years ago. The result of this Bill is likely to be very different. We are likely to get parents divided against parents, parents divided against teachers and parents and teachers divided against governing bodies. Most important, children will once again be divided into sheep and goats. A great opportunity to raise standards across the board, with the wholehearted co-operation of parents, teachers and local education authorities, will have been thrown away. Under this Government, Britain will once again have missed the education boat.
  5.40 pm
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this popular debate to make my maiden speech on one of the most significant education Bills that we have seen this century. In my opinion and in the opinion of many parents, it is long overdue. I come to the House as a proud ambassador for the west midlands in general and for Wolverhampton, North-East in particular. I am the first Conservative Member in 40 years to represent the interests of Wolverhampton, North-East and I feel highly honoured. I pay tribute to my constituents for the faith that they have put in me.
  I cannot claim to be the first female Member for the constituency. My predecessor, Mrs. Renee Short, dedicated herself to the interests of the constituency since 1964. It is a reflection of the high regard in which I know she is held in the House that Members of all parties speak of her with warmth and affection and with special reference to her position as Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Services since 1980. She was Chairman of that Committee and of its predecessor Committee for the past 21 years.
  My constituency is ideally located in the heart of England. It is at the centre of the motorway network system and the M54 connects my constituency to the rest of the world. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that our superb location is a powerful magnet that has attracted some of the world's leading industrialists. We have such leading companies in the aerospace industry as Lucas, Dowty and Marston Palmer—to name but a few—and one of the world's leading tyre manufacturers, Goodyear, which offers local employment to 4,000 people.
  It gives me great pleasure to report to the House that the scars of the recession in the traditional black country industrial heartland of the United Kingdom are fading. We are on to a winning combination, with unemployment
  800
  coming down and the Wolves football team going up. Eight years ago we had empty order books and redundancies, but now both small and large companies report a healthy optimism based on full order books and the creation of new jobs. The problem to which we now have to address ourselves is of skill shortages to fill the vacancies.
  I cannot think of a more appropriate location than Wolverhampton for one of the first of a pilot network of 20 city technology colleges that are proposed in the Bill. I am delighted that Wolverhampton has been selected for one of those colleges. That college will attract 11 to 18-year-old boys and girls of all abilities and will foster in them a pro-industrial culture specialising in science and technology. It will equip them with the very skills that will take us into the 21st century. The college will bring education and industry much closer; for too long they have worked in isolation.
  We have a duty to match our pupils to the jobs that are available and to recognise where the demand is greatest. We must encourage more pupils to stay on at school after the age of 16 and, above all, we have a duty to reduce the possibility of unemployment for all our school leavers. The future prosperity of my region depends on our ability to compete with the rest of the world. The ultimate success of people in the workplace depends on the foundations that are laid for them in our schools in the most formative 11 years between the ages of five and 16. Casualties of our system are too easily identified among the ranks of the long-term unemployed for whom we are now offering numeracy and literacy courses in our community programme that will help them into work.
  It is precisely because we have so many horrific instances of foundations not being laid and that fact not being spotted until children are 16, by which time it is too late, that I welcome the Government's guts and determination to get to the grass roots of our education system and to provide a much needed framework. In the Bill we are addressing ourselves to the realistic problems that have been worrying parents for years. How can we stand back and justify the continuation of a system in which only one in eight of our fifth formers are currently studying the core subjects of science, English, mathematics and technology?
  I do not support the Bill's proposals—good as they are — out of some innocent loyalty to my party. I support them because I cannot think of another time in my life when a Bill more clearly reflected the direction in which I want to see our schools progress. In my lifetime I want to see a school system that is tailormade, not for the top 27 per cent, who will leave with five O-levels-plus, but for the needs of 100 per cent, of our pupils. Under that system, private education should never need to be a choice.
  I want an education for all our children whatever their colour or creed, wherever they live, whatever their ability and no matter what the location of the school. I would not want it on my conscience as I was about to retire in the year 2016 to read, as I did last week, that a Government adult literacy and basic skills unit survey of all the children born in one week during 1958 and who are now aged 29, showed that not only could 300,000 of them not read or write, but that one quarter of the 6 million surveyed had problems with reading, writing, spelling and simple arithmetic and that that had never been identified in the

  801
  11 years between the ages of five and 16. The survey also showed that they had received no specialist help. That is a disgrace.
  We have to give parents the guarantee that, when their children leave school, irrespective of the number of passes they may or may not have, each child has fulfilled his or her full academic potential and has developed the necessary social graces and moral values to enable the children to integrate well into the community in which they will live as adults.
  I have no doubt that my aspirations for our education system may well have been influenced by my private sector experience of management with a leading high street retail company. That company is so easily identified by its success that it does not need me to advertise it in the House. It can boast of stores located throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. As any of its customers know, whatever the location of the store— whether north or south, inner city or market town — when the customer goes in he is guaranteed a choice of quality goods served by well-trained staff in a disciplined environment under the supervision of strong management. Why should not parents, who in great part pay for state education, be guaranteed the same in our schools, irrespective of location? They should have the choice of quality education, provided by well-trained teachers in a happy, disciplined environment, under the strong supervision of a capable head.
  It would be wrong for us as a Government not to recognise, as I do, that much of the ultimate success of our proposals when they are implemented will depend on the strength of leadership in our schools. We must pay more attention in future to assessing would-be head teachers for their management potential, and training them in the relevant management skills. To assume that a first-class teacher has the makings of a good head is like assuming that a first-rate surgeon would make a good hospital administrator.
  Our success depends on restoring professionalism to teaching to attract and retain high calibre teachers, initially selected and trained to high standards, and subsequently retrained and assessed throughout their teaching career, to ensure that they are constantly adapting to the ever-changing demands of the modern world in which we live. For the sake of our children, we cannot tolerate circumstances in which teachers are seen to have a job for life, irrespective of their suitability for teaching jobs. That is not fair on the good teachers who have to prop up their less capable colleagues. A recent HMI survey showed that one third of teachers assessed were not considered adequate, and we must address ourselves to the problem.
  I speak with strength of feeling on the need for reform, not out of some uninformed whim but as one who had many opportunities for close observation years ago, as a secondary teacher in the inner cities and the country; in management, as an assistant education officer; as a school governor in junior and secondary schools; as a councillor; but, most of all, as a mother. For too long, parents and schools have been working in isolation when there should be a continuing partnership throughout a child's school life. That may well account for so many parents' lack of responsibility for their children's actions.
  Too often, parents have been denied a choice of school. They have not known what their children are learning, and are unable to assess how well they are doing. How often
  802
  have hon. Members in the Chamber today been asked, "How is your child doing at school?", and been unable to give an honest and informed answer? A few minutes reassurance on occasional open evenings is a poor substitute for assessment tests, which we are now proposing for children at the ages of seven, 11 and 14, to determine their strengths and weaknesses.
  To recognise the successes in our school system but to ignore the failings, and to take no action for fear of change, would be to abdicate our responsibility as a Government. By addressing ourselves to the task of raising standards and increasing parental choice, I hope that we can bring about a knock-on effect on the social problems so prevalent in our education system. How can we genuinely defend the present position, in which truancy is increasing, discipline is worsening and violent attacks on teachers are commonplace?
  Too often, problems of boredom and apathy among teenage pupils reflect a low expectation of their achievement, and an inability to cope with the basic skills in their earlier education. If it is radical to want to reduce the incidence of such problems—as I do—to want to offer all our children the opportunity of a better education, and to want to set our head teachers, governors and parents free from the constraints of local authority bureaucracy if they so wish, I make no apologies for being radical. Only short-sighted minority vested-interest groups would want to stand in the way of what I interpret as the true meaning of the word "progress". If to look for higher expectations among all our pupils labels me one of the new authoritarians, I must tell the House that many parents out there share my sentiments and demand change.
  I was trained as a teacher in the so-called "progressive" sixties, and I remember them only too well. However, I have never succumbed to the "progressive" doctrine in which authority is frowned on, competition is a dirty word and even "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" — my son's favourite book—is considered racist. Opposition Members might have us believe that they have a monopoly interest in state education. However, I believe that it is precisely because I received the best state education going in a secondary school that I had the motivation to earn myself a place in this House today. That reinforces my determination that our children should be given the same opportunity.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The House will have listened to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) with interest. I congratulate her on her maiden speech. As she rightly said, she has been a teacher and has also been on a board of governors, and it would be wrong for me to say that I feel only depression that she has concluded that schools can be run in the same way, and are the same in all other respects, as Marks and Spencer. I hope that she will be disabused of that notion. Nevertheless, her speech was well delivered and concisely expressed. I am sure that it will be read widely in her constituency, and will be of some interest to the House as well.
  Choice, improved standards and the removal of politics from education are the three aims of the Bill as stated by the Secretary of State, and they are aims with which we entirely agree. Governments, however—particularly the present Government — should not be judged by their rhetoric. The question before us now is whether the Bill

  803
  will achieve those aims. The resounding answer, as expressed by the thousands of responses to the consultation paper, is no. While there is no doubt that the Bill will provide choice for some, for many it will provide only a new form of entrapment.
  What choice will there be for the poorer family who have no transport and must send their children to the local sink school, whence all the middle-class have fled to the so-called better school over the hill? What choice will there be for pupils whose individual ability cannot be met, because the studies that they wish to follow are not included in the Secretary of State's imposed state curriculum? What choice will there be for local communities who wish to establish a tertiary college but are unable to do so because the opting-out proposals prevent any sensible rearrangement of education in their area? What choice will there be for the handicapped child whose special educational needs merit only four miserable lines in this monstrous Bill, when local education authorities will be prevented by the opting-out proposals from integrating those special needs into education? The claim that the Bill will provide more choice for all is fraudulent and bogus.
  The Government's second claim is that the Bill will raise standards. Some of its proposals many assist in that direction. However, standards in our schools can never be properly raised unless we are prepared to put more of our national resources into education. One in three of our schools is in need of substantial repair, one in four of the roofs leak, one in five schools has outside lavatories and far too many are vastly overcrowded—all matters which Her Majesty's inspectorate has said were having a damaging impact on education.
  Purely institutional changes and changes to the mechanisms by which we run our schools will not achieve raised standards unless we can find the political will to put more resources into education. The Government have absolutely no intention of doing that. They will keep the percentage of our national resource that is invested in education as low as it has always been since they came to power.
  Mr. Baldry rose—
  Mr. Ashdown: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I must make it clear that for reasons of time it will have to be the last time I give way.
  Mr. Baldry: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman read the 1986 annual report of the inspectors. It said that better teaching, better training and better management of resources were needed to raise standards rather than more resources. Simply to treat every problem as if it requires more resources is facile, is it not?
  Mr. Ashdown: I did not say that all the problem required was more resources. I accept the need for institutional change, as the hon. Gentleman will understand if he listens a little longer. However, that alone cannot change standards. If I may direct the hon. Gentleman back to the 1986 report, he will see a catalogue of the extent to which a lack of decent buildings and equipment has inhibited the proper delivery of education. That point is powerfully expressed in the report. Perhaps he would like to read it again.
  804
  On the matter of resources, things will get worse as a result of the Bill. The proposals will require extra costs and a huge new layer of bureaucracy to administer them. Conservative Members need not take my word for that. The Audit Commission, in its response to the Government's proposals, said that the proposals would result in
  "a reduction in efficiency … duplication of effort"
  and a situation where
  "if education standards are not to suffer … the Government will need to devote greater resources to education … to achieve acceptable standards."
  We know that the Government will not devote more resources or more money to education, so where will those extra resources come from? There is only one source. They will come from the fixed education budget that we already have. The price of imposing the Tory party's narrow ideology on every school and every pupil in Britain will be further decay of our school buildings, further deficiencies in school equipment and a further decline in the provision of school books.
  Another Government claim is that the proposals will somehow remove party political interference, such as we have seen in Brent, from the running of our schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. Education has occasionally suffered from interference from extreme Left-wing town halls, but it will in future be subject to detailed day-to-day control from Whitehall. Indeed, far from removing politics from education, the proposals will ensure that the incubus of party politics is planted at the heart of every school, in the governing bodies themselves.
  For proof of that, we need look no further than the words of the Prime Minister. It was she, followed by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who told Tory activists at the Tory conference that their first job was to go out and work as hard as they could to ensure that "their people" were in control of governing bodies. Since then a document has been issued by Conservative Central Office entitled "Local Government Campaigning". It details the militant style tactics that should be followed by Conservatives in order to infiltrate majorities on to governing bodies.
  The document says:
  "Recent legislation has made the job of finding Conservative school governors more important than ever… you should encourage Conservative parents to apply to be school governors … and encourage Conservatives to attend meetings to ensure that 'our candidates' are appointed".
  What can that mean except that the Government wish to use this legislation to impose their ideology on the education system from the top, while insinuating it from the bottom by infiltrating Conservative majorities on to the governing bodies of every school? The inevitable consequence—
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ashdown: I made it clear that I would give way once and I have done so. For reasons of time, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
  The inevitable consequence will be that many of our schools and many of our school governing bodies will become just another cockpit for the sort of confrontational politics that have blighted everywhere else in the nation. That is what the Government see as taking political

  805
  interference out of our educational system! The truth is that the Bill will achieve none of the aims that the Government's propaganda claims for it.
  Of course, the public aims of the Bill are not the whole story. There are hidden, malign threads running through the Bill. There is a concealed agenda containing the real intentions behind the Secretary of State's bland prose and careful propaganda.
  The first of those threads is the further prosecution of his personal vendetta against local government. We should not forget that the man who brings forward this legislation is also the author of the poll tax. This was the hand which, in order to satisfy the Prime Minister's vengeance, abolished whole tiers of local government only a few years ago. This Bill comes from the same stable, is aimed at the same target and is designed for the same purpose. It is designed to destroy local government by sucking out its power and drawing all that power into the centre.
  The Bill represents a massive concentration of control in the hands of the Secretary of State. He will have 170 new powers by which to dictate, impose or force his will on every school, every governing body and, if necessary, on every pupil in Britain. We are totally opposed to such powers being in the hands of any Government, let alone a Right-wing Government such as this one.
  As Conservative Members file into the Lobby to vote these powers into the hands of the Secretary of State, they should have a care. The powers may not always be in the hands of their party. What would happen if we were to swop a blue Ken for a red Ken? What if the powers they will vote to the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) should end up in the hands of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)? Would they feel as happy and smug about it then?
  As long ago as the 1924–29 Tory Government, a Tory Minister, Lord Percy, said that he would not encourage control of the curriculum because nothing could be worse
  "than to encourage a conception that teachers are servants of Government in the same way that civil servants are, and therefore must teach in their schools precisely what any future Labour Government may tell them to teach".
  Those are wise words. They are words that Conservative Members would be wise to heed. We believe that the centralised control of education vested in this Bill will not just be bad for education but will be dangerous for democracy as well.
  Another secret item on the Government's agenda is the unscrupulous, undercover and unacceptable reintroduction of selective education. Of course, the Secretary of State does not admit as much, but his junior Ministers and the Prime Minister herself have been somewhat more frank and blunt. The effect of the opting-out proposals, the fact that they are irreversible and the ease with which a school's character can be changed will inevitably and inexorably take us back to the bad old days of selection. They will take us back to the days of a divided education system and the discarding of children at the age of 11. In fact, under this Bill children will be discarded not only at 11 but at seven, 14 and 16 as well.
  The next secret intension behind the Bill is that it will produce an education system that is wooden, inflexible and totally without vision. It will produce an education system which is narrow and infused with the ideology of the Government of the day when Britain needs a system that is flexible, broadly based and constantly developing to meet the future. The proposed education system will
  806
  level pupils down to the tests, whereas we should be raising them up to the limit of their abilities. It will produce an education system that will run the risk of turning schools, once again, into narrow factories churning out raw material for industry, when they should be institutions to enhance individuals for the whole of society.
  I shall deal with the key proposals presented in the Bill. My party has always been in favour of a core curriculum. Indeed, it was my colleague, Shirley Williams, then the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who first mentioned the core curriculum as something we should follow. However, we seek a core curriculum built on the consensus and partnership of those involved in education. Instead, the Bill gives us a state curriculum in which teachers are seen not as partners but as servants to do the will of the Government of the day. We seek a curriculum flexible enough to meet local needs and accommodate innovation. The Bill gives us an inflexible curriculum in the hands of the Secretary of State and capable of being changed only through the processes of Parliament.
  It is worth adding that the faith of the Secretary of State in his own convictions does not even extend to his sending his own children to the state schools on which he is to impose the curriculum. If the curriculum is good enough to impose on other people's children, why is it not good enough to impose on the independent sector, too? That is the question that he must answer.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: Where did Shirley Williams go?
  Mr. Ashdown: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
  The Secretary of State seeks to impose his proposals on everyone else's children but not on the schools to which his own children go. Why should independent schools fall outside the scope of the proposals?
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ashdown: I have already given way twice.
  Mr. Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. About 60 right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. Interventions take time.
  Mr. Ashdown: What we object to most about the proposals is that they give enormous power to the Secretary of State. He will have the power to decide individual programmes of study, to impose methods of assessment and to dictate the subjects that are to be taught. Given this Government's record, I would rather appoint King Herod to look after the Save The Children Fund than give the Government extra powers to control education.
  The Government's proposals governing the admission of pupils are more unworkable than dangerous. They take no account of the new purposes to which buildings have been put — the establishment of computer rooms and laboratories—or to the space that will have to be found to institute them. The admission proposals will be seen as irrelevant. Moreover, they must result in larger and larger secondary schools, although the Government and everyone else say that we should move towards smaller and smaller schools. Above all, we shall want to know how the Government will ensure that the less well-off with no access to transport can take advantage of the open

  807
  enrolment proposals — or are they to be left out as usual, even if there is no other choice but the local state schools?
  Frankly, the Government intend nothing less than the full-scale nationalisation of higher education. That is strange, coming as it does from a party that constantly tells us that it wants to get Government off our backs. Furthermore, the proposals on higher education contain ludicrous contradictions. With one hand, the Government give a welcome new autonomy to polytechnics while with the other they impose a bureaucratic straitjacket of funding so tight that it allows no freedom of manoeuvre whatever. There can be only one reason for that—their desire to control the numbers in further and higher education which can only damage Britain's future. We need more rather than fewer pupils going into further and higher education.
  On the Inner London education authority proposals, it is the Government's brazen cheek that amazes me. They have changed their mind about what to do with ILEA no fewer than three times in the past five years. Four years ago, the Secretary of State decided that proposals such as those now before the House would be damaging and would bring into being a rump of poorer deprived boroughs. He tried to explain why he had changed his mind. If he is free to change his mind, why will he not allow ILEA boroughs freedom ever to do the same? Why has he told them that, once they have made their choice, they can never go back? The Secretary of State tells us that he is doing all this for the parents, so why will he not allow boroughs to vote to return to ILEA if they wish to do so? The answer is that he wants to impose his will. He is not really interested in the views of parents or others.
  I find one aspect of the ILEA proposals most revealing. The Secretary of State has always had the power to tackle the problems of London education should he wish to do so, but he has never chosen to use those powers. There can be only one reason for that: his first concern has never been for the education of London or for the future of the pupils who suffer in its schools. He has sacrificed those priorities so that he can make his political point and introduce these dangerous and unworkable proposals.
  The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made some powerful points about grant-maintained schools. The proposals governing such schools are the most pernicious and damaging in the Bill. Perhaps most important of all is the fact that the proposals in their present form will simply prevent any local education authority from planning for the future, because any school that it wishes to bring within its planning proposals can simply opt out at any time. As a consequence, local education authorities will be unable to manage overall education resources for the benefit of their area. They will be unable to rationalise resources to provide greater efficiency. They will be blocked from creating more tertiary colleges and inhibited from integrating special needs. The proposals are deeply damaging.
  We accept that education needs reform, not because we swallow the Government's black propaganda about the failures of the present system but because change is essential to meet the needs of our children and of the generations yet to come. An education Bill could achieve so much, but this Bill achieves none of it. We could make a commitment to put more resources into education.
  808
  Instead, the Government will continue to underfund our schools while loading more burdens on to them. We could create new mechanisms to provide individual choice in schools so that students can pursue their particular abilities. Instead, the Government force parents to make one-off choices between schools, all too frequently at the expense of those left behind. We could be treating parents as partners in the education of their children. Instead, the Government seek to use parents as a power base for their politics.
  We shall vote against the Bill for two reasons: first, it wastes a precious opportunity to reform our education system; and, secondly, it will destroy opportunities for many of the nation's children.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to hon. Members to make brief contributions? I have no authority to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches, but if right hon. and hon. Members limited themselves to 10 minutes, many more of them could be called.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: In view of the injunction to keep speeches short, I shall not follow the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) through his speech, which was, if I may say so, a brilliant collection of 1960s buzz words and phrases. It illustrated why there is a deep doctrinal split between the two halves of what was once the alliance. When the hon. Gentleman said that there were two reasons why he would vote against the Bill I thought that one of them was the Liberal reason and the other was the SDP reason.
  I welcome the Bill and support it in virtually every respect. No doubt some amendments will be made during the Bill's passage through Parliament. Unless the drafting of Bills has improved greatly since I left the Government, I expect that there will be many Government amendments. I have no doubt that this will not be the last Education Reform Bill of the decade. It is almost inevitable that another Bill will be required to take the reforms forward.
  I do not wish to pick a quarrel with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), but he should not worry too much about criticisms relating to autocracy or shortness of time on the Bill. It is within all our recollections that the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill 1972 — that is, the control of prices and wages by central diktat of Government— was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and was given a Second Reading on 8 November 1972.
  The debate finished at 10 o'clock that night. It was then guillotined. The Bill had three days in Committee, and was read the Third time on 20 November. That is fairly brisk progress for a Bill that not only was not in the party's manifesto but was specifically excluded from it by a pledge in that manifesto. I should not worry too much about any comments about one nation from the man who was the Prime Minister when this country was plunged into the three-day week and when the party and the country were almost irrevocably split.
  I refer now to the other Opposition. I agree with my right hon. Friend; it is not a terribly effective Opposition. Their problem is that, having no policies of their own, they have simply got to oppose for the sake of opposition. That

  809
  springs essentially from an extremely unhealthy master and servant relationship between the producer trade unions and their agents, the Labour party. We shall hear nothing from the official Opposition about the interest of the consumer and everything about the interest of the producer.
  I have one hope about the Bill's progress through the House. In an attempt to show value for money, the official Opposition will insist on having about 80 hours' debate on clauses 1 to 3 or thereabouts in Committee, and then force a guillotine.
  Mr. Straw: That is not true.
  Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not true. I hope that it is not true. I hope that he will seek to get a deal with the Government tonight on the time that will be spent in Committee, so that there can be proper discussion throughout the proceedings. If he wants a guillotine to show his paymasters that he has a bloody neck, I am sure that we can give him a guillotine by arrangement.
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
  Mr. Tebbit: I am terribly sorry: for the same reasons that other hon. Members have given, I cannot give way.
  My right hon. Friend was fortunate to become Secretary of State when the consensus was beginning to emerge from many years of discussion within Government about such contentious matters as the the future of ILEA. I have never changed sides in that matter. From the beginning, I was in favour of abolition, and I am extremely proud that my colleagues have now come around to that view.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman would abolish education altogether —for us.
  Mr. Tebbit: I notice, Mr. Speaker, that I am under attack from the intellectual wing of the Labour party.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to pay tribute to the influence of our colleague, my noble Friend Lord Joseph, which brought us to these conclusions. Equally, I am sure that my noble Friend Lord Joseph, would want to pay tribute to the political skills of the Secretary of State, who has crystallised many long debates into legislation that has been brought before the House.
  I have made the point that I want to keep my remarks brief. My right hon. Friend made the case for the Bill extremely well. I shall not try to gild each petal of the lily, but there are some points and criticisms—a little advice, perhaps a reservation or two and some encouragement that I shall offer to him. I strongly welcome his proposals for colleges of further education to be more fully opted out and to operate commercially. The experience of many of them as contractors to the managers of YTS schemes brought them into the habit of competing for business and attuned them to the market. That has been an extremely good thing for them and is widely welcomed by principals of the FE colleges that have taken part.
  A mixture of grants, attached firmly to students, and, perhaps, vouchers would do more than anything else to help colleges of further education to supply skilled and motivated people to join the work force of this country and to take our economic development forward so that we can spend more money where necessary to improve our education services even further.
  810
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will also encourage experiments in offering universities, polytechnics, and colleges of technology the chance to tender competitively for work in training students to first degree level in what are now largely taught subjects., such as many engineering subjects. Again, that would introduce the market and some discipline into universities in a way that would be extremely welcome and would open a few more windows into ivory towers and accustom people to the idea that there is another way, other than the traditional way, of measuring success and attainment.
  Like many Opposition Members, I have long thought that a national curriculum would be welcome. It is an excellent concept. However, my right hon. Friend must beware that that concept is not wrecked by the paternalists and bureaucrats in the Department of Education and Science. He has to tread a narrow path between the danger of the national curriculum becoming set in concrete, as some hon. Members have suggested, and becoming just a matter of fudge and therefore totally ineffective. He is right to have a core curriculum — that is fine — but I counsel him not to overdo it.
  Perhaps this Christmas, when my right hon. Friend is at home with his own children and looks at the Christmas tree, I am sure that he will agree that, although he can be responsible for the tree itself and the main parts of its decoration, he does not have precisely to position every little decoration on it. I recommend that he take the same view about the curriculum.
  Enough consumer choice will encourage the professionalism among schoolteachers, and certainly among the best teachers, needed to produce the curricula that will please parents and do well for children. The best teachers will then inspire lesser teachers to follow their example. I counsel my right hon. Friend to avoid the twin dangers of concrete on one side and fudge on the other.
  I counsel him also to be absolutely firm on testing. He must stand firm on pupils' attainment levels. Of course., resistance to testing comes not from pupils and parents but from teachers. It is a fear of quality control. A mark of producer-driven industry is resistance to quality control. Of course that is against consumers' interests. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was wrong. He talked about these being tests of kids. No, they are not, as was implied by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) whose maiden speech I greatly enjoyed. Of course parents say, "I want to know how my child is doing at school." But the tests; will establish something else. They will tell how my child's; teachers are doing. That is why they are being resisted, and being particularly resisted by the agents of producer industries.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will not unduly rely on the role of school governors.
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  Mr. Tebbitt: I am sorry, but I really must not give way.
  It is a Socialist concept that consumers must manage production to get a fair deal. If I may take the liberty of paraphrasing him, that is essentially what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said.
  Mr. Heath: Not in that case.
  Mr. Tebbitt: In that case, I have a difference with my right hon. Friend again. I try to find common ground

  811
  where I can. The concept of customers having to manage in order to get a decent deal was the concept which prevented the co-operative movement from ever being able to compete with Sainsburys or Tescos in the high street. It is essentially a Socialist concept which gave us consumer councils to try to control nationalised industries in the interests of consumers, and that failed too.
  Mr. Ashdown: So we got a privatised British Telecom —and that was better?
  Mr. Tebbit: I will not go into that, because I have a particular interest and the House does not welcome those with an interest making the case, but I would be glad to take the hon. Gentleman outside and give him a lecture about it. Rational, normal people do not want to manage their local supermarket or local branch of Marks and Spencer to get decent service. Boards of governors will always risk being filled with non-representative activists or ineffective people who do very little.
  I thought the hon. Member for Yeovil had a pretty good cheek in quoting from a Conservative publication. He must have read the sort of stuff that comes from the Association of Liberal Councillors, its accounts of dirty tricks which have to be played and the way in which politics should be taken everywhere. He is probably familiar with its account of dirty tricks being played against his partners at the moment. My right hon. Friend should not rely just on the governors to opt schools out, but should himself consider taking positive powers to opt schools out to ensure that consumer choice is widely spread more quickly.
  The Bill is a great reform Bill, in line with others of the past eight years. That is why the opposition comes from the same entrenched interests, some even from the Government as well as from the Opposition. The unions and their bag carriers in the Labour party claim that parents do not want choice, that they are not capable of exercising choice and that they like what they get today. Let us wait and see, because that is the story they gave us when we proposed selling council houses. They said that council tenants did not want to be home owners, they were not sufficiently responsible, if they became home owners they would neglect their homes, and, in any case, it would make all the others worse. That is exactly the same argument they gave us against reform of the trade unions, when they said that trade unionists did not want to ballot to elect their leaders or to decide whether or not to go on strike and anyway, if they were allowed ballots they would only elect extremists and would be on strike all the time.
  In other words, they said, "Don't trust the people." That has been a familiar strain for a long time, as far back as when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup ended resale price maintenance. The reactionaries, paternalists and producer interests said that shoppers were incapable of recognising value for money and that they liked fixed prices, not competition.
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: They were on the Government side.
  Mr. Tebbit: Indeed, many were on the Government side, but that was the Conservative party that was, not the Conservative party that is. I pay great tribute to my right hon. Friend for his role in starting the era of change in the
  812
  Tory party from the defender of the producer to the defender of the consumer. The same reactionaries today oppose income tax cuts. They say that wage earners are unfit to decide their own priorities and need a nanny state to tell them not only where they can live, who their trade union leaders are and which school their children must go to, but how they should spend their wage packet.
  The Bill extends choice and responsibility. Of course some will choose badly or irresponsibly, but that cannot and must not be used as an excuse to deny choice and responsibility to the great majority. Today only the wealthy have choice in education, and that must change. We accept that people have the common sense and maturity to form political parties and select party candidates—with one or two exceptions in the Labour party, where it is now denied to them—to vote for the local authorities which will become the LEAs and to vote for Members of Parliament.
  The opposition to the Bill arises from the mistrust of people's ability to manage their affairs and make choices. Perhaps the Labour party has reason to believe that it should doubt the wisdom of the people after the treatment it has had in the past 10 years, but that does not apply to Government Members. We trust the people and believe that they are the best defenders of their own interests. That is why I support the Bill.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: It is as if the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is the true begetter of the Bill. He referred to the doctrinal spirit on the alliance Benches, but earlier he observed the so-evident split between the Treasury Bench and the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He went for the jugular of his former Prime Minister, in typical splitting image manner, being extremely rude to him, and then was at his chintzy best with his Christmas tree image. I shall treasure the look of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) at the side of the right hon. Member for Chingford as he made his speech.
  I declare my sponsorship by the National Union of Teachers. The Secretary of State for Education and Science delivered a low-key, silken speech, but he took a very heavy mauling from the former Prime Minister. When last did a former Prime Minister describe a major Bill of his own party on Second Reading as a confidence trick? Has that ever taken place?
  Mr. Stott: His former PPS.
  Mr. Jones: The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has the steel, and he brought the House alive today.
  When the Government have finished their political business, the education service, like other public services, will be hanging like a gutted rabbit outside the poulterer's shop. It is repugnant to hear the Cabinet's Second Reading proposals, while en masse Cabinet Members are sending their sons and daughters to elitist public schools.
  The Bill is a reform opportunity for the better-off, not for the under-privileged. It is an opportunity for the highly motivated middle-class parents of Sussex, Kent or Hampshire and for the cathedral towns and university enclaves, perhaps summed up by saying that the Bill is for sleek, middle England. The Bill cannot hope to end the divisions between north and south. It heavily underlines the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

  813
  It is worth looking at the Bill in the context of mass unemployment, the sale of the nation's assets, the export of capital and the rundown of our welfare state—all the worries of our communities. Will the Bill help beleaguered black communities in rotting city centres or the jobless in the steel closure townships of Wales and north Britain? It will not help the stricken shipbuilding areas of the north-east, where unemployment is at its worst. It will not help to cope with the dereliction of the old cotton empire in the north-west of England.
  Regrettably, the unimaginable and God given has happened—since 1979, the God-given reserves of North sea oil have not been used by the Conservative Administration to construct a confident state school system. We must remember that the Government have held office since 1979 and had the benefit of the revenue from North sea oil. Since 1979, the Conservative Administration have failed our youngsters.
  We must consider the reality. Many parents are at their wits' end about the prospects for the education of their children. They are desperate for investment; they want repairs and extensions to their schools; they want classrooms, halls and corridors decorated; they want equipment repaired and replaced and they want better and new textbooks. Anyone who believes that that is an exaggeration need only read the reports of Her Majesty's inspectorate for England and Wales. It is a worrying catalogue, even though it is couched in diplomatic language. It is a condemnation of the stewardship of the Conservative Administration.
  I met a group of youngsters at a high school in Queensferry in my constituency about a fortnight ago. I realised that, although I represent a constituency with high unemployment, I had underestimated its impact on the lives of those youngsters. Even at the tender age of 15, they were worried about the difficulties of obtaining proper paid jobs. There was somebody in each of their families who was jobless, and it was encroaching on their young lives at school.
  Teachers are demoralised; the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup effectively demonstrated that. They are angry and worried about job security. They feel that they have been misrepresented by Ministers, and have become vulnerable as changes advance. What I find worrying, as a former class teacher and a former Education Minister, is the growing divide between the head teacher and his staff, between the head's study and the common room, as the Government have successively imposed their will on the teaching profession. That is not good for our children, and the Bill exacerbates this worrying problem.
  The Government are stupid in not realising that, if teachers are not happy, they cannot give of their best for our youngsters. The Government have declared war on the teaching profession and they will pay bitterly for that.
  Administrators consider the Bill to be an immense advance in the Secretary of State's powers. In future years, their capacity to help and advise schools in working-class areas will diminish to the point of futility.
  I must tell the Secretary of State that the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Wales, and I suspect in England, is worried about some aspects of the Bill. I ask him and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales to meet the Archbishop of Wales and his bishops from the Roman Catholic church to discuss their fears.
  814
  The Secretary of State quoted Disraeli and referred to Balfour and R. A. Butler. The advance to full citizenship of ordinary people in Britain has been by post-war reforms and by free and universal education provision. Mr. Gladstone said that we had better educate our masses, Mr. Butler codified the requirements — age, ability and aptitude—and Mr. Attlee delivered the new service.
  I think that the Bill will be unworkable. The current position is unsatisfactory and the Bill will make it worse. The Secretary of State made the best of a bad Bill by his clever presentation. However, I accuse him of placing his ambition to succeed the Prime Minister before his duty to the nation's school service. I further accuse him of setting parents against teachers. He is starving the service of adequate funds, sufficient teachers and sufficient equipment. What we need to prepare our school service for the difficulties of the next century is a healer at the helm, not a divider.
  We want a ministerial statesman, not a partisan. By the Bill, the Government are throwing away the chance of educational advance based on a national unity of purpose. Our 21st century future will be weakened by the grave defects of the Bill. This is an unjust Bill; the Secretary of State should be ashamed of presenting it, and it must be stopped.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Alan Amos: It is an honour and a privilege to be a member of the greatest Parliament in the world, and in particular to represent the Hexham constituency. It is a daunting task to follow in the footsteps of Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, who achieved preeminence in each of his three chosen professions — in politics as a senior Cabinet Minister, in the law as a Queen's counsel and in business as a company chairman. That is the mark of a man of rare talent. I hope that I can achieve equal success in my one chosen profession of politics.
  The Hexham constituency must be the most stunningly beautiful seat in the country, containing the most hospitable and generous of people. It is 1,000 square miles that is rich in history and diverse in its activities, including farming, forestry and factories.
  The north traditionally breeds tough Members of Parliament who have stamina — with the distances involved, that is necessarily so. Although my constituents are warm and welcoming people, they will not be pushed around and will defend their interests. At this very moment my village of Gilsland is fighting off an annexation attempt by Cumbria. Next year, we shall successfully celebrate the 600th anniversary of the battle of Otterburn.
  Our engineering skills built the eighth wonder of the world — Hadrian's wall. Admittedly, some of the workers may have been unwilling in their task, but my constituents are canny and shrewd enough to know a good investment when they see one.
  As for agriculture, I can assure the House that the farmers are friendly, the people are proud, the cattle are content and the sheep are satisfied. With regard to industry, we have the best and the famous, and have firms that are not to be sneezed at: Kimberley Clarke makes Kleenex; Crown Paints are at Haltwhistle; Espagna International is in Hexham; and Killfrost constantly wins Queen's awards for industry.

  815
  If it is leisure that one is looking for in the constituency, there is Hexham abbey, Kielder Water, Northumberland national park, the beauty of Byrness, cultivated Corbridge and the excitement of the Allenheads project. If one wants something a little more mysterious — I am sure that some hon. Members may — there is the Allendale tar barrelling festival, which happens on new year's day. Yet so successful have we been in attracting new enterprises to the area that, from Prudhoe to Ponteland and from Haltwhistle to Haydon Bridge, we need bypasses; I hope the Government will take note. Incidentally, we also need the dualling of the A69 west of Hexham.
  My sincere belief in the spirit of enterprise leads me to urge the House to support the Bill. Providing that there is the safety net of a welfare state to help people in real and genuine need, peace and prosperity can best be achieved through a policy of equality of opportunity in an endeavour to build a meritocracy, a society in which everyone has a real chance to make of their lives what they will, regardless of who or what they are. Let us not seek, therefore, after the illusion of equality of achievement, for that is the one thing which both the United States and the Soviet Union agree is misguided.
  We are all too familiar with the cycle of deprivation or the poverty trap. The best and perhaps only way in which individuals and groups can escape from their disadvantages of birth is through a system of free state education which provides every child with an appropriate and stimulating curriculum, together with a means to ensure that his or her potential is realised. I look forward to the day when the independent sector contracts considerably because parents have so much confidence in state schools that they no longer want or need to send their children to private schools.
  The Bill deserves the support of the House because it is a radical and reforming measure which boldly and imaginatively creates a dynamic framework to take our education system fully into the 21st century by properly identifying and doing something about the nation's needs. We are looking not only at what is taught but at how it is being taught. The Bill will ensure that we have a well educated, adaptable, mobile and tolerant work force and society. Our economy, social customs and lifestyles are undergoing a massive transformation. Therefore, we simply do not have the option as to whether or not our education system should experience similar forces. It must. Rather than just reacting to events, the system should harness and channel this great social and economic revolution.
  I find it predictable and therefore so very depressing that, while so many vested interests pay lip service to the need for change and say that they believe in the national curriculum and in decision-making being taken down to the most local level, we then face criticism when we introduce these very proposals. Yet we are not offered any constructive alternatives. My local education authority and the schools in Northumberland are justly praised for many of their innovations and for undertaking so many exciting initiatives in curriculum development. Our proposals will encourage further positive developments.
  Let us be honest; there is a national problem. As a teacher for eight years in a state school I always found it a tragic waste to see so many youngsters being needlessly and pointlessly dragged through watered down academic
  816
  courses in which they had no interest and for which they had little aptitude or ability. Their innate skills and interests were being wasted. I found that tragic. Therefore, we are right to challenge the status quo.
  Mass comprehensivisation — and I taught in a comprehensive school—has not proved the panacea to bring about higher standards. If it were, we would not be discussing this Bill. Last week's report from the adult literacy and basic skills unit showed that 6 million adults have basic problems with reading, writing, spelling and simple arithmetic, all at a time when society demands an increasingly highly qualified work force.
  The unthinking hostility towards assessment and testing is misguided. Unless children are provided with targets to work towards and then tested to see how far their targets have been achieved, how can we ever know whether pupils and schools are realising their potential? It is not a question of pass or fail but rather of assessing what a child has achieved in relation to what he or she could have achieved. For example, how do we know that the schools with the best examination results have not become complacent?
  When I was chairman of Enfield education committee, where I was on good terms with the chief officers, I was always being told, "Alan, this policy is impossible." My reply unfailingly was, "Right; go ahead and do it." So the impossible was done time and time again. For example, we published our examination results before we were obliged to do so. All the predicted disasters of league tables did not materialise. In fact, the main result was a determination by all schools to improve their performance. The point was that parents had a right to that information. Whether or not they used it was entirely up to them, but they had the right to it.
  In our burgeoning enterprise culture, we are building a land of liberty and opportunity. But the extent of liberty depends on a knowledge of what there is and of what more is possible, and opportunity is only possible if people are encouraged to take advantage of the possibilities of improvement without the hindrances of those social engineers who wish to prevent the dynamism of diversity. That is why the House should back the concept of open enrolment. Why should the choice of parents be artificially curtailed? Who are the people who say that they know best?
  Open enrolment and city technology colleges will give millions of people an escape route from the deprivation of many neighbourhood comprehensives. It is the height of arrogance for some people to assume that working class parents are not as interested in their children's education as are middle class parents. Six years ago when I was advocating for Enfield the very policies now in the Bill, I was told that they were impossible. That fact alone gives me enormous reason to believe that they will be a great success, like all the other impossibilities.
  Let us again challenge the stodgy thinking head on, this time on the right of schools to opt out. If a majority of parents and governors are so dissatisfied with the quality of education in their school, who has the right to stop them seeking a way to improve standards?
  One strength of the Bill is that so much of it rests on the principle of popular choice. It will be up to the people themselves to decide whether their school is to opt out of LEA control and whether schools should expand or contract. Nobody need fear our proposals. Far from it —people should see them as a golden opportunity to be

  817
  grasped which will make the classroom more relevant to the world of work. Therefore, I proclaim that the days of the trendy lefty establishment are numbered, and that the people are taking over at last.
  6.55 pm
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on his maiden speech. The wit, confidence and interesting detail with which he described his constituency and the local customs show that he will add colour and interest to our future debates.
  As someone who has taught for over 30 years, I wish to speak about the real world in schools and in the classrooms. Over a long teaching career I have seen fashions come and fashions go. With each swing of the pendulum zealots tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater, much to the detriment of the children for whom those years may be their sole education.
  At the moment, it seems to be fashionable to attack and throw out the concept of child-centred education. That is a concept for which our primary schools are justly famous. Visitors come from all over the world to see what we are doing and how our child-centred education operates. Child-centred education is linked with continous assessment.
  Years ago, I taught 45 children in a class. We tested them with exams and placed them in each subject and in all subjects overall. That was fine for those who came in the first three, but disastrous for those who came near the bottom. Hon. Members will remember from their own childhood that those who came in the first three were always the same. That kind of testing did great damage. It is much harder for teachers to carry out continous assessment.
  Today's teachers—I thank the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) for his kind remarks about teachers — are competent, devoted, and hardworking. They care about the children they teach and. they know each child thoroughly. Child-centred education with continuous assessment enables each child to reach his or her full potential. The children are happy, and children who are happy learn well, while children who are unhappy with a bad self-image do not.
  All civilised people want children with special needs to be integrated into ordinary schools. Child-centred education enables that to be done, provided the schools are not starved of resources—an important factor.
  The Minister talked about parents' right to know how their children are getting on. Parents of children whose teachers engage in continuous assessment are given a good picture on open day of how their children are getting on. In the old grammar school, the teacher would often sit there with a book full of marks, but was not too sure to which child those marks referred. That testing did not do much good when parents asked to know how their child was getting on but got a bit of waffle instead.
  Conservative Members have a misplaced faith in testing. Testing is not teaching, and time spent in testing and keeping account of it detracts from the available contact time with the children. Therefore, one must be sure that such testing is valid.
  Is the testing objective? Multiple choice tests are fairly objective, but essay-type tests, such as at O and A-level,
  818
  can only be marked subjectively. I do not want to go into the correlation between A-level results and eventual achievement at university, but it is a total failure.
  I want to talk about my experience of teaching children in the days of the 11-plus because experience is a good measure. In those days as a young teacher I used to ask children—perhaps not very imaginatively—to write an essay entitled "Myself when they first came to the school. This was a quick way to find out something about them. The essays were always the same or similar—"I broke my arm; I was in hospital; I had my tonsils out; my nan died; my cat was run over." There was always a series of disasters which ended with "I failed the 11-plus."
  This means that I was faced with a class of depressed children who, at the age of 11, were convinced that they were failures, whose self-image was destroyed, and, what is more, many of whose parents were convinced that their children were failures. And that was even worse because then they had no one but the teacher to try to build up their confidence. Sometimes it took years to restore the self-image of such children and sometimes it could not be done at all. Children whose self-image is bad do not achieve their potential or learn well. The 11-plus was a vicious examination.
  I remember once in a restaurant a well-dressed, well-spoken, pleasant young man coming up to me and saying, "Mrs. Gordon, I used to go to the school where you taught, but you will not remember me because you taught the 'A' stream and I was a 'C'." I never felt so guilty as in that moment when that young man, who had made something of his life and had done well, was back there in the C stream as soon as he saw me. The cruelty of that system and the knowledge that I was part of it determined me to fight against it ever being reintroduced.
  We are now being asked to extend that cruelty to younger and younger children. Public testing at the age of seven means that the teacher must cast a beady eye on five-year-olds to see whether they will pass the 7-plus. No; that is something that we must fight. That only gives choice to the early starters who are a small minority. At least 75 per cent, will be left out of that system and the cruelty that it perpetrates cannot be denied.
  I have always believed that the creation of the small outer London education authorities was a mistake. I worked for the old London county council, which was replaced by ILEA. I worked for Brent and I worked for 12 years for Barnet. Hon. Members may be surprised to know that Brent and Barnet were not very different. Those small authorities could not give the facilities, the opportunities or the help to the teachers and the children that a larger authority, which could rationalise its resources, could give. The further fragmentation of education authorities will be disastrous.
  Since I have been in Parliament, which is not very long, I have received letters from constituents for and against every new Bill that is proposed. I have not received a single letter in favour of the opting-out proposal. I have had petitions and letters from governors, parent-teacher associations and individuals, all against that proposal. All feel that it will be a disaster for the children in Tower Hamlets, and I feel it, too. I hope that the Tower Hamlets council will not make the mistake of taking the choice that will be offered to them by this dreadful Bill.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms. Gordon: I do not think so. It would not be fair to those 60 hon. Members who still want to speak, and I want to come to a conclusion.
  Teachers have been antagonised and maligned by the Government. The idea of adding the equivalent of five working days to their year fails to recognise the fact that almost every teacher I know has given 10 times that amount of extra work voluntarily without being asked, and it is a slur on and an insult to the teaching profession.
  What is really behind the Bill? The Government have antagonised teachers and now they will antagonise parents and governors. The Bill is not a revolutionary improvement in education but will put the clock back. It is a return to elitism. It will lead inevitably to the creation of sink schools and will undermine the good work that has been done by comprehensive schools in raising standards.
  The Bill will create great disappointment in many parents who have been fooled into believing that it will be easier for them to send their children to their preferred school. The majority of parents now get the preferred school, but the Bill will mean that, instead of parents choosing schools, schools will choose the parents. Behind the Bill there is the sinister shadow of vouchers. If vouchers are ever introduced, those who have money to add to the vouchers will get a good education for their children; the rest of the children will get a voucher education which will create sink schools, starved of resources—a low level of education for children who are destined for the dole.
  I do not like this Bill. I hope that education authorities will not fall into its trap, and I hope that something can be done to save our children from the torments of the examinations it suggests.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: I begin by saying how impressed I—and, I am sure, the whole House—have been by the two excellent maiden speeches on the Government side to which we have listened today. As is customary, we heard much about the constituencies my hon. Friends represent and we found the descriptions interesting. But what will have impressed everyone was the conspicuous eloquence of those who have had first-hand experience of the subject about which they speak. They had obviously excelled at their jobs as teachers, and they brought their experience to the House in their contributions to this debate. We shall remember what they have said and will look forward to future contributions from them. We hope that they will do as well on wider subjects as they have on education.
  There is a real and well-rehearsed controversy that surrounds every attempt of central Government to influence or direct the affairs of local authorities. There is a proper constitutional debate about whether powers should be left to local people to determine or whether responsibilities should be assumed by Secretaries of State; but in practice all of us who have seen this conflict waged in various spheres over the past 10 or 20 years know very well that the constitutional niceties of the issue are always set out on one side and that Governments are, quite rightly, determined to have their way where they accept a proper responsibility for the provision of a service.
  This case is no exception. We are dealing with a mandate given to this Government and the determination of the Secretary of State to bring about a fundamental reform in the provision of education. Of course, all those
  820
  who object will say that there has been insufficient consultation and inadequate time, although they will then spend a great deal of time explaining why they thought of many of the ideas in this Bill and why various earlier Governments or parties had consultation documents or great debates in another era, and how much of what we are doing has been under discussion for as long as one can conveniently remember.
  So I urge my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State —who needs no encouragement—to stand his ground and to proceed with this legislation, controversial though it undoubtedly is. The reality is that we needed controversy in education long ago and that what my right hon. Friend is now attempting to do is not a matter for regret, except in the sense that it is long overdue. The debate about the quality of educational provision in this country and its inadequacy when compared with that of our European neighbours has gone on for a hundred years. One of the features of our failure to deal with the problem is that Government have remained detached while carrying all the responsibility. They have lacked the ability to produce results. It is this problem that the debate on the present Bill is intended to resolve.
  Let us have no illusions about the scale of the reforms which my right hon. Friend has addressed. He is pointing to a less comfortable world and it will, in that sense, be more difficult, more arduous and more demanding for those who go through the educational process. He addresses these problems because he knows that if he is not prepared to insist that children are equipped to the standards of the modern world, they will miss out on the opportunities of that world, and he is determined that this shall not happen. At every stage, therefore, from childhood to adulthood and in every part of the education process, individuals will have to carry a greater responsibility for their own performance.
  Instead of a system which seeks to obscure everyone's ability for fear that the less able will lose out, we shall have a much franker and more stimulating environment where success is recognised and measured. Instead of hiding the examination results of all schools so that no one can point to indifferent results, we shall see schools competing to persuade parents that the standards of individual schools are the highest available. Teachers will be judged against the background of facts that relate to their school and their performance. The more generalised, the more cosy and the less accountable days are over, in education as in many other aspects of British performance.
  Many teachers will welcome a clarification of the standards that they are expected to achieve and will respond with pride in their ability to achieve them. No one should see these proposals as being against the interests of teachers. We all know — and the Secretary of State is right to point it out—of the dedication of many in that profession, and we certainly know that those who are today charged with teaching our children are the generation of teachers upon whom we are totally dependent for the performance of our children as they grow up. They are the teachers whom we have; we must be proud of them and support them, although it is perfectly legitimate for Government to expect them to measure up to the highest standards available.
  We also know that these proposals will shift the emphasis of the debate away from those who only talk about standards in favour of those who want to prove that they can achieve standards. Those who will gain most from

  821
  this process are not the most talented children because they will come through whatever the system: they have a natural ability to win and they will win. The people who will prove to be the greatest beneficiaries of what we are discussing here tonight are those forgotten children of whom nothing is expected and who achieve little.
  Regular testing — we are talking only about core testing in English, maths and science—is not designed to propel those children into obscurity at the back of the form. That is precisely what the present system does. The low attainer in our present system rapidly becomes the no attainer. Regular testing will have the opposite effect, as those children who are at the bottom of the pile will, as a consequence of the special tests to be applied, expect to receive special remedial tuition to bring them up to the standards below which they would otherwise fall. It is these children who are the natural recruits to the queues of the long-term unemployed. These are the people who stand to gain most from personal testing which prevents them from getting into that situation in the first place.
  We have heard a lot from Opposition Members about the standards in the inner cities following the introduction of comprehensive education. What those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have forgotten is that, as they set out to end social division by abolishing grammar and secondary modern schools and introducing and imposing comprehensive education, what they actually did by their social engineering was to extend the geographical separation and division of people in our society, because the inner-city comprehensive was so decisively separated from the suburban comprehensive that a whole generation of those who could afford to choose—including large numbers of people who used to vote for the Labour party —went to the suburbs and the new housing estates; and the effect on those left behind was catastrophic. It is the addressing of this problem that is at the heart of the matter.
  In commending the thrust of this legislation, I want to urge my right hon. Friend to look again at two specific parts of the Bill. I do this not from any hesitation in supporting what my right hon. Friend seeks to achieve but from precisely the opposite stance. My concern arises from the voluntary nature of some of the proposals. I must say to him—he will understand the spirit in which I say it— that his characteristic tolerance and generosity may indeed overwhelm his best intentions if he pursues the voluntary route.
  Mr. Flannery: You are killing us.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has been dead from the neck up for years.
  The first proposal which I would like to discuss with my right hon. Friend is that of opting out. No one pretends — certainly not my right hon. Friend — that he can foresee the pace at which individual decisions to opt out will be made. Without contradiction, it is obvious that in many parts of the country the right to opt out will coincide with a substantial fall in the number of children in our schools. The number of children of secondary school age will have fallen by 1,100,000 between 1979 and 1990. Between 1990 and the end of the century, under a quarter of that dramatic drop of more than 1 million children will have been restored. When we consider the regional variations and specifically the balance within the urban community in the regions, we realise that there is a spiral
  822
  of educational decline that adds a dramatic additional dimension to the urban problem already affecting many of the less privileged parts of the community.
  To manage that scale of reduction and achieve value for money in the education programme, it must follow that very significant reductions in the number of schools must take place. The worst outcome would be to run our educational system within buildings that are only half or two thirds used. That is not only the worst way to raise the quality of education, but, as the Audit Commission has said, it perpetuates an annual waste of the best part of £750 million because we are not getting value for money out of the existing educational budget. No hon. Member of whatever party can afford to ignore wasted expenditure of the tune of £750 million a year if he is seeking to improve educational standards.
  The responsibility for proposing reorganisation lies exclusively with local education authorities. It is predictable that any proposed closure within such a reorganisation is likely to precipitate a local popular demand to opt out for the schools that are threatened with closure. Where excess capacity is built into the system, the Secretary of State will no more want to pay the bills for that excess capacity than the local education authority. Expectations will have been raised and indeed possibly encouraged by local politicians anxious to divert attention from what they know must happen by suggesting that somehow or other my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have a pot of gold to keep the school in existence. When my right hon. Friend faces a choice between frustrating a rationalisation or saying no to parents who want to opt out, he will find himself disappointing people and conceivably incurring political odium for doing so.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no powers to put forward any positive rationalisation proposals of his own. He is in danger of having to accept indifferent rationalisation proposals and having to turn down unacceptable opt-out proposals. He may not wish to wait until after rationalisation before approving an opt-out. I do not suggest that he separates the two procedures by insisting that there is a rationalisation before opt-out. I suggest that my right hon. Friend protects himself from a situation in which his essentially negative powers leave him having to refuse requests from local parents while being able to do no more than accept, reject or tinker at the margin with the rationalisation proposals of local education authorities. I stress that my right hon. Friend's power of modification is only at the margin of the proposals put to him by education authorities. I believe that that is a fundamental weakness which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would be wise to address.
  I urge my right hon. Friend to make himself a positive party to the rationalisation process. The Department of Education and Science should be able to submit its rationalisation plans alongside those of the local education authority and the Secretary of State should be able to submit both plans to a form of local consultation to be determined, as now, by the Secretary of State. Such a proposal is new in education, but is not unprecedented, as anyone familiar with planning or transportation politics must realise. Central Governments put forward proposals and sometimes they put forward competing proposals. There are inquiries, inspectors' reports and the Secretary of State then determines.
  A further advantage of the proposal is that it would force local education authorities which were being dilatory

  823
  in putting forward reorganisation plans — for fear, perhaps, that they would precipitate the very opt-out problems that they wish to avoid—to accept that they have no choice but to get on with the urgent task of rationalising the provision of education to meet the much lower demand created by the changing population.
  It will be argued that that is further centralism. I do not want to deny that, because in a sense that is so. I do not see anything inherently unacceptable in such a proposition. I believe that the concept that the Secretary of State should be responsible for the standards of education in this country, but that he should be denied the tools to do the job effectively, is fundamentally flawed. The essence of the legislation is that central Government are taking powers to reform education. Government have the right to do that. They are reforming education not to concentrate power on themselves, but to shift power out into the hands of the heads, governors and parents involved. That is a process of decentralising power and educational opportunities, but it may need the positive role of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He should consider taking that role.
  My second and even more substantial concern lies with the Government's proposals for the Inner London education authority. I must ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to bear with me, as he has heard my views on this subject many times. When I persuaded the Cabinet to get rid of the Greater London council and the metropolitan councils it was my one regret that we could not carry that very much required reform through by removing ILEA at the same time.
  I simply do not understand how the metropolitan districts of the north-west, the north-east, Yorkshire, the west midlands and the outer London boroughs can be considered perfectly able to provide a local authority education service and yet in the inner London boroughs that service must be carried out by an educational dinosaur of historic proportions. If ILEA's costs were lower and its standards were higher, I could understand the arguments, but no one can begin to base a case on either of those assumptions because the evidence does not exist.
  It used to be said that the complexity of the further education system in central London precluded a break-up of ILEA. Now, quite rightly, the Secretary of State has blown that argument out of the water by giving the polytechnics their independence. What was deemed impossible, is now almost miraculously possible. However, having rightly determined to break the log jam, the Government have replaced that with what I perceive to be the next worst solution. The concept is that ILEA should be allowed to wither on the vine and that those boroughs that want to opt out should be free to do so while those that remain should be clustered around in some ever-dimishing political laager.
  I understand the argument for voluntarism that lies behind such an approach. I believe that the case against ILEA is so overwhelming that such an approach is an appropriate and legitimate decision for Government to take. The cause of effective education and the pursuit of better value for money in the centre of the capital city should be the prime consideration, not how we allow the rundown of ILEA to take place.
  824
  The case was at its most extreme during the by-election fought in Wandsworth a few days ago. It proved to be a triumphant result for the Conservative party. We are all aware that there will be more by-elections. Does it really make sense for the education policy of such a borough to live under the political uncertainty of one by-election after another which in the end—as we are all aware—will be much more a reflection of the national Government's standing than about the local issues involved?
  I realise that some boroughs will opt out quickly and, frankly. Which of us would not in their position? However, as some go, the management problems of ILEA will increase. Its overheads will be spread over a narrower base, its best staff will look elsewhere and its recruitment problems will intensify. One could take the narrow view that that is the responsibility and the bad luck of ILEA because it should do its job better. However, it is not enough for the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is responsible for the standards in the classrooms, to take that narrow view about ILEA. He should see the effect that such a procedure would have on the quality of education as its affects children. That intensifies the argument for addressing the issue.
  In the commercial world, no company could properly adopt a policy of allowing an inefficient part of its business simply to drift into terminal decline. There is only one proper approach — to mend or to end. As the Government show no intention and do not seek the power to mend, the only proper approach is to end ILEA.
  If we do not do so, we must recognise the effect of the projected poll tax on those constituencies that are covered by ILEA. I do not want to discuss the merits of the poll tax proposals today, but this is the day to recognise the devastating impact on local government finance of allowing ILEA to survive. The Government's own figures for over-spending in the inner-London boroughs show that in the lowest-spending boroughs, such as Kensington and Westminster, the ILEA precept accounts for more than their entire overspend. Of course those boroughs will opt out. However, the London boroughs that are controlled by Opposition parties are much less likely to do so. In four out of the six Opposition boroughs, ILEA's overspend accounts for more than half the entire overspend. Those boroughs have no real power to act on that at the moment.
  If the Government really believe that they will win the argument that poll tax levels are ILEA's fault in the constituencies of inner London, they can argue for the voluntary approach. However, I should much prefer to avoid the risk. Even at what I realise is a late hour in the legislative process, I urge my right hon. Friend to think again and to take the simple decision to bring ILEA to an end properly and efficiently. He should do that now, in this Bill, in the early years of this Parliament. That will save money, improve education and avoid one of the most predictable and potentially damaging issues of the next election.
  7.32 pm
  Mr. Terry Lewis: The Bill has already been presented as a successor to the great Education Acts of 1870,1902 and 1944. On one count, that claim is probably justified because a major reforming education Act is due, if not already overdue. However, as the basis of a new education Act, the Bill fails on two counts to match the credentials of its predecessors. First and foremost, it fails

  825
  because those earlier Acts were constructive in purpose and unifying in their application. It is evident in many ways that what the Secretary of State is now proposing is fundamentally destructive and divisive.
  Secondly, and in the longer term probably more seriously, the Bill fails because it is without the shared commitment of those interests which have an established and valued part in a service that is vital to the present and future well-being of the country.
  That shared commitment or partnership, to use a term that has been used at different times and in other places by the Secretary of State, is conspicuously lacking. However, that was painstakingly built to provide the foundation of the Butler Act. That shared commitment or partnership is lacking for want of consultation and because of imposition. No doubt the Secretary of State will tell us that he has consulted extensively and that, in any case, he is under no obligation to do so.
  We should consider the speciousness of those claims. In the flush of his post-June enthusiasm, and on a largely unsuspecting education service, a flood of so-called consultation documents descended. Consultation was thus initiated at virtually the moment when schools and the House of Commons had closed for the long summer recess. Insufficient copies of the consultation documents were supplied to those with a legitimate interest in their proposals and therefore a reason to comment on them; and on a time scale that was ludicrously short given the issues involved and the scant thought that was evidently given to them in the Department of Education and Science papers.
  On the last point about time scale, the House may care to reflect on the scale and the length of the consultation process required of local education authorities by the Secretary of State on proposals affecting a single school. It is extensive, elaborate, and takes many months even when done with maximum expedition and effectiveness, and then has to be followed by a statutory period for objections to be made. Bearing in mind that the Secretary of State's proposals affect all the statutory sector of education in England and Wales, it might be thought that it merits rather more than the two months that he afforded for comment on them.
  Of course, since he has no duty to consult, the right hon. Gentleman fails to see the wisdom of doing so or at least doing so effectively. The wisdom of genuine consultation is that it provides the opportunity for the thoughts and views of others to be offered, and even adopted. From that process can, and sometimes does, come refinement and improvement of original propositions, benefiting from a wider experience and expertise. Equally important, come those qualities of constructiveness and unification, so conspicuously lacking in the proposed legislation. In the end, if the Secretary of State is so convinced he has the right of all the arguments, and the issues in his Bill, why should he fear a properly structured consultation process?
  In the context of previous education Acts, which were major elements of national regeneration, it is therefore worth reflecting on why it is that, besides local education authorities, the Anglican and Catholic Churches; moderate Tory opinion, within and outside LEAs; the Manpower Services Commission; professional organisations, as well as teacher unions; parents' organisations; and many other bodies, and individuals, have all expressed considerable concern. Although that concern has been
  826
  about time, and the process in relation to consultation, it has been most strongly felt about the substance of what is proposed.
  The problem with this, and why such deep concern is so widely felt, is the inherent conflict running through the various proposals now being made, and in relation to other Government policies. This conflict lies between the extremes of rampant consumerism, cellophane-wrapped as increased delegation, greater choice and improved quality, and the need for system-wide coherence and planning of provision to achieve the Audit Commission's three E's of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, as well as the socially necessary fourth E of equality—equality, that is, of provision and opportunity.
  Let me give some simple illustrations of this conflict arising from the changes proposed. Government policy currently requires LEAs to rationalise school provision, and remove surplus places but, in future, schools will be able to admit virtually without restriction, or to opt out.
  To date, on Department of Education and Science targets and figures, local education authorities have removed surpluses, very successfully. A major factor in dealing with falling rolls has been redeployment policies, that have been agreed with teachers. Such policies will be inoperable in the future, and redundancy will become the only option for some teachers. Indeed, one of the main worries in my area is that teachers to whom I speak, who are good teachers with five or six years of service remaining, have said to me, "If the proposals go through, I will take early retirement." That would be a disaster because excellent teachers who have spent a lifetime in the profession educating our young children have now said that they will leave the profession.
  I know one teacher very well — I have admired her work for many years—and she is one of those teachers who I thought would have to be literally dragged out of the education service when she reached retirement age. She had got five excellent, effective years to go. However, if this Bill sees its way through the House and is translated into legislation, I am afraid that it will be our loss and her gain because she will be free of the constraints that the Secretary of State has placed upon the education service in the past few years. He is ma king heavier weather of the education service with this Bill.
  I am greatly concerned that LEAs could be taken before employment tribunals for a grievance that they have not caused and could not prevent. Again, power is being taken away from local authorities, but responsibility is being left with them. The LEAs will retain the responsibility of employer, but there will be severe restrictions placed upon their powers to appoint, dismiss, discipline or promote teachers. That will cause great problems.
  The LEAs will face rising unit costs as they will lose the opportunity to effect economies of scale with authority-wide purchasing contracts. Indeed, what is worse, they will lose that opportunity if schools opt out in the proportion referred to by the Prime Minister. Indeed, the House is aware that the Prime Minister is far more ambitious regarding the opt-out proposals than the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: Nobody is more ambitious than the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is talking about a different matter, but I agree.

  827
  Given the predictable continuation of Government policy to reduce local authority budgets, the ability of LEAs to sustain schools that remain in the locally provided system will be even more difficult. What will happen then to standards, parental choice, equal opportunities and parity of esteem?
  Earlier I referred to the cellophane wrapping that is dressing up rampant consumerism. I said that this Bill represents a narrow, self-defeating philosophy that puts human needs and individual worth in second place behind competitive materialism. Part of that wrapping is represented by the cynical overkill of greater parental choice and power. I ask the House, better still the Secretary of State: where is the true evidence to show what parents want? I suspect that, at present, most LEAs are able to demonstrate that, in their areas, more than 90 per cent, of parents obtain their first preference of school for their children.
  Equally, the first-hand experience of elected members of LEAs from all parties—now supported by research evidence—shows that parents have no compelling wish to run schools. Parents are interested in their children's education, not the exercise of constitutional power. That interest leads them to seek a greater understanding of, and involvement in, the process of education and to seek opportunities for working alongside teachers.
  Mr. David Young: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in his area and mine, the legislation will drive out the dedicated teachers who run the schools and will leave parent governors to deal with often inadequate staff because professionalism as such will be thrown into the waste paper basket?
  Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is my Member of Parliament, but I must say that I do not believe that there are that many bad teachers in the area which we represent and in which we live. However, I believe that my hon. Friend has picked up what I said earlier: the good dedicated career teachers who have few years left in the education service will be the ones who go. That will leave the Government with the problems to which my hon. Friend has referred.
  I have said that involvement in the process of education and the opportunity for working alongside teachers will be denied to parents if this Bill becomes law. Most of all and quite properly, parents are concerned to see that their children have the best opportunities and achieve the best possible standards. The Government's proposals fail to demonstrate, clearly and convincingly, how those real wishes of parents will be met.
  The Government readily invent their own wishes for parents and they seek to meet them by a set of contrivances built on a series of false premises. They conveniently ignore evidence contrary to their preconceptions and prejudices. That is equally evident in the Government's curriculum proposals.
  I shall skip some of my speech because I am conscious that many hon. Members want to speak. The Bill contains elements that provide a basis on which a constructive and unifying reform of our national education system could be undertaken. However, it is the specific proposals that give effect to those broad concepts that will cause dissent and disruption. Those specific proposals contain the true agenda of the proposed legislation.
  828
  The proposals will fragment the education service. They will inhibit, if not prevent, LEAs from providing a public service organised on a planned, coherent and equitable base, because, in their error and blindness, the Government insist that market forces provide a better basis for a public service than partnership between community, locally elected representatives and the professionals that they employ. It may well be that that partnership needs reconstructing and redefining — in those terms, reform is probably necessary. However the unavoidable and all too evident fact that remains is that the proposals described in the Bill have, in truth, little to do with reforming education or national regeneration. They have everything to do with the vindictive vendetta that the Government are conducting against public services and locally elected authorities.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. James Pawsey: This has been a remarkable debate—one of the most remarkable that I have ever had the good fortune to sit through. So far, three Privy Councillors have addressed the House and three more are like to do so before we vote.
  I believe that the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) took far too gloomy a view of the Bill. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman displayed a degree of selectivity that would be envied by anyone taking the 11-plus or 12-plus. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber — suggested in an article in the Sunday Times last weekend that the word "local" was acceptable only if it prefixed the word "authority". He should remember, when he talks about power and education, that this Bill gives more power to schools and provides a better education for the nation's children. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the word "local" applies not only to authorities but to schools and parents.
  If the education provided by LEAs was of such quality, the hon. Member for Blackburn should ask why the former leader of the Labour party, James Callaghan, started the great debate on education at Ruskin College back in 1976. That point was well made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his opening speech today.
  I suspect that the real justification for this Bill comes from a set of statistics published last week, which showed that 6 million of our fellow countrymen cannot read, write or do simple arithmetic after 11 years of compulsory education. When the hon. Member for Blackburn talks about a lust for power and a vendetta against local government, he should recall that such rhetoric will not help our children to read. We want good, sound education, and the Bill will ensure that.
  Mr. Hind rose—
  Mr. Pawsey: I shall not give way. Many other hon. Members wish to speak.
  I come to the part of the Bill that deals with schools. To maximise the Bill's effects, we need the co-operation of the teaching force. I have said before, and I repeat it now, that the majority of teachers in this country are dedicated to their profession and to the children in their charge. That is why I welcomed the 16·4 per cent, increase in pay that was awarded to teachers this year. It shows two things —how far teachers' pay had slipped behind; and how much we were determined to do about it. We recognise the value and importance of the teacher force in the United

  829
  Kingdom. I am anxious that the Bill should be received by teachers with an open mind, and that any lingering misgivings that may be left over from previous disagreements should be put on one side in the interests of the nation's children in teachers' charge. Those are the criteria against which the Bill should be judged.
  It has been suggested that there is no necessity for the radical reforms in the Bill, and that all that was required was an increase of resources. Would that that were true. Despite what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, since 1979 we have increased the level of resources in England by 11 per cent, to £7·8 billion, and spending per pupil is up by a massive 31 per cent.
  More resources do not necessarily equal better education. One has only to look at ILEA to see the truth of that. Radical reform is necessary; the Government have a responsibility to the nation. They would be failing in their duty if they did not try to reform education. As some education authorities seem incapable of improving the education service, Government must. The additional powers that Government are taking at the centre are balanced by the additional powers that are being given to parents. The combination of parents and Government will ensure that the Bill meets the educational challenge.
  I welcome first the fact that the national curriculum will not be hewn on tablets of stone, but will be rather more flexible than was first envisaged. The time allotted to the foundation subjects will not be laid down by statute, and it will be for individual schools to decide how much is spent on each of them, with the safeguard of assessment and tests at the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16. If a child begins to fall behind, that will be recognised early so that appropriate action can be taken to ensure that the child's work improves and that he keeps pace with his peers. Incidentally, those benchmarks will also be a useful reference for parents. Surely parents, too, have a right to know just how well their child is doing in school?
  The second provision to which I want to refer is that of open enrolment, which goes back to my earlier point about giving added responsibility to parents. In the main, parents know best what is right for their children. They have a great deal more common sense than they are sometimes given credit for, and by means of HMI reports and school prospectuses they already know which school in their locality provides the level of education that is appropriate to their son or daughter. The Bill merely extends that right and choice. One of the more annoying features of LEA control has been the way in which authorities have deliberately prevented good, popular schools from accepting more children. That stumbling block will be removed and schools, within certain limits, will be called on to take children up to their 1979 level.
  My third point concerns financial delegation to schools, which represents a movement of power from LEAs to heads, governors and parents. It ensures that power and responsibility is shared. Instead of a chief education officer and his fellow bureaucrats at shire hall deciding policy, as is often the case, the responsibility for school policy will be placed in the hands of individual schools. They will be allocated a budget and be able to decide their own priorities. That will make schools much more accountable to parents and local communities, and will ensure a better use of resources.
  I ask my right hon. Friend to note three areas of concern. First, heads should receive better training for the job that they will be called upon to do. I ask my right hon.
  830
  Friend to re-examine the staff college concept. Heads require additional training to assist them in the running of schools. Secondly, larger schools should consider — perhaps with an adjoining school—the appointment of a bursar who can handle the day-to-day administration. Thirdly, governors should be better trained to have better knowledge of their powers and duties.
  My final point has to do with the introduction of grant-maintained schools. I think that few schools will wish to take advantage of that option. But if great numbers of schools decide to leave the present system, that would be a massive vote of no confidence in what is now being provided. If a system is so bad that large numbers wish to leave it, it must surely be better for our children's education that they do so. That is the justification for the Bill. If a school opts out, it will provide a benchmark against which schools that remain in the system can be judged.
  The Bill is radical. It represents major and necessary reform. It would have been relatively easy for my right hon. and hon. Friends to introduce a series of cosmetic measures that were designed merely to paper over the education cracks. That would have been safe, but certainly not sound; safe, but grossly inadequate. It is a tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they have deliberately not sought an easy or uncontroversial way forward. Instead, they have gone for great reform, which will be to the substantial advantage of the nation's children for the rest of this century and into the years beyond.
  7.58 pm
  Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: I disagree strongly with the analysis of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). This is not a major reformist Bill. In the history of educational administration it will be seen as crudely revisionist and instrumentalist.
  The history of educational reform has been neglected in this debate. Pupils were subjected to tests in reading, writing and arithmetic that were administered by HMI. That was the first centralist innovation in education policy, in 1862. Those of us who were taught our history of education in the university of Wales — and who remember it—realise that we are witnessing a return not only to Victorian values, but to the same type of authoritarian approach to pupils and children as existed in those days. We are only waiting for the Secretary of State to announce that he is deducting 2s.8d. from the grant to each school for each pupil failing the test, fully to institute the payment by results method, which was abolished in 1895. However, its centralist regulations continued until 1936 and was finally abolished in the 1944 Act. We can see quite clearly in the history of education administration how centralisation and decentralisation vie with each other.
  All the criticisms in education history of the payment by results policy apply to this Bill. They demean education and reduce it to a cramming exercise and to the recall capacity of pupils. They circumscribe the professional activity of teachers and constrain initiative and the curriculum is narrowed. The policy was aptly described by Gordon Kirk in his recent book on the core curriculum. He said that it introduced a state-controlled curriculum and was
  "the deliberate use of political power to mould the minds of the young".

  831
  That is how this revisionist measure will be understood in future.
  I also blame the Labour party for initiating the so-called great debate in 1976. I am also critical of the approach to the so-called national curriculum endorsed by the official Opposition. We believe in a decentralised education policy and that curriculum development is a matter of partnership between the Welsh Office or the Department of Education and Science, the local education authorities, the Welsh Joint Education Committee and the successor body to the Schools Council that the Government had to invent after they destroyed the valuable work of that council.
  In the major document that the Schools Council produced on the whole matter of the curriculum, it said:
  "each school should have the fullest measure of responsibility for its own curriculum and teaching methods, based on the needs of its own pupils and evolved by its own staff".
  That sums up what curriculum development should be about. That is why we are completely opposed to the whole notion of a core curriculum and the imposition of a central curriculum. As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and other hon. Members have said, the centralisation by the Government is a long way from the "secret garden" of the curriculum described by the former Tory Education Minister, David Eccles. It is a central prescription for forms of knowledge from the Government. The prescription is narrow, not just in the sense of the centralisation imposed by the Bill, but in the naming of school subjects in a piece of legislation — a bizarre innovation—and also in terms of the approach to the curriculum.
  The definition of subjects runs contrary to all the approaches that have been followed in curriculum development over the past 30 years. The whole notion that one can divide and package the curriculum into subjects cuts out the trans-curriculum approach that has been so useful in schools. It also goes entirely against all the major reports that have studied the subject area. In that context one thinks of "A language for life" and the Bullock report, which stressed the importance of language development across the curriculum. One thinks also of Cockcroft and "Mathematics Counts" which stressed the importance of numerical skills across the curriculum or the learning of science across the curriculum and the cognitive and the affective skills of pupils as they are defined in education study. These are cross-curricular skills that have to be developed and the notion of a package subject runs contrary to that.
  Her Majesty's inspectorate has shown that in the development in primary schools of, for example, science teaching it is the understanding of technology and science on a cross-curricular basis that provides the best attainment for pupils. As it is conceived, the national curriculum threatens a reduction in the standards of mathematics and literacy, because it may well lead to the isolation of these so-called subjects from the rest of the curriculum. That is why we need to be able to see the relevance for pupils of the so-called subjects to the rest of their social skills and their social life. That is why I stress to the Secretary of State that he should abandon this subject approach and take the much more rational modular approach to the content of his curriculum. That modular approach takes in the kind of jargon that was
  832
  once used by HMI in its reports in the 1970s and early 1980s, before HMI was got at as part of the centralisation process of the education policy that the Government are pursuing.
  We need to look at ways of approaching the curriculum that recognise diversity in the schools and which gives the opportunity for pupils to develop their skills across the curriculum. It can be seen quite clearly from studies produced by, for example, the Welsh Joint Examining Board, that the standards of student performance are improved where one has a modular approach. It also seems to be clear from the attainment by female pupils that they more easily adapt to the short-term modules in the curriculum.
  It is much more easy to adopt to vocational experience when one has a modular approach rather than a subject-based approach. I stress to the Government that they need to review their whole approach in order to prevent a narrowing of the curriculum. When one reads HMI advice over the last 10 years, one sees a recommendation that there should be a reduction in the number of examinable subjects, and that we should not have the notion of subject-based knowledge being proliferated within the curriculum.
  We should look for areas of experience that include the personal and social development of pupils. That is the kind of thing that cannot be prescribed in a subject-based core curriculum. Surely social skills are just as important for the industralist—the Conservatives support the interests of the industralist—as are the notions of narrow subjects. There is also a danger that some of the gains that have been made in vocational education, particularly on the training and vocational education initiative, may be undermined by this approach of a subject-led core curriculum.
  Not only do we need to look at the general needs of pupils, but we need to look at pupils who have special education needs. What has been achieved for pupils with special education needs in terms of integration into the curriculum and into schools is endangered by this kind of prescribed so-called national curriculum. It will be a residual curriculum that will be available for pupils if the measures are pressed forward. As I have said, the same thing applies to attempts to ensure gender equality in the education system in the provision of courses that are attractive to female pupils as well as to male pupils.
  The other approach that is undermined by this subject-led curriculum is the commitment that is apparently in the rhetoric of the Government but never in the practice, to education for a multi-cultural society. We have had the "Education for All" study under the chairmanship of Lord Swann. That has been neglected by the Government and this approach of a subject-based curriculum will prevent the sort of innovations in multicultural education that we require.
  Finally, I turn to Wales. This curriculum is called a national curriculum. But whose national curriculum is it? Apparently it is a national curriculum for England, although from looking at the submissions from the English LEA's one can see very little demand for it. I can tell the Secretary of State for Education and Science in England and the Minister of State with responsibility for education in Wales that there is no demand whatever for the provisions of this Bill—either the opt-out provision or the so-called national curriculum provision — by the LEAs in Wales.

  833
  This is an English national curriculum that is not wanted by English people and it is to be imposed on Wales. That is clearly shown when we look at the complexity that has arisen when the Government have tried to deal with Welsh in the core curriculum. They have invented a new building called the Welsh-speaking school and in the legislation they are attempting to impose a centralised solution on the linguistic diversity in Wales. I make it quite clear that we reject that centralist Welsh language core curriculum. The diversity of linguistic provision should be provided by the local education authorities responding sensitively to the needs of their areas.
  It is nonsense for the Government to invent a Curriculum Council for Wales while not providing Wales with a schools examination and assessment council. If the whole point of the curriculum is to set up a structure of knowledge that is to be assessed, surely it makes sense to assess through a separate schools examination and assessment council for Wales, which would operate alongside the Curriculum Council. I welcome what slipped into the Secretary of State's speech about the creation of a sub-committee of the new Universities Funding Council covering Wales. We have been campaigning on this issue for a long time and there will be a great welcome in the educational establishment and the university of Wales for this proposal.
  There is no polytechnics and colleges funding council for Wales and that points to the anomalous position of the Welsh education system. It is high time that the Secretary of State—albeit he originally hailed from Newport— divested himself of his responsibility for the whole of post-16 education in Wales. Indeed, he should divest himself of his responsibilities for the whole of Welsh education and they should be devolved to the current holder of the office of Secretary of State for Wales. The Bill is not relevant to Welsh education, and we shall seek to remove its application to Wales. I hope that we can also remove the Bill from the statute book, to ensure that education in England returns to the mainstream—
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would prefer Welsh not to be in the core curriculum for Wales, or not to be a foundation subject in Wales? Will he make himself clear?
  Dr. Thomas: I have already made it clear that I do not endorse the notion of a core curriculum. The linguistic diversity of Wales is, I believe, best catered for by local education authorities, supported by the Welsh Joint Education Committee and other central initiatives. When the Minister examines the position during the Committee stage, I am sure that he will see exactly what the position is.
  I apologise for the length of my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker; it was caused by the Minister's intervention.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Michael Alison: A number of speakers from both sides of the House have touched on the interests of the Churches in the Bill. In my capacity as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, I should like to convey briefly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State both plaudits and one or two anxieties and queries raised with me by the Church of England board of education. As my right hon. Friend fully realises, many maintained schools
  834
  are voluntary schools, the ownership of which lies with trustees, and the Church of England features prominently in that regard.
  I welcome the Bill. I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend, on behalf of the Church authorities, for clause 1(2), with its outstandingly bold and uninhibited formulation calling for the promotion of the spiritual, moral and cultural development of children at school. That has done much to reassure many of those outside Parliament who, in their early responses to the consultation papers, feared that certain aspects of a broad and balanced curriculum were not sufficiently emphasised. As it stands, clause 1(2) appears to be stronger than the well-known section in the Education Act 1944 which defined the purposes of the statutory system of education. That is to be warmly welcomed.
  I am also grateful for the assurances that my right hon. Friend has given to those who have made representations to him in the cause of religious education. I hope that he will consider giving specific expression to those assurances by finding a way of strengthening still further the references to religious education in the Bill, along lines which could be adjusted in detail in Committee.
  I say that because, having congratulaed my right hon. Friend on strengthening certain aspects of the 1944 Act in the Bill, I must express some regret at what appears to be an area of weaker formulation. For example, it is a pity that, by appearing rather late in chapter V, which deals with miscellaneous items, the clause on school worship — clause 79 — is separated from any reference to religious education as such. Incidentally, reference earlier in the Bill to religious education is modest enough, tucked away as it is in a "sub-subsection" — clause 6(l)(c).However, I am content to regard its modest size as akin to that of the proverbial mustard seed, capable of astonishing powers of accommodation.
  Section 25 of the 1944 Act set an important precedent by linking religious instruction and worship under the general heading of religious education. I believe that there are good educational grounds for keeping to that earlier arrangement, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider reuniting elements that seem to have been unnecessarily divorced.
  I feel that greater clarification is needed of the position of religious education and worship in the proposed grant-maintained schools. Chapter IV is a complex and densely drafted part of the Bill, and I know that advisers to the General Synod board of education believe that amendments will be required in the course of the Bill's progress. I understand that the board is seeking to discuss certain aspects of this part of the Bill with the Department of Education and Science and the Charity Commissioners, and will be writing in the near future to identify the practice areas of concern in the hope that certain amendments can be agreed.
  In that connection, it is important that the protection that was afforded to denominational voluntary aided schools in the 1944 Act is carried over and preserved in the Bill in respect of a voluntary school that becomes a grant-maintained school. I know that my right hon. Friend has given assurances on the matter, but I understand that the General Synod board feels that changes are still needed. There are also many questions about the applicability of agreed syllabuses to former county and controlled schools that become grant maintained.

  835
  Let me turn briefly to a narrower but no less urgent point. It is well known that the assets of voluntary schools within the maintained system are considerable, and are held upon charitable trusts subject to Charity Commission jurisdiction. If any such schools become grant-maintained, the charitable trust continues. However, the Bill as drafted is far from satisfactory in the arrangements set out for liquidating the assets of a closed grant-maintained school that originated as a voluntary school. The board of education fears that insufficient regard is paid to trustees in the arrangements outlined in chapter IV.
  In the case of the Church of England, that applies particularly to diocesan education committees. They have, after all, a status accorded by secondary legislation in the shape of the Diocesan Education Committee Measure 1955, and also in the trusteeship provision of the Education Act 1973.I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree to continuing exchanges between the relevant officials in the course of clarification and, ultimately, adequate clarity and fairness in the Bill.
  The Bill is an instrument of exciting and far-reaching reform. Let it never be said that the Church of England — a Church of the Reformation — is laggard when it comes to supporting worthwhile reform, and the attempt to extend parental choice in education is one of the boldest and novel innovations proposed in the Bill. Few people, I imagine, would wish to oppose the object of maximising parental choice. I certainly do not; nor does the Church of England, offering as it does a choice in education.
  However, as that objective is so desirable, we must try to make the means to it infallible—or, at least, as close to infallible as possible. The Church of England board of education believes that there are grounds for worrying about the precise arrangement proposed for parental ballot in chapter IV of the Bill.
  Fears have also been expressed in some Church circles about the possible impact of any widespread establishment of grant-maintained schools on remaining LEA services for LEA-maintained schools. I also feel that the Bill could, with advantage, be clearer about the arrangements under which grant-maintained schools admit pupils, given the arrangements in chapter II applying to county and voluntary schools.
  It might be helpful for chapter II to contain some mention of the School Premises Regulations 1981, to make it clear that the imposition of the 1979 standard number will not jeopardise any desirable improvement to the premises that are carried out to meet the requirements of those regulations. However, that is a Committee point— and an appropriate point at which to conclude my remarks.
  I wish the Bill every success. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree to allow a continuing dialogue with the Church authorities as the Bill proceeds through Committee and we come to the later provisions.
  8.19 pm
  Mr. Andrew Smith: As the debate proceeds it becomes ever clearer that the Bill has nothing to do with choice, freedom, standards or any of the rhetoric we have heard from Conservative Members but has everything to do with the application of a toxic mixture of free market ideas and centralism to our education system.
  836
  I wish that the right hon. Members concerned were present to hear me say this, but it is interesting to see how far the divisions have opened up among the Conservative Members in the different positions people are taking. There are divisions not only among those who modestly support the Bill but between those who oppose the Bill.
  For example, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) wants more of the toxic mixture. He wants more centralism and more central urgent action as a way of tackling the free market damage of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) wants to draw back from the application of free market ideas and centralism. The spectacle of Conservative Members baying at their former leader and Prime Minister was an unattractive aspect of the Conservative party and it makes one wonder where Conservative Members have been educated.
  Conservative Members have used the issue of standards in the crudest possible way as a smokescreen for the Government's real motives, which arise from a petulant vendetta against local authorities and the Government's well-documented suspicion of the diversity and innovation that Rab Butler saw as a positive and integral part of the Education Act 1944. It has been said many times that the Government know the price of everything and the value of nothing. This Bill, I am afraid, is just one more disastrous example of their indulgence of competition in everything, except in free ideas. What we see before us is a highly centralist measure.
  My hon. Friends have already exposed the fraudulence of the claims about parental choice. They have exposed the damage that open enrolment and opting out would cause. Instead of bringing in this damaging Bill, the Government should be ensuring that the best local education strategies, which are very good and are currently being applied in many counties and metropolitan areas, are applied more generally. They ought to be requiring local authorities to show what progress they have made in raising education standards and extending opportunities. They ought to be developing external validation of the policies and progress of individual schools and making the resources available to enable schools and teachers to get on with their job.
  I say that the Government ought to be doing those things, but I know one reason why they are not. They do not have a clue what is happening over that broad area of education. Lectures on education standards from Conservative Members are insufferable at the best of times, but the credibility of the Secretary of State would be considerably enhanced if he knew how local authorities were performing. In the past nine years, no team of civil servants, inspectors or Ministers has bothered to visit Oxfordshire, my local education authority area, to review as a whole the authority's education plans and achievements. Can Conservative Members think of any successful organisation anywhere else that would ignore what was going on in the local areas? If Conservative Members are really interested in raising standards, they should be monitoring and improving the good practice in many local education authorities, such as Oxfordshire.
  Survey after survey has shown that parents and non-parents fully appreciate the importance of those points and want to see more resources invested in our schools. However, because that does not agree with the Conservative party's ideological preconceptions of public expenditure, a deaf ear is turned to the pleas of parents for more books, equipment and investment in our schools.

  837
  The power placed in the hands of the Secretary of State in this Bill is truly frightening. It centralises and politicises what is taught in schools and is incompatible with notions of genuine parental choice or locally sensitive and democratic planning. It is clear that the Government have, as in so many other areas of their policies, abandoned any attempt to proceed through consultation, rational persuasion or partnership with those on the ground, be they head teachers, parent governors, teaching staff or councillors, who will have to put the proposals into effect if by any mischance the Bill becomes law. The best we can hope for is that those good people with their good record of work will succeed in damage limitation and rescue the Government from the consequences of their crass mismanagement, even if the more sensible members of the Tory party do not.
  I am particularly worried that a principal casualty of all this will be the especially important stage of education between 16 and 19 years old. If the Bill is passed, it will at best frustrate and at worst block rational planning of provision at that level and stop progress to tertiary colleges, because opting out, as some hon. Members have said, would be most attractive where secondary schools face problems of falling rolls and pursue grant-maintained status as a means of avoiding reorganisation or closure. The ensuing chaos would not only set back progress to higher standards at that level of education but would hinder the attainment of the numbers of suitably qualified entrants to higher education, which I should have thought that all of us in the House would want to see, for the sake of our country's future.
  On the matter of higher education, one of the most pernicious clauses in this thoroughly pernicious Bill is clause 94, which empowers the Secretary of State to make grants to the funding councils
  "subject to such conditions as he may determine."
  That imposes a statutory requirement on the funding councils to
  "comply with any directions given to them by the Secretary of State."
  Taken together with the power in clauses 92 and 93, it amounts to direct control of the activities of polytechnics and universities by the Secretary of State. Whatever protests the academic institutions may make, they would be powerless in law to resist the Secretary of State. That is dangerous, draconian and wholly incompatible with the principles of academic freedom that all of us in the House should be pledged to uphold.
  One may ask whether the university and polytechnic funding councils will offer some protection or operate as a buffer between academic institutions and the power of the state. No, they will not, because each power they exercise is entirely dependent upon the Secretary of State's judgment. Remember they must comply with "any directions" that he gives them. They are appointed by him and can be dismissed by him. People with integrity and independence will be discouraged from serving on them. They would be mere pawns of the Secretary of State, rubber-stamping the Government's line.
  I know that the Secretary of State has offered assurances that the funding councils will be able to advise him on the needs of the universities and polytechnics. However, the absence of any such obligation in the Bill renders the Secretary of State's words utterly unconvincing. Why should it not be a clear duty for the funding councils to report on the needs of the institutions? Could
  838
  it be that the Secretary of State is afraid of what they will tell him if they were obliged by law to undertake that important task? I fear so. As it stands, the Bill means that advisory bodies will become mere transmission belts.
  As chairman of the governors of Oxford polytechnic, I am interested in the Bill's practical implications for polytechnics. The transitional arrangements to which the Secretary of State referred give rise to all sorts of worries and fears about what will happen if polytechnics are led to opt out of the local authority framework. The Secretary of State promises £9 million. However, if that sum is divided between the institutions, it works out at only £85,000 per polytechnic, which will come nowhere near to covering the costs of computing, equipment, specialist staff and the financial administration input that will be needed not only on vesting day but ahead of vesting day if the transition is not to be a fiasco.
  The polytechnics need assurances from the Secretary of State that the Treasury will not operate the financial arrangements in a limited way. At the moment, our polytechnics can carry forward overspending or underspending on any particular budget head from one year to the next. There is no mad rush to spend up on the last day of the financial year. We seek an assurance that the flexibility that the polytechnics have gained under local authority control will not be lost if the Bill goes through and the transition takes place.
  One can draw only one conclusion about the rational planning and management of further and higher education. It would have been far better if the Government had followed the advice of their own report "Management for a Purpose" and established corporate status within the local authority framework. The Government paid £350,000 for that report and they have thrown it in the waste paper basket. That would have had the overwhelming advantage of facilitating the sensible coordination and planning of further adult and continuing education as well as bringing all the schools within the local authority framework.
  The Bill puts much of value at risk for no discernible benefit other than the advancement of the Government's vicious vendetta against local democracy and local authorities. That is the central theme of the Bill, which gives the Secretary of State unprecedented statutory powers to intervene in and interfere with the running of education at every point. Whatever the Secretary of State says in his rhetoric about freedom and choice, the Bill represents rampant centralisation. It places in the hands of the central state authorities powers that seem all too likely to result in untold damage being inflicted on education and on our children and young people.
  There is no sense of balance in the Bill and no sense that academic and professional judgments or local voters' choices are to count for anything. The Bill is centralist and stuffed full of impracticalities and half-baked ideas. It would serve our children and our country badly, and it must be defeated.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. John Bowis: Brevity seems to be the core curriculum for the debate, so I shall be as brief as possible on a couple of aspects of the Bill rather than doing the usual tour d'horizon of the education scene.
  Before I came to this place as the Member for Battersea I served for a term as education chairman in the London borough of Kingston. During that time, we were able to

  839
  introduce an experiment on financial delegation. Although I did not stay long enough to see the benefits of that come to fruition, I have been back since to check up on the results. I was impressed to find that one school has been redecorated and has refitted its science laboratory on the basis of savings from heating, lighting and so on. That is a small example of what financial delegation can do. It is clear that without such experiments and without the expansion of such experiments, there is no incentive to save. Even if the incentive had been there and the school had made the effort, the savings would not have benefited the school but merely have come back into the central pot. That is an important reason why the financial delegation provisions are greatly to be welcomed.
  I wish to discuss, slightly less briefly, but not for too long, the question of the Inner London education authority. I listened carefully to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is tempted to buy his line, I shall buy it too. The abolition of ILEA would be to the general benefit of mankind — particularly mankind in inner London.
  Let me put that in a local context. ILEA is a heavy-spending authority and a heavily under-achieving authority. It is bottom of the league and bottom of the class. ILEA as a whole is bad enough, but my division is worse. In ILEA we are not named, we have divisions. My borough of Wandsworth is division 10 of ILEA. Division 10's results are below average even for ILEA, which is itself bottom of the national league. It is not surprising—
  Mr. Straw: Which league is the hon. Gentleman referring to? The Sheffield university study of local education authorities put ILEA 56th out of 104 authorities.
  Mr. Bowis: I am talking in terms of academic results and results as seen by local parents.
  There are two exceptions in division 10, both of which are Church schools and I receive many letters from parents seeking to get their children into those voluntary-aided schools. In division 10, 25 per cent, of children go into band 1 secondary schools and 52 per cent, go to band 2 schools. We are below average in terms of the number of pupils needing free school meals and the number who are not fluent in English, so we are not a particularly disadvantaged area. Our results should be a bit above average, yet only 17 per cent, of our pupils are entered for five or more O-levels and only 9 per cent, leave school with five or more O-levels or CSE grade 1 passes, compared with 15 per cent, for ILEA as a whole and 24 per cent, for the national average.
  Let us put the figures another way. The national average for children leaving with no exam passes is 9–9 per cent; in ILEA the figure is 22 per cent. That is why our division and many other divisions of ILEA want to make the change. Above all, it is to improve standards that Wandsworth wants to run its own schools for its own people. If we can get the opting-out system going and establish a national curriculum, we shall begin to make sense of our education.
  The Audit Commission poll showed considerable dissatisfaction with local schools and with value for money
  840
  in education. There was three times as much dissatisfaction in the ILEA area. The dissatisfaction relates more to secondary than to primary schools but it is there for both. People are more dissatisfied with education than with any other service anywhere in the country, with the exception of inner-London council housing. Furthermore, local employers complain that they cannot find adequately educated school leavers to fill jobs. We must find ways of improving our education system to solve that problem, with its implications for employment as a whole.
  The only place in which ILEA'S results stack up against the national average is not a school in division 10 or in divisions 1 to 9 but Wolverstone hall boarding school, which was on television recently. The school is run by a former master from Westminster school and its costs are somewhat more expensive than those of Eton, but that is the fault of management costs and not the school itself. Instead of seeking to reduce the management costs of such a school, ILEA seeks to close it. That sums up ILEA'S ethos.
  Wandsworth's track record in local government suggests that we could and would pare down administrative costs, but, more important, we would increase the real extra spending at the sharp end of the service — that is, the chalk face. Boroughs such as Wandsworth, which run their own education systems, would be more sensitive to the needs of the local community—the community of children, parents and employers. There would not be just six representatives from our part of London trying to make their voices heard in county hall, but 61 local councillors, all involved in education, sensitive to local opinion, taking political decisions and listening.
  There are many scare stories going around ILEA at the moment, not least in respect of adult education. I get letter after letter from people saying what a shame it is that Wandsworth is going to take over adult education. Adult education will be abolished. I received a letter from a student asking whether I was aware that adult education tutors were distributing notepaper and pens and giving them the text to write to me and others. One needs to be aware that scare stories are going around. The reality is in the pledge from our local council leader in Wandsworth that adult education will certainly have high priority. The reality also exists in the Secretary of State's guarantee. He would not accept an opting-out scheme that did not cater adequately for adult education. The same applies to all the other facilities about which people are concerned.
  It may be that when boroughs opt out, they will not go it totally alone. Two or three boroughs may share facilities, and that will be for the benefit of all. It is true that there will be greater co-operation within boroughs. There will be dual use of facilities such as halls, sports grounds, libraries, and so on.
  Mr. Dennis Turner rose—
  Mr. Bowis: I shall not give way. I am bringing my remarks to a close so that more hon. Members can speak. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I shall give way another time, but I am told that we are looking for brevity.
  The answer is to let boroughs run their own schools. As has been said, we had a bye-election, which more than

  841
  tested that point. The Labour party spent the entire by-election talking about it. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was seen more often in Southfields than in this Chamber. He dashed around all over the place. At the end of the day, when the votes were counted, the hon. Gentleman came, he saw, and we doubled our majority. That is the message that we should give with the Bill. Let us give it.
  8.42 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. We on this Bench have often been welcomed back to the House but it is amazing how, when it comes to that which appears to be business for Great Britain, we are left out, despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Northern Ireland who deals with education has actually said that he will introduce an order under the Bill. That will occur under the iniquitous system whereby we cannot debate or amend legislation.
  I was interested in the comments of the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), the Second Church Estates Commissioner, about the religious and moral emphasis of the Bill. It is amazing how the myth that parents have choice is still perpetuated. For example, in Northern Ireland, when parents objected to the problem relating to school textbooks, they were stonewalled right along the line because of the Northern Ireland council that sets such books. That attitude will prevail right down the line with this Bill.
  People have been led to believe that there will be choice, but, when it comes to the coal face, there will be no real choice. In fact, when the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) spoke, I suspected that at least some people on the Opposition side thought that the only choice would come about as a result of vandalism. Apparently, that has happened during the right hon. Gentleman's new incarnation and has opened the field for competition. I suspect that that problem may face us in connection with education, which some believe will be changed by the vandalism of this Bill.
  I welcome the Bill in so far as it extends to Great Britain, but I emphasise that circumstances that justify action to improve standards in Great Britain may not apply to Northern Ireland. If hon. Members care to examine the statistics that were given to me by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) on 9 November and by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science on 16 November, they will discover that, whereas the pupil-teacher ratio in England is 17·6 per cent., in Belfast it is 17 per cent. That is not a big difference. The pass rate for those who leave with more than one A-level is 14 per cent, in England and 23·6 per cent, in Northern Ireland. We in Northern Ireland do not want reformation that will lower the standards that have been maintained over the years.
  I sympathise with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). He paid tribute to teachers generally. I support that, but there is no way that school government or management committees can know the teachers' teaching qualities, especially those who apply for first appointment. After appointment, it is difficult to remove bad teachers. Having been on a local management committee for 19 years, I have discovered that we are not allowed to know teachers' gradings. We might know everything else, but not that. I suspect that the Bill will not
  842
  make any difference in that respect. I disagree with the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup when he said that the Secretary of State for Education and Science is the most powerful man in the Government. The most powerful man in the Government is the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Even when we ask questions of the Attorney-General, we are sidetracked to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  There is concern in the university in my constituency. I do not share the delight that was expressed by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas), who welcomed the advent of a sub-committee to deal with funding. Our experience in Northern Ireland in the University Grants Committee make one decision, the Department of Education in Northern Ireland makes another, and, at times, neither is right.
  8.47 pm
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I am aware of the need for brevity, so I shall not refer to any other part of the Bill apart from that which deals with schooling, and I shall do so briefly. I welcome many of the Bill's provisions.
  Increased parental choice and open enrolment, to which other hon. Members have referred, are vital. We believe, unlike certain Opposition Members, that parents can choose better than local government advisers. By being able to choose, they will enhance their understanding of the system and have a pride in what they do. The more parental choice there is, the better schools and families we shall have. If the family—the parents and children—agree with the school that they attend, there will be unity within the whole.
  Similarly, I agree with the delegation of funds to be performed by schools. A school that can meet together under its head and decide where to spend its money will be a better school. Money will be better spent. It will be spent not where a local authority thinks that it should be spent or where the Government think that it should be spent. Schools know the local circumstances, and money will go much further if there is delegation of that type.
  I agree also with the break-up of ILEA. The old London county council was one of the finest local education authorities in the world. When I first came to London it was highly respected, but unfortunately ILEA never took the same stance as that taken by the LCC, nor had the dignity of the LCC. I believe that the breaking down of education from ILEA to boroughs will be better. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) that, instead of boroughs dropping out one by one, it may be a good idea to deal with them in a fell swoop so that they can go out together. We cannot have boroughs dropping out of ILEA each year, like a jigsaw puzzle which falls to bits and can never be put back together again. That suggestion should be borne in mind.
  Further improvement could be made on one or two points. I am glad that the common curriculum will be more flexible. I believe in a core curriculum—not a common curriculum — which has a minimum requirement of English, mathematics and other subjects which all children can do. I do not like the specification that all children, from the most able to the least able, should do the same number of lessons on the same curriculum. That is the ultimate egalitarian comprehensive curriculum which I do not want. I am pleased that more flexibility is coming in.

  843
  I follow what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) on religious education. I realise that religious education is provided for at the beginning of the Bill, but I should like to see it as a foundation or core subject. I believe that man's knowledge of his place in the universe and the purpose of his life is more important even than English and maths. These days we have more moral than political problems, and many political problems would go away if we could solve the moral problems. I should like to see RE as a foundation or core subject.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that no school will operate at its best unless and until religious education is properly handled, well taught and at the centre of school life?
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I have great respect for my hon. Friend, who is a neighbour and is the first hon. Member I met outside the House because he taught at the school at which I was head in the east end of London. I will not say that a school led by agnostics with agnostic staff could not be a good school, but in most cases a school will be better if it has religious unity and feeling.
  We should settle for all time the amount of money given to voluntary aided schools. There were the old battles— I do not remember them, but we have all read of them —of the liberal attitude of the Liberal party in putting Government funds into non-denominational schools. Government funding is 85 per cent, now—a rise from 75 per cent, since I have been in the House. As voluntary aided schools are already funded by grants, they should be given 100 per cent, funding for building costs. The parents pay their rates and taxes like everybody else, and since parental contributions enhance voluntary aided schools, the time has come for the Government to fund building costs 100 per cent., like everybody else.
  I hope all secondary schools opt out, if parents want to.
  I would like to see schools in my constituency opt out. Primary schools may opt out only if they have more than 300 pupils, but small village schools may wish to opt out. When I was a Minister, delegation after delegation made representations for the preservation of village schools.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.
  Sir Rhodes Boyson: I hear that call from afar.
  Delegations regularly see Ministers on this subject. Village schools should be given the same amount of money per pupil as all other schools in the local authority, and they can top it up with funds from the annual bazaar, or whatever else they raise money from. The Government should say, "Look, you can have your money per head as always, but the rest is up to you." That would make them responsible in the village for what they are doing.
  All primary schools should be able to opt out. That would solve for all time the battle about the continuance of primary schools. I went to a small village school in Lancashire, so village schools obviously matter to me.
  I hope that we are careful not to centralise too much. I do not want power to go from local authorities to Government; I want it to go to schools, particularly to parents. Schools should not be run like co-operative societies; parents want to choose. The signs are that, as has already happened, there will be more liberalisation of the
  844
  common curriculum. Hon. Members on the Committee on the Bill, before the Third Reading, should test everything in Committee. It is not that the Government Members do not trust Opposition Members—some nice people are in the Opposition — but we should be prepared if there were some cataclysm and the Labour party came to power. No Government should give more power to themselves than they would be prepared to give to an alternative Government.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson); I have done so many times.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science, when he opened the debate, more than once used the expression, "all our children". I think he meant "all the nation's children", because all the children he was talking about have nothing to do with the state education system; it is all our children who have to do with the state education system.
  The so-called Education Reform Bill is an attack on state education, because it has been so successful that for some reason a vendetta has been waged against it and an attempt has been made to privatise education. It is a blatant attack on education and an attempt to open the door to privatisation through vouchers and so on. It will mean the end of equal and free educational opportunities for all our children.
  The Bill will bring schools into the jungle of the market place. That is the mentality behind it. The Bill is also an attack on local democracy, which has served us well and has been built up patiently through the years. It reveals the hatred of the Tory leadership for freely elected national representatives. I can remember many occasions in the Chamber when Conservative Members boasted that they were the defenders of local democracy, and I believed them. The Tory party has now been revealed to have changed its opinion and is the great attacker of local democracy. It wishes to substitute centralisation for local democracy.
  The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) engaged in a tortuous argument that centralisation was really the diffusion of democracy, in some curious alchemical way that he thought out for himself, when we all know that the Bill will lead to centralisation and will deliberately break up the long-established traditional relationship between parents, teachers and local education authorities. The Bill comprises 169 pages of clumsily constructed but clearly intended menace to one of the finest and most admired state education systems, and possibly the first in the world. The intended victims are 96 per cent, of our children — all of our children, except those in the private sector. The private sector is immune from this legislation.
  We shall be condemned to ask for more money for our children—we can obtain about £1,000 for each child— yet the education of Tory Members' children will cost about £6,000 or £7,000. Conservative Members condemn us for trying to obtain more money. The beneficiaries, therefore, will be a small elitist group, but Tory Members loathe the tremendous success of the democratic comprehensive system. It has borne fruit and has weaknesses, but we are trying to rectify them as best we can. Every normal growing pain of the system has been put under the microscope and magnified beyond belief. The

  845
  kept and venal press, which is owned by the Tories for the Tories, has attacked every democratic advance with brutal determination. That is the reality of the education system that is now under attack. [Laughter.]Tory Members may laugh, but that is the hard reality of the matter.
  The pitiful level of funding for our ordinary children is made to appear too much. HMI will shortly be under attack. Its report was held back until after the election because the Government knew what was in it. Meanwhile, the funding of the private sector is blurred and concealed. More and more Tory parents are seeing through this iniquitous Bill and seeing, with increasing clarity, that their children will suffer. Many of them know that their children have done well out of comprehensive education and from the abolition of the 11-plus. How can anyone, in all conscience, pretend, as the Secretary of State does, that he is interested in higher standards, when his every action will result in lowering standards?
  The future of public education in Britain is at stake. Opting out is the backbone of the Act and it will come under attack in the other place as well as from people throughout the country. If opting out is smashed, the back of the Bill will be broken, no matter how many other vicious measures there are in it.
  Plans for grant-maintained schools will not increase choice for the majority of parents and will not improve standards. It will profoundly damage the maintained education service. In many areas it will play into the hands of an unrepresentative pressure group in a fundamentally undemocratic way. Instead of using the democratic process to change the way that the local authority manages, if it disagrees with it, a group of governors and parents, by a simple majority and with only a minority of parents involved, can take the school out of the system without regard for the interests of pupils, parents and teachers, and with no debate about it.
  I question whether parents want the responsibility of running schools. They have never demanded it before, but it has suddenly appeared from nowhere. It will place an appalling burden on lay people — most of whom are fully committed elsewhere, have other major demands on their time and may have only a short-term interest in the school.
  It is rumoured that the Government will probably offer incentives to opt out. The Prime Minister seems to differ with the Secretary of State about how many schools will opt out. If a large number of schools decide to opt out —the Secretary of State reputedly thinks that there will be only a few—the Department will become a huge and growing bureaucracy, similar to an educational Pentagon.
  I am sure that other speakers will deal with the appalling problems created by the Bill, but as I have been asked to conclude, I shall say that practically every organisation in the educational world is against the Bill. I am convinced that most of the people of Britain are against it. It is a hopeless Bill and in time it will be seen as a reactionary and useless piece of legislation.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: The forces of reaction have been hard at work opposing this legislation. Conservative Members were tempted by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who invited Members who thought that they had anything constructive to contribute about his education authority to say so. The Select Committee visited Oxford, East during the last Parliament and
  846
  discovered chaos. We found a hung education authority, where its chairman rotated at every meeting. There was different political control at every meeting, so I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is proud of it.
  We had to listen to the spokesman for the Liberal party, the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). I apologise for speaking in his absence, but he will be able to get his own back tomorrow night as I read in my local paper that he is addressing a meeting in my constituency on the future of political priorities in this country. He said that there will be fewer students, which will damage the country's prospects, yet we heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there will be an additional 50,000 British students in polytechnics as a result of the Government's policies.
  The hon. Member for Yeovil said that we were swallowing the black propaganda of the Government about the failure of the present system. We are now swallowing black propaganda, and I shall demonstrate why. The hon. Gentleman represents the interests of the Liberal party. He speaks so fast that no one will be able to hear him, so he is able to get away with it. However, some of his points came across and I think that they should be answered.
  The Bill has not had a long debate. We are told that the Butler Bill had many days of debate in the Chamber, but it did not have a fraction of the public interest that has surrounded this debate. It has run for 10 years, since Lord Callaghan's Ruskin college speech. The much maligned consultation has raised the level of debate above hot air and into detailed discussion about where we are going, away from the political rhetoric.
  As a former teacher and as a parent, I am keen to understand the implications of the Bill. I have been sensitive to the worries and objections of some of the teaching professions — not least because I declare an interest as a consultant to the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association, my professional association for 20 years. I assure the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. M. Smyth) that the interests of teachers over the water are not neglected by that association, and that the House takes an interest in education in the Province.
  Whenever I travelled overseas with the Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts in the last Parliament, I was impressed by the need to put our education system in an international perspective. I believe that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) would agree, because he accompanied me to West Germany to study education. A missing ingredient in the great debate has been an international perspective. It has hardly been mentioned in today's debate.
  There is an international perspective, partly for historical reasons because of our inextricable links with so many lands, and partly because of the pre-eminent importance of international trade. In financial services and manufacturing we must be able to compete. We worry about import penetration. We have to fight back against those countries which are apparently much more successful. I am an optimist, not a pessimist, and I believe that we can expand our industrial base again, but it depends on knowing one's enemy. Internationally our education standards effect cultural diplomacy, the British interest overseas and overseas students.
  There is genuine concern about the Bill, but there is also a great deal of inertia in educational establishments. A good many vested interests oppose the legislation. Is it

  847
  political dogma that is driving the Government? I think not. The evidence is overwhelming that we must act quickly. In some areas such as local financial management we are lagging 10 years behind other democracies, whether Socialist-controlled or not. In Australia, Canada, the United States and West Germany we find that even under Socialist control there is far more interest in local financial management. They have moved away from the cult of egalitarianism in education towards the importance of resourcing the needs of individual students in the interest of fulfilment of those students and in the interest of national progress.
  When it comes to international economic performance, the evidence on where we stand is staggeringly depressing. I pay tribute to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research for the painstaking work it has carried out over many years, which was referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice). He painted only one side of the picture; I hope to be allowed to paint the other side.
  In a recent paper by Hilary Steedman, to be published shortly, it emerges that in France young people seeking vocational qualifications in the mechanical and electrical industries must first attain the basic school leaving certificate. About half of all French school leavers achieve that. It requires a pass in three core subjects, French, mathematics and history with geography, plus standard passes in seven other subjects — that is, passes in 10 subjects. The standard of the written subjects is close to our old CSE grade 1 or 2. That is far above the average attainment for our school leavers, which is CSE grade 4.
  In both mechanical and electrical engineering France trains between two and a half and three times as many qualified craftsmen and technicians as Britain to standards which are often higher than equivalent qualifications here. In Britain there are no signs that the vast numbers of YTS trainees have helped to increase the numbers attaining craftsmen's qualifications.
  But France lags behind Germany and Japan. All three countries produce two to three times as many qualified craftsmen and technicians per head of the work force as Britain. In one specific subject, mathematics, the difference between English and German achievement is an English lag behind Germany of about two years of schooling. The German average for the lower half of their ability range is close to the average for all English pupils. In other words, the German system has raised the average attainment of its weakest 50 per cent, to that of the English average.
  There was worse news from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research in the February review. The high technical quality and reliability of Japanese manufactures raises questions about how their training and education are better. Industrial progress and higher productivity obviously depend on many things, but basically, in Japan, it is the result of better foundation courses — Japanese pupils' attainments in science and mathematics are higher than ours — and those higher standards make possible more advanced vocational preparation.
  The Japanese curriculum is more centralised than ours, but can we really afford the fourth-rate consequences of the current curriculum fudge? Of course we cannot. The new partnership in the Bill will spread power to the rim of
  848
  the wheel, which has always been my right hon. Friend's objective since he first raised the issue, rather than have it stuck in the spokes.
  The Bill will give parents an important new role and an important new partnership, and I welcome it. Many hon. Members will want to make other points and no doubt they can do so in Committee. If we fail to give the Bill its Second Reading tonight, we shall have wasted a great opportunity.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Derek Fatchett: Those hon. Members who attended education debates in the last Parliament will have been struck immediately by the fact that the attendance throughout today's debate has been considerably greater than it was then. For those of us who are deeply interested in education, it is good to see so much interest and so many hon. Members wanting to speak. It may well be that hon. Members differ fundamentally but, nevertheless, education is back in its rightful place at the top of the political agenda.
  It gives me great pleasure to say that we have had two excellent maiden speeches this evening. I offer my congratulations to the hon. Members for Hexham (Mr. Amos) and for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks). The hon. Member for Hexham showed a great deal of confidence and it was good to see that he had such a keen knowledge of and interest in his constituency. I would disagree with him quite sharply on one or two of the education points that he made and one or two of the conclusions that he drew, but, nevertheless, I look forward to his future contributions to our education debate.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East paid a warm tribute to her predecessor which will be well received by Labour Members. We miss Mrs. Short. She was a great contributor to debates such as this and to many other activities within the Labour party and the House. Therefore the hon. Lady's comments were particularly apposite.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East also commented on the skill shortage, and we agree with what she said about that. She displayed great knowledge of the employment and education scene, but, again, as with the hon. Member for Hexham, we would disagree fundamentally with her prescription and analysis. Nevertheless it was pleasing to hear two such maiden speeches in an education debate.
  That was the pleasant side of the debate. However, there has also been an unpleasant spectacle here this afternoon. We have seen the Tory party at its atavistic, unpleasant worst, displaying a degree of thuggery towards its former leader and a former Prime Minister of Britain that is disgraceful for a mature political party. It may well be that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) disagrees with much that is said from the Conservative Benches these days. He may well disagree with a lot that is done in the name of the Conservative party now, but he clearly has a right to say it without being intimidated. Some of the intimidating behaviour on the Conservative Benches was a blow to the name and traditions of the House and was clearly an attempt to prevent the right hon. Gentleman speaking in the way that he wished, as he has the right to do.
  Mr. Pawsey: Where is he now?
  Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman always falls into the first available elephant trap. He displays the sort of behaviour about which I was talking and which I have already criticised.
  Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fatchett: No, not at this stage. I will give way when we reach some education issues.
  That the Conservative party is fundamentally divided on this issue was obvious not only from the comments made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup today and by the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) last week, but from a series of speeches today. It was very interesting to hear the right hon. Member for Chingford, (Mr. Tebbit) expressing some reservations and doubts about the national curriculum. If those doubts creep that far, the Conservative party and the Secretary of State have very big problems indeed.
  What has been reflected in this debate is what Conservative local authorities up and down the country have been telling the Government during the consultation period. A list of those authorities controlled by the Conservative party which are wholly or largely opposed to the proposals represents the heartland of Conservatism: the Prime Minister's Barnet, Hertfordshire, Dorset, East Sussex, Havering, Hereford and Worcester, Suffolk, Solihull, Essex, Kent, Kingston, Norfolk, Surrey and Northumberland. All those authorities and many other Tory authorities have fundamental objections to the provisions of this Bill. Not only is Conservative opinion in education against this Bill, so is every national organisation of parents and of teachers; so are the Churches; any body that knows about education and educational practice is against this Bill in principle and in detail.
  Mr. Tracey rose—
  Mr. Fatchett: No, I will not give way.
  That leads to another factor which has characterised this debate. The Secretary of State finds himself in a unique position. He is isolated in his party from all those involved in educational practice; all those Conservatives in local government who know about education disagree with him. On the other hand we have the Right-wing zealots of the Conservative party who do not trust him and do not know how far he wants to go. So he finds himself in this unique position, condemned on the one hand and not trusted on the other.
  Mr. Pawsey: Wait until we vote.
  Mr. Fatchett: When the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said that he wanted to hear about one-nation Conservatism, he spoke to a large extent for his party in local government. He also said, rightly, that it is ideology, the ideology of the market, that dominates this Bill. I thought that it would be useful to have a look at the definition of Conservatism. I went and found somebody who is the architect of the thinking that underpins much of the Bill, Roger Scruton. He said that he would define Conservatism as
  "faith in arrangements that are known and tested".
  When it comes to education, he does not have that same faith in the arrangements that are known and tested. But the truth about this Bill is that the proposals before us are not known, are not tested and are taking us into waters that are uncharted and dangerous for our children.
  850
  When the Government lo, ok for approval of some of their assumptions and prejudices, they fail to find it in the educational establishment and among those who know about education. Let us take testing. We have been told time and again from the Government Benches that testing is easy. There is a facile assumption, giving rise to much of the rhetoric about ease of testing. In reality, tests are not easy to devise. Educationists, have spent years trying to come up with tests, arguing about objectivity and bias. What do we get from the Government? Three months for experts to come up with tests. Yet those responsible for tests are saying that it cannot be done.
  Mr. John Maples: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. On this question of testing, if the Government proposal to introduce assessment at seven, 11 and 14 is such a bad idea, what does the hon. Gentleman think of ILEA'S recent proposal to test children for reading at seven, 11 and 13?
  Mr. Fatchett: We have struggled all through this debate to distinguish, for those on the Government Benches, between diagnostic testing and competitive testing. I will return to that point later. The point that I was making is that Conservatism depends on faith in arrangements that are known and tested.
  We have heard no answer from the Government Benches during the debate to the question, "Why this jump to arrangements that are unknown and untested?" I looked at a submission from north Yorkshire county council, which is not one of the Left-wing authorities to which Conservative rhetoric sometimes refers. The council put two points to the Secretary of State which have not been answered so far. First, it asked in what particular respects the service provided in north Yorkshire by the local authority is so lacking as to justify the measures proposed in the Education Reform Bill. There has been no answer for north Yorkshire or for any other authorities. Much more importantly, the council asked in what respects the measures are likely to improve the position in north Yorkshire. Again there were no answers in the debate because there are no answers.
  If the Government are serious about looking for answers in the procedures in this House, they have the opportunity tonight to vote for the motion
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fatchett: I will give way in a few moments.
  The Government can vote in favour of the motion and agree to submit the proposals to a Special Standing Committee so that they can be examined.
  The right hon. Member for Chingford said that he wanted more time for debate. If he wants more time for debate and more discussion about the detailed proposals on the national curriculum, why does he not join us in the Lobby and vote for the motion to commit the Bill to a Special Standing Committee?
  Mr. Tebbit: To start with, I do not recollect actually saying that. That is one good reason why I will not join the hon. Gentlemen in the Lobby. Another reason is that the Opposition have no idea what to do about education policy. They even swapped their spokesman because one was no good and they had to bring in another. They have no policy—[Interruption.]They have nothing to offer. They persist in claiming that testing is impossible, when it

  851
  is possible. They insist on saying that they oppose the core curriculum and that they are in favour of it. In fact, they are in a complete muddle. They do not admit that education is not satisfying the parents and they have no way of satisfying parents and they do not want to make any progress. That is why—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Mr. Fatchett.
  Mr. Fatchett: All hon. Members will realise that I made a mistake in giving way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fatchett: I will give way to the hon. Lady in a moment. Giving way to the right hon. Gentleman only allowed me to learn of the depths to which he can descend on occasions.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Give way.
  Mr. Fatchett: I will finish my comments about the special procedure and then give way.
  We have the opportunity to vote so that the House can go into detail on many of the points that have caused anxiety among Conservative Members. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to support us in the Lobby so that hon. Members and educational experts can have the time to put their case to us.
  Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, eventually. The point about the Bill is that many schools, such as those in my area, are good and already follow procedures such as those set down in the Bill. The Secretary of State and the Conservative party are trying to raise standards in the inner-city authorities such as ILEA to those standards that already appertain in Lancashire in Wyre.
  Mr. Fatchett: I am delighted that the hon. Lady supports the education provision in Labour-controlled Lancashire with such enthusiasm and I hope that she will continue to do that.
  There has been constant criticism of the education system from Conservative Members tonight. Every time Conservative Members have an opportunity in the House or in public they denigrate what happens in education. They give no facts, just prejudice and assertion. That is why they always end up in a position of ambivalence and hostility towards the system. That is why the Secretary of State said that there are more youngsters in higher education, but in the next breath said that the education system is flawed. That logic is flawed, which is why every year the Government issue press releases from the Department of Education and Science to say that more youngsters are passing O and A-levels, but in the next press release or the next speech, they criticise the education system. Their logic is flawed.
  The greatest obscenity of all from the Government is that time after time they trade statistics which suggest that they have invested in our children's education. However, they have tried to avoid investing in our children's education. It has been Labour-controlled local authorities, supported by the ratepayers and voted for by the ratepayers, but penalised by the Government, that have continued to invest in our children's education. That is the
  852
  reality. The Conservative Benches are Benches of shame when one is talking about investment in children's education.
  In his opening speech the Secretary of State said that the Bill is about freedom, choice and improving standards. However, there is absolutely no evidence to support any of those assertions. On the contrary, the Bill will centralise, divide and lower standards. It will centralise because the Secretary of State will take 175 new powers. If a Labour Government took 175 new powers, I suspect that all Fleet street and the media would say that that was a law of dictatorship. However, all that now happens is that the Secretary of State smiles happily as the new powers are assumed.
  There is no surprise in the fact that he does not worry about that because last year the same Secretary of State took from 400,000 teachers the basic democratic right to negotiate with their employers. Therefore, he is not a man who worries too much about fundamental rights. We are now paying the price of the decision that he took 12 months ago. When the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said that he was fed up with teachers being hammered, he was absolutely right because at all levels in the education system, teachers have been hammered by the Government and their propaganda for eight years. The fact that they have continued to perform is a great credit to them, but no credit to the Government.
  Even the right hon. Member for Chingford has some hesitations about the national curriculum, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) called the "state curriculum". That is what it is, because it is not open to consultation with parents or teachers about the detailed syllabus. That will be determined by a parliamentary process that will allow little discussion or consultation, even here. We all know what happens in this place with orders. We cannot table amendments or even have discussions because we shall have only a late-night debate. That is the way in which our children's syllabuses for all subjects will be determined.
  Dr. Hampson rose—
  Mr. Fatchett: I shall give way in a moment.
  To say that that process will avoid centralisation is a great risk because it avoids the truth and the reality of the process. Syllabuses are open to political values and interpretation. The Government will not only prescribe what will be taught but, through the syllabus, what will be thought in the future. They are taking power over not only the teachers, but the minds of our children through what will go in the national curriculum.
  Dr. Hampson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Surely he has not forgotten the views about a national curriculum of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he was the shadow education spokesman? He also seems to have forgotten the speech that was made by Lord Callaghan at Ruskin college, which started the great debate that began all of this. More importantly, he seems to have forgotten the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate 10 years ago, under a Labour Government, which proposed that four fifths of school time should be devoted to a national curriculum, exactly as has been proposed in this Bill. Has he forgotten that that happened under his party's Government?
  Mr. Fatchett: I believe that our children need a flexible core curriculum. What they have in front of them is a core

  853
  curriculum that is virtually all core and no fruit. We need a curriculum for schools that will provide that fruit. What we have got and what we are giving to our children is a prescriptive education without reference to individual children's learning difficulties or ability.
  Higher education has not featured much in today's debate. Higher education will be subject to a further degree of centralisation. Our polytechnics will be taken out of local control and nationalised. They will be given to and controlled by the DES. Our universities will also be put under the control of the DES as a result of the new funding system. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals made the point simply when it said:
  "This Bill would create a new bureaucratic machinery subservient to direct and detailed ministerial intervention. This is strangely at odds with the Government's declared intention to foster university autonomy and runs counter to its expressed belief that organisations respond best if they are given responsibility implicit in freedom."
  The Government are centralising higher education and, on top of that, they are bringing in the absurdity of the contracting system. The absurdity of that system was much better expressed by Lord Beloff in the other place when he said:
  "The idea that you can contract with universities in the way in which one business contracts with another for a supply of widgets is an absurdity which could only have emanated from the deepest recesses of bureaucratic Whitehall. I have been trying to imagine the kind of contracts which universities might enter into. One occurs to me which might have been suitable for the University of Cambridge. The Department of Education and Science proposes to supply certain equipment; to wit, one apple tree, Grannie Smith for preference. The University of Cambridge in return undertakes that within a period of 18 months or less, making allowances for statutory holidays, a member of its staff, one Mr. Newton, will invent gravitation." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 1987; Vol. 488, c. 164.]
  That is the nature and the absurdity of the contract system. It is an absurdity that will direct choice, control freedom in our universities and restrict the range of disciplines and subjects that are taught. It might also have been useful if the Bill had made some reference not just to academic tenure, but to academic freedom. This Government have talked about academic freedom in other contexts. Why does the Bill make no reference to it?
  The Bill will divide and lower standards. It will divide because, within our school system, the grant-maintained schools will inevitably become selective, fee-paying schools. The Government deny that, but I believe that that is clear enough if one looks at the city technology colleges already in existence or those planned. When it comes to the selection of a second or third science or the second or third language, the parents will be charged for that subject. That is the way the grant-maintained schools will work.
  The idea of testing will also be divisive. From what we have heard tonight it is clear the Government's intention is to compare class against class, school against school. Once that is done, the only purpose of testing is to make it competitive so that children are divided at the ages of seven, 11 and 14 into successes or failures. By doing that standards are lowered because children will be taught to pass and not taught to expand and fulfil their abilities.
  The Government have missed an opportunity. There was an alternative agenda that could have been put before the nation: an alternative agenda that talked about expanding nursery education for all our youngsters aged three or four; an agenda that talked about providing
  854
  adequate resources for books, for GCSE subjects, for school buildings and for tackling the teaching shortage in some subjects; an agenda that talked about developing and resourcing diagnostic testing. Such an agenda spoke of combined and greater school and parent involvement, and about tackling the disgracefully low staying-on rate of 16-year-olds. It talked about providing coherent and valuable provision for post 16-year-olds. It spoke about broadening the access to higher education and ending the iniquitous divide between universities and polytechnics. It is a programme for investment in education to build and extend what is good, thereby providing greater opportunity and higher standards. That is what the Government should have done; sadly, they have chosen a course determined by ideological blindness. As a result, our children, their education and our future will suffer. That is why I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Bill tonight.
  9.35 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I join the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) in saying that this has been a most interesting debate, with many contributors speaking on a subject that the Government regard as one of the highest priorities for discussion by the House. I also join him in congratulating the two excellent maiden speakers whom we had the privilege of hearing this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) spoke fluently and with excellent content. She spoke of her constituency with warmth and understanding, and I am sure that her new constituents will have every reason to be proud to have her representing them in the House. We shall certainly do our best to make her desire for a city technology college come to pass in her constituency. As she rightly said, as a teacher and parent she represents the views of many people in this country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) is obviously a worthy successor to our noble Friend, Lord Rippon. I am not ashamed to admit that his speech reflected my own views on the importance of the maintained sector of education. I agree with his comments about testing, and I believe that he acted well as a chairman of an education committee when he was a councillor in Enfield. He was right to say that there is an arrogant paternalism about people who say that only certain sorts of people are fit to make choices for their children. All parents, from whatever social and financial circumstances they come, have a right to make such choices for their children. My hon. Friend was correct to draw that to the attention of the House.
  I wish to clarify three points with which we intend to deal during the Bill's progress. First, we have informed the leader of the Inner London education authority today about the London Institute. We intend to table an additional criterion in Committee with the effect that institutions which, on 1 November 1985, had more than 2,500 advanced further education students — regardless of percentage—shall be included for transfer to the new sector. That will bring the London Institute into the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.
  Secondly, subject to the outcome of our consultation on the document that was issued 13 November, the Secretary of State will add a clause to limit the power to award United Kingdom degrees to certain specified bodies. I

  855
  believe that Opposition Members will share our views on that. Thirdly, the period that we allowed for comment on charging ended only yesterday, and responses are still coming in. In the light of those, we shall consider how best the law may be clarified to preserve present practice, and any necessary revisions will then be introduced while the Bill is in Committee.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: In 1981, six long years ago, the Government pledged to legislate for special needs in further education, once the legal basis for further education had been clarified. Why has that pledge to young people with disabilities been broken by the Government? Why is not the Secretary of State legislating to meet those special needs at this time?
  Mrs. Rumbold: I am sure that the Committee will discuss that matter. I shall now go on to the substance of the debate. The Opposition have tried their best to establish that the Bill is a centralising measure. We have heard about the 175 powers that my right hon. Friend is supposedly taking. Their point betrays their failure to read and to understand the Bill's provisions. The point that they make is essentially trivial. Many of the powers given to the Secretary of State in the Bill are explicitly fashioned to enable him to push responsibility down to the local level beyond the town hall to the schools and colleges. They are devolutionary powers. That is the purpose and the effect of the provisions for financial delegation, more open enrolment, grant-maintained schools and polytechnics.
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Can the Minister tell us how long on average it takes the Secretary of State to respond to things such as school closure proposals? The real fear is that the Bill gives him powers to delay. Local people need to know who they can talk to and they must be able to do that quickly. The Secretary of State's record is not good.
  Mrs. Rumbold: I am given to understand that on average it takes six months from the notice of publication. Delegations come to see my right hon. Friend.
  The Bill provides more choice and more freedom. The proposals mean less control, not more, and that was not the case to anything like the same extent in the Education Act 1944, which has been extensively quoted during the debate. It gave over 100 powers to the Minister at the time. It is the Opposition who insist on clinging to the notion of centralisation. They cannot tolerate real choice for parents and real responsibility for schools and colleges, because those things offend against their bureaucratic notions of planning.
  Mr. George Howarth: In answer to a question, the Minister said that Knowsley borough council had said that it wanted a city technology college. One member of that authority made a statement to that effect, but neither the education committee of the borough council nor the full council has made any such approach to the Government. Will the Minister withdraw what she said?
  Mrs. Rumbold: The approach from Knowsley was in the form of an open letter on 17 November 1986 to the Secretary of State for Education and Science and it was from the chairman of Knowsley education committee, Councillor Nolan. The letter opposed the idea of a city technology initiative as proposed by the Government, but
  856
  it invited the Secretary of State to set up a CTC in conjunction with the local education authority. The CTC would be based on an existing school and would be for pupils who were economically and culturally disadvantaged. It would be a joint DES-LEA school. I understand that officials on both sides have met to discuss this and further progress may well be made in future.
  There have been many speeches in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) made an eloquent speech. He was right to say that all that we have heard from the Opposition was about their power to oppose and not their power to suggest. We shall certainly take careful note of my right hon. Friend's wise points about the job that confronts the colleges of further education. I am reminded that when I made my maiden speech he was sitting on the Government Front Bench and we were talking about the youth training scheme. I am grateful to him for drawing to our attention the important job that the colleges of further education will have to do.
  We also note my right hon. Friend's concern about the national curriculum. I noted with some amusement the points that he made about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Christmas tree. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not wish to put every present upon the Christmas tree, because last year his daughter placed on the Christmas tree for him a beautiful present. It was a plastic tulip. We watched him blow it up for a few days but, fortunately for all of us, he relegated it to another office. I do not think that the officials were very happy about that.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made some important points. He spoke about long-overdue reforms in education and said that our reforms have great clarity of purpose. My right hon. Friend is entirely right to say that many teachers will welcome the opportunity offered by our reforms, sharing with us the excitement of achieving high standards in our schools. Let me pay tribute to those many teachers, up and down the country, who share our view that much needs to be done in education, and who will work with a will to achieve the improvements and lever up standards, which my right hon. Friend rightly wants.
  My right hon. Friend was also right to point out that there are many low attainers, who happen to be the losers in our present system. He is right: we should take note of that. I was also interested that he wanted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take rather stronger powers to ensure that schools were rationalised, and that money was not extravagantly spent on schools with surplus places. I also have some sympathy with the point that he made about the abolition of ILEA. Other right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford made the same point.
  Our proposals allow for the abolition of the ILEA if it shrinks to the point at which it ceases to make sense. However, the Government's aim is to improve both the quality and the cost-effectiveness of education in inner London. That would not be achieved at this stage by imposing educational responsibilities on unwilling boroughs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) rightly reminded the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) that the word "local" does not only refer to authorities; it also refers to schools,

  857
  communities and the people who live in those communities. Those people are frequently parents, and send their children to local schools.
  I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) for his constructive comments about voluntary schools and religious education and I undertake to look carefully at the detailed points that he raised. We certainly intend to put right one point that he identified: we shall take steps in Committee to apply the law on collective worship and religious education directly to grant-maintained schools in particular. I shall also look carefully in Committee at the provisions concerned with winding up assets in former voluntary schools to ensure a clear and fair arrangement. I hope that my right hon. Friend will find those answers reassuring.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) touched on academic freedom, and I listened carefully to what he said. He referred to clause 131, which requires the commissioners to ensure that each university and college has proper procedures for applicants. The Bill also gives university employees recourse to the court, which they are now denied. In those ways, the Bill increases the protection of academic freedom rather than diminishing it.
  The power of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to give directions to both the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council follows a well-established precedent of the research councils, and no one has ever seen it as a threat to academic freedom.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I have been listening carefully, and waiting for the Minister to reach the topic of academic freedom. If I have understood her correctly, she has said that academic freedom will be protected through recourse to the courts. I do not think that that will satisfy the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals, which is very perturbed at the absence of a clause in the Bill to protect academic freedom. That was promised repeatedly by the Secretary of State before the publication of the Bill.
  Mrs. Rum bold: The hon. Lady may not be aware that the statutes must be approved by the Privy Council. That is, and always has been, a great protection of academic freedom.
  I think that I should tell the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. M. Smyth) that the system in Northern Ireland already offers the rest of the United Kingdom a great deal in terms of expertise, curriculum development and successful outcome. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is keeping in close touch with the progress of this Bill. The Bill is restricted to England, Wales, and, in certain areas of higher education, to Scotland. The provisions relating to tenure can be extended to Northern Ireland by Order in Council but education legislation in Northern Ireland is usually modelled on that applying in Britain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be interested in that note.
  We all welcome the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) on parental choice. We know how strongly he feels about that. I was glad to hear him say that he welcomes financial delegation. As a former head teacher, he will know how important it is to have contact with schools in those terms.
  We warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) to the House. I welcome him
  858
  particularly as he held a position that I formerly held, as chairman of the education committee in the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames. He spoke about financial delegation. I am glad that since my time in Kingston we have moved to financial delegation. I was also glad to hear my hon. Friend's views on ILEA. The figures he quoted were disgraceful in terms of the deprivation of the children in Wandsworth. We hope that that borough will take education unto itself in order to improve the standards for the children and parents within that area.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) drew to our attention the international perspective. It is extremely important that that sort of perspective should be reintroduced into the House because we wish to hear more about those points in relation to how our own children should be set standards.
  Opposition Members have spent this evening and many days, nights and hours opposing this Bill. They have written many articles about it and excited many people, together with some of their friends within the unions and some of those who live within the close circle of the education community, into opposing this Bill. Like many people, this morning I awoke to the dulcet tones of the great triumvirate; Mr. Jarvis, Mr. Snape and Mr. Hart. All those people sing the same song. They have been around for a number of years. I knew them all in my former incarnation in the local education authority.
  It is not just this Government that those people have been seeking to oppose. When I first met them I was in local government and the Secretary of State for Education and Science was the unlamented Mrs. Williams. She is known to the House for one of the most crucial acts of vandalism that any of us have experienced. It was Mrs. Williams who applied the abolition of direct grant schools and introduced the idea of abolishing grammar schools altogether.
  I have to tell the House that it was bitterly spiteful to take that sort of action. It was spiteful against the very children whom Opposition Members are supposed to support. It was spiteful against the very children who, by their own skills and abilities, went into schools and gained an opportunity to go on to higher education or to university. That was a scandalous thing to do. We did not have to put grammar schools, back because, mercifully, people such as me managed to resist the hon. Lady when she was trying to take grammar schools out of the system. We managed to preserve our grammar schools.
  When the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was still dancing the light fantastic with Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, the Conservative authorities up and down the country were fearful to take action other than to go comprehensive because they had been threatened by the bully boys of the Labour Government that if they ever regained power they would stop the capital allocations to authorities with grammar schools. Therefore, people were frightened that the children in those schools would be acted against by a spiteful Government.
  We were told that nobody likes our idea of a national curriculum. Opposition Members say, "Of course we would have one, but it would not be like yours." I have heard that somewhere before — usually in the playground of a school. It is the typical yah-boo attitude of people who know a good thing when they see it and are only furious that they did not get there first.
  We hear that no one wants open enrolment. Opposition Members do not say as much, but they mean that they do

  859
  not want open enrolment. They say, "Why should this nasty Government deprive us of the opportunity to push people around and tell them where to send their children?" A recent poll showed that 24 per cent. of people in England would prefer to send their children to other schools. In London, which is run by that model authority, ILEA, 35 per cent. of people wanted something different. The Opposition say that we should allow that unsatisfactory state of affairs to continue.
  Rab Butler said when introducing the 1944 Act:
  "In the new attitude to secondary education we have two main objectives. The first is that, so far as possible, provision of various types of education should be accessible to all, whatever their social and financial circumstances".
  The House will note "various types of education". Rab Butler continued:
  "There is no desire to level down; there is only a desire to bring everybody, ever upwards."—[Official Report, 19 January 1944; Vol. 396, c. 222.]
  All of us subscribe to that, except, it seems, the Opposition, who condemn our proposals to offer grant-maintained status to schools.
  Is it so hard for Opposition Members to believe that somewhere out there parents, governors and teachers may want to exercise freedom of choice? I can understand why those who have enjoyed the authority of monopoly are confounded when choice leads to healthy competition for them. Perhaps that is what is needed to spur Opposition Members on to provide what my noble Friend Lord Joseph wanted when he was Secretary of State. He wanted an education that was relevant, broad, balanced and differentiated. Until now, no one has succeeded in achieving that ambition.
  The Bill offers parents and governors the opportunity to make decisions and schools the opportunity to seek different status. How many hon. Members who believe in freedom and democracy would really vote against such a proposal? How many Opposition Members will vote against the provision to give parents the opportunity to decide for themselves? How many of them will put their hands on their hearts and say, "We shall vote to prevent people from making choice and having freedom."?
  Our proposals will enable steps to be taken towards levering up standards. They will offer individual institutions responsibility for making their own decisions. They will allow people to choose from a range of schools and colleges in the maintained sector on the basis of sound information and without the intervention of authorities, which Opposition Members seek.
  If we allow the measures to blossom, our maintained education system—free for the children of this country —will blossom for the benefit of today's children and tomorrow's children. I want every child to have the opportunity to go to the school that his or her parents have chosen and to be able to change schools if his or her parents wish it. I want all that to be offered within our maintained sector of education.
  If any doubt remains in Opposition Members' minds, let me remind them of something that they do not wish to hear. The proposals are not being sprung on an unsuspecting electorate. The electorate knew about them, discussed them, read about them, thought about them and on 11 June voted resoundingly for the Conservative party,
  860
  which is why we have been so well represented during this debate on the Education Reform Bill, which I hope all hon. Members will support tonight.
  Question put:—
  The House divided:Ayes 348 Noes 241.

  Division No. 88]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Cran, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Critchley, Julian

  Alexander, Richard

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, David

  Allason, Rupert

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Amess, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amos, Alan

  Day, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Dicks, Terry

  Ashby, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Atkins, Robert

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Durant, Tony

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Baldry, Tony

  Eggar, Tim

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Evennett, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fallon, Michael

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Farr, Sir John

  Benyon, W.

  Favell, Tony

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Body, Sir Richard

  Forman, Nigel

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boswell, Tim

  Forth, Eric

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Freeman, Roger

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  French, Douglas

  Bowis, John

  Fry, Peter

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Gale, Roger

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gardiner, George

  Brazier, Julian

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bright, Graham

  Gill, Christopher

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gow, Ian

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Burns, Simon

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Burt, Alistair

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Butcher, John

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Butler, Chris

  Gregory, Conal

  Butterfill, John

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Grist, Ian

  Carrington, Matthew

  Ground, Patrick

  Carttiss, Michael

  Grylls, Michael

  Cash, William

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Chope, Christopher

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Churchill, Mr

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hannam, John

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Colvin, Michael

  Harris, David

  Conway, Derek

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cope, John

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hayward, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  861

  Heddle, John

  Moate, Roger

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizos)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Holt, Richard

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Mudd, David

  Howard, Michael

  Neale, Gerrard

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

  Needham, Richard

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Neubert, Michael

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Newton, Tony

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Irvine, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Irving, Charles

  Paice, James

  Jack, Michael

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Jackson, Robert

  Patnick, Irvine

  Janman, Timothy

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Jessel, Toby

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Pawsey, James

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Key, Robert

  Portillo, Michael

  King, Roger (Bham N'thfield)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Price, Sir David

  Knapman, Roger

  Raffan, Keith

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Knowles, Michael

  Rathbone, Tim

  Knox, David

  Redwood, John

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Renton, Tim

  Lang, Ian

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Latham, Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Riddick, Graham

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Lightbown, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lilley, Peter

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lord, Michael

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Ryder, Richard

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  McCrindle, Robert

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Scott, Nicholas

  MacGregor, John

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Maclean, David

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Madel, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Shersby, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mans, Keith

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Maples, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Marland, Paul

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Marlow, Tony

  Speed, Keith

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Speller, Tony

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mates, Michael

  Squire, Robin

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Steen, Anthony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stern, Michael

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mellor, David

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Miller, Hal

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Mills, Iain

  Stokes, John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Sumberg, David

  862

  Summerson, Hugo

  Walden, George

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Waller, Gary

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Walters, Dennis

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Ward, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Warren, Kenneth

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Watts, John

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wheeler, John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thorne, Neil

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wilshire, David

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Tracey, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Tredinnick, David

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trippier, David

  Wood, Timothy

  Trotter, Neville

  Woodcock, Mike

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Yeo, Tim

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Viggers, Peter

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Peter Lloyd.

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Crowther, Stan

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Cryer, Bob

  Allen, Graham

  Cummings, J.

  Alton, David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Anderson, Donald

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Dalyell, Tam

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Darling, Alastair

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dewar, Donald

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Dixon, Don

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Dobson, Frank

  Barron, Kevin

  Doran, Frank

  Battle, John

  Douglas, Dick

  Beckett, Margaret

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Beith, A. J.

  Dunnachie, James

  Bell, Stuart

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Eadie, Alexander

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Eastham, Ken

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Blair, Tony

  Fatchett, Derek

  Boateng, Paul

  Faulds, Andrew

  Boyes, Roland

  Fearn, Ronald

  Bradley, Keith

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Flannery, Martin

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Flynn, Paul

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Buchan, Norman

  Foster, Derek

  Buckley, George

  Fraser, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Callaghan, Jim

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  George, Bruce

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Gould, Bryan

  Cartwright, John

  Graham, Thomas

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clay, Bob

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clelland, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Cohen, Harry

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Coleman, Donald

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Corbett, Robin

  Henderson, Douglas

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Cox, Tom

  Holland, Stuart

  863

  Home Robertson, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hood, James

  O'Brien, William

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howells, Geraint

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hoyle, Doug

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Patchett, Terry

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Pike, Peter

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hume, John

  Prescott, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Ingram, Adam

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Janner, Greville

  Radice, Giles

  John, Brynmor

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Redmond, Martin

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Reid, John

  Kennedy, Charles

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Kilfedder, James

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Robertson, George

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Lamond, James

  Rogers, Allan

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rooker, Jeff

  Leighton, Ron

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Litherland, Robert

  Salmond, Alex

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Livsey, Richard

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Loyden, Eddie

  Short, Clare

  McAllion, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAvoy, Tom

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McCartney, Ian

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

  Macdonald, Calum

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

  McFall, John

  Soley, Clive

  McGrady, E. K.

  Spearing, Nigel

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McKelvey, William

  Steinberg, Gerald

  McLeish, Henry

  Stott, Roger

  Maclennan, Robert

  Strang, Gavin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Straw, Jack

  Madden, Max

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  Marek, Dr John

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Turner, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Vaz, Keith

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Wall, Pat

  Martlew, Eric

  Wallace, James

  Maxton, John

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Meacher, Michael

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Meale, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Michael, Alun

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Wilson, Brian

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Winnick, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Morley, Elliott

  Worthington, Anthony

  Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

  Wray, James

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Mullin, Chris

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Murphy, Paul

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Nellist, Dave

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee.—[Mr.Straw.]
  The House divided:—Ayes 245,Noes 348.

  Divislon No. 89]

  [10.16 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Fearn, Ronald

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Allen, Graham

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Alton, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Anderson, Donald

  Flannery, Martin

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Flynn, Paul

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Foster, Derek

  Ashton, Joe

  Fraser, John

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Barron, Kevin

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Battle, John

  George, Bruce

  Beckett, Margaret

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Beggs, Roy

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Beith, A. J.

  Gould, Bryan

  Bell, Stuart

  Graham, Thomas

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Grocott, Bruce

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hardy, Peter

  Blair, Tony

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Boateng, Paul

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Boyes, Roland

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Bradley, Keith

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Henderson, Douglas

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Holland, Stuart

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Home Robertson, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Hood, James

  Buckley, George

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Caborn, Richard

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Howells, Geraint

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hoyle, Doug

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cartwright, John

  Hume, John

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ingram, Adam

  Clay, Bob

  Janner, Greville

  Clelland, David

  John, Brynmor

  Cohen, Harry

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Coleman, Donald

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Corbett, Robin

  Kilfedder, James

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Cousins, Jim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cox, Tom

  Lamond, James

  Crowther, Stan

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cryer, Bob

  Leighton, Ron

  Cummings, J.

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Lewis, Terry

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Litherland, Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Livingstone, Ken

  Darling, Alastair

  Livsey, Richard

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

  McAllion, John

  Dewar, Donald

  McAvoy, Tom

  Dixon, Don

  McCartney, Ian

  Dobson, Frank

  McCrea, Rev William

  Doran, Frank

  Macdonald, Calum

  Douglas, Dick

  McFall, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McGrady, E. K.

  Dunnachie, James

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  McKelvey, William

  Eadie, Alexander

  McLeish, Henry

  Eastham, Ken

  Maclennan, Robert

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Madden, Max

  Fatchett, Derek

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mallon, Seamus

  865

  Marek, Dr John

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Salrnond, Alex

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Martlew, Eric

  Sheerman, Barry

  Maxton, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meacher, Michael

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Short, Clare

  Michael, Alun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

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

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

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

  Mitchell, Austin (t Grimsby)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Soley, Clive

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Morley, Elliott

  Steinberg, Gerald

  Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

  Stott, Roger

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Strang, Gavin

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Straw, Jack

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Murphy, Paul

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Nellist, Dave

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  O'Brien, William

  Turner, Dennis

  O'Neill, Martin

  Vaz, Keith

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Parry, Robert

  Wall, Pat

  Patchett, Terry

  Wallace, James

  Pendry, Tom

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pike, Peter

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Prescott, John

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

  Radice, Giles

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then,

  Randall, Stuart

  Wilson, Brian

  Redmond, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Reid, John

  Worthington, Anthony

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Wray, James

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Robertson, George

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rogers, Allan

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Rooker, Jeff

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bowis, John

  Alexander, Richard

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Allason, Rupert

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Bright, Graham

  Amos, Alan

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Arbuthnot, James

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Ashby, David

  Bruce, lan (Dorset South)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Atkins, Robert

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Atkinson, David

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Burns, Simon

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Baldry, Tony

  Butcher, John

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Butler, Chris

  Batiste, Spencer

  Butterfill, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Benyon, W.

  Carttiss, Michael

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Cash, William

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Body, Sir Richard

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Chope, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Churchill, Mr

  Bottomley, Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  866

  Colvin, Michael

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Conway, Derek

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Cope, John

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Holt, Richard

  Couchman, James

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Cran, James

  Howard, Michael

  Critchley, Julian

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

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Curry, David

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Day, Stephen

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Dicks, Terry

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Irvine, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Irving, Charles

  Dover, Den

  Jack, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Jackson, Robert

  Durant, Tony

  Janman, Timothy

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jessel, Toby

  Eggar, Tim

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Evennett, David

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Fallon, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Farr, Sir John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Favell, Tony

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Knapman, Roger

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Knowles, Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  Knox, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Forth, Eric

  Lang, Ian

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Latham, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Freeman, Roger

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  French, Douglas

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fry, Peter

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor gh)

  Gale, Roger

  Lightbown, David

  Gardiner, George

  Lilley, Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Gill, Christopher

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Lord, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Goodlad, Alastair

  McCrindle, Robert

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  MacGregor, John

  Gow, Ian

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Maclean, David

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Gregory, Conal

  Madel, David

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Grist, Ian

  Mans, Keith

  Ground, Patrick

  Maples, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Marlow, Tony

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Mates, Michael

  Hannam, John

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Harris, David

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mellor, David

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Miller, Hal

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Mills, Iain

  Hayward, Robert

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Heddle, John

  Moate, Roger

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  867

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Redwood, John

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Renton, Tim

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Moss, Malcolm

  Riddick, Graham

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mudd, David

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Neale, Gerrard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Needham, Richard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Neubert, Michael

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Newton, Tony

  Rowe, Andrew

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Ryder, Richard

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Onslow, Cranley

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Scott, Nicholas

  Page, Richard

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Paice, James

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Patnick, Irvine

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoftrey

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Pawsey, James

  Shersby, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Portillo, Michael

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Speed, Keith

  Price, Sir David

  Speller, Tony

  Raffan, Keith

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Squire, Robin

  868

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Steen, Anthony

  Viggers, Peter

  Stern, Michael

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Stevens, Lewis

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Walden, George

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Stokes, John

  Waller, Gary

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Walters, Dennis

  Sumberg, David

  Ward, John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Warren, Kenneth

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wheeler, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Whitney, Ray

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Wilkinson, John

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wilshire, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Thorne, Neil

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Yeo, Tim

  Tracey, Richard

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Trippier, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Trotter, Neville

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill accordingly committed to a Standing Committee.

  Education Reform Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorise—
  (1)the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State—

  (a) for making grants to the governing body of a grant-maintained school;

  (b) in respect of expenses incurred in connection with the proposed acquisition in the case of any school, of grant-maintained status;

  (c)for making payments in respect of the establishing, maintaining or carrying on of any city technology college;

  (d)for making grants to the following bodies established by the Act, namely, the Universities Funding Council, the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and the Education Assets Board;

  (e)for defraying the expenses of the following bodies established by the Act, namely the National Curriculum Council, the Curriculum Council for Wales and the School Examinations and Assessment Council;

  (f)in connection with the commissioning by the Secretary of State of work for facilitating the discharge, in relation to Wales, of his functions in respect of the National Curriculum;

  (g)for paying remuneration to, and defraying the expenses of, the University Commissioners appointed under the Act; and

  (h)in respect of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act;

  (2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided; and
  (3) the payment of sums into the Consolidation Fund.— [Mrs. Rumbold.]
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Thornton: Having sat here for the whole of the Second Reading debate, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak for a few moments on the money resolution, and particularly that part of it that refers to
  "any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided;"
  We have heard a great deal during the debate about the testing that will take place at 7, 11, 14 and 16. We heard many arguments about why it should not take place, and especially that it would be divisive and would mean the reintroduction of selection. Many hon. Members believe that the absence of benchmarks in the education system is responsible in great measure for some of the deplorable figures that we heard this afternoon about the number of people who leave the education system at the end of compulsory schooling unable to read or write properly. We cannot possibly sustain that. Therefore, I welcome the introduction of the tests.
  I want to draw one point to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science. In her excellent closing remarks, she referred to her former incarnation. She will remember when we debated the Warnock report in county hall. She will be aware that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts last Session considered special education needs, the operation of the Warnock report and the Education Act 1981. Many hon. Members believe that insufficient attention has been paid in the Education Reform Bill to the consequences of diagnostic assessment. If the assessment is to mean anything, if we identify a failure to
  870
  reach agreed levels of attainment at 7, 11 or 14, we must do something. That "something" is obviously remedial education.
  The Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts has already identified the fact that there are inadequate resources at present to meet the demands for special needs in education. I fear that, unless some attention is given to that during the passage of the Bill, all the diagnostic testing in the world will be worthless as no extra opportunity will be given to children who fail to meet the attainment tests. I shall be interested to learn what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that.
  I have only one further point to make, as I do not wish to detain the House. As with all these things, so with financial delegation to schools. My experience tells me that the majority of headmasters will welcome this provision. But it must be recognised that if head teachers are to spend more time in controlling their budgets, it will have an administrative effect on their rime. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to deal with this point.
  10.37 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Money is at the root of the Bill before us, and I oppose the money resolution because I do not believe that any money that is spent will improve the education service. There are, of course, legitimate concerns. As a former professional teacher with 14 years in the classroom and with three children educated in the public education system, I believe that the Bill will disrupt rather than heal.
  The Government, through their use of money, have done their very usual trick. They have played on legitimate concerns and they have starved the education service of funds; they have provoked industrial difficulties and they have aroused public concern. They have coined a few slogans and claimed to have a mandate, and so they have produced the Bill, but the real purpose of the Bill is not to deal with the ostensible parrot-cries that we have heard so often this evening.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On which precise point in the money resolution is the hon. Gentleman speaking?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I can deal with the matter briefly, as this is a very short debate. The money resolution is quite widely drafted and a fairly wide debate is in order.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must say how much I deprecate Tory Members challenging your position in the Chair. They complain that you are not running the House properly, and if the House divides when you name the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) I will support you.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for protecting the Chair, but I can assure him that no hon. Member is bullying the Chair; and were any hon. Member to try to do so, that would be wholly counter-productive.
  Mr. Spearing: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) intervened, because I have made inquiries about the scope of the resolution, and I believe that the hon. Lady has just voted against

  871
  subjecting the Bill to the process of scrutiny by a Special Standing Committee. That shows a certain lack of confidence on her part, and of the Government.
  I challenge any hon. Gentleman or indeed any professional teacher outside the House to contest what I am about to say. I am going to object to the measure on strictly objective and professional grounds.
  The Education Act 1944 has been mentioned several times today. That Act sewed elements together. It came 50 years too late, but it sewed together the voluntary and statutory, the religious and the secular, the elementary and the secondary, and a professional divide among teachers. The Bill is likely to pull those invisible threads apart, and burst them, as the 1944 Education Act put them together.
  The resolution refers to maintained schools. The money for those schools will be supplied directly by the Secretary of State and through the opting-out procedure. There will be a tripartite division of schools in this country. First, there will be those that are local authority-funded, then those maintained by the Secretary of State through the opting out procedure, and thirdly those that are fully independent. It is clearly the objective of the Prime Minister, if no one else, to move those schools towards independent status.
  There is no need for a money voucher, as in this Bill and preceding Bills the Government have made the pupils the vouchers. It might be asked: what about the fully independent schools? They are provided for by the assisted places scheme, which would no doubt be expanded. I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has appeared, as he called for a future Bill, and no doubt such a Bill could do that. In other words, there is to be a continuum, of which this Bill provides the foundations. It is claimed that opting out will give freedom to parents, but that will not happen because the Secretary of State will have the money—back to money again for the sake of the hon. Member for Lancaster.
  Clause 5 has not been mentioned, but it is a constricting provision as it gives the Secretary of State the power to license, by edict, all examining bodies. Only those examining bodies licensed by him can provide tests for children in maintained schools, even those maintained by the Secretary of State. Therefore the curriculum inside those schools will be determined by examining bodies licensed by the Secretary of State. That represents a most extraordinary centralising power.
  Whatever is said in the earlier clauses, and irrespective of the national curriculum, it will be the curriculum laid down in the syllabuses of the approved examining bodies and only those guided under clause 7(4) by the Secretary of State, that will be available in all maintained schools. We have had no justification for that extraordinary power and I believe that the examining bodies were not even consulted before that decision was reached. What price academic freedom?
  There is not much freedom for parents, either. In my constituency the parents of the children at the New City primary school met yesterday and they passed a resolution which they sent to me for use in this debate. I did not know about their intention and I was told about that resolution by telephone this afternoon. That resolution deplores the inconsistency displayed by the Secretary of State. It says that he is claiming to serve parental choice but that he has denied them the opportunity of properly considering the
  872
  Bill's implications. That resolution has drawn attention to a profound and democratic issue. With the timetable that the Secretary of State has presented to us parents have been denied the opportunity to consider the merits of the Bill. So much for the claim of providing parental choice.
  This Bill will destroy the essential financial and administrative framework without which teachers cannot properly exercise their professional responsibilities. The Bill will promote uncertainty, disappointment and division. It will lower morale and shatter and disrupt efficient and well-run educational administrations. The Bill will create local confrontations and engender local conflict. It may run the risk of fanning sectarian and community divisions. It will probably result in strife that would not otherwise be there.
  The 1944 Act was marked by lengthy and fruitful consultations. It had cross-party support and support across religious denominations. It bridged professional divisions. It placed responsibility with local communities irrespective of party control. In almost every respect the Bill does the reverse. It could do as much harm as the 1944 Act did good.
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I wish to raise three important points that will be covered by the money resolution.
  The tests at 7,11 and 14 will take extra funding but they will be important for the well-being of future generations of children. They must be attainment tests. They must record the level that pupils have reached in various subjects at those particular ages. The diagnostic element will be contained in such tests, but they will not be diagnostic tests. Some people say that we should have diagnostic tests only at seven, 11 and 14. However, too often, such tests have been used by professionals to show that the children have not achieved the desired level and that that failure was the child's fault. That has brought diagnostic testing into disrepute. That is why I firmly support attainment testing with a powerful element of the diagnostic, but I do not support exclusively diagnostic testing at these ages. I am sure that the GCSE will produce a valid evaluation of pupils' attainments in the core curriculum subjects.
  It has been said that the core curriculum proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is, perhaps, unduly rigid. I do not think it is. Nor do I agree with those who say that a core curriculum will produce rigidity in pupils. In France, there has been a standard core curriculum for generations, yet no country produces more individualists than France, which has a fairly rigid, centralised curriculum. So any fear that a core curriculum here will produce uniformity in our children can be discounted.
  By contrast, the United States is extremely permissive in the matter of the school curriculum. Yet somehow, despite some outcrops of obstinate individualism — I believe "ornery" is the word — I detect a far greater uniformity of aspiration and mode of thought among the permissively educated Americans than among the educationally well-drilled French.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), who rightly said that he and I have known each other in education for nearly 30 years, pointed out that religious education should be a core curriculum subject, because it is basic to the well-being of any school

  873
  that religious and moral education should be on the curriculum and be well and thoroughly taught. I support all that my right hon. Friend said, and add that it is a mistake that school assemblies should take place at any time other than the beginning of the day. A Friday afternoon could not be a worse time for a school assembly, which is an important aspect of school life. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider ensuring that all school assemblies take place at the beginning of the day, although I accept that it is reasonable for groups of pupils to be geographically separated—and separated by age— for various administrative and educational reasons.
  No one who has the interests of children and education at heart need fear the right of schools to opt out, to assert their individualism and to develop a special character of their own. Uniqueness in the character of a school is what produces a good one, of which pupils, staff and heads can be proud. That is what the opt-out provision will induce in schools—in a small way to start with, but it will grow and grow. In due course, opt-out will have great implications for the nation, which is why I warmly welcome it.
  10.48 pm
  Mr. Elliot Morley: I want to speak first about the idea of testing, and the amount of money that will be put into its development. I used to be the head of a department of special needs in an inner-city comprehensive school. Part of my job covered testing and attainment, so I speak about these matters with more authority than does the Secretary of State. Not a single test in this country can be applied uniformly across its length and breadth to meet all the needs of different areas, and the variety of linguistic, ethnic and cultural backgrounds. Nor is any one test 100 per cent, accurate. It is a disgrace to use attainment tests to put children into compartments and label some of them as failures at the age of seven. I should like to relate that to the Education Act 1981 and children with special needs.
  In the whole Bill of 169 pages there are three and a half sentences about children with special educational needs. It says that children who are statemented will be allowed to opt out of the national curriculum. There is some sense in that, but at the moment many children are not statemented and will still require assistance in areas of special need. That is because of their disabilities — such things as partial deafness or because they have been ill. Will the provision mean that they will all have to be statemented or will it mean that some children who are under-achieving will be forced to this curriculum and through attainment tests where they will perform badly and be labelled as failures? If we had proper diagnostic tests, at least we could identify areas where help could be given. That is what is done at the moment.
  Clause 4 contains provisions to allow schools to become grant-maintained. If an opted-out school is full and if more children apply for places in that school than there are places, then, obviously, they cannot all get in. What criteria will be used to decide who gets in and who does not? I have not heard that explained in the debate and I should like the Minister to deal with it. Will there be any appeal procedure for those who do not get in or for those who are unhappy? If a school is opted-out and parents are not happy, is there some kind of local authority appeal provision? I should like the Minister to make that clear.
  874
  I oppose the money resolution because, unlike the children of the Secretary of State, my children go to local schools. My daughter goes to the local village school and my son goes to a multicultural state nursery. They are excellent schools and both enjoy the full support of parents and the dedication of the staff. I have not heard one word of support for the Government's proposals from any parent or teacher in my constituency.
  If the Government were sincere about improving standards, they would include in the bill money for universal nursery care for every parent who wants it. The Bill should contain money to tackle the inadequacies of buildings, books and resources that were identified by the Government's own inspections. There should also be money to bring teachers' salaries up to the level in the Houghton report and to restore morale and good will to the service. The Government should provide money to improve standards and should not put forward proposals that will simply bring in dogma rather than what is good for our children, our schools and our parents.
  10.52 pm
  Dr. Keith Hampson: The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) summed up the sentiments that I have experienced in all the years since I was a trainee teacher in schools and in my time in the House. It is a great tragedy that the teaching profession, the educational establishment, tends to be far too self-congratulatory. It says that the way it is done now, the way Britain does it now, is the best way and that the only problem is that we are not doing enough of it. Therefore, the profession says that it wants more of the same and calls for more resources.
  The one thing about the Bill, warts and all, is that it challenges the education world by saying that there are other ways of doing it. When we look at other countries and at what countries in Europe are doing, we see that there are other ways. Repeatedly, it tends to be us who happen to do it a different way. We really must ask if we are doing it the right way while everybody else is doing it the wrong way.
  The national curriculum is the most important thing in the Bill. As I said in an intervention during the Minister's earlier winding-up speech, the role that the official Opposition and the Liberals played in the debate was extraordinary. I had thought that, after more than a decade of discussion started by a former Labour Prime Minister, we had reached a consensus.
  Anyone who reads the HMI report on the curriculum for children of 11 and 16 will see that it is virtually identical to what is proposed in the Bill. That was under the last Labour Government. It is only the Opposition or the local authorities or all the vested interests who refuse to read the Bill as it stands. They read it as they want it to be read and see in it every prejudice that they want to see.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Hampson: This is a short debate, and the hon. Gentleman has made his speech. We have waited a long time and I am sure he will forgive me if I do not give way as I usually do.
  Let us look back to some of the things that happened. I thought that there was a consensus on this. People forget the William Tyndale school—what teachers were doing

  875
  to pupils, and the degree of anxiety and genuine concern felt by parents about what was happening to their children's prospects. All of us, including Labour Members and ILEA, said that that was not what we expected. That is why we need two things. First, we need at least a basic national provision that children should be expected to reach certain standards at certain stages. Secondly, although I was initially hostile to, or at least agnostic about it, I have now decided—having listened to the views of the education world—to support the opt-out proposal.
  If a local authority is working adequately, governors, parents and teachers will not want to opt out. They do not want the burden, the problems and the responsibility. However, if they are faced with a bolshie local authority or ridiculous reorganisation proposals, why on earth should people not have the opportunity to preserve what they are very happy with? It is a case of put up or shut up. Either the local authorities provide a satisfactory service, or they have no case to answer.
  Who is talking about centralisation? My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was lauding the Butler Act. It is, in many ways, a fine Act; however, it set up a partnership, and the tragedy was that the partnership never operated in a balanced fashion. It gave responsibility ultimately to the Secretary of State, but it gave him no power. The Central Government Ministry of Education — now the Department of Education and Science—had no effective authority. It could not even spend money directly on the education system: everything was channelled through the local authority rate support grant system.
  Members of Labour Cabinets discovered that to their cost, as we did. Mrs. Williams, when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science, pleaded with the Cabinet to provide desperately needed extra cash for in-service teacher training, particularly in the shortage subjects. She received £17 million, the bulk of which was never seen by in-service teachers, because local government squandered it on everything except what it was earmarked for—not that it was earmarkable.
  There is no case for complaining about a growing sense of responsibility and duty being imposed on central Government. British education is already centralised: it is centralised in the local authorities. It is the local bureaucracy — now, increasingly, not even council officials, but councillors, more and more of whom are becoming full-time — who control everything, from painting a school to the curriculum in that school. That is what we must now change.
  Finally, let me briefly touch on something that has not, I feel, been properly covered: the anomaly in proposing two separate funding bodies, one for the university sector and the other for the non-university sector. We are constantly doing that. In 1979–80, we did not go the whole hog on parent power and choice of schools; when it came to the crunch on local authority control of the polytechnic sector, we again pulled our punches. We compromised: we left the polytechnics under local authority control and set up a national advisory body. Now we have done the same thing again.
  We have realised that polytechnics are part of the national system, and should not be the responsibility of local councils; yet we are not acting on the logical
  876
  conclusion, which is that there should be a single funding body embracing all the responsibilities of higher education. Of course, that is what the Government intend: why else have they set up two identical bodies, of the same size and with the same functions, unless they intend them eventually to merge? Why do we not have the courage of our convictions and act now, rather than do what we have done with so many aspects of education, and let it drift on for 10 years?
  If, unfortunately, we have to face this development, I hope that we will not use two separate bodies to fund the system differentially. I often speak to defend universities, but it is undoubtedly true that the non-university sector is discriminated against. The unit costs — the teaching costs, not including such matters as medicine and research — are very much underfunded in comparison with the other sector. We must not simply set up two bodies to allow dual funding of that kind.
  In my experience, most vice-chancellors are not frightened of the proposals for removing tenure. I would prefer to see a categorical statement about the freedom of academics to think, speak and write as they wish, regardless of what that might mean to their job prospects. But if we are to say that university authorities should have flexibility and freedom and not be tied permanently to jobs for life, it seems only right that, as part of their responsibility in creating contracts for their employees, they should have the right to offer tenure.
  There are two separate aspects. One is removing the lecturer's automatic right to tenure. The other is the right of the institution to offer tenure as part of a contract to prevent some of our best brains from being attracted, for example, to American universities, which offer not only more money but tenure. That is why the Bill is not right to say "no tenure". The institution should be able to determine, being responsible for its own budget, whether or not to offer tenure.
  11.1 pm
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I am grateful for this opportunity to comment on the Bill in general and on its financial and resource implications in particular.
  I welcome several aspects of the Bill. For example, I welcome the financial delegation provisions and the open enrolment, so long as attention is paid to the implications for schools which will lose numbers and will be prevented from becoming sink schools. I also welcome to some extent the proposals on a national curriculum, although I would have preferred a reduced core curriculum. The Government have been too extreme in their proposals in that respect.
  There is an obvious omission from the financial and resource provisions for the national curriculum in terms of the additional resources that will be required by the teaching staff to get pupils to the age of 16 studying, for example, science and a second language, when considerable shortages already exist in staff in those subjects. We see nothing to show how that shortfall will be made good.
  I oppose the Bill for two main reasons. The first is that the proposals for ILEA are totally unacceptable and represent the worst of all possible solutions to what is a crisis. My second major concern is the hidden agenda which the Bill contains — the possibility of selection being reintroduced by the vehicle of opting out. With the option to make grants available to the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools, we require a commitment

  877
  that such grants will be made conditional on comprehensive schools remaining comprehensive and not becoming selective.
  11.3 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I welcome enormously the proposals to delegate financial responsibility to heads. It has always seemed a travesty of professionalism that they should have no control over their budgets. But the Bill contains considerable confusion about the position of the local education authority, for handing down financial responsibility to schools will inevitably involve some administrative expense. There is left with LEA such a large variety of tasks that I cannot see how it will shed any of the staff and resources that it at present commands. No one—not parents, not teachers, not governors—will find it acceptable if an early and direct consequence of the Bill is that more money goes into administration and less into teaching and resources.
  Secondly, I am very worried about one element of opting out. There is a serious danger that parents with an idiosyncratic view of education, outside the main stream of what we in Britain have always regarded as acceptable, may still be able to operate their school within the demands of the national curriculum, which is a blunt instrument of control. There is a danger that they will be able to build schools that it will be difficult to keep within the traditions of British culture. I am worried about that, because I should hate to see the balkanisation of the inner cities. We should watch that carefully. If we are to allow schools to opt out, it should be made clear in the contract with the Secretary of State that it is not sufficient to observe the national curriculum alone.
  11.5 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I realise that there is very little time left. I very much regret that hon. Members who have been here throughout the debate should not have had the opportunity to speak. It is a sad reflection of the Government's attitude that they were not prepared to provide us with the two days needed for an adequate debate. Not only have some hon. Members not had an opportunity to make a speech but many who have spoken have been denied the opportunity to develop their arguments. Furthermore, many hon. Members have not given way during their speeches, so we have not enjoyed the proper debate that we should have had. Even if the debate had continued until midnight, we should not have remedied matters, because many more hon. Members wanted to take part. Far more time should have been provided.
  One or two questions have not been answered. The Minister of State said that the Government intended to introduce two new clauses early in the proceedings. I shall not comment on the one relating to the London Institute, except to thank the Minister for letting us know about it. I am especially concerned about the new clause dealing with charges in schools, which is a matter of great concern. I accept that the present situation is unsatisfactory and that some schools impose all sorts of charges on parents, probably illegally. A greater cause for concern is that those charges cause hardship and deter many youngsters from studying. Appallingly few pupils stay on after the age of 16 and in many instances that is because of charges.
  Too often, children at secondary schools have to choose subjects according to what their parents can afford. Time
  878
  after time, one hears of girls who drop domestic science, although they like it, because they cannot afford the materials. The same applies to boys doing craft and technical subjects. I hope that the Government will introduce the new clause early in the proceedings in Committee so that it can be fully discussed. They should certainly produce it before rather than after Christmas. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government will introduce it at an early stage.
  I would also press the Minister on whether there will be other new clauses as the Bill progresses. We are awaiting the Government's response on student grants. Earlier today, the statement was made from the Dispatch Box that loans would not be introduced without legislation. Can the Minister assure us that there are no plans to deal with student finance in a later new clause?
  During the consultations early in the summer, the vice-chancellors pressed the question of academic freedom. As I understand, it, they were assured that there would be a clause in the Bill to provide some guarantee of academic freedom. That has not been produced. Vice-chancellors have been told that the Government do not propose to introduce such a clause, even at a later stage. Obviously, the Opposition do not like the idea of bits being added to the Bill as it goes along, but we consider that the Government should give a commitment to vice-chancellors at an early stage and produce the new clause on academic freedom.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) said earlier that vice-chancellors in Britain support what the Government are doing about academic freedom and tenure. That is not true. I have a letter from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals stating that they do not approve of what the Government are doing. They specifically ask why there is no protection in the Bill for academic tenure, when the Government promised that there would be.
  Mr. Bennett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I hope that the Minister will answer not only my question but that which was asked by vice-chancellors.
  I shall briefly examine the 175 regulating powers. In his opening speech, the Minister said that it does not matter that he is taking all such powers to direct education by regulation because he is going to have advisory bodies which will see drafts of the regulations, and then everything will be perfectly all right. Anyone who has studied the history of the recent social security legislation knows that the Minister has used exactly the same device. He offered regulations to an advisory body for advice. When the advisory body gave advice, in many cases saying that it did not like the regulations, the Government took no notice at all.
  The simple way for the Government to allay fears about the regulations is to let us see copies of draft regulations as we debate the Bill. Instead of the Opposition having to put forward hypothetical ideas of what may be in the regulations, we could see what the Government have specifically in mind for them. I challenge the Government at least to publish guidelines for the regulations before we start on the Bill. We could then effectively debate what the Government intend to do, rather than present hypothetical ideas of what they might do with such sweeping powers. I hope that the Minister will answer my brief points.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mrs. Rumbold.
  11.12 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I see that the Minister of State wishes to make her winding-up speech. As some hon. Members such as myself have sat through the debate since 3·30 and have not been called, and the hon. Lady has already spoken for 25 minutes, she should not have the authority of the House to make a winding-up speech. She has to have the authority of the House to speak a second time. I oppose that course, especially as there are representatives—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I am sorry that, unfortunately, many hon. Members were not able to participate in the debate. But this is a different debate. The Minister is perfectly in order in catching my eye.
  11.13 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I shall try to answer some of the questions that have been raised by hon. Members who have managed to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Thornton) was anxious to talk about the implications of our Bill for children with special education needs. I shall try to assure him in respect of attainment targets and programmes of study. Most certainly, they will take into account different levels of ability and maturity among children of the same age group. I recognise that there will be some children with some physical and mental problems, but without statements, for whom aspects of the national curriculum will cause difficulties. It is for those reasons that my right hon. Friend has asked for appropriate advice from the Task Group on Assessment and Testing and from the subject working groups about appropriate arrangements for such children.
  My hon. Friend also hoped that the financial delegation schemes would make some recognition of costing in respect of special needs children. When the financial delegation schemes are submitted to my right hon. Friend, as they will have to be, by local education authorities, I am sure that he will look carefully at any recommendations that have implications for the provisions of the 1981 Act to be carried out within local educational authorities. He is anxious to see that those provisions continue.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) made clear to the House his views on the financial implications of the Bill first, on examinations, secondly on the point that schools which opt out would be a vehicle of division among children and local education authorities. I note those views, but I am sure he will accept that I disagree with them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) mentioned attainment testing and his reservations about pure diagnostic testing. He made his case quite well and argued that we should not have the concerns of some Opposition Members about uniformity of the core curriculum. He believes, quite rightly, that that is not a reflection of the Secretary of State's intentions.
  I share my hon. Friend's view about collective worship and hope that when schools make provision for collective
  880
  worship, they will not choose a moment of the day when it is unlikely that many children will be there. It is important that collective worship should continue.
  It being three-quarters of an hour after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
  The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 219.

  Division No. 90]

  [11.15 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cran, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, David

  Allason, Rupert

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &Spald'g)

  Amess, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amos, Alan

  Day, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, James

  Devlin, Tim

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dover, Den

  Atkins, Robert

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkinson, David

  Durant, Tony

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Eggar, Tim

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evennett, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fallon, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Farr, Sir John

  Bendall, Vivian

  Favell, Tony

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Benyon, W.

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boswell, Tim

  Forth, Eric

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

  Freeman, Roger

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  French, Douglas

  Bowis, John

  Fry, Peter

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Gale, Roger

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gardiner, George

  Brazier, Julian

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bright, Graham

  Gill, Christopher

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Gow, Ian

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Burns, Simon

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Greenway, John (Rydale)

  Butcher, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Butler, Chris

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Butterfill, John

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Grist, Ian

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Ground, Patrick

  Carrington, Matthew

  Grylls, Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Cash, William

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Chope, Christopher

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hannam, John

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Colvin, Michael

  Harris, David

  Conway, Derek

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cope, John

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hayward, Robert

  881

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Mudd, David

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Needham, Richard

  Hind, Kenneth

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Neubert, Michael

  Holt, Richard

  Newton, Tony

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Howard, Michael

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

  Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Page, Richard

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Paice, James

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Patnick, Irvine

  Irvine, Michael

  Patten, Chris (Bath)

  Jack, Michael

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Jackson, Robert

  Pawsey, James

  Janman, Timothy

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jessel, Toby

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoflrey

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Portillo, Michael

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Raffan, Keith

  Key, Robert

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Redwood, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Renton, Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Knowles, Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Knox, David

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Lang, Ian

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Latham, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lightbown, David

  Ryder, Richard

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Lord, Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lyell, Sir Nicholas

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  MacGregor, John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Nortolk SW)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Maclean, David

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Madel, David

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Speller, Tony

  Malins, Humfrey

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  Mans, Keith

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maples, John

  Squire, Robin

  Marland, Paul

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marlow, Tony

  Steen, Anthony

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stern, Michael

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mates, Michael

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Sumberg, David

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Summerson, Hugo

  Mellor, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Miller, Hal

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Morris, M (N'hampton S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Thorne, Neil

  Morrison, Hon P (Chester)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  882

  Thurnham, Peter

  Warren, Kenneth

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Wheeler, John

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Whitney, Ray

  Tracey, Richard

  Widdecombe, Miss Ann

  Tredinnick, David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Trippier, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Trotter, Neville

  Wilshire, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Viggers, Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Wood, Timothy

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Woodcock, Mike

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Yeo, Tim

  Walden, George

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Waller, Gary

  Walters, Dennis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ward, John

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dunnachie, James

  Allen, Graham

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Alton, David

  Eadie, Alexander

  Anderson, Donald

  Eastham, Ken

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ashton, Joe

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Fisher, Mark

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Flannery, Martin

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Flynn, Paul

  Barron, Kevin

  Foster, Derek

  Battle, John

  Fraser, John

  Beckett, Margaret

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Bell, Stuart

  Galbraith, Samuel

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  George, Bruce

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Blair, Tony

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Boateng, Paul

  Gould, Bryan

  Boyes, Roland

  Graham, Thomas

  Bradley, Keith

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Gordon (D'line E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hardy, Peter

  Buchan, Norman

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Buckley, George

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Caborn, Richard

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Callaghan, Jim

  Henderson, Douglas

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Holland, Stuart

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hood, James

  Clay, Bob

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clelland, David

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cohen, Harry

  Howells, Geraint

  Coleman, Donald

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hume, John

  Cox, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, Bob

  Ingram, Adam

  Cummings, J.

  Janner, Greville

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  John, Brynmor

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Jones, leuan (Ynys Mdn)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Darling, Alastair

  Kilfedder, James

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

  Lamond, James

  Dewar, Donald

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Dixon, Don

  Leighton, Ron

  Dobson, Frank

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

  Doran, Frank

  Lewis, Terry

  Douglas, Dick

  Litherland, Robert

  883

  Livingstone, Ken

  Pendry, Tom

  Livsey, Richard

  Pike, Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Prescott, John

  Loyden, Eddie

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  McAllion, John

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  McAvoy, Tom

  Randall, Stuart

  McCartney, Ian

  Redmond, Martin

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  McFall, John

  Reid, John

  McGrady, E. K.

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  McKelvey, William

  Robertson, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rogers, Allan

  McWilliam, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Madden, Max

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mallon, Seamus

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Marek, Dr John

  Salmond, Alex

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Martin, Michael (Springburn)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Martlew, Eric

  Short, Clare

  Maxton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Michael

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meale, Alan

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

  Michael, Alun

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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Soley, Clive

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Spearing, Nigel

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerald

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Stott, Roger

  Morley, Elliott

  Strang, Gavin

  Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)

  Straw, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thomas, Dafydd Elis

  Murphy, Paul

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Nellist, Dave

  Turner, Dennis

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Brien, William

  Wall, Pat

  O'Neill, Martin

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Parry, Robert

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Patchett, Terry

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  884

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Wray, James

  Williams, Rt Hon A. J.

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Wilson, Brian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mrs. Llin Golding.

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Worthington, Anthony

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Education Reform Bill, it is expedient to authorize—
  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State—

  (a) for making grants to the governing body of a grant-maintained school;

  (b) in respect of expenses incurred in connection with the proposed acquisition, in the case of any school, of grant-maintained status;

  (c) for making payments in respect of the establishing, maintaining or carrying on of any city technology college;

  (d) for making grants to the following bodies established by the Act, namely, the Universities Funding Council, the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and the Education Assets Board;

  (e) for defraying the expenses of the following bodies established by the Act, namely, the National Curriculum Council, the Curriculum Council for Wales and the School Examinations and Assessment Council;

  (f) in connection with the commissioning by the Secretary of State of work for facilitating the discharge, in relation to Wales, of his functions in respect of the National Curriculum;

  (g) for paying remuneration to, and defraying the expenses of, the University Commissioners appointed under the Act; and

  (h) in respect of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act.

  (2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided; and
  (3) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.

  Northern Ireland (Appropriation)
  11.29 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): I beg to move,
  That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 11th November, be approved.
  The order is being made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
  On this occasion, the House is being asked to approve extra funds for only one vote, which is vote No. 3 of the Department of Economic Development, for which I am responsible. This particular vote covers expenditure on local enterprise initiatives, assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industry, mineral exploration, energy efficiency measures, capital investment grants for industrial development and scientific and technological assistance. Only some of these programmes require extra funds.
  On 7 July last, the House approved the 1987–88 Main Estimates which included some £92·5 million for these services. Today I seek a further £18·5 million, taking the total expenditure on this vote to some £111 million for the year. The Estimates booklet, which gives full details of the additional expenditure, is available from the Vote Office.
  Of that increase, £1·5 million is for the Local Enterprise Development Unit, Northern Ireland's small business agency, known as LEDU. Since its inception in 1971 LEDU has promoted over 31,000 job opportunities in Northern Ireland, including 4,500 in the last financial year. The agency offers a comprehensive range of assistance to small firms in Northern Ireland to assist the expansion of existing businesses and to encourage those seeking to establish new businesses. The agency hopes to promote some 4,000 jobs in the current financial year.
  One particular initiative that I wish to draw to hon. Members' attention this evening, well known to those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, is LEDU's local enterprise programme. This imaginative scheme is targeted on local communities and aims to promote the growth of new indigenous small businesses. This is being done through a network of enterprise centres right across the Province. These centres provide on-the-spot specialist advice, readily available premises and the necessary backup support services. Already 18 such centres have been set up and 3,000 jobs created, and this number is expected to increase substantially in the next few years.
  LEDU's corporate strategy covering the period up to 1989 seeks to build on its excellent track record. The success achieved against a difficult economic background underlines the potential that exists in the Province for developing a vigorous small firms sector and, through it, revitalising Northern Ireland's economy. LEDU has a key role to play in further strengthening this sector and the additional resources will enable the agency to meet this challenging role.
  I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the many voluntary workers who give their time, through the local enterprise groups, to assist in providing jobs and in giving their skill and expertise. They do a grand job.
  Harland and Wolff requires £18·1 million additional support for trading this year. Many hon. Members are aware of the severe and continuing crisis which, since the mid-1970s, has beset the merchant shipbuilding industry
  886
  throughout the world. Harland and Wolffs facilities are best suited to the large ship market, but it is in this sector that the company faces its. most severe competition, particularly from the far east. As a consequence, it has been forced to turn to orders such as the BP single well oil production system, known as SWOPS, and other sophisticated ships. These ships require different skills, and the difficulties encountered have caused delays in the programme and losses on the contracts. The increased support is required to cover additional contract losses and to meet work-in-progress costs to cover instalments payable to Harland and Wolff but which have slipped into next year. None of this provision is to assist with the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel contract. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) challenges that, I shall be happy to justify it. The AOR contract is separately funded. I can assure him that none of the provision is to assist with the AOR contract.
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I understand that the role of Touche Ross, the accountants, is to act as an independent check on the activities of Harland and Wolff and that it is retained by the Government, through the Northern Ireland Office, to do that. Is it not now the case that Touche Ross is also helping with the day-to-day running of Harland and Wolff? In other words, it is not just monitoring what is happening, but also acting as consultants and affecting what is happening there.
  Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman may be confusing the role of Touche Ross with that: of Deloittes, which has been advising the Government more closely and which has seconded one of its partners to assist with the management of Harland and Wolff. Touche Ross is not that directly concerned with the management of Harland and Wolff.
  The additional requirement of £18·1 million for the company has been offset by a reduced requirement of some £1·2 million under the shipbuilding redundancy payments scheme, leaving a net figure of nearly £16·9 million. The redundancy payments scheme has now terminated, leaving only support payments to be made to workers made redundant prior to 31 December 1986.
  In section C of the vote, covering energy matters, an extra £146,000 is required in this financial year for consultancy studies. Northern Ireland will need new electricity generating capacity in the mid-1990s to replace plant due for retirement and to meet anticipated growth in demand. There are a number of options for providing this capacity, and proposals have been received both from Northern Ireland Electricity and from the private sector. NIE has offered several alternatives, including completion of the Kilroot power station, either as a dual coal-and-oil-fired station, or simply as a coal-fired station. NIE has also offered the option of the construction of a new station fired by local lignite. In addition, the private sector has made proposals for a lignite station.
  The Government need to evaluate these different options very carefully and to ensure that the decision which is taken is in the best interests of the province. It is a difficult decision, involving complex comparisons and some issues new to the electricity industry in the United Kingdom. We need to be sure that we have the most competent professional advice on these issues so that we have all the analysis and information necessary to assist us

  887
  to come to the right decision. The additional £146,000 for consultancy studies will go towards the cost of this specialist advice.
  The subject for debate this evening is a narrow vote. I hope that these preliminary remarks will enable hon. Members to set the vote in its context, and I will do my best to answer points raised in the debate.
  11.36 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: For the convenience of the House, I will deal with the question of Harland and Wolff, and my hon. Friend will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, towards the end of the debate to talk about the other matters.
  In some ways this debate is starting with a bit of a nonsense. We are being asked to approve appropriations for Harland and Wolff before the accounts to which they relate have been published. It lay within the power of the Government to arrange matters so that we could have had the accounts before us. We could then have had an informed debate, instead of hon. Members having to depend on last week's briefings of selected newspapers to which the accounts of Harland and Wolff were leaked. There was the alleged report of battles with the Ministry of Defence and GEC about contracts being fulfilled or not fulfilled, and then there were selective briefings by interested parties.
  It is not fair to the House, it is certainly not fair to the company involved, and it is not fair to its work force and it is bad for morale and for the Government's public image when they cannot answer legitimate questions about their activities before a debate of this nature. It is also bad because the Department of Economic Development had it within its power to lay these accounts before we had this debate.
  Mr. Viggers: I should like to make it clear that it is not within the power of DED to lay the accounts; it is the responsibility of the directors, under companies legislation, to lay the accounts. I personally regret that they have not been laid.
  Mr. McNamara: They have to be laid in the House of Commons Library since they are the accounts of a nationalised industry. The Government could have put their own pressure on this nationalised industry to make sure that we had those accounts and could discuss the matter properly.
  Mr. Viggers: Harland and Wolff is not a nationalised industry; it is a public limited company and comes under the companies legislation. It is for the directors to file the accounts, when they will immediately be laid in the Library.
  Mr. McNamara: Let us put it this way. Last week it was leaked far and wide that the accounts would be published and laid. Last Friday they were extensively reported on by the broadcasting media. There were stories in quite a number of newspapers about the contents of the accounts. We were informed that the company had first to give the accounts to DED and that they would then be published. That was how the legal position was described to us when we made this inquiry about it today. If I have been unfair to the Government, I readily withdraw; but I do not believe that I have been unfair, because the Government
  888
  own the company and the Government arrange the business in this House and the Government could have ensured that hon. Members had the information from the accounts without having to turn to the leaks elsewhere.
  It is also unfair because of the importance of Harland and Wolff to manufacturing in the Six Counties. It accounts for 5·5 per cent, of the manufacturing sector, 60 local firms subcontract directly to it, and more than 100 other firms within the island contribute to the work.
  It is also unfair to have this kind of debate when rumours are rife especially when we bear in mind the enormous amount of modern technology and product sophistication within the company. With its new computer-aided design and manufacture, it is perhaps one of the leading companies in shipbuilding in Europe. Therefore, we should have had an informed debate about the prospects of Harland and Wolff and the sensible shipbuilding policies within the company. However, all we can do is to ask questions about what is reported to be a loss approaching £58 million and the projected losses for next year to which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State referred.
  "Management, Mr. Parker said, is the key to success in the yard."
  We must therefore consider the management. Obviously the yard is to be congratulated on the building of a modern technologically based vessel for BP, the SWOPS. However, that vessel, which in many ways was to be the standard bearer for new design and initiatives, is now bedevilled by claims and counter-claims between Harland and its principal subcontractor, GEC. GEC had a £7 million subcontract to deliver switchgear. Harland alleges that GEC delayed, thus altering the procedures of the building of the vessel and that caused the loss. That is Harland and Wolffs side of the story.
  Mr. Alan Davies of GEC is reported as saying in Lloyd's List that the company
  "had asked for, but never received, important technical information to enable the power system to be designed. It had requested a 40-week contract extension to reflect extra design work caused by the lack of technical information. This was never agreed to. Over 50 amendments were made to the design while the switchgear was being manufactured. Drawings and information sent by courier to Belfast were lost, either on route or after arrival."
  We are not told what happened to the courier. Mr. Davies goes on to state:
  "One switchgear set arrived in Belfast last January, but was not tested until June because of complications with the new series of tests."
  Who is right, Harland or GEC? Harland claims that the vessel is now nearly 100 per cent, erected, but the switch boards are only just arriving. That kind of argument, conducted through the newspapers without any access to the accounts or explanations from the Government, is not good for either work force.
  The Argus is another first and a flag carrier for the company. It is an important first conversion from a merchant vessel to a warship for the MoD. It is now running about four months behind time with overruns of as much as £20 million. What is the true position about litigation over the Argus? What is the true position about the contract? According to Lloyd's List, Harland claims that the vessel arrived at the yard
  "with 'the surprise addition' of blue asbestos, red lead paint, and needing extensive design and specialist work which had not been negotiated with the Ministry of Defence".

  889
  What is the truth about that? Did the MoD conceal important information from Harland when the contract was drawn up? did the Harland team fail to see and appreciate the problem when it inspected the vessel? Harland alleges that it went ahead in good faith on the understanding that if it was granted the contractual extensions by the MoD it would bear no penalties. Is that the correct position? Will it be able to recoup the losses?
  What is the position of Touche Ross and Co., the accountants? What was it doing when the delays and costs were incurred? Why was the DED watchdog doing nothing? Did it report to the DED? What was Mr. Sheerer's role? If Touche Ross did report to the DED, why was not something done early on before the loss was run up?
  Why was it necessary to have a second firm of accountants, Deloitte, Haskins and Sells at the yard? What was its precise role at the yard? Who invited that firm— the company or DED? Has that firm produced a report and, if so, what did it say? Has it been acted upon?
  Against all the clamour of rumour, counter-rumour and speculation it is possible to overlook the company's achievement in building three superb new vessels. We are faced with important management problems. However, the yard has cut its losses. In 1982–83 employment lost per man was three times the average for the nationalised shipbuilding industry; now it is only half that average. We should not fail to note that the company is working in a hostile climate. All our EEC compatriots subsidise directly their shipbuilding industries with home orders. The British Government do not. All Japanese yards of similar size to Harland and Wolff are losing money heavily. Indeed, they are losing more than Harland and Wolff. Even the Korean yards, whose building and labour costs are half those of Harland and Wolff, are losing a great deal of money.
  One of the worst and saddest features to come out of the alleged accounts of Harland and Wolff is the fact that £25 million represents the loss of 1,500 jobs. Those jobs have been lost not just to Belfast but to all the Six Counties. The fact that that money is no longer going into the community on a weekly basis is also a loss. From 1979–87, while the Government have been in power, the number of people employed at the yard has dropped from 7,000 to fewer than 4,500.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McNamara: I would rather not. I gave way three times to the Minister and there are other hon. Members who wish to speak. We will lose time if I give way. I am not seeking to dodge a question —I rarely do — but I must get on.
  When the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced the upturn for next year's estimates he said that the continuing difficulty regarding Harland and Wolff's trading position would mean
  "A significant increase in public support for the yard. This very substantial commitment (the exact amount will be decided later) has naturally limited the extent to which I have been able to make resources available for the development of other services in the province."
  That is ominous not only in terms of help for other services in the Province, but also because it appears that Harland and Wolff is being made a scapegoat for the failures and disappointments in other industries. That is unfair to Harland and Wolff. The degree of uncertainty in that
  890
  statement will be of great concern to the work force and the management. We should have the precise figures and projections before the House when we are debating such issues.
  The future prosperity of the shipyard is important. We should be discussing a sensible shipbuilding policy. We should be discussing how the skills and new technologies in that yard can be used to the maximum benefit of the yard and the employees. However, because of the way in which business has been arranged and information has been leaked, we are discussing rumour and counter-rumour. That is regrettable, because Harland and Wolff is a fine yard and it deserves the confidence of the House.
  11.48 pm
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I welcome the aims of the Appropriation Order to release additional funding for expenditure in Northern Ireland.
  I regret that, yet again, the method of dealing with Northern Ireland business is repeated despite previous and continued objection from right hon. and hon. Members. This time last year the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) expressed concern about dealing with this business late on a Thursday night and the business managers have responded by moving the business to Tuesday night. Perhaps the next move will be the introduction of new means of dealing with such matters.
  The Northern Ireland economy and the unemployed have yet to benefit from the money that has been spent on bolstering the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I wonder whether it is right that representatives of a foreign Government with the right to sit on such public bodies as the Industrial Development Boards should have more authority and influence than those of us who have been elected to represent the interests of Northern Ireland?
  I ask Ministers and the Secretary of State to recognise that the people whom we represent already spend twice as much of their income on fuel as do other average households in the United Kingdom. Already, electricity costs are running at the highest tariff in the United Kingdom. When can we expect a decision on future power generation in Northern Ireland, so that we can produce electricity much more cheaply than now, when we depend too heavily on oil? Will the Minister note that the proposed increases in electricity charges will place an unfair burden on our domestic consumers and threaten the viability of industry? Will he consider the injustice of increasing costs to Northern Ireland consumers by more than the rate of inflation?
  Northern Ireland consumers are all already energy efficient—they cannot afford to be otherwise. Increased fuel charges put at risk our pensioners and all who depend on benefit and cannot afford the high cost of fuel bills for coal and electricity. Will the Minister assure the House that his Department is allocating adequate resources to Northern Ireland's industry, and helping to promote marketing skills in the search for overseas market outlets for manufactured goods and services that can be provided in Northern Ireland?
  I welcome the announced additional expenditure for local enterprise development units. In my constituency, there is already close co-operation between the LEDU, EEC funding, local councils and voluntary groups in supporting new business starts. Such local self-help is

  891
  already contributing to job creation, and I support further financial investment being made available to LEDUs for local self-help.
  It seems fashionable to cast doubt on the wisdom of spending more money on the shipbuilding industry in Great Britain or Northern Ireland. When the company in question is Harland and Wolff, there too often appears to be panic from some quarters that should know better. Shipbuilding throughout the world has had a torrid time in the past few years, and it would be wise to consider the position of Harland and Wolff in that light. Every major Japanese yard lost money in 1986–87; so did the main Korean yards. Only one — Hyundai — made a small profit — a mere $200,000. While no one suggests that everything in the garden is rosy, it is right that the positive aspects of Harland and Wolff should be put on record this evening.
  The firm employs about 5 per cent, of all who are employed in manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland. It is presently emerging from a period of transition during which the work force has contracted from more than 9,000 to about 4,000. During the past nine months, that rationalisation has resulted in the work force being cut by about 22 per cent. I emphasise that that cut has been achieved by negotiations between the work force and management, without the loss of a single day's production through industrial action. Is there any other area of employment in the United Kingdom where this could have happened, or any part of the public sector where such an employment cut has been put into effect?
  Despite such good co-operation at all levels within the company, the Minister will have realised that it has been virtually impossible to undertake that degree of reorganisation without considerable production difficulty. Whatever the good will, the continuity of production could not possibly have been maintained as before at the moment when 800 men are becoming redundant. The job sacrifices in the yard and the benefits that will derive from the flexibility procedures that were introduced simultaneously are the basis for success in the future.
  The flexibility procedures within the work force are continuing, and their benefits have yet to be appreciated. Again I ask the Minister where he would hope to find that degree of realism anywhere else in industry. Where else could a massive redundancy scheme be combined with a radical flexibility programme such as we have seen operating at Harland and Wolff?
  As one worker said to me more than a year ago, "This flexibility will cost a lot of us our jobs, but to oppose it will cost us the yard." Not only on the shop floor has Harland and Wolff made giant strides forward. At a time when depressed world markets, redundancies and new work practices might have overwhelmed another firm, Harland and Wolff was moving from the low-tech end of the market towards high-tech shipbuilding with bulk carriers and tankers to ATS, AOR and SWOPS.
  We have also seen a positive change in the financial sphere. In 1982–83, Harland and Wolff had losses per employee more than three times those of public sector nationalised yards in Great Britain. The figure has been reduced six times, to around half that of any nationalised yard in Great Britain. With redundancies in the work force, Harland and Wolff received cash support of about
  892
  £63 million for 1987–88, whereas in Great Britain as whole with a work force of about 6,500, yards have received about £118 million.
  Again, in terms of losses, the public sector nationalised yards in Great Britain have reported losses of about £150 million, compared with an expectation of about £60 million. No one takes these figures lightly, least of all the management of Harland and Wolff, but this is not the time for faint hearts. The Secretary of State in his public expenditure statement to the House last week, promised that the Government would support and indeed encourage scientific and technological development. He is right to look for development in those areas. Harland and Wolff are there already, and it is leaner, fitter and hungrier for success.
  With the reduction in Japanese shipbuilding capacity, the problems faced by the Koreans and the disappearance of Scandinavian yards, there will be opportunities for the fittest, high-tech United Kingdom yards. Harland and Wolff is now the most modern yard in Europe.
  Let me remind the Minister that, while the people of Northern Ireland realise the sacrifices that everyone is having to make to maintain our shipbuilding industry, they also realise that it is not merely a case of 4,000 jobs or 5 per cent, of our industrial base that is at stake; it is also a case of more than 600 local firms supplying goods and services to Harland and Wolff every year, or, to put it another way, almost 300 firms which invoice Harland and Wolff every month. It is not only Northern Ireland that benefits from the goods and services that enter the gates of Harland and Wolff. Jobs are provided in Scotland and England as a spin-off from that yard; many hon. Members will acknowledge that.
  I and the people that I represent are content that there should be proper rewards for effort and that no job should be left half done. The efforts of the company's chairman, John Parker, and of the board, the management and the skilled work force deserve continuing support. Already nearly five years of effort have gone into establishing a 1990s shipbuilding industry at Harland and Wolff. It is right that the job should not be left half done.
  12 midnight
  Mr. James Kilfedder: I wonder how many people in Northern Ireland realise that parliamentary business vitally affecting the lives of many people there has come before the House at midnight. The protest has been made before and deserves to be made again about the unfair way in which the business managers arrange for business affecting Ulster and its future to be taken late at night or in the early hours of the morning. The people of Northern Ireland are not getting a fair deal in that regard.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that it is a matter of regret that this debate takes place before the accounts of Harland and Wolff have been published. Therefore, it is not possible to scrutinise the affairs of the shipyard in the way that they deserve to be scrutinised by hon. Members. As hon. Members have said, shipyards all over the world are losing money right, left and centre. The exceptions are, perhaps, yards in South Korea and one or two other shipyards where labour is cheap and Governments give massive support to the industry.
  Losses are faced by the Belfast shipyard, and we cannot ignore the fact that we are in a time of doldrums for the

  893
  shipbuilding industry. I go by reports that appear in the press and I read in The Independent—I think that it was yesterday's — reports about the shipyard. It was suggested that Harland and Wolff is facing losses of about £50 million to £63 million. However, that figure includes a substantial amount paid for redundancies. Certainly, drastic steps have been taken by the shipyard management to reduce the financial burden on the yard. During the first nine months of this year employment has been cut by 22 per cent., and about 1,300 employees were paid off between January and December. That is a staggering percentage of the work force. There are not many, if any, firms at the present time that have made such swingeing cuts in their work forces in order to survive and face competition.
  Those redundancies mean a great deal in human terms, not only to those who lose their jobs but also to their wives and families. I know many of the people who have lost their jobs. They spent many years working in the shipyard, and it is heartrending to talk to them, because they face a bleak future with little prospect of employment. My fear is that the massive redundancies in the yard will make Harland and Wolff less viable when the time comes for it to benefit from increased orders for ships. I hope that my fears are not realised and that the Belfast yard under the wise guidance of its dynamic chairman, Dr. John Parker, will one day be restored to its former glory. Dr. Parker has behind him a skilled and dedicated work force which can deal with any order placed with the yard. It is impossible to be certain about projections, but the world shipping market is expected to improve in the 1990s, when many ships will need to be replaced and there will also be orders for new ones. The yard must be preserved, so that it can meet that demand in the coming decade.
  In the meantime, as the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) pointed out, the yard is concentrating on designing and building very sophisticated ships. Perhaps that is the way ahead for it.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: It is right that the hon. Gentleman should draw attention, as did the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), to the position of Harland and Wolff in relation to the Northern Ireland economy. Does he accept that 124,800 people have never been employed, either inside or outside Harland and Wolff, and that some consideration must be given to the large number of people who are unemployed in other industries in the north of Ireland? While I support substantially what he has said about Harland and Wolff, we must not lose sight of the fact that 18·2 per cent, of the population are at present unemployed, and never likely to gain employment.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman; I am glad that I gave way to him. I never forget the unemployed—some of whom have been out of work for years, and some of whom have never had a job. I am in politics to try to ensure that Northern Ireland has a future, and that we can develop industry which will provide employment.
  Apart from that, however, if we have a good, viable, dynamic yard, not only will the people employed in that yard benefit, but all the other companies in Northern Ireland, as well as Great Britain—I mentioned them in an earlier debate — will be able to take people on to supply items needed by the yard. In every way that we help
  894
  Harland and Wolff, we help those who, sadly, are at present out of work. We must all work together, regardless of our political tags, to ensure that there is work for those who are at present unemployed, and that there is a future for our Province.
  Mr. Mallon: Throughout Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Kilfedder: Throughout Northern Ireland. I am glad to have the hon. Member acting as a Greek chorus for me.
  I shall not go into the details of the various ships that are currently being built as an example of the shipyard's present sophisticated approach — the three aviation training ships, the SWOPS vessel for BP and the design and building of the auxiliary oiler replenishment ship. However, I should like to refer to what was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, the reports of claims lodged by the yard against the Ministry of Defence and GEC. I read yesterday in The Independent that Harland and Wolff has filed claims against the Ministry of Defence for additional work on the aviation training ship Argus, and it is suggested that the claim is for about £30 million.
  I shall not go into the points already made by the hon. Gentleman. However, I am interested as well. Perhaps the Minister could help us on that point, and also on the separate claim against GEC for late delivery of components for the oil production ship, which seems to be in the region of £2 million in extra charges.
  We must compare the performance of the Belfast shipyard with that of the nationalised shipyards of Great Britain. In the debate on 9 July last it was stated that the Great Britain shipyards, which employ just over 6,000 workers, require £118 million in support to meet their losses. Harland and Wolff requires between £50 million and £63 million for a work force which on average throughout the current year v/as 4,500, so that the relative loss per year per man is about half that of the nationalised shipyards in Great Britain. That shows the lengths to which the shipyard has gone to be efficient.
  But that is not the whole story. As I pointed out in that debate, many companies which depend on the shipyard there provide additional employment. That is why Harland and Wolff is essential to the future of Northern Ireland.
  An additional £146,000 is required for consultancy studies into additional capacity of energy supplies. A brilliant team at Queen's University is doing excellent work in wave and water power. Such supplies are often ignored when we debate energy issues, but they could provide additional valuable energy for Northern Ireland. The team includes Professor Long, head of the department of civil engineering and research at the university; Dr. Trevor Whittaker, manager of the wave power group at Queen's and manager of low head hydro research; and Dr. Michael Gould, manager of the demonstration project at Benburb, County Tyrone.
  This team is building the first British shore-based wave power development, on the Isle of Islay, which will provide power for a small village in about 18 months' time. This development is using a Wells turbo engine, named after Dr. Wells, the former head of civil engineering at Queen's, who invented the engine in 1976. A Bangor firm manufactures Wells turbine units for navigational buoys which are used throughout the world.
  The Minister should bear in mind the work of this brilliant team. Turbine technology has been applied to

  895
  harness energy in rivers and, as I say, it is hoped to provide enough power for a small village from the demonstration unit at Benburb, a development that is being funded by the EEC.
  There are many river sites in Northern Ireland which could employ low head hydro technology and thus provide a reasonable amount of electricity. That would not only help to save electricity generated by oil but would cost less for firms which could utilise it. Many textile firms are sited beside rivers and they might benefit substantially. Such schemes—of river or wave technology—will not replace large power stations, but they could help the economy and the consumer.
  It is often pointed out that the cost of electricity is far too high in Northern Ireland, where the people are denied the opportunity of piped gas, which is available in Great Britain, at a reasonable cost. Commercial costs are pushed up, which makes it difficult for business to compete with companies in Great Britain and elsewhere. Worse still, the private consumer of electricity faces heavy electricity bills. This bears heaviest on the elderly, who need constant heat during cold weather yet cannot afford it. Many of them cannot afford to use electricity all the time and so take to their beds during the day. I appeal to the Minister to bear in mind how he can help those who deserve better of our society.
  12.15 am
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the additional funding for the Department of Economic Development and the broad spectrum to which it is being applied. I would argue for a much greater input of financial support to this area.
  I agree with the Minister's commendation of the Local Enterprise Development Unit and the local enterprise programme. However, I temper that praise by saying that nothing is so perfect that it cannot be improved upon. The time that LEDU takes to process projects could be speeded up greatly. It could also engage in a little more risk taking than it has done hitherto. That would help the small enterprise industries in Northern Ireland to make a more meaningful contribution against the rising tide of unemployment.
  I welcome the additional funding of Harland and Wolff, which will support jobs that would otherwise be at risk. In saying that, I must put it on record that I give that support notwithstanding the fact that the minority community in Northern Ireland will benefit not one iota from that funding. Indeed, it has not benefited from the funding of Harland and Wolff for the past 50 years because of the company's discriminatory job practices, which can be adequately proved with reference to its job records.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: How can the hon. Gentleman justify that statement when it is on record that jobs in Northern Ireland, Scotland and England depend on the company? Is he saying that no one of a different persuasion gets work because of Harland and Wolff?
  Mr. McGrady: The answer to that is that the number of Catholics employed by Harland and Wolff is minuscule. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Scarman report and to the Fair Employment Agency report. [HON. MEMBERS:
  896
  "Answer the question."] If the hon. Gentleman wishes, he can go to the Library and look up the facts. It is a known fact in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) touched on the subject of energy. There is an abundance of energy in Northern Ireland. We complain, not about its scarcity, but about its cost, which is higher than can be borne by Northern Ireland industries. Like other hon. Members, I was amazed by the recent announcement that energy prices in Northern Ireland are to be increased by approximately 10 per cent, from next April. That is in the context of an unemployment record which is among the worst in Europe and, at 19 per cent., certainly the highest in the United Kingdom. Last September, out of a relatively small population, almost 130,000 were unemployed, notwithstanding the fact that an additional 20,000 were on Government schemes. While we laud the activities of the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit in creating jobs, we must bear in mind that 5,000 to 6,000 new job seekers come on to the labour market each year. I take as an example my own area of South Down which straddles the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) in the town of Newry. South Down has 30·6 unemployment and 36·3 per cent, male unemployment. That is not the worst. In some areas, male unemployment is 44·7 per cent. That means that, statistically, in a street in a town such as Strabane, every second man is unemployed, and he is long-term unemployed. Forty seven per cent, of the unemployed in Northern Ireland are long-term unemployed and dependent on social security. A report on the cost of living that was published this week shows our unemployment to be the highest in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Beggs: We on this Bench deplore the high level of unemployment in the areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Will he join with me in appealing to all those in the United States who have the power and influence to guide investment into Northern Ireland properly to direct their energy, rather than to obstruct and create division and problems where they do not exist and encourage investment in the very areas where the minority community will most benefit? We on this Bench will not obstruct but will encourage such investment.
  Mr. McGrady: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I wholeheartedly agree with him. I have already done as much as I, with one voice, can do to direct the energies of the potential United States market to Northern Ireland in the promotion of new industrial enterprises.
  I draw the Minister's attention to the growing increase in unemployment in sectors such as agriculture, construction and manufacturing in Northern Ireland. The biggest increase in unemployment—7·8 per cent. —has occurred in the construction industry. I regret the announcement that was made last week by the Minister with responsibility for the environment about a cut of £42 million in the housing budget. That cut will create between 2,500 and 3,000 further unemployed in the construction industry. It seems that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing in respect of job maintenance and job creation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he is straying from the

  897
  subject. He must direct his remarks to the three items: the shipbuilding industry, the Local Enterprise Development Unit, and consultancy studies on energy matters. I am sure that he will be able to direct his remarks so that they fall within one or other of those categories.
  Mr. McGrady: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I stand corrected. I thought that I was on the right wavelength, showing how the money from the Department of Economic Development could be spent rather than in the way that is indicated in the order. The IDB and the Department of Economic Development are responsible for the maintenance and creation of jobs for which the appropriation is required. I ask the Minister to ensure that the IDB pursues a more realistic and vigorous campaign of job promotion.
  It is no longer appropriate or desirable to sentimentalise about the fact that about 19 United States presidents came from Ulster. The investor is not interested in such tittle tattle. He is interested in whether there is a good, educated, and trained work force. He is also interested in the reality of terrorism and violence. He will either accept or reject it. Investors go into other sectors of terrorism for job promotion. If the matter is properly presented in its proper context, there will not be a disincentive to invest in Northern Ireland. If such investment takes place, less appropriation will be required in future.
  12.23 am
  Rev. William McCrea: Thank you for giving me the opportunity of speaking in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It certainly causes me great regret that business managers were unable to decide the business relating to Northern Ireland, and especially that which affects the economic development of Northern Ireland. The matter is not regarded as sufficiently important to merit a proper debate and airing at a more appropriate time than at nearly half past 12 in the morning. That highlights the fear of many people in our Province that Northern Ireland business is simply tagged on at the end of the business of the United Kingdom and does not receive a proper airing and debate. The subject of the debate is economic development and unemployment. Our province has one of the worst unemployment rates in the United Kingdom, yet we have the debate at this hour.
  While I welcome the additional funds being made available, I do not welcome the discussion at this hour. Affairs of Northern Ireland can be discussed in the Anglo-Irish Conference at midday, yet the people participating in the conference were not representing the people of Northern Ireland, and do not have their confidence. We are supposed to represent the people. My constituency has high unemployment. That should not be treated lightly. Rising unemployment should cause concern to every hon. Member. My constituency does not rely on multinationals to employ the majority of people, but on more and more small firms, many of them family based, in which the LEDU will have a great input.
  Mr. Barry Porter: I have been listening to hon. Members talking about the rising tide of unemployment in Northern Ireland, and I seek information. Unemployment is being reduced in the rest of the United Kingdom fairly rapidly; is that not the case in the Province? If not, perhaps the figures could be given to me.
  Rev. William McCrea: The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) could get the figures from the Minister more readily than from anybody else. It is true that no improvement has been made in employment in Northern Ireland. In parts of my constituency unemployment is getting worse rather than better.
  I resent some of the remarks made in this debate, because it seems to me that a game is being played concerning who has the job. Opposition Members mentioned whether the person getting the job was in the minority or the majority community. When will the House realise that, whether a person is from the minority or the majority, we want jobs for everybody? It is in the best interests of the whole community that all persons have jobs. This subject has been played around with in recent days in the press, and it would excite some hon. Members if members of the majority community were thrown out of employment to give the jobs to the minority. That is not correct, and does nothing for unemployment in Northern Ireland.
  A large portion of my constituency is regarded in the Nationalist tradition. I appeal to the Minister for initiatives and schemes which will ensure that all my constituents, whether they be Nationalists or Unionists, will have stable and meaningful employment. I will fight for that and ask the House to support it. Recently, I forwarded a protest to the Minister about the reduction in the standard capital grant rate because I believed that it would have an adverse effect on jobs in the Province. The CBI expressed its concern about this matter and hon. Members from Northern Ireland were approached about it. It is proper that that objection on behalf of the community was clearly expressed.
  Will the Minister instruct the Local Enterprise Development Unit to be more helpful with regard to the processing of applications? There seems to be a lack of speed in this regard, which discourages those who are trying their best to get off the unemployment list and into employment. I would welcome an improvement in this matter, as would other Northern Ireland Members. I hope that the Minister will make representations to ensure that those seeking help will be able to obtain it more speedily.
  Will the Minister say what the present position is with regard to the lignite exploration in my constituency on the lough shore and what consultations there have been with the local residents who are affected by it?
  Does the Minister agree that Northern Irish industry is facing not only an uphill battle against the security position and terrorism but against the high electricity and energy costs? It is deplorable, with such a high unemployment rate, that employers are discouraged from coming from the Province by these high tariffs. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) said, the cost of energy is detrimental to the elderly and sick in our community. More earnest consideration should be given to this matter.
  I know that other hon. Members want to take part in the debate, so I shall end now, having raised certain matters and I trust the Minister will be able to help in his reply.
  12.32 pm
  Mr. David Alton: The hon. Members for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) all raised a point that many hon. Members would

  899
  echo—the way to deal with Northern Ireland business is not through Orders in Council or by these late night debates. The more appropriate method would be the Standing Committee that is allowed for under Standing Order No. 99.I hope that the Minister will take seriously the suggestions that have been made to him and his ministerial colleagues that there are more civilised ways of dealing with Northern Ireland affairs. The general sentiments of those hon. Members who have spoken should be registering with the Minister. It is not popular in Northern Ireland to have business dealt with at the fag end of the sitting day. The issue should be taken more seriously than it has been hitherto.
  As to the order, I shall make some brief comments and ask the Minister some questions. With regard to what he said about the LEDU, will he give the House an assurance that, having read the comments of former Assemblyman Gordon Mawhinney about the protection rackets that have been operating in Northern Ireland, everything possible will be done to ensure that funds are not abused and misused in the way that they have been and that people operating in paramilitary organisations will not have a chance to suction any of these funds into their own pockets?
  My second point concerns that possibility of the new lignite power station. The Minister talked about the private sector perhaps being involved. I know from meetings with the Northern Ireland Electricity Service there is some concern that this may be a paving measure to the privatisation of the NIES. Will the Minister refer in his reply to the future of the Northern Ireland Electricity Service and tell us whether it will stay in public hands? Can he also say when the report is likely to be published on whether the lignite power station will be given the go-ahead?
  On the announcements the Minister made about Harland and Wolff, I should like to echo some of the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I was fortunate enough to meet some representatives of the work force of Harland and Wolff about 10 days ago, with Dr. John Alderdice. I have tabled some questions, but I should like to put one or two of them to the Minister now.
  Can he tell the House his projection of the number of employees in Harland and Wolff over the next five years, and whether the projection for the intake of apprentices over the next five years will be related to trade or whether other factors will be taken into account?
  Mr. Barry Porter: The hon. Gentleman is asking the Minister to give a projection of the number of employees in Harland and Wolff over the next five years. Would the hon. Gentleman give his projection of the number of employees at Cammell Laird over the next 10 years? That would make as much sense.
  Mr. Alton: It is precisely for that reason that I ask the question. I want to know what projections the Government have for the shipbuilding industry throughout Great Britain and Northern Ireland over the next five years. I put it seriously to the Minister that, if they do not know the answers to these questions, one thing they could usefully do would be to encourage the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to carry out an investigation into the future of ship-building and to
  900
  examine carefully the implications for Harland and Wolff. For all the reasons outlined already by hon. Members and for the economy of Northern Ireland it is crucial that the jobs of the remaining 4,000 employees in Harland and Wolff are maintained and that everything possible is done to expand the industry because of the reliance of many other industries in Northern Ireland on Harland and Wolff—[Interruption.]—and on the mainland too.
  Can the House be given an assurance that Harland and Wolff will maintain a design facility capable of catering for future orders without relying on sub-contractors? Considering the general contraction in the area of the yard, and given that Harland and Wolff is renting shipyard space to other companies, will there be room for expansion if there is an upturn in shipbuilding in the 1990s? What is Harland and Wolff receiving in rent from other establishments located in the shipyard complex? Do Her Majesty's Government believe that there is a future for marine engine building in Belfast?
  Will the Minister say whether Her Majesty's Government consider that the 28 per cent, ceiling in European countries provided for under the sixth directive of the intervention fund will prevent Harland and Wolff from building larger vessels, because it is clearly being breached in many other European Community countries? I wonder if the Minister has considered that question.
  I should like to thank the Minister for the efforts that his Department is making to try to ensure that there is an upturn in the economy of Northern Ireland. I believe, as he does, that it is crucial that the political climate changes so that terrorism and the outrages committed in Northern Ireland will end, allowing the economy to prosper.
  12.38 am
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I challenge one point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I declare an interest, in that my recent employers have been for some time involved with management consultants and with Harland and Wolff, assisting the company to improve its productivity. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that it is a good yard with a good spirit and pointed to the considerable improvements in productivity and profitability over the last few years.
  After all the lessons of the last few years, it is absurd for him to suggest that those improvements could have been made without some shedding of labour. The over-manning in all United Kingdom shipyards, including Harland and Wolff, was massive compared with almost all our northern European counterparts and even worse compared with the far eastern yards to which he alluded several times.
  While we are on the subject of the far east, Japan has an extremely successful manufacturing industry and low unemployment precisely because a lower proportion of its work force is employed in manufacturing. It has slim manufacturing outfits as the basis of its economy and a much lower proportion of its work force in manufacturing than Britain.
  I am glad to hear from the contributions of several hon. Members that the Conservative party is not alone in recognising that in order to go forwards and achieve a modern economy, there must be slimming down in the older industries.
  12.40 am
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker: May I lend my voice to that of my colleagues about the order that is being imposed upon us and on the population of Northern Ireland without our consent? The whole basis on which we legislate for Northern Ireland is iniquitous and hypocritical. No other part of the United Kingdom would accept a system of Government where there is only limited room for debate and where such dictatorial decisions are taken without the consent of the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, decisions which are bulldozed through the House without any opportunity for amendment.
  The situation now appears to be much more worse in the eyes of the people of Northern Ireland, who see the hand of the contemptible partners of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in decisions affecting the Province, an agreement which has caused great unrest and has contributed in many ways to the rundown of our economy due to the fact that the political instability caused by the Government's deal has caused potential investors to withdraw their interest in setting up shop in the Province. I know of at least four instances where considerable investment has been lost.
  That scenario gives me the scope to say that I cannot under any circumstances give credence to this debate this evening. I give notice that I shall always continue to oppose the system of government until such time as we are treated as equal citizens in this part of the United Kingdom with the same rights and privileges as are enjoyed by my fellor citizens on the mainland.
  It is ironic that I feel equal with my parliamentary colleagues when I am in the House, yet when I return to my constituency I assume another mantle and am treated as a member of some obscure coconut colony. The most lowly down-and-out lying in a London underground station in a cardboard box is more equal than I am in the eyes of the Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman a long preamble, but he must now come to the order before the House.
  Mr. Walker: I apologise for taking up the time of the House by digressing in that manner, but it is important to set the record straight for the people of Northern Ireland. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me that opportunity.
  We are here to pass comment on this Appropriation order and, although I have voiced my objection to the system of its imposition, I must pay tribute to the Government and their Ministers for their commitment to the Province.
  In vote 3, LEDU is a unit which has done sterling work in the Province and I would certainly not decry its achievements. But its terms of reference should be enlarged to encompass local and service industries, which with just a little bit of extra help, could help to reduce the scandalous dole queues.
  Too much emphasis is being put upon export potential in assessing the need for assistance. It should be recognised that the geographical location of Northern Ireland is a disadvantage to exports. In the competitive climate now existing throughout the mainland and in Europe it is most difficult for Northern Ireland companies, despite all their dedication, to compete effectively.
  902
  There are innumerable small companies which are supporting the local economy in many ways, but which, to create greater efficiency, require more financial assistance. Such assistance would result in products being manufactured more competitively and so help our economy, with better quality and lower prices. I have been trying to help many dedicated Northern Ireland companies by making representations to LEDU, but until such time as the criteria are relaxed there does not appear to be any great desire to increase the eagerness of such companies to improve the economy and to give some of our unemployed a sense of purpose once again.
  I note that in the vote we are discussing expenditure by the DED on local enterprise, which sector will also include the action for community employment schemes, set up to involve those out of work for 12 months or more. I am pleased that the Government have indicated that it is their intention to plough another £10 million into this worthwhile activity, but would caution that this should only be where such activity is properly administered and supervised. I am very concerned about some of the schemes that were initiated in parts of Belfast, where there was a heavy paramilitary involvement, and money and effort were channelled into the wrong quarters. There were other schemes which were a complete fiasco, where principals were using their workers to upgrade their homes and those of their families and friends. There were other instances where the ACE scheme was a front for other confidence tricks. There was an incident where vast sums of money were conned from overseas and trust funds on the assumption that action for community employment was healing divisions within the community. The perpetrators of this deceit were having four or five continental holidays a year on the proceeds.
  I know that Government are aware of some of the tricks that have been used in this connection and are tightening up the provision of funds to these projects, but the DED must be vigilant: there are too many cowboys in the Province today, looking for easy money without effort.
  I also urge the Government to investigate means whereby self-help schemes could be introduced, particularly in the construction industry and especially with regard to renovations and repairs. The present grant scheme as administered by the Housing Executive is slow and ponderous, and is not giving value for money. The organisation is too autocratic and is unable to protect the applicants from the parasites who prey on them. We need small bodies of experienced architects and surveyors set up under Government in each of the Housing Executive districts to advise applicants how to proceed in the acquisition of such resources to getting the job done expeditiously and properly, within a list of approved contractors.
  I support the Government in this use of funds for the benefit of the Province.
  12.48 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: I would like to thank the Front Bench for allowing me a few minutes in which to make two simple points, but points which I think go to the heart of the problem in the north of Ireland. If we look very clearly at the subject matter of this debate, without the preambles that we have had to listen to in regard to extraneous matters, what we are doing is discussing what is in geographical terms about one-tenth of the north of Ireland, as this debate has shown. One

  903
  tends to forget that Northern Ireland is primarily an agricultural country, that its major industry is agriculture. Listening to this debate this evening one would imagine that everything began with, centred on and ended with, one industry, and one sector of that industry.
  Times out of number I have tried to point out in the House to the Secretary of State for Social Services or to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that we are paying 33 per cent, more for our electricity, somewhere in the region of 12 per cent, more for our food, more for our transport, more for our books, more right down the line, yet these higher costs are not reflected in higher social security benefits or agricultural grants. We must have an integrated approach towards real parity in terms of the basis on which the decisions are made. Rather than talk about the hour at which we debate these matters, we should look for an integrated approach to the problems of the north of Ireland in terms of social services, agriculture and industrial investment. We must consider an overall integrated approach. If we do not do that, we shall lag behind in everything.
  Secondly, I want to make a plea for the agricultural sector of the community in the north of Ireland. Before you remind me Mr. Deputy Speaker of the terms of the debate, I suggest that unless we include the LEDU, the IDB and all the job creation agencies within an integrated rural plan, we shall simply try to create employment in an urban context and we shall forget about the vast majority of the people living in the north of Ireland.
  That type of integrated rural development already exists on paper. It was produced for the European Parliament and the report was accepted by the European Commission. It has been favoured by the European Parliament, but it has not yet been adopted by the Government. Unless we can tie LEDU, the IDB, tourism and all the job creation exercises into an integrated plan for rural Northern Ireland, we shall not be able to cope with the problems.
  I remind the House that far more people are involved in agriculture than in Harland and Wolff. Far more people are involved in agriculture than any other single industry in the north of Ireland. When we consider that there has been a shortfall of £14 million this year in farm incomes, that gives an idea of the nature of the problem. Every year that this debate crops up, it crops up on one small section of the northern Irish economy. I call for an integrated approach and parity for all the sectors affecting Northern Ireland and towards the whole question of rural development.
  12.52 am
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I promise the Minister that I shall be brief. Most hon. Members tonight have paid tribute to Harland and Wolff and I join in those tributes. I visited the shipyard recently and was most impressed with the changes that have been made and the use of high technology in an attempt to make the shipyard competitive internally and internationally. Everyone working in the yard, both management and the work force, deserves great credit. The most we can do is wish them success for the future.
  I am intrigued by the additional £;146,000 that the Government are allocating for the consultancy studies on
  904
  energy matters. I am intrigued because in an oral reply on 23 July 1987 to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) the Minister said:
  "substantial progress has been made in a complex examination of options which, as my hon. Friend knows, include a proposal presented by the private sector as well as by Northern Ireland Electricity."—[Official Report, 23 July 1987; Vol. 120 c. 477.]
  That related to the provision of electricity in the Province. The Minister did not say a little progress or a bit of progress. He said that: "substantial progress has been made." In the short time left to the Minister, will he tell me how much more progress must be made in addition to the substantial progress that has already been made before he can answer the following questions? First, what is the Government's view on the completion of phase two of Kilroot? Secondly, what is the Government's view on the possible development of a lignite-fired station in view of the statement of the Secretary of State in November 1986 that a decision would be made earlier this year? Thirdly, what are the Government's views on an interconnector with Scotland and on the future ownership of Northern Ireland Electricity? In the few minutes that the Minister has in which to wind up, I should appreciate answers to some of these questions.
  12.57 am
  Mr. Viggers: I have about three minutes in which to answer a number of questions.
  Substantial progress was made with electricity generation by the summer. It is a complex task. The interconnector has effectively been ruled out and we are faced with a choice between the private sector, public sector lignite generation and the completion of Kilroot 2. We hope to reach a decision on the matter soon.
  Several hon. Members spoke of the manner in which the House debates Northern Ireland affairs. There are cogent practical reasons for debating the affairs of Northern Ireland in the way that we do. The Government believe that they are best discussed in the context of the general discussions on the arrangements for the future government of Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) raised the issue of Harland and Wolff, as did many other hon. Members. Clearly, Harland and Wolff has not been immune from the continuing crisis in the worldwide shipbuilding market, and with some of the most competitive yards, Harland and Wolff has been forced to enhance productivity and to restructure to maintain a position in the market. Its future will depend on its winning further orders, which it must do in the context of the European Community sixth directive, to which the Government are committed.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North spoke about Harland and Wolffs difficulties in the market place. The Government's subsidies to the company have totalled £225 million in the past five years, and we have provided more than £58 million in the current Estimates to support the yard in the current year. This represents a substantial commitment to enable the company to trade successfully.
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North also referred to the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about expenditure plans for 1988–89 and later years. The House will be aware that the order relates

  905
  to the financial year 1987–88 only, but it is a fact of life that the substantial public subsidies to the yard pre-empt resources, although we make every effort to protect the other important public services and programmes in the Province.
  Hon. Members asked about the role of Touche Ross and Deloitte, Haskins and Sells. Touche Ross has been retained by the Department of Economic Development to assist it in monitoring the company's operations, whereas Deloitte, Haskins and Sells was asked to undertake a specific assignment this summer to strengthen the financial management of the company.
  Mr. McNamara: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he seems to have contradicted what he said earlier. Is he saying that Touche Ross is involved in the day-to-day management of the company?
  Mr. Viggers: No, not at all. Touche Ross is involved in monitoring the company's operations, particularly in relation to AOR. Deloitte, Haskins and Sells has been directly involved in the management of the company. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Sheerer, who is a partner of Deloittes and has been seconded to Harland and Wolff and is directly involved in the financial management of the company.
  It being one and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
  Resolved,
  That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 11th November, be approved.

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That in the course of its consideration of the matter of Education in Scotland, the Scottish Grand Committee may meet in Edinburgh on Monday 7th December at half-past 10 o'clock.—[Mr. Durant.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  IRA Bomb Damage
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Durant.]
  12.58 am
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the opportunity to bring before the House the problems of people whose property was damaged by an IRA bomb on 16 December 1986. By doing so I hope that I remind the House of the many people, not only those in Belfast, south, but throughout Northern Ireland, who suffer a double jeopardy as a result of terrorism. On the one hand they face the perils of the IRA and on the other the ravage of bureaucracy. To prove that it is appropriate to debate this matter, a bomb was placed outside the York road police station in north Belfast tonight. Thankfully it appears that there has not been a repeat of the catastrophe that occurred in south Belfast a year ago. Tonight's incident reminds us all that this is a continuing problem.
  Right hon. and hon. Members will not be likely to remember the incident that happened a year ago, some time after midnight — again there is a connection regarding the time of this debate. There have been many other bombs, and the recent bomb in Enniskillen is fresh in the memory of most people. A year ago there was great devastation in south Belfast. The bomb destroyed the Royal Ulster Constabulary station and an Evangelical Presbyterian church building. It affected some 800 detached and terraced housing. It completely destroyed some of those houses and caused considerable damage to others and several other public buildings near by.
  Given that the House has been told about the intense security measures against terrorists, the amazing thing is that that bomb was transported in a school, bus. I know that the Government are fanatical in their pursuit of value for money and that the greatest use must be made of all facilities and personnel. I was brought up in west Belfast, and I do not believe that the thirst for knowledge in that area is so great that night school classes would be held late at night. However, that bus travelled through the area and was not detected or stopped for examination until it reached its target. That says a lot.
  I pay tribute to the members of the RUC who sought to evacuate the area quickly and rouse the people. However there were people still in bed when the bomb went off. Mothers with small children were badly affected as well as elderly people. The emergency first aid repair scheme did a reasonable job patching up houses. There the story of help ends.
  A self-help committee of working people entered into a bureaucratic jungle to try to get work done. In a letter on 29 July 1987, the Minister claimed that the present arrangements, developed and refined over the years, seemed to work well. That committee would say otherwise. It had to pursue the authorities to get things done. The Minister believed that the Committee wound itself up having achieved its objectives. In fact, the people are still feeling the after-effects.
  For example, one house in Brookland street—No. 4 — which had been restored, is now being damaged because the neighbouring house—No. 6—is still lying open to the elements and the vandals. Public money is being wasted. One of the original committee members who lives in No. 8 is still fighting the authorities to implement legal procedures to get the owner of No. 6 to act. Why that

  907
  person does not act may be debatable. I suspect that it is because he is facing the problems that the others faced previously. To a reasonable extent the Housing Executive fulfilled its obligations to its tenants, but that is not to say that tenants were pleased. They suffered the shock of the bomb, the discomfort caused by workmen doing extensive and minimal repairs, and, in some cases, the continuing effects of bad workmanship. Many also suffered delayed shock. That, of course, was shared by all who experienced the trauma of the attack.
  Subsequent helicopter activity in the area, although considered necessary by security chiefs, has added to the tension. Residents find it difficult to sleep at night, and some, who do night work, face the same problem during the day. But the dread of another attack of which inadequate notice is given to evacuate dwellings is the instinctive response to many to the sound of that helicopter.
  Those who suffer most from what I call the ravages of bureaucracy are people in the private sector. They shared the previous problems and are responsible for repairing the damage, with officials making every effort to minimise compensation payments. Remember: we are speaking of private dwellings, not business or industrial premises for which, in time, the expense could be recouped.
  Assessors take a simplistic attitude, which I faced myself when my home was bombed 17 years ago. They speak of betterment, and regularly allow about 20 per cent, for that. However, that cannot be claimed by the owner-occupier. It is even debatable whether betterment is the right word, when one considers the type of workmanship and materials that are available now, compared with those of the past. When Ministers are reproached on the subject, they calmly state that if a person is aggrieved, he can take the matter to the courts. Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of the pressures on the courts, which take even longer to settle things. So the owner still suffers.
  Let me give one or two illustrations. One single-parent family found great difficulty in getting the work done by a company, and encountered delay, along with her solicitor and surveyor, in obtaining help from the Northern Ireland Office. The Northern Ireland Office assessor gave low valuations. Six months after the explosion, she had still not received a settlement. Finally, in July, she was pressed into a settlement because she had become so weary. The old adage—a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush — held true. Along with others, that woman suffered from the violence of terrorism and the ravages of bureaucracy.
  Sometimes, officials do not list all the requirements at once. They ask for one piece of information, and, when the person supplies that, he is told that something else is needed. If officials would list everything required at the beginning, that would shorten the time involved. I know that sharp practices are perpetrated by those who seek to go one better, and the Government, in their opinion, is a broad board from which one should squeeze as much as possible. I am not criticising the Government's good housekeeping; I am criticising the inordinate delays and bad practices of some assessors.
  One lady had moved into her house as recently as July 1986, having installed a new damp-proof course and had the house redecorated at a cost of £1,300. She was the head of a single-parent family, trying to teach part-time to look
  908
  after her child and keep things going. At the time of the bomb damage, her ceiling was not considered worthy of emergency repair, although it was leaking rain. The NIO assessor claimed that the roof suffered from nail fatigue. The difference originally lay between £7,643·16 and an offer of £2,214·70, which allowed about £365 for a new roof.
  Fatigued though the nails might have been, if it had not been for the bomb the roof would have lasted for quite a long time. If any builder can put on a new roof for £365, I should like to know his name so that I can recommend him to my friends.
  By 29 October this claim had not been resolved, although some movement had occurred. No work had been done, because the settlement had not been granted. Earlier, I said that the bomb affected about 800 houses. We learned tonight that most of them have now been sorted out, but that about 150 have yet to be settled. I do not know whether that is a good going rate, but I do know that at least 150 families are still facing the ravages of bureaucracy.
  I shall give a final illustration of the problem. A young couple had to move out of their house because of its poor state as a result of the bombing. When the loss adjuster for the Northern Ireland Office made his first visit to Brookland street, he had no equipment and borrowed a child's torch to use in the attic space. When my constituent, who was concerned to get things sorted out, kept phoning the office involved, the clerk handling the file got angry and telephoned my constituent's solicitor to complain about the phone calls. There is something wrong when a public servant starts to complain because a member of the public who is the aggrieved interested party keeps pressing for action.
  When the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was interviewed by the BBC outside the remains of the police station on 17 December last year he said:
  "All claims will be settled without delay."
  This must ring hollow to some and at least to one person, who has still not settled. Because the family are seeking to repair the house and sell it and because they have been forced in the meantime to move elsewhere. I have been told that that may have a bearing on the basis of settlement, as mentioned in a letter to me from the Minister as recently as 12 October.
  I could enlarge upon the argument, but tempus fugit. I hope that the House now understands a little better some of the problems of my constituents and of other people throughout Northern Ireland that result from 18 years of terrorism. They suffer not only from the terrorism of the IRA but from the ravages of bureaucracy.
  1.12 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I share the view of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) that this subject is of very considerable importance. I welcome the opportunity to take part with him in this debate. The hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on the commitment that he has shown in pursuing the interests of his constituents since the bomb went off almost a year ago.
  It may be helpful to the House if I give a brief summary of the bomb attack. As the hon. Gentleman said, a school bus was hijacked and a bomb containing approximately 600 lbs. of explosives was loaded on board. The driver was

  909
  forced to take it to the RUC station on the Lisburn road where the alarm was raised. Only 20 minutes were given for people to be evacuated from the area and, as the hon. Gentleman said, that was in the early hours of the morning. That in itself is a reflection of the sort of people that we are dealing with.
  Although most of the area was evacuated when the bomb exploded, as we have been told it caused very extensive damage to property. The hon. Gentleman will not know that a couple of days later I was at a function in that part of the city and at about midnight I visited the station and saw for myself the devastation there. It was so bad that the station had to be demolished. Many residential properties, shops and vehicles over a wide area were damaged. Coming as it did just before Christmas and during a period of very cold weather, this attack showed yet again the callousness and the despicable behaviour of the Provisional IRA. It could not have failed to realise that such a large bomb placed in a high-density area would seriously affect the lives of many ordinary people, including the elderly, the sick, the disabled and the young. I join the hon. Gentleman in saying that, had it not been for the prompt action and bravery of the security forces, many innocent people would probably have been killed or seriously maimed by that outrageous attack. It was indeed fortunate that there were relatively few casualties. The hon. Gentleman and I share a particular concern to express out deep unhappiness at the desecration of the church beside the station.
  Various Government Departments and other agencies are involved in the aftermath of major bomb incidents, and the Lisburn road bombing was no exception. Representatives from the Northern Ireland Office, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health and Social Services, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the welfare services were all quickly on the scene after the area had been cleared by the security forces. An advice centre, manned by the various statutory agencies, was set up on the morning of the incident, and during that week more than 260 callers were given advice and assistance on how to claim compensation.
  Obviously, the immediate priority following an explosion of this nature is, of course, to wind and waterproof the damaged dwellings, and, with a few exceptions, that was accomplished by 16 December. The Department of the Environment also arranged for temporary repairs to be carried out under its first aid repair scheme. Much of the work was undertaken by the Housing Executive's own work force, but additionally a number of outside contractors were engaged to do repair work, and two firms of consultants were retained to supervise it. Tremendous efforts were made by all concerned to accomplish as much as was humanly possible before Christmas. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognised that in his speech.
  I think that it would be appropriate at this point to pay tribute to the resourcefulness of the residents in the face of such devastation. I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point that not only did they suffer physical damage to their property—which is outrageous and upsetting enough— but they also suffered emotional damage, with the fear and uncertainty that that brings. That is one of the aspects of life in Northern Ireland, subject to terrorist attack and threat as it is. Those who do not live there do not appreciate the reality as much as those who do.
  Despite the personal difficulties that residents experienced, they still found time and energy to assist
  910
  those less fortunate, especially the sick and the aged. They also showed foresight in setting up an action committee to spur others into action, to co-ordinate repair work and to speed up compensation claims. Officials from the Northern Ireland Office had a particularly useful meeting with the action committee, under the chairmanship of the then lord mayor, Mr. Wilson, when formal liaison arrangements were established.
  Let me quote the chairman of the action committee, Mr. Ken Cummings, as reported in the News Letter on 2 June, when the committee, having largely achieved its objectives, was disbanded. He said:
  "most of the repairs have been carried out. Most people have agreed sums with the Northern Ireland Office. There are still a few cases outstanding but we have done most of the work the committee was set up to do."
  I shall return in a moment to the cases that have not been settled. Perhaps it will be helpful to the House, however, if I turn first to the compensation arrangements in Northern Ireland. There is of course, no equivalent scheme elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  The purpose of the criminal damage compensation legislation is to compensate any person whose property is damaged either as a consequence of terrorism or unlawfully by three or more people. The underlying principle—this is important in relation to some of what the hon. Gentleman said—is that an applicant should be restored, in so far as it is possible to do so financially, to the position that he was in before the damage occurred. That is obviously an area of debate.
  The hon. Gentleman cited some examples of where honest people had an honest difference of opinion in trying to assess what was the state before the damage occurred. The principles governing the award of compensation are well established in law, as are the procedures under which claims are made and determined. The assessment of compensation generally follows common law principles and is payable both in respect of actual damage and consequential loss.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Minister agree that legislation does not permit all those who suffer loss because of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, and especially in the business sector, to be compensated?
  Dr. Mawhinney: I was coming to that very point.
  Assessment is generally based on reinstatement cost, except in the case of investment properties or markedly unprofitable businesses, where compensation is based on market value. Claims are made to, and determined in the first instance by, the Secretary of State. Obviously, an applicant must substantiate his claim, and it is recognised that he may need professional advice and assistance to do so. If his claim is successful, he is reimbursed for all reasonable legal and other costs. If an applicant is not satisfied with the decision of the Secretary of State, he may appeal against it in the county court and thereafter to the High Court if he is still dissatisfied.
  That answers one of the points the hon. Member for Belfast, South made. I am sure he was not suggesting that he did not wish to have that backstop of the appeal to the court in the event of genuine disagreement. That is a benefit to his constituents and others in Northern Ireland. But I assure him that we make every effort to settle amicably and reasonably and that we do not see the court as an easy option to enable the Northern Ireland Office to avoid trying to come to an agreed settlement with people who have suffered criminal damage.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Is it not a fact that most people in Northern Ireland facing the question of the courts see that as another hurdle to surmount? While I recognise the concept of a backstop, it can also be used as a polite lever —"You may wait for months and do worse".
  Dr. Mawhinney: That is factually the case; they might wait for months and do worse. It is not for Ministers to prejudge what the courts will decide. But we are of similar mind that it is a backstop, and I believe—speaking from memory—that there were probably only five or six cases in this whole incident which were going to court, and that is a measure of the point I am making.
  As a result of the bomb attack, a total of 512 claims were lodged for damage to property, of which 322 have been finalised, leaving 190 outstanding. Six of the outstanding cases — I do not have to state this from memory — are subject to appeal in the county court. Interim payments have been paid in 59 cases, and in 47 cases offers of compensation have been made. The most common cause for lack of action in the remaining cases is that detailed documentation has not yet been submitted. The amount of compensation paid so far is about £900,000.
  I think it perfectly legitimate for the hon. Gentleman to ask whether, at the end of the year, I can be more specific about exactly what is holding up the cases on which payment has not yet been made. Excluding the six cases that are going to the county court, that leaves 184. Claims where final offers have been made, as I have said, are 47. Claims where the offers have been made but clarification has been sought by the applicant number five. There are six claims in which details are outstanding from the applicant and in which the Department has sought discovery. There are 47 claims awaiting a loss adjuster's report and two awaiting a valuation office report. There are 49 claims awaiting details of quantum from the applicant's professional advisers and 28 claims awaiting other information from the applicant and or his advisers.
  I make no criticism of those who have to bring together documents and professional advice to submit it to the Department. I hope that the Gentleman will find those detailed figures helpful and will understand that the Department does not seek to slow down the process in any way; it is trying to respond as quickly as possible as soon as the documentation becomes available to it.
  I take the hon. Gentleman's helpful and constructive point that it might help to speed things up if the Department had a comprehensive list of the information that it required and could make that list available
  912
  immediately if such an occurrence happened again. We hope that such occurrences will be rare. I shall certainly draw his suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I shall also ask my right hon. Friend to inquire in particular into the case of No. 6 Brookland street to which the hon. Gentleman referred and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister tell us what is the delay in the 46 cases in which an assessor's report is awaited? Is that an assessor from the Northern Ireland Office or an independent assessor trying to value the claim on behalf of the claimant?
  Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is pushing me too far on the details. I suggest that he writes to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State if he seeks such information.
  It is perfectly understandable that those who have been disadvantaged in this way should want to telephone to find out how things are progressing and to chase their case. However, the hon. Gentleman will accept that, if that happens too much, it gets in the way of progress on the case. We need a happy balance. I am sure that no official was gratuitously rude, but we need a balance between the claimant's legitimate concern and the ability of the Department to get on and do the job.
  The hon. Gentleman made much of what he called the bureaucratic jungle. I hope that on reflection he will feel that things are not quite as bad as the picture that he painted. The Northern Ireland Office is staffed with hardworking and conscientious officials who seek to discharge a difficult job. Most would accept that they do it with a commendable degree of professionalism and good humour.
  The hon. Gentleman is right that, as we are dealing with large sums of public money—£900,000 so far—we have a statutory responsibility to ensure that that money is accounted for and used only for the purposes for which we are expected to use it. Perhaps that is all encompassed by the hon. Gentleman's phrase "good housekeeping".
  I am satisfied that every effort has been made not only to alleviate the hardship of those who suffered from this outrage but to expedite the payment of compensation and the restoration of the damaged property. The House should be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing us to examine this issue. I hope that he feels that the debate has been worthwhile, not only for him but for his constituents.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past One o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Zircon
  Zircon
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  St. Helena
  St. Helena
TRANSPORT
  Speed Limiters
  Speed Limiters
  Primary Route Network (North-West)
  Primary Route Network (North-West)
  Preston Bypass
  Preston Bypass
  Motorway Network, Lancashire
  Motorway Network, Lancashire
  A19 (Crash Barriers)
  A19 (Crash Barriers)
  A19-A1 Network
  A19-A1 Network
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Railways (Investment)
  Railways (Investment)
  Trolley Buses
  Trolley Buses
  Unleaded Petrol
  Unleaded Petrol
WALES
  Initial Teacher Training
  Initial Teacher Training
  Housing
  Housing
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Business Closures (Redundancy)
  Business Closures (Redundancy)
  Part-time Employees
  Part-time Employees
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Bookmakers
  Bookmakers
  Cigarette Imports
  Cigarette Imports
  Shipbuilding Industry (Redundancies)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Redundancies)
  Film Industry
  Film Industry
  Consumer Arbitration Agreements Bill
  Consumer Arbitration Agreements Bill
  EC (Liquid Containers)
  EC (Liquid Containers)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Merseyside)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Merseyside)
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
  Batchelor plc
  Batchelor plc
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Daya Bay Power Plant
  Daya Bay Power Plant
  Hong Kong (Vietnamese Refugees)
  Hong Kong (Vietnamese Refugees)
  Hong Kong Futures Exchange
  Hong Kong Futures Exchange
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  Disarmament
  Disarmament
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
EMPLOYMENT
  Information
  Information
  Loans Guarantee Scheme
  Loans Guarantee Scheme
  "Trade Unions and Their Members"
  "Trade Unions and Their Members"
  Restart
  Restart
  Redundancy
  Redundancy
  Industrial Language Training Service
  Industrial Language Training Service
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Job Training Scheme (Dundee)
  Job Training Scheme (Dundee)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Risley Remand Centre
  Risley Remand Centre
  Fire Services
  Fire Services
  Registration
  Registration
  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Prisoners (Drugs)
  Sex Shops
  Sex Shops
  Rampton Hospital
  Rampton Hospital
  Sidney John Manley
  Sidney John Manley
  Crossbows
  Crossbows
PRIME MINISTER
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Butter Surplus
  Butter Surplus
  EEC (Shipbuilding Intervention Fund)
  EEC (Shipbuilding Intervention Fund)
  Research Assistant (Security Pass)
  Research Assistant (Security Pass)
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Saladin Security and Keenie Meenie Services
  Saladin Security and Keenie Meenie Services
  Engagements
  Engagements
ENERGY
  Electricity Industry
  Electricity Industry
  Energy Efficiency
  Energy Efficiency
  Nuclear Power
  Nuclear Power
  Electricity Supply Industry
  Electricity Supply Industry
  Collieries (Wage Earners)
  Collieries (Wage Earners)
SCOTLAND
  Hazardous Waste
  Hazardous Waste
  Tobacco Industry
  Tobacco Industry
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
  European Council Meetings
  European Council Meetings
  Travel Grants
  Travel Grants
  Assured Tenancies
  Assured Tenancies
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Housing Finance
  Housing Finance
  Homeless Persons (Housing)
  Homeless Persons (Housing)
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Housing Statistics
  Housing Statistics
  Mortgage Arrears
  Mortgage Arrears
  Regional Development
  Regional Development
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Inner London Education Authority
  Inner London Education Authority
  Association of Metropolitan Authorities
  Association of Metropolitan Authorities
  Polytechnic Designations
  Polytechnic Designations
  Further and Higher Education Institutions
  Further and Higher Education Institutions
  Rural Schools
  Rural Schools
  Scottish Universities
  Scottish Universities
  National Curriculum
  National Curriculum
  Secondary Education (Epping Forest)
  Secondary Education (Epping Forest)
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  "Strategy for the Science Base"
  "Strategy for the Science Base"
  Home Economics
  Home Economics
  Inner London
  Inner London
  Ethnic Minorities (Swann Report)
  Ethnic Minorities (Swann Report)
  Education Reform Bill
  Education Reform Bill
  Association of County Councils
  Association of County Councils
  University Technicians (Pay)
  University Technicians (Pay)
  Education Reform
  Education Reform
  Schools (Local Authority Control)
  Schools (Local Authority Control)
  Universities (Recruitment of Women)
  Universities (Recruitment of Women)
  Academic Freedom
  Academic Freedom
  Teesside (City Technology College)
  Teesside (City Technology College)
  O-Level Passes
  O-Level Passes
  Students (Financial Support)
  Students (Financial Support)
  Aberdeen University (Funding)
  Aberdeen University (Funding)
  Tertiary Education
  Tertiary Education
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Polytechnics and Colleges (Funding)
  Polytechnics and Colleges (Funding)
  Testing and Assessment
  Testing and Assessment
  City Technology Colleges
  City Technology Colleges
  Contract Researchers
  Contract Researchers
  University Grants Committee
  University Grants Committee
  Foreign Languages
  Foreign Languages
  Parent-Teacher Associations
  Parent-Teacher Associations
  Grant-aided Schools
  Grant-aided Schools
  Religious Education
  Religious Education
  Church Leaders
  Church Leaders
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Truancy
  Truancy
  Schools (Business Links)
  Schools (Business Links)
  University Veterinary Schools
  University Veterinary Schools
  Science
  Science
  Shortage Subjects
  Shortage Subjects
  GCSE
  GCSE
  Undergraduates
  Undergraduates
  MENCAP
  MENCAP
  Save British Science
  Save British Science
  Indiscipline
  Indiscipline
  Sports Injuries (Pupils)
  Sports Injuries (Pupils)
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  School Building
  School Building
  School Governors
  School Governors
  Students (Travel Costs)
  Students (Travel Costs)
  Inner Cities
  Inner Cities
  Further and Higher Education
  Further and Higher Education
  Student Awards
  Student Awards
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Dead Sheep
  Dead Sheep
  Pigmeat
  Pigmeat
  Sheep (Radioactivity)
  Sheep (Radioactivity)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  Public Service Messages (Television)
  Public Service Messages (Television)
  EC (Own Resources)
  EC (Own Resources)
  Personal Searches
  Personal Searches
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Commercial Banks (Debt-Relief)
  Commercial Banks (Debt-Relief)
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Thin Capitalisation
  Thin Capitalisation
  Cigarettes
  Cigarettes
ENVIRONMENT
  Children (Sports Teaching and Coaching)
  Children (Sports Teaching and Coaching)
  Sport
  Sport
  Housing Authorities (Project Control)
  Housing Authorities (Project Control)
  Housing (Unit Cost Limits)
  Housing (Unit Cost Limits)
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Tyne and Wear Planning Forum
  Tyne and Wear Planning Forum
  Polychlorinated Byphenyls
  Polychlorinated Byphenyls
  Housing
  Housing
  Members' Tea Room
  Members' Tea Room
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Urban Regeneration
  Urban Regeneration
  Housing
  Housing
  Loft Insulation
  Loft Insulation
  Wildlife Protection
  Wildlife Protection
  Waste Recycling
  Waste Recycling
  Raptors (Licences)
  Raptors (Licences)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  National Rivers Authority
  National Rivers Authority
  Sewage Works
  Sewage Works
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Haemophiliacs
  Haemophiliacs
  Blood Products
  Blood Products
  Haemophilia Society
  Haemophilia Society
  Glaucoma
  Glaucoma
  Nurses and Midwives
  Nurses and Midwives
  Organ Transplantation
  Organ Transplantation
  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers
  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers
  Hospital Beds (York)
  Hospital Beds (York)
  Haringey Health Authority
  Haringey Health Authority
  Benefits
  Benefits
  West Midlands (NHS Budget)
  West Midlands (NHS Budget)
  Departmental Research
  Departmental Research
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Community Care
  Community Care
  Dental Care
  Dental Care
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Benefit Fraud
  Benefit Fraud
  Nursing Homes
  Nursing Homes
  Private Health Care
  Private Health Care
  Students (Benefits)
  Students (Benefits)
  Benefit Claimants
  Benefit Claimants
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
DEFENCE
  Missile Defence Systems
  Missile Defence Systems
  Disarmament
  Disarmament
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Brecon Beacons (Military Exercises)
  Brecon Beacons (Military Exercises)
  Armilla Patrol
  Armilla Patrol
  Submarines
  Submarines
  Military Balance
  Military Balance
  FI-111 Aircraft
  FI-111 Aircraft
  Boeing (Contracts)
  Boeing (Contracts)
  Northern Waters (Maritime Activity)
  Northern Waters (Maritime Activity)
  Nuclear Tests
  Nuclear Tests
  Doctors and Dentists (Pay)
  Doctors and Dentists (Pay)
  Howitzers
  Howitzers
  Arms Control Unit
  Arms Control Unit
  House Purchase
  House Purchase
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Facsimile Machines
  Facsimile Machines
  Members (Bribery)
  Members (Bribery)

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

Lord Jenkins of Hillhead
The Right Honourable Roy Jenkins, having been created Baron Jenkins of Hillhead, of Pontypool in the County of Gwent, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Diamond and the Lord Grimond.
Lord Goodman—Took the Oath.

Industry and Higher Education R&D
2.46 p.m.
Lord Rodney: 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 they are doing to encourage closer collaboration between industry and higher education institutes in the field of applied research.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, government policies are creating a business climate that encourages and rewards enterprise. We are stimulating increased collaborative research between industry and higher education institutes. Through collaborative programmes such as Alvey, JOERS and LINK the Government are encouraging closer ties between the academic community and industry so as to optimise the commercial exploitation of the UK science base.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that although Her Majesty's Government have made many such schemes available industry is not availing itself sufficiently of those opportunities?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the Government have created conditions in which enterprise can flourish. We are looking to industry itself to increase its R&D effort. The Government are considering what more could be done to encourage industrial R&D, particularly in the context of our response to the House of Lords Select Committee report on civil research development. But that report rightly recognised that the main responsibility for spending more on R&D rests with industry itself.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, is it not the case that it is the universities themselves which have made the first response to the ACARD Report, Improving Research Links Between Higher Education and Industry, by setting up the BEST programme; that is, British Expertise in Science and Technology? Are the
928
Government not prepared to commend the universities for that initiative?
Lord Beaverbrook: Yes, my Lords, of course I commend the universities for that initiative, but I should say that the Government are committing considerable sums of money and resources to this matter. Up to 31st March 1987, £160 million has been spent by the Government on specific programmes and a further £130 million has already been committed. That does not include the recently launched LINK programme, which envisages public sector expenditure at approximately £200 million over the next five years.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord say how much of the money which he has just mentioned goes to the universities? Is it not the case that over the past five years the universities have suffered a great deal at the hands of this Government by way of the reduction of the money available to them? Has not that affected the amount of research which universities are able to undertake? Will not the noble Lord look at this again and speak to his noble friend with a view to stimulating the universities to do more research, which will be of practical assistance to industry?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, of course I shall bring the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition to the attention of my noble friend the Secretary of State. The sums of money that I have mentioned are aimed at stimulating applied collaborative research.

Manufacturing: Service Sector Employment
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Seear: 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 proportion of the increased number of jobs in service industries during the last 12 months derives from expansion in manufacturing industry.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the employment statistics do not indicate how much service sector employment depends upon manufacturing. However, manufacturing industry buys a significant share of service sector output—14 per cent. in 1979. Undoubtedly, therefore, the recent very strong growth of manufacturing output has contributed to the increase of 365,000 service sector employees in the year to June 1987.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, will he agree that the way in which the figures are compiled is somewhat out of date having regard to the changes that are taking place in the economy, both in service and manufacturing industries?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is difficult when gathering such statistics to determine to what sector the output of a service sector employee is related. For example, there are no doubt many service sector employees whose work is of benefit both to their own sector and to the manufacturing sector. Apportioning that output is difficult in terms of gathering statistics. However, we keep such matters under review. I understand that a new set of statistics relating to 1984 is expected in a few months' time; I shall see if it can be conveyed to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are still unexpectedly high levels of male unemployment in those areas which were formerly dominated by heavy manufacturing industries? Should more special steps be taken to assist in that situation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree that in some areas which formerly relied on what we have come to call the traditional heavy industries unemployment remains at an unacceptably high level. The Government have spent something approaching £3 billion per annum on various schemes to help in those difficult areas. It is gratifing to see the general level of unemployment coming down so sharply.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, has the noble Lord noticed that before there is any other form of rise in employment there is a marked rise in the employment of personnel officers? The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will be well aware of that. Naturally, employment officers have to be employed before anyone else can be taken on. Has the Minister noticed that that particular rise is going rather fast at the moment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that it is always necessary to have a personnel officer before employing others. Nonetheless, I am happy to see a rise in employment, in whatever sector it may occur.

Irreversible Brain Damage: Compensation
2.55 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to encourage reappraisal of the law on compensation for irreversible brain damage.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Government are always ready to consider any suggestion for reappraisal or reform which may be put forward.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that most disappointing Answer. But is he aware that, in awarding a sum of over £1 million in damages, Mr. Justice Hirst stressed the crying need for a review of that branch of the law which judges frequently urge but which only
930
Parliament can undertake? Perhaps I may add one word—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Denning:—one question. I shall get it right in the end. Will my noble and learned friend consider implementing the report of the Pearson Royal Commission in favour of periodic payments in place of a large lump sum, or at least refer the matter to the Civil Service Review?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble and learned friend is disappointed with our very open approach to the Question. I am aware of what was said by Mr. Justice Hirst and I am also aware of the difficulties which exist in that area of the law. The reform which was introduced by way of a provisional award of damages is a step in the direction that the noble and learned Lord wishes us to take. The Pearson Report has been considered. The subject is large; I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord wishes me to go into the detail of the report this afternoon.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that as things stand the law on negligence as applied to this sort of case is simply a lottery? There are many people who either cannot afford to sue or who suffer equally and who get no recompense at all. Would he think it fair, and some amelioration, that some proportion of the huge damages awarded should be put towards helping those who suffer equally and who cannot prove negligence?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I cannot agree that the present situation is properly equated to a lottery; it is generally based on fault, which is a matter of principle. It is possible to think of other bases for compensation. However, every basis has its own difficulties.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, irrespective of the validity of the Question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is it not a fact that irreversible brain damage is so high a price to pay for compensation of whatever magnitude that it is inconceivable that anyone would willingly seek enrichment via that route? Does it not follow that the most urgent matter is not a reduction of damages but to limit the number of cases occurring? Can we not make a start by expediting the introduction of the new wholly safe acellular whooping cough vaccine so as to eliminate cases of irreversible brain damage arising from that source? As the noble and learned Lord will know, a case concerning such damage is currently before the courts.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is clear that all noble Lords agree that if irreversible brain damage can be prevented, that is better than any system for awarding compensation following such damage.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord agree that the Government's recent White Paper on primary care raises that question by recommending a further extension of immunisation

931
and vaccination, which is bound to give rise to some errors along the way? Does that not give good grounds for seriously reconsidering the whole question of no-fault compensation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the question of no-fault compensation has been the subject of a number of considerations. It is presently the subject of consideration by the Department of Health and Social Security in conjunction with the British Medical Association. I understand that the association has requested discussions with the department about a possible pilot scheme. However, I am not certain that it would be right to link that matter with the White Paper on primary health care.

Poverty and Unemployment Traps
2.59 p.m.
Lord Sandys: 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 measures they are taking to reduce the poverty and unemployment traps.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, one of the central aims of the social security reforms is to improve work incentives. By replacing family income supplement with the more generous family credit we shall help to tackle the unemployment trap by improving the net return from work. By assessing benefit entitlement on the basis of net income we shall end the worst effects of the poverty trap. Lower rates of taxation sharpen incentives, and we are committed to reducing them, but only when it is prudent to do so.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer and congratulate the Government on that very important state of affairs, but can he say how it has been achieved?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, over and above the success of the Government in recent years in achieving lower rates of tax and rising real earnings, the assessment of entitlement on the basis of net instead of gross income ends the absurd situation where loss of benefits combined with tax contributions leave someone worse off as gross pay rises. Seventy thousand families are presently in that position, but they will not be after April of next year.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is there not a powerful case made out to deal with this serious problem by using whatever moneys are available to raise the tax threshold rather than to cut the basic rate?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no. As I understand the position, the changing of tax makes a very marginal difference to marginal tax rates. Should tax go to 25 per cent., the number of families on a rate of 80 per cent. and over would fall only from 445,000 to
932
420,000. The number of families in the 70 per cent. bracket would actually rise.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is it not well established that apart from raising the tax threshold as a sensible way to operate in this area, the best way of all is actually to raise child benefit in order to deal with poverty and other traps rather than lower it?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the effect of losing some 30 pence is in fact minimal. Even if child benefit had been uprated, the effect on the numbers receiving income-related benefits would be marginal. Perhaps 10,000 fewer families would receive family credit and a further 5,000 or so fewer families might receive housing benefit. I suggest that this would hardly have a major impact on the numbers facing relatively high rates of benefit withdrawal.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that following the Question, most people would conclude that the Government are moving in the direction which is generally desired. They have raised the threshold, they have lowered taxes and they have increased child benefits. So all these suggestions seem to be already in train—and the best of luck on that journey.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. He is quite right. The numbers in the 90 per cent. to 100 per cent. marginal tax rates bracket have in fact fallen from 120,000 to 70,000.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, is it not a fact that after next April there will be some families receiving family credit and housing benefit who will in fact lose 98p in benefit for every pound they earn? Surely that is something of a poverty trap? Is it not also the case that as people start paying national insurance at 5 per cent. when they earn as little as £41 per week, they are better off to stay at home, collect £40 in benefit, get their national insurance dues credited and not have to pay fares to work? Surely that is a poverty trap.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I suggest to the noble Baroness that the very few families that are in the bracket to which she refers would in fact be very much worse off under the current system whereby it would actually cost them 9p in the pound to go to work.
Lord Banks: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the steeper tapers which are to be used in connection with housing benefit will accentuate the poverty trap by increasing the rate of withdrawal and that the child benefit freeze will broaden the poverty trap by including more families in means-tested benefits?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as regards child benefit I have already answered a supplementary question on that fact. As regards the tapers, whether the housing benefit taper or the family credit taper, we are actually talking about people who by going into employment, earn a considerable amount of

933
money because until that point occurs the taper is not effective. Therefore we are talking about the richer end of the market, as it were. I do not think this question is directed particularly to that end of the market.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the only way of eliminating the marginal tax rates of more than 100 per cent. to which he has referred is by introducing an integrated tax benefit system?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am well aware that this has been the policy of the Social Democratic Party for some time. Perhaps at first look it is rather tempting. I must resist the temptation because serious issues clearly arise on how such merged systems could retain the contributory principle. They might imply quite unacceptable increases in public expenditure and in the burden of taxation on earnings.
Furthermore, there could also be serious implications for work incentives. It is not obvious that such systems could respond quickly and adequately to changes in needs. The policy requires a lot more thought before it can be accepted generally.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister surely is aware that this was Liberal Party policy long before it became the policy of the SDP. Does not the Minister also agree it was much discussed and studied on his own Benches where there are still some very strong supporters of this policy?
Lord Skelmersdale: Indeed, my Lords. Whether it comes from the Liberal Party or the Social Democratic Party, I note that we are actually talking about uniformity of the tax and benefits system which does not seem to arise politically. Having said that, I am well aware that my noble friend Lord Trafford, for example, and the noble Baroness's honourable friend, Dr. David Owen, were in consultation on this matter as long as 20 years ago.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that as far back as the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was Mr. Barber this integrated system was announced as Conservative Party policy? The then Chancellor decided that was not the time at which he could introduce it.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, however all that may be I am sure the House feels that it really is time to pass on to other questions.

Criminal Justice Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 9 [Order for return to requesting state]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 9, line 46, at end insert (", and shall include the facts and the law relied upon as justification for making such an order.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will remember the debates that took place on the provisions which were necessary under this new Bill for the obtaining of an extradition order. They relate to the removal of one of our subjects or the subject of another country to a foreign land in order that he might he tried on a criminal charge.
Your Lordships will also remember that after debates in this House at the previous stages of Committee and Report the prima facie rule was removed. The protection that was given to an accused who was required by a foreign state to be taken to another country was the requirement that a court of our land should be satisfied that a prima facie case existed against him. That protection is no longer to be part of our law if the Bill goes through in its present amended form.
At the moment the procedure under the Bill is covered by Clause 9, which provides in subsection (1) that the Secretary of State—it is now an administrative matter—makes an order. Before he makes that order subsection (2) is brought into play. Under subsection (2) the Secretary of State is required to give a notice in writing that he is contemplating making such an order.
Then one comes to subsection (3), which says that the person who is the subject matter of these proceedings is entitled to make representations to the Secretary of State. The last subsection, which is subsection (4), says that a notice shall explain in ordinary language the right confirmed by the subsection to which I have just referred; namely, the right to make submissions.
There is a gap and the gap is that this notice in writing—and I again remind your Lordships that there is now no question of the prima facie rule existing—can, as the Bill at present stands, be a bland notice in writing merely informing the person concerned that the Secretary of State is considering making an extradition order and that if he wishes to (and this must be in the plain ordinary language of our land) he can make representations.
When the amendment was dealt with on Report in order that the clause should be in its present form the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, raised a most important point, as one would expect whenever he rises in your Lordships' House. I am delighted to see that the noble and learned Lord is in his seat. He would be able to read these words in a much more resounding and clear voice than mine. The noble and learned Lord said:
"I raise one matter for clarification. Should there not be spelt out, either in the amendment or elsewhere, a specific obligation on the Secretary of State to provide not only notice that he is contemplating making an order but the facts and the law relied on for the making of that order? There has been removed, by virtue of the previous amendments, the phrase: 'facts upon which and the law under' and in its place we have only the word 'offence'. Unless there is a specific obligation spelt out, all that the defendant (if I may call him that) will get is a notice of the intention of the Secretary of State which will no doubt fill him with gloom but no wisdom. I suggest that there ought to be a specific provision, either continuing on from subsection (1A) in the amendment or elsewhere, that he is to be given particulars of the facts and the foreign law relied upon in support of the application."—[Official Report, 17/11/87; col. 131.]
Your Lordships will note that in the amendment we have followed the precise wording suggested by the

935
noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. With that meritorious and learned support, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my objection to the noble Lord's excellent presentation of his case is the way in which he downgraded the improvement that this House was able to bring about. He downgraded the power that is now given to the subject of possible extradition to submit his case to the person who has to make the final decision as to whether or not it should be carried out. He suggested that it is a "bland statement", but there is nothing bland about the fact that we now have the power for the subject of the extradition to ensure that his case and his reasons for opposing extradition are known to the person who has to make the final decision. I am sorry that the noble Lord downgraded that because I believe we made a great advance and that it makes all the difference in the world to the fairness of the decision which will now be the procedure in this matter.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—and I shall not weary the House by jumping up again until I reply to this debate—I should like to say that he has completely misunderstood me. I merely referred to the notice that he now gets under the Bill. I was not vilifying any amendment which had previously been made when I said that the notice at the moment is a bland notice. The noble Lord is right to think that there is a right of reply but before one replies to something one has to know what one is answering.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support this amendment. It is a fundamental principle of natural justice between the individual and the state, save in wholly exceptional circumstances such as state interest or state security, that the individual, who by virtue of an administrative decision may be disadvantaged, should be entitled to know the broad substance—no more—of the case he has to meet both in fact and in law.
Why should that be so? It is quite simply so that he may be given a fair opportunity of making the representations which are envisaged by subsections (3) and (5). In broad principle—and I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend—I wholly support the amendment. The reason I cannot support it as drafted is that it appears to ignore state interests and state security. Those are not taken into account and are most important and delicate matters which lie within the province of the Home Secretary. Although I support this amendment in principle, and have done so consistently throughout, I cannot support it as drafted.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will leave the Bill as it is because in a way the words are quite clear:
"A notice … shall explain in ordinary language the right confirmed by subsection (3)".
Surely the Secretary of State can be trusted to carry out that duty and explain, not merely in a bland
936
notice, so that the man can understand. I do not think we need any more.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I support the amendment but if it is accepted by the Government I should like the amendment to use the words, "shall include the evidence". I am rather sad that this amendment has fallen into the trap of referring to "facts" and not to "evidence". This matter goes back to some questions which I asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor during our earlier debate on this matter. We are continually told that it is the court that decides whether or not a person will be sent back. If it is the court that decides, then one refers to Clause 6 to see what the court considers. Clause 6(4), which we debated at length and tried to get rid of without success, states:
"the court of committal shall not consider whether the evidence would be sufficient to warrant the trial of the arrested person".
Equally, if there is not an Order in Council, subsection (8) states:
"Where an authority to proceed has been issued … where that person is accused of the offence, unless an Order in council giving effect to general extradition arrangements otherwise provides, that the evidence would be sufficient to warrant his trial".
So it is the evidence which the court is apparently supposed to be considering. Therefore, in this amendment the words should be:
"shall include the evidence and the law relied upon as justification for making such an order".
That would make it perfectly clear throughout the Bill rather than attempt to avoid the word "evidence" by always putting "the facts". Surely "evidence" is the word we ought to have. Otherwise, I support this amendment.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it was a unique pleasure hearing the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, reading out that which sounded so much more persuasive from him than from me. Perhaps I may make it perfectly clear where I and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, disagree. What is rightly provided in the clearest of terms is the opportunity for who I refer to as the defendant to have the right to make representations. It is obviously intended that he should have a proper right to make representations. The obligation as it stands at the moment under subsection (4) is merely an obligation to explain his entitlement under subsection (2).
The entitlement under subsection (2) is merely to make representations. There is no obligation to give the accused person the facts—I would add the word "matters" to avoid any confusion as to what "facts" could mean—and matters relied upon in support of the application so that he can make an effective representation. On the one hand, the Bill emphasises the right to judicial review which carries with it clearly the obligation to comply with the rules of natural justice. On the other hand, it does not place an obligation upon the Minister to enable him effectively to answer the allegations made. That is why I thought that the matter would be spelt out. I do not suggest that the evidence should be provided, but merely the material facts and matters relied upon in support of the application, including, of course, the relevant law.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the House, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has said, has to some extent already discussed this matter. With regard to the principle, on Report the House decided on the basic form that extradition proceedings should take, assuming that the Bill becomes law, in situations where the Government consider that the law and legal system operating in some other country are ones in which sufficient confidence can repose to enable such an arrangement to go ahead. As we have heard, it is not easy to be sure that we are getting the precise detail absolutely right.
As I understand it, the principle behind this amendment and Amendment No. 3 is to provide that the Secretary of State in giving his decision in pursuance of the duty which the Bill lays upon him will give a decision that will mean something to the person who receives it. It is to be remembered that at the beginning, before any court proceedings of any kind in this country, a statement, as required by the Bill, will he given to the person accused to enable him to understand the basis upon which the extradition application is made. Towards the end of the proceedings, the Secretary of State will notify his intention to the accused person, if he intends to make an order for his extradition.
It is that order with which we are concerned in Amendments Nos. 1 and 3. I regard these amendments as having a good deal to commend them. The precise form in which the amendments should be cast is not by any means easy, as the debates have shown. I hope that the noble Lord will be content if I say that we undertake further to examine this matter in the light of your Lordships' views, and that if the further consideration brings forward an amendment we should seek to deal with it in another place. I shall of course write to the noble Lord who moved the amendment and to those of your Lordships who have spoken upon it, to communicate the decision, as that may be appropriate.
I hope that that meets the concern, which we recognise is a genuine concern, that we get this new procedure, which is considerably different from the present procedure, right not only in principle but in every possible detail.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I at once express my appreciation to the noble and learned Lord for the distance that he has travelled towards those who moved the amendment. I was possibly too optimistic when I thought he would travel the whole distance and say that, as the spirit of the amendment is one that commends itself to him, the amendment could be accepted, obviously with the proviso that wording which he deemed to be wiser and more apt would find its way into the Bill as it travelled its normal passage.
If I sat down at this moment, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could indicate whether he is prepared to take that course, in which case my gratitude would be even greater than it is at the moment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, at the risk of going for second best, I must say that if the noble
938
Lord felt able to accept the undertaking I have given, I should prefer that course.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, then I shall try, if I may, only for the clarification of my mind if no one else's, to spell out what I understand the undertaking to be. Incidentally, I express my gratitude to all the noble and learned Lords who spoke, even the one who spoke against me. I give him the title of "learned" because his utterances seem that way, even though I could not accept them as such. As I understand it, the undertaking is that it is realised that the whole basis of the notice to the respondent to that notice—the accused person, if I may call him that—has to spell out the case against him both in fact and in law.
I pause here only to tell the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that the reason "evidence" is not included is that I anticipate that it would be deemed by the Government to be bringing in the prima facie rule by the back door. Since I would never he party to such a subtle move, the word "facts" or the words "facts and matters", as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, suggested, would obviously he a better alternative.
The spirit of the amendment is that the content of the notice must include the case that the respondent is supposed to answer. If the noble and learned Lord is undertaking that an amendment will be formulated to deal with that point, then I not only readily accept the undertaking but I again express my gratitude.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the undertaking that I have given is carefully to consider this matter. There are difficulties which I did not feel it necessary to enter into, but which I can elaborate. One must remember that this is a stage. assuming that the extradition goes ahead, in a criminal process which will carry on in another place, and therefore there are serious questions about how far it is proper to go in an intermediate stage where one might prejudice the accused.
I am undertaking, in a spirit of understanding clearly the purpose of the amendment, to see whether we can achieve, in the formulation of the notice, a proper result taking account of what the noble Lord has said. Coupled of course with the notice with which the whole proceedings start is the initial warrant from the foreign country and the statement which is required by the provisions of the Bill. I do not think that I can commit my right honourable friend the Secretary of State any further than that, but I know that this is a matter which he would like further to consider in the light of the arguments that your Lordships have heard, and in a genuine attempt to reach a proper result. Whenever the decision on that is taken, if an amendment seems to be called for it would, as I have said, appropriately be made in another place.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I readily accept the spirit in which that undertaking and the explanation of it were given, and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 10, line 2, at end insert (", including but not limited to, representations as to and evidence tending to establish the innocence of the person exercising the right.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can be persuaded on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to go further, more precisely and with more commitment than he has so far, gracious and helpful as he has been on the first amendment.
It has been common ground in the debates that we have had on the question of extradition that it is a very grave matter to send a man or woman from this country in custody to be tried in a foreign country on a criminal charge which may be of a most serious character. The House by its vote has decided to dispense with what we on this side of the House thought was an essential requirement: that a prima facie case against the accused should be made in a magistrates' court in this country before the extradition process could proceed. That decision has added greatly to the responsibility which Parliament is giving to the Secretary of State if by warrant he can order the accused to be taken to the state by which the extradition request was made, there to be tried and dealt with. We are therefore on a very important matter governing the decision of the Secretary of State.
We have discussed the first amendment, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Mishcon, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has agreed to go a good deal of the way with him. This amendment adds to subsection (5) of Clause 9 of the Bill, which reads:
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to consider any representations made in the exercise of that right".
to make representations,
"including but not limited to, representations as to and evidence tending to establish the innocence of the person exercising the right".
We want the position with regard to the examination of the accused's case to be as broad as is just and right in the circumstances.
I have in mind that it should be open to him, for instance, to represent and bring such evidence as he can that someone else was the author of the alleged crime or that the motivation of the foreign state in seeking his extradition was more related to a political view than to the merits or gravity of a particular case. But to illustrate the matter in somewhat more detail it is interesting to note, when the Bill considers the position on an application for habeas corpus, what matters the High Court may consider in dealing with such an application. In Clause 8(3) of the Bill, one sees that
"on any such application",
for habeas corpus,
"the High Court may, without prejudice to any other jurisdiction of the court, order the person committed to be discharged from custody if it appears to the court that

(a) by reason of the trivial nature of the offence of which he is accused or was convicted; or

(b) by reason of the passage of time since he is alleged to have committed it or to have become unlawfully at large, as the case may be; or

940

(c) because the accusation against him is not made in good faith in the interests of justice, it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be unjust or oppressive to return him".

The amendment is therefore directed to representations of that kind to make certain that it would not only be open to the accused person to draw such matters to the notice of the Secretary of State but that the Secretary of State should have a duty to consider them in coming to his decision.
In this matter, where we have put so much responsibility governing the liberty of the subject in this country into the hands of the Secretary of State, it is vital that he should be seen to be exercising what will then be a quasi-judicial role fairly and sensibly. It is desirable in our view to spell out the important duty of the Secretary of State to inform himself fully of the accused's case and all the circumstances relating to the alleged offence.
We are dealing with a vital matter affecting the liberty of a subject of this country or indeed of a foreigner who might he in this country. In the light of what has been provided for in relation to habeas corpus, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel disposed to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may very briefly oppose the amendment in principle. It envisages a kind of pre-trial, a mini-trial, on issues for which guilt or innocence will in the long run be established judicially.
Apart from that objection, this lies wholly beyond the competence of the exercise of an administrative decision. It would take it beyond what is envisaged by the considerations of subsection (14), which include good faith and motivation, which were referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. This type of exercise would not lie within the province of the executive at all to assess guilt or innocence. I respectfully suggest that the proposal is not practicable.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has opposed Amendment No. 2 on grounds of principle. I would oppose it on the much simpler ground of drafting. Subsection (5) is plain in its tones and about as wide and comprehensive in its effect as we could possibly imagine or require to have. The amendment elaborates some of the factors which necessarily could he put before the Secretary of State in the terms of the provision as it stands.
The noble and learned Lord has been very careful to try to get round the rule of interpretation, that when we express one thing we are deemed to exclude others unless we are very careful. If I may say so with deep respect to him, because his standing in law far exceeds mine, he used the expression,
"including but not limited to, representations as to and evidence tending to establish the innocence,"
and so on a little clumsily. It is quite unnecessary for us to be so over-zealous as to legislate in that way when we have a subsection which confirms fully and clearly the rights that are intended.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, perhaps I may differ slightly from the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and congratulate the mover of this amendment. We have here the word "evidence", which is what we have been looking for all along. It is rather surprising that the notice which was to be received from the Secretary of State was to include only the facts on which the man was being sent away. When it comes to representations on behalf of the person, he will be asked to look at evidence tending to establish the innocence of that person. That goes further than mere representations, I suggest, and that is why the amendment should be supported by everybody.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it is easy for me to be intimidated on this Bill by the strength and authority of all noble Lords with legal backgrounds. I am interested only in this part of the Bill, because one has had some experience of seeing decisions given in the past which have not at the end of the day seemed to be just. I cannot see any need for the amendment. If I understand the concession given by the Government—that is, that the defendant can make representations before the ultimate decision is made—is there anything in the Bill which will prevent him from including in his representations the point that is set out in the amendment?
Why do we have to spell out in the amendment what he or his representative can say as part of his defence? To go so far as to tell defendants how they have to make their representations, and to set out the parameters in this sort of detail, to some extent weakens the concession that I thought we were given by the Government; that is, that the defendant gives his reasons why he does not think he should be extradited from the country. Laymen in this country, on matters such as this—we see it happening in other countries—get a hit weary of the legal purity of some of our eminent legal leaders. As a layman, it seems to me that in their eagerness to justify every dot and comma of the legal side of the presentation they extend the time given to such matters and the extra time sometimes brings more cloud than light.
I feel that on this matter we should arrive at a speedier and a more just decision by not spelling out the parameters for the representative and the defendant. As the Bill stands at present (I shall read this and then finish),
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of Slate to consider any representations made in the exercise of that right".
Surely under that wide umbrella they can say anything they like, including the matters set out in the amendment.
Lord Havers: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. We always complain about statutes being too big. Here we are adding yet another sentence. I should have thought that subsection (5) covers everything perfectly well. I have spent eight years considering statutes in draft. Subsection (5) imposes a duty that is quite clear and will be well understood by the Secretary of State and the Home Office, whatever government are in power. The addition of these 15 words is unnecessary.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, the position is that Hansard, which reports what we say in this House, and what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor undertakes in this House, may not be cited in court. When the courts come to construe this legislation they will look at the language of the Bill and nothing else. Further, it will be a breach of duty for counsel if he even refers to what has been said in this House or any undertaking as to the meaning of any piece of legislation passing through this House in support of a particular construction of the legislation.
That is the short and simple reason that we cannot say that an undertaking given in this House as to what something means will necessarily rule. The House has already decided that the prima facie safeguard has gone. That is a battle which is lost. We do not seek to re-open it. We know that the courts may not now consider evidence in these cases. The concern that has prompted these amendments is that the duty of the Secretary of State to consider representations may not extend to a duty on his part to consider representations as to the evidence. When we hear that the prima facie safeguard is not to be admitted by the back door then the right to make representations to the Secretary of State does not entail an obligation on him to behave as if he were a court to consider whether there is a prima facie case.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State will consider as part of the representations evidence that the individual brings forward. To give the simplest of all examples, if the allegation against a person is that he committed a particular offence on a specific day in Paris and he submits impeccable evidence that he was not there and did not commit the offence, we wish to be satisfied that the Secretary of State will then be duty bound to consider his representations, which are in essence his alibi evidence.
If the Secretary of State simply says, "I have considered your representations but nonetheless you must go away" the proponents of the amendment desire to be able to argue in the courts that the Secretary of State's decision in that regard was irrational. We want to be satisfied that an answer to that will not be that he is under no obligation to consider evidence. If it is so clear that the general words bear that meaning, what harm is there in spelling it out?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I make just two brief points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has on two separate occasions this afternoon announced that one of the great victories won by this House is that as a result of the debates we have had a person who is facing the prospect of extradition will have the right to make representations. The noble Lord implied that that was not in the Bill when first drafted; indeed, that is so. He indicated that he thought that we had made major progress. He has said it twice.
The House should be aware that people who have been at risk of extradition have always had a right of making representations to the Secretary of State. That is the position in the existing law. It did not even

943
cross the minds of many Members of this House that the Government were seriously proposing to withdraw that right. I welcome the fact that the right will now be spelt out, but there is no major concession there.
As I have indicated, I do not wish to make a major point, but the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has raised the matter twice and therefore I thought that he would find it helpful to be aware of the existing situation.
Secondly, I shall deal with one matter concerning which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be aware. An issue which worried me and others was whether there would be a right to make oral representations from a person who now no longer has the safeguard of the prima facie rule before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, or whether oral representations could be made. It is only right to say that I have had a helpful letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor saying, first, that the existing practice is that oral representations, as far as he is aware, are always accepted by the Home Office and that that will continue to be the position.
Indeed, he has gone further and has indicated—I quote his letter—that:
"if, in an appropriate case, it is thought that it will be in the best interests of the fugitive to allow him to make oral representations in person and this can be arranged within a reasonable time then Douglas Hurd sees no reason why this should not he done".
That is useful and, as regards that aspect of the matter, it meets the point I raised on Report.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for making that clear. I am glad that we were able to meet his concern.
It is important to remember how this matter stands in the Bill. In subsection (3) of Clause 9, as amended, there is a provision entitling the person to be extradited—the person to whom such an order would relate—to make representations within a time limit as to why he should not be returned to the foreign state. That strikes me as a very plain, full, complete and comprehensive account of the subject matter of representations without any restriction whatsoever. Subsection (4) goes on to say:
"A notice under subsection (2) above"—
a notice from the Secretary of State—
"shall explain in ordinary language the right confirmed by subsection (3) above".
That is the right to which I have just referred.
I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that it is highly important that in a matter of this kind people should be able to understand in clear language what their rights are. I cannot conceive of anything clearer than the words I have read out about the scope of the representations. Subsection (4) requires that that be expressed in "ordinary language". Perhaps that is a good reason why noble Lords such as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls should feel at home in this debate. We are in the business of trying to make this as simple as possible consistent with the nature of the matters that are in hand.
944
The strange thing is that the noble and learned Lord's amendment does not come in subsection (3) but, for a reason which so far I have not completely understood, comes later on in subsection (5), which says:
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to consider any representations made in the exercise of that right".
It seems an inappropriate place to seek to explain for the first time that the right to make representations includes representations that are clearly within the scope of the short words anyway. I say with the greatest possible respect that, far from making this simpler, more direct and easier to explain in ordinary language to the person affected, the noble and learned Lord's amendment appears to introduce an unnecessary additional complication.
Noble Lords who are familiar with the problems of statutory interpretation will have been faced with questions as to why apparently general words are followed by particular words of this kind, sometimes in an inappropriate place in the statute. The explanation very often is that it has been suggested in the course of debates in this House and in the other place that to make plainer what is already plain does no harm. However, if one looks closely at the words of the statute in order to answer a question upon them, one is sometimes considerably puzzled as to what precisely Parliament had in mind. Why did it need to say that? Is it intended to exclude something else? Far from being an improvement to the Bill, in my view, which I humbly commend to your Lordships, this amendment does nothing to further the interests which the noble and learned Lord seeks to advance.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, this debate must be considered against the background of the position which now prevails in regard to the rights of an accused person. The House decided to remove the prima facie rule; the duty to produce evidence against a person for whom the application to extradite has been made. It has taken away any obligation in a public court or in a judicial proceeding to produce evidence to justify what is proposed. It is because of the absence of that requirement that it is essential now to emphasise that the Secretary of State at any rate should consider what the evidence is. That view has been strongly supported.
It is because of the new position, with the absence of any necessity in judicial proceedings for proof to be given of evidence to justify what the accused is charged with, that it is vital to attempt to fill the gap by such language as is included in the amendment. It is therefore desirable that there should be a specific requirement to deal with evidence,
"tending to establish the innocence of the person exercising the right".
We are dealing with a stage in the history of the matter where the Secretary of State has to exercise a quasi-judicial decision. That is the burden upon him. He then has to make his own judgment. In the Interests of public confidence in such a decision it is right that there should be certainty and that all the relevant matters in the evidential field should be considered by the Secretary of State. This is the least we can do to reassure the public in a matter affecting the liberty of the subject that full care has been taken

945
by detailed examination of the evidence against someone to ensure that a just and right decision has been made. In the circumstances, I propose to invite the House to take a view on this matter.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down I would venture to ask him a question. Will he comment on the suggestion hinted at by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that specifying a number of particular matters might, under what I seem to remember is called a ejusdem generic rule, cut down the generality of the matters that could be taken? Let us consider this possibility. The Secretary of State is invited to consider in the representations certain matters to do with the judicial impartiality of the court. It could be represented that in view of the specific matters uttered it is not a matter that he ought to consider.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, your Lordships will observe—and I note the importance of that intervention—that as it stands the subsection says:
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to consider any representations made in the exercise of that right".
The amendment would add:
"including but not limited to, representations as to … evidence".
Therefore, a wider field is available to cover the very point that the noble Lord has made.
In my submission the particularity, and at the same time the generality, of what is provided for in the amendment meets that difficulty. What I fear is that public confidence in what we are about when we have got rid of the prima facie rule will be diminished if we reject the amendment.
4.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 157.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Amherst, E.

Ennals, L.

Ardwick, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Attlee, E.

Ezra, L.

Banks, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Basnett, L.

Gallacher, L.

Birk, B.

Galpern, L.

Borthwick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Glenamara, L.

Bottomley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Grey, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Grimond, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hampton, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hanworth, V.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carter, L.

Hunt, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Jay, L.

Diamond, L.

Jeger, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dowding, L.

John-Mackie, L.

946

Kilbracken, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Leatherland, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Listowel, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Seear, L.

Lockwood, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Longford, E.

Serota, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Shackleton, L.

Mais, L.

Shepherd, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Milford, L.

Simon, V.

Mishcon, L.

Stallard, L.

Molloy, L.

Stedman, B.

Monson, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Mulley, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Northfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ogmore, L.

Underhill, L.

Oram, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Parry, L.

Walston, L.

Peston, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Phillips, B.

Whaddon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

White, B.

Wigoder, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Raglan, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Forbes, L.

Aldington, L.

Fortescue, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Annandale and Hartfell, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Arran, E.

Goold, L.

Auckland, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Gridley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Beloff, L.

Belstead, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Bessborough, E.

Havers, L.

Blatch, B.

Headfort, M.

Blyth, L.

Henley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hesketh, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hives, L.

Brentford, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hood, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Butterworth, L.

Ilchester, E.

Buxton of Alsa, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Caithness, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Killearn, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Carnock, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Long, V.

Cowley, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Lurgan, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Croft, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Manton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Margadale, L.

De La Warr, E.

Marley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Denning, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Derwent, L.

Merrivale, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mersey, V.

Dundee, E.

Middleton, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Milverton, L.

Effingham, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elibank, L.

Morris, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Moyne, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Munster, E.

Ferrier, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

947

Nelon, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Northbourne, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Somers, L.

Onslow, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Orkney, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Pender, L.

Strange, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Radnor, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Swinton, E.

Reay, L.

Terrington, L.

Renton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Richardson, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Rochdale, V.

Trafford, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Tranmire, L.

Rodney, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Romney, E.

Trumpington, B.

Roskill, L.

Ullswater, V.

St. Davids, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ward of Witley, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Sandys, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Seebohm, L.

Wise, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Wynford, L.

Shannon, E.

Young, B.

Sharples, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 10, line 5, at end insert (", and shall include or be accompanied by a statement of reasons which have caused the Secretary of State to reject any such representations.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 requires the Secretary of State to give the reasons if he rejects representations by an accused person and therefore the accused is extradited. The amendment imposes a duty to state the reasons for rejection of the representations.
We have had a debate in which we have concluded that there is no necessity to spell out, or give indications to the accused, evidence which may be available to the Secretary of State. We have a proposal that the Secretary of State, should be required to say why he has turned down the representations of the accused particularly against that background.
Increasingly judicial bodies are being required to give reasons. In the old days there was positive discouragement but now there is an increasing expectation and requirement that when a decision is made reasons shall be given. It is not a burden that ought to be excessive to place upon the Secretary of State if a positive decision has been made. In my submission, it is important to establish—to use the old phrase—that justice has not only been done but has been seen to be done. The public, which will be greatly concerned in every extradition case, especially after these debates, should know exactly why the representations of an accused person have been turned down by the Secretary of State. It is in those circumstances that I move this amendment.
Lord Havers: My Lords, in principle I have great sympathy with this amendment. I think that it will concentrate the minds of the civil servants and the Minister very well. It may be of great assistance in considering whether there should be a judicial review,
948
and if sensible reasons are given it ought to reduce the number of judicial reviews.
However, I am concerned where there is a question of security behind it. To say, "I am not going to give reasons because there is a security aspect" (which would need an amendment to this amendment) might be difficult. I look forward with interest to hear what either my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor or the Minister say in reply. I think it is impossible to have an amendment of this kind which requires the Minister to give reasons when there may be reasons which he is unable to give.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will be greatly encouraged in regard to this amendment by the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers. As I understand the matter, he will support the amendment except that he has reservations with regard to security. The question of security will be covered by the normal rules governing security and which safeguard Ministers from being cross-examined on these matters. After the Wright case, I do not have any great confidence in the Government's handling of security. Nevertheless, I do not think that one would be justified in turning down the amendment simply on the ground that there may be difficulties over security.
There is one issue which seems to be at the back of discussions on this part of the Bill and which perhaps has not been mentioned for good reason. Here we are handing over to the Government, particularly the Home Office, semi-judicial responsibilities. As someone who has had considerable dealings with governments for a great number of years, (though never having been in one) I do not have complete confidence in the Government, let alone the Home Office, to discharge semi-judicial responsibilities. That is not to say that there have not been many admirable Home Secretaries; indeed, I have just introduced a former Home Secretary.
However, I do not share the view, if it exists, that the Home Office and the Government in general are a body fitted, without reservation, to be trusted with semi-judicial responsibilities. If we are to remove the right of people to have any prima facie examination of the case against them, I think that the least we can expect is that the Secretary of State shall give his reasons.
Furthermore, after listening to the debate, I am not certain as to the possible position of judicial review and natural justice. As I understand the matter, the decisions are subject to judicial review. Surely it would be easier to make that effective if we know the reasons upon which the Home Secretary rejected the application. I trust that noble Lords will not be bemused if I talk about security, and I very much support the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. I remember that some years ago, on the appointment of a new colonial judge, Lord Mansfield said, "Give your decision but never give your reasons. The decision may well be right but your reasons are almost certain to be wrong". Nowadays it is important that everyone giving a decision should

949
give his reasons, especially if there is a possibility of a judicial review because it can be more properly exercised if reasons are given.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I believe that I suggested at Committee stage, and assuredly at Report, that the Secretary of State should give reasoned decisions. I wholly accept and wish to support the reasoning of my noble and learned friend Lord Havers, in particular on the security angle. Therefore the amendment would require redrafting, in my view, although the spirit of it is clearly sound. In particular, it is sound because there is always scope for argument as to whether on the construction of any particular statute the executive must give a reasoned decision, or as to whether, in the absence of a reasoned decision, the court can quash a decision as unreasonable in the sense in which that term is understood in administrative law.
Looking at subsection (13) your Lordships will see at once the importance of spelling out on the face of the statute that a reasoned decision should be given, because that is in accordance with natural justice. That is clear and totally plain language; and, with respect, it is a fair resolution as between the individual and the state.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have a greater difficulty with this amendment than some noble Lords who have spoken in support of it—even my noble and learned friend—because there is likely to be a security factor in some of the decisions. If we require the Secretary of State to give reasons where there is no security factor and not to give reasons when there is one, to put it bluntly, it is letting the cat out of the hag. I speak from having spent three and a half of the most interesting years of my life advising the Home Secretary when I was in charge of what was then called the aliens department of the Home Office. I can foresee real difficulty affecting the interests of the country if we are not very careful about how we phrase this provision. Speaking for myself, I think that it could be better to leave the Bill as it is.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I very much hope that we shall not leave the Bill as it is. I do not have the same suspicions as my noble friend Lord Grimond about the attitude of Home Office officials. I think that they care as much about civil liberties as do Members of this House.
That said, if we are talking about extraditing someone who in many cases will be a British citizen to undergo what may be one or two years of custody in a foreign prison, it seems to me incumbent upon the Secretary of State to give his reasons for rejecting those representations.
To take up the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, I think that in some cases questions of British national security may well be involved. However, we must be hesitant about this catch-all phrase "security". Whose security? British national security I understand of course, but we are talking about extradition and so are talking of what may be said by, let us say, the Greek Government, the French Government or the Italian Government to be a question of their national security. I am not sure that
950
the adoption of language of this kind by a foreign government, however friendly our relations with that government, is by itself adequate to prevent the Secretary of State from giving his reasons.
I am perfectly prepared to be convinced by argument that my position on this matter is unreasonable, but I have found the constant repetition of the phrase "national security" slightly disquieting when most of us are well aware that in the overwhelming majority of cases we are now discussing no conceivable question of security will be involved.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has overlooked one point in his speech; namely, that sadly we live in an era of international terrorism. As I understand it, an appreciable proportion of extradition cases has a relationship to that problem. It is surely not enough to say, as the noble Lord appeared to say, that one must make a concession where British national security is involved. There is the case of the security of friendly powers who are in the same boat as us in this dangerous international situation.
The problem—it has been well stated so I repeat it in one sentence only—is that the Home Secretary cannot give the facts where either our own security or, I suggest, the security of friendly powers is involved. If the amendment is accepted we shall put him in a position of labelling a case as having security implications by his refusal to give reasons. One then alerts everybody to the fact that it is a security case. The press, naturally and very properly, will pick it up; so, naturally but rather less properly, will the international terrorists. I therefore think that we are running an unnecessary irsk—although I understand the arguments for something of this kind in other cases—if we put this provision into the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will not do so.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder—and I say this with all due humility—whether we are not making unnecessary problems for a very just solution. Your Lordships seem to be in general agreement that in the ordinary run of cases reasons should be given before we rob a fellow citizen or even a stranger in our land of his freedom and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was saying a moment ago quite correctly, possibly subject him to some two years' imprisonment before he even gets his trial. We all know that that kind of condition exists in some places.
If it be right that in the majority of cases there will be no difficulty in giving reasons, is Parliament justified in deciding that it will pass a Bill enabling the Home Secretary to say, have decided to grant this application—I give no reasons at all"? Except for the point about judicial review, that is what the Home Secretary could say if he wanted and that would be the strictly legal advice that he could be given—"Look at the Act; you have no need to give reasons".
With regard to practicalities, let us take the few cases that may arise where security is at stake. As one would expect, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, was absolutely right to bring the point before the House. Would the Secretary of State, because

951
Parliament instructed him to give reasons, be required to give details that might comprise a very important secret of a foreign power? Since there has to be a charge for the man to face in the foreign court, upon which the Secretary of State would be giving a view before the extradition order was made, would it not be sufficient for the Secretary of State to give as his reason that sufficient facts had been put to him to make him believe that a criminal offence of the nature mentioned in the warrant had been committed? Where is the security risk in that? Who envisages that the reason the Secretary of State has to give will be in the following terms? "I have before me evidence that the accused was in fact mixing with IRA terrorists on the blank day of blank, the names of the said terrorists being …? That is not a reason.
Lord Havers: My Lords, I am concerned about what the noble Lord has told your Lordships. The amendment says,
"shall include or be accompanied by a statement of reasons".
What the noble Lord has suggested the Home Secretary should say could never be described as a statement of reasons.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, with due respect, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is right. Even if he is right and I am wrong, obviously it should not be difficult to cover the security point without throwing out what is a very necessary amendment. The greater evil in my submission is not the security risk; it is that we shall be leaving the Secretary of State in a position where he need give no reason at all.
Perhaps I may persist briefly in my alternative argument. I do not see why it is failing to be a reason when the Secretary of State, on the facts that he has—and no one anticipates this—says, "I have compared the evidence of A and B and I think that the evidence of A is more reliable". All that he has to do by way of reasoning is to say that, on the facts before him and by reason of what he has been shown, the submissions made by the respondent in his view are not sufficient to stop him from issuing the order for extradition. I repeat that the argument must be right. You cannot throw out a very proper principle because there happens to be an exception in a minority of cases which obviously can be covered in an appropriate manner.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my instinct is that this amendment would be really dangerous. The practical issues, I think, as spelt out by my noble friend are there. The security element is real. We have seen the dangers that flow from not paying proper attention to what can flow from a breach of security. So there are practical reasons. But the reason my instinct is against it is this. This amendment really means, at the end of the day. that we have no confidence in the ability or the impartiality of future Secretaries of State so to act.
If we do not think we can produce Secretaries of State whose stature, impartiality and ability is such that they can come to these decisions, then we ought
952
not to have this amendment in the Bill at all. If we feel it is not possible to have a Secretary of State who can be given the freedom to come to his own genuine judgment—as he sees it—having had the evidence on one side and the representations from the defendant on the other, we should not agree to it.
I believe that now on the fundamental issue, if we have come to the conclusion—whether it is for administrative reasons or because it is a better way to apply justice, as the lawyers would like it—that we are going to alter the law to the point where the decision is to be made by the Secretary of State. then we must have enough confidence that in this country, whoever are the government, we will be able to throw up the quality of person capable of being given that freedom to do it.
The minute you ask for explanations in detail you are opening up the subject again for an extension of the argument and for delaying the eventual decision. That is a very dangerous thing as we have seen with some of the problems we have with Southern Ireland. I believe that one of the important things that can flow from this is that we can have a quick decision from people who have every reason to wish to be impartial and objective. Should it be that they have to give reasons, with all the dangers that flow therefrom, the old rule of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, reminded us should apply. I think it has served us well.
The first instruction that the Lord Chancellor has given in the past to the local magistrate is: "Give your decision but do not explain why". That is where the trouble starts for disrupting the whole of the community. If the Secretary of State has to give decisions on an issue as important as this when he agrees to the extradition, will he then have to give reasons if he does not agree to it? A lot of people—whether people in other countries or in our own—will no doubt feel that he ought to agree to it in the interests of wider international justice, particularly in these days of terrorism. This terrorism frightens all of us or. if it does not. it ought to, because it is growing to proportions which are perhaps more dangerous than in any other international field today.
Therefore, my instinct is that it would be too dangerous to implement this amendment if we can produce, as I believe we can—we have in the past and we will in the future—people to hold the office of Secretary of State and to whom we can confidently give the final decision. That is why—it is an instinct and not an argument in support of the practical points that have already been made—I hope that the Government will not agree to this amendment, because I think they will be agreeing to something that is dangerous.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, if I may point this out quickly, the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has already been abandoned by the Government themselves at an earlier stage of this Bill. The Government themselves have introduced the machinery for judicial review. That implies (does it not?) that it is just conceivably possible that every now and again the Home Secretary may make an error. All this amendment

953
seeks to provide is that if that machinery is to mean anything there should be some opportunity given to the person sought to be extradited to exercise that machinery in order to know exactly what is going on.
I should like just to add this. The amendment does not require the Home Secretary to give his reasons for extraditing somebody. The amendment requires the Home Secretary to give his reasons for rejecting the representations of the defendant. That is a totally different matter. I join the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in saying that I find it very difficult to conceive of a case in which a Home Secretary could not reject representations being made by a defendant—however great the security issue was in that case—without revealing the security issue itself.
Lord Somers: My Lords, is this not a principle which applies from the very beginning of life? If one punishes a child one invariably gives him a reason for doing so. Later in life nobody finds himself in court without being told the reason he is there. It seems to me that this is the principle of justice which this House ought not to avoid merely by imagining hypothetical difficulties in administering it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, when I spoke in relation to Amendment No. 1, I intended also to cover this amendment. Perhaps your Lordships will remember. I think Amendment No. 1 was in essence part of the same philosophy that some form of reason should be given, with a certain amount of basic material to support it. My position as regards this amendment is the same as it was in relation to Amendment No. 1—namely, that I undertake, on behalf of the Government, that it will be given sympathetic consideration.
However, there are difficulties which have been adverted to by various of your Lordships who have spoken. These are practical difficulties which have to be taken into account. There is also a further difficulty that I should like to mention, in a sense brought out by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, where he was seeking to counter the argument put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Havers. He gave an illustration of the kind of reason that the Secretary of State could give. The more he gave it, perhaps the less informative it was.
There is not much point in having an obligation to give reasons unless there is something additional that, by the reasons, the Home Secretary can communicate to the person affected. If the person has all the information on which the extradition warrant is based—the statement that is required under the Bill to accompany the warrant—it is not always easy to think of what additional informative reasons the Secretary of State can give. I am sure your Lordships would not wish to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to give reasons which could be dealt with in a merely formal, rubber stamp way applying to every case that he wished to go forward. I am sure the House would have in mind, were this duty to be imposed, informative reasons—reasons that informed the person of something he did not already know; reasons that would inform the judicial process if and when a judicial review was required. This
954
would be in the sense that my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman used in connection with the disciplinary proceedings before the medical authorities which are the subject of appeal to the Privy Council where there is no statutory obligation to give reasons. Nevertheless, the board has on occasion felt—although not always—that if the disciplinary committee had given reasons it would inform the judicial process on appeal. I have no doubt that in some circumstances on judicial review such informative reasons would be helpful. But, the question is by no means free from difficulty.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord who moved this amendment will, with his usual grace, allow my right honourable friend the Secretary of State some further time to consider this matter in the light of all that your Lordships have contributed in a very informative debate.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, for my part I am grateful for the gracious manner in which the noble and learned Lord has dealt with this matter. There has been powerful opinion expressed from all quarters of this House—oddly enough on this—that reasons ought to be given.
I should like to be clear in what I am pleased to call my mind as to what exactly the noble and learned Lord has in mind, whether it is conceded that there ought to be given reasons for turning down the representations made by the potential accused in extradition proceedings. As I understand it, it is agreed that reasons ought to be given but in certain circumstances there should be room for qualification by the Secretary of State. I do not know whether that is the way in which the noble and learned Lord thought this matter should be approached.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, much as I like the elegant phraseology of the noble and learned Lord, on this occasion I prefer my own, which is that I undertake that my right honourable friend will give the amendment sympathetic consideration. If he is persuaded that it is possible to amend the Bill to advance the matter in an appropriate way, then he will propose such an amendment in the other place and I shall inform noble Lords who have taken part in the debate by letter of the result of that consideration when he arrives at it. But I am not in a position to commit him at this stage to the principle of the amendment, and I think that is perhaps what the noble and learned Lord is seeking to push me to do. I am not prepared to go to that length. I am prepared to say that my right honourable friend will give sympathetic consideration to this amendment in the light of all that has fallen from your Lordships and his further consideration of it, and if he is persuaded in the light of all that that some amendment on these lines is appropriate he will endeavour to bring that forward in the other place.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, it would be ungracious of me to say no to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord. It would be quite improper for me to express any lack of confidence in another place—of course I should not dream of doing so—but I greatly hope that the mood that has emerged, as I see it, from this House will be communicated by him to the Secretary of State. In

955
those circumstances, and in view of the undertaking that has been given, I hope that those who have supported my submissions until now will take the view that it would be less than gracious not to accept the wish of the noble and learned Lord to do the best he can to meet the views that have been expressed in the House. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich Lord Silkin of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 10, line 13. leave out subsection (9).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, up to now in these debates we have sought to clarify this rather difficult clause by adding words to it. Amendment No. 4 seeks to clarify it by taking words out of it; that is to say, subsection (9). In order to understand the point one ought to go back to subsection (1), which provides for the warrant by the Secretary of State. We have dealt with the subsections thereafter up to subsection (6), and when we come to subsection (7) we have the provision that,
"A person shall not be returned in pursuance of any such warrant until the expiration of the period of 7 days commencing with the date on which the warrant is issued or such longer period as rules of court under section 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 may provide".
So under that subsection, the warrant having been served, a person shall not be returned in pursuance of it for at least seven days, and it may be longer than seven days.
In subsection (8) we have the provision that,
"At any time within that period"—
that is to say, seven days, or a longer period as the case may be—
"the person to whom the order would relate may apply for leave to seek judicial review".
Then we come to subsection (9), which is the one dealt with in this amendment, and that provides as follows:
"Unless the person to whom the order relates waives the right conferred on him by subsection (8) above"—
that is to say, the right to seek judicial review—
"he may not be returned to the foreign state before the end of that period'".
That period plainly means the period of seven days or the longer period referred to in subsection (7).
So we have the same provision as subsection (7) but with the qualification that subsection (7), absolute as it is in its terms, is not to apply where the person concerned waives the right conferred on him. We appear to have not so much an otiose provision as one which conflicts with the earlier provision of subsection (7). I put the point to the noble Earl the Minister as I saw it. It looked as though it may simply have been a drafting error. He has been good enough to explain to me that it is desired to ensure that a person who does not wish to take advantage of his right to seek judicial review should, if he wishes to do so, be able to go back to the state in question straight away, without having to wait until the period of time laid down in the Bill has elapsed.
I entirely understand and sympathise with that principle, but I am bound to say that I do not see how the conjunction of subsections (7) and (9) gives effect
956
to what the Minister intends. It seems to me that subsection (9) is in conflict with subsection (7), and the wording does not rule out the provisions of subsection (7) in the case where the person in question wishes to go back because of the absolute terms of subsection (7).
I think that some amendment is necessary to reconcile these two criteria and I accept entirely, as I said, the wish of the Government to give that possibility of going back earlier. I assume that the Government on their side do not wish to force somebody to go back before the seven days or the later period referred to in subsection (7) have elapsed. They are only concerned with the person who wants to go back.
Therefore I suggest that they look at these words again. It may be that simply removing subsection (9) does not meet their objective, although it meets the objective that I saw when I read the clause as it stands. In those circumstances, I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister says. In the meantime, I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: As I understand the noble and learned Lord there is no point of principle between the Government and himself. I had, I must say, understood at one stage that there was a desire on his part to remove the option to a person who wanted to go away immediately, but I understand from his statement that that is not so. I noted carefully his submission and I must say with great respect that it seems to me there is some substance in the point. We shall certainly have that looked at.
The desire is to give a strong right to the person who wishes to avail himself of judicial review to remain for the relevant period, but to make it possible for a person who does not wish to avail himself of that right but wishes to go away immediately to waive the right and go immediately if he wants to. But I can see that subsections (7) and (9) standing together may not be the happiest way of expressing that. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and we shall certainly re-examine the drafting of these provisions.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich: My Lords, for my part I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. To use some foreign words we appear to be ad idem on this. I hope that by the time the Bill reaches another place this little difficulty will have been resolved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 10, line 26, leave out subsection (13)
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to have received an intimation from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that he would not be not-content if I were to move the amendment. He has graciously allowed me to do so.
I am tempted to do what I venture to think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, might be tempted to do on this occasion and that is to talk about the sinner who repenteth. But of course I should not think of addressing such a comment to the occupant of the Woolsack. We

957
discussed subsection (13) at very great length at an earlier stage. The consensus of opinion that clearly emerged was that a denial of judicial review in the circumstances was quite unacceptable. Accordingly I am delighted to have put my name to the amendment. Perhaps I should say that the historical order of events is that the amendment was originally tabled in the name of myself and my noble friends. Later the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, added his name. I am not claiming any great virtue because of that but that is how it happened. In the circumstances I am very content to move the amendment which stands in the name of the noble Earl, my own and others. I beg to move.
Lord Denning: My Lords, without a word of welcome and gladness it would be very wrong for Parliament or anyone to dictate to the judges how they should exercise judicial review. Therefore I am very glad to see this subsection removed.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, we should not let this matter go by with everyone congratulating themselves on it without saying that this subsection was a nonsense from the start. It did not make the slightest difference to the Bill. It was put in quite obviously as window-dressing, as a cosmetic in order to ensure that the matter went through the Lobbies and received the necessary votes. It is now being scrubbed out. However the fact still remains that of course in judicial review it will be quite impossible for the court to review the evidence in any event.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, when we proposed amendments on Report there was reference to a subsection which now appears as subsection (13). That in itself perhaps has some significance. At an earlier stage it came under the heading (m). It was criticised by a number of noble Lords including the noble and learned Lords, Lord Denning, and Lord Ackner, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, and Lord Irvine of Lairg.
There is no question that that criticism and my attitude to it was clearly expressed before your Lordships were invited to vote upon the amendment. If I may say so, the idea propounded by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, is perhaps a little less than worthy of him. There is no question of it being window-dressing. I explained at the time why it was put in. Your Lordships criticised it. We have looked carefully at the criticism and decided with the noble and learned Lord who has moved the amendment that the Bill was better without it. That seems to me to be part of the proper processes of this House which we have endeavoured to apply properly.
I had hoped by inviting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, to move the amendment to indicate that we had managed to secure agreement in this way. I believe that he put the amendment down first and I thought it only right that he should have the credit for it. But it is credit of course in which we hope to join. As I have said I found the observations of the noble Lord a little less than up to the usual high standard which we expect of him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 11, line 1, leave out ("may decide not to") and insert ("shall not").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6 and I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 make it incumbent on the Secretary of State not to return a person to a foreign state:
"if that person could be…sentenced to death"
unless he receives a satisfactory undertaking that such a sentence would not be carried out.
Article 11 of the European convention which the Government cite as the basic reason for their new executive extradition procedures specifically gives signatory nations the right to ask for such an undertaking. A number of what we now know as respectable European countries have done exactly that. As we have abolished the death penalty should we not now do the same? Indeed as became clear in our discussions on Report the Government appear to take the view that if it were possible to ask for such an undertaking we certainly should ask for it. The only reason that the Government put forward and have put forward for that measure being impossible is our relations with the United States of America. Because of the federal nature of the American constitution, it is said that federal government cannot give such an undertaking in relation to a trial in one of the states.
I have persisted in putting down these amendments again for four reasons. First, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave an undertaking on Report that the powerful views which were expressed in support of this amendment would be given consideration by the Secretary of State and that the Government would continue to look for a solution to this problem. He said that the Government were not giving up. I hope that that quest has perhaps by this time been concluded.
The second reason is that the noble Lord. Lord Allen of Abbeydale, said on Report that he could not see why the federal government should not tell the state concerned that it would not get the person sent back unless it gave this undertaking. If a former Permanent Secretary at the Home Office says that, then speaking for myself I find it difficult to accept that the Government cannot find a way of achieving what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor described as the prevention of this dreaded result. Perhaps some of your Lordships would agree with that.
Surely it is for us to put into our law what we think is proper and appropriate and for the Americans to find a solution to their problem. Surely it is not for us to try and resolve their difficulties. That is the submission that I put before your Lordships on those two amendments.
I hope that I shall not be told that my next comment is not a worthy observation to make in such a debate. I say that the views of the Foreign Office may unduly influence the Secretary of State in a matter which in the end—it may well be one day a very sticky end—must remain plainly for the Home Secretary and the Home Office.
Finally and less seriously, the putting down of the amendment may enable the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, who has just returned from the United States, to tell the House whether, in the light of the invitation extended to him by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the last debate, he had the opportunity to make any representations to the American Government and to report to the House the outcome of his Welsh wizardry.
5 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will permit me to say that there was no opportunity for that wizardry to be exercised. In the high-powered discussion on the American Constitution, try as I did the opportunity never arose and I shall therefore not be able to assist the House on that matter.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention but I am disappointed to hear the answer. It is not often that the advocacy of the noble and learned Lord is not given an opportunity—and when it is it usually succeeds.
As regards Amendment No. 8, I am fearful of the wording, though I will support it if that is all that we can get. However, I can visualise them difficult situation that might arise if someone were to be sent back and executed. I think it would be embarrassing for the Secretary of State to have to get up and say, "I was reasonably satisfied that the death penalty would not be carried out" In the circumstances, I am not sure that the words of the amendment fill the bill. I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I observe that Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are grouped together. Therefore, a short speech may be opportune to deal with the general matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and also with Amendment No. 8.
I adopt from these Benches all the arguments advanced by the noble Lord. I merely wish to add that if it be a practical difficulty at this moment when the Bill is before the House at Third Reading that undertakings should be obtained from the United States Federal Government in respect of what a state court or a state legislature may do, I should not want—and I believe your Lordships would not want—the spirit of the amendment to die with the amendment. Therefore, Amendment No. 8 is the alternative, which is the requirement that there should be reasonable satisfaction on the part of the Secretary of State that the death penalty will not be carried out.
That means that we support Amendment No. 7 if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is able to say that the procedure has now been eased in the United States and such an undertaking is procurable. If he cannot say that, in order that something may be done, we should then invite the House to vote in favour of Amendment No. 8 unless, as one optimistically hopes, he is able to accept the amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I make this speech interrogatively and I make it now in
960
order that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack may reply to my difficulties. I fully appreciate the depth of feeling which reference to a death penalty invariably raises in different parts of the House. I should not wish to say anything which was offensive in connection with that debate. However, I should like an answer to the question which I wish to put. We have not abolished the death penalty in this country; it remains applicable in matters of treason but I think I am right in saying that it is not applicable as regards anything else. Secondly, international law, so far as I understand it—I am not sure how many people do—is based on the internal sovereignty of international persons; that is, sovereign nation states. The problem is not confined to the United States and I am not sure that the United States is the best example. The arguments which have so far been addressed to the House have related only to the federal nature of its constitution.
Anybody who has had the duty of sitting in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council knows that it is overcome, either by way of petition for special leave or by way of substantive hearing, with a very large number of murder cases, as regards which we have abolished the death penalty in this country. Those cases come to us from the Caribbean. The accused person has the right of having his conviction quashed because the death penalty, as I understand it, is mandatory there. I believe that to be a very useful service which the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council give to Caribbean countries.
We are not concerned there with the penalty for obvious reasons; we are concerned only with appeals against conviction. However, there are a number of other countries which come to us in the Judicial Committee—for instance, there are countries in South-East Asia which belong to the Commonwealth or which have until recently—and there are some countries which still apply the death penalty in drug cases.
One must face the fact that under international law as I understand it to be—I speak subject to correction from my noble and learned friend—those penalties are mandatory. I think that under international law it is for the sovereign country concerned to decide whether the death penalty applies within its boundaries. I think I am right in saying that until this Bill came before the House, and assuming that the prima facie rule was still in operation, it would have been necessary in the ordinary case under the conventions applying to international behaviour to return a subject, provided that that subject was subject to the law of the state concerned. I may be wrong; I should like to be corrected if I am.
I see real difficulties in that matter and I should like to have them clarified. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, by brushing aside what he describes as the influence of the Foreign Office, was doing those difficulties intellectual justice. Without trying to enter into the discussion on the merits or otherwise of death penalties, I invite my noble and learned friend to deal with the problem as I see it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my understanding of the general position is that the Secretary of State

961
has a discretion to extradite a person from this country. In exercising that discretion he has a right to take account of every matter bearing on the desirability of the extradition which is at issue. One of the matters might well be the position with regard to the death penalty in the country to which extradition is sought.
From what I have been told on behalf of my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary, my understanding is that the difficulty has been highlighted by these amendments. It is an important matter for the House to consider and I certainly have no intention of suggesting that it is other than a very worthy subject for consideration. The difficulty has arisen in relation to the United States.
The Federal Government of the United States are not in a position to give an undertaking on behalf of the state concerned about whether the death penalty will he carried out. They undertake to convey to the state authorities the feeling and concern of the Home Secretary. That feeling and concern is conveyed to the tribunal in the state on behalf of the government of that state when the fugitive is returned there and is being dealt with. In practice when these views have been expressed, even on conviction there has not been any question of the death penalty being carried out on someone who has been extradited.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham is very likely correct in what he says generally about the position of sovereign states. The complete discretion of the Home Secretary in these matters will normally enable him to deal with these circumstances as they arise.
The difficulty in the United States is compounded by the fact that in a sense the Home Secretary gets the best that he can from the party he is dealing with; namely, the Government of the Federation. But because of the constitution that party is unable to hind in any particular way the state concerned. A practical solution has hitherto been found.
This is a matter which concerns very much my right honourable friend. I think he would share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, that the terms of Amendment No. 8, which is an alternative in form to Amendment No. 7, would create an uncomfortable constitutional situation for him in a case where there was a risk involved.
I mentioned last time that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, was going to the United States and that if some solution to this problem arose during the course of his visit it would be extremely welcome. I do not think it surprises any of us that in the very short time at his disposal a problem as difficult as this proved even beyond his powers to resolve immediately.
The situation is that my right honourable friend is concerned about this matter, as I have said, and if your Lordships were willing to leave it with him at present he will endeavour to bring the matter forward. It is not at all an easy matter, as I am sure noble Lords appreciate. He will do his best to advance the situation. He knows the feelings of your Lordships and he will have the opportunity of knowing the amplification of them as given today.
I hope that the noble Lord will feel that this very difficult question can be left in that way.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he has phrased his reply. In view of what he says I do not wish to press the amendment.
Let me just say that it appeared until now that the American Government had found a way around the problem and the British Government had found a way to achieve a proper solution in each particular case. It seems to those of us who support this amendment that the proper way would be to put this matter into our law and then the American Government would again find a way of resolving their problem having regard to the legislation which we had passed. if they can find a way in one case it occurs to me that they might be able to find a way in another. The onus should be put upon them rather than upon us.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may respond to that. That is an option which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will have very much in mind as a possibility.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 8:
Page 11, line 6, at end insert (", unless he is reasonably satisfied that the death penalty will not be carried out.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in view of what the noble and learned Lord has said in addressing some of his remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, and obviously meaning them for all those who are interested in this amendment on all sides of the House, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich moved Amendment No. 9:
Before Clause 42, insert the following new clause:
(" Right of appeal against minimum recommendations in murder cases.
.—(1) A person in respect of whom a court has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State under section 1(2) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 may appeal to the Court of Appeal against the recommendation.
(2) On an appeal under this section the Court of Appeal may—

(a) quash the recommendation which is the subject of the appeal: and

(b) in place of it make such recommendation as they think appropriate.").

The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move this amendment. This is an issue which we debated at the Report stage of the Bill and we are returning to it this evening. The amendment is in a rather different form to the one which we debated on the last occasion. I will deal with that matter in a moment.
The purpose of this amendment is fairly simple and straightforward. It is to give a person sentenced to life imprisonment and who has had a minimum recommendation attached to that sentence by the trial judge the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
At the last stage of our proceedings the amendment provided in addition that the minimum recommendation could not be increased. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, indicated their concern about that aspect of the amendment. When we reflected upon it we came to the conclusion, for a whole variety of reasons which I do not intend to spell out this evening, that there was no necessity to stick to that particular form of words and so we have dropped it. I am sure it will have been observed that following that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has attached his name to this amendment.
There are two principal reasons why we believe this amendment to be important. The first is because of the decisive significance of these minimum recommendations. This was a matter which was touched on during our last debate. Those who were present on that occasion will no doubt recall the fact that between 1965, which was the year in which minimum recommendations were introduced following the passage of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act, and the end of last year there were 244 minimum recommendations and in only seven cases were prisoners released before that recommended period had elapsed.
In some of those cases there were special reasons and that was also dealt with on the last occasion. Those special reasons influenced the Home Secretary to disregard the view of the trial judge. There were very unusual characteristics too to some of these cases.
Home Office Circular No. 55 of 1984 stated:
"The expectation is that a prisoner in respect of whom a minimum recommendation has been made will be detained for at least that period unless there are good reasons for doing otherwise".
As I indicated on Report, my own experience confirms that. As I said on that occasion, having presided over the joint committee between the Parole Board and the Home Office, we considered many hundreds of such cases. We looked at about 800 cases in that period, and I can recall no occasion on which my colleagues did not regard those minimum recommendations as decisive. Therefore, these recommendations have a most powerful influence on the Parole Board. Its role in the matter is critical, because without an affirmative recommendation from the Parole Board, the Secretary of State cannot release a prisoner from custody on life licence. Not only does the minimum recommendation have that effect on the Parole Board, it has an equally decisive influence on the Secretary of State.
That brings me to the second reason for our concern. I refer to the report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee in its report Offences Against the Person which was published in 1980. The Committee pointed out that some judges never make minimum recommendations, and that others rarely do so.
If I may break off to remind the House of the view of the Advisory Council on the Penal System, it pointed out that in some of the most notorious cases involving the Moors murderers, the Hosein brothers, the Birmingham bombers and so on, no minimum recommendations were made by the trial judge.
The CLRC said:
"The gravamen of the criticism is that its operation, being haphazard, is unjust."
I give the committee's own illustration of this problem. Let us take the case—and this is to some degree the committee's language—of two murderers, A and B. They are tried and convicted in different courts for almost the same kind of killing. Murderer B comes before a judge who will not make a minimal recommendation, whereas A is convicted in exactly the same circumstances but the judge takes a different view and in that case makes a minimum recommendation of 20 years. We now come to the situation when many years later, these two cases are being examined by the Parole Board and possibly by Home Office Ministers. The prison reports show that in neither case is the prisoner concerned likely to commit a further offence. In many other respects the circumstances are still remarkably similar.
As the CLRC observed, prisoner A—that is, the man with the 20 year minimum recommendation—is less likely to be recommended for release than B, who had no minimum recommendation. However, the situation is even worse than that. We have the situation in which had prisoner B appeared before A's judge, and vice versa, the roles would have been reversed. In that case, prisoner B would have received the 20 year minimum recommendation and prisoner A would probably have secured an earlier release.
How can we possibly justify such a truly bizarre situation, made all the worse because at present there is no right for those prisoners to have the right to have their cases considered by the Court of Appeal? On Report, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said:
"I wonder whether it is right for us to go ahead and make this change to one part of the present system without making changes to the rest of it"
Later, he said:
"I wonder whether it is right on the basis of the present system to make this change in isolation. It would be useful to know what those noble Lords with experience of the Parole Board—we are happy and privileged to have the benefit of the presence of no fewer than three of them—may have to say about that."—[Official Report, 19 11/87; cols. 838–339.]
As the noble and learned Lord will recall, it was made clear by all three of us—the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, my noble friend Lord Hunt and myself—that we see grave problems about the present arrangements. At an earlier part of our proceedings we were joined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill—a former vice-chairman of the Parole Board, who also has substantial experience on this matter. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is prepared to make an announcement today that he is prepared to have a form of wider review of these matters, we shall be satisfied with such an assurance. However, I do not believe it is possible to allow this legislation to pass in its present form

965
without these weighty matters receiving the serious attention of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 10, which is in my name along with my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and my noble friend Lord Mishcon. This side of the House supports Amendment No. 9. There is a right of appeal in Scotland against such a recommendation. It has been used and, so far as we are aware, has caused no difficulty.
The difficulty that has arisen in this House follows from the private recommendations which are now made in every case in which life sentence is imposed. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, told the House of that both in Committee and on Report, (reported in Hansard on 27th October, in col. 420, and 19th November, in col. 326). Therefore, now, in every case in which a life sentence is imposed, whether that life sentence is imposed for murder or some other offence, it is a requirement, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that the judge provides a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to the sentence that should be served by the prisoner and that that private recommendation is acted on by the Parole Board in the same way as the public open recommendation which is concerned in Amendment No. 9.
It is to deal with that situation that we have put forward Amendment No. 10. That attempts to give a right to the prisoner serving a life sentence to know what the recommendation is and a right to appeal against that recommendation, in the same way as there should be a right to appeal against the public recommendation dealt with in the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act.
It may be, as was suggested in Committee, that one way to deal with the matter is to remove the right to make a recommendation, but I am not in favour of that because a trial judge must have a view which is worth listening to on what he means when imposing a life sentence. I suggest the way out of the difficulty is by Amendment No. 10, or some such words.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, on Report I supported the purport of Amendment No. 9 but, like the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I found it difficult to accept the last provision that was then in the amendment as it was inconsistent in spirit with the decision that your Lordships had taken to allow appeal by the prosecution against an over-lenient sentence. Amendment No. 9 now comes forward without what both the noble Lord and I found to be a ground for objection. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has argued that point with complete persuasiveness.
The only difficulty is that, as a result of the statute abolishing the death penalty, there can be no question but that the law and the practice (the judicial and the penal background in this country and for all I know in Scotland too) is in a mess. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack undertook to investigate the matter. Your Lordships will have full confidence in his investigations. As the noble Lord,
966
Lord Harris, said, if he can tell us something today, so much the better. But it is bound to take some little time before the matter can be sorted out. In the meantime, recommendations are being made in the circumstances described by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, which have a profound effect on the liberty of the accused person. In those circumstances, it is unanswerable that he should have a right of appeal against an activity which can so affect his liberty.
I unhesitatingly support Amendment No. 9, despite the hesitation of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. I understand that he would prefer the matter to be dealt with as a whole rather than piecemeal. The objection to that is the one which I have stated; namely, that the present system will continue in the meantime. If the provision works in Scotland, I see no great objection to having it in this country.
The purpose of Amendment No. 10, as put by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, is persuasive. I have however one reservation. We were told that the Home Secretary now consults, and has for some time, the Lord Chief Justice, and the trial judge when he is available, when the release of the accused comes to be decided. That case seems to be covered by Amendment No. 10. I do not believe that is the intention of the amendment. Subject to that, Amendment No. 10, which will probably need redrafting, is on the right lines and works well with Amendment No. 9.
We have heard not only the statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, but the testimony of two past chairmen and the present chairman of the Parole Board as to the profound influence that the recommendation made at the trial can have. Under those circumstances, common justice points towards giving the accused a right of appeal.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, although the Bill does not deal with life imprisonment it is significant that at each stage we have debated new clauses which bear upon it. Amendments in Committee, on Report and now on Third Reading have aimed to make life imprisonment the maximum sentence rather than the mandatory penalty for murder, and either to eliminate the power of the court to recommend a minimum period which should elapse before the Home Secretary releases a convicted life-sentence prisoner or, if that power is retained, to make it subject to appeal.
In the course of these debates, profound, well-informed and devoid of party politics, as they seemed to me, widespread dissatisfaction has been expressed at the current state of the law and administrative procedures. Criticism from all parts of the House has been directed, in particular, at the newly adopted practice by which in every case when a life sentence is imposed, whether mandatory or discretionary, the judge is asked to write at the conclusion of the trial to the Home Secretary, through the Lord Chief Justice, giving a view on the period of imprisonment believed to be necessary to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence.
The private nature of that communication, as well as its universality, is what distinguishes it from a

967
minimum recommendation made by the judge in open court, which applies only in cases of murder. The practical effect is the same. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, described it as decisive when he moved the amendment. Thus a minimum period of imprisonment is prescribed. It is known for convenience as the "tariff-. I wish there were another word for it, but that is the shorthand expression which is used. The tariff refers to the period of time which the prisoner must serve before his case can be considered for possible release on life licence. It is only then that the Parole Board will review his case, primarily on the basis of the risk to the community if he is released. The trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice will be consulted again, as they must be by law, before the Home Secretary can release any life-sentence prisoner.
On Report I tried to disentangle the diverse strands in the way that life sentences are administered, noting in particular the contributions that are made by the judiciary at various stages in the process. Although, as I have previously argued, the present system has grown up piecemeal, the elements are related to one another and inevitably have an effect on the working of the system as a whole. It is overlooking that reality which has to some extent brought about the present thoroughly unsatisfactory situation.
To legislate on one aspect only runs the risk of causing other irregularities. As I have thought about this subject, as other noble Lords who have taken part in these debates no doubt also have done, I have come to the conclusion that what is now needed is a comprehensive review—I use that word advisedly—of the whole subject. It should embrace the law on homicide—we must begin there-especially the distinction between murder and manslaughter and the implications of a single offence of unlawful killing. It should consider the penalty for murder, especially the arguments for or against the mandatory life sentence. Then there are the recommendations or the advice given to the Home Secretary by the trial judge and the question of whether this advice should be in private or publicly on record. Finally, the administrative arrangements for determining the duration of the period to be spent in custody by life sentence prisoners also need to be reviewed.
When we discussed this issue on Report the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor speaking for the Government said:
"I believe that the law in this area requires review and very serious consideration. The precise machinery of review is a matter on which your Lordships' views would be important".—[Official Report, 19/11/87: col. 319.].
I should like to propose that the best way forward is to establish a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. That would enable Parliament, not the Government, to discharge its proper constitutional task of investigating the practices of Ministers and the role of the judiciary, as well as the framework of the law. Since the higher judiciary sit in this House, and since they are forbidden to do so in another place, Law Lords past and present would also be enabled to contribute from the standpoint of their special knowledge and experience.
968
If when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack replies, he is able to hold out some encouragement for an inquiry on these lines—I appreciate it is not entirely in his gift, but the tone of his response will be important—it may not then be necessary to test the opinion of the House on these amendments.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as someone who believes like the great majority of people in this country that punishments for the worst examples of murder—the Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombings, for example or the Fordingbridge murders—ought to be more, rather than less, severe, I confess that I have mixed feelings about the amendment.
When the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, or any of the other noble Lords who have put their names to Amendment No. 9 reply perhaps they can say whether they interpret their amendment to mean that the Court of Appeal would be able to recommend a longer minimum period of imprisonment, in the event of an appeal, as an alternative to a shorter minimum period. If the amendment means that the minimum period could be adjusted upwards as well as downwards then I should by happy to support the amendment, but not otherwise.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I ventured to say to the House what I thought about this subject when the House was in Committee on the Bill. I stand by what I said then: I think that a comprehensive view of the law of homicide is overdue for the reasons which I gave on that occasion. We must remember that life sentences can be imposed for offences other than homicide. That cannot be altogether overlooked in this debate.
Having said that, I believe that we must grasp this nettle fairly quickly and preferably now. I do not think that either of the two practices in relation to homicide, which have been more particularly described by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, can be justified in principle. Perhaps I may deal with the private recommendation first. I think it is wholly objectionable that without publicity of any kind—and as I understand it without the convicted person necessarily knowing—there should be a private recommendation from the trial judge to the Home Secretary, however wise the trial judge may be, and however good the Home Secretary may be. I think that that is an objection in principle.
On the possibility of the public recommendation in cases of conviction for murder, there are the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. With respect, the name of that game is slightly different because the name of that game is consistency. What the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has succeeded in establishing is that that consistency does not at present exist. Of course the Home Secretary of the day will exercise whatever wisdom he may in consulting either with the Lord Chief Justice or the trial judge and indeed with the Parole Board in the manners described. But basically speaking, it is in the first place for the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) to impose some degree of

969
consistency on what judges actually recommend. That cannot be done without a public right of recourse to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). There must be a public right of recourse. It can grow only out of a jurisprudence—if I may use the word in one of its two distinct meanings—based on case law and on the examination of the matrices of fact in which the different offences of murder can be committed.
It is not for me to seek to bring pressure on my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack or on the Government. However, this nettle has to be grasped. I should vastly prefer that it were grasped now and that a more general review should also be undertaken, if need be independently of these two amendments, and independently of the better amendment which the Government prefer.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in these amendments we are in a very difficult area. When Parliament decided to substitute the mandatory life sentence for the previous sentence in respect of murder it put the responsibility on the Home Secretary to decide how long a person should serve before he was released, and on the Home Secretary that decision still rests. It is his responsibility to take the decision.
However, in Section 6(1) of the Act Parliament provided that before deciding to release a person who had been sentenced in that way, the Home Secretary was to consult the Lord Chief Justice, and the trial judge if he were available. Accordingly, from the beginning an obligation to consult the Lord Chief Justice, and the trial judge if available, was imposed on the Home Secretary, but that did not remove from the Home Secretary the responsibility for taking the decision. It meant that he had to consult these two persons if both were available.
The Lord Chief Justice, by virtue of his position, would certainly be influential in any hearing that took place in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) in which he was sitting. As I understand it, under the present system—and I am subject to correction by those better informed if I have not understood it correctly—the trial judge normally makes such a recommendation—should he do so—in private through the Lord Chief Justice. It goes to the Secretary of State as a recommendation upon which the Lord Chief Justice also expresses a view. I believe that it is from that process that the so-called tariff arises. I am not criticising the word because the noble Lord who used it did so with a certain amount of caution, and I too should like to underline his caution. The Lord Chief Justice makes recommendations, as I understand it, in every case in the pursuance of the duty which Parliament has laid upon the Home Secretary to consult him.
As I understand the present position—this may vary and has varied somewhat over the years—lit is on that recommendation, coming from the Lord Chief Justice, together with the recommendations from the trial judge that the Home Secretary proceeds. He is not bound by that recommendation either way, but it is an important factor as Parliament has given it
970
importance. The result is still the Home Secretary's responsibility.
In the exercise of that very heavy responsibility the Home Secretary has to consult the judges. but he is not confined by the consultation that he has. One would expect him, for example, to consult among other bodies the Parole Board which he must consult and people who have had the charge of the person sentenced in the course of his prison career. There may be medical authorities to be consulted and a number of other people whom it would be right in a particular case for the Home Secretary to consult. To reach a wise and just conclusion in the circumstances of any case the Home Secretary may need to consult a wide range of interests.
The present situation is that in addition to that basic arrangement an option is given to the trial judge in public to make a recommendation of the minimum period that the accused should serve. As we know from what we have heard, trial judges vary considerably in whether they exercise that power. If they do exercise it they may vary the minimum recommendation imposed. There may be a number of reasons why trial judges who would consider imposing a minimum recommendation would not do so in an individual case.
The primary purpose of the minimum recommendation is to mark in public the judge's sense of the particular case before him. My information is that that minimum recommendation expressed in public is not now so important in the process as it may once have been in view of the system that I have just described of what I call private consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge.
If the first amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris—with his great experience on this matter in the background—is accepted, the result will be that the judicial process will fasten on some of the minimum recommendations and they will be taken to the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division. There will thus be an additional judicial input into a number of these cases giving the minimum recommendation, if the Court of Appeal were to endorse it, even more authority than it has now, rather than cutting down its decisiveness. If the recommendation were a Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, recommendation it would be expected to be even more decisive. But would one expect it to be any different from what the Lord Chief Justice would think appropriate on statutory consultation?
I was particularly concerned about that point when I spoke on Report stage when I asked what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to as a rhetorical question of the three distinguished chairmen of the Parole Board who we were privileged to have with us. Looking at the system as a whole, does it make for a more just system as a whole if particular cases should be considered not first and only by the trial judge, but that some of these should in addition be considered by the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division? I doubt whether that is so. Although I knew the general approach to the amendment that the chairman had, it was the

971
approach to that question that I was especially interested in at that stage.
There is another aspect to this matter that I should like to mention. In 1980, as has been said, Parliament gave in Scotland a right of appeal against the minimum recommendation. When I came to this problem first in recent weeks, as your Lordships will imagine, I came with a feeling that what was right for Scotland might possibly have something to commend it for England.
However, there is a possibility of more mature consideration than that. There are important differences between the two. The general rule in Scotland has been that sentences may not be increased by the Court of Criminal Appeal when it deals only with convictions. But if somebody appeals against sentence and the appeal is refused, the Court of Appeal in Scotland, generally speaking, has the right to increase the sentence, although I do not think it uses that right very often.
This is the position: on appeal against conviction, a sentence more severe than the first sentence cannot be imposed. When the sentenced person appeals against sentence and that appeal is refused, the Court of Appeal may increase the sentence. That is simply as a result of the accused person appealing on sentence. That is the general position in Scotland. The device used in the 1980 Act was to make the minimum recommendation part of the sentence and therefore it was dealt with in general in the same way as any other sentence.
In England, on the contrary, the position as I understand it is that when an accused person appeals there is no power in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division to increase the sentence. That is to say that the mere fact a person appeals does not create in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division the right to increase a sentence. That is an important distinction in the generality between Scotland and England.
It is true that your Lordships have approved a clause in the Bill which gives the Attorney-General power to bring what he regards as too lenient a sentence before the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, and with leave of that court a question may be entertained on whether or not the sentence should be increased. But that does not affect the ordinary situation when the appeal against sentence does not involve the possibility of an increased sentence.
Your Lordships will see that it is quite difficult to fit what is being suggested here into either of these categories. It seems strange to say that this minimum recommendation provision should be treated differently from any other form of sentence in general, yet that is what the clause would do because it is not a condition of putting the sentence up that the Attorney-General should think it too low nor is there any provision for seeking to bring all these minimum recommendations subject to that clause. There are important differences in principle between the two jurisdictions. I think I am right in saying—but I am subject to correction—that in Scotland the Court of Appeal has not altered these minimum recommendations. If I am wrong, I shall be corrected. Although there is judicial machinery for effecting a change, in
972
fact none has taken place. In that situation, I feel that your Lordships might be damaging the system by obliterating or appearing to obliterate the emphasis which presently rests on the ultimate decision of the Secretary of State.
He is charged by Parliament with the ultimate decision. Should your Lordships do anything to fetter or impair his judgment in that matter? He has to consult. He has to have regard to minimum recommendations, although he is not bound by them. My information is that in present circumstances they are not decisive in the sense that the Secretary of State would be minded to give effect to them rather than to the views of the Lord Chief Justice and the trial judge transmitted to him on consultation. My right honourable friend will certainly note carefully the views which have been expressed to him with regard to the whole position. It is within his power to alter from time to time in the light of experience the administrative arrangements necessary to a fair discharge of the heavy responsibility which is put upon him.
Your Lordships' suggestions—in particular, the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, of an inquiry by a Select Committee of the House—are matters which your Lordships may think should be pursued. It would be for the House to consider whether or not a Select Committee should be set up. Such a form of inquiry has obvious advantages, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, pointed out. But as regards the present position. I put it to your Lordships that Parliament has left this matter ultimately with the Secretary of State. Is it not right that he should have that responsibility and that nothing should be done to impair the overall justice which he is able to secure in the exercise of his discretion as Secretary of State?
In those circumstances I am minded to advise your Lordships against approving these amendments at the present stage. I can assure the House that my right honourable friend has this subject very much in his mind. It is naturally central to his responsibilities and he considers it carefully. But having consulted with him I think I am putting fairly his point of view to your Lordships today. I hope that your Lordships will feel able to accede to that advice.
6 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am slightly disappointed with that reply. I recognise of course that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not ministerially responsible for these matters. On this occasion he is acting as a spokesman of the Government rather than as the departmental Minister. Nevertheless, his reply I believe did not take fully into account, as I had very much hoped it would, the powerful speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham.
The noble and learned Lord raised a number of issues. He said that the present situation is a mess, as I think we all recognise it is. I very much hoped that, on the basis of what he said and the general concern expressed both at Report stage and Third Reading, the noble and learned Lord would have gone slightly further and would have indicated his willingness to discuss this matter again with the Home Secretary to

973
see whether any progress can be made. I take the noble and learned Lord's point that we are dealing with just one aspect of the matter as regards this amendment. That is undoubtedly true. But as I explained when moving the amendment the position is profoundly unsatisfactory and in my view wholly unjust.
We have also this extraordinary position of judges making private recommendations to the Home Secretary, the contents of which, to answer the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, the prisoner does not know. At least in the case of a minimum recommendation by the judge, the prisoner knows what the judge is recommending. But he is then not in a position to appeal that matter to the Court of Appeal.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, suggested that we might have a Select Committee of the House. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said this was obviously a matter for the House itself and for the Leader of the House. If one were told that there was some possibility of that suggestion being proceeded with, none of us would wish to press this matter today. I see no advantage on occasions such as this in simply voting for the sake of voting. In matters of this kind involving the criminal law I prefer to proceed with some degree of consensus. If the noble and learned Lord were to indicate that he would have discussions following this debate both with the Home Secretary and with the Leader of the House taking account of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, I would choose not to press this amendment today.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my right honourable friend is very much concerned to see that a just system prevails. I undertake to bring to his attention all that has been said today including the suggestion by my noble friend Lord Windlesham of a Select Committee to examine the position which I shall also bring to the attention of the Leader of the House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as I have indicated, I do not believe in having Divisions for the sake of them. I would have preferred the noble and learned Lord to have gone further. I understand his problem, but given what he has just said I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 42 [Firearms offences]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 28, line 13, leave out ("Life imprisonment") and insert ("20 years").
The noble Lord said: This is the same amendment as the one tabled at Report stage by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and myself, which was not moved because of the lateness of the hour. I do not propose to repeat the arguments against the change in the law proposed by the Government, which would
974
make a man carrying a gun feel that he has nothing to lose by pulling the trigger of the gun—and shooting to kill—so as to avoid arrest. However, powerful support for our argument comes in the form of a recruiting advertisement for the Metropolitan Police published in last Sunday's Observer colour magazine. Dangerous men armed with guns are mentioned and the advertisement warns the would-be recruit, and I quote:
"If your man thinks he'll go down for a long time he may shoot you rather than he captured. He's got very little to lose".
I do not think our case could be put better.
The noble Earl's right honourable friend the Home Secretary could be right and the Metropolitan Police wrong, or it could be the other way round. I would put my money on the police, given their rather greater experience on the ground.
There is a further point which I think is often overlooked. The public are fairly cynical about life imprisonment, about which we have been talking so often over the past few weeks. They know full well that "life" does not mean life. When a person has been convicted merely of carrying a gun which has not been used, they will be virtually certain that in practice life will not mean anything remotely like life. In contrast a long determinate sentence of 13, 14, 15, 18 or 20 years is not only much more awe inspiring but also much more credible. For that reason it is surely a much more effective deterrent.
Originally, like the noble Lords on the Alliance Benches, I felt that the present maximum of 14 years ought to stand. However, on reflection, I have concluded that what might be called the Labour compromise of a 20-year maximum is the right one. I do not know whether Labour still feels that its admirable compromise is right. All the same, I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I supported this proposal at an earlier stage of what has been a long pilgrimage from the beginning to the end at last of the consideration of this Bill. In my view it seems odd that there should be no difference between the possible maximum penalty for the person who carries the gun and the person who actually uses the gun in furtherance or in the course of crime. There is a total abandonment of the principle of proportionality which we try to apply to the criminal law.
The second anxiety I have is one which was expressed earlier. If life imprisonment were substituted for 14 years—and the amendment suggests 20 years—the result of that would he to reduce any incentive for an offender to refrain from using the gun as a means of escape and to put police officers and members of the public at even greater risk than the risk they undergo at present.
On the whole, and in the interests of consistency in the criminal law and in the possible practical effects of what we propose, I should have thought that a better safeguard for the public and for the police would be to raise the penalty certainly to 20 years but not go for life imprisonment, which ought to be reserved for the most grave offences.
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord

975
Monson, has argued that the increase to life imprisonment for these firearms offences is unnecessary and disproportionate and that it will endanger the lives of police officers. I do not agree that that would be the case. I do not believe that the increased penalty will act as an incentive to pull the trigger. On the contrary, it should be a disincentive to the criminal to carry a gun in the first place.
The signal we want to send to the criminal is that we consider that anyone who chooses to carry a gun in furtherance of crime should be liable to the most severe penalty the courts can impose. Of course that maximum penalty will not be imposed in every case; it may be used only in a small proportion of cases, but the important thing is that it should be available to the courts for the very worst cases. That is the proper test for a maximum penalty.
That is the message that we must send to the persistent carrier of firearms, who commits a string of vicious and perhaps lucrative crimes by waving a gun, never firing a shot, maybe because of luck or careful policing, but leaving terrified victims in his wake. Is it right that the court should not have available to it the maximum sentence of life imprisonment for such a case?
Of course the practised criminal will know that he will be punished in accordance with the gravity of his offence. The sentence is likely to be longer if he uses the gun and longer still if he wounds someone. If he kills then he knows that a sentence of life imprisonment will be inevitable. But nothing short of the threat of the life sentence will be sufficient to deter some such people from slipping the gun into their pocket.
The noble Lord has argued that an increase to 20 years is sufficient. I am glad that he acknowledges that an increase is necessary. I am sorry that he is not able to go all the way with us. Crimes involving firearms should be seen in a category of their own. The law has long recognised that in the case of burglary. Burglary itself attracts a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment. Aggravated burglary, which is burglary committed by someone in possession of a firearm or imitation firearm, attracts life imprisonment.
That seems to me a very proper distinction and I am disappointed that noble Lords opposite cannot quite bring themselves to apply it in this case. These are serious offences perpetrated by dangerous and sometimes ruthless criminals and it is right that we should show our condemnation of them by granting the courts the heaviest penalty we can. An increase to 20 years would not be such a clear signal to the criminal of the severe view the Government and this House take of such crimes. It is for those reasons that I cannot support the noble Lord.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I would have agreed with every word that my noble friend has just said but for one fact, and that is that I do not believe that life imprisonment means anything at all at the present time. It is an indeterminate sentence which nobody can understand.
976
I believe, and I say so with great respect to the noble Lord who moved the amendment for 20 years, that I can conceive of cases where 20 years is much too little, but I believe that all sentences ought to be determinate and that the true alternative of life imprisonment is an unlimited period to be made determinate by the trial judge and subject to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
6.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if I may say so, I agree very much with the noble and learned Lord. I do not think that this proposal by the Government will strike terror into the hearts of professional criminals in the way that the noble Earl believes. As we were saying on the last amendment, there is a need to re-examine our attitude on this matter of the whole general question of life sentence policy, but I do not believe that it is sensible simply to add more and more cases into this category. I do not, as I have indicated, believe that it has the effect on professional criminals that the noble Earl believes, and as he knows, that is also the view of the Police Federation.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for his valuable support. He put the case for the amendment far better than I was able to do. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, for his partial, albeit highly qualified, support.
I still find myself totally unable to accept the Government's reasoning on this matter, but unless the Opposition wish to press the amendment to a Division—which I do not imagine they do—I do not intend to go any further tonight. I hope that this clause as it stands will be fiercely contested in another place when it goes to the Standing Committee there, and with that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause:
("Increase of maximum, fine under s. 32 of the Game Act 1831.
.—(i) In section 32 of the Game Act 1831 (persons found armed using violence etc.) for "level 1" there shall be substituted "level 4". (2) Nothing in this section shall affect the punishment for an offence committed before this section comes into force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Caithness kindly agreed to accept a similar amendment to this at Report stage, since when parliamentary draftsmen have suggested this form of words. Needless to say I would have liked more, but as this is the second time in 13 months that the Government have modified the law regarding trespass I should like to thank my noble friend and indeed his department for their help and for their patience. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the words of my noble friend and happy to accept this amendment.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I am sorry to raise this matter so late, and I apologise to my noble friends

977
Lord Caithness and Lord Stanley of Alderley, but I have just noticed that there has been no amendment to the commencement clauses. I may be wrong but I would suggest that the nature of this new clause is very much the same as Clauses 61 and 62, the commencement of which is to come into force on the day that this Act is passed. If my noble friend would have a look at that when the Bill proceeds to another place, it might be useful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 103 [Criminal injuries]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 75, leave out from beginning of line 28 to ("; and") in line 29.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may I shall move this amendment and speak to Amendment No. 14. They fit together. This is yet another attempt to rewrite the provisions relating to railway suicide cases. The difficulty about Section 34 of the Offences Against the Person Act is, first, that it does not apply to Scotland, and, secondly, that it covers any negligent act and therefore is far wider than the purpose for which I understand it is intended in this clause of the Bill.
The intent of my amendment is to define what would be the conduct that I understand to be aimed at by the Government by defining that sort of situation as causing a personal injury. This is different from putting it in as an offence under subsection (2) by putting it in as a separate subsection. I beg to move.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, I assure the noble Lord opposite that I stand alongside him in a search to find a better way of expressing what we are all agreed is the purpose of this subsection. I think in these two amendments he has opened up what I can describe as a promising avenue. It first of all takes away the width of the reference to Section 34 of the 1861 Act. Also, speaking as a Scots lawyer, it perhaps relieves them of what might be thought to be the irksome duty of considering the application of an English offence to incidents in Scotland.
The problem with the formulation presently proposed in Amendment No. 14 is that it goes substantially wider of the purpose for which the subsection exists. For example, the amendment would cover the circumstances of a person who was accidentally struck while stranded on a railway crossing, or of a railway employee struck by a train while working on or crossing the track. I do not dispute that they are tragic instances, but the scheme was not intended to deal with instances of that nature. It was designed to cover and compensate victims of crime.
I cannot say to the noble Lord that I can accept the amendments as they stand. However, they provide a valuable way forward by suggesting that a definition of what constitutes a criminal injury is a way of removing ourselves from the difficulties we have experienced in the past. I assure the noble Lord that if he were not to press the amendment, we shall be
978
happy to explore this avenue further because we think it has substantial possibilities.
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene but I should like to say, on behalf of those who practise the law in Scotland, that to state that something which would be an offence in England should be an offence in Scotland is an unsatisfactory way of proceeding. It involves an inquiry by lawyers who are not accustomed to the law of England as to what the English offence is. In borderline cases the issue is difficult to determine.
To state that anything which is an offence in England, or indeed in France or Germany, shall be an offence in Scotland is a fundamentally wrong way to legislate. It is a hopeless way of legislating. I am pleased to hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, said a moment ago. I gather that he will accept the spirit of Amendment No. 14.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble and learned Lords, especially to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, for putting in stronger and better language what I attempted to say in Committee regarding the existing subsection (3). I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the hope that now that I have shown the Government the avenue, the road-making will be better carried out.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 104 [Qualifying injuries]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 112 [Abolition of peremptory challenge]:
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 81, line 36, after ("cause") insert ("or to require jurors to stand by for the Crown").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment was moved in Committee and again on Report. As I told the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I move the amendment again not with any intention of pressing it but in order to give him the opportunity of clarifying certain undertakings which he gave when the amendment was moved on Report.
What I have to say, which will be short, may impinge somewhat on Amendment No. 18, with which this amendment is not grouped. No doubt the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, will decide for himself whether he wishes to enter into the discussion at this stage on Amendment No. 18 or leave it to be dealt with separately in a short while.
Your Lordships will remember that, having abolished the right of the defence peremptorily to challenge jurors, your Lordships' House had to deal with this amendment which sought to abolish the Crown's similar right to stand by jurors for the Crown both at Committee and on Report. At the Report stage, after considerable debate, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, made two substantial concessions. At the time I indicated that they very much met the problems I was posing.
The first undertaking which the noble Earl gave was in relation to cases where the jury had been vetted because of security considerations. There have been very few such cases. Over three years only eight jurors have been challenged in jury vetting cases and that shows how unusual a circumstance it is. As regards jury vetting cases in the future, the noble Earl at col. 455 of the Official Report for 23rd November, gave the undertaking that:
"the Attorney-General will expect to give authority for the removal of jurors in such circumstances personally".
I understand that to mean that counsel for the Crown will not stand by a juror for the Crown in a case where there has been jury vetting, except in each specific challenge with the specific instructions of the Attorney-General personally. That is a great step forward and it is a concession for which I am grateful.
The second concession which was made related to the cases in which the Crown occasionally stand by a juror because the Crown thinks that he may be unsuitable to serve. I understood the Minister to say that in future the Crown would take that course only in co-operation and consultation with the defence where it appeared to them jointly that a juror was unsuitable to serve. Again, that was a substantial concession and clearly met the difficulties that otherwise might have arisen as a result of the decision to abolish the defence's right.
On looking at col. 455 of the Official Report I found that the noble Earl had further said:
"my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General would be prepared to consider revising the guidelines so that the prosecution would not stand by a manifestly unsuitable juror without the agreement of the defence".
Being "prepared to consider" had a slightly tentative air. I therefore wrote to the noble Earl and asked him whether he would indicate that the Attorney-General would undertake to revise the guidelines so that, in future, stand by would be used only in those circumstances by the prosecution and the defence jointly. The noble Earl replied indicating that that was what he had intended to say; and in a few moments he will have the opportunity of making it public so that it will appear on the record.
That is the purpose of my repeating the amendment today. I shall say now rather than again later that I am grateful to the noble Earl and the Government for the consideration that they have given to the amendment, and for the substantial advance that has been achieved. I beg to move.
Lord Roskill: My Lords, I should like to say that as the controversy arose out of one of the recommendations of the Fraud Trial Committee this is a happy solution to a difficult problem. In making the original recommendation for the abolition of the right of stand by for the Crown, my colleagues and I on the Fraud Trial Committee were moved by one consideration only; namely, a sense of fairness that if the right of the defence to challenge jurors was to be abolished, equally the Crown should be put in the same position.
I am sure that we were conscious of the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Havers, the other day. We had that in mind and made our
980
recommendations, notwithstanding. However, this is a happy compromise and I am delighted that the matter should end in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, proposes.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I do not wish to be difficult, but I rise now in order not to ask the Minister a question while he is on his feet. Can he make clear to me exactly what will happen? I entirely agree that it may well be essential for the prosecution to remove a juror in a case of national security or terrorism where he might improperly use sensitive material. Everybody would agree with that. However, in the Attorney-General's guidelines there is the further ground that:
"the political beliefs of the jury-man are so biased as to reflect the extreme views of a pressure group to a degree that it might interfere with the fair assessment of the facts, or exert improper influence on other jurymen".
That seems to me to be a much greyer area. Immediately questions arise as to what are "extreme views" and in whose view are the views so extreme, and questions as to the pressure group?
One Attorney-General might think that extreme views are of one kind and another Attorney-General that extreme views are of another kind. In those cases, should there not be an undertaking that the Attorney-General will convey to the defence the reason for his objection if it is based on what I have described and not on the improper use of sensitive material where he would not be expected to go into the matter.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Wigoder, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, for acknowledging the importance of the undertakings that I was able to give on Report about the future of stand by. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said, I undertook that in future stand by would be exercised in only two situations, first, to remove a manifestly unsuitable juror, but only if the defence agreed; secondly, to remove a juror in a terrorist or security case in which the Attorney-General has authorised a check of the jury list, but only on the personal authority of the Attorney-General.
Those are very substantial steps. They confine the use of stand by to those very rare cases in which the security of the state or the safety of an individual serving the state and at issue and where no other procedure could be relied upon; and to cases where the removal of a clearly unsuitable juror is a service to the court and is entirely acceptable to both parties. I believe these measures fully meet the views expressed by several noble Lords in the earlier stages of this Bill that once peremptory challenge has gone an unfettered right for the Crown to stand a juror by may appear to be less than even-handed. I confirm, as the noble Lord requested, that my right honourable friend will be recasting his guidance in the manner described.
I undertook on Report to reflect further on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to provide a statutory footing for the judge to direct that a challenge for cause should be held in chambers.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I was proposing to speak to that amendment separately. I have not yet moved Amendment No. 17.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I apologise. I had thought that the noble Lord was speaking to both amendments.
As to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, there is no intention to alter the guidelines on jury checks, nor the circumstances in which stand by can be undertaken in such cases. I can give the undertaking as to the information about reasons.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington is as grateful to the Minister as I am for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 81, line 37, at end insert—
("(2) The trial judge shall have discretion to decide whether a challenge for cause shall be heard wholly or in part, in open court, in camera, or in chambers.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has now been stood on its head since debates started on the Bill. It was tabled originally as an attempt to deal with the situation which, if the Crown's right of stand by were totally abolished, there would nevertheless be machinery by which the Crown could stand by in jury vetting and security cases. Now that we have agreed that the Crown's right will remain subject of course to the important provisions that have just been indicated, the amendment is no longer necessary for that purpose. One assumes that in almost every case in future the Crown, if it wishes to challenge a juror, will use its right of stand by. There may be occasional cases where it may wish to challenge for cause, but probably not very many.
There remains the outstanding question of how a defence challenge for cause is to be dealt with. I think it is inevitable, as a result of your Lordships' abolition of the right of peremptory challenge, that there will be more challenges for cause by the defence in future. We then move into an area in which the law is not very clear and precise and in which there is little experience.
The discussion of Amendment No. 17 in Committee and on Report focused on whether it would enable the prosecution to exercise its right peremptorily. It seems late to start to discuss on Third Reading what the defence position will be. I do not think it proper therefore to pursue the matter further at this stage. I suggest that we leave it to the other place to consider the situation in due course.
I wish to make one or two comments only. It may be that on a defence challenge for cause it is desirable to have a power to hear the challenge in camera or in chambers. That will now have to be considered. The Crown Court Rules Committee might be asked to look at the question of challenges for cause and to draw up a proper procedure for such challenges, which is now lacking.
I make one further observation under this heading in the hope it will be considered elsewhere in due course. Many years ago the jury list contained the occupations of the jury. That was abolished at a stroke overnight by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, when he was Lord Chancellor without consultation with the Bar. It was abolished because it was thought that that was helping the defence to abuse its right of peremptory challenge. Now that the defence right of peremptory challenge has been abolished, it may be that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will wish to reconsider reinstating the information as to a juror's occupation because it might assist the parties to the case in making a challenge for cause.
We are embarking on a new area and it is too late in the progress of the Bill to make much progress this evening. I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, first I apologise to the House, When I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, on the last amendment, I said that there was no intention to alter the guidelines and that I could give him an assurance. However, I cannot give the noble Lord that assurance. I apologise for having misled the House on that point.
To deal with the amendment, as anticipated, we have been unable to reach a conclusion between the last stage of the Bill and this stage. The matter will be looked into in another place. I shall draw to my noble and learned friend's attention the points raised about the information on occupations. This would be included with some other important issues of principle and practice that have to be considered between now and our final decision on this complicated issue.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I look forward to debating the issue again in the early days of next August. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Silkin of Dulwich Lord Silkin of Dulwich had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 112, insert the following new clause:
("Power to require a juror to stand by for the Crown.
. —(1) The power to require a juror to stand by for the Crown shall not be exercised except—

(a) with the consent of the Attorney General, and

(b) in accordance with the provisions of an Order in Council regulating the circumstances in which such powers may be exercised and providing, so far as may be practicable, that the interests of all parties are safeguarded.

(2) An Order in Council under this section shall not be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, correctly said earlier that this is a wide field. I know that the noble Earl the Minister has made it clear that this wide field will be covered much more carefully in the months to come. It gives me the opportunity to cover the field up to now so that further thought can be given to the whole area.
I am still very unhappy about the removal of the right to challenge not accompanied by the right to

983
stand by, not because I disagree in any way with the points made in the earlier debate but because it creates an obvious dissension between the power of the prosecution and the power of the defence, which I regard as inherently justifiable. I entirely agree that the Government have gone a very long way to produce a balance in the actual situation, even though they have not produced any balance in the apparent situation; the situation in law.
The purpose of Amendment No. 18 was to try to create a balance in law which the Government are seeking to create in practice and to do so by making provision that the guidelines of the Attorney-General, in relation to stand by, should be effected by the ordinary way of Order in Council.
Speaking very much from my own personal experience as Attorney-General, I thoroughly dislike legislation by undertakings. I like even less legislation by undertakings to produce guidelines which may be altered from time to time without Parliament having any say upon them. It is for that reason that this amendment was put down. However, I accept that the Government have gone far towards what we are proposing in practice. I think it would not serve any useful purpose to debate (or still less, to divide the House) on this particular issue.
I should like to make it clear that we on these Benches certainly do not accept that this solution is the best solution. I apprehend that there may well be considerable debate on this topic in another place. We certainly would not want it to be thought that anything we have said precludes that further debate.
Having given that explanation, I think that probably the best thing I can do is not to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Clause 127 [Offence of having article with blade or point in public place]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 8, line 23, leave out subsection (6).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise for the fact that even at this late stage this is a probing amendment. I had counted on raising the point at Report stage on an amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning to specify as part of the definition of "public place"—a vehicle. However, my noble and learned friend had to leave the Chamber before moving the amendment and since then the matter has been further overtaken, with astonishing promptitude. I have had a letter from the noble Earl explaining why he would like to retain this subsection.
All I need say is that in my view it is quite unnecessary. The courts know what a public place is, and I ventured to draw his attention to a case (which I think was called Hildebrand) before the Queensland Court of Appeal. I am not sure of that because I gave the noble Earl my only copy of the report. I merely raise the matter so that it can be considered in another place because this is no occasion to make
984
issue of what is something of a somewhat technical nature. I merely draw attention to the remarks made at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and my noble and learned friend Lord Denning.
I do not know what the proper procedure is for me now and whether I should move this amendment. I see that the noble Earl is nodding his assent; but I did not follow what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Silkin, did on the last occasion. Therefore, I merely beg formally to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it would be wrong for this amendment to leave this House for another place without me saying a word about it. I make no apology for the fact that the definition of "public place" in the clause—which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, now recommends we should leave out—is lifted directly from the definition of public place in the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. It seems logical that it should do so. Both the Act and Clause 127 have the same basic aim: to make public places safer by outlawing the possession of weapons and other things that can be—and regrettably are—used as weapons.
We are unaware of the definition of public place in the 1953 Act having been found to be wanting, and this is in over 30 years operation. I suggest to your Lordships that in such a situation we would therefore do best to leave it well alone. If we were now to change the definition, or leave it out. I worry that we should be casting unnecessary doubts on the adequacy of the 1953 Act. That is the reason why we believe that there is an advantage in leaving the Bill as it stands with subsection (6), rather than deleting it, because of the reference back to the 1953 Act. However, if we started with a clean sheet, without the 1953 Act. then I think we might be in a different legal field than we are at the moment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not think me discourteous if I say that I am not entirely satisfied with his explanation. But this is no time to debate this, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 129 [Offensive weapons]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 89, line 7, after ("weapon") insert ("or imitation weapon").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22. It will be remembered that Clause 129 of the Bill deals with the matter of offensive weapons in a way which I think commended itself to all sections of this House.
All that I seek to do now is to cover a great concern and that is the use of imitation weapon—the sale of them; the hire of them and the dealing with them. This is especially because they are getting into the hands of children and we are particularly concerned, not only with the training of children, but also with what happens to those children when they become juveniles. Most of us know that offensive acts and criminal acts involving offensiveness in this way—offensive conduct—are very much the participation, (if I can put it that way) of juveniles.
I have managed, with the help of a certain organisation, to carry out a little research into these weapons. I am only concerned here with imitation weapons and will only recite from one paper before mc. What we are dealing with in this amendment are such weapons as: Rambo- and Ninja-style toys, which are marketed as suitable for children from the age of three upwards. Some of these toys, so I am told, like imitation rice flails and death stars can themselves cause injury. Some items in themselves can look menacing and when used, or adapted, can become an offensive weapon.
Flick-combs, for example, have a handle and the flick mechanisms of a flick-knife; there is a metal strip out of which come plastic-comb teeth. This is all very unpleasant. We are dealing with children and trying to protect them. Therefore, we should pass this amendment in my humble submission. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the purpose of Clause 129 is to give the Secretary of State powers to specify weapons the manufacture, sale and importation of which will be an offence. The offence itself is comparable with the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 which outlaws flick-knives. In our debate in Committee I mentioned hand claws, knuckle dusters and belt buckle knives as examples of the type of weapon we had in mind. What marks them out is the fact that they are intrinsically dangerous. I am not sure that imitations of such weapons are in quite the same category. It may be undesirable that they should exist but I very much doubt whether their sale needs to be covered by the criminal law with the substantial penalties, including imprisonment, which are provided by Clause 129.
It is true, as the noble Lord has said, that there are children's toys on the market which many of us would regard as undesirable and would not want to give to our own children, but again I wonder whether this is really a matter for the criminal law. At the moment I understand that all toys supplied in the United Kingdom must comply with the 1974 toy safety regulations which cover the main hazards and that other hazards are caught by the general safety requirements of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. These obviously provide protection against the physical harm which might be done by toys and it is right that the law should provide such protection. It is less easy, however, for judgments about the desirability or tastefulness of a particular toy to be expressed in legislation and I have serious doubts that sensible criteria could be evolved. In the final analysis I suspect that it may be for parents to exercise their judgment and responsibility in such matters.
This amendment would widen the scope of the clause considerably. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for having moved it. It is a subject which needed airing and I was interested to hear the concerns that have been expressed. It would go far beyond the immediate purposes of the clause and our attempts to tackle the availability of offensive weapons capable of doing serious physical injury and take us into the very different territory of moral judgments about the suitability of toys for our children. While I sympathise with much of what the noble Lord has said, I have doubts about involving
986
the criminal law in matters of that kind, and am sure that it would not be right to deal with them within the framework provided by this clause.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I must confess that I am disappointed with the observations of the noble Earl and I do not believe that I shall be alone in this Chamber in my disappointment. This is an opportunity for the prevention of crime and therefore, in my judgment, it comes well within the purview of criminal legislation. I had hoped that if one was able to define an offensive weapon to make it an offence under the Bill, one could define an imitation of an offensive weapon in precisely the same way.
The hour is late and we have reached a late stage of the Bill, so I would not dream in these circumstances of dividing the House. I had hoped for more participation in the debate, but I repeat that the hour is late, which may have prevented people from speaking. I hope that in another place this matter will be raised and that something will be done to cover the question of imitation weapons and the protection of our children and juveniles in this way. In the circumstances, I have no alternative but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington Lord Hutchinson of Lullington moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 132, insert the following new clause:
("Granting and withholding bail.
. Where a person to whom section 4 of the Bail Act 1976 applies has been remanded in custody under section 128(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, a magistrates' court considering whether to grant hail to that person shall not be hound by any previous decision of the court or of another court to withhold hail from that person.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like, if that is permissible, to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 26, although they have not been grouped, because they seem to be related one to the other. Both amendments reflect different aspects of the same matter and both are directed towards an attempt to prevent an unnecessary increase in the remand population. It is because of the Minister's expression of concern over that at the Report stage that I and others whose names are down to this amendment were encouraged to put it down again.
To fetter the discretion of the justices in hearing an application for bail, which is what Amendment No. 23 is about because it deals with what is known as the decision in the Nottingham justices case, and to give power to keep defendants in custody up to 28 days, which is dealt with in Amendment No. 26, are provisions which I suggest will invevitably exacerbate the appalling remand situation.
The Minister conceded that he was greatly troubled by the extent to which magistrates' courts still continue to reply on remands in custody, notwithstanding the presumption of bail in the Bail Act. He also recognised the fact that magistrates' courts vary very greatly as regards their policy in

987
granting bail. Indeed, as he and other noble Lords know, research into this subject has produced the most astonishing results. In one court you get 60 per cent. bail granted and in another 20 per cent. in equivalent situations, in equivalent courts perhaps even on opposite sides of a town.
In those circumstances the Minister, quite illogically surely, still maintains his opposition, or did at Report, to getting rid of the straitjacket of the decision of the Nottingham justices, because it is quite clear that different Benches, and Benches which are composed differently even within the same area, very often have quite different approaches to the imponderables which are put before them in relation to bail applications. Some Benches are infinitely more strict than others and so often whether an application for bail succeeds depends on the composition of the Bench on that particular day.
The fact of the matter is that the change in circumstances, which the Nottingham decision said must be achieved for a second application for bail to succeed can succeed only if the justices come to the conclusion that there is a change in circumstances. The trouble about the phrase "change in circumstances", as I pointed out on Report, is this.
I quoted an article about this matter by a member of the Bar in which he set out different changes in circumstances which were held by some courts to be changes and by other courts not to be changes. Those changes were a new job, living at a new address, the fact that the witnesses for the prosecution had made their statements or deterioration in the health either of the accused or of those close to him. All those matters had sometimes been considered to be changes in circumstances but in other cases were not considered to be changes in circumstances. It is that kind of position to which the decision by the Nottingham justices has led. It is a hopelessly inexact criterion for an application for hail for justices to try to follow.
Lastly, the great mischief, with which I do not think the Minister dealt at Report, of the Nottingham justices decision is that solicitors do not make an application on the first appearance of an accused before the magistrates because they fear that if they make that application when they are not in possession of all the facts of which they ought to be in possession, when they come back eight days later the court will say, "The circumstances have not changed". As a result people are being kept in custody for eight days, quite wrongly but quite understandably, because the solicitors are not by that time properly instructed in their own responsible view to make a fully perfected application for bail, whereas if they had made it bail would probably have been granted in any event. But that is a mischief which is very serious indeed.
I ask the Minister to deal with it on this occasion because it is a mischief which means that more people are being kept in custody than ought to be kept in custody and that the remand position is being made worse as a result. It is in those circumstances that I would move this amendment, which deals with very much the same situation as Amendment No. 26.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it may assist your Lordships if I cite some relevant words of the Divisional Court in giving judgment in the Nottingham justices case. The question the justices should address, they said, in considering a second or subsequent application for bail is this: are there any new considerations which were not before the court when the accused was last remanded in custody? I mention this for two reasons. First, the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said that some defence solicitors do not make an application for bail on the first appearance before a court because they do not feel fully briefed on the merits of their client's case and they do not wish to prejudice a future, better developed application. As I understood the law, and I am sure noble and learned Lords will correct me if I am wrong, that degree of caution is unnecessary and, if it results in remands in custody where an application for bail might have succeeded, surely it is undesirable. A matter which was not put before the court on the first occasion may, as I understand it, be put forward on the second occasion whether or not there had been a change of circumstances as such.
My second point is that the question posed by the Divisional Court goes to the very heart of the issue. If there are no new considerations before the court, surely the merits of the application have not changed. If in a particular case there are no new considerations, why should we expect the magistrates to reach a different decision? Surely if this amendment were passed into law the courts would find themselves dealing with many cases which were no more than re-rehearsals of the same argument and which would lead to the same conclusions.
Let me say in passing that the claim that some Benches take a more restrictive view on the question of bail than others is neither here nor there on this argument. Surely we could not contemplate remand prisoners' solicitors touting their well-thumbed briefs around various Benches in the hope of finding a sympathetic ear. If a Bench relies unduly on remands in custody that is a problem, but it is not solved by diverting its customers elsewhere. That does not solve anything. It only stores up problems for other Benches. It is far more sensible and constructive to identify disparities in courts' practice and to invite them to consider the possible reasons for them. This is precisely what we have done.
Although I know the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, will not be impressed by it. I should nevertheless mention the specific safeguard in the Criminal Justice Act 1982. This enables a defendant who has been refused bail by the magistrates to apply to the Crown Court. The Crown Court is not fettered by the Nottingham justices decision in the matters it may consider: applications may be made on exactly the same grounds as were before the magistrates. So if a defendant feels that the magistrates did not take proper account of the merits of his case the door is not finally closed to him. That seems to me to be the sensible approach. If a court's decision is to be reviewed, it is right that the review should be done by a higher court, not by a differently composed Bench at the same level.

989
I hope I have made it sufficiently clear at every stage of this Bill that the remand population is a matter of the gravest concern and that the Government will consider all sensible means of improving the current situation. The use of bail is certainly a most important factor. Yes, we should like to see improvements, and we are taking steps to secure them. But I believe the approach contained in this amendment would be a misdirection of effort.
First, I believe there is nothing in the current law which denies hail applicants a fair crack of the whip. Secondly, I believe the amendment would secure a tiny increase in grants of bail at the cost of a disproportionate increase in court business. Thirdly, I believe the downstream effects on other defendants, particularly in the form of delays in hearings, which would certainly result from the increased volume of court business. would far outweigh any possible benefits. In fact I am far from convinced that the net effect on the remand population would be in the direction your Lordships would hope to see.
Once again I fear I find myself in sympathy with the end of the noble Lord's amendment but quite in disagreement on the means. The perils are clear and the benefits far from certain.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I entirely agree with the powerful reasons put forward by my noble friend. I should only add simply that it is quite plain from the terms of the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, seems to wish to enable one magistrates' court to act as a court of appeal from another magistrates' court of exactly equivalent jurisdiction. That is quite the wrong precedent and quite unacceptable.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord who has just spoken I should say that that is certainly not my desire. One always comes back to the reality of the situation. I am very sorry that the Minister has reduced this matter to such phrases as "well thumbed briefs" and "solicitors touting along to different magistrates' Benches". That perhaps gives one some idea of the view in the Home Office on this very serious matter of applying for bail.
But the trouble about this decision is, as I have tried to point out, that the phrase "no new considerations- is not a term of art. It is not something which is in fact a matter of fact before the magistrates. They are dealing with imponderables. Decisions as to whether a person is likely to interfere with a witness or is likely to turn up, or any such considerations, are not matters of facts. They are imponderables. Sometimes some Benches with experience are much more capable than others of making up their minds as between the likelihood of a person doing this or that in one direction or the other. It has nothing to do with an appealing from one Bench to another or the rather squalid idea of thumbed briefs being touted from Bench to Bench.
It is really a much more serious matter than that. I am disappointed with the Minister's approach. His approach showed absolutely no appreciation of what is going on in the magistrates' court and no
990
understanding of the factors which increase this terrible number of people who are held on remand in the most appalling circumstances. I can only say that I am extremely disappointed in the Minister's response.
Having regard to the fact that Amendment No. 26 is still to be discussed I shall not press this amendment at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 137, insert the following new clause:
("Strip and intimate searches.
—(1) The Annual Report of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise shall contain the following information in respect of the period to which it relates—

(a) the total number of strip searches performed under Section 164 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979; and

(b) the total number of intimate searches performed under Section 164 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979; and

(c) in respect of (a) and (b) above, the result of the searches carried out respectively.

(2) The information shall also include, as separate items—

(a) the total number of strip searches which are drug offences searches; and

(b) the total number of intimate searches which are drug offence searches; and

(c) in respect of (a) and (b) above, the result of the searches carried out respectively.

(3) In this section—
"strip search" means a search which involves the removal of more than outer clothing;
"intimate search" means a search which consists of the physical examination of a person's body orifices.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the revised version of the amendment moved on Report which was supported so strongly by so many of your Lordships in various quarters of the House. It has been revised so as to remedy the omissions to which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, drew our attention the last time around. Since tabling the amendment I have received a letter from the noble Earl in which, most gratifyingly, he indicated that statistics covering searches of the person will be published annually with effect from the financial year 1988–89. I thank him for that.
Nevertheless what continues to worry some of us is that the letter gave no guarantee that the additional statistics to be published from then onwards—I say additional because many statistics have to be published by law anyway—would include statistics of strip searches, other than intimate searches, which of course are already covered by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
The noble Earl went on to suggest that it would be premature and undesirable to legislate on the precise format the published figures should take. I quite agree, and that is why the amendment does no such thing. All it does is to oblige the Customs in due course—no time limit is set—to provide for new figures of between four and five digits each relating to strip searches; let us say 12,000, 3,200, 6,000 and 1,575, to give an example of the sort of figures that one might expect to see.
The precise format within which these figures should be presented would be entirely within the discretion of Customs and Excise. It is true that four

991
additional figures relating to intimate searches would also be required by the amendment but these are required to be published anyway by virtue of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This requirement has been duplicated in the amendment purely for the sake of legislative tidiness.
The definition of a strip search at the end of the amendment is clear and unambiguous. It comes from the Code of Practice, Annex 4A, which is attached to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It is therefore difficult to think of any reason for the Government to oppose the amendment, assuming that they genuinely intend from 1988–89 onwards to give the simple and straightforward details of searches which so many of us seek.
If, by any unhappy chance, the Minister sees fit to disagree with the amendment, I can only assume that it must be the requirement to publish details of drug searches which worries him and his right honourable friend. That would be somewhat illogical in that the Customs are already required to publish a breakdown of intimate drug and non-drug searches, in consequence of the aforesaid Police and Criminal Evidence Act and its subsequent extension to the Customs.
However, I can appreciate that an obligation to include such details might involve the Customs in extra work, in that certain strip searches might embrace a search for both drugs and other contraband at the same time. Therefore, if this amendment is not acceptable, I should be quite happy to withdraw it provided that the Minister can assure the House not only that additional information on personal searches will be published from 1988–89 onwards, but also that such information shall include at least two specific items additional to those already required to be published. The two items are, first, the total number of strip searches and, secondly, the total number of strip searches other than intimate searches, which are successful. In other words, any question of whether there is to be separate recording of strip searches for drugs would be left open to be decided later. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I undertook at Report stage to look at the matters which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, raised with my honourable friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury who is the government Minister responsible for HM Customs. I said that I could not guarantee to come back with an answer by Third Reading. Nevertheless I thought it right before today to convey to those of your Lordships who spoke in the Report stage debate the progress our further consideration had made. This I did in a letter dated yesterday.
I welcome this opportunity of placing on the record the undertaking that I gave to the noble Lord. Statistics covering searches of the person will be published annually with effect from financial year 1988–89. That is the earliest date which can be managed because 1988–89 will be the first full year for which figures are available.
Given that, it might well be asked why we should not accept the noble Lord's amendment in anticipation of having the material available to us in
992
18 months' time. I hope that I have made it perfectly clear that we intend to publish information on the general lines envisaged by the noble Lord. We shall do so whether or not there is a statutory obligation. There is no dispute on the basic principle. The question to my mind is very simply whether it is sensible to legislate in detail at this stage on what the precise content of the published statistics should be. Perhaps I can be both encouraging and circumspect. I am sure that my honourable friend will wish to consider how information about the different categories of search and the results of searches can best be assembled and presented. He will of course have the noble Lord's suggestions and the record of these debates before him. He will also have the model of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act under which certain Customs search statistics are already published. But I should have thought it unwise to set that in tablets of stone now.
As regards the final two questions which the noble Lord asked, I shall make strong representations to my honourable friend and I am sure that he will accept them, given what has been said in your Lordships' House on the matter both at Committee and Report stages. We shall divide the statistics into the categories which are sought.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for enlarging on his letter, which was ambiguous in one or two respects. He has stated that the statistics to be published will be on the general lines which I and other noble Lords who supported my earlier amendment envisaged. I am happy with that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 138 [Remands in custody, for more than eight days]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 93, line 16, leave out from ("has") to ("28") in line 22 and insert ("set a date on which it expects that it will be possible for the next stage in the proceedings, other than a hearing relating to a further remand in custody or on bail. to take place, and only—

(i) for a period ending not later than that date: or

(ii) for a period of).

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment has a specific purpose and a wider significance. The specific purpose is to respond to comments made by my noble friend Lord Morris at the Report stage. As Clause 138 stands, it requires the court, before remanding a defendant in custody for more than eight days, to form a view as to the minimum period likely to elapse before the next substantive stage of the proceedings. My noble friend argued that this was too vague and that a crisper and more specific requirement should be imposed on the court. The form of words he suggested implied a greater degree of direct control over events than the courts can realistically be expected to exercise. But I promised to look at the language of the clause and the amendment is the result.
What it seeks to do is to place on the court a responsibility to set a date on which it expects that it

993
should be possible for the next substantive stage of the proceedings to take place. Having considered and determined any application for bail, the magistrates would hear submissions from both parties on the timing of the next stage. If it seemed reasonable to expect them to be ready in two weeks' time, the court would set the remand period accordingly and there would be a clear presumption that the next substantive stage—perhaps the decision as to whether the case should go to the Crown Court or the trial itself—would take place on that day. In that way, periods of remand would be prevented from drifting towards 28 days in cases which could be disposed of sooner. It would only be where there was no realistic prospect of making substantive progress within 28 days that the remand would be for that period. Even then, under subsection(4) the court would be required to have regard to the total length of time the accused would spend in custody if it were to exercise the new power.
The wider significance of this part of the procedure is that it encourages the magistrates, in statute, for the first time, to take a more positive role in what might be called case management. That is something in which, encouraged by my right honourable friend, many magistrates' courts and their clerks have become more involved in recent years. Taken together with statutory pre-trial time limits, which are now the subject of experiments in several parts of the country, it seems to us to be the best approach to the problem of pre-trial delay.
This is our third debate on this clause and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, has indicated his intention of opposing the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. It may therefore assist your Lordships if I recapitulate on the advantages as the Government see them of what we recognise to be an important procedural change. Most important among those is the extent to which the energies of the prison officers, police officers and court staff who are at present involved in weekly remand hearings would he freed for other tasks. It is quite an operation to do the clerical work associated with the departure of a prisoner and his reception again some hours later; to escort him to and from court; and to arrange even the brief court appearance which is necessary to renew the remand. I think it is important that your Lordships should understand how much effort is involved in those processes, and weigh up what purpose is really served by such frequent court appearances.
Your Lordships will know that even with the substantial recruitment of prison officers in recent years finding sufficient staff is a real problem at many establishments. As was noted in the consultation paper which we published last year, even a small staff saving on the escort commitment can make a real difference to the regime in the small and medium-sized establishments. The availability of a single officer can make the difference between workshops opening or not opening and association among prisoners operating or not operating. The administrative and clerical staff also make an important contribution to the quality of prison life, and are prevented from doing so while they go
994
through all the formalities associated with booking a prisoner out and receiving him again later the same day. The police will be better occupied tackling crime than being engaged to the extent that they are in escort duties, particularly in London and Manchester where they bear the brunt.
The first benefit of the change will therefore be to release effort for other, more productive work. The second is more speculative and relates in part to the amendment to which I am speaking. Turning the courts' attention from the weekly ritual of a remand hearing to a less frequent but more purposeful appraisal of the progress of the case seems to us to hold out the possibility, desired by all sides of your Lordships' House, of bringing cases to trial more quickly. We cannot be certain of that, and one of the purposes of the experiments which we intend to mount before implementation is to test it thoroughly by looking at the effect of the change on the period before trial. But it is intuitively sensible that giving the magistrates a more direct role and sparing them and the legal representatives of both sides the burden of a pointless weekly appearance should help to speed things up.
Noble Lords opposite have represented this as a conflict between, on the one hand, safeguards for the accused and, on the other, an unprincipled desire to cut costs. I hope I have said enough to persuade your Lordships that that is not by any means a fair account of what we propose. In his speech at Report stage, my noble friend Lord Morris referred with approval to the Scottish system. I think he had in mind the use which the Scots make of a statutory time limit on the period an accused person may be held in custody. As I said earlier, we are moving towards the adoption of similar statutory limits in England and Wales.
The Scottish experience is instructive for two reasons. The first is the considerable success which the Scots have in sticking to the time limits, which is in no small measure due to the briskness with which their courts apply them. The second is that they have no equivalent of the weekly remand. The underlying assumption is that it is better to devote the system's energies to bringing cases to trial in good time, than to a purely formal weekly hearing.
That is certainly the Government's position in bringing forward this clause. We shall, as I have promised, test the new procedure very carefully in a few areas before extending it more widely and would not contemplate doing so if our experiments seemed to suggest that it was likely to increase the remand population and reduce the availability of bail, as noble Lords opposite fear.
There is one further matter which I should draw to your Lordships' attention. Clause 138 is an enabling power. It does not itself introduce new procedure. It enables the Secretary of State to apply the procedure by order to specified areas and specified proceedings. The order is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure so that the power will not be used at all without the express approval of both Houses. Parliament will be able to say when and where the new arrangements are introduced both in the initial experiments and in any more general extension. The passing of this clause is far from being the end of its parliamentary scrutiny.
On the central principle, we are, however, more convinced than noble Lords opposite that what is proposed here will in time be seen as a valuable change rather than a safeguard lost. Weekly remands provide the appearance of a safeguard. The reality is that the interests of those remanded in custody pending trial are likely to be best served by determined efforts to bring their cases to trial as speedily as possible. I beg to move.
Lord Morris: My Lords, it would be quite wrong of me not to rise even at this late stage of the Bill to thank my noble friend Lord Caithness for the way in which he has introduced this change. He has done so thoroughly and I believe that is a reflection of the importance of this change to the proviso of the Bill. I believe that will become one of those strange sections in an Act whereby the proviso to the section takes upon itself in terms of the impact on the administration of justice rather more importance than the substantive part of the section itself.
I hope that is the case, and I hope the test works out favourably. Rather exceptionally and for the first time for a very long time, this amendment is giving more power to the courts rather than taking away the power of the courts and placing that power in the hands of the administration. I believe that is a very good thing.
I wish also to thank the noble Lords of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition who supported me so nobly, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, in particular and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. Without their help this could not have happened. The new drafting of this clause is really most elegant. It is not too restrictive and it is not so flexible as to be meaningless. I am most grateful.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, may I say how much I welcome this change? I was the person who described the original wording as being very sloppy. No one could call these words sloppy, and I am grateful to the Minister for his effort in the period intervening.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 26:
Leave out Clause 138.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we on this side of the House have consistently opposed this clause. As the noble Earl has indicated, it will allow magistrates within designated areas to remand the unconvicted prisoner for up to 28 days at a time in place of the present eight-day maximum. This is to be done primarily in the name of saving money.
That in itself is a worthy objective, but there are a great many aspects of the criminal justice system which would benefit from the freeing of additional resources. We on these Benches certainly recognise that.
For my own part I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said in debate on this subject on a number of occasions. I have the advantage of having received from him two letters on the subject, and I have read them with some care. If he will forgive me I propose to quote from his latest letter.
The economy that is sought to be achieved essentially is this. Savings are to be gained from avoiding unproductive court hearings. On the other side, it is recognised that these savings have to be set against and compared with the extra legal aid costs which will inevitably be incurred as a result of solicitors visiting remand prisoners in prison since they are not being brought to court every eight days.
If these extra costs of the solicitors going to the prisons are greater than the savings hoped for, then an exercise in the name of economy will have achieved the reverse of its object. When I look at the letter from the noble Earl, I read this in the section which deals with the extra costs that will undoubtedly be incurred. The figure of £1.3 million for the offset in costs of additional visits to prison by defence representatives was based upon a cautious estimate that although some additional visits will be needed, the costs involved will not be more than half the gross saving, and may well be less.
When one reads something of that nature one is hound to think that the whole matter is entirely speculative so far as economy is concerned. When one reads two sentences in a letter separated by but a page which state:
"Our argument is simply that there is no point in mechanical appearances every eight days which benefit nobody"
and then compare it with the sentence:
"The limit of 28 days is not designed to eliminate unproductive hearings"
one is to be forgiven—and I am sure the noble Earl will forgive me for saying this—for believing that one has entered the real world of "Yes Minister".
What we are saying in essence is this. There would only begin to be any case for change if the potential savings could be shown to be more than merely speculative and if other important aspects of the system were functioning as they should.
We believe that the arguments put forward by the Government really have no place in the real world. For example, it was said earlier in the debate that it is more sensible for consultations with solicitors to take place at prison rather than at court. In theory that is fine but in the real world it can and it does take many days before a prison interview room becomes available after it has been requested. As I understand it, this is acknowledged by the Government. In the real world remand prisoners are shifted around from place to place as the prison authorities desperately try to fit a quart into a pint pot. In a frightening number of well-documented cases the prisoner's family and lawyers have not been able to discover where he is being held. At the moment they can at least be sure that he will surface every eight days.
The Minister will say that Fresh Start will change all this. Very well, let him come back with his proposal when all these abuses have been curtailed and not before. Do not expect us to agree to take away an unconvicted person's rights merely in the hope that matters will improve in the future.
The Minister said that in Scotland the system simply commits an accused in custody until trial. That is so, but that is in the context, as the noble Earl acknowledged, of strict statutory time limits within which the trial must commence; and that, of course,

997
makes all the difference in the world. The Minister tells us that the Government are moving towards such time limits in England. That is excellent; but let it achieve that first, and then —and only then—ask us to do away with the eight-day rule.
It is sad that it is continually necessary, in the context of the debate on this clause, to return to the inadequacies of the Crown Prosecution Service. It is not the fault of those who work for that service that its lack of resources and resultant inability to do its job anything like properly is bringing the criminal justice system into disrepute. Noble Lords should not, and need not, take my word for the shambles which now exists. A morning or two spent in any urban magistrates' court would provide the most direct confirmation.
I do not know if the Government intend to confine their experiment, with the abolition of the eight-day rule, to the areas where the Crown Prosecution Service is coping with its case load. I doubt it because it would not then be a representative experiment. The point is that in most cases the Crown Prosecution Service is totally unable to cope and, therefore, in those places magistrates will have no sensible guidance about when the next stage of the proceedings is likely to occur. I welcome the amendment proposed in the first instance by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, but now brought forward by the Government. In those places where the Crown Prosecution Service cannot cope—that is, in the majority of courts in the country—despite this amendment we will see 28 days becoming the norm because the system simply will not be capable of doing any better.
The Government are putting the cart before the horse, and the horse should be put firmly before the cart where it belongs. The Government must begin by taking steps to reduce the remand population from its present frightening and unnecessary level. They must do something positive about the admitted gross discrepancies of magisterial practice in granting bail. Given that those discrepancies exist, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, that the Nottingham Justices' decision should be reversed so that a misguided rejection of a bail application is not final in the magistrates' court.
Further, the Government must improve the conditions in which remand prisoners are held, their accessibility to lawyers, and bring in time limits so that it is not possible for unconvicted people to spend months in prison awaiting trial. Above all, the Government should take a realistic view of the funding of the Crown Prosecution Service. if they do all that and then return with a proposal to abolish the eight-day rule, we on this side of the House will be willing to consider that proposal with some sympathy. However, as things stand in the real world, to abolish one of the few safeguards for the unconvicted accused is a disgrace and we oppose it. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, it is easy to forget that Clause 138 is an enabling power, as the Minister stated. It is as a result of this test that the change in the eight-day rule will come about. If it is positive,
998
then it may become general throughout the whole country. That is my first point.
I have one other brief point to make. The noble Lord's concern about the Crown Prosecution Service is well founded in regard to cetain aspects of its work in certain areas of the country; but to try and give the impression that generally it is a shambles is not fair.
In so far as this clause assists in the administration of justice I believe it should be welcomed. I do not want to go into the "baby with the bathwater" argument, but I believe that the amendment that the Government tabled previously has a great bearing on the efficacy of the clause itself.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I admit to being disappointed at what the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said. Perhaps I can accuse him of something that he has accused me of; that is, of not listening to what was said. To be fair, I do not believe that he listened to what I said in moving Amendment No. 25. He said that it has the primary aim of saving money. I explained about the prison officers, the improvement of regimes, and improvements for the courts and for the police. There are other circumstances that are taken into account.
The noble Lord accuses us of not being in the real world, but it is a long time since those in the Home Office have lived in a sealed ivory tower. I have visited numerous prisons, and others responsible in the Home Office have visited many courts. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who is not at present in his place, knows that on Friday I am visiting a prison which is of particular concern to him. On those visits I take the opportunity to talk to those most directly involved in that process. The amount of time consumed by prison officers by an unnecessary eight-day hearing appals me. Under the proposals now before the House that time can be much better used without detriment to the person on remand.
The noble Lord said that we must reduce remands. We are working very hard towards that, as the noble Lord knows. As a result of the Autumn Statement, we have allotted considerably more money to bail hostels in order to try and help on that matter. There are a number of actions that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is taking to reduce the remand population which I agree has grown substantially and is too high. The noble Lord said that we should improve conditions for those on remand. There has never been a bigger building programme, in financial terms. There are 26 new prisons—many of them local—designed especially for remand prisoners. Some of the refurbishment work being done is designed specifically to give remand prisoners better conditions.
I have frequently said to your Lordships that one of the aspects that has appalled me about the prison service is that remand prisoners seem to be the worst treated. We are giving that aspect much consideration, and a great deal of taxpayers' money, in order to solve that particular problem. The noble Lord said that we should bring in time limits. We are experimenting and will be extending those limits as soon as is feasible.
I hear what the noble Lord says on the Crown Prosecution Service. I believe that my noble friend

999
Lord Morris is absolutely right in saying that the general statement that the noble Lord made is not true. In some areas the Crown Prosecution Service is under more severe pressure than elsewhere, but on that particular point I assure the noble Lord that I shall pass his comments on to my right honourable friend the Attorney-General.
In conclusion, the experiments that we propose provide a check on our optimism about the effects of this proposal. If they provide grounds for thinking that the change will increase the remand population or slow down the pre-trial process, we shall pursue it no further. As I said, before we can pursue it further, it will have to come back before your Lordships' House and on that occasion I look forward to discussing it with all noble Lords opposite.
In our view, a weekly remand requirement irrespective of whether any real progress can be made with the case, is a safeguard without substance. It ties up scarce human and other resources which could be applied more effectively towards improving prison regimes, tackling crime and accelerating court proceedings. By freeing those resources and pointing the courts' efforts towards expedition rather than weekly formalities, we believe that this proposal has the potential to do much good. Therefore, I strongly recommend to the House that this clause remains part of the Bill.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I do not accept that merely to intone the virtues of the Home Office defeats better arguments. I have listened with care to what the noble Earl has said; I have read with care what he has written. I shall not enlarge the argument at this hour by demonstrating that that is so. My position remains. I am satisfied that the main inspiration of the Government's experiment is economy. I predict that they are misguided and will be proved to be, even in their own terms. I have no doubt that the proposal will be reverted to in another place. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 7 [Compensation]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 119, leave out ("essential") and insert ("requisite").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to Schedule 7, paragraph 6(5). It deals with the basis upon which payment for private medical treatment is to be allowed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. The Bill provides that the board is to make payment if it is satisfied:
"that such treatment is or was essential".
The standard by which the board operates in the present scheme is if it considers that in all the circumstances the cost of private treatment is reasonable.
This will be my final attempt to obtain a better word for "essential". The problem with "essential" is that it makes it difficult to see what circumstances, having regard to the National Health Service, are to be regarded as essential. Circumstances in which the board has made payment for private treatment often
1000
include cases where there is a long waiting list. After how long on a waiting list something becomes essential is difficult to determine.
On Report the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate referred to a dictionary definition. I think that he said that "essential", "necessary" and "requisite" were synonyms. I took the advantage of the time available between the two stages to go to Fowler's Modern English Usage. While, according to Fowler, they all have the common meaning of something being needed, there is a distinction in the meaning. Again according to Fowler, "essential" is the strongest of the three, while "requisite" is the weakest. Fowler gives an example:
"the essential thing is such that the other thing is inconceivable without it. Essential is the strongest of the three … When we call something requisite, we have in mind merely an end for which means are to be found; the requisite thing is that demanded by the conditions".
Fowler gives an illustration:
"Bails are requisite, but neither essential nor necessary, for cricket; not essential, for it is cricket without them; not necessary, for their want need not stop the game".
but they are requisite all the same. It is in that sense that I suggest "requisite" rather than "essential" is the appropriate word. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I suppose that my noble friend opposite will accuse me of not playing cricket when I tell him that I am not minded to accept this amendment. In some sense his reference to Fowler underlines the point that I was trying to make in Committee and on Report when he tried various synonyms out on me.
The essential point that I was trying to put across was that the policy we are endeavouring to find for this part of the Bill is that the board should not normally be expected to pay for private health care. If it does, it should only do so in exceptional circumstances, and of course where the costs are reasonable.
In our view, the word "essential" properly reflects the intention that such payment should be made only in exceptional circumstances. As the noble Lord said, the word "essential" reflects a more emphatic point of view than the word "requisite", which he suggests. We think that that emphasis provides a proper flavour for what we wish the board to do when approaching such cases. That being so, although I have listened with interest to the way in which he scoured Fowler's and induced me to go to the Oxford English Dictionary, I regret to say that I think the word which is there is the one which more properly reflects the policy which we wish to see in the Bill.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am, disappointed by the reply, but it makes clear the government view. Apparently if a young lady has a scar across her face which can be cured by plastic surgery, but with which she can exist on a two- or three-year National Health Service waiting list, it is not essential that she should have that treatment. She should wait with the scar. I think that the appropriate word is "requisite", but at this time of night I shall not press this necessary amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.45 p.m.
Schedule 9 [Retention of Young Offenders in Scotland]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 127, line 19, after ("A") insert ("person who at the commencement of section 118 of this Act is detained in a detention centre by virtue of a").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 29. These amendments clarify one of the transitional provisions contained in Schedule 9. Parallel amendments were made on Report to the transitional provisions for England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 127, line 25, leave out from ("be") to end of line 26 and insert ("detained in such young offenders institution as the Secretary of State may direct, and any enactment applying to persons detained in young offenders institutions shall apply to a person so detained under this paragraph.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, before we reach the omega of approval of that Motion I venture to mention one or two matters to the House. This has been a parliamentary marathon. I shall not say a parliamentary marathon to end all marathons, because I fear that Parliament may be faced with similar marathons in the future.
We now reach the end of what has been a detailed and prolonged examination of one of the most important Bills to come before this House. I hope that the Opposition, including members of the Alliance, a number of Members on the Cross-Benches, some of whom are here to the bitter end, including a number of Law Lords who have assisted us from time to time in our deliberations, will be thought to have taken an effective part in the proceedings.
There have been two main areas of contention. The first has been the alteration to our extradition procedures which has eliminated the duty of the magistrates' court to ensure that a prima facie case was made out before an extradition order could be made. Unhappily, the Opposition failed to retain that ancient protection. However, the Government were at least persuaded to strengthen the provisions in the Bill that ensure the right of the accused person to make representations to the Secretary of State, which he now has a statutory duty to consider. The rights of judicial review of the Secretary of State's decisions have been retained, and indeed strengthened, as against the original provisions in the Bill.
The second major battle has been over the abolition of peremptory challenge of jurors by the defence. The injustice that seemed to us to be transparent was made all the more vivid by the
1002
retention for the Crown of the right to stand by. As a result I fear that the balance has been unfavourable to the defence and important defence rights have been curtailed. However, there again we have been able to redress the balance to a certain degree. I hope that those two issues will have a better fate in another place, but we have shown the way and given guidance.
As a result of our debates, and striking a wholly non-party approach, I believe a number of important improvements have been made to the Bill. It leaves the House for that reason in a better shape than it arrived. Heaven knows, it is not much to claim after all the hours, days and nights of labour that we have applied in endeavouring to achieve that task.
Before I conclude I should like to put on record our deep regard for the manner in which the noble Earl has grappled with the intricate legal issues that have arisen in the course of the consideration of this Bill.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Elwyn-Jones: He has indeed been a lonely Daniel in a den of legal lions. None of us has actually bitten him and I hope that we have not taken undue advantage of the fact. Before I conclude I should also like to express our gratitude for the help given us by, and the contributions of, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. On that note, although I cannot now wish everybody a Happy Christmas, when it comes I do.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will allow a short intervention from the Cross-Benches before passing this Bill. Perhaps I may make two comments by way of preliminary observation. First, this is an enormous Bill. My noble and learned friend has described it as a marathon. It is mammoth, and it seems to me that we have rushed it too much. The times between the various stages of the Bill were very short indeed. I was quite amazed at the way in which the noble Earl managed to deal with the vast mass of correspondence between those various stages.
Secondly, the Bill proceeds very largely by amendment with reference to other enactments. On the first one I asked the noble Earl whether he would ensure, or preferably had ensured, that the amended statute would rapidly he published as amended in the Statutes in Force. I did not repeat that on the innumerable times that the occasion arose. However, I hope that he will see that that is done. There is no need to wait for consideration by another place, because, although there will undoubtedly be amendments made there, that position can perfectly well be coped with by the editor of the Statutes in Force.
The Bill effects a great many improvements in detail over the whole realm of our criminal justice. In addition, it makes some major radical alterations which are long overdue. Listening to the speeches from the noble Earl's side of the House, I was amazed to hear the constant opposition to any radical change. If I had to describe those speeches in studbook terms it would be by Lord Eldon out of

1003
Blackstone. Indeed, we heard a great deal about Blackstone and from Blackstone at various stages. Blackstone was a great 18th century writer but nobody would accuse him of being other than intensely conservative on the law. Nobody would have thought, listening to those speeches, that sitting at the feet of Blackstone there was an intensely critical intelligence in the form of Bentham, whom I had always regarded as the spiritual ancestor of at least the Liberal element in the Alliance Benches. He was not mentioned; nor was his innovating, critical, rational approach to the law even adumbrated.
Having said that, I should like to associate myself with the tributes that were paid by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones. In the rather more than 25 years that I have spent in one House or another I have never heard a better debate than the major debate on extradition. Your Lordships will undoubtedly think that we are singularly fortunate in having in the form of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack a debater in the tradition of Thurlow, Cairns, Birkenhead and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. However, particular tribute must be paid—as it was by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones—to the noble Earl in charge of a Bill that demanded knowledge not only of the substance of criminal justice but a sense of the way it works.
Your Lordships will remember that when Queen Victoria opened Street's great architectural masterpiece, the Law Courts in the Strand, the judges prepared an address to her. It was a eulogy of the law as the fabric of our society and the protection of our liberty and our order, and by implication a eulogy of judges as the expositors of the law. There was one note of modesty struck. That was the sentence, "Conscious as we are of our shortcomings", to which Lord Bowen suggested the amendment, "Conscious as we are of each other's shortcomings".
It is small wonder that the noble Earl has been bombarded from all quarters of the House with conflicting legal advice. I can only associate myself with the admiration expressed by my noble and learned friend on the Front Opposition Bench for the way he has kept his balance, his head and his unfailing courtesy.
8 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I shall take up just three minutes. I have sat through the Bill almost inarticulate for I have been deeply moved by the care shown by all your Lordships, who have so much more knowledge than I, in helping this Bill through the House. It is one of the most important Bills to have come before Parliament for many years. We are trying to put the clock back somewhat in endeavouring to persuade more people to keep the law. We have grasped many nettles and at the end of this part of our proceedings I think that we have done a great job.
The department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the department of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary have had a great deal to do with the implementation of the Bill. There is no point in our passing the Bill and finally the Act through
1004
Parliament if the people of this country do not implement it. Among those people are the lay judiciary, but foremost is the Crown Prosecution Service. I have heard some disturbing news about the Crown Prosecution Service—that its members are underpaid and that they do not bring forward the correct charges.
I wish to associate myself with everything that has been said and perhaps felt more than some of us can say about the leadership given on the Bill by my noble friend Lord Caithness. I have had many letters as I know all other noble Lords have. I have a deep sense of gratitude. I should like to say a deep thank you for all that he has done.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I have spent a certain amount of time on this Bill and I should also like to pay a real tribute to the Minister for his continuous good humour and for his patience in listening to a veritable waterfall of legal argument. His great contribution has been to make the long process of this Bill a pleasure rather than a penance.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was a distinguished Conservative Minister. If I may say, with the greatest possible respect to him, it is a mistake to confuse radical reaction with radical progress. The support for the rather authoritarian radical measures in the Bill is not ever to be mixed up with the liberal approach to such matters found on these Benches. It is not the sort of radicalism which we support here.
Having said that, I can only be rather sad about some of the measures that have been passed in the Bill. They will store up a lot of trouble for the future. There have been a few crumbs, perhaps even a crust in Part II, and I am grateful to the Government for having given us that.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, in the words that have haunted my noble friend the Chief Whip over the past six weeks, I shall not detain the House for too long. Over 63 hours of debate have taken place on this Bill. We are now nearing the end of our consideration of it for the time being. I really do not intend to take up too much of your Lordships' time. But now would seem to be the right moment to reflect on our achievements over the past few weeks. We have had some long and valuable discussions on the Bill and it leaves the House all the better for that, as well as being somewhat plumper.
The first part of the Bill dealing with extradition was to exercise your Lordships perhaps more than anything else. The discussion in Committee led us to bring forward three significant changes on Report. We proposed, first, that the fugitive should have a statutory right to see the papers on which the extradition request is based; secondly that the fugitive should have a statutory right to make representations to the Secretary of State within 15 days of a committal order being made by the court; and, thirdly, that if a judicial review is undertaken of a ministerial decision to order the return of a fugitive to a requesting state, the return shall be deferred until judgment is given.

1005
These proposals did not satisfy all your Lordships but I hope that on reflection it will be agreed that they are important and go some considerable way to meeting the concern expressed in Committee. It is vitally important that we modernise our aged extradition laws and it is equally important that in doing so we get them right. The scrutiny that your Lordships have given to these provisions has proved invaluable.
During our debates on the evidence provisions in Parts II and III of the Bill the wealth and variety of legal experience in your Lordships' House was amply demonstrated. I was very glad that with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, we were able to improve Clauses 21 and 22 on Report. Many of your Lordships were concerned that the principle of orality in criminal trials should be preserved. I believe that by the amendments your Lordships have made we have safeguarded that principle while taking important steps to modernise the law and to enable the wheels of justice to turn more efficiently. I am sure that I speak for all of your Lordships in saying how grateful I was that, in the debates on these and other clauses, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, and the noble Lord, Lord Benson, were able to give us the benefit of their experience on the Fraud Trials Committee.
Most of our second day in Committee was devoted to the very important subject of children's evidence in cases of alleged sexual or physical abuse. I am sure that what was said in your Lordships' House then and on Report has made a vital contribution to the wider debate. Your Lordships have also made an important practical contribution by amending the Bill to remove the absolute requirement that a child's unsworn evidence should he corroborated. The question of how to lessen the ordeal of the child in court whilst safeguarding justice is a difficult, sensitive and crucial one, and, if I may say so, the constructive manner in which it was addressed, which quite transcended party lines, does your Lordships immense credit.
We have also had some lively discussions on Part IV of the Bill. The question of how to tackle the occasional unduly lenient sentence is one that has been with us for a long time. Proposals have come before your Lordships' House before and have been unceremoniously rejected. We had a long, interesting and valuable debate on this subject on the third day of Committee. We benefited greatly from the wisdom and experience of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lane, Lord Ackner and Lord Denning, and of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham—a formidable team. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was, I recollect, placed in the odd position of recalling with some affection our earlier proposal on this matter which only weeks earlier he had eloquently opposed. We all acknowledged in that debate that cases in which unduly lenient sentences are passed are few and far between. But they exist and it is right that we should tackle them. I hope that in time noble Lords opposite will come to agree that the provisions in Part IV of the Bill are the right way to deal with this.
1006
We had a substantial debate in Committee on the proposals in the Bill to abolish the defence right of peremptory challenge. Last week at Report we discussed at similar length whether the Crown right of stand by should be removed. We have discussed this again today. We have been fortunate in some of our discussions to have had the benefit of the long experience in these matters of my noble and learned friend Lord Havers. These are difficult and controversial matters. I fully recognise that I have been unable to persuade some of your Lordships of the fundamental soundness of our proposals. But I am glad that I was able to move very considerably towards meeting the genuine concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and others about the future use of Crown stand by. It will be confined to terrorism and security cases in which a jury check has been authorised and cases where potential jurors are manifestly unsuitable for jury service. As I announced last week, additional safeguards will apply in both these cases. In future my right honourable friend the Attorney-General will expect to give authority personally for the removal of jurors in those cases where he has authorised a jury check. Where stand by is used to remove a manifestly unsuitable juror, this will only be done with the agreement of the defence.
I should just like to mention quickly two other additions to the Bill. On the sixth day of Committee, I introduced our proposals for a unified custodial sentence for young offenders. I was greatly heartened by the welcome these new clauses received and I was especially grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Faithfull in view of the valuable work she carries out in this field.
On the last day of Committee I spoke to amendments designed to strengthen the law dealing with the possession and sale of knives and other offensive weapons. I was grateful to have the support of noble Lords throughout the Committee. This is a matter of concern across party lines and by inserting those new clauses we have taken a real step towards making our streets a little safer. Perhaps it would be right to mention here that l was grateful for the contributions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who gave us the benefit of his experience, learning and good sense, and kept us on the straight and narrow when some of us were apt to stray.
That brings me to the end of my whirlwind tour of our proceedings on this Bill. Before I sit down, I should like to say how grateful I am for the positive way in which your Lordships on every side of the House have approached the task. There were many points raised which we could not accept but to which I have no doubt we shall return again, though I say I hope perhaps not in this Bill. Many helpful comments and suggestions have been made, all of which we have taken note, some of which we have incorporated in the Bill and some more of which have given us food for thought in the coming months and beyond.
I hope that I was able to deal with most of your Lordships' questions during the course of our proceedings. The volume of letters I sent between sittings I hope served to clarify rather than muddy the

1007
waters. I was able to accept a number of amendments to the Bill, perhaps not as many as noble Lords opposite would have liked. Nevertheless 30¾—the "three-quarters" being Amendment No. 5 today—non-government amendments were agreed to. That is still a significant number and I am sure it will be a better Bill for that. Indeed there will be further consideration on 11 of the amendments debated today.
Many noble Lords have contributed to our debates and it would take far too long for me to mention all those that I should like to refer to. Perhaps I could just say that I am grateful to my noble friends on the Benches behind me for their support and their occasional constructive criticism, and in particular to my noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter, Lord Renton, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lady Macleod of Borve. I greatly welcome the expertise and advice the noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches were able to bring to our discussions. I appreciate the courteous and constructive manner in which noble Lords opposite have conducted the debates, some of whom followed the wise advice of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and measured the power of their support with the brevity of their speeches; some did not.
I am sure all noble Lords would wish me to mention particularly the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who in the course of the Bill we have seen progress from his maiden speech on Second Reading to gaining his spurs, with considerable distinction, at the Dispatch Box. I cannot let the occasion pass without mentioning the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, who has spoken with great passion and eloquence on a host of issues, over no fewer than 752 column inches of the Official Report before today. I believe that he might well have cracked the 900! I congratulate him most warmly on both achievements. I am grateful for the kind remarks that your Lordships have made about me on this Bill. However those remarks are not for me; they are for my Bill team which has worked incredibly hard to produce letters and get the briefings to me.
Finally, I am deeply grateful to my noble and learned friends the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate, and my noble friend Lord Arran for taking on so much of the burden from these Benches. They have discharged it, as one would expect, with great distinction, and it has been a great support and comfort to me to have their assistance. The Criminal Justice Bill will go to another place having been subjected to the closest scrutiny. It has been the subject of very healthy debate which does credit to the best traditions of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Farm Land and Rural Development Bill [H.L.]
8.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I beg to move that the
1008
House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRABOLGI in the Chair.]
The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause I. insert the following new clause:
("Grants in respect of de-intensified farming.
—. (1) The appropriate authority may, with the approval of the Treasury, by scheme provide in relation to any one or more parts of Great Britain for the payment by the appropriate Minister to the owners and lessees of land of—

(a) grants towards expenditure which has been or is to be incurred for the purposes of or in connection with the de-intensification of land in agricultural use, or for the management of land that has been so de-intensified;

(b) grants for abating any financial loss which has been or will be suffered in consequence of the de-intensification of land in agricultural use.

(2) The provisions of subsection 2 of section I below shall apply to any scheme made under this section.
(3) The power to make such a scheme under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and such a scheme shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by resolution of. each House of Parliament.
(4) It is hereby declared that any function conferred on the appropriate Minister by or under this section is to be treated as a function connected with agriculture for the purposes of section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 (duty to balance interests when exercising functions connected with agriculture).
(5) A grant paid by virtue of a scheme under this section shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
(6) In this section—
"agricultural use"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, means agricultural use within the meaning of the Agricultural Act 1947: and

(b) in relation to Scotland, means agricultural use within the meaning of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948.

"the appropriate authority" and "the appropriate Minister-have the same meaning as in section I below.
"de-intensification" means a reduction in yield of specified products per hectare or in the number of specified livestock units per hectare of land contained within an agricultural unit (within the meaning of the 1947 Agriculture Act) by at least one fifth from a date specified in the scheme.")
The noble Earl said: Although this amendment broadens the scope of the Bill, it is entirely in accordance with the Bill's existing aims and mode of operation. First, it is an enabling measure. Secondly, it gives powers to agriculture Ministers to offer grants for initial costs, for expenditure on specified management procedures or for the abatement of financial loss incurred by a participating farmer. Thirdly, detailed provisions will he implemented only after subordinate legislation, which will require a positive resolution of both Houses. I have placed the new clause before Clause I because I regard it as of focal importance in a Bill bearing the title Farm Land and Rural Development Bill. The proper activity of farmers is farming.
I should perhaps declare an interest. I am a farmer. I am also a salaried council member of the Natural Environment Research Council. I apologise to my noble friend Lady Trumpington for being unable to take part in the Second Reading debate and thereby presaging my amendment today. I do not take that as an excuse to make a Second Reading speech but I

1009
shall remind the Committee briefly that the reform of the common agricultural policy is probably the greatest unresolved problem in the European Community at the moment. I noticed a headline in the newspaper today referring to crisis talks again in Copenhagen.
The major problem within the Community is overproduction. The Commission is aiming at a 20 per cent. reduction in surplus commodities, starting with cereals, beef and wine. There is at the same time very serious concern over the impact of modern farming methods, stimulated by the success of the common agricultural policy, on the environment. By the environment I mean wild animals, wild plants, water quality, soil condition and everything that pertains to the natural environment. This concern is shared by many farmers. At present many farmers are hard-pressed to see their way out of the dilemma facing them.
In explaining the amendment, I have to exercise a little of the vocabulary of agriculture and agricultural policy. I need perhaps to attach a small glossary. "Extensification" is the term in vogue in the European Community documents and related discussions. "Set-aside" is a procedure to remove land from agriculture. This is one of several options available for reducing agricultural output. The Bill in its existing clauses is intended to encourage first, diversification—the diversification of farm business outside strictly farm activities; and secondly, conversion—the conversion of farmland to non-farming use, notably woodland. My proposed new clause would encourage farmers to continue to do what they do best—that is, to farm—but simultaneously to lower their output and to lessen the impact on the environment. This process is de-intensification.
Examples of de-intensification are not specified in detail in the new clause. There are many possibilities. For instance, there could be restrictions on the use of fertilisers or sprays in general or as specified by type or composition. A model of this nature might be based on the research that has been done by the Game Conservancy with considerable success. This important work has identified chemicals that are specific to their targets—specific to the pests or the disease-causing organisms—and have lessened or no injurious side-effects on other wildlife. The use of such sprays in carefully controlled quantities at carefully chosen growth stages and at particular times of the year is beneficial to the environment.
Another example could be organic farming whereby artificial chemicals and artificial fertilisers are foresworn altogether. Another could be traditional grassland stock management while yet another could be a mosaic of cultivated and non-cultivated land such as wider field margins or grassland strips in cornfields, as has been advocated as a result of some of the Game Conservancy research.
I would emphasise that de-intensification means management by farmers using methods with which they are familiar. The land remains in use as farmland, It is not diverted to other uses either
1010
temporarily or permanently, and it is not put out of use. I regard this point as one of considerable strategic importance. When we are planning extensification, de-intensification, conversion or diversion it is essential to the nation that we retain adequate national resources of fertile farmland.
Practices of de-intensified, low output farming that also favour environmental conservation are the subject of research at this moment—research given national priorities. I have mentioned already the Game Conservancy research. I could also mention the research that is promoted by the joint working party of the AFRC, the NEDRC and the ESRC that was set up under the chairmanship of Sir Hans Kornberg, following recommendations made by the Select Committee on Science and Technology of your Lordships' House under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian.
I could mention the work of the Institute for Terrestrial Ecology within the Natural Environment Research Council. There was a major workshop only last Friday at Grange over Sands in Cumbria at which representatives of the Institute for Terrestrial Ecology, the NFU, the CLA, the Countryside Commission, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds were all represented. They were discussing the issues highlighted in this new clause.
De-intensification, as proposed in this new clause, would demand the skills of good husbandry coupled, for the farmer, with the satisfaction of sound environmental management of the land. It will keep farmers occupied where they want to be, living and working as they wish to do. Within the general debate on Community agricultural policy and structural reform, including proposals for extensification, set-aside and so on, there has been widespread recognition of the important role to be played by de-intensification.
This is seen first in the report on the socio-structural policy in agriculture produced by your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities. Paragraph 94 of the report said:
"In whatever way that the Commission's proposals are implemented, the Committee are convinced that farming land should not be left to go to scrub. Conservation of the landscape entails continuity of land management. The Committee endorse the dictum that conservation should generally he achieved through farming and not instead of farming".
The Countryside Commission in its document, Shaping a New Countryside, proposed that the,
"Government should seek to ensure that any new schemes introduced to deal with agricultural over-production make a positive contribution to the conservation of the natural beauty of the countryside and its enjoyment by the general public, as well as to the social and economic well-being of the farming community. Set-aside, and any more general reduction in the intensity of farming, should not be considered to be mutually exclusive means of reducing production. Where schemes to set land aside are considered, there should be"—
This is item (b)—
"encouragement for schemes which also aim at less intensive management of the land remaining in production".
That is what this clause provides for.
The Nature Conservancy Council has also reported in a paper entitled Conversion and Extensification of Production, Implications and

1011
Opportunities fir Nature Conservation. Paragraph 5 says:
"There are two principal ways by which extensification of production can be effected: by diverting land into other uses … and by reducing intensity so that the production per unit area goes down. Both methods offer significant opportunities for combining the objectives of reduced agricultural production with those of nature conservation".
Paragraph 41, dealing with cereals, says:
"As well as land diversion, general measures to reduce the intensity of cereal production would be valuable for nature conservation. Lowering the levels of fertiliser input, especially applications of nitrogen (to grasslands as well as to cereals) could help to reduce the pollution of wet meadowland, streams and river systems".
On grassland, the paper says:
"The aim should be to lower the intensity of grassland management over the whole of any farm entering the scheme, with particular emphasis on the rough grazing element, and on other areas of permanent grass where semi-natural plant communities remain, whether in complete or fragmentary form. Simple guidelines could he produced for the identification and management of grasslands of nature conservation interest, which could be applied by farmers entering the scheme".
These are examples of well-informed professional bodies which have considered exactly such a scheme as is outlined in the proposed amendment and have pointed to the way in which it can be achieved.
In addition, the requirements of this new clause are designed to be compatible with the European Community Regulation 1760/87. This regulation has to be implemented by April 1988. By "implementation", we understand that it has to be assimilated into the national legal and regulatory system. Regulation 1760/87 requires a 20 per cent. reduction in the output of commodities which are in surplus, starting with cereals, beef and wine but moving on, after a certain time, to other commodities.
Farm plans that led to de-intensification to the extent that output was reduced by one-fifth could be one important route for achieving such targets. Therefore, adoption of this amendment would provide the necessary powers for implemention. It would emphasise a positive policy of concern for the environment which has been so ably and, I may say, admirably pursued in European Community circles by this Government. Our Ministers at the Environment Council have been commendably successful in promoting environmental concern as an integral element of Community agricultural policy, and long may they continue to do so.
But in addition, as a purely national instrument, incorporation of this clause into the Bill would broaden the scope of combined management of the rural environment for the joint benefit of its human inhabitants and its natural wild plants and wild creatures, and the inanimate elements of rock, soil, and water on which they, and on which we also, utterly depend.
I believe that the powers contained in this clause are not to be found in the 1970 Act. They need to be available to our national agriculture Ministers in order to give full scope for development of forms of agriculture that will provide a livelihood for farmers without jeopardising national land resources while at the same time preserving and sustaining the natural environment. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: I should like on behalf of the Opposition Benches to welcome and support this amendment. As the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, said, it is an important amendment and in principle we support it. We have some reservations on the detail, as the noble Earl would expect.
De-intensification is an ugly word, but it explains exactly the purpose of the clause that the noble Earl has introduced. On the 20 per cent. reduction in yield, in some years we achieve that as a result of the weather without even trying. Obviously, there will be a great deal of difficulty in administering such a scheme. The choice of the base year will he critical and the regional variations will be important. Notwithstanding that, we feel that it is the basis of a good idea.
As a farmer I would welcome the reduction of inputs if that meant a saving in cost and thereby a reduction in my working capital. There would be the environmental advantages to which the noble Earl referred. There would be a marked difference in different areas of the country in response to the reduction in inputs. For example, a reduction in the use of nitrogen would have a different effect on the thin chalk in Wiltshire compared to the deep and easy working loam which I know that my noble friend Lord John-Mackie farms.
The great advantage of the proposed system of de-intensification is that it enables one to farm less intensively but on every acre. That is the important point, because it is the effect on labour and machinery use which is important. If we opt for set-aside, about which we shall hear in later debates, a factor which we must consider if we do nothing to the land is the reduction in jobs in the countryside. Any system which reduces the intensity of output but still means that we work every acre, as the noble Earl is suggesting, will have a beneficial effect on farm jobs.
For example, when we turn to deal with set-aside, the Government must deal with the problem of the loss of nitrates through leeching and from fallow ground being higher than from anything else one can do to the land. Anything which keeps a crop on the land, helps us to work it and to keep men employed but reduces the intensity of output and has the difference made up by government grant is to be welcomed. Also it avoids the disadvantage of farmers receiving a grant for doing nothing. The scheme will be voluntary but it will be difficult to administer and to police. However, any scheme which will be introduced will be difficult.
I shall be interested to hear the Minister's views as regards the effects the proposals will have on negotiations with the EC on the set-aside and extensification proposals. Further, if the scheme is introduced now, will it have any effect on the money which we might receive from the EC by way of grant? In principle, I am pleased to say that we support the amendment.
Viscount Ridley: Like the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, I regret that I was unable to welcome the Bill at Second Reading, which I would happily have

1013
done, but I do so now. I promise not to make a Second Reading speech.
Suffice it to say I have already earmarked a large area of land for a wood which I hope will become known in the future as the Trumpington Plantation. It will ensure my noble friend's name on the Ordnance Survey for all time. I shall fill the wood with trees which are attractive to red squirrels, because I know that she is particularly fond of those animals.
I should like to support the noble Earl's amendment most heartily. I do so on behalf of the National Trust, which has asked me to say that it strongly considers it to be a good amendment. The National Trust is one of the country's largest landowners, although it is not a farmer in its own right. It has a great deal to say in such matters as landscape, and feels that an amendment of this kind would be preferable to non-farming or set-aside.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I dislike the word "de-intensification"; it is murdering of the English language and perhaps we can find a better word. It will never be easy to decide what it means or how it works. I am sure that we shall need an enormous army of bureaucrats to find out how to operate and pay for it or enforce it. I am sure that it will lead to a crime in that the offence of "re-intensification" will he creeping hack and we shall be growing more wheat than we ought. They are all problems which are perhaps not appropriate to develop tonight.
This is an enabling Bill and it seems to me to be right to enable something like this to be considered if the European agricultural Ministers can agree on anything at all. The Committee will also be aware that the CLA and the NFU welcome the amendment. Like everyone in the agricultural industry, they ask the Government to give a lead as to what has to be done. Those bodies are in the great distress of not knowing where to turn. Without such guidance I fear that farmers will continue to strive to maximise production as far as possible so that they are not caught out, as some dairy farmers were when D-day arrived and they did not have quite enough milk that afternoon, their quota being adjusted accordingly to an artificial baseline. I think that guidance is urgent if it can be given.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said, perhaps there is evidence that the Almighty is fed up with waiting for the agricultural experts in the EC to come to a decision about set-aside. The wet weather has probably compelled us to set aside far more than we would otherwise have dreamt of doing. In parts of England there are still fields to harvest, and a great deal of land which should have been sown to wheat now never will be, certainly in my part of the world.
I make two further brief points. One form of de-intensification, which I am sure we should explore thoroughly, is to use less nitrogen on arable land. I spoke about this matter at some length in a previous debate and I have no intention of repeating any of the arguments which were put forward at that time. My noble friend Lord Belstead said that it was too difficult, but ever since then it has become clear that
1014
we shall be forced to do something about the over-use of nitrogen, difficult or otherwise, whether by rationing or, as I would wish to see, by taxation to pay for some of the de-intensification programmes which we may require. If it is possible to tax whisky and tobacco, surely it is possible to tax nitrogenous fertilisers. I believe that that would make a substantial contribution to the problems faced by agriculture and it should be looked at again.
The second point I should like to make is that in any de-intensification programme which may take place the first to suffer will be the farm workers, whose numbers will inevitably he reduced. This will mean that fewer will be replaced as they retire and, sadly, others may have to be made redundant as has happened over the past 40 years since the war. I can see that process accelerating. If there is to be any help in this painful contraction of the industry, I am sure that the most humane and useful help that can be given will be towards helping the early retirement of farm workers who will no longer be needed. It will ease the considerable distress which can follow agricultural redundancy.
I do not wish to go into the matter in detail but I hope that it can be considered if the amendment is passed. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: Surely the opposite of intensive is extensive. Therefore, as it is now becoming fashionable, I hope that we can in the future talk about "extensification" rather than "de-intensification".
Baroness White: I too hope that we stick to one definition rather than two interchangeable ones. As the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, mentioned, the European Community speaks of "extensification". By that it means that one grows less intensively but still using the land. I do not wish to detain the Committee at this relatively late hour, but I have received representations from a number of environmental bodies in England and Wales strongly supporting the amendment now before us.
Set-aside may be appropriate in a few situations but it is not an attractive remedy for the question of surpluses. If we can keep land in use, and possibly abandon some of the less attractive methods of intensification, I believe that that would be looked at favourably by many people.
Many Members of the Committee have received representations from the Country Landowners' Association to the effect that the scheme will not be easy to administer, whereas set-aside is relatively straightforward. I think that it would be defeatist not to try to adopt the practices advocated by the noble Earl simply on the grounds that the bureaucrats cannot find a comfortable way through. I hope that the Government will take seriously this proposed amendment. It meets with considerable support in many parts of the countryside. As I understand it, it will fit in more comfortably and acceptably with what we are hound to do in the near future by the arrangements of the European Community, that is, the reduction by one fifth in various areas.

1015
I do not know what the Government are proposing to do because I do not think that they have issued details of their intentions on this point. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us. There is no doubt that there is considerable support for the amendment.
Lord Borthwick: One way of curing this problem rapidly is to bring back horses. If the land is repopulated with horses, we shall save a great deal of trouble. We cannot produce nearly so much without them. I put forward the idea; I do not know whether it is a good one.
We are talking mainly of arable land at present. I come from sheep and hill country, and we give consideration to our sheep and our cattle. There are ways in which they can be stocked with the same labour but this results in fewer sheep and cattle. I do not think that we should do that because it means importing from abroad. Why should we give up what we need and then have to import? We can give up grain but we are already producing more grain than we need. We are certainly not producing more cattle and sheep than we need. We should think about these matters and return to more primitive agriculture if possible. That will keep our stock going and it will certainly cut down our arable land.
Earl De La Warr: It is important that in farming debates we take the opportunity to raise those subjects that seem to be the most important. The question of de-intensification is certainly in everyone's mind, and I am sure that it is in the Government's mind. We know that certain proposals will come from the Commission. I look forward, as will other noble Lords, to knowing the Government's thinking in this respect. I believe that we should spare my noble friend from having even to consider accepting the amendment. The timing is wrong—although the timing of the debate is first class and we should not ask her to go further than giving us some useful thoughts from the Government.
Lord John-Mackie: The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, said that he did not want to make a Second Reading speech. It would have helped if he had given some guidance on how the grants should be paid, whether per tonne production or per gallon of milk. How would they be worked out? I know that the Bill is an enabling measure. The noble Earl will probably say that it is the Government's job and not his. I hope that he may be able to give us some guidance.
The Earl of Cranbrook: I envisage that the payments will be related to the loss of income consequent on reduced production, which inevitably would have to depend on some base line determination, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: We have heard a clear and persuasive explanation of the amendment by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. I have listened with great interest to other noble Lords who added their voices in support. I was grateful for the words of my
1016
noble friend Lord De La Warr. I was grateful also to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook for his kind remarks concerning the environmental support work done by our Ministers in the EC. I promise the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that I shall not make a Second Reading speech! I wish also to thank my noble friend Lord Ridley. I look forward to walking in the woods that he may plant—although they may be rather short woods when I walk through them! I may even, although I doubt it, in the words of the old song, wear a nest of robins in my hair.
I know that several noble Lords will be very disappointed that I cannot accept that the clause be added to the Bill for legal and perhaps rather technical reasons that I shall explain. First, however, I deal with the rather separate point of the case and scope for a measure of de-intensification as advocated by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. The important point is that this regulation, while it specifically provides for schemes of the set-aside type, does not exclude an approach involving de-intensification as defined by the noble Earl. The Government have in fact put a great deal of thought into how the regulation could be implemented, and my right honourable friend the Minister intends to publish a consultation document very shortly suggesting ways in which the EC scheme might be given effect in the United Kingdom. We hope to receive ideas from the very wide range of bodies to be consulted on how they think we should proceed, and we shall consider all these views very carefully before making final decisions. Our minds are certainly not closed to the kind of ideas the noble Earl has put forward, although on the other hand it would be quite premature for me to suggest what the Government's views will be, since this would clearly imply that we were not serious about the process of consultation.
I should also point out that any scheme eventually made would be set down in a statutory instrument under the European Communities Act, and would be subject to debate in both Houses of Parliament. There would therefore be opportunities for debate on the Government's considered proposals, including the extent to which they provided for reductions of yield as proposed by the noble Earl.
My noble friend mentioned his ideas about the method of de-intensification: for example, field strips, organic farming, and so on. Many of these ideas are among the possibilities that will be considered in our consultation exercise.
I refer now to the discussions about set-aside taking place in the Council of Ministers. In connection with agricultural stabilisers, there has been discussion also about possible methods of set-aside. We shall have to see what emerges before we can assess the implications for the implimentation of schemes in the United Kingdom. We put forward this set-aside idea in our presidency. We feel even more strongly that such an approach has an important role to play. I should also make clear the Government's belief that to be most effective these kinds of measures to reduce production of surplus products should be taken on a Community-wide basis so that the production decreases which we secure in the United Kingdom are not simply matched by

1017
increases elsewhere. On both extensification and on any further set-aside measures that may emerge we must work on a Community basis.
I turn to the issue of de-intensification. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook has produced some persuasive arguments as to why de-intensification is a desirable option, especially in environmental terms. Many of these I would not deny, and as I have said our minds are not closed to these ideas. We shall continue to study them as we work up a UK extensification scheme. However, I have to say that the practical difficulties are considerable. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, with regard to administrative difficulties. A number of questions need convincing answers. A scheme of this sort would involve establishing base levels of production for every participating farmer and for each of his specified crops and for his livestock. Your Lordships will recall the difficulties surrounding the introduction of milk quotas where relatively good base data existed. That gives some idea of the problems.
Milk quotas can he policed through deliveries to dairies. How can we hope to keep track of the production of every farmer of a whole range of products? This would involve a veritable army of agricultural enforcement officers if the scheme were to operate on any scale. Furthermore, how do we allow for the vagaries of the weather? What happens when a bumper harvest pushes output back up to near its original level? Rules for adjustments, in such circumstances, would need to be devised and fairly administered. I hope that I have said enough to indicate the very real practical problems of this approach. But, as I have said, our minds are not closed.
I should now like to turn to the legal problem which this amendment poses. The main legal point is that enabling powers already exist in Community legislation for the Government to introduce a scheme which could, in principle, embrace de-intensification using the European Communities Act. To that extent, the taking of powers to make a national scheme as provided for in this amendment, is unnecessary. Indeed, it could cause concern about overlapping powers. My advice is that it would appear contrary to Community law for provisions so similar to a Community regulation to be enacted in domestic legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, put a question straight to me on the effect of money from Europe. Extensification grants are to be 25 per cent. funded by Community funds; the amount to be received by the United Kingdom will depend on the number of farmers who take up the opportunity.
Therefore to sum up, there are two points which I feel I must emphasise. First, as I have already explained, the Government are on the point of issuing a consultation document designed to invite views on ways of achieving the objectives of the extensification regulation. Our minds are not closed to forms of de-intensification, as advocated by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. But, equally, it would be quite premature and counter-productive for me to
1018
give any government commitment at the moment on this matter.
We are treating the process of consultations, which will involve a very wide range of bodies—225 at the count at the moment—in this matter, and we are treating these issues seriously. We must, however, wait to see what views we receive. Secondly, the clause is in fact legally unnecessary—probably in fact directly contrary to Community law.
For those reasons, I very much regret that, although I have noted with interest all the points made, I cannot accept the amendment of my noble friend.
Baroness White: Can the Minister perhaps enlighten us as to whether, in the document she has been referring to which is to be forthcoming shortly, it will deal with the matter which was discussed by those of us who went from one of the Select Committees of the House (in February, I think) to Brussels—that is, in regard to the very difficult question of a base line from which any scheme is to be calculated? Unless that is going to be dealt with in the document, it will make it very difficult to reach any sound judgment at all.
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Baroness has raised an important point, and one of the reasons why I welcome this short debate is the fact that note will be taken of this debate in the consultation period which is to follow.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My noble friend has referred to a consultative document which is very shortly to be produced. I shall be most grateful if she can assure us that this document will be available before consideration of this Bill reaches Report stage. I think it is extremely important that we should have this document available to us for consideration.
I noted that my noble friend intends that the Regulation 1760/87 shall be introduced by statutory instrument under the European Communities Act. In my speech about the amendment I also made it clear that I felt that this was a useful power for the Government to adopt for their own purposes for purely national ends. In reply to that, my noble friend has said that, first, it is very complicated. I agree that it is very complicated. But I can perfectly well describe the system for collecting VAT. I can then remind the Committee that every farmer pays VAT, and that that is enforced by rather few inspectors and rather strong laws.
My noble friend raised the serious problem of overlapping powers, which, I must confess, I do not understand. I feel it is essential that I should have the opportunity to look at this issue very closely because it seems that if what she said is correct—and I have no doubt that there is good foundation for it—it would actually be legally impossible for a new clause of this nature to be introduced into the Bill. It seems to me to be very peculiar because it is not at all, according to my understanding, how the EC operates. Therefore, with the proviso that I retain the freedom to come back to that particular issue at Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 [Grants in respect of farm businesses]:
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("has been or is to be incurred") and insert ("is authorised").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for agreeing to my speaking on Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, and I hope this will speed things up a little. Quite frankly, I want to say here and now that myself and noble friends on this side of the Committee take a dim view of an important matter like this coming on at 8.30 at night. I think some better arrangement could have been made. I do not know who was responsible (whether it was the Government Whip or our Whip) for accepting the arrangement.
Having said that, these amendments are probing amendments for clarification. Clause 1(1)(a) says:
"has been or is to be incurred".
Of course, this is an enabling Bill, and I know that when it comes to statutory instruments matters may be clear. But farmers who are affected by the Bill do not even read it. They will presume that they will accordingly get a grant for any work that they have done—in other words, there would be no prior approval.
As I understand it Clause 2(1)(a) again says:
"which has been or is to be incurred".
There is to be no prior approval for the planting of trees, so there is confusion between the two clauses. I presume that no prior approval is required for planting trees because if you get a forestry grant you have to get approval from the Forestry Commission, and that is the reason. There have been cases, although not many—certainly not in Scotland—of people planting trees without a forestry grant. In that case, a difficulty might arise there.
At the end of paragraph (a) it says:
"land that has been so converted".
I add the words "in the past". I should like to know how long before was this land converted? Was this something that was done 20, 10 or five years ago? Some of us know these things because we read the Explanatory Memorandum and the clauses. However, I think it should he clear in the Bill itself. We thought that the word "authorised" covered it much better than the expression:
"has been or is to be incurred".
I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: I think it would be appropriate for me to explain the power which Clause 1(1)(a) would confer on Ministers. It relates to the type of expenditure eligible for grant. not to the procedures by which that expenditure is approved or authorised. The amendment proposed is therefore—excuse me for saying so—not relevant to eligible expenditure. As I explained at Second Reading, it is our intention to make these non-capital grants subject to approval by Ministers before expenditure is incurred, powers for which are contained in subsection (2) of Clause 1.
1020
As drafted, the scheme can allow for grant to be paid either before or after it is incurred. The words,
"has been or is to be incurred",
are similar to those of the capital grants provision in Section 29(1)(a) of the Agriculture Act 1970. Our intention is that the scheme for non-capital grants will be paid only after the expenditure has been incurred, but we would not wish to lose the flexibility which the clause currently permits.
In relation to Clause 2 and Amendment No. 5, which we are taking at the same time, similar arguments apply and again we intend under our plans for operating the farm woodlands scheme to approve each application before any payments are made. We shall in effect be operating a system of prior approval.
I am not quite sure why the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, wishes to take Amendment No. 6 at the same time. However, let us have a go. I understand that the purpose of this amendment is to extend the enabling powers in Clause 2(1)(a) so that grants can be paid for the management of existing farm woodlands; that is, woodlands which have been planted prior to the introduction of any scheme made under this provision. I am advised that the addition of the words "in the past" does not alter the meaning of line 12, and hence this amendment is unnecessary to achieve the result which I understand the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, wants.
As things stand, the Government are not intending to include grants for management of existing woodlands in the proposed farm woodlands scheme. A number of those who responded to our consultation document urged us to do so.
There are two main reasons why we decided against it. First, it is an important aim of the scheme to divert land from agricultural production and thereby assist in the diminution of agricultural surpluses. Obviously grants for management of existing woodlands would not contribute to that aim. Secondly, there is not the same loss of agricultural income to the farmer from bringing existing woodlands into better management as there is from planting trees on productive agricultural land. Annual payments to abate financial loss would therefore not be justified.
However, the amendment would enable grants to be paid towards expenditure incurred. Such grants can already be paid by the Forestry Commission under existing powers provided by the Forestry Act 1979; and, for example, the broadleaved woodland grant scheme introduced in October 1985 is designed to encourage the rehabilitation of existing broadleaved woodland and substantial grants are available under that scheme for restocking and regeneration. Neglected woodlands under 20 years of age may also qualify for grants in certain cases.
Finally, pilot projects have been established with assistance from the Government on ways of assisting farmers and other woodlands owners with rehabilitation work on derelict woodlands. Some noble Lords may have heard of Operation Sylvanus in South-West England and a similar project in Wales, whose name I have great difficulty in pronouncing, Coed Cymru. It is hoped that these projects will in due course provide useful indicators

1021
for wider application. Since this final amendment which we are discussing en bloc adds nothing to the Bill, and in view of what I have said, I should be most grateful if the noble Lord would withdraw all three of his amendments.
Lord John-Mackie: I must thank the noble Baroness very much indeed, but her last piece of advice I cannot take. I can only withdraw Amendment No. 2 and we will see what happens when we come to Nos. 5 and 6. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) It is hereby declared that any function conferred on the appropriate Minister by or under this section is to be treated as a function connected with agriculture for the purposes of section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 (duty to balance interests when exercising functions connected with agriculture).").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to discover whether Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 covers the non-capital grants which will be made under Clause I of this Bill. Your Lordships will remember that there is a requirement on the Minister under Section 17 to balance the interests of agriculture, the rural economy, amenity, conservation and public enjoyment.
The wording of the amendment that I am proposing is identical to that in Clause 2(4). We should like to know why, if the subsection is required for Clause 2, the woodlands clause, it is not in Clause I dealing with diversification grants. If the amendment is not accepted will the Minister accept that there is a danger of public money being used to grant-aid activities which are of little public benefit and which may damage one or more of the various interests which the Minister is supposed to look after under Section 17?
The objects of Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 which I mentioned must surely be taken into account when grants are made under Clause 1. Indeed the Minister's own explanatory note on Clause 2 dealing with woodlands, which she was kind enough to send me, states that there is the,
"same duty on Ministers in relation to farm woodlands as already applies to them when exercising functions in relation to agriculture".
If this duty applies to Ministers when exercising their functions in relation to agriculture, why does the Bill not say so in Clause 1 to make the position absolutely clear? I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: Strictly speaking this amendment is unnecessary because the functions which will be conferred by or under this clause are connected with agriculture so that Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 already applies to them.
The Committee will remember that I confirmed that point during Second Reading. Still I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. I understand the anxieties that have arisen as a result of the expressed provision in subsection (4) of Clause 2. I wish to make clear that Section 17 applies in the case of farm
1022
woodlands. To resolve any doubt that may as a result exist I should like to accept the principle of the amendment proposed and I shall bring forward an amendment on Report. I hope that in the light of that offer the noble Lord will graciously withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: This is the first attempt that I have made to move an amendment in this House. I am delighted that the noble Baroness has accepted it and I hope that that is habit forming. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Sandford: I take this opportunity to raise a small but important point before we leave this clause. I have given my noble friend notice of this. As my noble friend has said more than once and as we all understand, this part of the Bill gives Ministers the powers to bring forward a scheme of grants for diversifying farm businesses. She was of course quite right to say that we shall have a debate on the scheme but we all know perfectly well and she knows perfectly well that that debate by long established convention cannot bring about any change in the scheme. Therefore we have to get things right while the enabling legislation is before us.
My noble friend is also perfectly right in saying that we have to work within the CAP guidelines, much as we may dislike the CAP as a whole. That is undoubtedly true but I submit to the Committee that it is not the CAP guidelines which are hampering and hindering us but the very considerable lack of experience in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as to how to bring about diversification. We are also hampered by a lack of understanding as to the underlying philosophy which will have to prevail in future. That was set before us with admirable clarity by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook when he was here. However the answer of my noble friend the Minister indicated that that had not been effectively grasped within her department.
Experience in the fields of both conservation and diversification could have been obtained, acquired and built up in the department from any time after 1981 when it was given the powers to give advice in those two fields under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, Section 41. But it was not and the expertise now, instead of being shared, still resides in the planning authorities. As my noble friend will recall from her distinguished service on the Cambridge City Council, it is the local planning authorities which prescribe through planning and development control what should be conserved and how businesses should be diversified in the city and in the country.
So it is important to get the matter much clearer than it is at the moment as regards how the planning control over farm businesses will be related to grant giving to farm businesses. There is nothing in the Bill about that. Undoubtedly there will be something about it in the scheme, although we must be sure that it will be right. There was nothing about it in my noble friend's opening speech on Second Reading although she did in response to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, say a word or two about planning in

1023
her winding-up speech. But that I think was all and that, if I may say so, was not at all clear. I ask my noble friend to be a bit clearer now.
I presume from what she says, but I should like to have it on the record, that the farmer will have to obtain planning permission for whatever farm business he proposes to set up and for which he is seeking grant as a prior condition of applying for grant. Where planning control and the giving of agricultural grants inter-react at the moment as they do in the national parks, that is the position. A farmer wishing to obtain a farm capital grant in a national park has to go along to the national park planning authority and through the process known as notification obtain that authority's agreement that his scheme meets its requirements. Then he is in a position to go along and talk to ADAS about his grant. I imagine that that will be the situation under the scheme but I should be grateful if my noble friend could make that clear. I have to say that if she cannot do so at this point I shall have to table an amendment on Report.
Baroness Trumpington: I was grateful to my noble friend for giving me warning about this. He will not be surprised that I do rather take exception to his words about the lack of experience in my home team. I have the utmost confidence in it and I add only that ADAS also has a complete service, the Rural Enterprise Advisory Service for Diversification. The number of staff in that field has recently been increased.
Turning to the question of planning permission, the revised DoE planning guidance, Circular 16/87, to local authorities issued in May emphasises the need to foster diversification of the rural economy. It points out that many commercial and other activities can be carried on in rural areas without causing unacceptable disturbance. It states that the proposals for the re-use of redundant buildings, as with all planning applications, whether in the countryside or in green belts, should not be rejected unless there are specific and convincing reasons which cannot be overcome by attaching reasonable conditions to the planning permission.
The Government are firmly committed to that policy. Obviously, decisions are for the planning authority in the first instance. However, all developers have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State as a long stop.
My noble friend Lord Sandford asked whether Section 41 of the 1981 Act will apply to diversification. The answer is, yes. The national park authorities will be consulted. Applicants are being advised in both the scheme literature and in the capital grants application form of the need to get planning permission before they start work. Grant may be withheld where a claimant fails to satisfy us that he has obtained all the necessary consents. I hope that satisfies my noble friend.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Sandford: I am most grateful to the Minister for her latter remarks which put the matter clearly on the record. I think it would have helped if that had been said categorically at the beginning of our
1024
consideration of the Bill or if it had appeared on the face of the Bill. However, I am completely satisfied. I am delighted that ADAS has at long last —six years after it might have done so—taken on additional staff to handle the matter.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord John-Mackie: Perhaps the Deputy Chairman of Committees can tell my why Amendment No. 4 was not called on Clause 1.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Renton): I understood that Amendment No. 4 was being discussed when I went into the Chair. If that is not so, I apologise and I must not pass the blame to my predecessor. With the leave of the Committee I shall now call Amendment No. 4.
Lord Gallacher Lord Gallacher moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 3, leave out ("adjacent land") and insert ("suitable land nearby").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 is concerned with the definition of a farm business which is contained in the Bill. The Bill as it stands defines a farm business as something that must be carried on by a person who has an agricultural business at the same time on the same or adjacent land. The amendment is specifically concerned with the words "or adjacent land".
We on this side of the Committee ask ourselves whether the words "adjacent land" may not, in some cases, prove to be too restrictive for the farm business to qualify for the non-capital grants provided for in the Bill. Therefore, the amendment is of an exploratory nature in order to see whether the words are too restrictive and whether another form of words which is less restrictive may not he preferable.
Obviously a farmer will prefer to develop a farm business on his own land if it is suitable for the business he contemplates. However, adjacent land may be less suitable, depending on the nature of the business proposed. I do not want to speculate as to the circumstances in which particular businesses may or may not be suitable. But farmers are entering into a new ball game and it may be that when they take professional advice about the development of new businesses, they will be told, "It is a worthwhile venture, but not on the land which you have adjacent at the moment".
Such land, for example, may be less accessible for people who, it is hoped, will patronise the business as customers. Access to adjacent land may be difficult. There may be narrow roads, or it may be too far from a highway. Farm access sometimes possesses those characteristics. It is all right for the normal agricultural business but it is less suitable for developments of a different character. In particular the all-purpose motor car trade which dominates so much of our lives these days may not be entirely suitable for a particular venture on an adjacent piece of land. A modern retailer, for example, both in food and non-food will tell you that in developing a business these days he looks at car parking first and other considerations afterwards. Unless the car parking is right he is not particularly interested in any site. The flight from our town centres bears ample testimony to this.
It is fair to say that the same conditions and characteristics may apply to farmers as they seek to diversify in the manner which the Bill sets out to encourage. Another factor is that the farmer may not own or he able to rent adjacent land for a variety of reasons. We need not speculate about those either.
It might be desirable to ask ourselves whether a less restricted form of words would better achieve the purpose which the Bill has in mind. We have suggested the words "suitable land nearby". We are not entirely convinced that those words are impregnable or that they could not be bettered. They have the merit of expressing an alternative to "adjacent land." It seems to us that they have the merit of giving some flexibility in the matter and because of these factors I shall be interested to hear the response of the Minister to them. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before my noble friend replies I should like to support this amendment. Strangely enough a similar situation occurred on my farm with a self-pick farm shop. It was not satisfactory to put it on our land and we had to put it somewhere else. I hope my noble friend will think about this quite deeply.
Lord Hesketh: I again ask the Committee to consider this in the context of the proposed scheme for capital grants in order to explain the working of the definition of a farm business. As we have already touched on the relationship between the capital grants for diversification and the non-capital grants for feasibility and marketing, I hope it will be helpful if I explain this in a little more detail.
The grants for capital investments in things like farm holiday accommodation, livery stables and food processing are being introduced under existing powers, namely, the 1970 Agriculture Act as amended by last year's Agriculture Act. Since we already have the necessary primary powers we have not thought it right to delay the introduction of the capital grants until a scheme for feasibility and marketing grants can he introduced alongside it. The three statutory instruments embodying the capital grants were laid before your Lordships' House on 18th November and we shall be debating them very soon since the scheme is due to come into operation on 1st January.
We intend the capital grants which are due to come into operation on 1st January and the grants for enterprise feasibility studies and the assistance towards marketing costs which this Bill will enable us to introduce to be complementary elements of a complete package to help on-farm diversification. This means that we would like the coverage of all the three elements and the conditions of eligibility to be similar. I hope I shall be forgiven for pointing out that that means that our hands are not entirely free when it comes to determining the terms of the feasibility and marketing grants. The question of "adjacent land" is a good example of this.
We propose restricting marketing and feasibility grants to an agricultural holding and the land adjacent to it, because that is how the capital grants are restricted. The reason they are restricted in that
1026
way is as a result of an amendment to the 1986 Agriculture Act introduced in this House. I was not present then but I am sure other Members of the Committee will recall that my noble friend Lord Peel put forward an amendment enabling agriculture Ministers to pay grants for capital investments in ancillary activities, "carried on on the same or adjacent land", to an agricultural business.
My noble friend's amendment was both warmly and widely welcomed by this House and as a result the Government introduced an amendment of their own in very similar terms. That was the origin of Section 22 of the 1986 Agriculture Act under which capital grants are now being introduced. It would be unfortunate and confusing if we were now to agree to a different geographical coverage for the feasibility and marketing grants. In the light of this explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gallacher: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. The Committee will agree that he has made much of the capital grant position and is in effect telling the Committee that, having agreed to a form of words for capital grants, we are consequently bound by that form of words for revenue grants. I was always taught that there was no connection between capital and revenue expenditure, though I always had great difficulty in making the distinction.
Nevertheless, it would be somewhat premature to write off this question on the basis of the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh. Now that he has reminded us, I recall the circumstances of the 1986 debate. The concession to which he refers had to be wrung from the Government. At that time, if we had attempted to widen the scope of the concession, we might have got the Government in a mood to say that they would not be prepared to make a change in favour of capital grants. Therefore, the form of words in the 1986 legislation was very much a concession a crumb from the rich man's table, so to speak, in legislative terms.
There is no reason why the two Acts of Parliament need differ. It will be regrettable if someone who really has a desirable project is denied the opportunity of revenue assistance for the project simply because the adjacent land is either non-existent as far as he is concerned or is considered totally unsuitable by his advisers on the business in question. If we want to see the degree of diversification which the Bill purports to introduce the name of the game will have to be flexibility; otherwise there may be a scheme on paper which in effect is useless because of the regulations surrounding it. However, I do not wish unduly to delay the Committee, especially in view of the fact that this amendment was nearly not called, but I shall carefully study what the Minister said and may decide to come back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: In order to get the Committee properly back on course I must once more put the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Grants in respect of farm woodlands]:
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 15, at end insert—
("(c) grants towards expenditure which has or is to be incurred for the purposes of, or in connection with, the improved management of woodlands on farms;
(d) grants for abating any financial loss which has or will be suffered in consequence of the exclusion of livestock from woodlands on farms.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 7 I thank the noble Baroness for the most helpful letters she has sent to me clarifying points in the Bill. I think that she has already said something about existing woodlands in commenting on Amendment No. 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. However, I should like to make a point about the woodlands which I know best—those in the uplands.
Many existing farm woodlands in the uplands are suffering very badly from the effects of razing and neglect. Many birchwoods in the Highlands and Pennines and oakwoods in Wales, the Lake District and Argyll are unable to regenerate because stock eat all the tree seedlings which emerge. Unless measures are taken to resolve this, many woods which are valuable for wildlife and landscape as well as for shelter and other agricultural purposes will simply disappear as the old trees die off.
My amendment would enable agriculture Ministers to pay grants for the fencing of farm woodlands to exclude stock and permit regeneration. This would ensure the safe future of many woodlands in the uplands. Many of these woods are frequently grazed and used as shelter for stock, especially in winter, and schemes to fence and regenerate parts of those woodlands, while retaining the remaining woodland areas for stock shelter, would have long-term agricultural benefits by retaining their shelter value and also benefit conservation.
Farmers entering the scheme will have to qualify for and receive Forestry Commission grants before grant under the farm woodland scheme can be paid. Forestry Commission grants are not available merely for the fencing of woodlands. The Forestry Commission requires further work, such as felling and sometimes planting, which may not be needed in many of the circumstances about which I am thinking.
Paragraph (c) presents a means by which agriculture Ministers can offer capital or management payments in circumstances where they will not duplicate Forestry Commission grants and where payments will be of a high value for farm stock management and conservation.
National park authorities have many such small schemes which are successful. Northumberland has over 30 schemes, limited mainly by the availability of funds. A similar scheme is operated in the Brecon Beacons park, but budgets are small and only a small proportion of the upland is in national parks. Of course there are no national parks in Scotland where the scheme would have its greatest application.
Ministers accept the value of woodlands to farmers in the uplands. The fact that they have announced that 3,000 hectares of woodland will be permitted on unimproved land in the disadvantaged areas shows that. That allocation would be more beneficial to farmers and conservationists alike if it were used for the management and conservation of existing woods rather than for the planting of moorland which has no trees at present. Valuable existing woodlands are thus neglected.
Paragraph (d) would enable Ministers to make annual payments for existing woodlands taken into the scheme under paragraph (c) where stock is excluded from woodlands which are currently used for grazing. That land is at least as important to a hill farmer as open hill because it also provides shelter. It is normally considered part of the agricultural holding. I therefore believe that those woods should qualify for the £30 per hectare annual payment proposed under the scheme for woodlands on unimproved land.
As I understand it, payments of the type I am suggesting, under paragraphs (c) and (d) are not ruled out by the Bill. Clause 2 gives Ministers enabling powers to make them. I hope that in the circumstances that I have outlined the noble Baroness is prepared to accept the amendment.
9.30 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: I think that we can agree with the noble Lord's amendment, especially paragraph (d). Many farmers use woodlands for shelter for stock. To take that stock out and to leave the woodlands for environmental purposes would mean a loss. I asked the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, how he would estimate that loss. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has any ideas. It may be difficult to give a figure. Cattle would have to be taken out of the woodlands for the winter and that may be difficult to administer. I can see the point however. If farmers do that and the woodland is next to pasture, it must be fenced. Fencing is expensive nowadays.
I know what happens to woodlands when they are fenced. Glen Affric in Scotland has one of the oldest Scots pinewoods. The Forestry Commission was given it to manage by the Nature Conservancy Council. It fenced a third of it to see what would happen if the wildlife was kept out. There is an extraordinary difference in the regeneration now that deer, rabbit and everything else do not have full play there. There would be a double benefit from the second part of the noble Lord's amendment, and we shall support it.
Baroness White: I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the amendment. I have a small property not far away from that of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I watched the hill on the other side of a small valley to see what happens to the scrub oaks, which are such an attractive feature of some of our upland landscape in Wales, if we do not fence it and keep out the sheep. The sheep eat the saplings and the wood does not regenerate. Ultimately it falls to pieces and is invaded by bracken, which does not help anybody. There is undoubted substance in the ideas

1029
behind these proposed additions. I hope very much that they can be taken seriously.
I should perhaps mention that I have been approached concerning woodlands in national parks. Those of us involved with national parks and with the upland areas in the various less favoured areas, such as environmentally sensitive areas, and all the other designated areas in Wales—we have very few hectares which are not designated something or other in our rural areas—are concerned about the reference made by the noble Baroness in her Second Reading speech at col. 1091. The noble Baroness referred to the 3,000 hectares which were to be grant aided to turn unimproved land in severely disadvantaged or disadvantaged areas into woodland. I may feel it necessary to move an amendment—I have not had time to do so yet—at Report stage following the representations that I have received. We are unimpressed by the suggestions made with regard to Wales that one should endeavour to plant 3,000 acres on unimproved land. At £30 per hectare. in the light of the remark by the noble Baroness that one has to plant 2.500 trees per hectare to make it worth one's while, there will not be much change for any farmer who embarks upon this exercise. I have not put down an amendment at the moment. I give notice that I may wish to do so at Report stage. Meanwhile, I should like to support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Moran.
Baroness Trumpington: We have recently discussed a very similar amendment to the first part of the noble Lord's amendment in paragraph (c). I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish me to repeat identical arguments on that.
The second part of the amendment, paragraph (d), would provide for annual payments for the regeneration of farm woodlands currently used for grazing. In this case, it could be claimed that there would be some savings in CAP support expenditure but these would be extremely small if not negligible. My understanding is that livestock are normally allowed into woodlands either for shelter, or even by accident because of lack of fencing, rather than to take advantage of the grazing value of the woodlands. Any loss of agricultural output resulting from fencing off the woodland is therefore likely to be very marginal and in no way comparable to the likely loss from planting trees on improved agricultural land.
However, as I mentioned in response to the last amendment on which I as speaking, the Forestry Commission already offers grants for the rehabilitation of existing woodlands and these include grants for natural regeneration of broadleaved woodland. These are substantial grants ranging from £600 to £1,200 per hectare payable in three instalments. The first instalment is payable on completion of approved work designed to encourage regeneration, such as, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran said, the fencing out of livestock. But he was correct to say that it was not available for fencing only. However. fencing costs are one of the costs that are taken into account in fixing the grants. The second instalment is paid when an adequate stocking of
1030
young trees has been achieved, and the third instalment five years later. Since these grants were introduced under the broadleaved woodland grant scheme in October 1985 there has been an encouraging level of uptake for them.
In view of the existence of these grants, the powers that the Forestry Commissioners already has and the power that agriculture Ministers will have under Clause 2(1)(a) of this Bill, we do not believe that the extra powers proposed in this amendment would be justified.
Lord Moran: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply, though naturally I am disappointed by it. If she were to come to Wales to see the oakwoods that the noble Baroness, Lady White, and I know, and to see the crowds of sheep in them she would understand the thinking behind the amendment.
It is unfortunate that the Government are not prepared to extend the scheme to existing woodlands. I recognise the point that the noble Baroness made and I should not wish to press the amendment further tonight, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 30, at end insert ("such terms to allow the lessee of agricultural land to participate in the scheme with the approval of the owner of the land, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld;").
The noble Lord said: This amendment arises from a question that I asked during the Second Reading debate regarding the rights of tenant farmers to obtain the various grants available under the woodland scheme. We know that a number of agricultural organisations, such as the NFU, the CLA, the Tenant Farmers Association and the RICS, have all agreed on model clauses for insertion into tenancy agreements to deal with the planting of woodland, but as I understand it this can only be with the agreement of the landowner or the landlord. The Minister was kind enough to write to me to confirm that if the landlord says no the tenant farmer will not he able to take part in the woodland scheme.
I appreciate the difficulty but I hope that the Minister can also appreciate the argument that lies behind the amendment. We all agree that it is very important for the Government to get maximum take-up of the woodland scheme if the target they have set themselves of 90,000 acres over three years is to be achieved. It seems unfair that tenant farmers should be restricted in their ability to apply for the scheme.
The amendment is designed to recognise the right of a landowner to approve the change of use to woodlands but to place a requirement on the landowner not to withhold his approval unreasonably. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: This is a complex and difficult area as your Lordships will recall from discussions during the passage of the Agricultural Holdings Act in 1983 and 1984. This Act represents a balance between the interests of landlord and tenant which was only achieved after long debate.
It is because of the need not to upset this balance that the industry, with our encouragement, is

1031
drawing up model clauses to insert into tenancy agreements and a model forestry lease where this is more suitable. Both landlord and tenant representatives are involved in discussions on these texts which should ensure that in practice tenants are able to participate in the farm woodland scheme.
The effect of the amendment would be to make it a condition of the scheme that a landlord's consent should not be unreasonably withheld. In other words, it is an attempt to give the tenant the right to participate. Although it seems reasonable, I think there are problems about this idea both from the tenant's and the landlord's point of view.
First, let us look at the legislative and procedural aspects with a particular eye to the tenant. "Unreasonable" is an imprecise term. An arrangement which seems perfecty reasonable to a tenant might seem unreasonable to his landlord. Provision would therefore have to be made for the resolution of disputed cases by arbitration or through the courts. It might also be necessary to provide for arbitration over consequential alterations in the tenancy agreements; for example, over the division of the thinnings or the timber crop. This would necessitate further detailed legislative provisions and might encourage litigation, which we are all anxious to avoid because of the cost to tenants and landlords.
Secondly, let us consider the landlord's position. Forestry is a very long-term commitment and except on those holdings where statutory succession applies and there are eligible and suitable successors, it is probable that the woodland enterprise will outlast the tenancy. The landlord may have long-term plans for his estate and they may not be compatible with the planting of woodland on the holding.
1032
Furthermore, commercial woodland is not agriculture and a landlord could not have envisaged his tenant establishing a woodland on part of the holding when he originally let the land.
I would be very wary about what could be viewed as retrospective government interference in the arrangements between the two parties which have been agreed. Use of the power might also act as a disincentive to new lettings. This is not in the long-term interest of the tenanted sector. For all these reasons we cannot maintain our unbeaten record and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before the noble Lord answers, I do not think that my noble friend should be too worried. While rents are at the height they are today it would not be feasible for the tenant to take up the incentives offered in the scheme.
Lord Carter: When the noble Baroness accepted the sense of the first amendment that I moved I thought it would be too good to last. If the amendment is agreed to, the landlord's approval will still be required. We are not denying that. We ard trying to ensure that the approval is not unreasonably withheld. On a number of amendments this evening the Government have produced legal arguments to say that the amendments will not stand up. The phrase "not to be unreasonably withheld" is well known and well tested in law, but I understand the thrust of the Minister's argument. I shall read Hansard and I reserve the right to come back on Report if necessary. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor The Earl of Radnor moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 42, at end insert—
("( )(a) If the index of average earnings for the month of December 1988 or any subsequent year is higher than it was for the previous December then, unless Parliament otherwise determines, any grants which may be provided for by a scheme under subsection (1) above shall be increased for 1989 or any subsequent year by the same percentage as the percentage increase in the index of average earnings.
(b) The references in this subsection to the index of average earnings are references to the index of average earnings for employees in agriculture and forestry published by the Department of Employment.").
The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment, I must declare an interest in that I run a forestry business. The amendment seeks to preserve in real terms the grant that may be given to farmers who take land out of orthodox farming and put it into forestry. As the Committee will know, Clause 2 seeks to do just that.
At Second Reading my noble friend Lady Trumpington kindly gave us a glimpse of what those grants should be, and for how long they would persist. They were based on various geographical areas and types of tree. If I remember rightly—because it was the most pertinent aspect—the types of tree were conifers and hardwoods. The period during which the grant would be given on a per hectare basis was for hardwoods 40 years and for softwoods 30 years. I may be wrong but that is how my memory serves me. What is important is that it is quite a long time.
The Bill which enables the grants to be given does not take into account the fact that these grants may well be seriously eroded in real terms. It leaves it in a loose manner, if I may say that, to the discretion of the Minister or the powers-that-be to decide when presumably these grants should be updated in the light of circumstances or indeed whether they should be updated at all. That is not very encouraging for anybody who might wish to take land from farming and put it into woodland.
Forestry grants are not new. It may be new to have one to take land out of farming and put it into woodland, but there has been a long history of forestry grants since the inception of the dedication scheme. Since I think my father was then deputy-head of the Forestry Commission I was one of the first people to join it, because I could not say no; and I have not regretted it except in one serious matter. The grants which were originally promised—because it was a bargain that one entered into; a management plan in return for both the planting grant and the maintenance grant—did not keep track over the years with the expenses incurred. This was to such a serious extent that I looked up Basis 2 grants.
From the year 1970 to 1986, wages, believe it or not, went up 726 per cent.; but the grants in broad figures—I am only 1 per cent. out, and they are a little complicated on Basis 2 because they go on so many hectares—went up roughly speaking by 94 per cent. for the planting grant and the maintenance grant by 84 per cent. It was to avoid this sort of situation happening again that I put forward this extremely important amendment. If anyone thought that they
1034
should entertain this scheme without the protection that I am talking about, I can only say that they would be ill-advised.
To get to the smaller details of the amendment, I decided—together with others, I must admit—that the important index was the labour index because forestry is basically a labour-intensive industry. The other big input in my experience is management, and that in turn is related back to wages. Therefore, this convenient index that the Government produced has been put into the amendment.
I may say before I sit down that this amendment has the support both of the National Farmers' Union and of the Country Landowners' Association. I think it is of importance. I cannot see any objections to it. I cannot believe that the Government wish to start off with one sum and then keep their options open for 30 or 40 years in such a way that there is a possibility that people who enter the scheme in good faith will suffer. It would be much better if this was followed and people knew that the grant they were getting would persist properly and in its true value until such time that money started to come in from the trees. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: We on this side of the Committee support the amendment. It is an important amendment, as the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said. If the Government are serious in their wish to have arable land converted to woodlands, the farmer must have some guarantee that the various payments that he will receive under the scheme will be indexed in some way to increase over time. As we all know, the crop cycle in woodlands is from 20 to 40 years, and much can change in farming in that time. It is by no means certain that the surpluses and the pressure on prices will continue for the next 20 to 40 years. If it does, we shall all be out of business.
The woodland scheme will have to compete with the set-aside scheme. As a farmer, I am much more likely to opt for the set-aside, or perhaps de-intensification, than for the woodlands scheme, but I would certainly be attracted to woodlands if I could be sure that there would be some sort of guarantee provided that would mean that income from the woodlands would increase over time.
Indexing is not unknown in legislation. I am sure that the Ministry will have heard the views of the Treasury on this matter. Timber is a long-term and long-run crop and some form of income growth should be guaranteed if—to repeat the remark I made in respect of the previous amendment—the Government are to achieve the target acreage that they want.
Under the previous amendment we heard that there will be model clauses, tenancy agreements and the forestry lease. In time the landlord will want a review of his rent under the forestry lease and I presume that he will be hoping for a review upwards. Obviously all the other costs will increase over time. The Government are asking for a long-term commitment from the farmer and conditions could easily turn to his disadvantage half way through the life of the plantation.

1035
We hear from the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that in the past forestry grants have been rendered derisory by inflation. Being extremely sensible, he tied the index to the cost of labour and manpower, the single and most important cost in forestry once the trees are planted. Therefore, a sensible index is being proposed for the adjustment of income. A sensible index has been chosen. This is a sensible amendment and we support it.
Lord Monk-Bretton: I should like to speak in favour of my noble friend's amendment. We have already heard stressed the very long-term nature of forestry, even longer than is the case with agriculture. I should like to stress in particular the fact that in the 1920s and 1930s many landowners rented land to the Forestry Commission for use as forestry on a 99 year lease. The contract was made and it is history now. But it was rented at the rate of 2s. 6d. an acre and the owners are still receiving that amount. A great deal has changed in the meantime as we all know.
That is all very well, but if we wish to encourage more people—people not necessarily of large and substantial means—there is no doubt that they cannot be treated in that way. It is exactly that with which the amendment deals and I think that it should he given careful consideration.
Lord Sandford: I hope that my noble friend will resist this amendment because it goes too far. There is a good deal of public sympathy for the farmers and the landowners over the mess in which they have been landed by the CAP. However, I put it to the Committee that that sympathy has limits.
People working in every industry besides agriculture have spent the last 15 years facing the icy winds of recession as best they can. Meanwhile, farmers and those in agriculture have been protected by import control from overseas competition. They have been selling most of their products in managed markets. They have been supported by substantial grants and subsidies. For instance, in many cases, the hill livestock compensatory allowance amounts to 50 per cent. of the farm income. They have been exempt throughout this period—unlike the rest of the country—from paying any rates. And they are still exempt from planning control. In these circumstances, while a great deal of sympathy is still being shown to the farmers, I think that if they push things too far they are asking for trouble.
Earl De La Warr: I should like to express regret that my noble friend has seen fit to introduce this somewhat acid argument into what has hitherto been a useful and friendly discussion. That said, I shall not pursue it or the reasons for it. I remind the Committee that the Bill is concerned not with charity or pity for farmers but with voluntary set-aside of one kind or another. We are trying to induce farmers to do something that will be in the national interest.
Some of us think the terms that have been suggested may not be as productive as we should like. However, the terms proposed are terms that the
1036
Government genuinely believe will bring farmers into the scheme. The additional suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Radnor is in line with the underlying thesis of the Bill, that is, that we are trying to get farmers to do something. To guarantee them against the ravages of inflation to some extent cannot be said by anyone in their wildest imagination to have anything to do with pity or charity. It is to do with offering a proper and useful inducement.
10 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: The country desperately needs to grow more trees. We import approximately 92 per cent. of our timber requirement at present. The Government know this and I hope that they too want more trees to be grown. The noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, certainly knows it. He heard all about it at a Forestry Society meeting that we both attended this evening.
The way to ensure that more trees are grown is to make it worth people's while to do it. One has to hang a carrot in front of the donkey. If the carrot is not fresh and juicy enough the donkey will not move.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: I have been moved to speak by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Sandford. He may remember an occasion some 17 years ago when we both attended a meeting in the Dartmoor area where I thought that MAFF, as opposed to the Department of the Environment, had won the argument. It seems that that is not the case.
While I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Radnor said, I am slightly more cynical than he is. As the result of a certain amount of experience. I do not believe that the Treasury is full of goodwill for forestry. My experience tells me otherwise. I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister finds otherwise. Given the common sense with which she has impressed noble Lords since she took her place on the Front Bench, I profoundly hope that things are about to change and that we shall receive an answer tonight that many of us, particularly noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench, will find slightly surprising. I trust that my noble friend the Minister is fully aware—I am sure that she will be—that her noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden has committed himself in no small way. If I may make reference to it. I notice that he is undergoing a slight flush—or perhaps this is embarrassment, or pleasure—at my reference to his considerable advocacy of the need to grow more trees and more timber. It is, if I may say so—speaking as someone who does have about 120 acres of timber on an 800 acre farm—to my mind absolutely essential that there should be long-term security for what is a very long-term venture.
Therefore I wholly support this amendment which does tend, I think, with absolute logic—despite what my noble friend Lord Sandford has said rather provocatively—to provide a basis for what is going to be desperately needed in this country: that is, timber in the next few years.
Viscount Ridley: I think that my noble friend Lord Sandford needs some support since he is not here himself. Despite all that has been said, I really do not

1037
think you can write an index-linked subsidy for what is effectively 40 years into a Bill of this kind. It is kicking the gift horse—wherever you kick gift horses—and I am quite sure that it would be absolutely wrong to try and write this amendment into the Bill.
This Bill is exceptionally generous when you add to the figures which we were quoted the fact that normal Forestry Commission grants are available as well. Despite what my noble friend Lord Radnor has said, a lot of them have been updated, although not adequately, but to some extent. Therefore to ask for more is, in my opinion, to risk all. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has already said, farmers have got a had name and I do not wish them to get a worse one.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. As the Committee know, I live in the middle of the biggest forest area in Scotland. The change in prices and costs during the years in which I have been there is simply colossal. If you are going to say that the grants that have been given are limited to what in any given moment is allowed, it does not bear any relation to what is happening on that particular land.
If you want—as I understand the Government does—land to go into forest, you must make it possible for those people who are to do this to earn a living; you will not be able to earn a living if you keep prices and the grant at the same rate as they have been, for example, for the past 10 or 15 years. This does not bear any relation at all to what the costs are. I support this amendment very strongly.
Lord Carter: It would be unreasonable if all the farming comment in regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, were to come from one side of the Committee. If all that he has said were true, perhaps he could explain why the real income of farmers in this country has declined by 40 per cent. in the past 10 years? Furthermore, even if what he has said were true, what has that to do with the fact that the farmer is looking ahead to the next 40 years at what is, at the moment, a fixed income from the woodlands scheme?
Lord Hesketh: This amendment seeks to guarantee the level of annual payments to farmers throughout the life of the scheme. The present proposals of the Government allow for payments to continue for up to 40 years. However, farmers may be understandably concerned about whether their calculations on entering the scheme may not be upset by, for example, policy changes in the meantime. Indeed, 40 years is a long time; but, then, forestry is a long-term business. By accepting applicants into the scheme the Government commit themselves to continuing the payments. But it is not possible, even by means of this proposed amendment, to bind a future government as to the level of those payments. Nor, we would argue, is it appropriate to do so. Policies do indeed change and any fixed formula can lead to distortions. The annual payments which we
1038
shall be making are intended to be related broadly to the loss of agricultural income, but we need flexibility particularly over a 40-year period to allow for movements in agricultural incomes over the next 40 years and to adjust payment levels to what seems appropriate to achieve the desired level of uptake.
The Government therefore believe that the sensible course is, as we have proposed, to undertake to review the rates of payment periodically in the light of all the relevant factors. We envisage that reviews will take place in year three when the scheme is reviewed generally and at intervals perhaps of every five years thereafter.
The new rates have been widely welcomed. One of the factors that we took into account in deciding on the rates was that farmers might he put off by the uncertainty as to what future reviews of grant rates would produce. In a way it is voluntary set-aside of a timbered nature, as the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said, but the fact of the matter is this. At the end of the day the cornerstone of the woodland scheme is that it is voluntary and as a voluntary scheme, with regard to this amendment, the final question is this: should the taxpayer be asked to shoulder a further liability over and above what has already been acclaimed as a generous and innovative scheme before that scheme has even had a chance to prove its viability? For these reasons we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before my noble friend makes up his mind what to do, I am concerned by the reply of my noble friend on the Front Bench, because it implied to me that the amendment is too expensive. It may be said that it is too expensive but if any scheme is to work it requires sufficient funds. If the Government do not intend to put sufficient funds forward to make this or any other scheme work to reduce our surpluses, then we will continue as farmers to be in the muddle that we are in today.
I suspect time and time again—and I am sorry to say this to my noble friend—that the Government paper over the cracks rather than tackle radically the root problem that we have, and I am sorry to say that my noble friend's reply reinforced this sad opinion.
Lord Hesketh: I must once again draw my noble friend's attention to my final remarks. The tragedy is that this scheme has not yet even been given a chance to succeed or fail.
The Earl of Radnor: I am very grateful to everybody who has spoken in this debate, both those who are for the amendment and those few who are against it, which in a way led us away from the main question and on to other matters. I shall certainly not speak for a long time again but I must pick up two points which are important.
If this Bill has such wide support why, I wonder, do the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union support the amendment? The two things do not quite seem to tie up. So far as periods of review are concerned, during the period of the Basis 2 Forestry Commission grant that I mentioned, which ran from 1970 to 1986, there were two periods of review. I do not consider that is

1039
enough. I think it is a bad pattern that could be put into the future.
What this amendment does is to make the payment quite fair and index it to the costs that the farmer will incur if he goes into forestry for those 30 or 40 years. It seems utterly reasonable to me and, in view of the measure of support for it that there seems to be in the Committee, I am afraid that I shall have to ask for its opinion.
10.14 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 30.

CONTENTS

Bathurst, E.

Kagan, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Killearn, L.

Carter, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

De La Warr, E.

Nicol, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Radnor, E. [Teller.]

Forbes, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fortescue, E

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hacking, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Wynford, L.

John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Long, V.

Arran, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Beloff, L.

McNair, L.

Belstead, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Borthwick, L.

Moran, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Morris, L.

Caithness, E.

Renton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ridley, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Sandford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Strange, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Swinton, E.

Hesketh, L.

Trumpington, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Ullswater, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.22 p.m.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Moran Lord Moran moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Duties of Agriculture Minister
—(1) The provisions of this section shall have effect for the purpose of amending certain sections of the Agriculture Act 1986 which apply to the duty placed on certain Ministers under section 17 of that Act.
(2) In subsection (7) of section 24 of the said Act of 1986 (short title, commencement, consequential amendments, repeals and extent) after the words "sections 4 to 6, 8, 9, 10, 11," there shall be inserted "17,".
(3) In subsection (2) of section 17 of the said Act of 1986 (duty to balance interests in exercise of agricultural functions) for the words "(b) in relation to land in Wales or Scotland," there shall be substituted "(b) in relation to land in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland,".")
The noble Lord said: The amendment looks very complicated but its purpose is simple and important.
1040
It is designed to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom so far as Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 is concerned.
The Minister made clear on Second Reading that the grants under the Bill will be available in Northern Ireland. She said that under Clause I an Order in Council can be made under Schedule I to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 enabling the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to instate a similar scheme there and that Clause 2 specifies that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland already has the necessary powers to make the sorts of payments which she described.
After the Second Reading of the Bill, I discovered that Section 17 of the Agriculture Act, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, which puts a duty on agriculture Ministers to maintain a reasonable balance between four things including agriculture and conservation applies in England, Wales and Scotland but not in Northern Ireland. That seems odd, particularly as many of the policy initiatives in the field of agriculture which we are now taking apply in Northern Ireland. An example is the environmentally sensitive areas. The farm woodland scheme is to be introduced into Northern Ireland under existing legislation. It will parallel the scheme provided for elsewhere in the United Kingdom under Clause 2 of the Bill. It will be unsatisfactory in my view if the balancing duty does not apply in Northern Ireland.
I suggest that the balancing provision really is needed in Northern Ireland. To give the Committee some very brief examples, pollution from farms is a major cause of river pollution in Northern Ireland. In fact 78 per cent. of the incidents in 1985 emanated from farms. Grant aid is given to farmers to construct adequate effluent disposal facilities but in 1986 these grants were withdrawn because demand had outstripped the fund. They were restored on 4th November but for quite a long period they were not available. This seemed a good illustration of a failure to balance conservation against agriculture.
Another example is land drainage. In England and Wales most of the main arterial drainage authorities, the water authorities, now undertake routine wildlife habitat surveys before a scheme is carried out. These are not carried out in Northern Ireland, with damaging effects upon conservation.
Lastly, there is the Blackwater improvement scheme, which is a vast scheme to create more agricultural production. The Bill is dealing with the problem of excess agricultural production. This is a scheme producing more agricultural production and doing great damage to conservation. Once again there was no comprehensive wildlife survey to identify areas of conservation interests before the scheme was begun.
I believe this balancing scheme is needed very badly in Northern Ireland. It works very well in Great Britain and it should work well there.
I put down this amendment because I believe it is important that in administering grants under the Bill Ministers in Northern Ireland should be guided by the same balancing provision that guides Ministers who are responsible for other parts of the United Kingdom.
I realise that the amendment goes rather wider than this particular Bill and that it may be appropriate to introduce the balancing provision in Northern Ireland in some other way. I would have no quarrel with that.
I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to assure the Committee that in some way or other this anomaly will be corrected and Northern Ireland brought into line with the rest of the United Kingdom so far as this balancing provision between the four duties is concerned. It clearly ought to be. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: The Government certainly have no quarrel with the noble Lord's intention in seeking to apply Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 to Northern Ireland. However, I am advised that there are legal problems with this new clause.
First, it can be argued that the amendment is not strictly relevant to the Bill. The Bill provides for making grants for farm business and woodlands. The noble Lord's amendment seeks to extend the duty of Ministers to achieve a conservational balance under Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 over the whole range of ministerial functions relating to agriculture in relation to land. It applies to many other functions besides that of making grants for farm businesses and woodlands.
Conservation is a transferred matter in relation to Northern Irish legislation. That is to say, it is a matter which was declared to be a transferred matter by the Northern Irish Constitution (Devolution) Order 1973 (SI 1973/2162), that is, a matter to be dealt with by the appropriate Northern Irish instrument of government. The present Bill carefully avoids legislating for Northern Ireland in respect of Clauses 1 and 2. Equivalent Northern Ireland legislation would he promoted by means of an Order in Council made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974 or by a scheme made under Northern Ireland legislation.
The Committee may feel that it should not legislate for those transferred matters for which other appropriate constitutional machinery exists. However, I offer the noble Lord, Lord Moran, a bonne bouche at the end because although we cannot accept this amendment the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to pass on his assurance that the spirit of the provision in Section17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 will be observed in Northern Ireland. I hope that having heard what I have said, the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Moran: I am grateful to the noble Baroness both for what she said at the end of her remarks and even more for what she said at the beginning. If the Government have no quarrel with my intention in seeking to apply Section 17 of the Agriculture Act 1986 to Northern Ireland, then I am confident that the noble Baroness and her colleagues will find a way of achieving that objective. I am glad that the Government share my wish to see that balancing provision extended to Northern Ireland. In the light
1042
of what the noble Baroness said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Departmental responsibility for Development Commission
. In section I and Schedule 1 of the Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Act 1983 (establishment and duties of the Development Commission) for references to "the Secretary of State" there shall be substituted "the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food" except in subsection (5) of section I (authorisation of compulsory acquisition of land).")
The noble Lord said: This amendment has been tabled to bring out the argument that says that the responsibility for the economic health of the countryside should be handled by the same department which has responsibilities for certain aspects of the environmental health of the countryside, the proposed undiversification scheme and the farm woodlands scheme.
We all agree that the merging of the Development Commission and COSIRA is wholly desirable and moving the amendment provides an opportunity to congratulate the two organisations on the excellent work that they do. If the merger is seen as providing part of the wider rural development plans that the Government want—and it is indeed in the title of the Bill —then we feel that the merged organisation should report to the department which is involved with the setting up the new farm enterprises as a part of rural development. This is part of a wider argument for a department of rural affairs responsible for the economic and environmental health of the countryside, which should perhaps also include the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council.
There is widespread support across the whole political spectrum and all organisations involved in agricultural and rural matters for such a department and I hope that the Minister can reflect this widespread support by accepting this amendment as at least a start in the process.
Indeed, the explanatory notes circulated by the department state:
"The function of the Development Commission is to keep under review all matters relating to the economic and social development of rural areas and to carry out measures which are likely to further such developments."
Therefore, I feel that there is a strong argument for bringing the Development Commission within an expanded department to eventually form the nucleus of a department for rural affairs. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I have a lengthy speaking note on this. If the noble Lord wishes me to read that speaking note, I shall gladly do so. However, owing to the lateness of the hour, I hope he will understand that I speak in shorthand when I say that the Government believe that it is both logical and sensible for the Secretary of State for the Environment to sponsor the Development Commission. We consider that there is no case for changing the legislation. I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: I would have hoped that the noble Baroness would have made a longer speech were she prepared to accept the amendment. I understand what she is saying. This argument will not go away. We shall return to it on Report. But owing to the lateness of the hour, and the brevity of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eleven o'clock.

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS: LIAISON
  FOREIGN AFFAIRS: LIAISON
  BAHA'I COMMUNITY IN IRAN: HUMAN RIGHTS
  BAHA'I COMMUNITY IN IRAN: HUMAN RIGHTS
  MENTALLY DISORDERED PRISONERS: REPORT
  MENTALLY DISORDERED PRISONERS: REPORT
  UK-CYPRUS: WORK PERMITS
  UK-CYPRUS: WORK PERMITS
  GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS: AVAILABILITY
  GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS: AVAILABILITY
  STORM DAMAGE: COMPENSATION
  STORM DAMAGE: COMPENSATION