Sitting of 7 July 1988

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

    LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [10 December], That the Bill be now considered.
    Considered; to be read the Third time.

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration read.
    To be considered on Thursday 14 July.

    TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
      YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
        CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)
          FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
            NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE TOWN MOOR BILL [Lords] (By Order)
              PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

                AVON LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
                Orders for Second Reading read.
                To be read a Second time on Thursday 14 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Set-aside Scheme
    Mr. Ron Davies:: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultation he had with the Game Conservancy Council prior to making his announcement concerning the set-aside of agricultural land; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): The Game Conservancy Council gave us detailed views in response to the consultation documents that we issued last December and we took those into account, together with views from a wide range of other bodies, in reaching the conclusions that my right hon. Friend announced in the House on 14 June.
    Mr. Davies: Will the Minister bear in mind that the Game Conservancy Council believes that, to provide the most effective environmental benefit, set-aside strips should be accompanied by conservation headlands? Now
    1174
    that the Government have introduced the former as part of their set-aside proposals, do they intend to provide the latter as part of their extensification proposals?
    Mr. Gummer: I have a great deal of sympathy for such arguments. I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that fact, as I took some part in the experiment that we are conducting in the Brecklands, which I hope will be a success. Although conservation headlands are admirable in providing benefits to wildlife, they do not conform to the requirements of the set-aside scheme and that is why they are not part of it. We shall consider such headlands and other possibilities when we try to find a good way of carrying out extensification, which is not easy.
    Sir John Farr: Is my right: hon. Friend aware that the consultations are regarded by the House as important and significant? Has his Department considered introducing a regime of low-input, low-output farming?
    Mr. Gummer: I assure my hon. Friend that we have considered that. From the discussions that we have had in committees on which we have served he will know that it is a matter of great importance to us. There are problems about creating such a regime and about policing it. If there were not such problems it would all be much easier. I do not have any answers yet, and if my hon. Friend has some further points to put to me I should be happy to listen, because I sympathise with his aims.
    Mr. Morley: Will the Minister confirm that there has been a cool response from farmers to the set-aside scheme? Will he accept that the sums of money involved do not make it an attractive proposal to farmers who grow the bulk of cereal crops, and that the scheme is more likely to attract the more marginal producer? Therefore, if we are spending public money to try to reduce surpluses, has he considered whether that money should be targeted to introduce much more environmentally advantageous farming, whether through low-input farming or other schemes, such as farm woodland projects?
    Mr. Gummer: We have already produced our farm woodland project and we are to introduce an extensification scheme. We are also achieving a great deal through the environmentally sensitive areas. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can accuse us of not taking on board the issues that he has put forward. The set-aside scheme is specifically designed to decrease the production of cereals. We have found that the scheme is attractive to the people to whom it is supposed to be attractive—the marginal producers of cereal. I believe that we would be criticised by the Opposition Front Bench if we were in the business of doling out public money in excess of that which is necessary. I have heard all sorts of words from Opposition spokesmen, and they would be even tougher if I had done other than ensure that we have a system that takes out those who are only marginal producers.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware of the efforts made by farmers in East Anglia to plant spinneys, replant hedgerows and leave headlands to encourage conservation and country sports? That has done a great deal to enhance the beauty of the environment. Will he tell the League Against Cruel Sports and some of their supporters among the Opposition that if they had their way all this good work would come to an end overnight?
    Mr. Gummer: I consider that country sports are one of the most important elements in the conservation of the countryside. I am glad of the support that we have had from bodies that support such sports.

    Fur Farming
    Mr. Haynes: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which species of animals are currently farmed for their fur in Britain.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): Mink, white, red and cross fox and fitch are farmed for fur in Britain.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that, like a woman, these little furry friends of ours are beautiful? Will he seriously consider the issuing of licences for this sort of farming? Will he also seriously consider the complete elimination of licences for this sort of farming over the next 10 years?
    Mr. Thompson: The mink farmers are licensed and almost insist that they are. There are few other fur farmers. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said about abolishing fur farms here, but the number of fur farms in Europe is increasing and I would have to think carefully before putting British farmers at any disadvantage.

    Pollution
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss agricultural pollution.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I have discussed this with various members of the National Farmers Union, including the president. Farming unions are already well aware that the Government regard last year's number of pollution incidents as unacceptably high.
    Mr. Duffy: Is that good enough, given that illegal farm discharges of slurry and silage in Yorkshire and Humberside last year were up by 38 per cent.? Is the Minister aware that south Yorkshire's water supply is 25 per cent. derived from surface-derived water abstracted from the River Derwent outside York, which itself is a catchment area of intensive agriculture? If so, he will understand the concern in south Yorkshire. I am being asked whether the time has not arrived for the Minister to consider a more vigorous prosecution policy.
    Mr. MacGregor: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we take this matter seriously. I know that the National Farmers Union is now doing so. We have fully backed water authorities in stepping up prosecutions. Through ADAS we have offered general free advice and we are carrying out a great programme in this area to assist. We are carrying out research into improved construction and management of waste-handling facilities. Capital grants for this sort of purpose, for dealing with waste storage and handling equipment, are available at the highest rates. We take this matter seriously. Clearly, we cannot have this sort of increase in farm pollution incidents.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the farming community ways of encouraging modern crop spraying methods, such as the electrically charged droplets system, which uses much less water and therefore causes much less drift spray pollution in the countryside?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have seen a considerable amount of that sort of thing at various shows and other exhibitions, where the attractions of such equipment have been drawn to the attention of farmers. I know that agricultural machinery companies are constantly trying to improve these sorts of facilities, and I agree that they are one way of helping to deal with the problem.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the loss of the common minnow in the Cumbrian lakes in any way linked to this agricultural pollution?
    Mr. MacGregor: I shall look into that and write to the hon. Gentleman.

    Cod
    Mr. Dunnachie: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding a mid-year adjustment to the North sea cod total allowable catch for 1988; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gummer: I am aware of concern by fishermen about the allocation of the United Kingdom sea cod quota, but I have had no recent representations about a mid-year adjustment to the total allowable catch for 1988. No change to it was recommended in the most recent biannual scientific assessment at the end of May.
    Mr. Dunnachie: Does the Minister agree that the industry cannot be run viably when the quotas of species such as cod fluctuate so wildly? Will he listen to the fishermen as well as the scientists?
    Mr. Gummer: If one listened to the fishermen one would hear all sorts of different voices, including the voices of those who always want an increase in the number of fish that can be caught. We must listen to the scientists. If we do not, there will be no fish for fishermen to catch—not only next year, but when their children go fishing. I am in the business of conserving our fish stocks so that I can conserve the fishing industry.
    Mr. John Townend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that British fishermen are demanding not more fish than last year, but a fair share of the quota? Does he accept that the quota for the Yorkshire and Anglian fish producers' organisation has been cut by significantly more than the reduction in the United Kingdom quota? If something is not done, that will result in the collapse of the producers' organisation.
    Mr. Gummer: I do not accept that. My hon. Friend must agree that the quota given to the Yorkshire and Anglian fish producers' organisation is a fair share of our national quota. It has been cut, but, of course, some boats have left that producers' organisation. If I gave his producers' organisation more of the cod, I would have to take it from other producers' organisations, and they would rightly say that that was unfair. The system is operated fairly between different parts of the country, and I can see no other way of doing it.
    Dr. Godman: North sea cod fishermen have a legitimate worry. May I offer my compliments to the Minister on obtaining at the recent Council meeting a reduction in the minimum landing size of nephrops? However, the disappointment about west coast mackerel is considerable. These achievements and failures fall within the framework of the common fisheries policy. Will the Minister assure the House that with the advent of the European single market we will not see the demise of the common fisheries policy, especially in relation to access agreements and historic fishing rights?
    Mr. Gummer: The Government are wholly committed to the basis of the common fisheries policy. It gives our fishermen a very fair share of the fish that are available in the European Community. Any renegotiation of that would be bound to give our fishermen a smaller share. That is the reality. We are determined to see that the situation remains as it is and that the policy is applied to new resources in exactly the same way as it is applied to old resources. I give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman.

    Farming Unions
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the farming unions; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. MacGregor: I meet representatives of the farming unions frequently to discuss agricultural matters.
    Mr. Jones: During his discussions with the farming unions, does the Minister discuss the implications of the recent House of Lords ruling that income levy raised by the Meat and Livestock Commission is not VAT-recoverable? Is he aware that that represents a loss of about £2·5 million a year to the agriculture industry, and that to some people it is seen as the thin end of the wedge for the introduction of VAT on food? Does he intend to discuss the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to introducing regulations to amend that ruling?
    Mr. MacGregor: As I think the hon. Gentleman has recognised, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues. I am obviously aware of the concerns that have been expressed as a result of the House of Lords ruling. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with any question of VAT on food, on which the Government's position is entirely clear. There is no question of this being the thin end of the wedge.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the farming unions the question of livestock in respect of the set-aside proposals contained in the latest agreement? Does he agree that it is particularly important to the west of the country that the livestock sector should be kept strong, and that there should be no temptation to move the livestock centre of gravity towards the east into land that might otherwise have been used for grain production? Does he further agree that it is vital for this matter to be understood so that the full confidence of the livestock sector in the west of the country may be maintained?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. In the decisions that I took on set-aside, and especially the decision not to take up the grazed fallow option, I had very much in mind the interests of the livestock sector, not only on the western side of England but in Wales and Scotland, and especially in the hill areas. Therefore, I understand the point of his question about the possibilities that might have arisen if we had gone for the grazed fallow option.
    The other matter that my hon. Friend might be concerned about is whether we can achieve greater transferability of quotas in the dairy sector. From all the discussions that I have had with British farmers, I can tell my hon. Friend that I do not think that greater transferability of quota would undermine the livestock sector in the west. I assure my hon. Friend that. I am conscious of the importance of that sector to farming on the western side of the country.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is difficult for members of the farmers union, for his Department and for our friends in the EC to introduce a sensible policy that will be acceptable to the farmers of this country, will cut production and will ensure that they have a reasonable livelihood in the years to come. Does he further agree that, if 10 per cent. of the land in this country is taken out of production, the farmers will be able to produce even more, if that is their wish? Does he agree, therefore, that it is essential that we consult for a long period before we make a decision that may be wrong for the rural dweller, the farmer and the consumer in this country?
    Mr. MacGregor: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I consult and am in discussion all the time before taking decisions on matters that affect the agricultural community.
    The need to take more land out of agricultural production arises simply because of the capacity to grow more from the land and, in any case, because of technological developments. I am anxious to ensure a reasonable transition that preserves the attractiveness of the countryside for all of us as that land comes out of production. That is the purpose of a number of the schemes that we have been pioneering recently.
    Mr. Cormack: Has my right hon. Friend had recent discussions on the problems and anxieties of pig producers, and is he able to give any further reassurances?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am very much aware of the problems. We have done all that it is possible for the Government to do within the context of the CAP, both earlier in securing for a proper period—not too long—a private storage aid, and as a result of the decisions taken in the Community in the price negotiations on the further reduction of negative MCAs. That means that, shortly, the negative MCAs in the pigmeat sector will have dwindled to almost nothing, provided we obtain final agreement on price negotiations. However, one of the problems currently facing the pig sector is the possible increase in feed costs, as a result of the drought in the United States.
    Dr. David Clark: When the Minister met the agricultural leaders, did he discuss with them the proposals to dump in Britain the domestic rubbish from New York and elsewhere? Did they tell him that the farmers and the British people are not prepared to become the garbage tip

    1179
    of the world, with the accompanying health and disease risks? Will he give the House an assurance that he will continue to refuse a licence for such applications?
    Mr. MacGregor: We have not yet had discussions with the farming unions on this matter—nor have they raised it with us—but we have already been considering it carefully. In so far as it is our responsibility, particularly in relation to animal health, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are considering it carefully.

    Organic Farming
    Mr. Colvin: T: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support his Department is giving to organic farming.
    Mr. MacGregor: My Department is giving full support to the board of the United Kingdom register of organic food standards in the task of setting standards for organic production which are essential if organic farming is to achieve its potential. In addition, those farming organically benefit from the various agricultural support measures in the same way as other farmers, while the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service is equipping itself to respond to demands for specialised advice.
    Mr. Colvin: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, under the set-aside proposals, farmers will merely try to produce more food from their remaining acres. In view of what he said, therefore, will he consider giving financial incentives to those who practise extensive farming methods, which would not only reduce farm surpluses, but would ensure that the food that we produce was much better for us and would cut our imports of organic food, which at present constitute 60 per cent. of the total consumption of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that there will be in this country the increase in production on land that is not set aside within a farm as one sees in, for example, the United States, because, on the whole, United Kingdom farmers are already farming to maximum efficiency and productivity. I do not think, therefore, that that particular point arises, but my hon. Friend will know that organic farming was not a feature of the set-aside scheme because it was not a part of the thinking behind it, although those who take up the fallowing aspect of set-aside may find that that has some implications for organic farming.
    Set-aside was not designed to deal with the organic farming issue. The matter arises in the extensification proposals that we will consider in the Community and in the United Kingdom. We will then consider closely the possibility of an organic farming option within the extensification proposals.
    Mr. Boswell: I welcome the opportunities for informed consumer choice and what my right hon. Friend has said about the encouragement of organic farming, but does he agree that British food produced by conventional methods is equally good and wholesome?
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes, it is important to keep stressing that. I agree with my hon. Friend. There is among some consumers a growing demand for organically grown food which I should like to see our farmers meeting. That is the reason for setting up the register, which enables us to
    1180
    establish nationally recognised production standards for consumers who want organic food. However, my hon. Friend's point is entirely right and relevant.

    Milk Marketing Board
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: T: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board; and what was discussed.
    Mr. MacGregor: I met the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board on 9 June, when we discussed various issues affecting the dairy industry.
    Mr. Hughes: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, will he stress the importance of giving all possible help and encouragement to our quality milk producers in seeking to find export markets for their goods? Does he agree that the liberalisation of the European milk regime is liable to widen those markets and that milk producers should take all the opportunities presented to them?
    Mr. MacGregor: In the last financial year the Milk Marketing Board spent nearly £24 million in support of market development, and that effort must be encouraged. I agree with the implication of my hon. Friend's remarks that sometimes we in Britain have concentrated too much in a rather defensive way on the dangers of imports of milk products and not sufficiently on the prospects for exports of our dairy products. I hope that as we move towards the single market we shall increasingly take opportunities to exploit those markets.
    Mr. Martlew: At a recent meeting with the head of the Milk Marketing Board we were told that there was no longer a milk surplus in the United Kingdom and there is a shortage of milk in Scotland. Is it not a fact that the surpluses in Europe are being created by EEC countries that have not met the quota? What will the Minister do to protect British farmers?
    Mr. MacGregor: That is not the case. There is still overall a milk surplus within the Community. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I encourage the two Milk Marketing Boards to sort out problems that arise as a result of seasonal troughs and certain shortages, for example, milk for cheese production—a problem which arose particularly in Scotland. I am glad to say that as a result of the talks some arrangements have now been made to transfer milk from England to Scotland.
    Mr. Curry: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, will he discuss with him the remarkable turnaround in the European dairy industry? Will he note that there is now virtually no skimmed milk powder to be had, that the butter mountain has been more than halved and that the incorporation premium has been reduced? If he studies the Milk Marketing Board's annual report, he will also note that since it ceased to put large amounts of butter into cold store its financial situation has improved because it is not tying up its money so much.
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right. There has been a considerable change as a result of the decisions taken by the Council of Ministers on the dairy sector, in

    1181
    particular the introduction of quotas and the tightening of quotas in 1986, so that we are achieving a better balance between supply and demand. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the considerable reductions in the amount of butter in intervention and to the fact that the amount of skimmed milk powder in intervention has come down to practically nil. On the other hand, we still have sizeable subsidy support programmes to dispose of some of the surpluses, including skimmed milk powder. We are still paying a good deal of money to encourage its disposal. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is correct to say that substantial progress has been made.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Will the Minister also discuss bovine somatotropin with the board, and in particular, the view of a group of scientists employed by the Monsanto chemical company who think that if BST is licensed it should be made available on prescription only? Is that not a reasonable policy to follow?
    Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have permitted under the Medicines Act 1971 the BST trials that are taking place because we were satisfied, from all the advice and evidence that we were given, that within the terms and criteria set by that Act it was right to do so. We have not yet received advice on the application for licences, and we shall have to take various matters into account when making those decisions.

    Poultry
    Mr. Alexander: T: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps is he taking to ensure that the health of the United Kingdom poultry flock will continue to be safeguarded after 1992; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: While the Government fully support the single European market, we believe that animal health should be achieved by working towards uniformly high standards throughout the Community. In the meantime, we shall press for eradication of serious diseases and the maintenance of necessary controls. The European Commission has yet to make any detailed proposals.
    Mr. Alexander: I note my hon. Friend's comments, but will he confirm that the current quarantine regulations will remain in force after 1992? Is he aware that this is a matter of the utmost concern to both poultry breeders and farmers?
    Mr. Thompson: I am aware of that concern and have answered a great deal of correspondence from my hon. Friend and others on the subject of the quarantine regulations, which we are determined will remain in place for as long as they are necessary.
    Mr. Butler: Has my hon. Friend yet made any assessment of the danger to the United Kingdom poultry stock from the importation of millions of tonnes of American domestic waste into this country?
    Mr. Thompson: My right hon. Friend touched on that matter in a previous answer. I am doing all that I can to ensure that if any American waste is imported it contains no animal matter or any matter injurious to animal or plant health in this country. Perhaps we may have to invoke the well-tried rule that the polluter pays.

    Dolphins
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he will take to prevent the killing of dolphins.
    Mr. Gummer: The United. Kingdom Government are opposed to the needless killing of dolphins and will continue to press for further measures to protect dolphins and small cetaceans, through the International Whaling Commission and other relevant international fora.
    Mr. Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that almost everyone loves dolphins, which are graceful and beautiful animals, and that there is much appreciation of the Government's work and the concern that they have expressed? However, can my right hon. Friend say what the Government are doing in response to recent reports that the Faroese are continuing to kill dolphins?
    Mr. Gummer: Immediately we received that information about the Faroese we asked for an immediate investigation. What happened is clearly contrary to the law of the Faroes and we are determined to do all that we can to defend dolphins and small whales, as well as larger whales. I am pleased to report that we have received commendation for our action not only from Greenpeace locally but from that organisation's headquarters, and from Sir Peter Scott.
    Mr. Macdonald: Does the Minister accept that one of the problems is sheer lack of knowledge about dolphin numbers and the tendency of the dolphin population to decline? Will he undertake to fund research into the dolphin population, to discover the causes of its declining numbers?
    Mr. Gummer: The question of inshore dolphins, relating to our country, is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I shall certainly talk to him about it. We are committed to the view that the depredations of those animals and of whales in general are wholly unacceptable, and we shall do all that we can to ensure that mankind does not destroy that important part of its heritage.

    Chernobyl
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he intends to take consequent upon lessons learnt in the aftermath of the Chernobyl incident.
    Mr. Gummer: My Department has participated fully in the interdepartmental review leading to the setting up by the Department of the Environment of a national response plan for dealing with any future nuclear emergency overseas, and we shall continue to review and update our emergency arrangements in the light of the experience afforded by the Chernobyl accident.
    Mr. Thompson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply, in particular as it applies to the co-ordination and dissemination of information following such an incident. What credibility does my right hon. Friend give to suggestions from Opposition Members that contaminated lamb has got into the food chain despite the restrictions on movements that were applied by his Department?
    Mr. Gummer: I give no credence whatever to that. I do not believe that anyone in this country, in any circumstances or on any occasion, was in any way endangered as a result of eating lamb after the Chernobyl incident. What saddens me is the way in which the Opposition have sought to make party political propaganda out of frightening people, when there has been no reason for it.
    Dr. David Clark: With respect, the Minister has not answered his hon. Friend's question. Did any sheep that were checked as having high radioactivity levels and which should have been remonitored go for slaughter without such remonitoring? The question is not how safe it was to eat meat, but how many sheep entered the food chain.
    Mr. Gummer: All sheep remonitored on request were found to be below the action level. A third were monitored: there is no reason whatever to monitor every sheep. If Opposition Members do not understand that, they are once again trying to do what they ought not to—do down the British farmer—and frighten the British consumer in circumstances that make that entirely unnecessary. They should be ashamed of themselves.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his officials were significantly better prepared to deal with the Chernobyl disaster than were the officials of other member states of the European Community?
    Mr. Gummer: I should not like to do down officials in any other country, but I believe that our officials behaved extremely well and were very well prepared. I am sometimes sorry that they are not given the kind of support that they ought to receive from the whole House. The fact is that because of their prompt, continued and energetic action no one in this country was endangered by eating food after the Chernobyl accident, and that is a very remarkable thing to be able to say.

    Horticulture
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current state of the horticulture sector.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: The latest available figures, to be published next month, show an increase of 11 per cent. in the value of horticultural produce, rising from £1,219 million in 1986 to £1,349 million in 1987. Despite the setback caused by the great storm last October, the industry is buoyant and there is a feeling of increased optimism among growers.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the Government's recent announcement of the unexpected and far worse than anticipated news that there is to be a cutback of up to 65 per cent. in their horticultural research spending has dealt a devastating blow to the morale that the Minister has just mentioned? Will he reconsider that decision? Is he aware of the particular concern in my part of the country over the future of the Rosewarne experimental station?
    Mr. Thompson: I am fully aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about Rosewarne. There is no need to reconsider the decisions involved, as they have not yet been fully considered. Consideration is continuing.
    Mr. Lord: My hon. Friend will be aware of the grave concern of both horticulturists and sugar beet growers following the recent importation of rhizomania on the root balls of Acers from Holland. What action is being taken to deal immediately with this urgent problem? In the light of the forthcoming plans for 1992, is my hon. Friend satisfied that other EEC countries have plant hygiene standards equal to ours?
    Mr. Thompson: My hon. Friend will realise that the Dutch are as anxious as we are to ensure that such an incident does not happen again, because a huge Dutch export industry relies on the highest possible quality of plant and tree being introduced into this country. Our officials are at present in Holland discussing the matter with the growers and their officials, and we hope that it will be sensibly and satisfactorily resolved in the near future.
    Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister confirm that the horticulture industry has been shattered-to use Simon Gourlay's word—by his announcement of a reduction of 65 per cent. in research and development spending? Will he also confirm that these massive cuts are part and parcel of proposed cuts of £60 million in spending on research and development in agriculture and food? Does he not accept that this is a stupid and short-sighted policy?
    Mr. Thompson: I do not accept that trying to attract more money into research and development from wherever possible is stupid or shortsighted. We are convinced that at the end of our discussions the industry and the Government will have a greater and better-organised input into research and development than ever before.

    Caffeine
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his policy towards the sale of soft drinks containing a high level of caffeine.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: Draft proposals for revised soft drinks regulations issued for public consultation on 18 May include a provision to limit the caffeine content of soft drinks to 125 mg/litre. Government policy will not be finalised until all comments have been considered.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that manufacturers should not encourage children to consume drinks with excessive levels of stimulants? When he decides this matter, will he treat the protection of children as a priority?
    Mr. Thompson: When we decide any matters of additives in food or drink, including caffeine, the protection of children is paramount.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the work done by Dr. Wurtman in America and others on the difficulties that arise from the use of aspartame, otherwise known as Canderel or Nutrasweet, in soft drinks, will the Government now review approval that they gave to Searle, the manufacturers, some four years ago?
    Mr. Thompson: We constantly review the approvals that we have given. At present we have no intention of reviewing that product.

    Pollution
    Mr. Barron: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with water authorities about reducing agricultural pollution of rivers and streams.
    Mr. Gummer: I have had discussions with the Ministry's representatives on water authorities about reducing pollution and have arranged to meet the chairmen of the Anglian water authority and the Water Authorities Association later this month.
    Mr. Barron: Does the Minister accept the growing concern over pollution to rivers from agriculture? There was an increase of 60 per cent. in serious pollution incidents last year in this country. Does the Minister accept also the argument put by many people that the advice given from ADAS ought to be free, not only on the first visit, but on further visits as well, to ensure that all is being done to stop the atrocious pollution of our rivers?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know that I condemned that considerable rise and said to the farming community that it is up to it to make the necessary changes. We already give the highest rate of grant for the changes that have to be made to farmers. As the hon. Gentleman said, we give the first visit free, but it is not unreasonable for people to pay something towards the detailed application, because they get very high rates of grant for the work that they have to carry out. What is more important, having done the work, the day-to-day management has to be excellent, and we are encouraging farmers in that.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious concern expressed by the Welsh water authority over pollution, which has doubled in Wales in recent years? Will he consider whether the 60 per cent. grant which is available in hill areas might be extended to lowland areas?
    Mr. Gummer: I am always willing to look at such things, but I consider that the grant levels are right. Many people who have carried out the changes that needed to be made have not carried on with the day-to-day management. Pollution incidents arise, even when proper installations have been made. Therefore, we have to insist that farmers properly maintain those installations, and we must support water authorities and magistrates in enforcing the law.

    ADAS
    Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to privatise the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. McGregor: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Howells: I am sure that agriculturists will be delighted with that answer. There is no more to be said.

    Pollution
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in the light of increased river pollution from farm effluent, he will be seeking stiffer penalties on those found guilty.
    Mr. Gummer: The Government have drawn the attention of the Magistrates Association to the need for penalties to reflect the seriousness of water pollution offences.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if those penalties are to be effective they must be painful, and seen to be painful? There is growing public concern and a growing belief that the polluter should pay, not just the fine in a magistrates' court, but the cost of putting right the damage done by that pollution.
    Mr. Gummer: It is important that the fines should be sufficient. The highest penalty for a single case in 1987 was £3,000, with costs of £4,500. We are beginning to crack down very hard on this offence. Ultimately, it is up to the farming community to ensure that its enterprises and activities do not harm the water of the nation. We are determined to see that that happens.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that since this Government took office the condition of Britain's rural rivers and streams has deteriorated at an astonishing pace? It is no good calling for extra penalties if the water authorities do not bring prosecutions. In many areas there has been a sharp decline in the number of prosecutions brought, despite an enormous increase in the number of offences.
    Mr. Gummer: I do not think that that assessment of o waters and rivers stands up. We are determined to support water authorities when they bring prosecutions and people are found guilty. We are also supportive of the strongest implementation of the fines imposed by magistrates. The hon. Gentleman must accept that it is up to the water authorities to carry out those prosecutions. In many cases they have found that by conciliation and work with farmers they can produce a better response than by taking farmers to court.

    Continental Pig Producers
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any evidence of hidden subsidies to continental pig producers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: Recent Italian and French state aids in the pig sector are the subject of Commission investigations. Rulings on their legality are awaited. We are always prepared to refer firm evidence of possible illegal aids to the Commission for action.
    Mr. Gill: Does my hon. Friend agree that a failure to implement fair trade in pigmeat will not only weaken the position of the British pig industry, but seriously undermine the United Kingdom balance of payments?
    Mr. Thompson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He will welcome the reduction, all things being equal, of the MCA on pigmeat to—1·7 per cent. next January, and I am sure that he will be joined in his welcome of that by the NFU and the National Pig Breeders Association.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Mathew Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be presiding at a dinner in honour of the recently retired secretary general of NATO Lord Carrington.
    Mr. Taylor: The Prime Minister will be aware of the great difficulties facing young people looking for housing in areas such as Cornwall. Does she agree with the comments in Building Today of her Secretary of State for the Environment in relation to his two new papers on rural housing, when he said:
    "I don't see this as making a major contribution to solving the housing problem."?
    The Prime Minister: I fully support my right hon. Friend's most excellent paper, which is designed to ensure an increase in the life of rural communities by attracting more industry and light industry, and by providing more housing of a kind that will persuade these young people to stay in rural areas.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend find time in her busy day to send a message of encouragement and thanks to our naval personnel in the Gulf on the Armilla patrol? All their families and friends and, indeed, the whole House will wish them well in the difficult job that they have been doing these past eight years.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and will certainly respond to his invitation. Our naval personnel have been doing their task extremely well, quietly and efficiently, regularly accompanying many ships up the Gulf. The whole House will wish to join my hon. Friend in his good wishes and thanks.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I fully endorse the Prime Minister's sympathy for those who have lost loved ones and who have been injured in the horrific accident in the North sea oilfield. May I join her in commending those in the rescue services who have shown bravery and skill. Mindful of the scale of this disaster and aware of the memory of other disasters and the implications for families who have been bereaved and suffered losses or injury, may I ask the Prime Minister whether she will now give further consideration to establishing a system of no-fault compensation, which would at least provide immediate support and future financial security for people hit by horrors such as these?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy, is in Aberdeen, and I spoke to him at lunchtime. There will be a full statement after questions, but my right hon. Friend wished to say that the rescue services, always good, had on this occasion absolutely excelled themselves. We should all be very grateful to them for that, although we know the enormous tragedy with which they were faced.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked about no-fault compensation. I cannot undertake to introduce statutory no-fault compensation, for reasons that the right hon.
    1188
    Gentleman will know—the matter has been debated and discussed for a very long time—but he will have heard at previous Question Times that a number of voluntary no-fault compensation schemes are being introduced and that I agreed to look at them.
    Sir Richard Body: Has my right hon. Friend seen a report of the speech made by the President of the EEC at Strasbourg yesterday in which he estimated that, with the Single European Act in place, in 10 years' time 80 per cent. of social and economic decisions now made by national parliaments will be made in Brussels? Does she agree with that estimate of 80 per cent. and if it is some other percentage will she tell the House?
    The Prime Minister: I heard the reports of what was said in Brussels and I do not agree with what was said on the occasion.
    Mr. Wall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wall: Will the Prime Minister explain why her Government abolished independent provision for safety in the North sea in 1980? Does not the transfer of that function to the Department of Energy leave the Government open to accusations that huge profits are more important than safety and human lives? Will she further explain why provision for independent safety representatives has been opposed for nine years by the Government and the oil industry? Does not this tragedy show the need for working people in the North sea to have the right to statutory provision to bring safety aspects to the notice of authorities on all occasions?
    The Prime Minister: As I said earlier, there will be a full statement after questions. In the meantime, it is obvious that we all wish to express our deep sympathy with the people concerned—those who have been injured and the bereaved of the very many whom we seem to have lost. My right hon. Friend will be referring in his statement to safety and to the recent inspections on the rig, and it would be best if we waited for that statement.
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Couchman: We are all acutely conscious of the tragedy in the North sea today, but may I turn to the continuing tragedy in Northern Ireland? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our troops, to whom she has so often paid tribute, will remain in Northern Ireland as long as law and order demand? In that context, has my right hon. Friend been approached by any other party leader for advice on how to deal with a Front-Bench spokeswoman who has broken the bipartisan approach by demanding the withdrawal of troops?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must refer to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.
    The Prime Minister: May I answer my hon. Friend's main point. In thinking of other tragedies we perhaps do not remember often enough some of the daily tragedies that occur in Northern Ireland. Our troops will, of course,

    1189
    stay there as long as the situation requires them to do so and I hope that all hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to their courage and dedication as well as to that of the RUC.
    Mr. Vaz: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is one of the fundamental principles of our democracy that all our citizens should have equal access to the law and to proper legal advice? If she does, how does she square those sentiments with the proposals in the Legal Aid Bill, which seeks to deny citizens the right to select the lawyer or legal adviser of their choice? Is she not deeply ashamed, especially as she is a former lawyer, that hers is the first British Government in history to put justice out to competitive tender?
    The Prime Minister: The fundamental principle is, I believe, that all people are equal before the law. As they come before the courts their rights are absolutely equal. Under this Government the amount spent on legal aid has made that budget one of the fastest rising budgets of all. We have spread opportunity ever more widely.
    Mrs. Gillian Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Shephard: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the encouraging improvement in employment in south-west Norfolk, especially in Thetford, where unemployment has fallen during the past year from 11 per cent. to less than 6 per cent.? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a great encouragement to those successful companies in Thetford, which in expanding have taken advantage of the Government's economic policies, if the Department of Transport were to increase its investment in the dualling of the A11, so that sooner rather than later Norfolk will be linked convincingly by a dualled road network to the rest of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear the figures on the fall in unemployment in Thetford, which has been brought about by greater prosperity. Advantage has been taken of that prosperity by more small businesses starting up. I know my hon. Friend's views on the A11/M11. I think she will agree that when the present works are finished about 80 per cent. of the road will be dual carriageway all the way up to Norwich. I shall carefully consider my hon. Friend's comments on further improvements.
    Mr. Boateng: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are more people homeless and sleeping rough on the streets of our capital city than in any other capital city in Europe, with the exception of Istanbul? Is the right hon. Lady aware that for every £4 that the Government spend on the homeless £10 was spent under the last Labour Government? Is she aware that last night the city of Westminster agreed to close a hostel for the homeless to make way for studio flats for the well-to-do? We know that the Prime Minister has no compassion, but has she no shame? What will she do for the homeless?
    The Prime Minister: This point came up a few weeks ago and the same allegations were made. Inquiries were carried out. According to the figures, and as far as we are
    1190
    aware, there has been no increase in the number of people in difficulty in the capital and some places are available in hostels which are not taken up every night. Young people can benefit from a number of our measures—[Interruption.] More than 14,700 places have been approved since April 1981 to benefit the young single homeless and others. We made it easier for council tenants to sub-let so that they can take in people who need lodgings. We are increasing the programme of grants to voluntary bodies concerned with homelessness.
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the events surrounding the Cleveland child sex abuse scandal must not be allowed to happen again? Does she agree also that those who are charged with the responsibility of taking action arising out of the scandal must do so quickly and allow the people of south Cleveland to build their lives on the prosperity which has been laid down so well during the past five years?
    The Prime Minister: I listened carefully to yesterday's statement in the House and to the response by many hon. Members. It will now be for the authorities to take such further action as they think fit in the light of the report. I agree with my hon. Friend. We all utterly condemn child abuse and violence against children. We must do everything we can to protect children from that, but at the same time we must make certain that false allegations are not made against parents or children who may be innocent. It is easy to draw the line; it is not always as easy for social workers, neighbours and others to see the right side. Paramount protection must go to the child.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 July.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave quite some time ago.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why, when representatives of the Westminster Association of Relatives went to see the Prime Minister in her surgery some 10 days ago about the scandalous sale of Westminster cemeteries, was she both insensitive and indifferent to their plight and, indeed, upset them? Why did the Prime Minister refuse point-blank to condemn Lady Porter and Westminster city council for selling, for £1, assets worth at least £5 million to £7 million? Was not that sale, which is now the subject of an investigation by the fraud squad, the unacceptable face of privatisation?
    The Prime Minister: When my constituents wish to see me—and I am sure the same applies to the hon. Gentleman—I do not refuse to see them, although I sometimes have to explain that, when matters are being investigated by the fraud squad, independent auditors or by the Ombudsman, I am in a position only to listen to what they say. I am not in a position to pronounce, especially when they are asking for such things as a statutory inquiry, which my right hon. Friends have no power to give. In accordance with my custom, they came and I listened to them for a very long time. One could not possibly be unsympathetic to what they were saying—no one could be. They knew that I

    1191
    could not reply and it would have been totally wrong if I, in the position of Prime Minister, replied on something to which my right hon. Friend may have to pronounce.

Piper Alpha Platform
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the explosion and fire on the Piper Alpha platform last night.
At about 10 o'clock last night a serious explosion occurred at the platform. The coastguard service was informed and an emergency control centre was established. All emergency services were immediately alerted. Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and coastguard helicopters and surface vessels in the area, including a NATO detachment, were committed to the search for survivors. Occidental, the operators of the platform, activated its emergency centre to control the fire and oil and gas flows.
The explosion appears to have been so violent that the platform was effectively destroyed. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State went early this morning to Aberdeen. He has kept me in continuous touch with developments. My latest information is that there were 229 people on the platform at the time of the explosion, of whom 65 are known to have survived. There were three people in a small boat involved in the rescue, of whom one is known to have survived. Sixteen people are known to be dead and 150 are at present unaccounted for.
Her Majesty the Queen has asked me to convey to all those concerned her heartfelt sympathy for the injured and bereaved and her admiration for the gallant efforts of the firefighting, rescue and medical services in preventing even greater loss of life. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join in expressing our sympathies and in paying tribute to the efforts of the emergency services.
Oil and gas production in the hostile environment of the North sea demands the greatest attention to safety. Safety is the first priority of the Government and the operators. We apply the highest safety standards to all phases of development: design, construction and operation. We have also established procedures to be followed in the event of an emergency. These are regularly rehearsed.
The Government are determined to establish urgently the cause of the explosion and the lessons to be learned. Nearly 30,000 people work in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea. They and their families have the right to expect the fullest possible investigation. The Government will therefore be setting up a full public inquiry as soon as possible.
Mr. John Prescott: We on the Labour side of the House very much welcome the Secretary of State's statement. We offer our deepest sympathy to the families and all involved in the tragic event. We should like to express our deepest appreciation—and, yes, admiration—for the excellent rescue services that are provided in these most difficult circumstances and for the onshore response by the police, hospital, and other services. It reminds us how much those people contribute in difficult circumstances. Those are not simply words, but express great admiration.
Considering the magnitude of the tragedy, we fully endorse the Secretary of State's decision to hold a public inquiry. However, does he accept that that inquiry should be open and wide-ranging and that its scope should not
1194
exclude anything in examining the safe operation of such installations? Although this is not in his statement, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Health and Safety Executive will conduct its own investigation into the technical causes and effects of the tragedy so that it can reach a conclusion quickly while we await the longer public examination?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the public inquiry will address itself to the following issues: the increasing number of accidents and dangerous occurrences in the industry in the past few years; the reduction in inspections and maintenance in the past few years, which have been highlighted and drawn to our attention by the Select Committee on Energy; the increasing pressures on costs and safety practices, and the low level of expenditure on training in what is clearly a profitable industry? Will he also address the issue of no-fault compensaton, which has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and which should be considered by an inquiry and considered for inclusion in any statutory system?
Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that health and safety legislation does not fully apply to this industry, highlighting the conflict between his Department's responsibility for production and for safety? Will the right hon. Gentleman now give further consideration to making safety the first priority? Will he now review that conflict of interest and consider whether the Health and Safety Executive should extend its powers and responsibilities to that North sea industry?
Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous tributes to the emergency services. I shall take up his points one by one. Of course, the inquiry will wish to be far-reaching and to discover the fundamental causes to make sure that if there are any wider implications from this particular event and any lessons to be learned for other operators, that information will be disseminated as quickly as possible. It will be a deep and far-reaching inquiry.
The Health and Safety Executive has responsibilities in this area but, by agreement, it delegates them to the inspectorate in my Department, which is recognised worldwide as being technically one of the best qualified inspectorates. Therefore, it is not true to say that the Health and Safety Executive is not involved. It does have rights and duties but delegates them to my Department's inspectorate.
On the question of the increasing number of accidents, it is simply not true that accidents are increasing in the North sea. In fact, last year the number of serious accidents reported fell from 101 in 1986 to 59, although 59 is still far too high a figure and we wish to keep the pressure on to ensure that that improvement is maintained.
On the question of the reductions in surveys, I advise the hon. Gentleman that it is not only the inspectorate of my Department which attends the platforms. It may interest him to know that an inspector finished the most recent inspection of that platform on 28 June. Lloyd's Register of Shipping is also under a responsibility annually to certify the platforms and equipment and the Department of Transport must also check the safety arrangements and safety equipment on board. Therefore, the platforms are under continuous inspection, not just from my Department acting on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive, but also from other Government

1195
Departments which themselves have duties, and independent bodies, such as Lloyd's Register of Shipping, which has a duty to carry out the full certification.
On the question whether my Department should continue to carry out this work as agent for the Health and Safety Executive, as he knows, this was carefully examined by the Burgoyne committee, which reported in 1981. That committee said in its majority report that the present arrangements were, in its opinion, the best possible. I accept that there was a minority report which disagreed, but the majority report, whose recommendations the Government accepted, felt that the present arrangements were the best.
Sir Hector Monro: May I join in the expressions of sympathy from all Members of the House to the families who have lost relatives? In praising all the rescue services, may I highlight the work throughout the night of the Royal Air Force and civilian helicopter pilots and the Nimrod pilots and crews? Does this not highlight the importance of keeping a good search and rescue capability all round our coast, and particularly on the east coast of Scotland?
Mr. Parkinson: I join my hon. Friend in paying a tribute to the RAF and civilian helicopter pilots. One of the few satisfactory aspects of this tragedy has been the operation of the emergency procedures. The dovetailing of the arrangements has worked extremely well. As helicopters were deployed, further helicopters were brought up from other stations throughout the country. I note what he says, but I am sure that he will share my satisfaction that the arrangements worked so well on this occasion.
Mr. James Wallace: May I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, join in the expressions of sympathy to the bereaved and injured and in the tributes to the emergency services? As the Secretary of State well knows, the oil from the Piper Alpha platform comes ashore at the Flotta terminal in Orkney. Occidental has, over many years, played a very positive role in the community in Orkney and I am sure that the sense of loss and tragedy felt by the company is shared by my constituents.
The Secretary of State has mentioned a public inquiry. Is he able at this stage to go further and say what the nature of it will be? Am I right in thinking that it will certainly go beyond the fatal accident inquiry which would otherwise follow?
Finally, there have been other reported incidents this week on North sea platforms. Is this just a case of a tragic coincidence or is there any evidence at this stage of any connection?
Mr. Parkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. I chose my words very carefully about the public inquiry. We want it to be the fullest possible but, as he knows, we are operating in Scotland and either Scottish law or English law, or both, can be applied. The Law Officers are, therefore, in discussion to settle which would be the most appropriate. As soon as decisions have been made—and I am talking about a very short time—I will reveal further details to the House.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Not so long ago I visited the Piper field. Many of my constituents work on that platform. Many of them are known to me personally. Surely today, above all, so far as the House is concerned, it is incumbent on us to join the whole of the nation in keeping in our thoughts and our prayers those who have lost their lives, and their families.
Mr. Parkinson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend speaks for Members in all parts of the House.
Mr. Harry Ewing: As a Member who has had to deal with tragedies in the oil industry onshore rather than offshore, can I say to the Secretary of State that all our technical or probing questions are overshadowed by the extent of this tragedy and the sad loss that is borne by so many people as a result of what has happened. I have learned from bitter experience that on the day of the tragedy it is never wise to probe too deeply. Having said that, however, can I bring out the point about Scots law and ask the Secretary of State if the decision to establish a public inquiry will rule out, as it seems bound to do, any possibility of a fatal accident inquiry? Will he discuss these aspects with his noble Friend the Lord Advocate?
Finally, for 13 years, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has said, my constituency has been connected by pipeline from rig to refinery. Today, my constituency is connected by sadness and on behalf of all those who work at the BP refinery at Grangemouth, which receives the oil, and on behalf of all my constituents who live in Grangemouth, I express their deepest sympathy to those who have lost loved ones and their fervent hope and prayer for a speedy and full recovery of those who have been injured.
Mr. Parkinson: I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's final words. We are looking extremely carefully at the interrelationship between the two laws. It does not necessarily follow that an inquiry under one law is ruled out by the other, but that rather detailed discussion is going on at this very moment and we intend to resolve the matter as quickly as possible. I stress that we want the inquiry to be as full and as public as possible.
Mr. David Howell: We would all wish to be associated with the words of sorrow that my right hon. Friend has expressed at this appalling tragedy in the North sea where, as he reminds us, under successive Governments safety has always been the first and proper priority in this inevitably risky industry. Although the obvious and only dimension of the tragedy in our minds must be the tragic loss of human life, will my right hon. Friend also confirm that the destruction of the Piper Alpha platform will mean the loss of 5 per cent. of the entire oil production of the North sea until it is rebuilt? If the destruction has covered some of the other pipelines in nearby oilfields, that loss of production could be even greater, although I repeat that it is obviously human lives that concern us most.
Mr. Parkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend, as a former Secretary of State for Energy, for underlining what I said about the importance of safety as a top priority from the moment that the platforms are designed right through to the day when they move into operation.
I confirm that the Piper Alpha platform is a major producer, producing about 120,000 barrels of oil a day. I

1197
am glad that, as I would have expected, my right hon. Friend today puts the emphasis on the tragic loss of so many lives, and I am sure that that is what preoccupies the House.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: May I also, on behalf of my hon. Friends and the nationalist parties, extend our sympathy to all those families throughout the United Kingdom who have suffered bereavement or seen their breadwinner injured in this enormous disaster in the North sea? May I also add my congratulations to the rescue services, many of whom operated from the bases in my constituency at RAF Kinloss and Lossiemouth, and add my tribute to those who volunteered, such as many of the fishermen along the north-east of Scotland, and went to assist in that operation?
As this is a day of tragedy, I shall ask one brief question. Will the Secretary of State assure us that provision for the families who have been bereaved will be taken into account as quickly as possible? Today, we have seen the human cost of winning North sea oil and I am sure that the Government, who have benefited so much from the revenue of Scotland's oil, will ensure that everything is done to provide for those families.
Mr. Parkinson: I note what the hon. Lady says and I shall bear it very much in mind in the next few days.
Mr. Bill Walker: Like those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), a number of my constituents work in this part of the North sea. Although we have no knowledge of which individuals are missing, I am sure that the rest of the House will extend its sympathy to their relatives. Will my right hon. Friend have discussions with his right hon. Friends at the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Defence to make absolutely certain that there is no plan to reduce, for example, the helicopter rescue capability and, in particular, the search and rescue unit based at RAF Leuchars, which is a key centre for that part of the North sea?
Mr. Parkinson: Yes, I will discuss these matters with my right hon. Friends. I also stress that the events of the past 24 hours have shown that the emergency arrangements work extremely well, even when they are put under the huge pressures of the past 18 hours or so.
Mr. Frank Doran: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the courtesy he has shown me throughout the day in keeping me briefed on progress, as the terrible tragedy has become known to us all.
This is the second major tragedy connected with the North sea oil industry to have hit Aberdeen in the past three years, the previous one being the helicopter disaster—although this accident far outstrips that one in its magnitude. I add my sympathies and condolences to the families among my constituents who have lost loved ones who worked in the North sea, and to such families all over the country—particularly those in the north-east of England—from where I know many employees come.
I add my thanks to the rescue services and to people in the Grampian health board who have been working throughout the night and today to deal with the terrible injuries that they have had to cope with. I also thank the
1198
people of Aberdeen who have rallied round magnificently, to the extent that the health board has had to stop calling for volunteers to donate blood, for example.
The Secretary of State mentioned that there are about 30,000 employees in the North sea. I urge him to ensure that the public inquiry that he has said he will hold is as wide and open as possible, and not restricted in the way that a fatal accident inquiry would be under Scots law. In the interests of those 30,000 employees and their families I also ask him to ensure that, as soon as the lessons and causes of the tragedy are known, there will he no hesitation in circulating them to the other operators in the North sea. We must not wait until the inquiry report has been discovered: the lessons should be distributed as quickly as possible.
Mr. Parkinson: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy has visited the survivors in hospital and has paid tribute to the way in which they are being looked after and to the tremendous spirit of co-operation in Aberdeen. The whole city has joined in wanting to help the victims of the tragedy.
I want also to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) about the string of incidents. There have been two or three incidents recently, but they have had no connection. Each one is being investigated as part of our normal procedures.
As for the public inquiry, if we find that there are lessons of wide application to be learned, we shall not waste a second in making sure that they are conveyed to the other operators.
Dr. Michael Clark: On this day of tragedy and sorrow, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is appropriate to pay tribute to the skill, dedication and above all courage of all who work in the hostile environment of the North sea?
Mr. Parkinson: Yes. As I said earlier, we have become accustomed to taking North sea oil almost for granted. But if one goes offshore, as I have done on a number of occasions, and sees the area in which the platforms operate and the appalling conditions that can occur from time to time during the year, one realises that it is a hazardous operation carried out by very brave people. We try to ensure that the maximum possible number of steps are taken to ensure their safety.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I, too, would like to voice my deepest sympathy and condolences to those who have suffered tragic loss today. I also speak as one who represents many constituents who work in the North sea. I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that the people who were involved in the rescue operations and who behaved on this as on other occasions in such a magnificent and heroic way have the finest resources at their command. I say this with special regard to emergency support vessels dynamically positioned on the continental shelf and in relation to standby vessels which provide cover for every platform.
My final question is about the absence of an experienced and critical safety voice. It is about the absence offshore, vis-a-vis the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974, of trade union safety representatives. May I assure the Secretary of State and others that in this field

1199
trade union representatives perform an admirable and vital service? The absence of a critical voice should be carefully examined by the Government.
Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the standby resources. On this occasion the standby vessel was, as one would expect, in position and was responsible for saving many lives. There was a second vessel there belonging to Occidental and it was also able to take part in the rescue. On this occasion there is no suggestion that the standby resources were inadequate.
They were considerably more than adequate. The hon. Gentleman asked about safety on platforms. As I am sure he knows, on every platform there is a major safety committee consisting of management and representatives of all grades on the platform. Many of those people are trade unionists and, therefore, trade unionists are taking part in discussions about safety on each and every platform.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the whole House will echo the comments made by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). I shall allow questions to go on for only a further four minutes because we are to have two other statements, a business statement and the presentation of a Loyal Address before we move on to the main business.
Mr. Rupert Allason: I endorse all my right hon. Friend's tributes to the rescue services, but may I draw his attention to a matter that causes great anguish among the families of those directly involved in a tragedy such as this? It is that the first news that they get of a major disaster is through the news media. A telephone number is flashed up on the television screen. Of course, the number is constantly changing and families have to ring a number and the lines are very soon swamped by calls. The lack of information for the families that are directly involved causes great anguish. Will my right hon. Friend agree to consider with his ministerial colleagues the setting up of some kind of centralised disaster unit so that after future disasters like the one that we have just experienced and the Townsend Thoresen disaster people can ring a central number and have their calls logged straight away?
Mr. Parkinson: The arrangements for dealing with tragedies such as this are finely developed. Each company immediately opens its emergency room which is in mothballs waiting for eventualities such as this. I shall certainly look at my hon. Friend's idea, but I must tell him that the flashing up of telephone numbers is a way of trying to give anxious relatives the most immediate access to information. The companies then set out to try directly to contact the relatives of those concerned. I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that in an operation such as this, in which many vessels are active, it is not immediately possible to know the exact position.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that when all the headlines about this terrible tragedy and all the expressions of sympathy
1200
have been forgotten, the people who have been injured, badly burned and disabled in this accident and the relatives of those who have been bereaved will, year after year, face legal struggle for compensation? Because of our archaic laws only the lawyers will win those battles. Some people will be denied compensation. They will face years of hardship and horror on top of the horror that they have suffered because we do not have no-fault compensation. The Prime Minister has just rejected a request for no-fault compensation. Could the Secretary of State have a private word with her about a more just and equitable system to help these people?
Mr. Parkinson: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says and, as he knows, this is a long-running and difficult argument, but, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, a number of private insurance schemes covering no-fault compensation are being developed. However, all I can say is that I note what the right hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not a fact that, in the minority report mentioned by the Minister, there was bitter criticism of the safety precautions in the North sea? I am chairman in this House of the MSF union's committee on health and safety matters which represents many people involved with helicopters and oil rigs and which made it clear that it wanted an inquiry into the whole business and that that inquiry should not be attached to the Department of Energy, but should involve an independent group of inspectors examining those rigs. Is it not also a fact that warning was given that, unless such a step were taken, something like this would ultimately occur?
Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman should remember that that was a minority view, as he hinted, and that the majority of the Committee set up by his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) disagreed with that point of view. [Interruption.] He was not the Member for Chesterfield then, but the majority of that Committee came down firmly on the side of the present arrangements.
Mr. Prescott: May I again ask the Secretary of State about the role of the Health and Safety Commission, which has statutory powers of inquiry under section 14 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, but from which the offshore industry is exempt? The commission can conduct a quick and technical examination so that the lessons can be learned and implemented before the final conclusions of a public inquiry. Because of the agency arrangement between the Department and the commission, the Department's agreement to that is required. Will the Secretary of State give his agreement to such an inquiry?
Mr. Parkinson: I have already spoken to the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission and we have discussed the range of possibilities. He knows of the discussions that I am having with the various Law Officers. The key is to ensure that we have the fullest possible inquiry, and as soon as I am able to give a definitive answer, I shall come back to the House.

Local Government Finance (England)
4.2 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about a number of matters that will bring local authority finance in England up to date for the introduction of the new system in 1990.
First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are issuing a consultation document today on local authority capital expenditure. The paper has been placed in the Library and is available in the Vote Office. It will be sent to local authorities and their associations today. The new system will take effect from 1 April 1990. It will be a control on borrowing and all forms of credit, rather than on expenditure. I believe that authorities will welcome this.
Capital receipts will continue to be another source of finance for capital expenditure, but the debt attributable to past capital expenditure by local authorities in England and Wales now stands at £45 billion. We propose that a proportion of the accumulated and future cash receipts should be set aside for debt redemption or to meet future capital commitments. Local authorities will be free to spend the balance, in whatever year they like.
Local authorities will also be free to finance additional capital expenditure from revenue contributions, subject only to the discipline of the community charge. I believe that the new system will provide local government with greater assurance and flexibility in the planning of capital programmes.
Secondly, under the new system in the Local Government Finance Bill, revenue support grant is to be paid on a fixed basis, authority by authority. Authorities will have certainty about their grant entitlements. There will be no adjustment to take account of actual spending. The discipline will come from the community charge. My right hon. Friend and I have decided to pave the way towards the new system by introducing greater certainty for 1989–90. In doing so, we will remove any scope for creative accounting by an authority designed to increase its grant entitlement by reducing its reported "total expenditure", without changing its true spending. There would otherwise be a number of ways in which authorities could do that for next year, this year and, indeed, earlier years.
We therefore propose to bring forward legislation as soon as possible to alter the basis on which grant will be paid in England and Wales. For the current year, and for the previous three years, final supplementary reports have not yet been made. For some of those years, it would still be open to local authorities to undertake book-keeping transactions or financial deals unrelated to true spending, but which alter the level of reported total expenditure and therefore gain extra grant. We envisage that the Bill will provide that, for all years up to 1988–89, grant entitlements should be calculated in general using total expenditure information which was with our Departments by midnight last night.
In a normal year, grant payments would be calculated taking account of grant-related expenditure assessments, block grant mechanisms, any arrangements for limiting grant changes and authorities' reported expenditure, which I announce following consultation in the autumn. Grant payments for 1989–90 will be calculated in the same
1202
way, except that the legislation will provide that grant payments for individual authorities should he calculated not on authorities' reported total expenditure, but on a figure derived for each authority, based on information about their present levels of total expenditure and projected forward. Allowance will be made for changes in function where appropriate. In making the calculations, we shall use, in general, only that information about total expenditure which was with our Departments by midnight last night. When the RSG report has been approved, and subject to Parliament approving the new legislation, grant will be paid on the new basis.
That will provide local authorities with greater certainty about their RSG entitlements for 1989–90 and previous years. It provides a basis for an orderly transition to the new system and for bringing the existing system to a close. Without the new legislation, it would have been necessary to recalculate grant under the present system well into the 1990s. I hope that it will now be possible to make the last supplementary reports under the present system during 1989–90; otherwise I would have been asking the House to approve them up to probably 1992 or 1993.
Thirdly, let me deal with my proposals for next year's RSG settlement for England. I propose to set the level of provision for current expenditure at £29,140 million. That is 4·7 per cent. or £1·3 billion more than authorities' budgets for this year, after deducting the cost of polytechnics, which, from next April, will he the responsibility of central Government. That increase is slightly above the anticipated level of inflation.
That sum includes £110 million in respect of the current costs next year for preparing for the introduction of the community charge. That is in line with the estimate of those costs made by Price Waterhouse and is consistent with the figures put forward by the local authority associations. Since authorities continue to spend more than they need, I again intend that there should be a margin between the total of grant-related expenditure assessments and provision.
I propose that aggregate Exchequer grant should be set at £13,575 million. After allowing for the removal of polytechnics, that is £600 million more than the settlement allowed for this year, and is about £1·1 billion more than the grant which will be paid for 1988–89. That represents an increase of about 9 per cent. on the amount of grant that will be paid out. Under my proposals for closing down the system, grant payments to authorities will not be affected by their level of spending in 1989–90.
I am conscious that some local authorities will be disappointed that no grant increase will be available in recognition of any shortfall in their spending in the current year and last year. I believe, however, that if they look at the total picture they will recognise that the package I am proposing is a fair one. If spending is held steady in real terms, this settlement will enable most authorities to hold the increase in rates to less than the rate of inflation next year. I shall be discussing all these proposals with the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on Monday.
Fourthly, let me deal with rate limitation. I am today laying before the House a report setting out how general purpose authorities will be selected next year. The selection criteria that I am adopting are the same as those I adopted last year—first, for authorities not selected in 1988–89, budgets of at least 12·5 per cent. above GRE and showing

1203
a growth of at least 6 per cent. since 1987–88; and secondly, for authorities that are selected in the current year, budgets of at least 12·5 per cent. above GRE.
On those criteria, seven authorities will be reselected for 1989–90—Camden, Greenwich, Hackney, Lewisham, Southwark, Thamesdown and Tower Hamlets. No authority that was not selected last year is being selected this year. I am today also setting the expenditure levels for the seven rate-capped authorities at the same level as in 1988–89.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has laid a separate report designating the Inner London education authority and he will be setting an expenditure level. That completes the Government's proposals for designating authorities in England.
Dr. John Cunningham: Is the Secretary of State aware that this is a typical statement from him and the Government—a statement of bogus claims and, in some cases, deliberate illusions? Is he also aware that, despite his rather vain hope, rarely, if ever, do local authorities welcome any statement that he has to make about local government finance?
Will not what he has announced today force all local authorities to use the balances of their capital receipts to reduce debt? The right hon. Gentleman's previous claim was that he would slow down the rate at which they would be able to embark on new expenditure. Now he will forbid local authorities to use apparently large amounts of their own money in the way that they wish to do. Does not that mean that Conservative authorities, such as Bracknell, with £48 million worth of receipts, Wycombe with £52 million, Medway with £40 million, Shepway with £11·5 million, Nottingham with £51 million, Bromley with £45 million, Croydon with £50 million, Barnet with £47 million and Solihull with £25 million of their own money, will not be able to spend it in the way that they decide, but will have to use some of that money in the way that the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues, most notably the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will determine?
Is it not also the case that to suggest that local authorities will be free to increase their expenditure in the way that they choose is deliberately misleading? The Secretary of State said that that would be subject to the discipline of the poll tax—
Mr. John Heddle (Mid-Staffordshire): Community charge.
Dr. Cunningham: No one outside the Conservative party refers to it as the community charge.
Has not the Secretary of State ensured that the notorious gearing of the poll tax legislation means that for a 1 per cent. increase in expenditure, however important or necessary, all local authorities will need a 4 per cent. increase in the poll tax?
What can possibly be the justification for the Secretary of State's second announcement in four months of legislation by the midnight knock? He is now announcing that from midnight yesterday he will be retrospectively legislating over this year's local authority finances and the previous three years, again changing the rules and moving the goalposts long after the expenditure has been made and the decisions have been taken. There is no precedent
1204
for the way in which the Government have rigged rules on local authority expenditure and changed them so often, so capriciously and so retrospectively so many times. The record is a scandal. It is outrageous that we should be faced with that again.
What can possibly be the purpose of the Secretary of State's meeting next Monday, 11 July, with the local authorities, planned for some considerable time, to discuss his proposals for the coming year? He has announced his proposals today. It means that the meeting next Monday with the local authorities to consider this matter is a farce. Or will he confirm to the House that he will take on board the points made by the local authorities and come back and change what he has said today? Is that a possibility? If not, it makes nonsense of the consultation process.
We welcome the Secretary of State's belated admission that what he and his colleagues said in the financial memorandum to the Local Government Finance Bill was nonsense. They hopelessly underestimated the costs of implementation of that obnoxious legislation, as the Price Waterhouse report has confirmed. At least we welcome the recognition forced on him by Price Waterhouse's conclusion that he would have to make far higher allowances for the costs of implementing the poll tax.
Why does the Secretary of State waste his time, as well as that of the House, by repeating what he said last year during his statement on the rate support grant for England, that the
"increase in rate bills … should be around the rate of inflation"—[Official Report, 23 July 1987; Vol. 120, c. 496.]
He kept repeating that last year, when in fact average domestic rate bills rose by 10·1 per cent. and, in many Tory-dominated authorities, increases were of the order of 20, 30 or 40 per cent. Shepway, in the constituency of his hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Local Government, had one of the largest rate rises in the south-east of England. Why the time of the House should be wasted again and again by bogus claims for the implications of what the Secretary of State is announcing, I really do not know.
It is also welcome that at long last the Secretary of State is beginning to wind down the arbitrary use of power in the Rates Act 1984. But what is it that the citizens of Camden, Greenwich, Hackney, Lewisham, Southwark, Thamesdown and Tower Hamlets have done—
Mr. Heddle: Vote Labour.
Dr. Cunningham: Exactly. The hon. Gentleman has given the game away. It is an action of enduring political spite by the Government towards the citizens of those boroughs that they should go on applying the Rates Act to them in that way.
The statement is as pathetic, as misleading and as obnoxious—and it should be regarded in the same way by all Conservative Members who are concerned about local democracy—as any previous statement that the right hon. Gentleman has made. I only wish that we could believe that it is the last that he will make.
Mr. Ridley: We are all becoming used to the ritual courtesies of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), with which he covers up the fact that he does not understand the subject under discussion. His views on the capital control paper, which obviously he has not yet read, were interesting. If he reads it, he will find that the prescribed proportion that may be spent from

1205
housing receipts is increased from 20 to 25 per cent., and on other local authority assets, from 30 to 50 per cent. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman thinks that local authorities will be cross about that.
The hon. Gentleman claimed that this measure is in some way retroactive. The phrase that he used was that we are moving the goalposts long after the expenditure has been made. I make it clear that the statement will stop local authorities changing the accounts long after the expenditure has been made. That is changing the goalposts, and if he understood the subject, he would know that that is liable to save his constituents, as taxpayers, a considerable sum of money, possibly.
The hon. Gentleman asked about consultation. What an extraordinary question! I am having a consultative meeting on Monday. Is it not better to have proposals about which to consult the local authorities, rather than to wait until after that meeting to announce them? The hon. Gentleman has a very odd idea of what consultation means.
As for rates, the hon. Gentleman again misunderstands the situation. Last year, and again this year, I said that if local authorities spend at the settlement assumption, their rates should just about increase by the level of inflation. This year I say that if local authorities spend at the settlement assumption, it should be necessary to increase rates by less than the rate of inflation. The hon. Gentleman does not seem to comprehend the fact that local authorities spend at a great deal higher level than the settlement assumption, which is why rates increase so much.
The hon. Member for Copeland asked why certain local authorities appear to be rate-capped year after year. The answer is simple: they spend too much.
Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that all prudent local authorities who have the genuine interests of their ratepayers and local accountability at heart will not fear anything that he has said today? Will he confirm that the most eloquent expression of the need for the reform of local government finance is if any local authority has to increase its rates above the figure of 4·7 per cent. to which he has referred? Will he confirm that the £110 million included in next year's RSG settlement will be a one-off figure, and that it will not be necessary for any local authority to come back after 1990 for a supplementary order, because only then will the community charge restore real accountability and local democracy between the ratepayer and the spender?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and can tell him that if all local authorities were to spend at the settlement assumption, which is that they should spend about in line with the increase in inflation between this year and next, it is likely that rates increases would be about 1·6 per cent. in England, which is much less than the rate of inflation is likely to be. I confirm that, as soon as all outstanding years have been completed and supplementary reports have been presented to the House, there will be no need, under the proposals I am putting to the House for its approval, for there to be any further supplementary reports into the 1990s.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Secretary of State clarify what appears to be a contradiction? He said that capital expenditure limits are being raised, and he gave a figure, yet he said in his
1206
statement that control would be moved away from expenditure to borrowing and credit, which is something very different. Is not the reality that the Government are retaining their controls, even if easing them slightly? Local authorities are looking to spend much more, particularly on housing investment, about which he has said nothing today.
Is it not the case that, as was said by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the Secretary of State is going for a completely arbitrary and simple system at the expense of justice? To say that rate support grant for this year and next year will be calculated on the basis of information known to the Secretary of State last night, irrespective of the reality, completely disregards real need. The reality of the situation is also apparent when one remembers that, in real terms, rate support grant since 1981–82 has been cut by the Secretary of State's announcement by 12·5 per cent.—at a time of great economic growth, according to the Government.
The inner city, which is meant to be helped, is being rate-capped yet again, so that poor boroughs such as mine in inner London and others are being told that money will not be available in the form of increased rate support grant. Is it not the case that the Secretary of State wants there to be a massive difference between the amount that local authorities currently receive and their revenue from poll tax in 1990, so that people will be penalised for being poor and will receive nothing from those who have much to give? The Minister could have distributed that money to them.
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned control. The new system will control borrowing rather than spending, but that will not help us with the treatment of in-year receipts and existing cash-backed receipts, where we propose that under the new regime 75 per cent. of housing receipts should be put to the redemption of debt and the remainder should be available for spending, and 50 per cent. of receipts from other assets should go to the redemption of debt and 50 per cent. be available for spending.
We propose fixing allocations of new borrowing consents so that we can concentrate on areas of need rather than on areas of high receipts, which will give us a flexibility that we do not have at present, and ensure that allocations go to the areas of greatest need.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey commented on the rate support grant, and I can tell him that if he and the local authorities will examine all the years concerned in my statement, they will find that the package as a whole is a very fair one, because the rate support grant for the coming year must be taken into account as well.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the previous Labour Government provided far more in rate support grant. I shall give him the true figure. The grant I have announced for 1990 is only £1 billion less than that given in the last year of the Labour Government, brought up to date.
Mr. Ian Gow: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) would have been more honest with the House if, when naming the local authorities that had accumulated capital receipts as a

1207
result of council house sales, he had set alongside those receipts each of those council's debts, which greatly exceeds the accumulated receipts.
Dr. Cunningham: They are all Tory.
Mr. Gow: Is it not the case that the Government's legitimate attempts over the past nine years to control local authority capital expenditure have not been successful, and that my right hon. Friend's decision to control their borrowing is to be warmly welcomed?
Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend may not have heard me say that local authorities' total debt has risen to the very high figure of £45 billion. To the extent that local authorities repay that debt from their receipts, they directly benefit their community charge payers because the servicing of that debt is reduced by the amount by which the debt is reduced. That in itself is a major way of helping their electors. My hon. Friend is of course right in his second point.
Mr. Peter Shore: When the Secretary of State says that the reason why a number of London boroughs, including Tower Hamlets, are being rate-capped yet again is that they spend too much, does he not himself believe that he is guilty of an oversimplistic statement? Is he aware that they are precisely the boroughs which, by all objective measures and calculations, have the greatest measurable financial and other needs? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in the year ending 1987 Tower Hamlets spent £20 million simply in providing bed-and-breakfast accommodation for the homeless, and that the figure for this year cannot be much less, and will be at least £13 million? How can the Secretary of State justify continued rate-capping and grant reduction? His figures are bogus and he knows it. How can he justify taking such action for another year?
Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman talks about an objective measure of need. The nearest that we have to an objective measure of need are GREAs, which are based on need and are subject to negotiation with the local authorities over many years. Tower Hamlets is spending 23 per cent. above its GREA, or 23 per cent. more than the objective measure of its needs. I believe that that entirely justifies the statement that I made. It turns out that the inhabitants of Tower Hamlets face an implied community charge of £616, and if that is not a measure of overspending I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell me what is.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the reduction of grant. The settlement that I have announced today is a £1·1 billion increase in the amount of grant that will flow from the Exchequer to the authorities next year. That is an 8·9 per cent. increase against inflation, which will probably be about half that.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will the Secretary of State tell the House how he will explain his announcement to the 10,000 on the housing waiting list in Tower Hamlets and the 11,200 on the transfer list, one of whom I spoke to last week? He has had a heart transplant operation, but the results of that wonderful operation will be lost because of his housing stress and because there is no place to which he can be transferred.
1208
How will the right hon. Gentleman explain his statement to the many others who are locked in unsuitable flats—where they cannot see daylight—because they are disabled and cannot be transferred to ground floor flats? How will he explain it to more than 1,200 homeless people and to the 35 families who have been sleeping in church halls because there was nowhere else for them to go? How will he justify the rate capping and financial restrictions with which he is punishing those people?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) are being not very complimentary to the Liberal-controlled council of Tower Hamlets, which has responsibility for such matters. I have heard of people criticising the council for wasting large sums in all sorts of directions. When it gets priorities right, I will listen to the hon. Lady.
Sir Ian Lloyd: As the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has exhausted the vocabulary of condemnation, it is much easier for Conservative Members to frame their remarks in the vocabulary of approbation. Those of us who regard this whole area of local authority expenditure as highly convoluted and complex welcome anything that introduces simplicity and clarity.
The second paragraph of the yellow paper—the consultative document—discloses the remarkable fact that local authorities have now borrowed £45,000 million, on which the annual charge is £6,000 million, or roughly £300 per annum per family. Does that mean in effect that a considerable proportion of the community charge will go towards financing existing borrowing?
Mr. Ridley: This might be considered an occasion for rejoicing, in that it is the last time—we hope—that a rate support grant statement of the traditional type will ever have to he made in the House. I hope that next year a statement can be made about the support grant for the new system of community charge finance which will be much more acceptable and much easier to understand. I entirely sympathise with my hon. Friend about the immense complications to which, with any luck, we shall be saying goodbye today.
I confirm that the total of local authorities' capital debt is £45 billion, which costs £6 billion a year to service. That £6 billion must be met by the ratepayers at present and by the community charge payers in future, which is why we are helping the community charge payers by suggesting that some proportion of receipts should be applied to the redemption of debt.
Sir George Young: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many in local government will welcome his announcement because they have been pressing for control on borrowing rather than on expenditure? Any new system that enables capital expenditure to go to areas where it is needed must be an improvement on the present system, whereby it goes where the receipts are accruing.
The statement will, however, be received with a tinge of regret in the London borough of Ealing, rate-capped this year but, sad to say, not to be rate-capped next year. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the rates went up by 66 per cent. last year, and that rate capping this year reduced them by some 23 per cent.? Without the protection of rate capping next year, they are likely to go up by between 50

1209
and 100 per cent., making it difficult for the Leader of the Opposition and me to budget. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are real problems in boroughs that come in and out of rate capping year in, year out? Will he give some thought to the problems facing us in Ealing?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the capital controls document, and I confirm his important point that it will enable us to target borrowing resources to areas of greater need. I think that all hon. Members would benefit from reading the paper carefully, because it contains a number of new ideas, many of which at least will he welcomed by local authorities.
As my hon. Friend knows, I have to set the criteria for rate capping so that they are justifiable, and then we have to see which authorities fall within those criteria. This year, Ealing has not done so. It is, in a sense, rather an irony that the more successful rate capping is in reducing rates and expenditure, the less likely the authority in question is to be rate-capped next year. This, however, is another part of the present system that I hope will disappear from the scene for ever after 1990.
Mr. Tony Banks: Why does the Secretary of State continue his campaign against two of the three most deprived local authority areas in England and Wales—Hackney, which is the most deprived, and Tower Hamlets, which comes third? Is he aware that the second most deprived area. my own borough of Newham, has just put forward a scheme to lease some 600 private dwellings to try to house the homeless?
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me—because this has been a long and complicated statement—whether he has changed the rules so much that the goalposts are now outside the stadium? Can he tell me that the borough council of Newham will be able to proceed with its package and will not be caught up by the right hon. Gentleman's retrospective legislation?
Mr. Ridley: I can only confirm that Hackney is spending 20 per cent. above its GREA, and therefore falls within the criteria for rate capping. The capital changes that I am suggesting are to be the subject of consultation and then of legislation, and are intended to come into effect in 1990. Even the hon. Gentleman will therefore have time to understand them and give us his comments.
Mr. Robin Squire: These are complex matters. None the less, I congratulate my right hon. Friend and echo the praise that has already been accorded to the capital spending adjustments. The control of borrowing is to be widely welcomed.
Can my right hon. Friend tell us what will be the position on revenue expenditure when a need grows in a particular borough, if distribution is to be based broadly on expenditure up to 1987–88, as I understood from his statement?
Mr. Ridley: In any system of support grant—whether it is the present rate support grant, or the new revenue support grant that will apply under the community charge—the change in population is taken into account in GREAs, and the numbers are adjusted accordingly. It will not be possible to change those numbers after the system has been closed down in the way that I suggest, but I think that my hon. Friend will find that the package as a whole will deal fairly with the problem.
Ms. Diane Abbott: How does the Secretary of State reconcile the Government's stated intention to regenerate the inner city with, year after year, rate-capping some of the poorest inner city boroughs—including my own borough of Hackney, the poorest local authority in the country? How can he see it as fair that over the years the balance of rate support grant has moved, in practice, from the poorest areas in the inner cities to the richest in the shire counties?
As the right hon. Gentleman seems to think that Hackney is spending 20 per cent. above GREA heedlessly, recklessly and unnecessarily, will he accept my invitation to come to Hackney, see the result of cuts in the past and note the cruel cuts in jobs, housing and services that will have to be made in the coming year as a result of today's announcement?
Mr. Ridley: Hackney has very high rates. It has an implied community charge of £573. When will the hon. Lady realise that community charges or rates at that level impoverish the citizens and drive businesses away, causing those problems of deprivation and unemployment which she has been talking about? The sooner relief can be brought to Hackney by bringing in the national non-domestic rate and by a reduction in spending, the more likely that borough is to prosper.
Secondly, the hon. Lady said that grant had been switched from the inner cities to the shire counties. I do not think that my hon. Friends who represent the shire counties have that feeling. Some counties are nearly out of grant because grant has been switched to the inner cities.
Mr. Simon Burns: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be greeted with a great deal of pleasure by hard-pressed ratepayers and taxpayers? Does he agree that the proposed legislation to close down the existing rate support grant system will put a stop to attempts at creative accounting to milk the taxpayers by authorities that are trying to get grants that have little relation to their spending or their need?
Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend. The only people for whom today's statement will be bad news are some fringe banks and dubious accountants who were hoping to prosper in the future.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The Minister has taken more and more control of the affairs of local government by cuts in provisions since 1979, by grant capping, rate capping and controls on authorities to force them into privatisation, so how can he continue to blame local authorities for the shortcomings in their services when he is beginning to run it all from his office?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition tie in mathematics. An increase of £1·1 billion cannot be described as a cut.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall endeavour to call hon. Members who have been rising, because I hope that it may curtail business questions, but I ask them to be brief.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me, as I have tried to grapple with local government finances for 25 years, that few people understand them, but they understand the bottom line when they receive their rate demands—particularly in

1211
Cleveland? One way in which my right hon. Friend can help matters is to take the bull by the horns, get rid of Cleveland county council and restore to my constituents their Yorkshire heritage.
Mr. Ridley: I note my hon. Friend's views, but the first stage is to abolish the rates. After that, we shall see about other matters.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: Did my right hon. Friend notice that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) seemed to treat the accumulated capital receipts as the personal playthings of councillors, when the true position is that councillors act as trustees for the ratepayers? Will there not be a huge welcome throughout the country for the control that my right hon. Friend has announced today, which will reduce the accumulated debt burden of the local authorities? Just as the reduction of the debt burden centrally has been essential to the reduction of taxation, the reduction of the debt burden of local authorities will be central to the reduction of the community charge. I believe that my right hon. Friend's reputation and popularity will shortly exceed even that of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer through pursuing such a policy.
Mr. Ridley: I am not entering the competition that my hon. Friend invited me to enter. The total amount that has been raised by the local authorities by selling assets since the Government came to power amounts to £17 billion, of which £6·2 billion remains unspent but cash-backed. Next year, we expect there to be a further £2·9 billion of assets. Those are very large sums indeed, and I am sure that the whole House will agree that some of that should be applied to the reduction of debt to benefit the community charge payers when the new system comes in.
Mr. Barry Field: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the way in which the present convoluted system has always conspired against the Isle of Wight. He will also be aware that the present system includes a special factor for the Scilly Isles. When he introduces the new system, will he seriously consider giving some assistance to the Isle of Wight, on the lines of that given to the Scilly Isles, to recognise the fact that it is the only United Kingdom offshore island which has no financial recognition of its excommunication from the mainland?
Mr. Ridley: The concept of GREA for islands had not occurred to me hitherto. I should have to consider the consequences for a number of other islands round the shore of this country. I doubt whether we need to go that far; we could take into account the needs of such places through the new needs grant system.
Mr. David Wilshire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the interest of fairness, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) should have included in his list of Tory authorities my own Conservative Spelthorne borough council, which cut its rate by more than 70 per cent. the last time it fixed a rate? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the great majority of councillors will thank him for his measures further to curb creative accounting, since those who play by the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law need protecting? Will he confirm that his sensible announcement means that
1212
there will no longer be any need for councils to cut anything except rates, unless they are Left-wing councillors who want to play party politics with people's services?
Mr. Ridley: The worst evil of creative accounting is not that it enables expenditure to be increased but that the bill comes back on future generations, possibly long after the councillors who incurred it have ceased to be councillors. Mortgaging the future for which one may not be responsible is clearly something which we should seek to stop. I believe that the new system outlined in the consultative paper will have the effect of making councillors live with their decisions.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: May I press the Secretary of State on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), who spoke about what has happened since 1979–80? Twice the Secretary of State, in his statement and in answers, said that the settlement of £13·57 billion is £600 million more than the settlement allowed this year, and £1·1 billion more than the grant paid for 1988–89. I have the benefit of a calculation, carried out for me by the Secretary of State's private office, which shows that far from being an increase, the £13·57 billion settlement is £1·8 billion less in real terms than the same figure for 1979–80, taking both figures at 1989–90 prices. The precise figure is £13,575 million, and the comparative figure under Labour was £15,437 million. I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State's private office for that calculation, which was carried out during the statement.
Twice in his statement the Secretary of State referred to the discipline of the poll tax. What does the discipline of the poll tax mean? Surely the implied discipline of the poll tax is that a local authority will not wish to put up the poll tax because of the fear of electoral consequences. [HON. MEMBERS "That is right."] If that is the case, if the council puts it up and wins the election, why do we have poll tax-capping when the Government boast about getting rid of rate-capping? There is no discipline. It is an absolute fraud and a misuse of the English language to speak in that way.
Whatever might be the consequences of the statement, it is less generous than the local authorities require. There is a cut of £1 billion on what is needed for current policies due to demographic changes and structures in the country, there is retrospective legislation and the lifting of capping on the joint boards a year before the poll tax comes in. All those unelected joint authorities will be free to precept what they like on the elected local councillors.
Those four factors come together to make the existing rating system even more unpopular than it already is, and herein lies the reason: it is all part of the plan to try and make the poll tax popular. Two thirds of the British people see a poll tax in 1990 as unpopular. What better than to try and turn that round in the last year of the present system? To twist and use bogus arguments and to make the present system even more unfair, bogus and unpopular is all part of the plan to improve the credibility of the poll tax. Well, it won't wash.
Mr. Ridley: After a rather sensible and restrained session of questions on this statement we return to what I call the ritual courtesies from the Opposition Front Bench.
I confirm that there are two figures on this matter and, equally, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, that comparing

1213
aggregate Exchequer grant in this settlement—after making adjustment for the polytechnics it works out at £13·575 billion—with the AEG in the 1979–80 settlement expressed in 1989–90 prices, that settlement is £15·437 billion, including the polytechnics, which is an increase of £1·9 billion. It depends how the polytechnics are treated. That is the simple answer to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the community charge. We have made it abundantly clear that we hope that it will never be necessary to cap a community charge. But, as I said earlier in relation to capital, if a local authority ceases to care about the future when an election whose conclusion is foregone is coming up, it is enabled to go berserk with the community charge in its last year of office. In those circumstances it may well be right to use the capping powers.
I have not noticed in local authority by-elections, the local authority elections in May or in the public opinion polls this strange unpopularity which the hon. Gentleman keeps suggesting. If I may suggest it politely to him, the unpopularity seems to fall on the shoulders of the Labour party.

Local Government Finance (Wales)
4.52 pm
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about local government finance in Wales in the period leading up to April 1990.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has already announced that he and the Secretary of State for Wales are today issuing a consultation paper on our proposals to revise the arrangements for controlling local authority capital. The paper has been placed in the Library and is available in the Vote Office. It is being sent to local authorities in Wales and to their local authority associations today. The new system will operate in Wales as in England. It will control borrowing and all forms of credit rather than expenditure.
Local authorities have made representations over several years about the use of their capital receipts. Under the new system we now propose, a proportion of accumulated and future cash-backed receipts will be applied to debt redemption or set aside to meet future capital commitments. Councils will be able to spend the balance of their receipts in whichever year they choose. Local authorities will also be free to finance capital expenditure from revenue contributions, subject only to the enhanced accountability that they face following the introduction of the community charge. The system meets the needs of both central and local government. I believe that local authorities in Wales will welcome it.
I turn now to rate support grant and the local government finance system. My right hon. Friend has decided that it is appropriate to pave the way towards the introduction of the new local government finance system in 1990 by making changes to the present system which will give local authorities certainty about their grant entitlements for the coming financial year. We propose to achieve this by introducing a fixed grant for 1989–90.
As in England, legislation will be introduced during the next Session to alter the basis on which grant will be paid. It is proposed that grant payments for 1989–90 should be calculated, not on authorities' reported total expenditure, but on a figure derived for each authority based on information about their present level of total expenditure and projected forward. Appropriate adjustments will be made for changes in functions. It is also envisaged that in making such assumptions we shall use only that information about total expenditure which was with the Department by midnight last night.
Once the report has been approved, and subject to Parliament approving the new legislation, grant will be paid on the new basis and will not depend upon authorities' spending decisions in 1989–90. That contrasts with 1987–88 and this year, when local councils have budgeted to forfeit about £20 million in grant.
Final supplementary reports for the current year and for the two previous years have not yet been made. We envisage that for these three years authorities' grant entitlements should be calculated in general using total expenditure information which was with the Department by midnight last night.
Our proposals provide a basis for orderly transition to the new system and for bringing the existing system to a close. Without the proposed legislation, it would have been necessary to seek the approval of the House to

1215
recalculate grant under the present system at least until 1991–92. It should now be possible under these proposals to make the last supplementary report under the present system during 1989–90. I am sure that hon. Members will be relieved to hear that.
I refer now to next year's rate support grant settlement for Wales. Local authorities in Wales are beginning to consider their budgets for next year, and to assist this process I am today announcing our proposals for the key elements of the settlement. We shall be discussing them in the usual way with the local authority associations, and the Secretary of State will take account of their representations in reaching his decisions. In due course, more detailed information will be circulated, as usual, to Welsh councils. Copies of this additional material will he placed in the Library and in the Vote Office.
We propose to set the level of provision for current expenditure at £1,785 million. This is 5·1 per cent. or £87 million more than authorities are budgeting to spend in 1988–89. This increase is above the level of inflation and is close to the forecast of spending made by the expenditure sub-group. It should allow authorities to keep their spending in line with our plans and broadly level in real terms. It includes full provision for the current costs which will be incurred next year in preparing for the introduction of the community charge.
We propose that aggregate Exchequer grant should be set at £1,316 million. This increase of 5 per cent. is ahead of inflation, is £63 million more than we provided in the settlement for 1988–89 and about £77 million more than the amount being paid to local authorities for the current year. We will he discussing all these proposals with the Welsh consultative council on local government finance on 13 July.
This is a generous proposal. It gives local authorities certainty and offers a smooth path to the new system. Both grant and expenditure provisions have been increased by more than the level of inflation. Ratepayers should therefore expect their councils to safeguard their interests by setting their budgets in line with the settlement. They will know that in doing so rate increases can be kept below the rate of inflation. I hope that all councils will ensure that rate increases are kept low. I hope, too, that they will continue to improve their efficiency and effectiveness to ensure that they use available resources for the full benefit of the communities.
Mr. Alan Williams: I thank the Minister for his statement. Naturally, we welcome generally the greater predictability that the announcement will give to councils. That is a gain in method, but whether it proves to be a gain in substance depends on the ceilings, which we do not know yet. In that context, will the Minister confirm that, despite his protestations about a generous announcement, the Government stand by the White Paper prediction, which shows that local council spending in Wales will fall? If the Minister's announcement is in keeping with that, the standards of service will also continue to fall. In future, control will be exercised by borrowing rather than through expenditure. Will the Minister confirm that that is a return to the system that operated before his Government started meddling with the
1216
system of local authority finance—the system that operated before 1980? Is it a rather belated confession of error?
The fixed grant may be good or bad depending on the level at which it is fixed—which we do not know. We shall have to wait and see. I welcome, as a general proposition, the idea that local authorities will be free to finance capital expenditure from revenue. However, that proposition must be seen in the context of the financial environment in which it is intended to operate. The cruel sting in the tail is that it will be subject to the disciplines of the community charge. That is the same as giving someone the freedom of the straitjacket. Local authorities will be limited by the ratchet effect. To the extent that there is a 6:1 magnification in the poll tax impact of any expenditure decision, that is a meaningless freedom. It is a freedom to pace the cell.
I welcome the fact that councils will be able to spend the balance of capital receipts in whatever way they choose, but the impact of that depends on what the balance is. The Government intend that a proportion of receipts must—not may; this is an enforced decision by the council—be set aside. The Minister has not told us the amount for debt redemption or for future commitments. That means that most of the resources that the councils have received from the sale of their assets will not be available for the replacement of facilities or for new facilities for the communities that they serve. If anything, the overall effect will be that councils will lose freedom rather than gain it.
The Minister referred in glowing terms to the increase of 5·1 per cent. As he admits, it is a standstill figure. Inflation is running at 4·5 per cent. and, as hon. Members know, local authority expenditure—like National Health Service expenditure—is not directly related to the cost of living index, which is based on personal spending patterns. Inflation in local authority expenditure is always higher, because of the way in which local government costs are made up. The Minister gave this away inadvertently when he said that the announcement will
"allow authorities to keep their spending … broadly level in real terms."
That is the key statement. Their spending will he level in real terms. There will be no expansion of services and no provision to meet the cost of GERBIL—the Education Reform Bill. That is an additional cost that councils have not had to meet before.
The provision will remain constant in real terms. It will include the cost of meeting the introduction of the community charge, yet expenditure will be level in real terms. In other words, when one deducts the cost of education and the cost of the community charge, constant expenditure in real terms becomes cuts in real terms. Will the Minister give us the precise estimates of the cost of introducing GERBIL and the community charge in Wales? I suspect that the ultimate figure will not even match the cost of living index and the normal inflation figure that the Government use.
Where is the extra provision to finance the councils' part in the valleys initiative? We eventually wrung the information out of the Treasury that there is not a single penny of Government money for this. What is available in this constant funding to help the valleys meet their part of the cost of the valleys initiative? Not a penny again, it would seem.
Will the Minister confirm that, since the Government came to office, Wales has lost £829 million in support for

1217
local government expenditure from Government compared to 1978–79? Those figures were given by the Secretary of State to one of his hon. Friends on Friday. Will the Minister confirm that the figure for the valleys is £250 million and that the announcement will do nothing to refund any of that money to the valleys or to Wales? Will he also confirm that—
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Too long.
Mr. Williams: It was a long statement.
Will the Minister also bear in mind that as interest charges are a major part of council costs—
Mr. Colin Shepherd: This is boring.
Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman may be bored; the people of Wales are interested and concerned. We do not need a tame poodle Parliamentary Private Secretary coming here from England to tell us what we can ask about Wales.
As interest charges are a major cost in local government administration and as these figures were settled before the latest increase, will the Minister confirm that there is another erosion of the real spending power of the councils? We need far more detail before we can assess the real impact of the announcement. It appears to be utterly inadequate to sustain existing services, and certainly inadequate to meet the extra costs that are being imposed by the Government's policies.
Mr. Roberts: The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) welcomed parts of the statement and I thank him for that. He quickly went on to talk about the consultative paper. Of course, there will be considerable discussions on the contents of that paper in the months ahead. However, I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman object to the limitation that would be put on local authority spending by the community charge, as the Government are introducing the community charge to make local authorities more accountable to their electors for what they spend.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned debt redemption. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said that local authorities in England were indebted to the tune of £45 billion, and the figure for Wales is £2·5 billion. That is a significant sum and the majority of hon. Members would regard the redemption of debt and the devotion of some part of captial receipts to that purpose as worth while. As the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged, there is a debt interest charge to be borne by those who contribute to the expenditure.
We are talking about the overall spending figures for both provision and grant, and we shall be discussing the detailed implications. We expect that local authorities will have adequate resources under the settlement to meet all their commitments. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that under this Government rate support grant for current expenditure has increased by 15 per cent. in real terms, whereas under the previous Labour Government, between 1974 and 1979–80, RSG expenditure remained unchanged in real terms.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I again remind hon. Members that there is a heavy day ahead. I ask for brief questions, to which I hope brief answers will be given.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that councillors in Wales will give a warm and unreserved welcome to the removal of the restrictions on capital expenditure which have irked them for a considerable period? Does it not clearly emerge from the figures quoted by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that, during the final three years of the Labour Government, because of their mismanagement of the economy, the amounts in real terms devoted to rate support grant dropped steadily year by year, whereas under this Government in the past three years they have steadily increased?
Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is right. One must remind the Opposition that, had the trend in rate support grant between 1976–77 and 1979–80 continued, the level of RSG this year would have been £620 million, not the £1 billion that the Government have made available.
Mr. Richard Livsey: I welcome what has been said about councils spending the balance of their capital receipts in the year they choose. None the less, on this pre-poll tax statement, I should like to ask the Minister to enlighten us as to the mechanisms that will be deployed for controlled borrowing and credit. Will the hon. Gentleman consider relaxing council house receipts controls in Wales, just as the Secretary of State for the Environment said would happen in England? Has provision been made in the coming year for school building repairs in Wales, as were announced for England by the Secretary of State for Education and Science?
Mr. Roberts: I again emphasise that we have issued a consultative paper which contains various proposals. In the next three months we shall receive representations on them, so we have not made firm decisions. As for other details of the settlement, I again emphasise that today we are dealing with overall figures.
Mr. Keith Raffan: I warmly welcome my hon. Friends statement, which will allow councillors to budget more efficiently and effectively, and in particular the Government's proposals on capital expenditure. Does my hon. Friend agree that next year's settlement should lead not only to low rate increases—if any—but to an improvement in the services, provided local authorities concentrate on their statutory obligations? Does my hon. Friend recall the statement last year by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that not enough was being done to ensure the rapid and effective dissemination of improvements in efficiency? What has been achieved in that direction?
Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend may be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had discussions about efficiency with local authority associations in Wales. The Audit Commission has pointed out that it is possible to make savings of £40 million per annum in local authority spending. Only about one third of the savings suggested by the Audit Commission have been achieved. I agree that there is considerable scope for savings, but even as things are, if local authorities keep to this settlement there should not be significant rate increases. Such increases should be below the rate of inflation.
Mr. Donald Coleman: If the statement means that local authorities will be freed from the meddling of

1219
Ministers, it can be welcomed. How is the completion of local authority schemes, such as road building, affected by the statement? Will it mean that local authorities can still make bids for grant aid to complete those schemes, or will they have to find the money from their own resources?
Mr. Roberts: I have announced local authority provision as being some 8·8 per cent., or £145 million, over provision this year. That is some 5·1 per cent., or £87 million, over this year's budget. The authorities are reasonably well provided for, and I am being very restrained about the provision for next year. Local authorities will also receive grant of 5 per cent., or £63 million, more than this year, which in turn is 6·2 per cent. or £77 million more than claimed this year. In short, the authorities are in a good position to carry on with their existing plans.
Mr. Gwilym Jones: In joining the general warm welcome for my hon. Friend's generous statement, I urge him to stress as forcefully as possible that his abolition of spending controls should not be taken as a green light for local council spending again to go out of control. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that next year is local election year in Wales and that, for electoral purposes, the Labour-controlled councils will operate a cynical cycle, producing low or no rate increases next year.
Mr. Roberts: Up until the coming year, local authorities that overspent had their grant reduced. That will no longer happen. I should have thought that it will be clear to local authorities and their electors that any heavy spending that attracts huge rate increases will be due solely to the decisions of their local councillors.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I should like to press the Minister further on capital controls. In view of his comment that there will be controls on borrowing and other forms of credit rather than on expenditure, can the hon. Gentleman clarify the position in relation to European grants, for example, for the counties of Gwynedd, Powys and Dyfed, where the integrated operations scheme is making available millions of pounds of capital? Can we take it that that scheme is outside the capital control system which he proposes and that the new system will provide for additionality, so that these councils will not miss out because of a reduction in capital allowance from the Government because capital is available from the EEC?
Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will find that that matter is referred to in the consultation paper. I cannot give him the precise page, but he will find that there is a complete paragraph discussing various ways of dealing with his point.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is clear from the fact that only one third of Welsh Labour Members are present that they are satisfied with his statement? Will he draw attention to those local authorities that believe that their expenditure can continue to rise and that they do not have to grasp the nettle, for instance, on the number of surplus school places in Dyfed? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Audit Commission has
1220
repeatedly pointed out that it is a matter not of milking the ratepayers for more money but of local authorities getting their house in order?
Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is tremendous scope for local authorities to make savings. Of course there is scope for local education authorities to make savings, as they are well aware, by getting rid of surplus places in primary and secondary schools. I am glad to say that local education authorities are fully apprised of the need to get rid of surplus places and thereby devote the resulting savings to other educational purposes.
Mr. Alun Michael: It is clear that we will know what the Minister is really up to only when we have the figures and percentages. Capital expenditure is important for employment in local authority areas. Will the Minister be genuinely generous in his decisions on capital expenditure?
The Minister should be subject to the maximum penalties of the Trade Descriptions Act when he uses the word "generous" about revenue, because he knows that that signals yet another round of imposed cuts. How is it that the Secretary of State for the Environment can calculate the cost of introducing the poll tax and refer to it in his statement, yet there is none in the statement for Wales? If the Department of the Environment's figure of £110 million is correct, that suggests that between £7 million and £10 million is appropriate for Wales, although I have reservations about that figure.
In addition, it will cost some £10 million a year to collect the tax. That calculation is based on the £1 million extra required for collection for the city of Cardiff. What are the Minister's calculations? In view of those figures, will he undertake to fund the effects of bringing in this crazy tax and not allow it to eat still further into the inadequate provision for inflation in the figures he has announced today?
Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is right: we have not made our announcement about capital spending for next year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was able to give a figure for the community charge in his statement. I cannot because the matter will be discussed by my right hon. Friend at a meeting next Wednesday with the local authority associations, but the cost is estimated at between £4·5 million and £7·5 million.
Mr. Michael: That is far too low.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Surely even the Minister is aware that this statement is a completely inadequate response to the problems of deprivation in the valleys, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) said. It cannot deal with the problems of bad housing, high unemployment, poor infrastructure and the heavy demand on social services in those areas. It will enable local authorities simply to stand still. It will not allow them to develop those essential services.
I remind the Minister that earlier this week the United Kingdom came bottom of the pile of European countries providing child care. That has happened in a week when we have heard much about the Government's concern for children. The settlement will not enable local authorities to develop child care and nursery education in Wales or in any other part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Roberts: As usual, the hon. Lady is painting an excessively black picture. We in Wales are very fortunate, because 70 per cent. of our children aged under five are in some form of nursery education, as compared with some 40 per cent. in England. I think that she is painting far too dark a picture.
My right hon. Friend has announced his valleys initiative. I know that Opposition Members do not like it, but the people of the valleys do. It involves a tremendous concentration of expenditure and is a real attack on the social, housing and other problems of the valley communities. The settlement is generous in terms of the grant to Wales. The current expenditure provision is perfectly adequate and maintains expenditure for next year at the same level in real terms as for this year.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Will the Minister help me in two ways? First, will he explain and clarify the difference between the statement that he has read out today and the copy of the statement that I received on the board a few minutes ago? There are two differences between them. According to the copy of the statement that I have, he is meeting local authority associations on 12 July, but he read "13 July". Secondly, he completely omitted an important sentence in the first paragraph on page 3, which says:
"There will be no grant reduction if authorities spend more than planned."
As that was not read out, should it be included in or excluded from the statement?
When statements appear on the annunciator concerning Scottish rate support grant settlements, "Scotland" is put after "rate support grant," and the same applies for England. Why can Wales not receive the same treatment?
Mr. Roberts: I do not think that the last matter is one for me. The hon. Gentleman is among those privileged to receive a copy of a statement as a matter of courtesy, but of course the actual statement is the one that I delivered to the House.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Having explained to us that the settlement is generous and that 5 per cent. is better than the level of inflation, will the Minister now say that he does not expect inflation to rise above 5 per cent. during the coming year? Will he further say that he does not expect interest rates to rise during the coming year? Both have a crucial effect on local authority expenditure. Is the Welsh Office keeping a sum of money in reserve to cover those contingencies? If so, how much does it have available?
1222
The Minister laid great stress on the fact that local authorities would be consulted about the overall package and about what might eventually happen. Will he confirm that, if there is an overwhelming majority view in favour of some significant changes to the package, the Welsh Office will meet the local authorities' demands?
Mr. Roberts: It is not for me to forecast the level of inflation, but I can urge local authorities, which are after all major spenders in the United Kingdom, to play their part in helping to keep down inflation. They can do that by keeping to the expenditure levels anticipated in the settlement.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Where is the generosity in the statement? The last paragraph begins:
"This is a generous proposal."
Where is that generosity when what is being suggested is a 5 per cent. increase and inflation is 4·5 per cent. and rising? At best, that is a standstill budget.
The settlement highlights what is wrong with the whole of the Government's economic policy, which is that throughout the public sector we are at a standstill. What growth there is is in the private sector, and being let rip, it is causing serious balance of payments problems. The settlement is not just bad for local government in Wales—it is bad for the economy of Britain. How can the Minister describe a standstill budget as generous? It is double-talk.
Mr. Roberts: I am afraid that I have to remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said earlier about what happened to rate support grant current expenditure under the Labour Government—it remained unchanged in real terms. Since 1979, however, under this Government. it has increased by some 15 per cent. in real terms.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When one includes the cost of introducing the community charge in Wales, one sees that the increase over the last year is not 5·1 per cent. but 4·4 per cent., which is below the level of inflation. In spite of our entreaties, we have yet to hear what the cost of introducing GERBIL to Wales will be. We can summarise today's statement in simple terms—it is a cut.
Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman would be wrong to do so. With regard to the cost of introducing the community charge, I believe that the £4·5 million estimate is that of the local authorities themselves. The £7·5 million estimate is that of Price Waterhouse.
Mr. Flynn: And the cost of GERBIL?

Business of the House
5.29 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week:
MONDAY II JULY—Second Reading of the European Communities (Finance) Bill. Details of the documents relevant to the debate will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order.
Remaining stages of the Court of Session Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
TUESDAY 12 JULY—Opposition day (18th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate entitled "The growing divide between rich and poor in London". Afterwards, there will be a debate entitled "Public provision for sport for all". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion relating to the Wireless Telegraphy (Broadcast Licence Charges and Exemption) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations.
Motion to take note of EC documents on the control of chlorofluorocarbons and the ozone layer. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 13 JULY—Ways and Means Resolution relating to the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Progress on remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Motion on short speeches.
THURSDAY 14 JULY—Completion of remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Motion on the Redundant Mineworkers' Concessionary Coal (Payments Schemes) (Amendment) Order.
Motion on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order.
FRIDAY 15 JULY—There will be a debate on Hong Kong on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 18 JULY—Estimates day (3rd Allotted Day). There will be debates on hospital and community health and other services. England (class XIV, vote 1) and on the Training Commission (class VII, vote 5) so far as it relates to adult employment and youth training.
[Relevant documents:
Monday 11 July 1988: Undertaking as confirmed by the representatives of the Governments of the member states of the European Communities meeting within the Council to make payments to finance the Communities general budget for the financial year 1988 (CM 418); Decision of the Council of the European Communities on the system of the Communities' own resources (CM 419); Treasury and Civil Service Committee fifth report Session 1987–88 (HC 358).
Relevant European Community documents: (a) 5647/88. Gross National Product; (b) Unnumbered. Correction of budgetary imbalances: United Kingdom abatement. Relevant reports of European Legislation Committee: (a) HC 43-xxvi ( 1987–88 ), paragraph 1; (b) HC 43-xxxii ( 1987–88 ), paragraph 4.
Tuesday 12 July: Relevant European Community documents: (a) 8335/87 Chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere; (b) 4997/88 COR 1 Protection of the ozone layer. Relevant reports of European Legislation Committee:
(a) 11C 43-iii ( 1987–88 ), para. 3; (b) HC 43-xxi ( 1987–88 ), para. 1, HC 43-xxvii ( 1987–88), para. 1 and HC 43-xxxii (1987–88), para. 1.]
Mr. Frank Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. In view of the length of time that has been taken on the earlier statements, I shall keep my questions to a minimum. Arising from that, will the Leader of the House consider postponing the estimates debates on the environment and housing which are set down for later today as it looks as though they may either not be reached or will scarcely be reached before the close of business?
When can we expect a statement on the discrepancy between the assertion made on 24 May 1984 by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) that no strip searches have been carried out on women at Greenham Common, and the recent court award of damages to a woman on the grounds that she had been strip-searched at Greenham Common before that date? The House is owed some explanation.
When can we expect a debate on the Government's lamentable failure to get enough of their Members to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?
Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that all stages of the European Communities (Finance) Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee upstairs?
Finally, will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to spell out for hon. Members the arrangements for the ceremony in Westminster Hall on 20 July to mark the tercentenary of the Declaration of Rights, the Bill of Rights and the claim of right?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has asked me five questions about the business for next week and for today. So far as today's debate is concerned, I recognise that there have been several statements and that we shall be starting that debate later than we had intended. However, the best plan is to see how we get on.
With regard to the point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), I should like first to apologise to the hon. Gentleman, who I do not see in his place today, for the fact that there was not a Minister on the Treasury Bench when he raised his point of order yesterday. That was due to a misunderstanding. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) stands by the answer that he gave on 24 May 1984, which was based on a Ministry of Defence police investigation, which had found no evidence to support the allegations of strip searches at Greenham Common. However, I can give the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) an undertaking that the appropriate Minister from the Ministry of Defence will write to his hon. Friend about the matter that he raised in his point of order yesterday. I shall ensure that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras receives a copy of that letter.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. As I have said many times in the House, I regret very much that the proposals that I put forward, which would have enabled the Select Committee to be set up, were not acceptable to the Opposition. I have undertaken that we should have a debate on the matter but the arrangements for the debate are best made through the usual channels.

1225
I intend to have discussions through the usual channels to decide how best to handle the European Communities (Finance) Bill, but it would be my present intention—I think this is the right thing to do—to commit the Bill to a Committee of the whole House.
With regard to the Westminster Hall ceremony, it is proposed that both Houses will present their addresses to Her Majesty the Queen to mark the tercentenary of the revolutions of 1688 and 1689 and of the Bill of Rights in Westminster Hall on Wednesday 20 July at 11 am. Hon. Members have been asked to notify Mr. Speaker's Office if they or their spouses wish to attend so that seats may be reserved for them and tickets issued in advance. Hon. Members and their spouses must be in their places by 10.30 am. Because each House will be attending formally on the Sovereign, Members will be seated separately. The ceremony is expected to end with the departure of the Queen at about 11.30 am.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I again stress that we have a heavy day ahead of us with a Loyal Address and then a debate on the estimates? I ask for questions to be directed to the business for next week.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend spare time to reflect on the great aggravation and anguish that is being caused to many hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens as they move about London because of the terrible state of the roads and the traffic? Will he find time to include in an estimates debate an opportunity to debate the sum of money that the Government presently spend on the roads in the capital to see whether the expression of the whole House would encourage them to spend a bit more?
Mr. Wakeham: As my hon.Friend knows, the amount spent by this Government is substantially up on the amount spent by the Labour Government. The question of which estimates are debated on estimates days is not a matter for me, but I shall certainly ensure that my hon. Friend's suggestion is referred to the appropriate quarter.
Mr. Alfred Morris: As the European Commission is required to put forward proposals about New Zealand's butter exports to the United Kingdom by the end of this month, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made next week on the British Government's decision on that important matter, having full regard to the Prime Minister's comments in this House on 19 May?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's long-standing interest in such matters. The best thing that I can do is to refer his point to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Michael Latham: May I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing forward the motion on short speeches next week? Is he aware that the foreign affairs debate last week was an absolute travesty because right hon. Members of all parties had absolutely no concern for the ordinary rights of squaddies on the Back Benches?
Mr. Wakeham: As my hon. Friend knows, I have written to him about that because I recognise that several hon. Members had some modest cause for complaint
1226
towards the end of that debate. That issue is not something that we can always control but the motion on short speeches should make it more easily controllable in the future.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: While I acknowledge the fact that the need for a debate on the Government's failure to set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is a matter for the usual channels and is not in the programme for next week, may I ask whether the Leader of the House will give us an undertaking that time will be found for that before the summer recess?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot add anything other than to say that I will discuss it through the usual channels. It is not entirely a matter for me.
Sir Peter Blaker: Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) about the foreign affairs debate, the point was not only that the speeches were rather long, but that the lapse of time since we had had a foreign affairs debate was so long that an enormous number of hon. Members wanted to speak. Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind, and can we have another debate on foreign affairs reasonably soon?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of what my right hon. Friend says, which is a logical deduction from last week's debate. I shall do my best, but I do not promise such a debate in the near future.
Mr. William McKelvey: Can the Leader of the House be a little more forthcoming on the question of the debate on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs because it was my understanding that he said that we would have such a debate before the House rises at the end of this Session?
Mr. Wakeham: I have said that I would prefer to have a debate and that we would have a debate. I am seeking to arrange that through the usual channels.
Mr. Tom Sackville: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing chaos at Manchester Airport and some other British airports with passengers, particularly with Mediterranean holiday destinations, having to wait for up to 10 hours, mainly as a result of the air traffic control system in Europe being unable to cope with the volume? Will he find time for the House to debate this matter before what is already a very serious situation becomes a crisis?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that these matters are important, particularly at this time of the year. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a special debate before the summer recess, but I can think of ways in which he might use his ingenuity to raise the matters that rightly concern him.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the Leader of the House ensure that the British Steel Bill, which was having its Third Reading in the House of Lords at a late hour last night, comes back to this House for further consideration, because the Lords were successful in extracting from Ministers the articles of association for the successor company, which we in this House asked for and were refused? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is apparent from these articles of association that the golden share offers the British Steel Corporation no protection

1227
from a takeover, because the share can be sold at any time with the agreement of the Government? Is he further aware that, because the chairman of the British Steel Corporation has made the statement that the closure of the Ravenscraig strip mill is probable rather than possible next year, this would spell the end of the steel industry in Scotland?
Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman says, the Bill is still proceeding through the House of Lords. I think that the best thing is to wait until it has finished its passage there and then decide what to do.
Mr. John Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many on these Benches will be delighted by the Opposition's decision to have a debate on sport next week? Can he perhaps ask the Minister for Sport whether, during that debate, he will indicate to the House the ideas set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the excellent scheme for membership of football clubs for the season after next? Will he also point out to the House how successful this membership scheme has been in Luton and how readily accepted it will be by all those interested in the well-being of sport?
Mr. Wakeham: That is a very helpful suggestion from my hon. Friend. I think it is unlikely that my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport will not be dealing with these matters in his speech.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: With respect to Monday's business on the European Communities (Finance) Bill, in view of the fact that this authorises an increase in both EEC expenditure and our contributions of up to 25 per cent., will the Leader of the House assure us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be here to explain and move it? In that regard, has he noticed that in the claimed financial effects of the Bill in the explanatory memorandum it is indicated that our estimated net contributions increase will be £200 million to £300 million? Is he not aware that under these provisions the gross taxation increase will be up to £1,000 million? Why is that not in the explanatory memorandum?
Mr. Wakeham: These are matters for the debate next week. While I cannot say which Minister will be speaking, I can guarantee to the hon. Gentleman that the Second Reading will be moved by a senior Minister, who will be highly competent to deal with the matters the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mr. Harry Greenway: As a matter of compassion for the Leader of the Opposition, and, more important, for my constituents, will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on the statement of the Secretary of State for the Environment on rates for next year so that I can put arguments to him directly for Ealing council to be rate-capped, bearing in mind that it is reliably estimated that rates will rise by 50 per cent. simply for that Labour council to stand still? In fact, an 80 per cent. increase is expected.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point well. Unfortuntely, I shall not be able to arrange a debate on that subject next week, but no doubt we shall come to the matter from time to time.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House arrange time for a debate on the enterprise culture so that we can discuss the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's failure to refer the Cannon takeover of Thorn EMI cinemas to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Is he aware that the Cannon group has started asset-stripping by closing cinemas, including the much admired, much used and profitable Ritz cinema in Bradford, and has now sold off Elstree studio, one of the three major film studios left in this country, which played an important part in producing much admired and in some cases profitable films that were shown all round the world? These have been sold off to a property developer. Does not the Leader of the House think that it is disgraceful conduct by both the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Cannon Films which should be the subject of a debate?
Mr. Wakeham: No, I do not accept that for a single minute. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry acts in matters of mergers and takeovers in accordance with statute law. He conducts himself quite correctly in accordance with his duty. If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise matters of the enterprise culture, I suggest that he might be able to do it on both Wednesday and Thursday, when the remaining stages of the Finance Bill are being discussed.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the great concern in the country about child abuse. Will he consider providing time for a full debate on this matter, including the need for a wider inquiry into the full extent of child abuse in the country?
Mr. Wakeham: Yes, this is a very important subject and I recognise that there is a demand for a debate in many parts of the House. I do not think that I can promise a debate in the near future, but it is something that we can discuss through the usual channels.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House make arrangements next week to enable us to debate the situation in Turkey, in view of General Evren's unwelcome visit to this country? Will he ensure that, if General Evren does indeed come, the Prime Minister will make it clear to him that in Turkey there are far too many political prisoners, that far too many people have died as a result of the coup that he led in 1980, that trade union freedom is something that we hold precious and that the war against the Kurdish people should be brought to an end rapidly? Will she make it clear that there is no question whatsoever of Turkey being allowed to pursue an application to join the EEC while the lack of democracy in Turkey is such an obvious and palpable fact?
Mr. Wakeham: The visit of the President of Turkey next week is welcomed by, I believe, everybody in the House, with a few exceptions such as, probably, the hon. Gentleman. I believe that a closer relationship with Turkey will be to the benefit of both us and the Turkish people. I certainly am not prepared to arrange a debate next week on the subject.
Mr. Edward Leigh: In the light of next week's debate, is it not ironic that certain voices are raised in favour of setting up a central European banking system—an act that would certainly deprive this House of its traditional control over economic policy, as

1229
we celebrate the tercentenary of that control? Will my right hon. Friend therefore use his considerable skill and influence in Government to impress on his colleague who is to introduce the debate next Monday that the Government have no intention of presiding over any diminution of this House's traditional powers and privileges in matters of economic policy?
Mr. Wakeham: I have heard and read some of the reports to which I imagine my hon. Friend refers. I prefer to rely upon what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during questions today, which seems to me to be much nearer the views of the British people.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate or a statement about the continuing lockout at TV-am? Is he aware that this matter has never been debated properly in the House of Commons even though the lockout has been going on for more than six months and 299 people have been deprived of their jobs? Since Tories are appearing on that company's programmes, and since people of principle on these Benches refuse to take part, and go to picket lines instead, does it not mean that there is political imbalance and that therefore we should have a debate in order to thrash out these matters in a proper way so that some of us can defend those who have been chucked out of jobs?
Mr. Wakeham: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman wants to have it both ways: he refuses to go on a programme and then complains that he is not on it. These are matters for the management and the work force to resolve; it is not for the Government to intervene.
Mr. Richard Holt: Notwithstanding the answer that my right hon. Friend gave a moment ago and the excellent one-hour statement yesterday, I believe that the House, and certainly the country at large, would far rather have a debate next week on child sexual abuse than on Hong Kong. Ought not my right hon. Friend to consider having an early debate on that subject, because there is much that needs to be said, which so far has not been allowed to be said in the House?
Mr. Wakeham: I totally agree with my hon. Friend that it was a most excellent statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health yesterday and I think that the House conducted itself very well during the subsequent discussion. I recognise that the House will want to debate these matters further. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that I will look at the matter again, but I cannot promise him an early debate.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Can I ask the Leader of the House a Member's question? Can I try to persuade the Leader of the House to investigate on behalf of Members what is going on in relation to the use of the services and facilities of the House? Is the Leader of the House aware that hardly a week passes without the all-party Whip having one more notice on it restricting the use of the facilities by Members? Last week's all-party Whip was the final insult. It explained that Members could not take more than six people on the Terrace, which is had enough, but went on to say that that applied unless they were going to a party in the Terrace Bar. The Leader of the House will appreciate that the House is rapidly passing
1230
into the hands of outside interests. Will he investigate all this and make a statement to the House as early as possible?
Mr. Wakeham: I have sympathy with some parts of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As a matter of fact, earlier this week, I had a meeting with senior members from both sides of the House to consider what we should do about some of the things that occur in all-party groups and things of that sort. We are considering it as a matter of some urgency and I shall be in touch with the hon. Gentleman and the House as soon as we have done so.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), may I point out that we have not had a general debate on transport since this Parliament met? On the Conservative Benches there is a desperate desire to discuss the successful deregulation of buses and the need to privatise British Rail.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of my hon. Friend's suggestion and I wish that I could be more forthcoming, but this is a difficult part of the year in which to find extra time for debate.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate next week on the increase in visa fees, which did not receive any parliamentary approval? Does the Leader of the House realise that such a debate would allow Ministers to explain why visa fees have been increased by 20 per cent. and why they are now imposed upon all children? It would also force Ministers to defend such policies, which are clearly erecting financial obstacles to families being united in this country.
Mr. Wakeham: The Government's policy of, by and large, making the services that are provided financially self-sufficient is a good one. I do not believe that Ministers would have any difficulty in defending what has happened. I wish that I could offer the hon. Gentleman time for a debate next week, but he knows that, at this time of the year, there are occasions when he might be able to raise the matter should he want to.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate next week on the Post Office monopoly'? My constituents have just suffered a seven-day strike by Harrow post office. Companies have lost thousands of pounds and private individuals' lives have been disrupted. They would like to have a choice of postal service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this matter and the Post Office monopoly should be referred to the Director General of Fair Trading?
Mr. Wakeham: I readily recognise the great inconvenience that such industrial action may cause and has caused my hon. Friend's constituents. Such matters must be kept constantly under review because things cannot necessarily go on the same for ever if such strikes continue. However, it will be difficult for me to arrange a debate on the subject next week.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a strong feeling going around Westminster that he and a number of members of the Select Committee considering the televising of Parliament are deliberately dragging their feet to try to ensure that the experiment does not go ahead in October?

1231
May we have a debate next week on the reasons for the seeming delay and, if not, can we have an interim report before the House rises for the summer recess so that Members can consider what has been done so far? Finally, will the Leader of the House assure us that he will not attempt to frustrate the will of the House regarding the televising of Parliament?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is one of the most naive of Members if he believes everything he reads in the newspapers about the television Select Committee. That Committee consists of Members from all sides of the House, who hold all sorts of views about the televising of Parliament. That Committee has been working extremely well and extremely hard and has dealt with many aspects of the problem. It is making good progress. We discussed whether we should make an interim report, but the present view is that that would further delay matters rather than speed things up.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Would we also be naive if we believed what is written in Hansard when it reports the answers that the Leader of the House gives to our questions? On 9 June in answer to my question about hunting deer with packs of dogs he said:
"Wild deer are already protected by the provisions of the Deer Acts 1963 and 1980"—[Official Report, 9 June 1988; Vol. 134, c. 987–8]
He said that those provisions mainly referred to protection against poachers.
Scotland has the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959, which offers the sort of protection asked for in the early-day motion that I mentioned on 9 June. May we have a debate so that such protection is spread to England, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I have written to the hon. Gentleman, but I have written to a number of his hon. Friends setting out the detail of the statement I made, which I believe was correct. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that such matters are normally left to private Member's legislation. The Government have no plans to introduce legislation on this topic.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister confirm the rumours circulating in Westminster that the Government are about to announce where the housing action trusts will be based? Will he make sure that, when that announcement is made, it is not in a written answer, but in a statement by the Minister for Housing and Planning or the Secretary of State for the Environment to the House next week? Will he also arrange for a debate on Girobank privatisation before it is privatised because, to go through, that privatisation does not require legislation?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is a glutton for punishment. I thought that we were having a little rest from housing legislation. It is not for me to confirm the rumours that are going around the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement at the proper time if a statement is required. I cannot confirm any rumours.

WELSH AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That the matter of the Effect of Government Legislation on the People of Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration—[Mr. Wakeham]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates) shall apply to the consideration of Estimates as if paragraph (2) of that Order were omitted.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Revolutions of 1688–89 (Tercentenary)
Mr. Speaker: I have to announce to the House that I have not selected any of the amendments on the Order Paper—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—nor have I selected the manuscript amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourhridge (Sir J. Stokes).
5.56 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, having in mind the acceptance by Their Majesties King William and Queen Mary of the Declaration of Rights presented to them on 13th February 1689, and recalling also the Bill of Rights passed by the Parliament of England and the Claim of Right made by the Estates of Scotland for vindicating and asserting the ancient rights and liberties of the people of the two Kingdoms, beg leave to express to Your Majesty our great pleasure in celebrating the tercentenary of these historic events of 1688 and 1689 that established those constitutional freedoms under the law which Your Majesty's Parliament and people have continued to enjoy for three hundred years.
The address commemorates the 300th anniversary of one of the great events in the history of these islands: the glorious revolution of 1688. It is an anniversary with particular meaning for this House because, uniquely in the annals of European history, this was a revolution carried through by the action of Parliament itself.
The main events are well known: the defiance of the orders of King James II by the bishops and the judges; the invitation to William of Orange and Mary to defend our ancient rights and liberties; the landing at Torbay and the peaceful transfer of power which gave rise to the title of the bloodless revolution in England—although it was not like that in Scotland, and it was a very different story in Ireland; the summoning of the Convention Parliament; and the passage of legislation starting with the Bill of Rights and in Scotland the Claim of Right, which set us firmly upon a course of political stability and peace at home.
Those who invited William and Mary and who drew up the constitutional settlement wanted to secure our liberties and safeguard our institutions—Parliament, the common law, the jury system, local government by justices and corporations.
There are many important conclusions to be drawn from those momentous events 300 years ago. First, the glorious revolution established qualities in our political life which have been a tremendous source of strength: tolerance, respect for the law and for the impartial administration of justice, and respect for private property. It also established the tradition that political change should be sought and achieved through Parliament. It was this which saved us from the violent revolutions which shook our continental neighbours and made the revolution of 1688 the first step on the road which, through the successive Reform Acts, led to the establishment of universal suffrage and full parliamentary democracy.
Secondly, the events of 1688 were important in establishing Britain's nationhood and they opened the way to that renewal of energy and resourcefulness which built
1234
Britain's industrial and financial strength and gave her a world role. They demonstrated that a free society will always be more durable and successful than any tyranny.
Thirdly, we also celebrate the forging of the alliance between Britain and the Netherlands, which has endured for more than three centuries and which is active today in NATO and the European Community. Her Majesty's visit to the Netherlands this week further strengthened our friendship.
Even great events are subject to constantly shifting judgments and interpretations. Not every legacy of 1688 is a happy one—above all in Ireland. But the principal achievements of our forebears in 1688 remain and ensure that the will of the people be exercised through Parliament rather than by intimidation or pressure practised by any one group or faction. That is the legacy of 1688—a legacy not only to this country, but to parliamentary democracies everywhere.
6 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: This motion to express to Her Majesty our pleasure at the tercentenary of the revolution is a worthy act, not only because it celebrates a significant advance, as the Prime Minister just said, but because it requires us all to consider the character of our democracy and the ways in which, arduously and slowly, it has been brought thus far to our own time. Reflecting on that journey of democracy is a rewarding activity in itself. For me, it is fascinating, for instance, to see some who are usually scornful of fudges and compromise give such respect to the settlement of 1689, for if the coup d'etat itself was dramatic, the contemporary explanations of what occurred—and why—were somewhat pragmatic.
The Whigs, as we all recall, claimed a little disingenuously that James had been deposed merely because he had broken the contract of monarchy with the people. The Tories disagreed with that, holding that there was no such contract. Phlegmatically, however, they preferred what had happened peacefully to the alternative, which would certainly have been the second revolutionary civil war inside 50 years, with all its incalculable consequences. Once again, the world would have been turned upside down.
Meanwhile, the Prince of Orange knew a good thing when he saw one. With a Dutch opportunism not now seen outside the realms of the European Nations Cup, he asserted that he had brought an army with him to Torbay, not for reasons of invasion or insurrection, but merely for personal security. Then he went on to accept Parliament's rather dexterous definition that the throne had simply been vacated by James II, apparently in between having nose bleeds and disposing of the great seal in a rather original manner.
To the actors in the revolution and to many subsequent politicians, constitutionalists and historians, the interpretations of the revolution have been a matter of "pick your preference". As Christopher Hill said, history is written by the winners, and that is certainly true of revolutions. It was ever thus.
However, some of the most redoubtable roots of our democracy and some of the most intractable causes of our divisions, as the Prime Minister implied, run back to those years of 1688 and 1689, which is what makes the events so significant. It is important, therefore, even at this distance of centuries both to avoid the overblown romanticism of

1235
those who say that the revolution meant everything to liberty and democracy, and to eschew the cynical affectation of those who hold that the revolution meant nothing for liberty and democracy. Both schools of thought, if that is what they qualify to be called, are wrong.
The coup d'etat and settlement of 1688 and 1689 produced an important advance in the process of constructing rights and suppressing tyrany, which has progressed gradually and fitfully in our country over the centuries. No final date has been set for that process, and if we are truly a democracy of vigilance and vitality, no date for the completion of the body of liberties will ever be set:
"Each freedom"—
as Aneurin Bevan said—
"is only made secure by adding another to it".
The real assessment of 1688 and its consequences must, like all historic events, be made according to the two criteria of what they meant when they happened and what they convey to our age. That is especially true when the events concerned are held to be the very foundry of our liberties.
As for what happened, let us commend the undoubted fact that the revolution effectively asserted Parliament's power to dislodge the executive. Let us commend the fact that it did so without bloodshed in England. Let us celebrate the fact that it began to dispose of the dictatorship of divine right and to replace it with the civilised and durable strength of democratic right. Let us welcome the fact that, by further developing the conditions for liberty, the revolution notably assisted the advance of freedom of speech, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
In all those ways the revolution deserves to be marked, as today's motion puts it, with "pleasure", just as it earned the accolades offered by Liberal historians such as Macaulay and G. M. Trevelyan and the applause of Socialist historians such as A. J. P. Taylor, who hailed the revolution as
"the foundation of our liberty".
They were all prepared to praise the revolution, despite being conscious, as we are, that in its immediate wake there was bloodshed in Scotland, and in Ireland there was dreadful slaughter, since when there has been a long and dreadful history and inheritance of conflict. All these commentators were conscious, too, that, although they were prepared to praise the revolution as a genesis of liberty, issues such as the royal prerogative, exercised not by the monarch but by a political executive, were bound to remain vexed—as they do in our time.
This brings me back to the second criterion for judging these events—what do they convey to us now? For the most incisive assessment of that, we are indebted to the most distinguished of our contemporary historians of the 17th century Christopher Hill, former master of Balliol. In a perfect illustration of the fact that the historian's art is confined not merely to analysing the past, Hill wrote to The Independent as recently as February of this year to say that the revolution of 1688
"was not a popular Revolution like that of 1640–60. But … it overthrew a Government which … had alienated the whole electorate, including its Tory supporters, by an arrogant and insensitive disregard for public opinion, by its arbitrary interference with the independence of local government and
1236
the universities, by its bullying of the press and the judiciary and by the subordination of British foreign policy to the wishes of the greatest World power."
Christopher Hill continued:
"James alienated Scotland and even the House of Lords; opposition to him started among the bishops".
The revolution, Hill concluded,
"re-established effective parliamentary control over the executive, the rule of law and the political independence of judges, restored traditional local government and greater freedom of the press. It ended rule by royal favourites and ideological sycophants, most of whom were recent converts to the rulers' religion."
It is clear that the former master of Balliol was writing only of 1688 and 1689.
The liberties and democracy which the events of those years began to establish in our country must never be taken for granted. Parliamentary democracy above all systems of government must respond to and stimulate change. In three centuries democracy has slowly been extended in our country. Parliamentary democratic government has adapted to each new age. It must continue to do so: by getting rid of residual injustices and abuses from previous ages, ancient and modern; by advancing to new ground in the achievement of rights; and most of all by using the best of all collective instruments—democracy itself—for its highest purpose of enlarging the political, social and economic liberty of the individual.
We in this generation recognise that which the generation in 1688 did not, that that obligation must apply to all individuals—women as well as men, poor people as well as those who are not poor—and that it must apply without prejudice or preference to everyone regardless of race, colour and creed. The object of that obligation is freedom. It is freedom that is not merely formal and conditional upon the accidents of fortune, but freedom that is real and usable because people have the political rights, the economic power, the personal confidence in security and the sense of social responsibility that make them truly emancipated. Now, as always, it is our parliamentary obligation to further those freedoms. As we endorse this celebratory motion, we regard it as our democratic mission.
6.10 pm
Sir Bernard Braine: May I, as one who has had the privilege of sitting in 12 successive Parliaments under six of your illustrious predecessors, Mr. Speaker, and having seen nine Prime Ministers at the Dispatch Box, offer a few reflections on the motion that is before the House?
As the Leader of the Opposition has said, we may have our differences in this place, but there is surely one consideration that unites us all. It is the knowledge that the parliamentary system which we jointly serve is greater than the sum total of all who are here at any one time. We are here, of course, to make the laws, to control taxation, to check the abuse of power and to seek redress of grievance, but only for a brief tenure. Therefore, we are no more than custodians of the best inherited from the past and trustees for generations yet unborn. That is why being a Member of this House is the greatest privilege that any British citizen can have.
Yet it might have turned out differently. If the arbitrary rule of a Stuart king had not been checked, as it was by the events of 1688–89, upheaval might have been delayed but

1237
it would have been as inevitable and probably as violent as it was to be in France a century later or as it was in 1917 in Tsarist Russia.
Looking hack, we can see that those events were a major watershed in our history. It was certainly a revolution but more in the sense of the turning of a wheel back to normality, away from arbitrary rule back to the ancient contract between king, Parliament and people which had obtained at least from the middle ages. As one of our most distinguished historians has written:
"Stuart England, like so many continental countries, found kingship and liberty incompatible. The revolution of 1688 gave us a constitution in which the two are inseparable."
Henceforward, not even the king would be above the law and the actions of his Ministers would require the assent of a freely elected Parliament. That is the nub of it.
Of course, the glorious revolution did nothing to change the social order. It did nothing immediate for the lot of the common man, it did not widen the franchise, but what it did was provide a strong framework of law within which later far-reaching changes were to prove possible and a stability ensured which became the envy of the nations of the world.
What is more, no year since 1689 has passed without a meeting of Parliament. The way was at last open for the expansion of commerce, the extension of influence overseas, the building of empire and later that truly remarkable and peaceful transition from empire to a free Commonwealth of nations. Of course, it did not all proceed smoothly. Only 76 years after the revolution, an unthinking British Government sought to tax 2·5 million Britons on the other side of the Atlantic without consulting the colonial assemblies or representation here. When that happened there were some Members of this House who took the view that the Government of the day were in breach of what had been settled in 1689.
The great Edmund Burke, writing to his constituents in Bristol in 1777, rejected the charge that those who, like him, opposed the Government's American policy were guilty of encouraging rebellion. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will agree with what Edmund Burke went on to say:
"revolts of a whole people never were encouraged, now or at any time. They are always provoked."
Ironically, one of the greatest compliments that could have been paid to our revolution was that the American founding fathers drew their inspiration from our Bill of Rights, even to the extent of using some of its phraseology in the framing of their own constitution.
Happily, we learned from the experience, beginning with the Durham reforms, the extension of self-government to Canada and to the Australasian colonies, and eventually sovereign independence to India and to nearly all our remaining dependencies. In the end, we kept faith with all who had been subject to the British Crown, and we did so in the spirit of what was begun here 300 years ago.
It was not given to those who participated in the glorious revolution to know where it would lead. What they did not know was that only 40 years before their fathers had engaged in cruel civil war, had executed a king, had suspended Parliament and had installed a military dictatorship. It is true that king and Parliament came back in 1660, yet the lesson had not been learnt, so that once again the realm was in grave danger. Those who sought a new settlement saw clearly the need for constitutional
1238
stability and freedom, and they acted. Their instinct was sound, and we can justifiably say now that they built better than they knew.
It is wholly fitting, therefore, that, as we celebrate the tercentenery of this great milestone in our history, we should pay tribute to what was done then and should thank God that as a consequence we live in a free country. We should support the motion with full and grateful hearts.
6.17 pm
Mr. David Steel: On behalf of my hon. Friends I warmly and readily support the motion which the Prime Minister has moved which says that
"an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty,"
to mark the celebration of significant and historical events which led to 300 years of stable constitutional monarchy.
For once the motion correctly refers to the Parliament of England. I hope hon. Members will not mind if I remind them that we are the successors not just of the Parliament of England but also of the Parliament of Scotland. We all have our favourite historians and I should like to quote the words of Professor Robert Rait who reminded us that the Claim of Right of the Scottish Convention of Estates was different from the declaration in England. He said:
"But the Scottish declaration, as a whole, was not expressed in the general terms which satisfied the English Parliament; it was less philosophical and more indignant, and it specified a large number of detailed offences."
He went on to say:
"In 'offering' the Crown to William and Mary, the Convention asserted, more explicitly than the English Parliament, the dependence of the royal authority upon the will of the legislative assembly, and, in making the offer, the rights defined in the list of grievances were claimed, demanded, and insisted upon."
It is right to remember that the revolution of 1688–39 established the rights of a democratic Parliament against the usurpation of power by the Crown, but that it did not, nor did it purport to, establish the rights of individuals against the abuse of power by the Executive. As we celebrate these events of 300 years ago, it is wholly right that we should use the occasion to deliberate on our present constitution and the abuses of power within it. In that constructive spirit, I support the motion.
6.19 pm
Mr. Ian Gow: Last month, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury came to the House of Commons and told us that, following a decision of the European Court, the Government were proposing to introduce legislation to give effect to the judgment of that court. My hon. Friend was asked what would be the consequence if the House of Commons failed to agree to that change in taxation which he had announced the Government were to seek to secure. My hon. Friend told the House that, if we were to make that decision to reject the Government's proposal to give effect to the judgment of the European Court, that would lead to a serious constitutional situation.
Earlier this week, the President of the European Commission was reported as having said that, in a few years' time, 80 per cent. of the powers now enjoyed by the House would have been transferred to the European Commission or the European Parliament. It is against that

1239
background that I want to underline some of the words that appear in the Humble Address moved by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Those words refer to the
"constitutional freedoms under the law which Your Majesty's Parliament and people have continued to enjoy for three hundred years."
It is appropriate, when we are debating this motion, that the House should reflect that that which occurred 300 years ago is in the nature of a trust conferred upon us. It is timely that we should reflect whether those freedoms granted to this Parliament and to our people can long be maintained, if we are to continue in the direction proposed by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and which was envisaged by the President of the European Commission.
The great movement—in a way, it was a great movement—towards what some people regard as European unity started 42 years ago with the famous speech at Zurich of Winston Churchill. He said in those telling sentences:
"We must recreate the European family—or as much of it as we can—and provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, in safety and in freedom."
The next sentence, which I believe has been widely misinterpreted, stated:
"We must build a kind of United States of Europe."
We do not know what Churchill would have said about the prospect of a continuing erosion of the powers of this place over our people, but it is legitimate for those who, like myself, share his European ideal to say that it is possible to believe that the European nations must co-operate as closely as possible, one with another, where it is in their common interest to do so.
It is possible to believe, as I do, in the free movement of people, goods and capital in Europe without also believing that we need to go on surrendering the powers of this place, either to the Commission or to the European Parliament.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is not a Parliament. It is an assembly.
Mr. Gow: Following the Single European Act, it is so called.
It is appropriate on this occasion that the House should reflect on the liberties that were conferred specifically upon us as a result of the glorious revolution and say—I believe that we have my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's sympathy in this—that we shall seek to preserve and uphold the rights of this House and the rights of our people to be taxed and their rules to be made only as we, the House of Commons, decide.
6.23 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: This is the first time in my 38 years in the House that we have had a debate on parliamentary democracy, on what was meant to be a formal motion. But it cannot possibly be a formal motion because of the speech made in support of it by the Prime Minister and by other hon. Members who have participated.
One thing has become quite clear to me, and I have thought it for some time. If one blows on the embers of any old controversy, the flames come up quite quickly. I recommend the House not to pass the Humble Address that has been moved by the Prime Minister today. What
1240
happened in 1688 was not a glorious revolution. It was a plot by some people. By chance, they conspired in Chesterfield. The Earl of Devonshire got a dukedom for his pains and it would have cost him his head if it had gone the other way. That plot sought to replace a Catholic king with another king more acceptable to those who organised the plot. It was not bloodless. I do not know how the House can discuss the arrival of William of Orange without referring to the hideous repression for which he was responsible in Ireland. He was not alone in the long history of British repression in Ireland, but he was responsible for very much of it. Historians have said, and I have read, that the rights of the Irish Catholics under William III were fewer than those of the American negroes at the time of slavery.
Nor, indeed, was 1688 the establishment of our liberties. How many hon. Members have read the Bill of Rights? I shall quote just one passage from it. It referred to:
"An Act for the more effectual preserving of the King's person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament."
That is in the Bill of Rights. Are we to say today that we welcome a Bill of Rights that says that papists could not sit in either House of Parliament? I know that that was changed later, but we should not attribute our rights to the Bill of Rights.
Let me turn to the oath required of magistrates and Ministers, which states:
"I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm. So help me god."
However, the Prime Minister allowed the airfields of Britain to be used by an American President to bomb Libya. The standing army of James II consisted of 30,000 troops, exactly the same number that President Reagan has at his command in our islands.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) touched on another aspect of the matter—the fact that this Parliament is about to be destroyed by the European Act. It is all very well making a speech, saying that he thinks that the Prime Minister really sympathises with him. Whatever the sympathies of the Prime Minister, one has only to read what Mr. Delors said as quoted in The Times today. It states:
"M. Jack Delors, the president of the European Commission, yesterday stunned Euro-MPs by declaring that the existing system of national parliaments would have to give way to the 'embryo' of a European government within seven years, and the Single European Market after 1992."
What capacity for self-deception does this House have when it celebrates such a motion? The Father of the House and I were elected in the same year, although he was elected a few months before me. The one difference between us was that I followed Edmund Burke in Bristol. Edmund Burke was the paid agent of the state of New York. That is why he supported the American colonies. He was the Member for Bristol for six years. He visited the constituency four times and he is now treated as one of the great architects of parliamentary democracy. He used to take his holidays in Bath, 10 miles away, but he did not bother to visit Bristol. For God's sake, the capacity for self-deception in this House never ceases to amaze me.
Then we are told that 1688 was the birth of our democratic rights. Only 2 per cent. of the population, all of them rich men, were represented in this House in 1688. No working people or middle-class people and no women

1241
were represented. That had nothing to do with democracy and that is no doubt why the National Front joined the Prime Minister in welcoming the glorious revolution. It has endorsed it and, when Exeter celebrates the landing of William III at Torbay, the National Front will be there because it knows what it was about.
This is all to justify a celebration in Westminster Hall on 20 July. The contractors have not waited. They are already building the structures in Westminster Hall to allow the Queen to reply to a Humble Address that we have not even passed. If we want to have a celebration, have a celebration, but do not ask the House of Commons to falsify history to justify a party in Westminster Hall. Do not ask us to do it. Do not ask us to confuse the electors about democracy.
Let me give a parallel. If this was the birth of democracy, will the Prime Minister tell us whether, if the Russians adopted the principles of 1688, she would welcome it? If Gorbachev said that he intended to be a hereditary monarch, would that be a great advance towards democracy? If the Supreme Soviet were to be hereditary and the prerogatives of the General Secretary of the Communist party were to be the same as the royal prerogative, would that he a great gain? Who is the House trying to deceive by passing the motion? There is also the American standing army here to which I have referred; and the power of the European Commission over our Parliament.
I do not mean to he controversial. The House knows that it is not my practice ever to be controversial on constitutional matters. But I would not be human if I did not express my deep resentment at having to listen to a speech on democracy from the butcher of the GLC—the person who tried to destroy the civil liberties of our people, the Prime Minister who has pursued Peter Wright around the world at enormous cost to prevent him telling the truth about the crimes committed by MI5 against an elected Government. I will not listen to a lecture from her on democracy.
If we were to celebrate parliamentary democracy, we could perhaps celebrate Wat Tyler's campaign against the poll tax. We could celebrate the Levellers. We could celebrate Tom Paine, whose books are still not allowed to be read by the prisoners in the Maze. We could celebrate Tolpuddle, or the Chartists, or the Suffragettes.
I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to put a plaque in the House. I shall have it made myself and screwed on the door of the broom cupboard in the Crypt because in that broom cupboard on the night of the census in 1910 a suffragette hid herself so that when she filled in the census she could say that she lived in the House of Commons on the night of the census. Those are the people who gave us parliamentary democracy. Indeed, the Prime Minister would not be Prime Minister if the suffragette had not broken the law.
Mr. Gow: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that part of his speech, will he reflect on the fact that there are many Conservative Members, and vast numbers outside, who think that for him to lecture this place about freedom and liberty in the light of his conduct during the miners' strike is a disgrace?
Mr. Benn: All that the hon. Gentleman has done is to show that this is not an all-party motion; it is an occasion to argue about the meaning of democracy. The day that
1242
the Labour party and the Tory party agree about democracy, I shall apply for the Chiltern Hundreds, so I hope that we never end that sort of argument. Of course, this is about controversy. But if we have an opportunity 300 years later to discuss what democracy is about, let us discuss it properly.
My amendment is of inordinate length, Mr. Speaker, but you allowed me to table it. I think that that must have been on the clear understanding that I did not mope it, but that is another matter. I have tabled in my amendment, first, that Crown prerogatives should be replaced by statute law. There is no justification whatever for powers to be exercised in this country that have not been endorsed by Parliament. Let me list the powers of the Sovereign today, most of them exercised by the Prime Minister—to make Orders in Council, to declare war, to make peace, to recognise foreign Governments, to sign or ratify treaties, to grant pardons, to grant charters, to confer honours, to make appointments, to establish commissions, to grant commissions, and to issue orders. Those are prerogative powers and sitting on the Government Front Bench is the person who exercises them.
I asked the Library to tell me a bit about the Prime Minister. Since she has held office, she has made 170 peers—170 of them sitting in the other place, not by virtue of democratic right but because of patronage. The Prime Minister's predecessors all did the same. She has made four hereditary peers, 11 Lords of Appeal, and 56 bishops. Those appointments were made under prerogative powers. They were never discussed in Cabinet or in Parliament. How long shall we pretend that a system of law that rests on feudal prerogatives, even if exercised by the monarch sitting on the Government Front Bench, has anything to do with democracy?
Then we come to the House of Lords itself, a subject in which I have some interest. But when I saw those old peers who were given a map of London, their rail fare and £100 to support the poll tax, I must confess that I understood why the House of Lords is so beloved by the Conservative party. The poll tax is the best thing that has ever happened to the stately homes of England.
Then we come to the third point in my amendment, that people be allowed to know and understand the decisions taken in their name by the Government. We are now told that anyone who ever serves the public must swear confidentiality for life—except Bernard Ingham, who leaks state secrets at 11 o'clock every morning. That includes members of the Cabinet who publish their memoirs. We are Crown servants too. This is an attempt to suppress information about what happens in Whitehall and the Government so that the public do not know, and if they do not know, they cannot exercise their vote in order to change the society in which they live.
Then we come to the powers of the European Commission, the right to equality of treatment and the right to be granted free speech in assembly and free trade unions, the right to have elected local and national authorities to meet the needs of the community and that the armed forces of foreign powers should be subject to the annual Army Act. What is wrong with the House of Commons deciding every year whether it wishes American troops to remain here'? Every year we go through the farce—it is a farce—of re-endorsing the disciplinary code for our Army. Why cannot we say about the American army

1243
what we can say about the British Army—whether we want it to continue in order to ensure that it does not threaten our liberty?
Then we have the Church of England. We are part of a Parliament that believes in equal rights for women, but the Synod is still discussing whether women priests are to be permitted. The House of Commons, which does not have to be Chrisitian, let alone Anglican, and a Prime Minister, who does not have to be Christian, let alone Anglican, have the power to endorse or reject the Synod's decisions, appoint bishops, and so forth.
Then we come to the oath. I have been looking at the oaths and my next Bill will seek to amend the Promissory Oaths Act 1868. When one looks at the oaths of a Privy Councillor, a Member of Parliament and the Sovereign at the coronation, they throw an interesting light on the obligations by which we are bound. The reality is that nobody takes an oath to uphold democracy in Britain. The Queen takes an oath to govern the country and uphold the rights of the bishops. We take an oath to the Queen. Nobody in the House takes an oath to uphold democracy in Britain, and one does not need to have watched "A very British coup" to realise that that might have some relevance at some future date.
We must now terminate the jurisdiction of Britain in Ireland. I asked the Ministry of Defence to give me the figures. The war in Ireland costs £722 million a year—£13 million a week on repressing Ireland, and that must stop.
Finally, I come to the last point in my amendment about common land belonging to the people of Britain. It took me some time to realise that the privatisation of British Telecom was not an intention of the Prime Minister. The Enclosure Acts were medieval privatisation. They took the common land and gave it to the great landowners who have benefited greatly by it.
I finish with the words of my amendment:
"and humbly pray that proposals that would give effect to these demands be brought forward for an early decision by the House of Commons, in line with the manifest need for a genuine restructuring"—
a rough translation of a word that is becoming familiar—
"of the institutions of the state to replace its present feudal nature and introduce a new sense of openness"—
another rough translation—
"which is necessary if democracy is to be entrenched in the hearts and minds of the people, and to meet their needs and satisfy their aspirations, which are the only ultimate safeguards of its maintenance and development in this, or any other, country."
I beg hon. Members not to make the House of Commons look a fool by endorsing this Humble Address, and to vote against it, or, if they cannot do that, to abstain, so that at least we do not have to tell children that democracy had nothing to do with the franchise; it was all because William of Orange had to give an assurance to justify the fact that he landed an army in Torbay and took over, in order to repress the Catholics and the Irish. I recommend that course to the House.
6.40 pm
Mr. Julian Amery: When I came to the House this afternoon, it was not my intention to intervene in this debate, which I thought was likely to be a formality. However, the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has moved me to seek to catch
1244
your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is himself the finest product of the glorious revolution. His speech was possible only because of the political evolution that we have enjoyed since those days. Had he made it in some other assembly, and had we not had the glorious revolution, his head might well have rolled.
Mr. Benn: It may yet.
Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman says, "It may yet," but I do not wish to anticipate the Labour party conference.
The difficulty is one of definition. The right hon. Gentleman has told the House what he considers to be undemocratic about the last three centuries and about today, but he has not given a clear definition of what is democracy. When I first looked out of my political cradle and submitted my draft speeches, as a candidate in 1945, to the scrutiny of my father's eagle eye, he always crossed out the word "democracy" and substituted "constitutional government".
Mr. Benn: That explains a lot.
Mr. Amery: I believe that my father was profoundly right and that the freedoms we enjoy and the progress that has been made results from having a constitutional Government. We learnt three centuries ago what the Soviets are learning now—that there is no progress without freedom. However, freedom represents a threat to authority and a balance must be struck. I believe that we can claim, over those three centuries, to have struck that balance fairly well.
I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman means by the word "freedom". The essence of the motion is our faith in parliamentary democracy—not direct democracy or trying to discover from day to day, through public opinion polls or by any similar method, what people think at any given time, on any given issue. The old phrase has it that a politician with his ear to the ground must inevitably have his bottom in the air, and he must not be surprised if it gets kicked. The essence of our system is that we deliberate in this House on what we think is right and vote according to our conscience. That was the doctrine of Burke, but I believe it is also the philosophy of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield on issues such as capital punishment, where public opinion would almost certainly be against that of the House. We need rather more definition before opposing the motion, which I wholeheartedly support.
I turn to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who warned us of the dangers of a European federal government. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken on that issue in relation to a central bank and a monetary union. I confess to being surprised at the way in which we so easily accept that the choice is only between a federation and national sovereignty. M. Delors and others have spoken about a monetary union; but we are the experts on that subject. Nobody ever ran a monetary union without gold, until we started doing so in 1931, when we operated the sterling area with enormous success until the 1960s.
It was a monetary union of sovereign states using central banks. In its early days, before exchange control was imposed with the onset of war, it was a monetary union of sovereign countries, sometimes having varying parities. Its members merely banked their reserves with the Bank of England, without losing control of them. That

1245
was an enormous success, and all those in the sterling area came out of the pre-war recession long before the rest of the world. When the gold standard was stopped, everybody thought that the heavens would fall in, but, because of sterling, they did not.
That system was a miraculous success, and it continued through the war with the pooling of the gold and dollar reserves—and the situation which was even more difficult financially after the end of the war. We can teach others more about monetary union than they can teach us. Instead of saying no to the different proposals, we should say, "You ought to listen to us, because we know much more than the German or French banks and can teach them lessons."
To take it further, up until the mid-1950s, the Commonwealth was a remarkably successful economic, political and military association of sovereign nations working together on a basis of joint consultation, yet with nothing like the apparatus that Europe already has. In those days, there was no Commonwealth secretariat, and nothing like the European Commission and the regular European meetings which there are now. We can set the pace in the way in which a monetary union should develop. It may be that the old Commonwealth system—and I do not mean the hotchpotch we have today—could also provide a pattern more suitable to mature and historical nations than a federation of the kind now being proposed.
It is in that spirit that I say that our country, as the author of so many contributions to democracy—sorry, constitutional government—in the past, should set the pattern again in the future, in both the monetary and political fields.
6.46 pm
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am not surprised that the father of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) crossed out from his speeches the word "democracy" and substituted "constitutional government". The fight for democracy had to be wrung out of the class of which the right hon. Gentleman's party has been representative since the days of the 1640 revolution; democratic rights have not been handed to the people of this country.
I too wish to quote Christopher Hill, because my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition referred to him. In his book on "The English Revolution 1640",Christopher Hill quotes the Leveller Rainborowe in 1647,and then makes a point that is vital in understanding and debating our democratic rights and freedom. He wrote:
"It is struggle that wins reforms, just as it is struggle that will retain the liberties which our ancestors won for us. And if the people find the legal system 'not suitable to freedom as it is', then it can be changed by united action. That is the lesson of the seventeenth century for to-day. It was of us that Winstanley was thinking when he wrote at the head of one of his most impassioned pamphlets:
When these clay bodies are in grave, and children stand in place,
'This shews we stood for truth and peace, and freedom in our days'.".
I hope that the House will take note of that for which our forefathers fought.
I return to the "glorious revolution". It was neither glorious nor a revolution. It was not a revolution because the real revolution had already taken place when, the day after the king's head was cut off in 1649, the House of Lords was abolished. It was restored, incidentally, in 1660,
1246
when James came back to the throne—[HON. MEMBERS: "Charles."] I am sorry, Charles II. I am not well up on kings. To be honest, I do not think much of them.
When the monarchy was restored, the House of Lords was brought back. That is the important thing to remember: the real revolution was that revolution. But, in the process, those who were fighting for real democracy were suppressed by the Cromwellians, who put down the Levellers and others in the part of the world where I was born. The people of property asserted their power. That is what the English revolution was about. A group who had property—the landed aristocracy—were superseded by a new class that had arisen, with new kinds of property.
But they made a mistake. When the monarchy was restored, they discovered that this guy unfortunately still had ideas of the past. That was not entirely acceptable to them, because he was going to restore to some extent the right of the kings over those of the property owners who were the real rulers. So William and Mary were brought in and used. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but there are other interpretations. For instance, we heard about the Whigs. Although they claimed that they supported William and Mary, the real people who brought them in and supported them were the high Tories of the day. Some hon. Members would do well to read a little about the history of the period and to think about where we are today.
There are some mythologies about 1688. If we examine the Declaration of Rights of 1689, we see that the Catholics were put in their place, both here and in Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made that clear in what he read out to us. But one of the myths is that William, the great Protestant leader, got into such a position on his own.
I do not know whether hon. Members have read the very interesting "A Concise History of Ireland" by Maire and Conor Cruise O'Brien. I hope that Conservative Members will not suggest that Conor Cruise O'Brien is not a capable historian and a man of great ability—he does not necessarily endorse everything that I believe in. In that book, he says:
"This internal simplification had been effected by an external complication: the Pope was not, this time, on the Catholic side as far as the civil war in James's dominions was concerned. The quarrel between the Holy See and the French monarchy, over the question of the liberties of the Gallican Church, rendered impossible any Vatican support for Louis's protégé, James. In Ireland, the contending parties felt themselves to be fighting 'for' and 'against' the Pope, but the Pope was not in reality where he was expected to be. The fact remains an embarrassment to those on both sides who cherish simple historical pieties. In our time, the Parliament of Northern Ireland"—
this was written when Stormont was still in existence—
"which venerates the memory of the victory of Protestant William over Papist James, once acquired and displayed a portrait of their deliverer. The portrait was hurriedly withdrawn when one of the figures shown as hailing—and perhaps even blessing—the Protestant hero was identified as Pope Alexander VIII. Louis, at war with the Emperor and the Dutch as well as with England, could spree little for war in Ireland."
The mythology is that it was just a question of the suppression of the Catholics. The truth is that it was power politics and class politics. It has been class politics ever since. It is most unfortunate that the conflict tends to be viewed as Catholics versus Protestants, when in reality the Catholic and Protestant workers of Northern Ireland and in Ireland as a whole—and in this country—have more in

1247
common with each other with which to fight the class that the Conservative party represents. I am informed that the day that Rome learnt of the battle of the Boyne, the Pope had all the bells rung and a special mass was celebrated in St. Peter's.
Another part of the mythology is that democracy came through the Tory party. The Tory party is in favour of democracy only for as long as it can use it for its own people and its own interests. The day that democracy is used properly and effectively against them, the Tories will be no different from many other people in the world in overturning democracy and using other methods to suppress the real democrats.
I would like to say much more, but let me finish by talking about the place at the other end of the Corridor. I am sorry that the amendment was not selected. It is a modern Declaration of Rights, and one that is vital. At this juncture, we have a Government who are upsetting, undermining and slowly but surely destroying all the real freedoms that have been achieved by the British people over the years.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The people voted for us.
Mr. Heifer: The hon. Gentleman's great-grandfather was one of those tough men who fought for the freedoms of the working man. He would be ashamed of the hon. Gentleman. The real rights that we have in this country have come because of the struggle of the mass of ordinary people over the centuries. Such rights have never been achieved by people looking down from on high and handing them to us on a plate; we have had to fight for everything that we have. Our trade union movement is now being tied up with worse anti-union legislation than in any other European country. It is not much different from what is happening in Jaruzelski's Poland—indeed, it is perhaps slightly worse.
I know that some people were relying on the other place to stop the abolition of the GLC. They thought that if a number of amendments were passed it would be a setback. But the other place is an instrument used by the Conservative party against the interests of the British people. That anti-democratic organisation has existed for too long; the wisest thing that the Cromwellian Parliament did was abolish it. It is time that we returned to the real revolutionary attitudes and got rid of it as quickly as possible, rather than allowing it to be used againt real democracy and the people of this country.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that we have a good deal of business to get through.
6.59 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) has referred in disparaging terms to the Ulster Unionists and to the Stormont Parliament which existed for many years, and identified the class system with the Unionist people of Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland, apart from a few, know nothing at all about the class structure. They find it ridiculous. I was born in a little whitewashed
1248
thatched cottage on a tiny farm, and my family know more of hardship than does any other hon. Member in the House. The time has come for people in this country to do away with talk about class structure and get people working together.
The hon. Member for Walton spoke about the Pope as if the Unionist people of Northern Ireland were trying to hide the fact that the Pope was instrumental in getting William III to fight against James II. When I was Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I brought into my office at Stormont the very portrait to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, the portrait believed to be of the then Pope blessing King William on his way to the Battle of the Boyne. It is not a portrait of King William. Certainly it is a figure of the Pope. I was proud to show that painting to everyone who came to Stormont, including some hon. Members of the House. I did not try to hide it. Irrespective of whether we disagree about incidents that happened over the decades and the centuries, we should look upon history as something on which we can build for the future.
The right hon.Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who has left the Chamber, attacked Edmund Burke. I am sorry that he made that vicious attack.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the precious painting in his office in Stormont, is it not the case that the popular belief in Northern Ireland, as expressed through their songs, is exactly the opposite? The presence of the Pope in violent language, and the support of the Pope at the battle of the Boyne, when they were
"steeped to the knees in Fenian blood, knee-deep in slaughter",
was rejoicing at the defeat of the Pope. That is the popular image that was presented, no matter what the portrait shows.
Mr. Kilfedder: There is no doubt that at a time of controversy when people feel at risk, and when their existence is at peril, they adopt black and white attitudes to history.
The Ulster people were a greater thorn in the flesh of the British Government over the centuries than what would now be termed the nationalist people of Ireland. The Ulster people were always complaining, fighting and arguing. At one time, because of the religious persecution, whole congregations of Presbyterians moved to America and helped to form the United States of America.
Many leading Roman Catholic clergy supported Ireland as part of the British Isles. We must never forget the distinguished Unionists who represented in the House constituencies in what is now the Irish Republic, and who were Roman Catholics.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield launched a vicious attack on Edmund Burke. Every time the right hon. Gentleman enters the House by the main entrance at St. Stephen's, he passes Edmund Burke on one side and Henry Grattan on the other. Everyone who enters this Parliament through the main entrance must pass those two distinguished Irishmen. I defend Edmund Burke, as I am the vice-president of the Dublin College historial society which was founded by Edmund Burke. Professor Laski went to Dublin to deliver the bicentenial address in praise of Edmund Burke. It was wrong for the right hon. Gentleman to launch a vicious attack upon that distinguished Irishman of the past.

1249
Following the Prime Minister's eloquent speech in support of this motion, she and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic should meet next year on the site of the battle of the Boyne. Perhaps that would demonstrate the closeness between the two countries.
I resent the attitude of some hon. Members. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield criticised the cost of maintaining the Army in Northern Ireland. The basic right to life is worth preserving, no matter what the cost. During the past six months three IRA atrocities have received national and international attention. A number of innocent people were slaughtered on Remembrance Day at Enniskillen, and it was only by a miracle that hundreds were not killed. More recently, there was the murder by the IRA of three soldiers at Lisburn. They were taking part in a charity marathon. It was only by a miracle that hundreds of innocent men, women and children were not slaughtered by that IRA bomb, as it was a family reunion and many families were out and about in Lisburn that night. Last week there was the IRA bomb attack on the school bus. I believe that that little girl is still fighting for her life. It is only by a miracle that all those children were not murdered by that IRA bomb.
I do not think that one can put a price on protecting human life. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman did his cause any good by saying that it was too costly to maintain the Army in Northern Ireland.
In conclusion, although William III by his success in the battle of the Boyne ensured that we have parliamentary democracy today, there is not much democracy in Northern Ireland. As a result of the Anglo-Eire Agreement, which I believe was sponsored by Sir Robert Armstrong, the then Secretary to the Cabinet, the people of Northern Ireland are now in a worse position than they were before the agreement was signed. More people have died in Northern Ireland since that agreement was signed than in the same period before. We in Northern Ireland feel that we are being ruled as if we were some far off colony in the last century and there is great basis for that feeling. In addition, a foreign Government now have a say in the government of Northern Ireland.
I hope that we can more forward with good will. Perhaps when people recollect the battles of the past and the need for people to come together, the people of Northern Ireland will come together and make progress. Perhaps there will be a devolved Parliament at Stormont which will be fully representative of all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.
7.8 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who is not in his place—I am in no way criticising him for that—took the view, which I strongly share, that much of our sovereignty in the House is constantly undermined and eroded as a result of the treaty of Rome. We are now debating the event of 1688, but it may well be that in a few years time, certainly before the end of this century, we will end up having less economic power in this Parliament than do many of the individual states within the United States. That should cause all of us deep concern.
Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I do not want to go over the background to the events of 1688. However, it is interesting to note that few hon. Members would have
1250
been allowed to be in the Parliament of that period, either because they did not have sufficient property or wealth, or because of their religion or race. Therefore, it is nonsense to believe that 1688 created a democracy which we should be celebrating.
I tabled my amendment—I realise that it was not selected—because while the Prime Minister's motion refers to the
"constitutional freedoms under the law",
one or two aspects cause anxiety. The Prime Minister takes the complacent view that all our rights and freedoms are perfectly intact and there is no need to worry, but so long as the security services are not accountable to Parliament, the officials employed in them will remain largely a law unto themselves.
Unlike Conservative Members, I believe that Cathy Massiter performed a useful public service in telling us of the abuses that occurred when she was employed by MI5. We learned from her that, before my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) was a Member of Parliament, she was the subject of an investigation by the security authorities—the Government have not denied it—because she was the full-time legal officer for the National Council for Civil Liberties. Cathy Massiter, who should understand these matters because she was employed by MI5, said that anyone employed by the NCCL, anyone on its executive and any local activist was the subject of an inquiry and that a file was kept on him or her by MI5. Much the same occurred with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, yet Ministers have repeatedly said that campaigning for nuclear disarmament is perfectly legitimate.
It may be said that this is an obsession of the Left, that no one should take these allegations seriously and that there is no foundation for these claims. Yet the right hon.Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who was in charge of the security services from 1970 to the beginning of 1974 so should know about them, said in his speech on the Protection of Official Information Bill:
"However, I also met people in the security services who talked the most ridiculous nonsense and whose whole philosophy was ridiculous nonsense. If some of them were on a tube and saw someone reading the Daily Mirror, they would say, 'Get after him, that is dangerous. We must find out where he bought it.'"—[Official Report, 15 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 612.]
A Prime Minister should have a good insight.
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): The Prime Minister was irresponsible.
Mr. Winnick: I would have thought that the people who were irresponsible were those who allowed inquiries into members of CND and the NCCL. It is irresponsible to have in our parliamentary democracy—I believe that we do live in a parliamentary democracy—the type of abuses which Cathy Massiter exposed. No Conservative Member has raised the matter because Conservative Members are not worried about it. We say that on the Labour Benches we treasure civil liberties far more than Conservative Members and it is illustrated by our concern about these matters.
There are also the allegations made by Wright. For all I know, as I have said previously, he could be a liar. He could have made up the allegations merely to sell his book. Incidentally, he has not done too badly. He has become a

1251
millionaire mainly because of the Government's stupid action in trying to ban a book which everyone in this country can read whenever they choose.
Wright alleged that he and other officers in the security services were involved in trying to destabilise a Labour Government. Those allegations should be the subject of a judicial inquiry. I may be wrong, but I do not know of one Conservative Member who has said that those serious allegations should be investigated. How do we know, for example, whether some of those involved in that conspiracy who worked with Wright do not remain in the security services? Should we not be worried? Is it not part of our constitutional freedom under the law to know that? That is a reason why I am not happy with the motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) touched on a further reason. It is a misreading of our history to believe that the freedoms we enjoy and the civil liberties which I certainly appreciate were established in 1688. It is interesting to note that in the present debates in the Soviet Union it has been suggested that the Soviet Union should learn from the experiences of the British Parliament. Clearly, it must be to our advantage, despite our weaknesses and limitations, that important figures in the Soviet Union want a more open society and those who seek it look on us as some sort of guide if not a model. This democracy is one of the best, but I am not complacent about it. If I were, I would not be making this speech. To live in a democracy is a million times better than to live under any form of dictatorship, whether in the Soviet Union, Poland, Romania, Chile or Guatemala. Another difference between Conservative Members and us is that we are not selective; we are opposed to all forms of dictatorship and are in favour of parliamentary democracy.
The important point is that so much of our freedom and democracy was not given by Parliament, but had to be campaigned for outside. When I look at the statues and paintings in the Palace of Westminster I see hardly a reference to those who made it possible for us to be in Parliament. The Prime Minister did not mention the Tolpuddle martyrs. If our constitutional freedoms were established in 1688, why were those men persecuted for belonging to and being active in a trade union, and then deported to Australia? Why is there no memorial to or painting of them here?
What about all the campaigning last century for the right to vote? It is almost impossible to believe that at the beginning of this century and for 18 years afterwards half the population were denied the right to vote in general elections and the right to stand for Parliament, for no other reason than that they happened to be women. One would have expected the Prime Minister to refer to that, but not at all. Before 1918, no women were allowed in Parliament and even after that there were some qualifications. Until 1918 incidentally there were qualifications on the right of men to vote. Those qualifications were being much reduced but did not disappear until 1918, and then not for women.
Those matters are extremely important and relevant. For the motion to ignore all the struggles that took place to establish parliamentary democracy is like Soviet history, which until recently did not mention those murdered by Stalin and his associates during the years of
1252
terror and the purges. I would have been much happier if the motion had dealt with these matters, recognised the fights and campaigns to make us a democratic country, and recognised some of the abuses which undoubtedly continue, mainly in the security services, which should be subject to parliamentary control and accountability.
I hope that I have not been too critical, but I thought it only right and proper to state these reservations about the motion.
7.19 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I shall speak briefly in support of the motion. This is a very historic occasion. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was somewhat dismissive of the glorious revolution. I agree that certain refinements have been made since that revolution, but he was ungenerous not to acknowledge that it was a great milestone in our constitutional history.
It is often said that we have no written constitution. The events whose tercentenary we are celebrating give the lie to that. The Bill of Rights is very much a written document. It is not a quaint museum piece, with no relevance to modern times— it is unlike the Labour party in that respect. It is very relevant to our present-day concerns.
I remind the House that when William and Mary were offered the throne, it was essentially a contract between Parliament and the new sovereigns. The declaration of rights set out the conditions under which, effectively, they were offered the throne. On 13 February 1689 it was declared:
"the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal; … That levying money for … the Crown … without grant of Parliament … is illegal; That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against the law; … That election of Members of Parliament ought to be free; That the freedom of speech and debates … in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court … that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted; … And that for redress of all grievances and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently."
Those words are as relevant today as they were in 1689.
We are about to move on to other business—voting money for the Defence Estimates. It is an inheritance of 1689 that no standing army may be kept in this country without the full authority of the House. That is why such matters are debated in the House annually. If the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) thinks that the stationing of American troops in Britain flies in the face of the rights and liberties of the people, which were guaranteed in 1689, it is open to him to submit a motion to the House and to seek its endorsement. The sad fact for him is that the House would not accept such a motion, nor would the people of Britain. However, he is free to submit such a motion.
Mr. Benn: The merits of having such an army here are not the significant factor. What is significant is that the House was never told about that army; the prerogative was used, as on several other occasions. It cannot be argued that Parliament endorsed the army. The army came here and if we were to vote against it it might be asked to leave—whether it would leave is another matter. Parliament was never told. The prerogative overrides parliamentary control of central matters.
Mr. Howarth: I accept that, but it is open to the right hon. Gentleman to submit a motion to the House because the House is sovereign in these matters and the House will decide.
Freedom of speech and debate in the House is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, which states that they
"ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court".
If it were not for the declaration of rights of 1689, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would be in grave difficulty with the courts over libel. Freedom of speech is enjoyed in the House today as a direct result of 1689.
The events that we celebrate today are of great constitutional importance because the 1688 revolution established our present constitutional tripod of sovereign, Parliament and people. It has been refined by universal suffrage and tested, and it may be tested again. In 1689, the popular belief was that our country could have been subverted by a foreign power—in this case, the papacy—and could have been undermined. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) that we may face a constitutional threat to the House, posed by the European Community, which must ultimately be for the people of Britain to decide. Having said that, we have every reason to be grateful for the 1688–89 revolution and I warmly endorse the motion.
7.24 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It is entirely right that we should be debating this motion, and it is unfortunate that the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has not been selected for debate.
We have chosen to celebrate the tercentenary of the so-called glorious revolution of 1688 rather than the triumph of the armies of Parliament over the armies of the King during the civil war—or any of the other extremely important events in the history of democracy in this country—because that revolution was all about the corruption of the state by the power of the landowners and the power of wealth. It was about the manoeuvrings of Lord Shaftesbury to prepare the ground to bring over William and Mary to take over the crown. William and Mary would for ever guarantee the powers of the landowning classes as well as bringing with them the Protestant religion and the discrimination against Catholics that followed. There is no historical basis for the selection of William and Mary except that it suited the landowning classes of the time to have a Protestant King and Queen and to guarantee their own power as against that of the people defeated during the civil war as a result of the corruption of Cromwell.
There is an important place in my constituency. In 1648 there was a historic—in some ways seminal—meeting between Cromwell and the leader of the Levellers, John Lilburne, who warned Cromwell that unless he was prepared to do a deal with the Levellers and accept the fundamental democracy of Parliament he would become a despot and pave the way for the return of the monarchy, which he did in 1660. That meeting is an event worth celebrating, and it took place in the Nag's Head on the Holloway road in my constituency.
We should recognise, too, that the so-called glorious revolution of 1688 paved the way for the processes of imperialism and colonialism. Implicit in the wording of the Bill of Rights is the domination of colonies throughout the
1254
world and all the disgusting, and degrading events that followed from that, such as slavery and the domination of subject peoples. All of them stem from the Bill of Rights and the glorious revolution of 1688, which once more imposed the monarchy on this country.
Many hon. Members have referred to what followed from the glorious revolution. I have a copy of the Bill of Rights, printed in a book entitled "A Documentary History of England", which was given to me by my mother and father when I was 15. They said, "One day, it will come in handy", and it has. One section of the Bill of Rights has been used to dominate the people of Ireland, and that domination continues. The Bill of Rights says:
"all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance;"
That specifically says that the Protestant religion is to take hold and that Catholics are to be discriminated against. We should commemorate the retribution meted out to the Catholic people of Ireland as a result of William and Mary coming to the throne by remembering that the only way we can ever bring peace and freedom to all the people of Ireland is by the reunification of Ireland and removal of British troops from it.
My right hon. Friend the Member of Chesterfield rightly drew attention to the section of the Bill of Rights that refers to the imposition of a standing army. Clause 6 of the preamble says that
"raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament"
is against the law.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield pointed out, there are 30,000 American troops and 140 bases here, while we have no control over what happens there. It is nothing more than an insult to celebrate the glorious revolution when we have a Government who have centralised more powers than almost any other Government since 1688, who are busy pushing through the poll tax—the most unfair, unjust tax imaginable—and who allow poverty to grow at unparalleled rates and people to sleep on the streets. At the same time this Parliament passes taxation laws that are a gift to the wealthiest.
We have nothing to celebrate. The concluding sentence of the Address states:
"established those constitutional freedoms under the law which Your Majesty's Parliament and people have continued to enjoy for three hundred years."
Many people have not enjoyed those freedoms. They have been won by struggle and are all under threat while the Government and their ilk—their landowners, wealthy people and banking system—continue to repress people and take away the freedoms to organise in trade unions, to demonstrate on the streets and to organise politically against the Government. We should demand guarantees of freedom for the people, not celebrate a glorious revolution which brought a land-owning class to power and kept it there, for fear of the success of the civil war and the revolution that went with it in 1840.
7.31 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: As one who was born in Devon and has walked on the beaches and landing grounds where it all began, I feel the urge to speak, even if no one has the desire to listen.
I was puzzled that the Prime Minister—a Tory with the instincts of an 18th century Liberal—should invite the House to celebrate a 17th century Whig theory of history. It is in the spirit of celebration, good will, good humour and grace which always characterise everything that I say that I am prepared to put that down to the fact that she was badly briefed rather than ignorant of history. I see that a historian is here—the Minister of Trade—but I do not think that he was here for the speech by the Prime Minister, which is sad, or he would have been able to put the right hon. Lady right.
The Prime Minister wishes to celebrate the glorious revolution because it saw the British establishment at its best—suave, cunning and deceitful. The Prime Minister invites us to celebrate the rule of law and parliamentary democracy which she claims arose from that revolution. Yes, we celebrate the rule of law, but surely we should be a little careful about celebrating a rule of law that saw Ireland drenched in the blood of virgins and Catholic priests. Surely we should be a little careful about celebrating a rule of law when E.P. Thompson in his book "Whigs and Hunters; The Origin of the Black Act", which dealt with the 18th century, said that the laws of England have always been bent and manipulated in the interests of the ruling class. Surely we should be a little chary of celebrating a rule of law which, after 1688, was largely administered by the same people who administered it just before 1688.
A painting in the corridors of this building shows the infinite mercy of the English legal system. It shows that Alice Lisle, who harboured a fugitive at the battle of Sedgemoor on 7 July 1685, was sentenced to be burnt at the stake. The English legal system, backed by the rule of law and administered by the same people after 1688 as before, in its infinite mercy commuted that sentence so that she was hanged!
Surely we should be slightly worried about the development of parliamentary democracy. I do not want to go into constitutional history or a modern theory or analysis of parliamentary democracy, but two things only can be said with certainty about parliamentary democracy. First, power does not reside in Parliament. Secondly, there is nothing that is democratic about the exercise of that power. Who said that? It was said not by Trevelyan, as one may think, not by Macaulay or by Hill, but by Sedgemore in the first paragraph of his book "The Secret Constitution". I suggest that the House should adjourn and read that book, rather than go into the Lobby and support the motion.
7.34 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) asked, "What is democracy?" He felt that the debate required a definition of it, but did not offer one and I will not either, because there are flaws in seeking to offer definitions behind which one may hide. When asked to define trade unions, George Woodcock refused and said that it was like looking at an elephant—a person might not know how to
1256
define an elephant but he knew it when he saw it, and a person knew a trade union when he saw it. Likewise, democracy depends perhaps less on definition and more on recognition. There may be some characteristics that we would expect a democracy to have.
The first charcteristic of a democracy is a voting system based on a universal franchise. Our universal franchise was fought for long after 1688 and was pushed considerably from the bottom. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is an advocate of the principles of Chartism in the 19th century. Most of its principles were finally adopted, apart from the provision of annually elected Parliaments. I do not know whether I go that far, but I believe that we should seek annual elections in local government.
An election requires choice, and we see the Soviet Union as being inadequate in that respect. Schumpter defined an election in "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" as being a competitive struggle for the people's vote. Voting is not entirely democratic. Other provisions must be there in connection with it. It requires not only that the vote is freely and fully exercised but that society has within it a wide range of civil liberties so that the majority do not decide to take action willy-nilly and so that the electoral system does not throw up Governments based upon 42 per cent. of the electorate who willy-nilly push through items without considering individuals' rights.
My hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) have stressed civil liberties. We need great freedoms in terms of expressing views, demonstrating, organising and ensuring that central Government do not have detailed control over what is done. Information for one purpose—for example, housing benefits—should not be used against people by the state—either the local state or the national state.
Another characteristic of a democracy is that there are some limits to the amount of centralisation. In 1688, the problems of totalitarianism did not exist. They were largely the creatures of the development of the 20th century. Governments can control centrally and operate controls over the media, as we have seen in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Social and economic developments in this country should worry us and we should make sure that there is a pull against them and that there is decentralisation, local government and local democracy.
Democracy should also have concern about fairness and public service. In 1867, the franchise was first extended to elements of the working class—but not to all—and shortly after an Education Act was introduced by Foster, saying that we must "educate our masters now". Because of the fight for the extension of the franchise, we have had public education, public services and provisions and the development of the welfare state. That has all happened because ordinary people have been able to vote for greater distribution of wealth. Left to itself, the free market brings hardship and exploitation. If we do not have a democratic system to distribute wealth, we are in trouble.
We can now compare the 1688 glorious revolution with the 1979 revolution, which started gradually but which has been pressed through at an ever increasing rate. It may become known as the inglorious revolution.
I have already mentioned the four characteristics of democracy, and I would like to say something about our supposed heritage from 1688 which working people have fought for and established. With the poll tax comes a cut

1257
in the franchise. We know that there is a hidden agenda for the poll tax. The results are emerging in Scotland, Manchester and Kensington, where it is clear that the number of electors is falling. It is falling in areas where people oppose the poll tax. It is a means of perpetuating, without devices such as the enabling acts used in Nazi Germany, the Conservative Government's life. That is a very serious matter because it goes against traditions that go back not so much to 1688 as to the 19th and 20th centuries and the democracy that the working class fought for. We should be fantastically worried about the cut in the franchise.
We should also be worried about what is happening in local government, where there is an attempt to fix election results. The recent Conservative party political broadcast showed that their intention is to pressurise people into voting Conservative and to get rid of Labour's base in local government. That should worry us tremendously, as should the smashing of local government and the development of further centralisation.
The second characteristic of democracy concerns civil liberties, which others have dealt with. Poll tax registrars will invade a whole host of sensitive information that was never previously registered. That information will be used to ensure that people pay the poll tax. It has been said, and confirmed by the Leader of the House, that the ancient right of petitioning, which predates 1688, is affected. Before 1688, petitions tended to be about personal grievances, whereas after they tended to be about matters of public policy. Petitions will now be available to poll tax registrars to make sure that the signatories are on their registers. That is an invasion of a right that dates back before the franchise. Indeed, it was one of the limited rights that ordinary people had even in 1688.
Thirdly, poll tax represents excessive centralisation. The Government have introduced a host of measures which advance the development of something akin to a gentle corporate state. There must be some Conservative Members who believe in the free market and the freedom of competition and that centralised authority is something that we should all fight against. Too much power is going in that direction.
The philosophical stance of some Conservative Members is nonsense. It is almost as though they have turned their backs on the freedoms enjoyed under capitalism and returned to Hobbes' "Leviathan", in which he suggested that there could be either anarchy or absolute centralisation, with authority and sovereignty resting with one person or one group of people in Parliament. Others, he suggested, should be excluded completely.
Fourthly, there is the terrible unfairness of the poll tax, but there is no need to go into that as Conservative Members know the vast social difficulties that it will cause. How can we call this democracy when it does such things? Has it not been eroded to such an extent that we must fight solidly to defend it and oppose what is taking place? The poll tax is the most serious interference with our liberties since the glorious revolution of 1688. We should all stand up and fight it.
7.47 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I do not propose to detain the House for long, but I want to register my objection to the motion, which I find offensive.
1258
Opposition Members who vote in favour of it will have different reasons for doing so, but we must deal with the motion on the Order Paper. It is reasonable to recognise that 1688 was a short step on the path to accountability and the right to dislodge the Executive, but that is not what the motion says. The motion states that some sort of millennium was established and that our people have enjoyed constitutional freedoms under the law for 300 years. It is patently offensive to suppose, for example, that the people who lost limbs and lives in the factories during the industrial revolution enjoyed anything at all, especially when their average life expectation was less than 30 years in the huge developing industrial towns in the north, such as Bradford, Manchester and Leeds. The motion will he left behind after all the arguments have gone, and that fact is overlooked.
I do not know the mechanism by which the motion came to the House, but if any Labour Members were involved, the motion should have recognised the years of struggle and bloodshed undergone by ordinary people. The first Factory Act to control the bloodshed among the people who, according to the motion, were enjoying constitutional rights was not introduced until 1802. It was then applied by a venal, corrupt and ineffective magistracy, who owned most of the factories and therefore were not keen to apply the law. The people who looked to the magistrates for the constitutional rights did not receive much consolation.
I am concerned about what the motion says, because it omits any reference to the bloodshed in the factories and the rise of the trade union movement. I will not go into that in detail because my hon. Friends have dealt with it powerfully, but trade unions were developed to protect ordinary men and women, and their families, against the outrages that were visited upon them. The workers and their organisation had no constitutional privileges or rights to enjoy.
It is folly for any hon. Member to talk about constitutional freedoms being enjoyed for 300 years, when in the post-war period we have had the threat of nuclear weapons. What sort of constitutional right have ordinary people over the Prime Minister if, for example, she decides to use Polaris when she receives information from United States-controlled radar installations—and we know how reliable they are—that the Soviet Union is promoting an attack upon us?
The right hon. Lady is organising the building of £11 billion-worth of Trident nuclear weapons. What constitutional rights does the citizenry enjoy to control the Prime Minister in the use of those weapons? The answer is, none at all.
We cannot isolate the motion from the realities. I am not here to get involved in the niceties of Parliament and to rubberstamp motions emerging from some committee. The reality is that our nation is retaining means of mass extermination on a scale that, by some fortunate stroke, has hitherto never been experienced, and is building at a cost of many billions of pounds nuclear weapons which could exterminate even more effectively and efficiently than Polaris.
The whole question of rights over those new weapons of mass extermination is ignored in the motion. It is on that basis that I shall vote against it.
7.50 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: I should like first to apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to colleagues of all parties for not having heard all the contributions to the debate. No disrespect was intended. My speech will be brief and I intend to refer only to my amendment, which I wish had been selected.
When I first became a Member of this place, I had no thoughts of tabling amendments mentioning a written constitution and a Bill of Rights. However, my experience of this place—brief though its is—has changed my mind fundamentally on some key constitutional issues. I believe that Parliament, as currently constituted, no longer acts as the main constitutional brake on the Government. We seriously need to consider a major constitutional settlement that would entrench the rights of individual people and define the institutions in our constitution that could defend those rights effectively.
We are meant to be celebrating the 300th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. There are many ways of celebrating. One would be to pickle that Bill of Rights, to put it into aspic and say, "It is a marvellous thing. We should have a drink and a bit of a sing-song." That would be a celebration. However, the people who brought forward that Bill of Rights would expect us to celebrate it in a far more serious way and to review where we have gone in those 300 years and say where we should like to go in the next 300. I fear that if we entrust our civil liberties and the defence of our rights to this Chamber, in 300 years' time we may not be celebrating even those few rights that are enshrined in the 1688–89 settlement.
I therefore put forward some proposals in my amendment. Those proposals do not bear particularly on my constituency. Like many of my hon. Friends, I could repeat the history of the democratic struggle that has taken place in my constituency and area. There are three unmarked graves in a church close to our shire hall in Nottingham. If those three unmarked graves were in a country fighting for its democratic rights in this day and age, they would be shrines. In fact, they are the unmarked, uncelebrated graves of three individuals who were plucked out of a crowd in 1830 and hanged on the steps of the shire hall in Nottingham. They were the victims. They were people who were merely trying to get the right to vote. I could quote many other examples from the Labour history, the trade union struggle and the struggle for the fight to vote in my city, not least the burning down of the famous Nottingham castle. However, that would not get us very far in discussing what I proposed in my amendment.
I suggested first a Bill of Rights to entrench the individual liberties of all citizens, regardless of decisions made in this Chamber. They should be entrenched by a referendum and amended only by a referendum so that, whatever the political complexion of this Chamber, there would always be a marker against which any individual would know his or her rights against our Executive and legislature.
Secondly, I suggested a written constitution so that at any point anyone in our society would know the institutional relationship between the various parts of our constitution, and so that people could make up their own minds about what we were doing and whether we were doing it properly in this Chamber of the House of Commons.
Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend has referred to a written constitution. He will know that I am critical of certain aspects of that, hence my remarks about three quarters of an hour ago. Why should we believe that a written constitution would give our citizens greater freedom? Would it not take away from this House and give to the courts powers which we should not give away—all the more so, bearing in mind the position with the EEC, which was referred to earlier? Why cannot this Parliament control the Government? Previous Parliaments have done so. Surely it is a question of majority.
Mr. Allen: The courts have that power now, but the citizen has no guide or marker by which to measure any judgments. The citizen cannot say, "This is my inalienable tangible right which I will test against the judgment of any member of the judiciary." If my hon. Friend believes that this place has acted as a defence for the rights of individuals, trade unionists and people who would wish information to be more widely available in our society, he is living in dreamland.
My final point is that this place should ensure that it, rather than any other part of our constitution, becomes the decision-making chamber. That is why I suggest in my amendment the abolition of the House of Lords. That was and remains the policy of my party and should feature in any serious constitutional settlement 300 years after the previous one.
7.56 pm
Mr. David Alton: I wish to speak only briefly, but want to place on record the reasons why I shall vote against the Humble Address. I shall do so because it is deeply insensitive to the House to pass an address which commemorates in an almost celebratory way an event which, in 1688, led to enormous harm and distress to many people living in these islands. With a family from the west of Ireland, and having seen for myself the ravaged homes, hamlets and small villages which were depopulated as a result of what happened in the period after 1688, I find it difficult to celebrate the tercentenary of those so-called historic events, because for those families they were tragic events. The trouble with motions such as this is that they stir up old memories and hatred. For that reason, the motion is deeply offensive to many of Her Majesty's loyal Catholic subjects. I am surprised that the Government have shown such insensitivity.
I also believe that there is a danger of becoming prisoners of our own history, especially when it is history as selective as that incorporated in the motion. It is absurd to table such a motion without any reference to the events which a number of other hon. Members have touched on.
The period in the aftermath of the war with the French and after the battle of Peterloo is infinitely far more important for our constitutional rights than the battle of Waterloo or 1688. The battle of Peterloo took place on the fields of St. Peter's, outside Manchester, where the reformers demanded suffrage. For me, the Chartist movement, the emancipation of Catholics and Jews, and the anti-slavery movement which was led by William Wilberforce and other Members of this House are the events that we should be celebrating, rather than choosing selective parts of our history as in the Humble Address.
The House will not be surprised that I have another reason for resisting the Humble Address. I personally find it difficult that the greatest right of all—the right to life

1261
—is not enshrined in this great celebration of the tercentenary of the events of 1688. Indeed, it is impossible in this House even to bring about a vote on the question of the right to life. In 1948 the United Nations stated that everyone should have the right to life, yet hon. Members are not allowed a vote on that subject because Parliament has become so enfeebled that it will not provide the time necessary to arrive at a conclusion on that question. In these circumstances, there is, therefore, no way that I would be able to support what I regard as a sham.
There is a third reason why I shall vote against the Humble Address. It is because of the way that we run our democracy in this country. It is fraudulent and often corrupt and phoney. Governments can be elected with just one third of the votes and yet receive two thirds of the seats in the House. That we can have a system of government that is so centralist and secretive and so often rides roughshod over the wishes of the people whom we seek to serve is the antithesis of democracy.
While I agree with what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said about our system of government being one of which we can be proud, it was E. M. Forster, in his book "Two Cheers for Democracy", who said that only love, the beloved republic, deserves three cheers. Certainly that is true. Democracy, as we experience it in this country today, is highly inadequate. We need a new constitutional settlement which looks again at many of the questions raised during the debate. A proper Bill of Rights, freedom of information legislation, a Select Committee system that is able to hold the Executive accountable, a proper and fair electoral system, a decentralised form of government—those are the developments that we should be looking forward to, instead of simply looking back to a period that does this country no great credit, and is a period of which we should be deeply ashamed.
For those reasons, I certainly cannot support the Humble Address.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 18.

Division No. 402]

[8.1 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Alexander, Richard

Cope, Rt Hon John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Cran, James

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Cummings, John

Amos, Alan

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Day, Stephen

Ashby, David

Dixon, Don

Atkinson, David

Dobson, Frank

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Durant, Tony

Body, Sir Richard

Dykes, Hugh

Boswell, Tim

Emery, Sir Peter

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Forth, Eric

Brazier, Julian

Fox, Sir Marcus

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

French, Douglas

Browne, John (Winchester)

Gale, Roger

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Buck, Sir Antony

Gill, Christopher

Burt, Alistair

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Butler, Chris

Gow, Ian

Butterfill, John

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Gregory, Conal

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carttiss, Michael

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Chapman, Sydney

Hanley, Jeremy

Churchill, Mr

Harris, David

1262

Hawkins, Christopher

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hayward, Robert

O'Neill, Martin

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Page, Richard

Holt, Richard

Pawsey, James

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Howells, Geraint

Portillo, Michael

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Hunter, Andrew

Rhodes James, Robert

Irvine, Michael

Riddick, Graham

Jack, Michael

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Janman, Tim

Roe, Mrs Marion

Janner, Greville

Rost, Peter

Jessel, Toby

Rowe, Andrew

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Ryder, Richard

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Kilfedder, James

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Sims, Roger

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Kirkwood, Archy

Spearing, Nigel

Knapman, Roger

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Knowles, Michael

Squire, Robin

Latham, Michael

Steel, Rt Hon David

Lawrence, Ivan

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

Lightbown, David

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Lord, Michael

Thorne, Neil

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Thurnham, Peter

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Waddington, Rt Hon David

McNair-Wilson, P.(New Forest)

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Mans, Keith

Ward, John

Mates, Michael

Wheeler, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Widdecombe, Ann

Michael, Alun

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Wilshire, David

Monro, Sir Hector

Winterton, Nicholas

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Wolfson, Mark

Mowlam, Marjorie

Needham, Richard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Nelson, Anthony

Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

Neubert, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Madden, Max

Allen, Graham

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Alton, David

Meale, Alan

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Nellist, Dave

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Patchett, Terry

Corbyn, Jeremy

Skinner, Dennis

Cryer, Bob

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Gordon, Mildred

Heffer, Eric S.

Tellers for the Noes:

Hoyle, Doug

Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Brian Sedgemore.

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects. the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, having in mind the acceptance by Their Majesties King William and Queen Mary of the Declaration of Rights presented to them on 13th February 1689, and recalling also the Bill of Rights passed by the Parliament of England and the Claim of Right made by the Estates of Scotland for vindicating and asserting the ancient rights and liberties of the people of the two Kingdoms, beg leave to express to Your Majesty our great pleasure in celebrating the tercentenary of these historic events of 1688 and 1689 that established those constitutional freedoms under the law which Your Majesty's Parliament and people have continued to enjoy for three hundred years.
Resolved,
That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the whole House.—[Mr. Wakeham.]
Ordered,
That such Members of this House as are of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, do humbly know Her Majesty's Pleasure when She will be attended by this House with the said Address and whether Her Majesty will be Graciously pleased to permit the invited representatives of overseas Parliaments of the Commonwealth to accompany this House in attending Her Majesty.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

ESTIMATES DAY
[2nd ALLOTTED DAY]
ESTIMATES 1988–89
  Class I, Vote 1
    DEFENCE (PERSONNEL COSTS)

      Merchant Shipping and Civil Aviation
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That a sum, not exceeding £4,503,563,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March 1989 for expenditure by the Ministry of Defence on personnel costs etc. of the Armed Forces and their Reserves and Cadet Forces etc., personnel costs etc. of Defence Ministers and of certain civilian staff employed by the Ministry of Defence on movements; certain stores; supplies and services; plant and machinery; charter of ships; certain research; lands and buildings; sundry grants; payments abroad including contributions and subscriptions to international organisations and grants in aid.—[Mr. Ian Stewart.]
      8.12 pm
      Mr. Michael Mates: It cannot often fall to the lot of one Back Bencher to have the good fortune to open two debates in the House in as many months. I am sure that most of my hon. Friends will agree when I say how glad I am that, as I rise for the second time, I do so in an air of considerably less controversy than the last time I found myself opening a debate in this House.
      I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for recommending this estimate for debate today and I am extremely grateful to my Committee for the hard work it put in to the report that we published a short while ago and that is relevant to the debate. I must say, having said how grateful I am to it, that I am wondering where its numbers are now. They were due to be here, but perhaps they have heard the sound of my voice for too long in Committee to want to listen to it again. I am also grateful to the Select Committee on Transport, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), for its excellent report on the overall state of the merchant fleet. Our report looked only at the defence implications of the decline that has been taking place in that fleet.
      "I told you so" is never an edifying remark to make, but where the defence role of merchant shipping is concerned, there must be many people who are qualified to make it, not least our friend and former colleague Sir Edward duCann. He spoke out on this matter for many years in this House and warned of the consequences of the decline that was taking place. As long ago as 1980, when I was first appointed to the Select Committee on Defence, we voiced our concern about the strategic importance of the British and NATO merchant fleet and the implications of their decline. In the 1983 Parliament, the Defence Committee again and again highlighted the importance of merchant shipping to our defence capability and warned of the possible effect of the crisis then facing our merchant fleet. The Defence Committee's fourth report of this Session appears on the Order Paper today and in it we bring the story up to date. The House will see that we find no reason to come to conclusions any more optimistic than those of our predecessors.

      1265
      I can be brief in introducing this debate because our views are set out in the report, but I shall pick out some of its themes. First, the fulfilling of the defence requirement for merchant shipping must be set against a background of the continuing decline in the British merchant fleet. As we note in paragraph 13 of our report, the previous Defence Committee took evidence on this subject in 1985 and it put to Ministers the prediction made by the General Council of British Shipping for the following two years. In reply we were told that that prediction was too pessimistic and that the methodology was wrong. However, the decline has continued at pretty much the rate forecast by the General Council of British Shipping. There may be a temporary remission now as the Department of Transport has claimed, but the trend is still downward.
      Second—I am happy to say this—although there is little actual shortfall in ships in the categories required by the Ministry of Defence—security considerations prevented us from going into great detail in our report—the squeeze on those assets is inexorable. In paragraphs 40 to 47 we identified the categories in which there are particular or potential problems. They include fishing vessels for mine counter-measures, product tankers, dry cargo freighters, which are being replaced by container ships and which are much less useful and less flexible for carrying military equipment, and, with the advent of the Channel tunnel, roll-on/roll-off ferries.
      Third, we are extremely worried that, in a time of tension or war, the military demand on available merchant shipping for the transatlantic reinforcement of Europe, for the reinforcement of Europe from the United Kingdom and for the direct support of the Royal Navy will leave few assets for the task of economic shipping. That would be vital in a period of tension or war and the Merchant Navy would be required to bring in the supplies to keep this country going and our people alive.
      Elsewhere in our report we draw attention to potential manning problems. The availability of British personnel to man ships used for British defence purposes is most important. However, not only is the number of British seafarers declining steadily, but the numbers joining the Merchant Navy are lower than ever before. We examined that matter in paragraphs 54 to 60 of our report and we find that trend extremely worrying. We also point out that other NATO countries would have difficulties in finding the ships that they would have to provide and we expressed our surprise that NATO has not taken more vigorous action about such trends before now.
      Although many of our conclusions relate to the needs during a period of tension or war, there is a regular requirement for shipping for use in exercises. I do not believe that I am the only person who was disappointed that, for the major tri-service exercise, Purple Warrior, which took place in late 1987, the Ministry of Defence had to charter Danish vessels, ally in NATO though Denmark is. As we say in the report, it would surely have been of greater benefit to our long-term national security if British shipping earmarked for requisition in conflict had been chartered for that major exercise, even if the cost had been slightly greater.
      Since the Defence Select Committee in the last Parliament began looking in detail at the defence requirements for merchant shipping there has been some recognition within the Government of the practical problems of providing the right shipping in the right place at the right time should the worst happen and we were
      1266
      faced with a major crisis or hostilities. I am not sure how far that realism has progressed. In the course of our inquiry we asked the Department of Transport what would happen if a foreign owner of a United Kingdom registered vessel trading outside NATO waters refused to make his ship available. Somewhat to our surprise witnesses told us that they envisaged that the Royal Navy could be called on for assistance—but I think that by that stage the Royal Navy would have a few other tasks on is plate.
      It is not our task as a Defence Committee to make comments or recommendations on ways of reversing the decline in the merchant fleet. However, what worries us is that there appear to be aspects of Government policy that lack drive and, above all, co-ordination. That is why we repeat in paragraph 73 the recommendation of our predecessors that these things should be co-ordinated and directed by the highest level of Government. Our views can be summed up in the words of paragraph 66 of the report and I can do no better than to end my remarks by quoting it:
      "The ready availability of adequate merchant shipping resources represents a very significant element in the make-up of deterrence. The lack of such resources represents a grave deficiency in our ability to deter. The availability of merchant shipping for defence purposes is governed by three key factors—the number of UK flagged ships, their accessibility when they are needed and the availability of a pool of British seafarers to man them."
      We believe there are grounds for concern on all three counts, and in asking the Government to examine closely what we have said I hope that these concerns will be addressed, because, although there is no crisis yet, the trend is the most worrying aspect of all. The last thing I want is to return to the House this time next year and say that there are areas in which we simply cannot do the task.
      8.24 pm
      Mr. John McWilliam: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) for his speech. I also thank him, as a member of his Committee, for his humour, forbearance and integrity as we went through these matters.
      This is yet another unanimous report from our Select Committee. That is important because it means that we are interested in the facts, rather than what some of us might wish—or others might not—to be the case. Robert Burns said:
      "Facts are chiels that winna ding."
      Roughly translated, that means that one cannot ignore the facts when they exist.
      One of our problems was getting at the facts. Paragraph 8 of the report, dealing with statistics for the merchant fleet, shows the problems that arise because of different statistical bases and different ways of including or excluding vessels. For example, I fail to see the relevance of including dredgers in ships available to us in times of war. Perhaps we shall need to dredge out a harbour, but presumably we keep our harbours well dredged out now so as to get near them.
      What are the facts? The Select Committee on Transport was told that there were 410 United Kingdom registered merchant ships of more than 500 gross registered tonnes. But we were given the figure of 906. That poses an immediate problem.
      What about the sort of ships that we want, and the roles we expect them to play? First, there is transatlantic

      1267
      reinforcement from Europe. We have a 30-day commitment to such reinforcement, and I shall return to that issue. Then there is reinforcement of continental Europe from the United Kingdom. Most of the American forward-base supplies are in this country and must be moved from here to continental Europe. Next comes direct support of the Royal Navy. There are few ships equipped to do that—there are some ro-ros and other bits and pieces that could be used, but some of them are not up to the standards that we would expect, for various reasons. There is also the category of economic shipping. In a crisis, this country would still have to exist.
      We tried to deal with all these problems, but our considerations were not helped by two things. One was the lack of an agreed criterion of which ships to count; the other, I am sorry to say, was the problem of calculations about attrition. We have tried to discover whether we can have a support convoy system of the sort that we should have for reinforcement across the Atlantic. According to the MOD, we will not. It is calculated that somehow or other all Warsaw pact hunter-killer attack submarines will be bottled up to the north of Iceland, Scotland and Norway. That is a difficult argument to sustain, given that they are not all there anyway. In any sudden period of tension there is no reason why they should suddenly all head for home and then be bottled up. The logical conclusion is that that will not happen. So the sort of attrition figures that we are dealing with were quite different from those that the MOD seems to be considering.
      We are worried about what is happening. because the numbers do not add up. It seems that categories of shipping such as stern trawlers, deep-sea trawlers and oil-rig supply vessels can be used fairly quickly in emergency roles. But we are worried because we do not have the right number of vessels. The number of bulk carriers that we have seems to keep falling. In the report, we make the point that the slowdown in that fall appears to be more of a remission than a cure of the trend. I come from Tyneside and I can say that there is no sign of the sort of vessels that we need being built, or of the sort of facilities that we need to build them being maintained. We must keep that clearly in mind when we are considering this report.
      It gives me no great pleasure to talk about this subject. I was educated at Leith academy, which was established in 1452 for the education of the sons of mariners, and it taught the skills of mathematics and navigation. It fed candidates for deck officers, cadets, and candidates for marine radar, radio and electronic officers to the nautical college. My school is still there but Leith nautical college is not, and the manpower that we need is not being trained. We are dangerously short of the skilled seamen and officers that we need to man our ships in the sort of situation that we are talking about.
      Our merchant marine has served us well through two world wars. In both wars, the convoy system was said to be unnecessary but suddenly it was necessary. If there was any major conflagration in central Europe it would be necessary again. The same mistakes have been made again and again and we should learn from our history. We are
      1268
      told that everything is all right and that somehow or other we will have the ships. But somehow or other is not good enough.
      I repeat the famous words by Robert Burns:
      "Facts are chiels that winna ding."
      The facts are there, and it is up to the Minister to assure us that the Government are taking active steps to ensure that we will have the capability to sustain on a conventional basis any future war in central Europe. If the Government cannot say that, then they are admitting something that they have not admitted before, that they have given up any idea of a conventional war being sustainable in western Europe and would have to move very early to the nuclear alternative.
      I have two daughters who I hope will raise their own families. I hope that my daughters' children will have families and I find that nuclear alternative deeply disturbing. Because of our inactivity, the nuclear threshold has obviously come down. I want to hear from the Minister what he proposes to do to raise the nuclear threshold so that I can be confident that my children and the children of other hon. Members can look forward to the future. On the basis of the information in front of us, I have no such confidence, and I look to the Minister for reassurance.
      8.33 pm
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I asked a question in the House the other day and declared an interest because my brother works in a nuclear power station. After all the trouble I have taken to try to get into The Daily Telegraph I suddenly found myself in the Commons sketch column. I shall declare an interest at the beginning of this speech because for five days prior to arriving here on Monday I was the guest of Her Majesty's Navy bouncing up and down in the north Atlantic. I enjoyed some very good food and got to know a little more about the Navy.
      One of the great advantages of those five days was that I had to eat my meals with the officers and ratings and during our off-duty hours we spent much time talking about all the aspects of present day naval warfare. One of the most gripping things we learnt about was the worry of the Navy that our merchant fleet may not be up to the job if there is a war.
      We have a standing Navy and it is an expensive asset for us to maintain. It is essential that it be maintained but there is a certain amount of the chicken and egg argument about it. The Navy has a clear role to protect merchant shipping, but what is its role if we have no merchant shipping to protect? Our Navy cannot do its job unless it has merchant vessels to call on. The Falklands war clearly demonstrated that the flexibility of being able to call upon our merchant fleet was essential for prosecuting that war.
      As we see security in Europe becoming stronger and the threat of a land war reducing, we have to take into account the fact that we might have to use our naval resources and our Merchant Navy in a peacekeeping role in areas where we would not expect to use it. Our Merchant Navy would be essential. The excellent report gives clear figures about the reinforcement of our NATO commitment and about getting American forces to Europe. Many people who know about the vast amount of money spent by the Americans on their forces forget that 90 per cent. or perhaps more of the manpower available to fight a land war in Europe comes from European nations. Everything else that the Americans would have to bring into such a

      1269
      war would have to come by air or by sea. We would be in an extremely difficult position if we did not have merchant vessels available to do that.
      Merchant vessels have military roles. We saw that in the Falklands war because one of our aircraft carriers had been a container ship and it worked very well. Most of the systems that are now being supplied to the Navy are in boxes. That applies to missile, radar and communication systems which are often designed to use a container that will fit on a ship and give it the flexibility to play its role in a specific aspect of our defence.
      For many years the merchant service has provided our basic manpower. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) spoke about the role of the merchant shipping fleet in training the manpower that we need. The town of Weymouth is in my constituency and contains an enormous number of people with merchant shipping experience. Over the years many of them have been made redundant and have had to find other careers, other ways of earning a living. Their children are no longer being sent to naval colleges and that resource of merchant shipping experience will not last much longer.
      We have to start to think again about where we go from here. Our merchant fleet is depleted and we must proceed to a healthier position. We seem to have abandoned the idea that the United Kingdom will ever again be a great shipbuilding nation. Many products of Britain demonstrate that with the right economic climate and improved productivity we can start to compete with other nations. I would never say that we should close the door on any industry and would welcome a regime under which shipbuilding could start to grow again. Employment is important and shipping in all its forms can have a valuable effect on our economy.
      On the Front Bench there are two excellent Ministers from the Department of Transport and the Ministry of Defence, but it is deficient in that there is no one on it from the Treasury. Tiny little non-states in most parts of the world have provided tax regimes to persuade our ship owners to re-register their ships. Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of the Treasury to work out a scheme by which we can bring those merchant vessels back under our own flag. It is noticeable that the decline has stopped temporarily. Perhaps that is because the Armilla patrol is doing a successful job of protecting British ships in the Gulf and it therefore becomes a plus factor to have a ship with a British flag on it. The Navy depends on a merchant fleet to support it, and that merchant fleet appreciates having the best Navy, man for man, in the world. We should he asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to think seriously, before the next Budget, about what he can do to bring vessels back under our flag.
      The cost of light dues and of using United Kingdom ports needs to be considered. Opposition Members, on their packed Benches, may not like me saying this, but I believe that the national dock labour scheme prevents us from being as economic as we should be in our ports. I do not want to attack the ports. I want more people to be employed in Weymouth port, instead of the dozen or so who are currently employed there. We want to see more people employed in the ports and I want to see the removal of, or a great change in, the national dock labour scheme.
      I have touched on a number of subjects in a random way, but I believe that there is a future for our merchant fleet. We must always take into account the fact that our
      1270
      merchant fleet is part of the defence of the realm. We are willing to pay a high price for the defence of the realm and we cannot do that job without proper merchant shipping.
      8.41 pm
      Mrs. Ray Michie: I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I wish to commend the Chairman and his Committee on the production of the report.
      The Government are now highly vulnerable, not only because of the rundown of the merchant fleet and the decline of the shipbuilding industry, but also because recent criticism from the Select Committee on Defence and others relating to the fragile size and preparedness of the Royal Navy surplus fleet means that the cumulative effect has worrying strategic implications. It is extraordinary that a Conservative Government should have neglected a defence issue of this nature. There is not much point in having a seamless robe of deterrence if the conventional end, like the merchant fleet aspect, begins to look increasingly threadbare.
      A number of Select Committee reports chronicle the worsening situation. We know from the last war that the role of the merchant fleet has been and is vital in transporting essential materials, such as food and supplies, to our country. Now, as part of Britain's role in the NATO defence plan, it would carry divisions of the United States army to Europe. Both those operations would have to take place at the same time and it is difficult to imagine how that double task could be achieved, given the drastic decline in United Kingdom flagged vessels.
      One of the dangers with the decline of the fleet is that it weakens the potential to deter. Not only do we need a good many merchant vessels and a good many trained seafarers to sustain the country, but, just as important, we need to convince a potential enemy that we can sustain a conventional war of any length. As has been said, it is now highly doubtful that the United Kingdom could mount a Falklands-style operation again. The Conservative Government take great pride in their strong stand on deterrence in nuclear matters, yet they appear at best slipshod in naval deterrence. The Soviet Union does not need to be able to read semaphore to observe the United Kingdom merchant fleet weakening fast. The Government appear content to shrug their shoulders indifferently. That is simply not good enough.
      There is also a shortfall in special categories of shipping, for example, fishing vessels for mine countermeasures. The decline in the fishing fleet has resulted in a shortage of large stern trawlers available for that purpose. I believe that there are now only about five such vessels. Even the decline of the fishing fleet has a knock-on effect on our defence capabilities. I have a particular interest in that because, in my constituency, we have an excellent fishing fleet and we build fishing vessels.
      The far-flung nature of the Merchant Navy means that a numerical sufficiency of ships is not necessarily the practical and accessible number of ships. The scope for double-counting the availability of a dwindling fleet is considerable. The demands on merchant shipping for transatlantic and economic shipping, as well as for defence purposes, would lead to impossible competition for the same resources. How can we easily get back ships. many of which would need refitting, from the other side of the world and make them available for defence purposes?

      1271
      The same applies to the availability of men to man ships in an emergency. The report warns of a continuing decline in the recruitment of new cadets and trainees. Trained seafarers are vital because foreign crews cannot be a substitute for United Kingdom personnel in a time of strife. It would be simply impossible to train large numbers of United Kingdom seamen to man requisitioned ships, if they could be obtained, to deal with an emergency.
      Hon. Members have talked about a shortage of skills, but that is not universal throughout the United Kingdom. I know very well that there is not a shortage of skills and knowledge and that there is an honourable tradition of seafaring in the Merchant Navy in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. During the last election, I came across many men who had been laid off and lost their jobs in the Merchant Navy. It was with great sadness that they came to me and said, "What are the Government doing to our once proud merchant fleet?"
      The number of United Kingdom flagged ships has declined rapidly, leaving a smaller and smaller pool on which to call in times of emergency. It is a sad story. There has been a decline from over 1,600 ships of 50 million deadweight tonnes in 1975 to no more than 645 ships of less than 17 million deadweight tonnes owned by British companies at the end of March this year.
      There is no point in the Government waving the flag over national defence when there are now so few ships sailing with the flag at their masthead. Virtually nothing has been done to encourage investment in shipping. The need for a proper fleet would give our shipbuilding industry a much-needed boost.
      Although the Government's help for training and repatriation of crews and the concession on income tax for seafarers serving on ships trading largely outside the United Kingdom are welcome, it is all too little and could be too late.
      The Government should consider, in conjunction with the Department of Transport, the need for a Merchant Navy strategic reserve contract under which owners would receive substantial compensation and a crew-related allowance payable in respect of each British seafarer employed by United Kingdom owners regardless of flag. Such measures are needed if the fleet is not to shrivel into insignificance, or at least to a level where it is impossible to provide the essential requirements.
      The real question is whether it matters to Britain that there should be a significant British presence in the world's merchant shipping fleets of the next decade. If the answer is yes, it lies within the Government's influence. The Government's failure to act could lead to Britain's failure in time of war.
      8.50 pm
      The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Ian Stewart): The House is grateful to the Select Committee on Defence for the valuable report that we are debating this evening. I should like to add my appreciation on behalf of the Government for the work that has gone into producing such a useful document.
      The report rightly draws attention to anxiety over the consequences of the decline in the size of the British merchant fleet in recent years. That, as my hon. Friend the
      1272
      Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) has said, has also been the subject of a recent report of the Select Committee on Transport.
      The Government will give detailed written responses shortly to both reports. I do not want to anticipate the details of those, but rather to cover in general terms some of the main issues that those reports raised, particularly concentrating on that which is covered by the title of the Defence Select Committee's report—the defence requirement for merchant shipping.
      My hon. Friend said that he recognised that there is no crisis yet. The Government recognise the importance of the subject and we are determined to ensure that there will not be a crisis.
      Before I go any further, let me respond on one point to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam). He suggested that there are no plans for a system to protect transatlantic reinforcement and resupply as necessary. I should make it clear that there are well-developed plans for naval control of shipping which are regularly exercised and they include the use of convoys when required.
      Mr. McWilliam: I am particularly grateful to the Minister for making that point because that was not the point made by the Ministry of Defence spokesmen to the Select Committee when they were specifically asked about that very question. If the hon. Gentleman is now saying that there are plans for convoy systems, suitable escorts and the kind of anti-submarine measures that need to be taken, I am sure that the House will be grateful, but so far that evidence has not been given to us.
      Mr. Stewart: I am glad to have been able to reassure the hon. Gentleman. Although one cannot go into details in such matters, the plans that I have described are in place.
      The Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy have a long history of working together and that is a two-way process. The Navy has an honourable tradition of maintaining the freedom of our ships to trade around the world while our merchant ships have invariably played a vital role in supplementing and supporting the Royal Navy in times of war. I want to say a quick word on the first part of that two-way process following the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce).
      Since 1980, the Armilla ships have accompanied a great number of British ships through the Strait of Hormuz and in the Gulf. The House may be interested in the latest figures. In 1987 there were 405 movements of British shipping in that area accompanied by Royal Navy ships. In 1988 so far there have been over 350 movements, so we are already nearly up to the total of the whole of last year.
      During that time British warships have accompanied about twice as many merchant ships as those of all other Western countries with navies in the Gulf put together. That is a record of which we can be proud. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation, having visited them on occasions, of the devoted and skilful service of our sailors in that difficult and dangerous task.
      Let me now deal with the availability of merchant shipping for defence needs. That has two clear dimensions—first, the direct requirements of the United Kingdom and, secondly, the collective NATO responsibilities which, generally speaking, is the transatlantic dimension of the question.

      1273
      In crisis or war, merchant shipping has four main roles, which I shall list, not in order of importance—first, to support the reinforcement of Europe from the United Kingdom; secondly, to support the operations of the Royal Navy; thirdly, together with our NATO allies to assist in the transatlantic reinforcement of Europe by the United States; and, fourthly, to resupply the civil economy of the European countries.
      I emphasise first the direct needs of the United Kingdom, because the Ministry of Defence is primarily concerned with the first two of those tasks in that context. We identify the military requirements and the Department of Transport takes the lead in identifying and making available civil shipping to meet those requirements. The other two requirements are collective NATO tasks across the Atlantic.
      I refute what the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) said about there being insufficient ships in the British merchant fleet or that the Government were not concerned with that. The opposite is the case. Of course, the decline of the British merchant fleet has been a matter of anxiety to us all. But let me stress at the outset that at no time has the supply of ships fallen below that needed to meet British national defence needs. In general, for the reinforcement of Europe from the United Kingdom and the support of the operations of the Royal Navy, we have a comfortable margin of vessels available from the United Kingdom and dependent territories. However, I accept that the margin is tight in some categories of vessels.
      For example, we are closely monitoring the position of cross-Channel ferries. I agree with the Select Committee that cross-Channel ferries will continue to be important for reinforcement planning. But I remind the House that our NATO partners have large, modern roll-on/roll-off fleets which will be able to give assistance and we would not have to rely solely on our own resources.
      It was suggested that there was something wrong in having a continental ferry or two involved in the Purple Warrior exercise rather than our own. The reason for that was that our ferries were all busily occupied, but that was not the case with all the continental ones.
      Mr. Martin O'Neill: I was interested in the Minister's comment concerning exercise Purple Warrior and the reasons why British ships were not used. Does he deny that one of the other reasons was that British ferry companies' charges were too high?
      Mr. Stewart: Yes, because the reason was that British ship operators in that category were not interested in offering their ships at an economic price. They were already engaged on satisfactory tasks of another kind, whereas there was a surplus among some continental countries, which we then drew upon.
      Mr. O'Neill: The price was too dear.
      Mr. Stewart: No, I refute the hon. Member's remark. If he thinks that we should pay whatever rate is necessary for British ships that are fully occupied, against the availability of foreign ships from NATO countries, I fundamentally disagree. That would not be in our interests.
      I turn to the subject of fishing vessels, of which there are now relatively few suitable for mine counter-measures. We expect to be able to use North sea support vessels, whose adaptation for that purpose is feasible, and of which
      1274
      adequate numbers are available. Transatlantic reinforcement and civil resupply is a matter of some concern to us. It is a problem that affects the NATO Alliance in general and is not specifically British. The number of product tankers and large bulk cargo ships is particularly tight. NATO is currently examining ways of increasing the availability of vessels for transatlantic reinforcement, particularly in the early stages.
      The report notes that at a time of war NATO nations would pool vessels of more than 1,600 gross registered tonnes for civil resupply of food and raw materials. In many cases, other countries have not assessed their wartime needs. However, resulting from a British initiative, NATO has now embarked on a study of the supply and demand for civil resupply, and I am glad that it has done so. That study is designed to establish the extent, if any, of the shortage of civil resupply vessels, and I hope that it will be completed by the end of next year.
      In addition to NATO's specific study on that subject, it also has a planning board for ocean shipping that keeps regularly under review assets available for Atlantic reinforcement and for fuel supplies to Europe on a continuing basis. I do not for one moment wish to belittle the problems posed by the merchant fleet's decline. We all want to see an industry that is prosperous and that can meet our needs in an emergency or in war. However. I wish to stress three points. First, the phenomenon is a general Western one, and the problems posed by it are NATO-wide and are not confined to this country. Secondly, although we must not minimise the problem, we must not exaggerate it. There are signs that we have been experiencing not a secular, long-term trend of decline but the reverse slope of a considerable build-up of tonnages that occurred a decade or more ago, which created unmanageable overcapacity in the industry in recent years.
      Recently, there have been encouraging signs in regard to the British-owned fleet. One key event for the shipping industry in 1987 was, in the words of the director general of the General Council of British Shipping,
      "The stabilisation of the size of the British-owned fleet of trading vessels after many years of decline."
      Within the overall figures, there has been a marked shift between registers, but in the short-term at least there are other indications that the United Kingdom-owned fleet will continue at roughly the same level, although not necessarily on the same registers. The British fleet is now slimmer, but I have no doubt that it is also more efficient. Recently, certain United Kingdom companies have been showing their confidence by placing orders for new ships to be registered in the United Kingdom, or elsewhere in the British registry system. In 1987, new orders by tonnage were higher than in 1986, and they rose again sharply in the first quarter of 1988. There has also been secondhand buying since the turn of the year.
      Perhaps the most encouraging sign of all is the movement in freight rates over the past two years. At the bottom of the cycle two years ago, at the end of the first half of 1986, the composite index stood at 85. By the end of 1986 it had risen to 95, and after the first half of 1987 it stood at 131. By the end of last year the index had increased to 176, which was no less than twice the level it had been 18 months previously. The figures now available for the first quarter of 1988 show that the index has risen to 234, which is more than 30 per cent. up again on last year's figures.

      1275
      I strongly reject the suggestion that the Government have not given, or are not giving, enough priority to these issues. Let me pick up a point made in paragraph 73 of the report. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) a week or so ago that she personally has been examining regularly the implications of the decline of the British merchant fleet.
      We cannot simply encourage shipowners to invest in or retain uneconomic tonnage; that would only aggravate the problem. But we have done many other things. We are negotiating agreements with "flag of convenience" states to minimise any legal difficulties in obtaining use of British-owned vessels on their registers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced this very afternoon that we have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Bahamas under which the Bahamas agree to allow British ships to be made available to Her Majesty's Government in the event of crisis and war, and that is an important step. We have also negotiated comprehensive agreements for access to smaller ships such as coasters owned by our NATO allies, which might be needed at short notice.
      My right hon. Friend the Chancellor, far from being unmindful of this matter, announced in the Budget that, in the case of ship chartering, the business expansion scheme limit on the finance that can be raised by a company in any one year will be increased from £500,000 to £5 million. We now propose that that higher limit should be extended to companies operating their own ships.
      In addition, we have developed comprehensive war risk insurance arrangements for ships on both British and foreign registers. Such arrangements would encourage neutral states in particular to trade with the United Kingdom and other NATO allies under the threat of war or in time of hostilities. All those measures should help with the availability of vessels.
      Mr. Terence Higgins: Will my hon. Friend comment on the extent of subsidies provided by other EEC countries? As those countries are constantly complaining in other contexts about the evils of subsidies, why can we not take positive and definite action to speed matters up? The delay is not tolerable.
      Mr. Stewart: I am fully aware of the point that my right hon. Friend has made. I have to say, in the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport, that this is a matter for his Department rather than mine, but if unfair competition can be demonstrated we shall want to pursue it.
      Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: As the Minister for Public Transport is present, perhaps he will tell us later, if he cannot do so now, what, if any, representations have been made on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins).
      Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend tells me that we must have specific facts on which to base our judgments, and detailed information is difficult to come by. I have no doubt, however, that my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport would more than welcome any further information that would enable the matter to be followed up.
      1276
      The question of crews and manpower has already been raised. As the Committee's report acknowledges, we have taken useful measures in the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 to assist with the cost of training and repatriation. We are also setting up a Merchant Navy reserve with a potential membership of up to 5,000, which we hope will come into being next year.
      Since the Defence Committee published its report we have announced an important change in the foreign earnings deduction for tax purposes, which should help both seafarers and shipowners. It will come up next week when the Finance Bill goes on Report. We broadly estimate that it would exempt another 7,000 deep seafarers from tax, making 11,000 exempt in all. It would be equivalent to up to 15 per cent. of crew costs, which should help to ease pressures on shipping companies' operating costs, making it more competitive for them to operate ships from the United Kingdom and to employ United Kingdom crews.
      Let us not forget that, despite the decline in recent years, there are about 35,000 British seafarers—more than half the size of the sea-going and land-based manpower of the Royal Navy.
      The message is clear. The Government take seriously the implications for defence of the decline that has taken place in the merchant fleet, but there is no cause for despondency. As a result of the measures that we have already taken, the industry is in better shape than it has been for some time. Our national defence requirements certainly can be met. We are in the lead in addressing the problems in the context of the wider NATO Alliance.
      I welcome the report. If I have any general criticism of it, I think that the Committee underestimates the potential impact of the many measures that we have already taken, once they are fully in operation. In addition, it is clear that since the Committee took its evidence and prepared its report, there have been further accumulating signs to suggest that the shipping industry is beginning to pull out of the trough of the mid-1980s.
      In paragraph 14 of the report, the Committee states:
      "we suggest it would be premature to regard the arrest in the decline as anything other than a temporary remission."
      With the new information that is now available, especially the remarkable figures on freight rates that I have quoted, there are grounds for believing that that may be too pessimistic an assessment.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East asked us to look closely at the problems described in his report. I can assure him that we have done, and we shall continue to do so. But I also hope that the measures already taken will serve to reassure him of the Government's commitment to ensure that the concerns that he and others have expressed are not realised.
      9.11 pm
      Mr. Martin O'Neill: It is an unhappy coincidence that we are debating a report on the merchant fleet's contribution to our national defences on a day when many of the ships are co-operating with the Royal Navy and the Fleet Air Arm in a humanitarian exercise in the North sea. That merely serves to underline the close co-operation between our merchant marine and all the services that we have at our disposal in peace and in war.
      The Chairman of the Select Committee, in his characteristically helpful manner to the Government, glided over some of the more critical elements in the

      1277
      Committee's report. Certainly he did not quote some of the paragraphs containing criticisms that might be more difficult for the Minister to wriggle out of.
      Nevertheless, I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and his colleagues for producing yet another frank, useful, constructively critical report on the defence of this country under the stewardship of the Minister and his colleagues. We owe them a debt for the manner in which they addressed the problem, which enables us to consider matters systematically this evening.
      It is broadly agreed that the purposes of a merchant fleet in respect of defence are fourfold: the transatlantic reinforcement of Europe, the reinforcement of continental Europe from the United Kingdom, the direct support of the Royal Navy and economic shipping—the civil traffic which brings fuel and supplies to the United Kingdom. Some of those involve the use of the same craft, so we have to be very careful to avoid the overlap of competing claims on our resources.
      The report, in setting out those tasks and analysing the effectiveness of our capability to meet them, has served to underline what many of us have spoken about in defence debates and service debates generally during the past few years. The Chairman of the Select Committee paid tribute to one of his former colleagues, a former Chairman of the 1922 Committee, who repeatedly came back to these matters in his capacity as chairman of the all-party maritime group.
      It is no consolation to read in 1988 a re-run of what we said in 1983 or 1985. Paragraph 70 sums up concisely what many of us feel when it states:
      "The optimism of the … official evidence to our predecessors has been demonstrated to have been unjustified; in fact, the 'worst case' forecasts about the likely size of the UK merchant fleet in the late 1980s have been realised."
      The report outlines the confusion both in the Ministry of Defence and between the MOD and the Department of Transport about how many ships we have available. The much-criticised fiddling of unemployment statistics seems nothing compared with the mess that the Government have got themselves into on counting ships. I do not know whether it is because of the movement of ships or because people get seasick when they think about them, but they certainly seem incapable of finding a basis for comparison. Within the confusion there may be some method in the madness.
      In February 1988 the Transport Select Committee was told that there were 410 ships, but by May the figure had decreased to 402—hardly bearing out the assertion that the decline had been arrested. In May 1988, the MOD told the Committee that the number was not 410 or 402, but 906. However, when we look at this more carefully—the forensic skills of the Committee must be praised—we find that the reason for the difference is that different criteria were used. The Department of Transport had included only the trading elements, while the Ministry of Defence had included United Kingdom-registered non-trading craft in excess of 500 gross registered tonnes.
      Until 1986 the weight threshold was 1,000 gross registered tonnes, but in 1987 and 1988 the threshold was not 1,000, nor even 500, but 300 gross registered tonnes. The Minister did not touch on the reasons for the confusion and I hope that when he has had more time to think up a reply to the Committee we shall receive an adequate response, not only about fiddling the figures, but
      1278
      about the clear attempt to distort the statistics and to fool the Committee—an exercise in which the Government and their officials have singularly failed.
      Mr. Ian Stewart: Naturally we shall produce the explanation which the hon. Gentleman seeks. But if figures are requested by a Committee, they are given in the context in which they are asked. There is no difference between the figures understood by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Transport. A problem arises from the disaggregation of figures into small groups because the Ministry of Defence looks not only at the total number of ships, but at the number of ships in a particular category to deal with a particular task. The information that the hon. Gentleman seeks about the reconciliation of these figures will be available.
      Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to the Minister, but if we were to look at each category, we would end up with the same story—one of decline and confusion. I shall riot delay the House. Suffice it to say that it is nothing short of criminal for the Government to seek to inflate figures by including craft which are either inappropriate for defence purposes or are already committed to naval use, such as the 38 royal fleet auxiliary craft. Little wonder that there is a note of desperation in paragraph 31 of the report, which says that there is a
      "need for clear understanding and a consistent approach in the use of statistics."
      That is what the Committee said. The confusion over the use of shipping is even more serious when we realise that transatlantic and economic shipping, both of which are critical, require the same product tankers.
      Paragraph 38 of the report states:
      "it must be apparent that once the UK had fulfilled its commitment to provide transatlantic shipping. the number of UK-flagged vessels available for civil resupply would be minimal."
      The report identifies other areas of concern with which hon. Members have dealt, such as the dire shortage of large stern trawlers for mine counter-measures and the problems caused by the fact that all available craft are accounted for by the Armilla patrol. The Minister has the support of all hon. Members when he pays tribute to the effective role that the Armilla patrol plays in accompanying ships in very dangerous waters. I use the word accompanying, which the Minister used, I am pleased to note, but which has slipped out of the Prime Minister's vocabulary. The conditions for the men are very uncomfortable and trying and the Opposition are happy to join the Minister in paying tribute to them.
      The Minister should have told us what he believed to be the significance of the Committee's suggestion about the possibility of entering into some understanding with the Norwegian navy to see whether training and practice facilities could be established for existing support craft in the North sea. As I have said, they are playing a sterling role in tragic circumstances. I hope that the Minister will address that problem because it seems, sadly, that the Armilla patrol will be in the Gulf for some considerable time. It would be a dereliction of duty by the Government if they did not explore other opportunities to provide our merchant sailors with proper training in mine countermeasures as soon as possible, not least because if something happened while the Armilla patrol continued in the Gulf, we would have no mine counter-measure facilities available to us in the short term.

      1279
      The number of product tankers of between 2,000 and 60,000 deadweight tonnes declined by 55 per cent. from 1984 to 1986. Most seriously for the actions that we have in mind, when we study the report and consider the work to be done by product tankers of around 20,000 dead weight tonnes we find that that is where the decline has been greatest. Those tankers were most valuable at the time of the Falklands. That is the critical size of craft about which we have most cause for anxiety and I hope that the Government will address that problem.
      We can be more hopeful about cruisers. Shell, one of the main owners of cruisers, has retained all-British crews, although BP has crews with some non-British nationals. The question of the dry cargo freights is very serious. We have the critical problem of transporting large and heavy military equipment, which does not fit easily into containers and the modular arrangements that are part and parcel of container ships. We may need more craft to transport the equipment that has to be brought across the Atlantic, and it will take some time for those craft to be adapted for that purpose.
      The Minister spoke about cross-Channel ferries and said that we would have access to a number of foreign ferries; that may be so. He should have spoken about the fears expressed about the decline in the number of craft that will result from the completion of the Channel tunnel. Although we have access to craft in the Channel and in Europe, where our allies are close by, there is the vexed problem of the location of many craft throughout the world. The hon. Member for Hampshire, East referred to that problem.
      About 35 per cent. of United Kingdom mainland registered shipping is beneficially owned abroad. When asked how these ships would be brought back, one of the Minister's hapless officials—I choose my words carefully—who is a deputy secretary, said:
      "It would depend on where the ship was, but no doubt the Royal Navy would be called upon to assist."
      I can imagine the Royal Navy being rather busy doing other things at that time, especially if its ships were in inconvenient locations in other parts of the world. That does not seem to have been at the forefront of that official's mind when answering questions. I hope that when the Minister gets around to reading the report—which, God forbid, the same official may produce—he will look at that comment and ensure that we are given a better answer.
      We shall leave aside the images of the British Navy commandeering ships in foreign ports and acting in a way that some Governments would consider near-piracy. The most serious issue is probably the location of our crews. In the last Defence Question Time but one, the Secretary of State for Defence admitted in answer to my question that this was probably the single most pressing problem. Estimates have shown that in recent years there has been a 50 per cent. drop in the number of officers and a 42 per cent. drop in the number of ratings. More serious is the information that the number of cadets decreased from 5,197 in 1981 to 727 in 1986 and that last year only 180 people joined the service for training. Unless there is a dramatic reversal in the medium and long term, there will be insufficient numbers to man a much reduced fleet. The Defence Committee makes that point. The facts are incontrovertible.
      1280
      I welcome the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act and the target of 350 cadets per annum. The support to be given for that training is to be applauded, but we shall have to ensure that it is enough. We must take account of the point made in paragraph 56 of the Committee's report that, as long as a career in the Merchant Navy is seen as unattractive, there is little likelihood of an increase in numbers. It is not enough to provide more money; there has to be a major selling job. Some parts of the country have long Merchant Navy traditions, and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) paid tribute to her constituents. Many people joined the Merchant Navy because there was little else for them to do in their part of the world. We all know that unemployment has traditionally been the best recruiting sergeant. In the 1990s, as the dip in the birth rate in the 1970s and early 1980s is reflected, there will be a demand for youth labour. There may not be the present level of youth unemployment. It will be incumbent on ship owners to provide much more attractive conditions in terms not only of the image of the Merchant Navy but of the profession's career structure.
      Many British ships are crewed by non-British nationals—people from the far east, including Hong Kong, and from Comecon countries. Those men may not, to say the least, be depended upon in a time of conflict. It is dangerous to assume that those men will go to sea and wish to fight on our behalf. I would like to think that they will, but that is not a calculation that we can necessarily make. After 1997, people from Hong Kong will no longer be citizens of the British Commonwealth. That matter must be dealt with seriously and carefully and I do not believe that the Merchant Shipping Act and the changes in taxation will necessarily solve it.
      We can see from paragraph 62 of the report that it came as a surprise to the Committee
      "that it has taken so long for the Atlantic Alliance, and in particular the United Kingdom with its long maritime tradition, to recognise a grave and worsening defect in strategic capability."
      The Government's proposals are not so radically different from those that Ministers and officials offered the Committee. I say that not because I wish to carp and criticise, but because I believe that the Government would be deluding themselves if they considered that their proposals would make that much difference. The Committee said:
      "they offer only marginal prospects for improving the situation."
      The Minister's additional proposals do not go anywhere near as far to deal with the problem.
      The Committee has attacked the optimism that has been described as demonstrably unjustified. It also noted that the worst case scenarios have been realised. The measure of the Committee's despair was shown by the fact that, in extremis, it turned to the Prime Minister to take charge. However, the fox has been shot on this occasion, because we have been told that the Prime Minister has been keeping an eye on it and that it has been one of her major concerns. She can barely sleep at night because of her anxieties about the Merchant Navy. We believe that the Prime Minister's anxiety might be of some additional assistance. If it is, so much the better.
      The requirements are clearly set out by the Committee—and, with respect, they are not for the Prime Minister or her Ministers of State—and they concern the availability of merchant shipping for defence purposes, which is

      1281
      governed by three factors—first, the number of flagged ships; secondly, their accessibility when they are needed; and, thirdly. the availability of a pool of seafarers to man them. Those three factors require us to look at the ownership of our merchant fleet, to find ways of returning ships to the British flag, and to increase the size and capacity of our fleet. We must find better tax and social security regimes to encourage young people to go to sea. All those things must be carried out quickly or the next time we discuss such a report we will be discussing not our merchant fleet but an obituary on it.
      9.32 pm
      Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, but as other hon. Members wish to speak I will try to be brief.
      I too congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) and all the members of the Defence Select Committee on their report. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government on their measures to counteract the decline of the merchant fleet. Although my remarks will be somewhat critical of what is happening, they in no way diminish either my gratitude for those measures or my respect for the deep thought that has gone into them.
      The fundamental point to remember is that the British merchant fleet must play two roles. It can be called upon to play a wartime role, but during the long intervals of peace in between it essentially plays a merchant and economic role. Therefore, it must be subject to economic forces. The decline that has occurred during the 1980s is not because the Government have allowed that decline, or for any other Government inspired reasons. Rather it is because economic factors have led to a contraction in merchant shipping in general. Those factors include the move towards containerisation, the wages and taxes prevalent in the United Kingdom, and the fall in oil imports.
      Such factors, or other economic factors, will always influence the size of the merchant fleet. That is why I do not wholly share the optimism expressed by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Although I am perfectly happy to say, "Yes, the terrible decline, not just of the 1980s generally, but especially of the past three years during which there has been another substantial decline, may well have been arrested," and I am even quite happy to say, "We may see the shipping industry improve somewhat," that does not mean that we shall not enter a future period of adverse economic factors. If that happens, we are moving from too weak a base to sustain that base. That is my principal worry.
      Concern has been expressed this evening about the differences in the figures that have been supplied. Going back even a few months and looking at the Government's own defence estimates, there is enough evidence to provide a terrible warning. It is said that if it is necessary to requisition vessels from the merchant fleets across NATO, 1,642 available vessels will be required. We are told that all those would be needed. A reserve is not built in to the strength of the available fleet. I repeat that all of them would he needed.
      We are too dependent on the good will of those operating foreign registers and on the geographical dispersal of all those ships at the time they are needed for us to have any room for manoeuvre. A slight improvement
      1282
      in the size of the merchant fleet will not mean a major improvement in the base from which we operate because we should already have slightly more ships than we can foresee needing, and not simply an adequate number of ships.
      The decline is well known and the statistics do not need detailed rehearsal. However, it is worth noting that in the past five years stern trawlers, fishing trawlers, cargo vessels, liners, roll-on/roll-off ferries and tugs have all shown a substantial decline. A slight arrestment of that decline will not supply us with a good base for the future.
      Furthermore, we were told at the time of the defence estimates that there was an estimated deficiency of 2,000 to 3,000 officers and 2,000 to 3,000 ratings should we have to call up all those ships at a time of emergency. Although I congratulate the Government on their efforts to increase the number of cadets recruited into the Merchant Navy, that deficiency nevertheless exists.
      It is not enough to say that the fleet may be smaller but that it is more efficient, because this is one area in which numbers are crucial. We must have a certain number of ships to call on in an emergency and one may have to have them in given locations. It is not enough simply to have an efficient fleet; there must be enough ships, men and equipment to call upon and to call up fast, efficiently and with complete certainty. I am not convinced that we have that base or that the measures that have been taken so far—although I welcome them—are such as to enhance it for the foreseeable future. They certainly will not do so in the medium term.
      We need to address ourselves to the somewhat unfair competition that we face and to address much more closely the question of subsidies and what other countries are doing. I echo the regret expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) that there is not a representative of the Treasury present because the role of the Treasury is crucial.
      No matter what the difficulty of trying to combine an economic and efficient force with the uneconomic factors against it, we must accept that we must do so even if it means an element of subsidy. I would welcome some further elucidation from my hon. Friend the Minister of State and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about what we are planning to do in the next five years, not to maintain our base, but substantially to enhance it so that in a few years' time we do not see in the defence estimates the age-old statement, "We will need all these ships"; we should see, "We shall need most of these ships."
      9.40 pm
      Mr. Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), in her very eloquent speech, set out the difficulties in the market place which have led to the shortages of shipping. I must reinforce what she says, having worked, most recently last summer, for a shipyard which specialised in ship repair. The situation in the shipping markets is desperate, and unfortunately, in the United Kingdom, for a number of reasons, it is likely to get worse in some areas.
      To mention just one reason that came up earlier in the debate, it is absurd not to recognise that the Channel tunnel will inevitably lead to a very significant decline in the number of ferries. I do not say that against the Channel tunnel; the decision has been made on that. We are looking

      1283
      at a world shipping market with grotesque oversupply in some categories of ships, in which almost every country in the world is now subsidising its merchant navy.
      The Soviet Union is very conscious of the importance not just of merchant shipping but of every category of supposedly civil vessels. All of them are centrally planned and co-ordinated: their fighting navy, their merchant vessels, their ubiquitous fishing fleets and, indeed, the research vessels which nominally belong to various Soviet universities. To mention just one category of supposedly civil ship, they are producing large numbers of ice-strengthened dry-cargo ships for use along their northern coastline. Many of those ships are built outside the Soviet Union, in, for example, Finland. In all cases they have strengthened hoists so that they can carry heavy weapons on their decks. In many cases the larger ones are nuclear driven and some are even fitted to carry hovercraft for transporting goods to shore. I need hardly say that their secondary role in war would be all too obvious.
      The same applies with civil aviation, and the debate is supposed to be about civil aviation as well as shipping. Many Aeroflot aircraft are designed to have a secondary war role. They have strengthened floors so that heavy equipment can be put into them and they are convertible, in some cases, for use for parachuting, the Soviet Union having eight airborne divisions.
      Two basic aspects have come up time and again in the debate—two reasons why we should be concerned about the Merchant Navy and the civil aviation fleet. One is direct support for the fleets and the RAF in time of war, and the other is the wider economic needs of the nation.
      On the direct support side, I put it to my hon. Friend the Minister that there is enormous scope for cost-effective use of civil assets in a secondary military role. With the Atlantic Conveyor we see a small example of the sort of thinking that could be used here. This extends, however, far beyond the larger merchant vessels. There are many other examples of civil assets that could be used in a secondary military role with a very small amount of money spent up front: a lot of our civil engineering equipment, for example, and many civil aircraft.
      Eighteen months before the Falklands war we were given an opportunity to fit some TriStars being sold to British Airways with equipment that would have made them available in a secondary role for air-to-air refuelling. The cost of doing it in advance would have been very modest, but the idea was turned down.
      More important than that are the economic needs of the nation, which have been mentioned time and again in the debate. I cannot stress sufficiently that the Soviets recognise this. They are subsidising their cargo vessels, which can compete against us very effectively because they are subsidised. Almost every country in the free world is subsidising its merchant navy to some extent.
      My hon. Friend the Minister stressed the problems with subsidies within the EC. In fact, of course, the EC's fleet, as a proportion of total world shipping, is falling. Outside the EEC large subsidies are provided. Two years ago I visited the largest shipyard in Venezuela and it provides enormous subsidies for its merchant fleet.
      As an enthusiastic supporter of Adam Smith, I wish to God that there was a way in which we could maintain our merchant fleet without looking for artificial subsidies and
      1284
      supports of one sort or another. But our merchant fleet will be squeezed out if we are unwilling to subsidise it. I do not wish to pooh-pooh or thrust aside the steps that the Government have taken. The measures in the Merchant Shipping Bill are welcome, especially the late amendment on cabotage. I hope that the powers in that Bill will be used by the Secretary of State for Transport. Of course, it is sensible to have a merchant naval reserve and the enlargement of the business expansion scheme from £500,000 to £4 million is a welcome measure. They are modest measures, however, compared with what most other countries do.
      A rollover relief which would enable our shipowners to re-equip would be extremely valuable. It would also enable our ships to become vastly more competitive. Sweden, for example, suffers from the problems of extremely expensive crews. By re-equipping its fleet with modern vessels, which can survive on small crews, the Swedish navy is becoming extremely competitive despite its high labour costs.
      One of the difficulties that we face is that the cost of Third world crews is a great deal less than the cost of British crews. We cannot contend with some of the reasons for that, but, to be frank, a number of Third world ships, manned by Third world crews, have health and safety standards that would be unacceptable on a vessel using British seafarers. We could go some way to solving that problem by considering removing the national insurance contributions of British seafarers who spend a large proportion of the year at sea. The Select Committee on Defence and the Select Committee on Transport have published extremely effective reports and they highlight the serious problems that we face because of the potential shortage of vessels in a time of tension and war. That shortage could imperil our ability to keep ourselves going under the threat of war. The potential effect of that shortage would be to diminish the conventional stance of our armed forces. I do not believe that we will solve the matter by making it an MOD responsibility. Civil defence is not an MOD responsibility and for a long time it has been effectively organised by the Home Office. I welcome the increase in the civil defence budget.
      The problems faced by our merchant fleet will be sorted out only when we have one Minister with clear responsibility for all aspects of shipping and, dare I say it, shipbuilding. That Minister should be in the Department of Transport and he should be responsible for monitoring the defence aspects of merchant shipping, as he would be the only man who would have authority to do something about it. He should be answerable to the House on that matter.
      We need a proper co-ordinated policy that takes into account tax, employment and trade factors and a Minister who is answerable to the House for all those matters. We will then have a shipping policy that meets the needs of the nation and, God save us, our potential needs in war.
      9.49 pm
      Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is probably rather rash of me to say anything at this late moment in the debate, which has been attended by so many hon. Members who are great experts on this matter. However, I do not want the moment to pass without congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) on his skilled chairmanship—and thanking the members of his Committee. I assure him that when I go

      1285
      abroad as chairman of the military committee of the NATO Assembly I find the reports that he and his Committee have produced immensely valuable, not only in a British, but in a NATO context—none more so than the report on this subject.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a difficult task, not least because he must face up to the issue of scarce resources. Many military demands apart from those that are the subject of this debate are made on us. He is also faced with the ambiguity of NATO's defence policy, about which I have listened to a great many briefings. NATO does not speak with a voice that makes it easy for us to carry out a single-minded policy of reinforcing the forces that we already have. No one is quite sure whether we will reinforce before or after hostilities have started.
      If I had more time I should use extracts from the report by the Select Committee on Defence—specifically from the excellent memorandum submitted by Mr. F. E. C. Gregory of the department of politics in the university of Southampton. To judge from some briefings, one might imagine that we were going to fight world war I all over again, with great convoys steaming across the Atlantic—or even world war II. Many people would dispute that. In the memorandum, Mr. Gregory quotes distinguished people such as one of our former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, Lord Carver:
      "Unless reinforcements and supplies reach this side of the Atlantic before hostilities start then I have not much hope, whether they come by air or sea, that they will he very relevant to the situation."
      Others, too, have made the point. As one United States army officer put it, the next war
      "is going to he … a come as you are war."
      This sort of ambiguity makes it extraordinarily difficult.
      Mr. O'Neill indicated assent.
      Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am glad to see the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) nodding his agreement.
      Apart from the numbers of surface vessels of the Royal Navy, we should also consider that the effectiveness of our forces does not depend on numbers but on the extent to which such vessels provide effective modern weapons systems. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) made the interesting point that in the Falklands war we were able to clip on to our merchant ships—thereby making them extremely effective—container boxes that contained modern effective weapon systems. I discovered at first hand the other day, when visiting the Westland-Augusta project in Italy, that helicopters such as the EH101 could greatly increase the value that could be given to our ships by strengthening the Royal Navy's efforts to deal with anti-submarine warfare. We might concentrate our attention on that aspect rather than—as we too often do—on the numbers of merchant vessels that we have.
      I hope that as these arguments are developed—we have not reached the end of them—we shall hear rather more about what the agreed strategy is and about how we can make our existing ships more effective by using more effective up-to-date weapons systems.
      9.53 pm
      Mr. Mates: This has been a useful debate and I congratulate all hon. Members who have taken part in it. It has been an extraordinary debate too, in that hon.
      1286
      Members from both sides of the House have spoken with one voice—a voice of concern. The House seems to be entirely unanimous about this and, to be fair, the Minister was by no means complacent.
      It was apt for some hon. Members to remind us that perhaps deterrence starts with strategic nuclear weapons but finishes at the lowest level with conventional troops and civilian shipping, without which total deterrence looks less credible. It is back to the old phrase
      "For want of a nail, the shoe was lost."
      While this may not be a very romantic part of the whole of the Western Alliance's deterrent, it is nevertheless crucial.
      The dilemma is evident and is mentioned not only in our report, which looks just at defence, but in the Department of Transport report as well. For economic reasons, some of which are understandable and some of which are less than attractive to contemplate, the fleet has been in a constant state of decline. That decline is not only in numbers and in deadweight tonnage, about which there can be no argument, but in the specific quality and type of ships that are most useful for defence purposes should we come to a period of crisis or tension that might lead to war.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister has accused us in our report of being too pessimistic. In the report we say at some length that we do not think that the Government's optimism is justified. Those two remarks are there. We have been making these warning sounds for eight years, which is as long as the Select Committee on Defence in its present form has existed. It was one of the first subjects that we tackled because it seemed to us then to be an important element that was giving rise to concern. Successive Committees have come back to it no fewer than three times. If nothing else does, that shows, the House the consistency of our concern.
      So far we have not been wrong. Our figures were brought out and we were told that we were wrong, especially three years ago, but the proof of the pudding this time round is that we were right and the Government were wrong. We were not working on the wrong figures. We had taken the right advice and the decline has proceeded, as we predicted. It gives me no comfort to say this, but I hope that it adds force to the fact that, whatever else we have done, we have produced a unanimous report right across all shades of opinion and have looked at this matter as carefully as possible.
      If we have been too pessimistic no one would be more delighted than Ito own up to that if, as I suspect, we return to this matter next year or the year after. If the Government have been too optimistic I hope that the Minister will have the good sense to realise that he cannot put this problem off. It is serious and we have to keep watching it and keep our finger on its pulse.
      Inevitably, my right hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence are looking at much more crucial and immediate matters such as the size of the surface fleet, for example. Had we been discussing the report on that he and I could have had a rather more rigorous debate. I think that this report takes us a good distance down that road.
      The problems of the future procurement of aircraft, tanks and all the other things must gravely concern the Ministry of Defence because it does not have the funds to match the commitments put upon it. The Ministry has our sympathy about that. This matter is bound to be neglected, not least because, as my hon. Friend the Member for

      1287
      Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said, it is one of those things that falls between the stools of two Departments and therein always lies a danger. One Department is looking towards the other. The Department of Transport says that the merchant fleet is its business, but that it is not really interested in defence, only in the economic side. The Ministry of Defence says that the merchant fleet will be needed only if we go to war and that the Department of Transport is looking after it.
      One of the more important recommendations that I hope will be taken up and considered across the board is co-ordination between Departments. We must ensure that this, above all, is monitored properly. If the Minister says that we have rung the alarm bells too loudly, I am prepared to be judged on that, but the most criminal thing of all would be to ignore the alarm bells until the fleet had declined to such an extent that it was too late to do anything credible about it and thereby damage the deterrence on which we have spent so much time and effort.
      It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates) and the Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Estimates, 1988–89 (Class I Vote 1, Class IX, Vote 1 and Class X, Vote 1).
      Resolved,
      That a sum, not exceeding £4,503,563,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March 1989 for expenditure by the Ministry of Defence on personnel costs etc. of the Armed Forces and their Reserves and Cadet Forces etc., personnel costs etc. of Defence Ministers and of certain civilian staff employed by the Ministry of Defence on movements; certain stores; supplies and services; plant and machinery; charter of ships; certain research; lands and buildings; sundry grants; payments abroad including contributions and subscriptions to international organisations and grants in aid.

      Merchant Shipping and Civil Aviation
        CLASS IX, VOTE 1
          HOUSING (ENGLAND)

            BED-AND-BREAKFAST ACCOMMODATION
            Resolved,
            That a sum, not exceeding £1,120,244,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March 1989 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on subsidies, improvements and investments, grants to housing associations and the Housing Corporation and other sundry services. —[Mrs. Roe.]

        CLASS X, VOTE 1
          ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING SERVICES (ENGLAND)

            GIPSY SITES
            Resolved,
            That a sum, not exceeding £6,530,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March 1989 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment on other water supply, conservation and sewerage, local authority and other environmental services (including recreation), and town and country planning (including compensation).—[Mrs. Roe.]

      Church of England (Ecumenical Relations) Measure
      10 pm
      Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
      That the Church of England (Ecumenical Relations) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
      In an increasing number of places throughout the country, the Church of England has been seeking closer relationships, since the 1920s, with the Protestant Free Churches in England and, since the late 1960s, with the Roman Catholic Church in England. Central to that co-operation have been shared acts of worship when clergy and ministers have preached and led prayers in one another's churches and congregations have joined in united services of worship.
      Such co-operation increased rapidly in the 1960s and 1970s and today is widespread. There are more than 700 local councils of churches and almost 500 local ecumenical projects at present. The latter are places where local churches are often working together closely and where there is a considerable measure of shared worship. In many places, and in various ways, that shared worship has run ahead of the law. For example, section 15 of the Act of Uniformity 1662—to take the House back a little in this tercentenary year—requires everyone who preaches in the Church of England to have the bishop's licence. That provision has never been repealed. Therefore, technically, every time a Roman Catholic priest or Free Church minister preaches at a Church of England service, an offence is committed.
      The Sharing of Church Buildings Act 1969 made it legally permissible for the first time for the Church of England and other churches to enter into binding agreements to share buildings. Although that Act allowed a measure of shared worship, that was not its primary aim. In 1980, the House of Bishops issued a code of practice on ecumenical relations to provide guidelines for ecumenical co-operation, particularly as regards the participation of Anglican clergy, non-Anglican clergy and lay people in each other's worship.
      That code was an interim document. It was anticipated that the progress towards unity at a national level might soon make substantial changes in relationships between the Churches. However, sadly, those anticipated changes did not occur. For example, the proposal for a covenant between the Church of England and three of the Free Churches failed to win sufficient support in the General Synod of the Church of England in 1982, and thereafter lapsed.
      Therefore, the House of Bishops established a working party under the chairmanship of the Right Reverend Cyril Bowles, lately Bishop of Derby,
      "to discuss the Anglican involvement in local ecumenical development, and in particular, in Local Ecumenical Projects".
      In 1984, the working party recommended that the time had come to change the law in order to make permissible a certain measure of shared worship while retaining certain safeguards.

      1289
      The Measure before the House and the two canons that are proposed attempt to implement the recommendations of the Derby working party report. Therefore, the Church of England (Ecumenical Relations) Measure has been drafted in the form of an enabling provision and clauses 1 and 2 make it lawful for the General Synod to promulgate canons on ecumenical relations.
      Two canons have been drafted and they are set out in the annex to the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee. One is of general application, draft canon B43, entitled "Of relations with other churches", and one deals specifically with local ecumenical projects, draft canon B44, entitled "Of local Ecumenical Projects".
      It should be noted that the draft Measure gives legal authority for the Church of England, its ministers and lay people to collaborate with other churches, but there are at every point carefully drafted safeguards. For example, clause 3(a) provides that services of holy communion according to the use of the Church of England may be celebrated only by episcopally ordained priests. Clause 3(b) requires marriages according to the rites of the Church of England to be solemnised only by clerks in holy orders of the Church of England.
      Clause 4 allows priests and deacons from the United Churches of south India, north India, Pakistan and Bangladesh—Churches which include former Anglicans—when visiting England for a limited period, to exercise their ministry both in the Church of England and in another church to which the measure applies. Up to now, those clergymen have had to opt either to minister in the Church of England or in the Free Church with which they are in communion.
      Clause 5 gives power to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York jointly to designate the Churches to which the measure applies. It should be noted from subsection 2(c) that the measure and the proposed canons will apply only to churches which subscribe to the fundamental doctrine of the Holy Trinity and which administer the sacraments of baptism and holy communion.
      Clause 6 sets out various definitions in the Measure. Clause 7 makes it possible for persons who do not hold a bishop's licence—for example, ministers of other Churches—to preach in a Church of England church, notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of Uniformity 1662, to which I referred earlier. Clause 8 contains a saving in respect of the place where Church of England marriages may be solemnised. Clause 9 is in common form.
      The Measure and the canons do not go as far and as fast as ecumenical enthusiasts would like. However, they have received the overwhelming support of the diocesan synods and of the three houses of the General Synod.
      At this time, when no national union schemes or proposals are before the Church of England, it is necessary to establish some rules for local Church of England churches to follow in their ecumenical relations. The draft measures enable such rules to be established.
      10.8 pm
      Mr. Frank Field: I was going to say that after the introduction that we have heard from the Second Church Estates Commissioner, I would defy anybody to give a competent speech on this matter, but I see two Social and Liberal Democratic Members who are well
      1290
      known for their oratorical skills. Therefore, I should withdraw that challenge immediately because I know perfectly well that they will rise to the occasion.
      I have only three small points to make and I do not possess the skills to weave them into a good debating point. Therefore, the best thing that I can do is to list them. First, as I listened to the Second Estates Commissioner I could not help thinking back to the essay written by Thomas Arnold well over 150 years ago. He thought that the Church was in such danger that it would do well to worry less about dogma and more about its comprehensiveness. Indeed, he thought that the test should be dropped, so that most citizens, apart from Roman Catholics, could become part of the then established Church. It says something about English society that 150 years later we have moved a small way towards the ideal that Arnold laid down for us. For that reason, I welcome the Measure.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: Was it not also Thomas Arnold who, as headmaster of Rugby school, said:
      My object will be, if possible, to form Christian men, for Christian boys I can scarcely hope to make."
      Although that indicated Thomas Arnold's understanding of his pupils, did it not also give some evidence of his general outlook on life?
      Mr. Field: It did, but to those hon. Members who understand how to give a coded message, I say that I accept the rebuke of my hon. Friend—as I shall call him tonight—the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Green way), that in pointing to the eloquence of the Social and Liberal Democratic Members, I did not also point to him as somebody who can make a speech out of a point that did not exist at all. I look forward to hearing his contribution later.
      My second point is that, in the Measure's preamble, it would have been possible for the Church to proceed by laying bishops' orders rather than seeking legislation. It is part of the Church of England's sickness that whenever there is an opportunity to ask for legislative changes, it does just that. That is all part of the politics of decline. Being a member of the Labour party and aware of the difficulties in which it finds itself, I recognise the symptoms when I see them in another body. One of the crosses I must carry is belonging to both organisations.
      My final point is that, given the Synod's legislative programme, this is probably the last Measure that will come before the House and pass without a vote, as I hope it will tonight. There are stormy times ahead, and I look forward to participating in those events. Tonight I welcome this Measure, and I congratulate the Second Estates Commissioner on the eloquence with which he presented it to the House.
      10.11 pm
      Mr. David Wilshire: I take this opportunity—the first since my election to the House—to make a general comment about Church matters. I enter this area with some trepidation because I am not an Anglican, and it is that which makes me want to speak. I am saddened that the long-awaited coming together of various Christian denominations should need the House's formal approval. My general point for the record is that the sooner there is

      1291
      disestablishment, the better—because Christianity is something that can work happily without politicians intervening.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) accept that there is a strongly held view in the Anglican Church that disestablishment would be good for that Church, as it is for all the other denominations?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that in debating this narrow Measure, it is not in order to discuss disestablishment. I realise that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) is still on his preamble, which is allowed before he speaks to the Measure.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am touched by your generosity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I take your point, as I take that of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) with whom I do not disagree.
      I find it enormously encouraging—as I am sure all hon. Members present in the Chamber do—that this Measure is for our consideration tonight, because clearly the concept of Christian unity is alive and well, which is something we should welcome. I hope that all hon. Members of whatever denomination rejoice in the fact that the House is being asked to consider this Measure tonight. I too hope that it will win unanimous approval.
      10.13 pm
      Mr. David Alton: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that it was possible for politicians to make points where none existed, and we are all guilty of that from time to time. But it would be wrong for a Measure of this importance to go through the House without hon. Members from every party making brief contributions to say why they support it.
      I welcome the Measure. It is almost paradoxical that just two hours after our debate on the tercentenary of 1688, in which we heard so much about the old prejudices, the old bigotry and even the old hatreds, the House is now putting behind it past injustice and persecution and the glorification of such events, and thinking instead of the future and considering how much progress we have already made towards the goal of Church unity and Christian reconciliation that so many hold dear.
      Many who were present at Canterbury when Pope John Paul and Archbishop Runcie came together in that historic meeting were very touched to see the culmination of a process of which the late Archbishop Ramsey was the major initiator. It is worth recalling that fact, just a week after the memorial service that was held for him in Westminster abbey.
      I come from a mixed marriage, with an Anglican father and a Catholic mother—and, in two and a half weeks' time, will consummate my own ecumenical act by marrying an Anglican, the daughter of a Church of England clergyman. The hon. Member for Birkenhead will be glad to know that she comes from the broad church that he describes—in the sense that I suppose she would regard herself as coming from the evangelical wing of the Anglican church, and her father from the Anglo-Catholic tradition.
      1292
      Sometimes, however, such labels can be misleading. In the Roman Catholic Church, people are often surprised at the breadth of thinking exemplified by the renewal movement of charismatics and evangelicals. We are debating this Measure in a week when the Roman Catholic Church has seen its first schism in over a century caused by those who hanker after the Tridentine rite. That split is the result of feeling among some people that progress has been too fast. Many of us feel that it has been too slow.
      I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Birkenhead said about the difficult waters that lie ahead. It will be extremely difficult to bring every Christian towards the objective of Christian unity. While the hon. Gentleman reflected on the problems in his party, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and I reflected that we too knew something about the problems that a merger can create—vide the mess in the Liberal-SDP alliance. If anyone has any doubts about going for the lowest common denominator or easy merger options, let me say that I do not think that that is particularly to be commended. What is commendable is a respect for one another's traditions, and a recognition of the validity of each other's orders and rites of service.
      Although my Church has moved a long way in the 40 years since my parents were married, I was surprised to learn that I required dispensation to marry someone of a different religion. I had to ask permission to be married to an Anglican. I find that offensive, and I hope that it will not be long before it is changed.
      Mr. Harry Greenway: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands—if he does not, let me explain it to him—that the same is true in the other direction. When an Anglican is marrying a Roman Catholic he is required to sign over the children, which is very sad.
      Mr. Alton: That is true, although I should point out that there have been changes in the past 40 years. Forty years ago, people were expected to sign a declaration that they would bring up their children in the Catholic faith, and a partner on the other side of the mixed marriage was expected solemnly to sign such an undertaking. I am glad that that is no longer the case. I must add that the form to which I have referred does not refer to a partner's denomination, but classifies an Anglican as a person from another religion.
      Mr. Frank Field: In this case, as the hon. Gentleman is marrying an Anglican, surely he would not have to sign a declaration about bringing up the children in the Catholic faith, as the Anglican Church claims to be part of that faith.
      Mr. Alton: That is the point that I am making. Yet the declaration has to be made nevertheless. The form of words has been slightly mellowed from what it was 40 years ago. I have to give an undertaking that I will do my best to ensure that any children are brought up in the Roman Catholic faith. I find that difficult at this time, and I do not understand why, given the great movement that there has been, Christians cannot decide what is best for their children and ensure that they have the best possible education and are brought up with an understanding of both our traditions.
      I recall that the day after I was elected to the House, the late Airey Neave was assassinated in the precincts of the House of Commons. When I made my maiden speech a

      1293
      couple of days later, just before the House was dissolved for the general election, I referred to my city of Liverpool. I pointed out that when I was first elected to the council in 1972 the old Protestant party still sat on the council. There was still sectarianism in that city, which has such a bitter past. Perhaps Belfast, particularly, can learn from the reconciliation that has occurred over the years in Liverpool
      In 1929, when the Catholic authorities tried to obtain planning permission to build its cathedral, the Protestant party on the council, in coalition with the Conservatives, turned down that application, after the revered Councillor Longbottom, the leader of the party, led a great campaign against the construction of the cathedral. The following year, the Labour party came to power and by just one vote it gave planning permission to build the cathedral, leading the Archbishop of Liverpool at that time, Archbishop Downing, to comment that it was better to win by a hair's breadth than to lose by a Longbottom.
      The city of Liverpool, its Archbishop, Dereck Warlock, and its Bishop, David Sheppard, have put the old hatreds behind them. Yet, as recently as 1949, Archbishop Warlock's predecessor, Archbishop Beck, wrote to The Times to say that he could not say the Lord's Prayer with an Anglican. He also refused to give a joint blessing with the Anglican Bishop of Winchester on the grounds that the bishop did not have valid orders and was only a layman.
      We have come a long way since then. We have come a long way since 1829 when, as a result of Daniel O'Connell's intervention in the County Clare by-election, he was able to force the Duke of Wellington's hand to give Catholics emancipation and allow them to sit in this place. However, there are still memories. Some of the churches in my constituency were built in the form of tithe barns so as not to give offence to the established Church. Yes, we have come a long way, but it seems slightly bizarre to me that a house of 650 hon. Members, all of them I am sure waiting outside in the Lobbies in case a Division is called, should be considering matters like this at all. Surely these matters are better resolved between Christians.
      I have some sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) about disestablishment. It is ironic that we are debating this Measure in the week when the Church of England Synod has been talking about women priests, an issue which will cause great problems and impede reconciliation in future. We cannot dodge the possible side effect of that in terms of Christian unity. Nothing should be done to restrict the most important task of all for Christians—reconciliation.
      The Measure is a useful step in that direction. One has only to look at Northern Ireland to see the scandal for Christianity when religion is used to set people at odds with one another. I pay particular tribute to the Rosstrevor community of the Church of Ireland, St. Columba house in Derry, which is run by a group of Catholics seeking reconciliation, and the Maranatha and Corrymeela groups and all those who are working in Northern Ireland trying to build bridges. It gives the lie to the atheist who points the finger and says, "See how these Christians love one another."
      I am arguing for a fulsome response to Measures such as this from Catholics in the country. Respect for each other's orders and rites and a willingness to pray, worship and celebrate the eucharist together does not seem unreasonable.
      1294
      We are considering a Measure allowing for joint services, including services of holy communion presided over by a minister of any other participating Church. The problem is that even if we pass this Measure, as Roman Catholics we are not allowed to participate. However much I welcome such a Measure, until my Church recognises, as it does for the Greek Orthodox Church, the right for Catholics to receive the eucharist inside the Anglican tradition, such motions are simply measures of good will and expressions of hope, rather than anything that will bind our Churches closer together.
      We sometimes fool ourselves into believing that great strides have been made in accepting and respecting the beliefs of other Christian traditions. There is still hostility and suspicion. Ecumenism is sometimes only skin deep. I feel a growing sense of anger and frustration at the narrowness of vision and the obsession with Church positions which place strict limits on how far Christian laymen may go in terms of reconciliation. Arcane rules and restrictions on worship cause bewilderment, pain and hurt. It is Christianity at its worst.
      These Measures are a movement in the right direction, but they are a long way short of reconciling two traditions which have so much to offer to each other. I hope that it will not be long before the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) will introduce other Measures which will truly bring our Churches much closer together.
      10.24 pm
      Mr. David Nicholson: I associate myself with my hon. Friends, if I may so term them, on both sides of the House who welcome the Measure. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referred to future controversies and no doubt we shall look forward to debating them. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) referred to earlier debates today on an anniversary of a subject of political and religious controversy. As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since you are a neighbour, my constituency has reason to recall from 300 and 303 years ago events such as the battle of Sedgemoor and Judge Jeffreys and the Bloody Assize—examples of political and religious intolerance and not, as an Opposition Member remarked earlier, myths. They were facts and realities.
      This year we are celebrating another great anniversary—the defeat of the Spanish Armada. I believe that I am right in saying that today the university of Cambridge—not an institution with which I am closely acquainted or associated—gave honorary degrees to the King and Queen of Spain in respect of their great contributions to history and democracy in recent years. A particular college flew the Spanish royal standard today because it was established by King Philip and Queen Mary some 400 years ago. That shows how time can heal these great historical rifts which many of us were told in our schooldays were almost impossible to heal. This evening we must remember and recommend that lesson.
      For those reasons I am pleased to speak briefly in this short debate and welcome the Measure.
      10.27 pm
      Mr. Michael J. Martin: I apologise for not being present for the opening speeches, but I had an appointment outside the House and, unfortunately, I could not find a taxi.

      1295
      As a practising Catholic, I welcome the Measure. Like Liverpool, Glasgow inherited an Irish tradition from both sides of the divide—from Ulster and Eire. In my grandfather's time there was a great deal of bigotry. In my parents' time, some of that had died down. In my young days when a Catholic girl and a Protestant boy were going out with one another it caused anger and arguments in the families about which Church they would be married in.
      I clearly remember an argument in the street between two future mothers-in-law. The son at the centre of the problem went up and said to them, "Perhaps we should discuss this out of the gaze of all the neighbours." He was told to go away and mind his own business as it had nothing to do with him. Fortunately, that was back in the 1950s. When my wife, who is a Protestant, and I were married both families were happy. I have an excellent relationship with my father-in-law and mother-in-law which meant that there was no bitterness at the wedding. That attitude exists in Glasgow at the moment. It has meant that our children have a different outlook on religion. They have more respect for other people's religions and for their parents, and that is a very good thing.
      Nowadays, blatant discrimination has gone. People are not discriminated against in employment and promotion as they used to be, and companies no longer have a policy of employing only Protestants or only Catholics. Some small and, in my opinion, stupid things remain to be ironed out. When I first came to this place I heard debate about whether the heir to the throne should be entitled to marry a Catholic. I was asked to sign an early-day motion. I said, "I have an even bigger problem. There's a bowling club down the road from me, which is 150 years old and it has not had a Catholic member in all that time." These stupid things cause aggravation and small-minded people would allow them to continue.
      Since I came to the House I have considered myself to have two parish churches—my parish church at home and the parish church here in Westminster, at which I have regularly attended services shared by hon. Members from all parties. That means that I now know the true meaning of the ecumenical movement. Even with all the differences of opinion that we have in this place—it is right and fitting that we do—every month or so we can meet as Christians and share in a common bond and belief which builds up our friendship.
      1296
      That principle should be extended into the community as a whole. One thing that being a Member of this place has taught me is that people are willing to come together to try to break down barriers, and I am thankful for that.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Resolved,
      That the Church of England (Ecumenical Relations) Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

      Church of England (Ecumenical Relations) Measure
        STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
        STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
          TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
          That the draft Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 14th June be approved.
          HIGHWAYS
          That the draft Highways (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 17th June 1988, be approved.
          HARBOURS, DOCKS PIERS AND FERRIES
          That the draft Harbour Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 24th June 1988, be approved.
          CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
          That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 1) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 1065), dated 16th June 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th June 1988, be approved.

          RATING AND VALUATION
          That the Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1988, dated 31st May 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th June, be approved.[Mr. Boscawen.]
          Question agreed to.

          WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
          Ordered,
          That during the proceedings on the matter of the Effect of Government Legislation on the People of Wales the Welsh Grand Committee has leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet, and that, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue after the Committee has considered the matter for two hours at the sitting. —[Mr. Boseawen.]

      School Building (Cornwall)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Boscawen]
      10.33 pm
      Mr. Robert Hicks: Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I thank Mr. Speaker for allowing me the opportunity to raise again so soon the important subject of Cornwall's school building requirements. As you, Sir, will know, I was to have raised this matter some three weeks ago, but unfortunately the day nominated for the debate does not exist in the annals of this House; it was Wednesday 15 June.
      I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his kind attendance this evening, and take this opportunity to thank him publicly for the support that he has given me over the years in respect of schools in Cornwall. He has certainly been as supportive as the restraints imposed by other Government Departments would allow him to be. From a so-called Tory wet to one who is not normally associated with my ilk in the party, that is praise indeed.
      My principal reason for asking for the debate is to persuade the Department of Education and Science to recognise Cornwall's need for a meaningful capital allocation which allows the county to sustain a rolling programme of new school building—to accommodate rising numbers—and bring about a replacement and improvement programme for existing school stock. I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister cannot give commitments about the level of future capital funding, but I want him to acknowledge publicly Cornwall's school building requirements over the next five years and assure me that his Department recognises our specific needs.
      I wish to concentrate on the primary school sector, but should like first to draw attention to three other specific matters. The first concerns secondary schools, of which there are 33 in Cornwall. Nine, including Liskeard in my constituency, still occupy split sites. Clearly, that is not cost-effective. We are not making maximum use of our scarce financial and human resources. It is a waste of time and of valuable resources.
      In 1973, I took a delegation to see Lord Belstead, who was then Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. We emphasised the need for an integrated secondary school development at Liskeard. Alas, 15 years later, all the problems and frustrations associated with a split site at Liskeard still remain.
      My second point is about post-16 education in the county. In recent years, there has been a tremendous expansion, albeit starting from a low base. Over the past six years, there has been significant further education provision in Saltash, the largest town in my constituency. So far, there has been a two-phase programme, with a capital injection of £1·5 million. There is enormous demand, which represents unfulfilled potential. We need developments and extensions of the progress that we have made. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the money for these much-needed projects must come out of the same capital allocation.
      My third point relates to the new building regulations, which are to be introduced in 1991, governing school premises. Hitherto such regulations have applied only to new school buildings. After 1991, all schools should comply with the provisions in the regulations. Cornwall's
      1298
      estimate of the cost of implementing the new regulations to bring all existing schools up to standard is between £70 million and £80 million. That shows the scale of the financial requirements.
      In 1988–89, Cornwall's capital allocation to the primary school sector was £6·4 million. All parties on the county council, all my parliamentary colleagues who represent Cornwall constituencies and I were pleased with arid grateful for this allocation.
      I am reminded that two years ago—I do not want the House to think that I spend all my time taking delegations to see Education Ministers—the late David Penhaligon and I went to see the then Secretary of State for Education and Science, Keith Joseph, to emphasise the needs and requirements of Cornwall. We took with us the chairman of the county council, the then chief education officer, and the former chairman of the education committee. I like to think that, on that occasion, the late David Penhaligon and I paved at least some ground and made some headway in emphasising the needs of Cornwall.
      I do not wish to be ungracious, but there is a need for the £6·4 milllion not only to be sustained, but also to be improved on if the rolling programme, to which I have referred, is to be achieved.
      In 1992, Cornwall's primary school population will exceed 40,000 which will be the highest number in its history. Furthermore, in 1987, the birth rate in Cornwall was the highest since the 1960s. That surely shows that movement into our county is responsible for the increased school population, and that there is also population growth within the county.
      Our county chief education officer estimates that there are some 50 projects, of which 50 per cent. can be classified as major—in other words, projects involving more than £200,000-worth of work—that would merit urgent priority if there were sufficient funds. Most of those 50 projects would involve a substantial element of rebuild, replacement and improvement.
      I will give two examples in my constituency—Pensilva and the St. Blazey-Biscovey area. Pensilva is a village that has grown significantly over the past decade or so. Five of its six classes have been housed in temporary accommodation since 1980. The old main building of the original school is in a bad state of repair. Cornwall is caught in a chicken and egg situation, because naturally it is reluctant to spend on upkeep and maintenance—although there is a very real need because the buildings are deteriorating—because it hopes that sooner rather than later funds will be available for a new primary school at Pensilva. It is an excellent school. The staff do a superb job in difficult circumstances, and the parents are very supportive.
      Another typical example is in the St. Blazey-Biscovey area. The St. Blazey primary school is on a very restricted site, adjacent to a main road, and with very limited playing space, all of which is tarmacadam—indeed, it is the classic 19th-century Victorian school. In another part of the town, there is the Lodge Hill junior school. It is overcrowded. There is no hall or dining space. It also has a hard play area, and the nearest field for play and sport is 15 minutes away. The number of pupils is growing. None the less, it is a well run and happy environment, and all credit is due to the staff and pupils, who are well supported by an active parent-teachers association.
      The problems were acknowledged in 1970. The then chief education officer wrote to the then chairman of school governers, "Something must be done," yet

      1299
      relatively little progress has been made. The irony is that we have a new site for a school. If it were built soon, we would realise the valuable assests of the two existing sites, and by building one school serving the St. Blaxey-Biscovey area we would satify the aspirations of two schools which are on the waiting list.
      I can only describe the situation in Landrake as a saga. I have had the honour to be the local Member of Parliament for 18 years, and Landrake has featured in my regular mailing list and correspondence files since 1970, and I imagine it was on those of my predecessor. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say that we are making progress. It is a voluntary-aided school. St. Germans and Stoke Climsland are also in desperate need of a new primary school.
      Many requirements arise as a result of the combination of a growing school population and the need to upgrade existing buildings. The problem is especially acute in the Plymouth travel-to-work area. In the three major towns in the easternmost part of my constituency—Saltash, Torpoint and Callington—there will be a need for new schools or major extensions to existing ones in the foreseeable future because of the growth in population.
      In the surrounding villages, which we might call the growth villages of the Plymouth travel-to-work area, of Landrake, Stoke Climsland and St. Germans, there is tremendous pressure on existing primary schools. Cornwall has allocated all of them as sites for new primary schools, but unfortunately resources are not available.
      The Cornwall education authority faces an almost impossible—some might say invidious—task each year when determining priorities. Naturally, every community believes that its school should be top of the list. I appreciate that the problems are magnified by the fact that, during the 1950s and 1960s, relatively little was spent by a somewhat mean Cornwall county council on improving and extending school buildings—hence the backlog today.
      I have not mentioned the 70 primary schools which still have outside toilets. I hope that I have conveyed to my hon. Friend the Minister the need for expenditure, whether it be on new schools or on the remodelling of existing ones. A tremendous task lies before the Cornwall education committee. It is essential that the Department of Education and Science recognises our requirements and provides sufficient resources to enable a meaningful rolling programme to be established in Cornwall.
      10.49 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate on Cornwall's school building requirements. From his excellent speech, his correspondence to me and the questions that he has put to me over the years I recognise that it is an issue which has stimulated a good deal of local interest, concern and discussion.
      I begin by reminding the House that since, 1980, control of local education authority expenditure has been exercised through the block allocation system introduced by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.
      1300
      Before that legislation, the Department of Education and Science produced lists of individual named projects to be started in a particular year.
      My hon. Friend will be aware that allocations are not grants. They represent limits on the capital spending that local education authorities can undertake. They can finance projects from revenue or by borrowing. Such expenditure, including loan charges, is assisted by central Government through the rate support grant mechanism.
      Again, the House will be aware that allocations are made for each of six services—education, housing, transport, social services, urban aid and other environmental services. The education allocation covers all sections of education and includes expenditure on furniture, equipment, plant and machinery, land and professional fees, as well as actual construction costs.
      Local authorities are, of course, free to apply their allocations as they wish. They may move resources between services, and to a limited extent between years, but may not exceed the total of their allocations except by the application of a specific proportion—30 per cent. in 1988–89—of their accumulated capital receipts, and in a few other special circumstances.
      At the same time as allocations are made to local education authorities, allocations are also made for governors' expenditure at aided and special agreement schools. These are also spending limits, but 85 per cent. of governors' expenditure is reimbursed through grant aid by the Department and, except for minor works, the Department lists those projects that can start in a particular year.
      I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are well aware of the particular problems faced by Cornwall—in particular, that it retains a large number of schools housed in aging, pre-1903 buildings. Furthermore, we recognise that the school-age population in Cornwall is beginning generally to increase, especially in towns such as Liskeard and Saltash where large housing developments are planned. Consequently, there are likely to be an increasing number of "basic need" cases in the county, and these projects will, of course, be given the most careful consideration by the Department of Education and Science, along with other school improvement projects in the county, when the capital expenditure allocations for 1989–90 are decided on later this year.
      I should also like to indulge myself by mentioning the level of allocations that Cornwall LEA has received in recent years, particularly in respect of "prescribed" expenditure on county and voluntary controlled schools. In 1988–89, for example, the notional schools element of the authority's prescribed allocation—at £6·274 million—is 18 per cent. higher than that of the previous year and represents 78 per cent. of its total plans, compared to a national average of 47 per cent. Furthermore, the national average was exceeded in both the two previous financial years—my hon. Friend was good enough to recognise that. In 1986–87 the authority secured 53 per cent. of its plans compared with 51 per cent. nationally and in 1987–88 it secured 77 per cent. of its plans, compared with a national average of 46 per cent.
      I assure my hon. Friend that projects at aided schools will continue to be looked at sympathetically. I know that accommodation problems at the aided school at Landrake are giving rise to much concern locally. Statutory proposals relating to the school were, I understand, published on 10 June. Should those proposals he approved

      1301
      by my right hon. Friend in clue course, the required building work would, of course, automatically receive an allocation, as the promoters would be under a duty to implement them.
      My hon. Friend will, I hope, accept my assurances that I have listened carefully to what has been said tonight and that I have fully noted his concerns. The points that he has raised so well will be taken into account, along with any other representations that we may receive, before a
      1302
      decision is reached later this year upon the capital expenditure allocation to be provided for Cornwall in 1989–90.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech and on his determination, at the second attempt, to secure this debate.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Heavy Lorries (Speeding)
  Heavy Lorries (Speeding)
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Football Matches (Arrests)
  Football Matches (Arrests)
  African National Congress
  African National Congress
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Police Office, Birmingham (Grant)
  Police Office, Birmingham (Grant)
  Police, Fire and Civil Defence (Expenditure)
  Police, Fire and Civil Defence (Expenditure)
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Remands
  Remands
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Dr. Frank Skuse
  Dr. Frank Skuse
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  HIV and AIDS (Teaching Pack)
  HIV and AIDS (Teaching Pack)
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mr. and Mrs. H. W. Tombs
  Mr. and Mrs. H. W. Tombs
  Public Expenditure Survey
  Public Expenditure Survey
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Regional Accents and Dialects
  Regional Accents and Dialects
  Inner London Education Authority
  Inner London Education Authority
  Capital Allocations (Inner Cities)
  Capital Allocations (Inner Cities)
  Education Reform
  Education Reform
ENERGY
  Fossil Fuels
  Fossil Fuels
  Electricity Generation
  Electricity Generation
  Public Expenditure Survey
  Public Expenditure Survey
PRIME MINISTER
  Lord's Cricket Ground
  Lord's Cricket Ground
  Agriculture
  Agriculture
  Engagements
  Engagements
  European Community (Finance)
  European Community (Finance)
  Coal and Steel Imports (Duties)
  Coal and Steel Imports (Duties)
  European Community (Own Resources)
  European Community (Own Resources)
  European Community (Agricultural Guidelines)
  European Community (Agricultural Guidelines)
  Central and South America
  Central and South America
  Central America
  Central America
  Iranian Passenger Aircraft (Shooting Down)
  Iranian Passenger Aircraft (Shooting Down)
  Korean Airliner (Shooting Down)
  Korean Airliner (Shooting Down)
SCOTLAND
  Sheep (Radioactivity)
  Sheep (Radioactivity)
  Financial and Social Deprivation
  Financial and Social Deprivation
  Mackerel
  Mackerel
  School Meals (Annual Census)
  School Meals (Annual Census)
  Scottish Citylink Coaches Ltd.
  Scottish Citylink Coaches Ltd.
  Birds of Prey
  Birds of Prey
  Nuvan
  Nuvan
  Public Expenditure Survey
  Public Expenditure Survey
  Seton Court, Tranent (Fatal Accident Inquiry)
  Seton Court, Tranent (Fatal Accident Inquiry)
  Housing Association Grant
  Housing Association Grant
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform (Member's Question)
  Rating Reform (Member's Question)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Latin America
  Latin America
  Internal Trade
  Internal Trade
  Unleaded Petrol
  Unleaded Petrol
  Inward Investment
  Inward Investment
  Trade Deficit
  Trade Deficit
  Manufacturing Trade Balance
  Manufacturing Trade Balance
  Productivity and Output Costs
  Productivity and Output Costs
  Timber
  Timber
  Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill
  Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill
  High-definition Television.
  High-definition Television.
  Whisky
  Whisky
  Elstree Studios
  Elstree Studios
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
  Post Office
  Post Office
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Court of Human Rights
  European Court of Human Rights
  Central America
  Central America
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador
  Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador
  United Nations (United Kingdom Vote)
  United Nations (United Kingdom Vote)
  Mr. Jacques Delors (Speech)
  Mr. Jacques Delors (Speech)
  Central American Parliament
  Central American Parliament
  Panama
  Panama
  Public Expenditure Survey
  Public Expenditure Survey
WALES
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mentally Handicapped People
  NHS
  NHS
  Music Teachers
  Music Teachers
  Pupil Costs
  Pupil Costs
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Student Nurses
  Student Nurses
TRANSPORT
  Fright traffic
  Fright traffic
  British Rail (Funding)
  British Rail (Funding)
  Municipal Airports (Privatisation)
  Municipal Airports (Privatisation)
  Road Signs
  Road Signs
  Flags of Convenience
  Flags of Convenience
  Passenger Transport Authorities
  Passenger Transport Authorities
  Smoke Hoods
  Smoke Hoods
  Aircraft Accident (Manchester Airport)
  Aircraft Accident (Manchester Airport)
  Driving Instructors (Examination)
  Driving Instructors (Examination)
  Barking Bypass
  Barking Bypass
  Charges
  Charges
EMPLOYMENT
  Agricultural Inspectors
  Agricultural Inspectors
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Adult Training
  Adult Training
  Hazards (Costs)
  Hazards (Costs)
  Enterprise Allowance
  Enterprise Allowance
  Industrial Investment
  Industrial Investment
  Labour Statistics (Slough)
  Labour Statistics (Slough)
  Bristol (Unfilled Vancancies)
  Bristol (Unfilled Vancancies)
  Insulation Projects
  Insulation Projects
  Holidays
  Holidays
  Yorkshire
  Yorkshire
  Employment Training Programme
  Employment Training Programme
  Textile Industry
  Textile Industry
  Public Expenditure Survey
  Public Expenditure Survey
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
DEFENCE
  British and Soviet Personnel
  British and Soviet Personnel
  Special Constables
  Special Constables
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Shell Foundry (Entrance Gates)
  Shell Foundry (Entrance Gates)
  RAF Personnel (Pensions)
  RAF Personnel (Pensions)
  Belize
  Belize
  Public Expenditure Survey
  Public Expenditure Survey
  Petty Officer John Black
  Petty Officer John Black
  Royal Ordnance plc (Agreement)
  Royal Ordnance plc (Agreement)
  Low Flying
  Low Flying
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Maternity Services
  Maternity Services
  "Home Life"
  "Home Life"
  NHS Review
  NHS Review
  Community Hospitals
  Community Hospitals
  Hospital and Clinical Waste
  Hospital and Clinical Waste
  Health Market
  Health Market
  Pathology
  Pathology
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Children (Illegal Employment)
  Children (Illegal Employment)
  Grandchildren
  Grandchildren
  Leukaemia and Lymphoma
  Leukaemia and Lymphoma
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Family Credit
  Family Credit
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Bioplan Holdings plc and Kingston Hospital
  Bioplan Holdings plc and Kingston Hospital
NATIONAL FINANCE
  EC (Farm Support Policies)
  EC (Farm Support Policies)
  Government Expenditure
  Government Expenditure
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Unit Labour Costs
  Unit Labour Costs
  Departmental Budgeting
  Departmental Budgeting
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  EC (Expenditure)
  EC (Expenditure)
  Public Expenditure (Cash Limits)
  Public Expenditure (Cash Limits)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Housing Transfers
  Housing Transfers
  Car Thefts
  Car Thefts
  Car Parks
  Car Parks
  Navan Fort
  Navan Fort
  Betting and Gaming
  Betting and Gaming
  Irish Language
  Irish Language
  Voluntary Maintained Schools (Trustees)
  Voluntary Maintained Schools (Trustees)
  Public Expenditure Survey
  Public Expenditure Survey
  Housing Executive
  Housing Executive
  Michael Tighe
  Michael Tighe
  Housing Order (Code of Guidance)
  Housing Order (Code of Guidance)
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Council
  European Council
  Whaling
  Whaling
  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Meat and Livestock Commission
  EEC Surpluses
  EEC Surpluses
  Chernobyl
  Chernobyl
  Monetary Compensatory Amounts
  Monetary Compensatory Amounts
  Countryside Commission
  Countryside Commission
  White Fish (Quotas)
  White Fish (Quotas)
  Farm Inspectors
  Farm Inspectors
  Cereals
  Cereals
  Horses
  Horses
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Less-favoured Areas
  Less-favoured Areas
  Arable Land
  Arable Land
  Pig Production
  Pig Production
  Pigs
  Pigs
  Ancient Monuments
  Ancient Monuments
  Brewers (Tenancies)
  Brewers (Tenancies)
  Irradiated Food
  Irradiated Food
  Council for Agriculture Ministers
  Council for Agriculture Ministers
  Retirement Tenancies
  Retirement Tenancies
  Industrial Dredging
  Industrial Dredging
  Coastal Erosion
  Coastal Erosion
  Country Landowners Association
  Country Landowners Association
  Horse Sales
  Horse Sales
  Agriculture Workers Union
  Agriculture Workers Union
  ADAS
  ADAS
  Sheep
  Sheep
  Bovine Somatotropin
  Bovine Somatotropin
  Torry Research Station
  Torry Research Station
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Council of Fisheries Ministers
  Council of Fisheries Ministers
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Family Farms
  Family Farms
  Set-aside Scheme
  Set-aside Scheme
  Wheat
  Wheat
  Intervention Board
  Intervention Board
  Wool Marketing Board
  Wool Marketing Board
  Women's Farmers Union
  Women's Farmers Union
  Price Fixing
  Price Fixing
  Sea Fish Industry Authority
  Sea Fish Industry Authority
  Potato Marketing Board
  Potato Marketing Board
  Intervention Stocks
  Intervention Stocks
  Diversification
  Diversification
  Environmental Protection
  Environmental Protection
  Sheepmeat
  Sheepmeat
  Export Refunds
  Export Refunds
  Research Stations
  Research Stations
  National Farmers Union
  National Farmers Union
  Milk Marketing Board
  Milk Marketing Board
  Algae
  Algae
  Home Grown Cereals Authority
  Home Grown Cereals Authority
  Food (Research and Development)
  Food (Research and Development)
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Public Expenditure Survey
  Public Expenditure Survey
  EC Budget
  EC Budget
  Agricultural Guidelines
  Agricultural Guidelines
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Land Drainage
  Land Drainage
ENVIRONMENT
  Water Authorities (Privatisation)
  Water Authorities (Privatisation)
  County Hall, Westminster
  County Hall, Westminster
  Elstree Studios
  Elstree Studios
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Maidstone Borough Council
  Maidstone Borough Council
  Local Government Finance Bill
  Local Government Finance Bill
  National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee
  National Rivers Authority Advisory Committee
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Broadcasting: Departmental Responsibility
Lord Buxton of Alsa Lord Buxton of Alsa asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will confirm that they have no intention during the present Parliament of transferring overall responsibility for broadcasting by radio and television from the Home Office to the Department of Trade and Industry.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister keeps the allocation of functions between Ministers and departments under regular review. No changes affecting responsibility for broadcasting are currently planned.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer, which I find somewhat reassuring although I am not sure what "currently" means. Do all government departments appreciate that whether we like it or not—and a good many of us do not—broadcasting, and in particular television, have become part of the life-blood of the nation and almost like air and water? Do the Government understand that tossing ideas around about public service broadcasting which have grave implications, social and political, for the future is not a very encouraging sign, particularly as it gives the impression that the Government treat public service broadcasting as if it were analogous to the manufacture of electronics or the expansion of supermarkets?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in his supplementary question my noble friend draws a distinction between straight commerce and broadcasting. In reply I would say that the Government see scope for greater co-operation and efficiency in broadcasting but also attach importance to its social and cultural dimensons. We seek to create an enabling framework for wider choice but without detriment to programme standards and quality.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, having been Home Secretary without responsibility for broadcasting in the 1960s and having been Home Secretary with responsibility for broadcasting in the 1970s, I perhaps slightly predictably prefer the latter position? Under the first arrangement the Postmaster-General, a relatively junior Minister, was responsible for the technical side leaving the wider responsibility to the Prime Minister of the day who perhaps preferred political considerations. Will the Minister accept that the Home Office is better placed to give attention to
388
standards and to public service than either Downing Street or a more technical or commercial department?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the position at the moment is that the Home Office has lead responsibility for the constitutional, regulatory, financial and international aspects of broadcasting policy. In this respect I do not think I would want to add to the Answer which I gave to my noble friend Lord Buxton.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the Home Office has a long-established and well justified reputation for impartiality and fairness, qualities which it has displayed within its responsibility for broadcasting? Would it not be better to allow it to continue to exercise that responsibility?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is nothing between my noble friend Lord Renton and I in the view which my noble friend and the Government take of the way in which the Home Office discharges its responsibilities. As to the original Answer which I gave to my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa, I do not think I can add to it.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on this side of the House were immensely relieved to hear the answer which he gave the House just now? The idea that broadcasting should become the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry seems bizarre. If at any time the Government contemplate a change of responsibility in this matter, one should have thought that the Department of Education and Science would be better.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I gave only a partial answer when I read out the lead responsibilities of the Home Office. The Department of Trade and Industry is very much involved with spectrum planning and telecommunications. The DTI's radio communications division also acts as technical adviser to the Home Office on broadcasting matters for which the Home Office has responsibility.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, as regards the drastic changes in broadcasting—perhaps rumoured; perhaps actually going to happen—the whole problem arises because the Government are late in presenting their White Paper. If the industry knew what was going to happen to it and a responsible Minister in the Home Office was able to deal with it, I can assure the noble Lord that the position would be very much easier.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is the Government's intention to bring forward a White Paper on broadcasting within the next few months.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most people would recognise that in a changing world, and in terms of broadcasting with all the facilities that go with it these days such as new transmissions, no one would expect the present

389
system to remain absolutely sacrosanct? We ought to take into account new developments and the new needs that will have to be met.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend has asked that question because the Government want to see greater competition and choice in broadcasting and welcome the prospect of additional programme services. However, such matters as which services should be authorised, when and subject to what kind of regulation need to be considered in the round and in the light of the latest advice on technology. We shall certainly be addressing all these matters in the forthcoming White Paper.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, would it not be better during the time that the new channels are proliferating for the Government to give an assurance that they will keep intact the traditional system of the BBC and ITV until the future is clear?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if I may say so, nothing I have said today indicates at all that public service broadcasting in this country will be altered in the sense that there are obligations on the BBC. With the prospect of additional programme services, there are, however, important questions to address about the future content and style of regulation across the ITV sector. Once again these are important matters which we shall address in our forthcoming White Paper.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain what will be the position in future of amateur radio, which is an important sector?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is another question and I wonder whether on that point I might write to the noble Lord.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether, in continuing its overall responsibility for broadcasting, the Home Office will continue the policies developed by the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, of keeping programme standards as the first priority?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the easiest way for me to answer that point is to say that the Government cannot second guess the broadcasting authorities in carrying out their responsibilities for programme content.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, when he said that broadcasting in the 1970s under the Home Secretary was better than it was in the 1960s under the Postmaster General? Is he further aware that the Postmaster General did not confine himself to technical matters? For example, I appointed the noble Lord, Lord Hill—and a very good appointment it was too. Would it not therefore be a good idea to recreate the ancient office of Postmaster General to look after this? We might even get a better Post Office service as a spin-off.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that again is a machinery of government question, which is why I am answering these rather difficult questions today. I do not think there is anything I can add to what I originally said to my noble friend Lord Buxton of Alsa. The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, will have to be content with that.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, to which he referred on many occasions, can he explain the role of Sir Jeffrey Sterling and Professor Griffiths, who have been holding a series of meetings with senior figures in the television industry? Can he further explain why no representative of the Home Office has been present at those meetings?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I believe I am right in saying that Sir Jeffrey Sterling is a special adviser at the Department of Trade and Industry. Many people are interested in discussing the wide range of issues currently facing broadcasting. I think it is nothing but helpful to have an open debate on these matters.

European Fighter Aircraft: Employment
3.11 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the consequences for employment in the United Kingdom through participation in the European fighter aircraft programme.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we estimate that the decision to embark on full development of the European fighter aircraft will give direct long-term employment to between 3,000 and 4,000 people in the United Kingdom. In the event of a decision in favour of subsequent production, 20,000 jobs in this country could be involved.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for a reply which must be encouraging. Can he confirm that the European fighter aircraft has export potential, and if so, will this affect the employment figures in an upward direction?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the Tornado is anything to go by, the new European fighter will certainly have a considerable export potential. As regards the number of jobs that that might create, I think it is perhaps fair to say that the production of any export version of the European fighter aircraft is likely to follow the national production. Therefore it follows that the jobs created by the original decision will be sustained rather than that new ones will be generated.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we welcome the information he has given about additional jobs, especially in view of the report published last year by the city analysts,

391
Scrimgeour Vickers, which said that in the next three years there would be 100,000 jobs lost in the defence industry because of cuts in expenditure? The UK share of the cost of this is something like £7,000 million. Can the noble Lord say where the money is in the defence expenditure for this long-term expenditure or what part of the present budget will have to be omitted? Can he also say what provision he has made for costs rising and re-runs?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that I recognise the figure referred to by the noble Lord. What we have agreed to so far is the development phase of this programme. The United Kingdom share will be of the order of £1·7 billion or £1·8 billion. The noble Lord will be reassured to know that there is a ceiling price agreed on the cost of the development programme.

Electricity Privatisation and the Environment
3.13 p.m.
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to embody the environmental responsibilities currently held by the CEGB under Section 37 of the 1957 Electricity Act in the Government's plans for privatising the electricity supply industry.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government intend to take powers in their legislation to ensure that an amenity obligation, similar to that expressed in Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1957, is placed on the privatised electricity supply industry.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that short Answer. Is he aware that there is real concern among many people lest cost-trimming economies in the new privatised industry work to the detriment of the environment and of environmental matters in all their aspects, not limited only to the effect of burning fossil fuels? Would he agree that Section 37 of the 1957 Act spells out all those environmental aspects clearly and in great detail? Can he therefore assure the House that the new industry, both in its generating and in its distributing functions, will be monitored not only to assess environmental impact but also to judge standards of service to the public? Will the regulatory system also cover those aspects?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can confirm that the Government intend the amenity obligation to apply to all parts of the industry; that is, generation, transmission and distribution, including those persons who generate electricity for their own consumption. The Government intend to provide on the face of the legislation a right to take civil proceedings in the event of a breach of the duty. I should remind the House that the present statutory obligation on amenity, Section 37, is silent on enforcement.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Viscount confirm that in addition to the general amenity obligation to which he has referred, new installations of the privatised electricity authority—whether in generation or transmission—will be subject to environmental assessment as required by the European directive?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, yes; I can confirm that.

Drinking Water: Aluminium Content
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are taking action in relation to the possible connection between aluminium in drinking water and Alzheimer's disease in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the Government's medical advisers are in touch with workers undertaking research on this subject and will be assessing their reports when they have been written and published. However, current concentrations of aluminium in drinking water are not considered to be a health risk.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Since press reports have nevertheless spread the theory that aluminium in water may be another newly discovered danger to health, can the Government quickly determine for certain the facts in order to inform the public and, if possible, in due course, to reassure them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when we receive the report, of course we shall act upon it. I would only say to those who have been misled by, or who have perhaps misunderstood, the press reports that they should wait until the report is published.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that one has to be absolutely convinced that there is no causal relationship between aluminium in water and Alzheimer's disease? Is he not further aware that in Yorkshire, in Barnsley, Wakefield, Sheffield, Kirklees and Calderdale, there are 800,000 consumers drinking water with an aluminium content which exceeds the European Community limits? Obviously there must be many more in the other nine water authorities. Therefore, may I ask the Minister what Her Majesty's Government and the water authorities are doing to bring down those levels in. line with European Community standards?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think the first point I should make to the noble Lord is that the European standard is there for coloration and not for health reasons. If one puts too much aluminium into water it tends to cloud the water; it is there for aesthetic reasons and not for medical reasons. No

393
national or international scientific body has recommended aluminium standards relating to Alzheimer's disease. Of course our water authorities must comply with European standards, and they will be doing so in the very near future.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, it is the top flight specialists and scientists who have issued this warning. That is why the whole matter is being discussed today. If peradventure, they are correct—bearing in mind that in some instances aluminium is being put deliberately into water so that we may well be deliberately causing harmful effects to many millions of people—can the Minister give the House an assurance that as soon as is humanly possible the report will be issued so that the appropriate action can be taken, just in case we might be very deliberately poisoning people in this country?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as soon as the report is published and we have seen it in the department, we shall of course consider it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can I ask the Minister whether there could be any risk in using aluminium cooking utensils?
The Earl of Caithness: Not that we are aware of, my Lords. A recent Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food survey into a number of metals concluded that aluminium levels were not a cause for concern.
Lord Buxton of Alsa: My Lords, why do we have to wait for the research? As I understand it, we are years behind the United States, which already has stringent regulations. They must presumably have been introduced as a result of research.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we too have stringent regulations but they are for aesthetic and not medical reasons, so far as we know. That is why we are waiting for the report before we take matters further.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that people's intake of aluminium comes primarily from food and medicaments and not from water? If it is thought desirable to control that intake the Government should look first at aluminium canning and such things in the medicine field as buffered aspirin, emulsifiers and pickling agents. If we are concerned, it might be wise, even at this time, to have some control to lessen the aluminium being taken in from those major sources.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right. On average, less than 5 per cent. of our aluminium intake comes from water. Most of course comes from food. One takes in more aluminium from the tea leaves in a cup of tea than in one's normal daily intake of water if one does not drink tea.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I agree with the Minister that we should not be misled by scare stories. Does he feel that his first reply was rather dismissive of the
394
evidence that has already been assembled? Will he take the report seriously when it comes? As has been suggested by his noble friend Lord Buxton, there should be serious consideration of the matter and consultation with the DHSS, bearing in mind that the incidence of Alzheimer's disease is increasing substantially.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that at no stage did I give the House any indication that I do not take the matter seriously. We shall consider the report, as will every water authority which uses aluminium.

Tercentenary of the Revolutions of 1688–89 and of the Bill of Rights and Claim of Right
3.22 p.m.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows —
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, welcome this occasion to commemorate and celebrate with Your Majesty and with members of the House of Commons the anniversary of the glorious Revolution of 1688 and the occasion on which the Prince and Princess of Orange were declared Joint Sovereigns of these Islands. By their acceptance of the Declaration of Rights, presented to them on the 13th of February 1689 in the Banqueting House in Whitehall, subsequently enacted by the Bill of Rights; and by their assent to the Claim of Right of Scotland, their late Majesties King William and Queen Mary concluded a solemn compact with their people; thereby were vindicated and asserted the ancient rights and liberties of the dutiful and loyal subjects of Your Majesty's predecessors.
In consequence of this deliverance from arbitrary power and affirmation of the people's rights, this nation has, since 1688, enjoyed security under a constitutional monarchy. The experience of three hundred years has shown that it is the Crown in Parliament which guarantees the liberty of the subject and upholds the rule of law. Our Parliament, consisting of Crown, Lords and Commons, has proved enduring and has provided an example to those nations overseas which have chosen to regulate their affairs in freedom by means of parliamentary government. Since that time, Your Majesty's Royal Predecessors have adhered to the spirit underlying the Coronation Oath taken by his late Majesty King William to govern "according to the statutes in parliament agreed upon, and the laws and customs of the same", and have thereby made it possible for parliamentary and democratic government to evolve within Parliament without interruption and without recourse to violent revolution. For this we give thanks to Almighty God and we pray that we and those who come after us may continue to enjoy for many years the blessing of freedom under the law safeguarded by the protection of the Crown.
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may say a word or two about the arrangements for presenting this

395
Address to her Majesty. It is intended that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as Speaker of the House, should present the Address on Wednesday 20th July at 11 a.m. in Westminster Hall. The Speaker of the House of Commons will present a similar Address on behalf of Members of another place.
Your Lordships' House will meet for prayers at 10 a.m. on 20th July and will then adjourn to Westminster Hall. Peers and their spouses who have applied for tickets will proceed in their own time to Westminster Hall where they should be seated by 10.30 a.m. They may enter Westminster Hall through St. Stephens Hall. The House will wish to know that presiding officers of Upper Houses of Commonwealth Parliaments will accompany the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in procession to Westminster Hall.
Delegations from the United States of America and the Netherlands have also been invited to the ceremony as special guests in view of the close historical connections of those two countries with the revolution and the Bill of Rights. The delegation from the United States of America, designated by Congress, consists of representatives from the William and Mary College, Virginia. The Dutch delegation consists of the presiding officers and clerks of the Dutch Parliament.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty.—[Lord Belstead]
3.24 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, this anniversary of the glorious Revolution is one of the few historical dates which are engraved on the public mind. It is of special importance for us because of its profound parliamentary significance.
We are all grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for outlining the arrangements for the celebration which we wholeheartedly support. I should like to make three short points. First, I should like to congratulate those who have arranged the exhibition in the Banqueting House. It is a most impressive and edifying display in historic surroundings. I hope that all of us will pay it a visit. Secondly, I should like to thank Mr. David Jones, the Deputy Librarian of the House, for his parliamentary history of the glorious Revolution published in the past few days to coincide with the anniversary. The records of debates in the House 300 years ago are revealing and interesting. Incidentally, I noted that a sitting which lasted until 8 p.m. was regarded as very late, notwithstanding the crisis.
Lastly, on behalf of all of us, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Pym, the chairman, and other noble Lords on the Tercentenary Advisory Committee who have worked assiduously and successfully over the past two years to co-ordinate all these arrangements. It gives me great pleasure to support this admirably drafted Motion.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in congratulating all
396
those who have been concerned with the arrangements, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Pym, for the leadership he has given through his chairmanship.
Three hundred years of peace, in England and Wales at least, is a subject for congratulations. We join most heartily in expressing them. We support the humble Address and the steadfast constitutionalism exhibited on a basis of a broadening democracy by 13 successive British sovereigns who have played their part in upholding the rule of law.
It should nonetheless be borne in mind that the settlement of 1689 was essentially a settlement to safeguard the rights of Parliament against a Crown rather than of the individual against either Crown or Parliament. It does not, as the Motion is a little inclined to imply, mean that our constitution is either perfect in safeguarding such rights or manifestly superior to constitutions elsewhere in the world.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, from these Benches we should also like to endorse the sentiments expressed in the humble Address and to offer our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Pym, and his colleagues for the excellent arrangements that they have made. As a nation, we owe so much to the events of 1688 and 1689—our constitutional monarchy, our democracy, our religious tolerance and the parliamentary rights safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the citizens of this land. For all those things, we have every reason to be grateful and to have cause for celebration.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, I should like to associate those who sit on the Cross Benches with everything that has been said by the Leader of the House and the Leaders of the Opposition. It is particularly fitting that this House should play its full part in the tercentenary celebrations in view of the distinguished role of the House of Lords in bringing the events of 1688 and 1689 to such a successful conclusion.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, perhaps I may associate those who sit on these Benches with what has already been said and express our appreciation of the arrangements which have been made and of the exhibition which has been provided.
I wish to make one comment; namely; it is the tradition of this county deriving from the ancient civilisations in the West that we live under the law and yet with our own freedom. I believe it is that combination of living with freedom under the law which was preserved on this occasion. That is something for which we should be extremely thankful. Therefore, it is right to express our gratitude at this time.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may thank those noble Lords who have responded to the Motion, as well as the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate. I should also like to associate myself with the thanks which have been given by your Lordships to my noble friend, Lord Pym, and the other Members of your Lordships' House who were on the Tercentenary Advisory Committee. They

397
were: the noble Lord, Lord Blake, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Elwyn-Jones and Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, the noble Lords, Lord Henderson of Brompton, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton and Lord Whaddon, as well as my noble friend Lord Pym.
Once again I beg to move that a humble Address he presented to Her Majesty.
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente; and the same was ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Whole House; and the Lords with White Staves were ordered to wait on Her Majesty to know when Her Majesty would be pleased to appoint to be attended with the said Address, and whether Her Majesty would be pleased to permit Presiding Officers of Upper Houses of Commonwealth Parliaments to accompany this House in attending Her Majesty.

Business
3.32 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Davidson will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to to be made in another place on the Piper Alpha rig. This will be followed by my noble friend, Lord Caithness, who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on local government finance.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the proceedings on the Third Reading of the Education Reform Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Agriculture Improvement (Variation) Scheme 1988 and the Agriculture Improvement (Amendment) Regulations 1988 will be taken.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should like to thank the Chief Whip for making that statement. It is the normal custom for your Lordships to rise at around 11 p.m. on a Thursday. I am sure that all noble Lords will use their best edeavours to complete the final stages of the Education Reform Bill by that time.
However, if that does not happen, what does the Government Chief Whip intend to do concerning the remaining stages of the Bill? I ask this in view of the concern expressed to me by various noble Lords on their own behalf and on behalf of members of staff from all sections of the House because of the uncertainty and their not knowing whether the House will sit into the early hours of the morning or whether tomorrow's sitting will be cancelled.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Opposition Chief Whip for making that point, which must be very much in all our minds. I echo his appeal to the House, which I am sure will be listened to, that noble Lords will carry through the Third Reading and the amendments as expeditiously as possible.
I think it would be wrong to make any firm arrangements of any other kind at this moment. We
398
must bear in mind that under the Standing Orders of the House it is noted that:
"The principal purposes of amendments on Third Reading are to clarify any remaining uncertainties, to improve the drafting and to enable the Government to fulfil undertakings given at earlier stages of the Bill."
I am sure that given goodwill we can make good progress on this. We must all have very much in mind the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, who has a Motion on the European Communities Committee down for tomorrow. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, is very much exercised about this because it comes very much within her purview. I suggest to the Opposition Chief Whip that the usual channels should keep in touch throughout the day. If our joint hopes appear not likely to be fulfilled, perhaps we may have consultation through the usual channels as to what should be done.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Chief Whip a further question on the same subject. What is the Government's intention as regards the Motion, That the Bill do now pass?
Lord Denham: My Lords, as regards the debate, if amendments are put down to a Bill at Third Reading, the Third Reading is taken formally. Then the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or the noble Lord on the Woolsack will call the various amendments. Any debate that takes place will take place on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. This is an inherent part of the Third Reading stage of the Bill.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I think the question of my noble friend, Lord Hatch of Lusby, was directed at the undoubted fact that there will be a debate on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. Might it be advisable at this point to say that that debate will take place tomorrow and not today?
Lord Denham: My Lords, if I may say so, I know that the noble Lord has the best interests of the House at heart. Because the Third Reading stage has its very special characteristics, as I read from the Companion to the Standing Orders, to allow for rather more time than may be needed by shifting the Third Reading debate might be a little pessimistic at this stage. It could lead to more being made of the Third Reading than your Lordships have been accustomed to expect.

Protection against Cruel Tethering Bill (formerly Horses, Ponies and Donkeys (No. 2) Bill)
3.36 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Piper Alpha Platform Explosion
3.37 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement being made in

399
another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy on the Piper Alpha explosion:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the explosion and fire on the Piper Alpha platform last night.
"At about ten o'clock last night a serious explosion occurred at the platform. The Coastguard service was informed and an emergency control centre was established. All emergency services were immediately alerted. Royal Navy, RAF and Coastguard helicopters and surface vessels in the area, including a NATO detachment, were committed to the search for survivors. Occidental, who are the operators of the platform, activated their emergency centre to control the fire and oil and gas flows.
"The explosion appears to have been so violent that the platform was effectively destroyed. My right honourable friend, the Minister of State, went early this morning to Aberdeen. He has kept me in continuous touch with developments. My latest information is that there were 229 people on the platform at the time of the explosion of whom 65 are known to have survived. There were three people in a small boat involved in the rescue of whom one is known to have survived. Sixteen are known to be dead and 150 at present unaccounted for.
"Her Majesty the Queen has asked me to convey to all those concerned her heartfelt sympathy for the injured and bereaved and her admiration for the gallant efforts of the firefighting, rescue and medical services in preventing even greater loss of life. I am sure the whole House will wish to join in expressing our sympathies and in paying tribute to the efforts of the emergency services.
"Oil and gas production in the hostile environment of the North Sea demands the greatest attention to safety. Safety is the first priority of the Government and of the operators. We apply the highest safety standards to all phases of development; design, construction and operation. We have also established procedures to be followed in the event of an emergency. These are regularly rehearsed.
"The Government are determined to establish urgently the cause of the explosion and the lessons to be learnt. Nearly 30,000 people work in the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea. They and their families have the right to expect the fullest possible investigation. The Government will therefore be setting up a full public inquiry as soon as possible".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement made in another place. We on these Benches should like to join with him in extending our sympathy to those families who have been bereaved by this tragic accident. We also wish to join with him in a tribute to the emergency services for the work they have done.
400
We extend our sympathy too to Aberdeen. Any city suffers when something of this kind happens: Aberdeen today must be a city full of sorrow. We forget sometimes that offshore exploration and production is a dangerous business. We should never forget. Only in the past week there have been three explosions—a fire on board the Shell-Esso Brent Alpha platform on Tuesday, an explosion in the gas processing area at Sullom Voe at the end of last week and then last night's incident. And of course, eight years ago, the Alexander Keilland capsized in the Ekofisk oilfield and 137 people lost their lives.
We welcome the Government's intention to set up a full public inquiry. There will be questions to be asked; but this is not the time or the occasion to ask them. However, they must be asked because the health and safety of the 30,000 people who work offshore has to be our primary concern and because tragedies such as Piper Alpha are only tolerable if we learn all the lessons and try to ensure that, so far as is humanly possible such tragedies, do not recur.
We owe that to those who have died, and we owe it to those who have been bereaved. To do anything less would be a betrayal of them and we should not countenance it.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I wish to join in expressing appreciation for the early deliverance to us of' the Statement on this very serious affair. We too wish to express our sympathy to all those affected and our appreciation of the selfless service rendered by those involved in the rescue operation. Those who toil in the North Sea not only contribute great wealth to this country; they are all the time taking risks. It is a very difficult environment. Theirs is a service we have come to respect and must safeguard in every possible way. That is why we too welcome the fact that the Government are very quickly to set up a full-ranging inquiry into the causes of this tragedy.
If I may, I wish to draw on my experiences in the coal industry where from time to time—not too frequently, I am glad to say—there were disasters. We had to take the same kind of measures as those taken in this case. Obviously, the rescue operation was paramount and immediate and an inquiry always took place. But there was one further action we took. I wonder whether it would be appropriate in this case.
Inquiries, however urgent, take some time. In the meantime experts can appraise all the possible reasons for what occurred and ensure that similar installations immediately put in hand whatever additional measures of safety protection may be necessary. I wish to ask whether that is being done in this case.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall answer the two noble Lords who have spoken from the Front Benches. I am grateful to them for their reception of the Statement. I do not wish to add very much. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, mentioned previous recent incidents. I can assure him that, so far as we know, there is no possible connection between those recent incidents and this disastrous explosion. I should also tell the House that the safety inspectorate at the Department of Energy conducts

401
regular safety inspections of oil platforms. The last inspection on the Piper Alpha took place on 28th June this year and revealed nothing seriously amiss.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I wish to add from these Benches our sympathy for all those concerned, and our congratulations to those who dealt with the emergency. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. Before the inquiry we should see whether there is any lesson that can be learnt straight away. Of course, such accidents occur. They sometimes occur because people have become used to the conditions they are working under and have not been as careful as perhaps they should have been. Or it may be that there is something which people had not realised was a possible danger. Both those aspects should be looked at. I hope however that before the inquiry no steps will be taken as panic measures. We want to look at this kind of thing quietly and do our best to ensure that it never recurs.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I think that perhaps the best answer I can give to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, is that I shall certainly convey their comments to my right honourable friend.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that those of us who are involved in the offshore oil industry, though not in the Piper field, will wish to be associated with the expressions of sympathy for the relatives and of admiration for the rescue services? Besides the full inquiry which of course is necessary, will the Government consider informing those concerned of any interim precautions which might appear to be advisable in the short-term in order to make sure that everything is done to try to prevent a recurrence?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I shall also ensure that his comments are conveyed to my right honourable friend.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I intervene because, as some Members of your Lordships' House will know, I am a former Lord Provost of Aberdeen. I associate myself, of course, with the remarks which have been made by those who have spoken in the past few minutes. I continue to live in Aberdeen and I know something about the local scene. Therefore, I wish to direct the attention of the Minister to one particular and possible problem—a problem which I hope is not current at the moment and which I hope will not develop. I refer to the fact that there are severe constrictions on the time when Aberdeen airport is permitted to be open. That is perfectly proper under planning procedures, given the location of the airport. I can however assure the Minister that in the quite recent past there have been difficulties at time of emergency because of complicated interworking arrangements between the various sectors who keep the airport open.
I know that the airport was kept open last night, but I want the Minister to give very serious consideration to the fact that it must be kept open for
402
many days to come at irregular and unsocial hours for all the reasons which will flow from this quite dreadful disaster.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. I do not think that he would expect me to give him an answer now, but I shall certainly take very serious note of what he said.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, may I on behalf of these Benches express our deep sorrow at this tragic disaster and assure all those who have suffered in any way of our sympathy and our prayers. I wish also to express our very great appreciation of those who responded through the emergency services and our admiration of their great courage and skill.

Education Reform Bill
3.48 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Education Reform Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time (Lord Denham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 (Duties with respect to the curriculum):
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I. line 18, after ("Curriculum") insert ("and by Chapter III with respect to local financial management and staffing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if, in moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 27, 106, 107, 109 and 118. These amendments raise a central issue of uncertainty left in the Bill as it is at the moment. They relate to the likely changes in employment law which the Government expect to be made after Royal Assent under the broad powers in Clause 220. Throughout the passage of the Bill your Lordships have heard only the briefest details of how the Government intend to use that power.
The amendments which we propose are designed to introduce a proper process for the use of that power to enable Parliament to be properly informed as to the likely extent of the use of the powers. The amendments have the following effects. First, any order made after Royal Assent to change the provisions of employment law under local financial management would need to be made by affirmative resolution. Secondly, any order made under Clause 220 would need to be made within three months of Royal Assent and would contain the adjustments to employment law known by the Government at the date of Royal Assent to be necessary to correct the Bill. The amendment would not prevent the making

403
of an order under Clause 220 or affect the extent of the power. It would merely impose a process and prevent a wide-ranging power from being held by ministers for an indefinite period.
Noble Lords may recall from earlier debates on employment provisions that concern was expressed about two issues. The first of those was the continuing split between employer and management roles in schools. The governing bodies of schools and further education colleges will be given extensive power to hire, fire and discipline staff. However, they will not be the employer and will not bear responsibility for their decisions. For example, if a person is unfairly dismissed by a school governing body, the local education authority will, according to the Bill, be liable to pay any compensation awarded by an industrial tribunal without having taken any part in the decision to dismiss.
The Bill, in Clause 220, gives the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to amend employment law when he considers it necessary or expedient as a result of local financial management. That gives him an extraordinary degree of discretion in a very complicated and controversial area of the law. At earlier stages of the Bill we gradually obtained some impression of what the Government intend in that matter. They apparently accept that the Bill creates a problem in giving governing bodies powers in relation to employment without giving them the responsibility for paying for them. The Government propose to correct that anomaly by one or more orders under Clause 220.
The key point is that the Government have failed to acknowledge the known consequences on the face of the Bill. They propose to deal with them by orders which are subject to the negative resolution procedure only. We must assume that the Government, because of their own policies, are unwilling to place on the face of the Bill the major responsibilities which will now be placed on governing bodies. Schools and their budgets could potentially become liable for compensation and other penalties under employment law. Surely the Government owe it to the governing bodies, which are to take the major new role under the Bill, to make clear that they are not receiving power without responsibility—something for nothing—under the legislation.
The Government have acknowledged the case for increased training for governors to enable them to manage budgets and meet their new responsibilities. In that context, nothing has been said of the Government's apparent intention to make governing bodies of even small primary schools as liable as any employer to the penalties and pitfalls of employment legislation. Quite apart from the dangers to employees' individual rights, the potential effect on a governing body which strayed by accident into a case before an industrial tribunal could be very serious. Depending on the precise terms of the order, the governors could be liable to pay compensation from the school's budget. The cost of a punitive award could be disastrous to the level of educational
404
provision in the school in the succeeding financial year.
The Government have issued a draft consultative document which says that orders will be made and that it will be appropriate for a governing body to appear before an industrial tribunal to defend its action if a dismissed member of the staff complains of unfair dismissal. However, it does not state clearly that it is the governing body which will pay or how it will obtain the money to pay. I suggest that the House should attempt to clarify the position, as these amendments do, and restore some form of certainty to governing bodies.
The issue that remains to be resolved is what responsibilities will pass from the local education authorities to the governing bodies. For example, will governing bodies have questions of unfair dismissal of teaching and non-teaching staff to deal with? Will they have questions of redundancy, including the criteria for selection for redundancy, to deal with? Will they have to deal with wrongful dismissals, claims under contract for use of inappropriate procedure and questions arising under the race relations and sex discrimination legislation? Will they have to deal with questions of time off for recognised activities such as acting as a justice of the peace? Will they have to deal with appointment procedures and health and safety at work procedures, taking the employer's role under the legislation? Will they have to deal with the maternity provisions contained in legislation?
Are those areas of activity which governing bodies will take on? If so, the governors will require quite a bit of training. Where will that training come from and where do we see in the Bill that that is what the Government intend? Are the Government telling the people who will become governors that they are taking on those responsibilities? To what extent do the Government propose to make the governors fully liable for the consequences of their decisions? Will they have to pay damages which may be awarded or do they simply have to appear at industrial tribunals, leaving it to the local education authority to pick up the bill?
After orders are made under Clause 220, where do the Government believe that people with contracts of employment in either teaching or non-teaching positions in schools will look for their employer? I suggest that it is contrary to employment law to split the role of employer and to say: "This is the person you must look to for that but somebody else bears the responsibility". That is what appears on the face of the Bill. Our amendments attempt to make the matter clear. They are designed to get the Government to come clean, so to speak, and give the House, by making affirmative procedure necessary, a chance to debate the matter. We are in no sense opposed to the principle of financial delegation. We are merely questioning how the principle will work. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am glad to support the amendments. The case for them has been so well presented by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna,

405
that I propose to make only a few remarks concerning general points about the operation of Clause 220. When the subject of employees' rights was discussed on Report, I said that it was regrettable that the Government had not, by that time, tabled their promised amendment under which they were to ensure that there would be consultation with relevant interests before any order was made to modify employment law during financial delegation.
In Committee it had earlier been made plain that, because of the operation of what is now Clause 220, in the case of unfair dismissal a governing body would have to answer for its actions before an industrial tribunal, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton, has already reminded us. However, since the Government had proved unwilling to specify in the Bill precisely what were the items of employment legislation that governing bodies would have to implement, I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, to tell us what rights other than those pertaining to unfair dismissal the Secretary of State had in mind.
In reply, the noble Baroness said, among other things, that the Government intended to use the power given to the Secretary of State so that governors were subject to the provisions of the Equal Pay Act and other provisions of employment legislation. She did not spell out what those other provisions were. Similarly, the Department of Education and Science, in stating its intentions regarding the clause in its consultation paper, has given only examples of the responsibilities which will in practice be exercised by governing bodies under financial delegation.
The government amendment to which I have referred was subsequently tabled but in substance proved to be even less communicative about their thinking. I must therefore ask why the Government are so cagey about this? Are they fearful of disclosing to Parliament the full extent of the new responsibilities that are to be placed on governing bodies? Do they think that to do that would deter prospective governors from coming forward? They must have given a great deal of thought to this subject. I suggest that the House is entitled to know what their intentions are in this regard.
Against that background, the extent to which these amendments seek to limit the Secretary of State's powers seems to me to be the very least that the House should now require. First, in my view it is essential that the modifications in employment law which the Secretary of State seeks to make by order should be specified within the limited period of three months following Royal Assent and confined to those he considers necessary or expedient at the time the Act is passed. That would at least ensure that neither the present Secretary of State nor any of his successors could without further primary legislation for an indefinite period effect more legislative changes of which none of us is now aware.
Secondly, I am convinced it is right that in place of the present proposal that the Secretary of State's powers can be challenged only by negative resolution, the Minister should be obliged to obtain the agreement of both Houses to his proposal. That
406
would ensure that they are adequately debated and have positive parliamentary approval before they are implemented.
In this Bill there are many instances of the executive assuming powers that we on these Benches consider damaging to the democratic process. But the power that the Secretary of State proposes to take in this instance is perhaps the most harmful of all. That is because, in the long run, it could take from employees rights that they have acquired over many years and have been hard won. I therefore urge the House, by means of these amendments, to make sure that that power is constrained.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, this is the infamous clause which gives the Secretary of State powers far beyond anything that he might need to achieve the results on which, on the whole, we are all agreed. We have hunted it through its various name changes—from Clause 186, to 189, to 220—and we are still on the scent.
I am genuinely surprised—and that is not a mere rhetorical phrase—that the Government are still unaware of the effects of such widely drawn powers. Under those powers the Secretary of State can still make any changes he wants in the application of any laws relating to employment under local financial management, provided only that he considers it expedient or necessary and that he consults about them.
Let each Member of the House envisage those powers in the hands of his or her least favourite politician of the opposite party. As the clock ticks metaphorically towards midnight, the Government can still calm our legitimate fears by accepting this restriction on timing and method even if they will not do so in respect of the scope of the powers concerned.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the House will, I know, be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morton, for agreeing to group the amendments in the way that he has. I shall deal with them in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List, 1 hope that that will be in accordance with your Lordships' wishes.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to write a reference to local financial management into Clause I of the Bill. That is the clause that sets out the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, local education authorities, school governing bodies and head teachers with regard to the curriculum in maintained schools.
Although this amendment is supportive of measures to which we are fully committed, I I think that it is unnecessary. The sentence in Clause 1 to which it would be added lays upon those various parties the duty "to exercise their functions" in such a way that the curriculum in maintained schools conforms to the general requirements laid down later in the clause. The reference to the various parties' "functions" includes everything that Chapter III has to say on local financial management and to spell it out would, I believe, be unnecessary.
The proposed insertion would also be unhelpful because it would confuse the structure of the Bill. Chapter 1, in which the insertion would occur, is concerned with the curriculum. Its opening clauses of

407
course function as a preamble to the entire Bill, since everything else that may be said or done about schools must focus upon the central issues of this chapter, the nature of the curriculum and of its delivery to pupils. But this does not mean that everything that occurs in this legislation should be recited in these opening pages.
Its influence upon areas of the Bill that are not immediately concerned with the curriculum is indirect. That is why the existing explicit reference to the specific questions of religious education and the national curriculum is appropriate at that point; but to make reference forward to provisions for local financial management in schools would not be.
The proposed amendment would clutter the opening of the Bill with matter not necessary at that stage, doing no service to the issue of local financial management, downgrading by implication those issues that are not mentioned there, and obscuring the question of the curriculum, which is the opening chapter's central concern. For these reasons, I hope that that amendment will not be pressed.
Turning now to Amendment No. 27, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the intention behind this point. I must say however that we were in a little degree of difficulty because I think that there is a misprint in the way that the amendment appears on the Marshalled List. Nonetheless, I think that I understand what it means, and I must say that I think that this amendment likewise is unnecessary.
Before any order can be made under Clause 220 my right honourable friend the Secretary of State must consult all those bodies listed in Clause 220. Inserting a reference to that clause in Clause 42(3) will not make that consultation any wider. Therefore I can assure the noble Lord that there are no circumstances in which an order under Clause 220 could give further powers or duties to governors without consultation. I hope that that assurance will be of value to the noble Lord.
Turning now to Amendments Nos. 106, 107, 109 and 118, those amendments alter the clause in two key ways. First, Amendment No. 118, the intention of which is reflected in Amendments Nos. 106 and 109, would make orders under the clause subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, a point which has been referred to by every noble Lord who has spoken. Secondly, Amendment No. 106 would provide for the order-making power to elapse after a period of three months after Royal Assent. That idea of a time-limit on the operation of the clause is then supplemented by Amendment No. 107, which would limit the modifications to be made to those modifications which the Secretary of State considered at the time of Royal Assent were necessary.
Turning to Amendment No. 118, we do not accept that there is a need for orders made under Clause 220 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We have explained at length that this clause is a technical provision designed to allow the Secretary of State to modify employment law so that the operation of that law is not in any way hindered or made difficult by the operation of financial delegation. There is no question of this or any other
408
Government being able to use this clause to make drastic changes to employment law in a low-key way without public scrutiny. The amendment that we introduced which requires statutory consultation before an order is made will ensure that the process of making an order is fully public at all times. It will then be open to any Member of either House of Parliament to pray against the order. In our view this is sufficient protection so far as concerns this clause. There is no need to go further and require the approval of orders by resolution of each House.
I turn to Amendment No. 106. I have to say that we cannot accept that there should be a time-limit on the use of the power given by the clause to the Secretary of State. On previous occasions we have made clear that we may need to modify the law in the light of problems which the experience of financial delegation in practice may throw up. Amendment No. 106 would not allow us to do that. If a problem arose a little time after a school had a delegated budget there might be nothing that we could do about it. Indeed, there would be nothing that we could do about it if this amendment were to be agreed. Your Lordships cannot believe that that would be a desirable state of affairs. Amendment No. 107 is therefore unacceptable for the same reason.
We are of course now considering what modifications it may be appropriate to make under the clause after the Act has been passed, but we must retain the power to make further changes if that proves necessary in the light of experience. We cannot possibly foresee every eventuality now. Furthermore, we need to consult carefully before we make any order. The Government had always intended to do that. It is only right that those parties concerned and those who have experience in the areas of the law in question should have an opportunity to comment on any proposals for orders.
We introduced an amendment at Report stage requiring statutory consultation with several parties, including the local authority associations, teachers' associations and representatives of the governors of voluntary schools. That consultation will take a little time. We are unlikely to have reached final decisions by the time that this Bill receives Royal Assent.
At this point I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to two points concerning this clause and the power that it gives to the Secretary of State. First, I draw attention to the word "modifications" in the first line. That is an important word with a precise meaning. It does not mean any change that the Secretary of State cares to make. Repealing a provision or drastically altering its effect for certain employees would not constitute a modification of that provision. A change cannot be described as a modification if it does not preserve the essential purpose of the provision. This is an important constraint on what can be done under this clause.
Secondly, the power is not in any way unprecedented. As we have pointed out on previous occasions, the Labour Government included in the 1978 Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act a provision enabing the Secretary of State to modify sections of that Act.

409
To conclude, let me repeat that Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 would severely restrict the Government's ability to modify employment law in ways which may be necessary in the light of experience. I think that we should be irresponsible to accept them. In our view Amendment No. 118 and its consequential amendment, Amendment No. 109, are simply unnecessary. There is no need for the affirmative resolution procedure to apply to orders under this clause and I hope that the House will reject all those amendments.
The noble Lords, Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Rochester, and the noble Earl who also spoke referred to various points. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, expressed concern about employers' responsibilities and the possibility of somebody else taking them on. However, this type of provision is not new. In aided schools, under existing law LEAs are required to appear before an industrial tribunal where they require the governors of a voluntary aided school to dismiss a teacher though the governors are that teacher's employers. Again, this ensures that those who take the decisions are answerable for them.
I think that a similar point was in the mind of the noble Lord. Lord Morton, when he wondered who would pay the compensation if such a case went against the LEA or the school concerned. The answer is that the LEA can charge the cost of dismissals to governors if it has good reason to do so, but it is not obliged to do so if it does not see any good reason. There is therefore a degree of flexibility in that situation which I hope the noble Lord will find helpful. I hope that I have dealt with the concerns in the minds of noble Lords about these matters and that the amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I think it is impossible to understand the concern felt by the staffs of our schools without realising the apprehensions that have been aroused by this Government's removal of their negotiating machinery. Above all, it is that which worries them.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but the Companion says that on Third Reading after the Minister has spoken noble Lords should not intervene. All the speeches ought to come before the Minister rises, and he then replies. Then of course there is the right to reply of the noble Lord who originally spoke. On this occasion, as this is my first intervention this afternoon, perhaps the noble Lord would like just to make his remarks, drawing them swiftly to a conclusion, and we could then stick to that point.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I apologise to the House for my rather intemperate contribution. I think I made the essential point in my first sentence. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his mercy and I thank your Lordships for listening to me.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am very grateful for the support that I have received from the
410
noble Lord, Lord Rochester, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, and my noble friend Lord Murray of Epping Forest. I must say to the Minister that he has not moved anywhere on this issue which we have already discussed on Second Reading, through Committee stage and at Report stage. Noble Lords have all been telling him that there is a very big problem about this issue but the Government appear to have shut their eyes to it and only reached the stage of issuing a consultative document.
According to the Minister, these powers would constrain the ability of the Government. I wonder whether he is aware of the Government's amendment, Amendment No. 116, tabled in the name of his noble friend Lady Hooper. Do the Government intend to press that amendment later this evening? It gives a fairly wide power to do all sorts of things. However, perhaps that would not be applied in this instance. It may be that he considers that amendment not in point. However, it does not really matter.
In our view, it is essential that drastic changes which may be made in employment law should be made by affirmative order and not by negative resolution. The Government must know the basic framework of the changes they intend to make in employment law for governing bodies to deal with this problem, so they should at least come out and say so. They have had this Bill for some considerable time. They know that they will have to make orders but they cannot tell us what will be in those orders. It is for that reason that I must press the amendment.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 146.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Alport, L.

Glenamara, L.

Amherst, E.

Goodman, L.

Ardwick, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Attlee, E.

Gregson, L.

Aylestone, L.

Grey, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Grimond, L.

Banks, L.

Hampton, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hanworth, V.

Bottomley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hayter, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Carter, L.

Hughes, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hunt, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hylton, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Jacques, 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.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Kagan, L.

Ennals, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Falkland, V.

Leatherland, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Listowel. E.

Flowers, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Gallacher, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Lockwood, B.

411

Longford, E.

Rugby, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Russell, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Mais, L.

Serota, B.

Mayhew, L.

Shackleton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stallard, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stedman, B.

Molloy, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mulley, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Northfield, L.

Underhill, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Oram, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Parry, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Peston, L.

White, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Willis, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Rea, L.

Winstanley, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Rochester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Halsbury, E.

Ampthill, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Annan, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Arran, E.

Havers, L.

Auckland, L.

Hesketh, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hives, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hood, V.

Beloff, L.

Hooper, B.

Belstead, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bessborough, E.

Ilchester, E.

Blatch, B.

Ironside, L.

Blyth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Bolton, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Borthwick, L.

Keyes, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Killearn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L.

Braye, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Knutsford, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Butterworth, L.

Layton, L.

Caithness, E.

Lindsay, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

London, Bp.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Long, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lytton, E.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cathcart, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Coleraine, L.

Mancroft, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Margadale, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Marley, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cowley, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Milverton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

De Freyne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dundee, E.

Moyne, L.

Eccles, V.

Munster, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Elibank, L.

Napier of Magdâla, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norrie, L.

Elton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ferrers, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Fortescue, E.

Orkney, E.

Gainford, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Glenarthur, L.

Pender, L.

Goold, L.

Pennock, L.

Grantchester, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Greenway, L.

412

Porritt, L.

Swansea, L.

Pym, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Swinton, E.

Renton, L.

Terrington, L.

Renwick, L.

Teviot, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rodney, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Romney, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trafford, L.

St. Germans, E.

Trefgarne, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Saint Levan, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Windlesham, L.

Savile, L.

Wolfson, L.

Seebohm, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wynford, L.

Somers, L.

Young, B.

Strange, B.

Young of Graffham, L.

Sudeley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Local Government Finance
4.29 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with the leave of the House I think that it might be convenient. If I now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission I would like to make a Statement, Mr Speaker, about a number of matters which will bring local authority finance in England up-to-date for the introduction of the new system in 1990.
"First, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I are issuing, a consultation document today on local authority capital expenditure. The paper has been placed in the Library and is available in the Vote Office: it will be sent to local authorities and their associations today.
"The new system will take effect from 1st April 1990. It will be a control on borrowing and all forms of credit, rather than on expenditure. I believe authorities will welcome this.
"Capital receipts will continue to be another source of finance for capital expenditure. But the debt attributable to past capital expenditure by local authorities in England and Wales now stands at £45 billion. We propose that a proportion of the accumulated and future cash receipts should be set aside for debt redemption or to meet future capital commitments. Local authorities will be free to spend the balance, in whatever year they like.
"Local authorities will also be free to finance additional capital expenditure from revenue contributions, subject only to the discipline of the community charge. I believe that the new system will provide local Government with greater assurance and flexibility in the planning of capital programmes. Secondly, under the new system in the Local Government Finance Bill, revenue support grant is to be paid on a fixed basis, authority by authority. Authorities will have certainty about their grant entitlements. There will

413
be no adjustment to take account of actual spending. The discipline will come from the community charge. My right honourable friend and I have decided to pave the way towards this new system by introducing greater certainty for 1989–90.
"In doing so, we will remove any scope for creative accounting by an authority designed to increase its grant entitlement by reducing its reported total expenditure without changing its true spending. There would otherwise be a number of ways in which authorities could do this for next year, this year and indeed earlier years.
"We therefore propose to bring forward legislation as soon as possible to alter the basis on which grant will be paid in England and Wales. For the current year, and for the previous three years, final supplementary reports have not yet been made. For some of these years it would still he open to local authorities to undertake book-keeping transactions or financial deals unrelated to true spending but which alter the level of reported total expenditure and therefore gain extra grant. We envisage that the Bill will provide that for all years up to 1988–89 grant entitlements should be calculated in general using total expenditure information which was with our departments by midnight last night.
"In a normal year grant payments would be calculated taking account of grant related expenditure assessments, block grant mechanisms, any arrangements for limiting grant changes and authorities' reported expenditure which I announce following consultation in the autumn. Grant payments for 1989–90 will be calculated in the same way except that the legislation will provide that grant payments for individual authorities should be calculated not on authorities' reported total expenditure, but on a figure derived for each authority based on information about their present levels of total expenditure and projected forward. Allowance will be made for changes in function where appropriate. In making the calculations we shall use in general only that information about total expenditure which was with our departments by midnight last night.
"When the RSG report has been approved, and subject to Parliament approving the new legislation, grant will be paid on the new basis. This will provide local authorities with greater certainty about their RSG entitlements for 1989–90 and previous years. It provides a basis for an orderly transition to the new system and for bringing the existing system to a close. Without the new legislation, it would have been necessary to recalculate grant under the present system well into the 1990s. I hope it will now be possible to make the last supplementary reports under the present system during 1989–90—otherwise I should have been asking the House to approve them probably up to 1992 or 1993.
"Thirdly, my proposals for next year's RSG settlement for England: I propose to set the level of provision for current expenditure at £29,140 million. This is 4 ·7 per cent. or £1 ·3 billion more than authorities' budgets for this year, after
414
deducting the cost of polytechnics. which from next April will be the responsibility of central government. This increase is slightly above the anticipated rate of inflation.
"This sum includes £110 million in respect of the current costs next year for preparing for the introduction of the community charge. This is in line with the estimate of these costs made by Price Waterhouse, and is consistent with the figures put forward by the local authority associations.
"Since authorities continue to spend more than they need, I again intend that there should be a margin between the total of grant related expenditure assessments and provision.
"I propose that aggregate exchequer grant should be set at £13,575 million. After allowing for the removal of polytechics, this is £600 million more than the settlement allowed for this year, and is about £1.1 billion more than the grant which will be paid for 1988–89. That represents an increase of about 9 per cent. on the amount of grant that will be paid out. Under my proposals for closing down the system, grant payments to authorities will not be affected by their level of spending in 1989–90.
"I am conscious that some local authorities will be disappointed that no grant increase will be available in recognition of any shortfall in their spending in the current year and last year. I believe, however, that if they look at the total picture they will recognise that the package I am proposing is a fair one. If spending is held steady in real terms this settlement will enable most authorities to hold the increases in rates to less than the rate of inflation.
"I shall be discussing all these proposals with the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance on Monday.
"Fourthly, rate limitation. I am today laying before the House a report setting out how general purpose authorities will be selected next year. The selection criteria I am adopting are the same as I adopted last year: first, for authorities not selected in 1988–89, budgets of at least 121/2 per cent. above GRE and showing a growth of at least 6 per cent. since 1987–88; secondly, for authorities that are selected in the current year, budgets of at least 121/2 per cent. above GRE.
"On these criteria seven authorities will he reselected for 1989–90—Camden, Greenwich, Hackney, Lewisham, Southwark, Thamesdown and Tower Hamlets. No authority which was not selected last year is being selected this year.
"I am today also setting the expenditure levels for the seven rate-capped authorities at the same level as in 1988–89.
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has laid a separate report designating the Inner London Education Authority and he will be setting an expenditure level. This completes the Government's proposals for designating authorities in England."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.38 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Earl for repeating not just one statement but four statements on four different topics which have been made in another place. The four topics are: capital expenditure; the past revenue support grant, which will require legislation; the statement of the rate support grant for 1989–90; and, finally, a statement on capping. These are major matters to be dealt with in a short statement considered at such short notice, in light of the fact that the Central Consultative Committee on Local Government Finance is meeting only next Monday and that so far only a draft agenda has been issued to the local authorities taking part.
On the capital expenditure statement, the noble Earl said that the Government have issued a consultation document. Can he tell us how long will be given for the response? It is a classic tactic of government in such circumstances to issue consultation documents to local authorities just as they are going into the summer recess and to expect responses before they return. I hope that that is not being done again in this case.
On capital receipts, the statement uses two words which will cause a great deal of anxiety in many local authorities. It says that past capital expenditure debt amounts to £45 billion and proposes that a proportion of the accumulated and future cash receipts should be set aside for redemption. This sounds like a proposal for paying off the national debt and if it were proposed, for example, to pay back that £45 billion over a very short period, the result would be that there would be virtually no capital receipts available for any expenditure purposes and that those authorities particularly Conservative authorities, I suspect, which have been accumulating past receipts in order to fund major ventures—for example, town centre redevelopment and so forth—would find them being taken away from them to pay off past debts. I shall be grateful for the Minister's comments about that matter but I imagine that it will cause some concern to a number of authorities which are not included in the Government's list of spendthrift local authorities. Will the Minister give the proportion, say how rapidly it is intended that the past debt will be paid off and indicate how it can be achieved from accumulated past receipts?
The reference to financing additional capital expenditure from revenue contributions is something of a sick joke, given the fact that every pound of expenditure above the needs assessment will entail a £4 increase in the community charge. That is due to the gearing of the community charge and the fact that it will account for only 25 per cent. of local authority expenditure. I hope the Minister does not think that is a really serious contribution to local authority finance.
The second statement related to the past revenue support grant system. We do not express support for creative accounting. It appears that what is now proposed is restrospective legislation and action going back over three years. In other words, all the time-honoured systems of supplementary reports for setting RSG and for confirming the amount of RSG
416
after the year has been completed are now being scrapped. The Statement indicates that legislation will be brought forward to alter that basis. Can the noble Earl say when that will be and how quickly it is intended that it shall be on the statute book?
The third statement refers to revenue support grant for England for 1989–90. The statement proposes a provision for current expenditure of just over £29 billion. Is it not the case that the argument put forward by the local authority associations is that, in order to continue to fund present policies with no increase in expenditure, there ought to be a provision for £30·17 billion? Therefore we are talking about a shortfall of £1 billion in the amount needed by the authorities to continue present policies.
The statement refers to inflation, but is it not the case that local authority expenditure is particularly affected by the additional cost of the social services which are being laid on local authorities and also the change in the age structure of the population resulting in significant expenditure needs? I could quote many other examples.
We are interested to see that the estimate of £110 million given by Price Waterhouse is now being accepted as the basis for policy. That is not what we have been told within the past week or so. Will the noble Earl now confirm that the figure of £50 million to £70 million given in the financial memorandum to the Local Government Finance Bill which is still before this House, was a gross under-estimate and barely more than half the actual figure? Will the Minister be good enough to tell me what are the current estimates for future years?
The final statement relates to rate capping. I suppose that I ought to express gratitude that the London borough of Haringey is no longer included in the rate capping list. However, I notice that none of the unelected joint boards is included in the rate capping provisions. Can it be right that rate capping—in other words, the imposition of expenditure levels—is considered right for elected authorities but that unelected or partially elected authorities are allowed to spend whatever they wish? That seems to be a total denial of democracy.
In conclusion, it appears to be the case that the Government are preparing to sweeten the pill of the poll tax by making the rating system as unpopular as possible. Cuts of £ 1 billion in what is needed for local authority expenditure, and the principle of retrospection on the calculation of past RSG, indicates a brutal attitude which must be designed to make the rating system unpopular as it reaches its final years.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to thank the noble Earl for repeating the important and complex Statement. He will understand that some of us need more time to study the Statement with care before reaching final conclusions. I do not propose to divide my response to the Statement into four parts, as did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I should like to deal with it as a whole.

417
In general, we welcome the simplification of local government capital finance. However, we should not welcome simplification if it proved to be at the expense of just and proper distribution. We believe that the authorities now most in need will continue to be short of the funds they will need for necessary and urgent purposes. However, there are parts of the Statement which we warmly welcome. For instance, we shall be delighted to see the end of some examples of creative accounting. They will leave heavy burdens to be borne by some citizens in some inner city areas for many years to come.
I am a little unclear about the extent to which local authorities will be able to use funds from the sale of council houses for the repair of empty and dilapidated properties. I note that the Statement makes no mention of additional allocations to those authorities which cannot spend their capital receipts from the sale of council houses because they have not sold many such houses. They are the inner city authorities whose housing need is greatest.
Despite the opinion of Price Waterhouse we on these Benches, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are by no means convinced that the extra sum provided to cover the cost of preparing for the community charge will be adequate. We note that many of the figures are based on a forecast of future inflation which could prove to be inaccurate. Can the noble Earl say whether provision has been made for appropriate adjustments to be made if that later proves to be necessary?
I should like to ask the noble Earl one specific question. What is the proportion of capital receipts that the Government will require local authorities to set aside for debt redemption or to meet future capital commitments? That matter is referred to in paragraph 4 of the Statement, and perhaps the noble Earl can reply to that specific question.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for what both noble Lords have said. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for welcoming some parts of the Statement. As regards consultation, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that there will be a period of three months for the responses and that the deadline is 7th October.
I turn to deal with the important point raised by both noble Lords about debt repayment and I should like to put the matter into perspective. At the moment the local authority debt is £45 billion. Servicing the debt costs £6 billion per year; that is £170 for every adult in the country. Taking that into account, we envisage local authorities setting aside 75 per cent. of their housing receipts and 50 per cent. of their non-housing receipts for debt redemption. Under these proposals, local authorities will still be able to spend nearly £4 billion from capital receipts in 1990–91.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised the question of the introduction of legislation on the new capital system. I can go no further than the Statement, which indicates that it will be introduced as soon as possible. The noble Lord also commented on the claimed £1 billion shortfall in the level of expenditure required by local authorities. My right
418
honourable friend does not accept that authorities need to spend £30 billion. The present policies need not continue and authorities need to tailor their spending to what ratepayers can reasonably be expected to be able to afford.
Finally, on rate capping the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, gave what I may call a cautious welcome to the fact that there is now a reduction of 10 in the number of authorities being rate capped. I can confirm to him that Haringey is not among those to be rate capped next year and I believe that that shows that Government policies are working.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I believe it will be readily agreed that this Statement does not lend itself to off-the-cuff comment. However, I should like to ask the Minister whether he could follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the period of consultation. Can he say how long this will be and with whom it will be? Will it be sufficient to avoid our recent experience of retrospective legislation to amend retrospective legislation which will involve more retrospective legislation. I should like him to say a little bit more about consultation.
The Minister gave an assurance that local authorities would have greater flexibility and greater assurance in planning their capital programmes. I believe it would help everybody, especially those in local government, if he could say that all that means greater freedom for authorities to spend their own money.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on the consultation period, I repeat to my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham that the consultation period with the local authorities and others who are interested in this subject will be three months with a deadline of 7th October.
I believe that it is right that I should mention the potential damage that could be caused if the action which we propose is not taken. The possibility exists that authorities could, through creative accounting devices, claim hundreds of millions of pounds in additional grant from the Exchequer without reducing their underlying level of expenditure. We have seen evidence and proposals are being worked out to enable authorities to reduce their reported total expenditure to claim this grant through such methods as factoring and interest rate swaps. Once a few authorities adopt those proposals there is danger that a herd instinct will develop and that others will follow. Indeed, some treasurers may regard themselves as being under a duty to ratepayers to seek to maximise the benefits to be gained by such devices by all legitimate means. I hope that puts in context what we are seeking to do.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am extremely unhappy about the official use by the Government of the words "creative accounting". That seems to cast quite unnecessary reflections on a perfectly normal process and, secondly, on what seems to be an inevitable warning to us that they are about to introduce retrospective legislation.

419
It is not a question of whether a person chooses to describe the truth in figures in a particular way. It is a question of fact and of law as to whether he is entitled so to do. I cannot understand the continual reference by the noble Earl to authorities fiddling—I suppose that is what he is saying—their accounts in order to obtain an advantage which is not available to them under the law. If it is available to them under the law then he is not entitled by retrospective legislative action to prevent them making that claim. That is what appears to be the case by reference to the one year already passed. He is not entitled to do so.
I hope that the noble Earl will give me a more careful reply than he has given so far to the questions which have been raised on retrospective legislation and the rights of local authorities to claim their due under the law.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I note carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said. I hope that with his experience of his former position in Government he will also be aware that the possibility exists, as I have just said, for claims of hundreds of millions of pounds to be undertaken if we do not take the action that we have been able to do for future reports.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hesitate to come back. There were two points where the noble Earl in his answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, positively went against what the Statement says. He says that the Statement gives greater flexibility to local authorities but at two points the Statement says the reverse.
First, on capital expenditure, he is now proposing that accumulated cash receipts from capital disposals from the past shall be required to be used to repay the past capital expenditure debt. That means that those who have prudently been building up their cash receipts for major projects will no longer be able to spend them on those projects.
Secondly, as regards the RSG, those authorities who have had a short-fall in expenditure in the past in order to have greater expenditure in another year will no longer have a grant increase as a result. Is it not a fact that in both these cases—both capital and revenue—local authorities are being given less flexibility and chance to exercise sound financial management?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Perhaps I could just repeat part of the Statement so it is clear:
"We propose that a proportion of the accumulated and future cash receipts should be set aside for debt redemption or to meet future capital commitments. Local authorities will be free to spend the balance, in whatever year they like.
Local authorities will also be free to finance additional capital expenditure from revenue contributions, subject only to the discipline of the community charge. I believe that the new system will provide local government with greater assurance and flexibility in the planning of capital programmes".

Education Reform Bill
4.58 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 3 [Foundation subjects and key stages]: [Amendment No. 2 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 34, leave out ("specified in an order of the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment leaves out in the specification of foundation subjects, in particular of a modern foreign language, the words:
"specified in an order of the Secretary of State".
In the Bill the Secretary of State has to choose and specify which modern languages may be taught as foundation subjects. The point of the amendment is to leave that out so that local education authorities can teach any modern foreign language that they consider appropriate.
There are two issues here. The first is the range of choices of modern foreign languages and the other is the question of what could be called in a sense "community languages," in that one has to deal with people who speak a modern foreign language at their home and, in a sense, English is a modern foreign language for them.
On Report, the noble Baroness said:
"it would be wrong for me to prejudge which languages might be taught as the modern foreign language foundation subject before we have undertaken consultation and sought advice from the proposed National Curriculum Council. In the meantime, no modern foreign languages are ruled out".—[Official Report, 21/6/88; col. 741.]
She added:
"The list of foreign languages which will be issued in the order will, I believe, be susceptible to regional variations and it will be a very comprehensive list".—[Official Report, 21/6/88; col. 742.]
On the question of regional variations, when the noble Baroness comes to answer perhaps she will explain why it may be appropriate, for example, to teach French in Bradford but not in Essex or wherever it may be, and what is meant by regional variations to allow one language to be taught in one region and not in another. It is a matter which I find difficult to comprehend but it is perhaps a fairly minor matter.
The main problem is that however comprehensive the list may be, if the Government are willing to include community languages then the range is enormous. The Swann Report entitled Education for All of March 1985 discovered that in Bradford some 14,000 children spoke at home between them some 64 languages other than English, and in Haringey roughly 7,500 pupils spoke between them a total of 87 languages other than English. Therefore, the question obviously becomes one of what is conveniently suitable for the school or for the local education authority.
It seems to us on this side of the House that there is no need for specification by the Secretary of State because no school would be teaching a modern foreign language if it did not have the teachers, the course and probably the examination syllabus to

421
tackle that language. Therefore, it is unnecessarily restrictive that there should be this specification of what the Secretary of State may consider to be the appropriate foreign languages to be taught. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I express my support for this amendment, partly because it would remove one element of prescription by the Secretary of State, and we have so many. It would remove one prescription which seems to me quite unnecessary and undesirable for the reasons already outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna.
I believe that in the inner London area the number of community languages spoken is around 170. Is the Secretary of State really going to specify all those languages? Is it not going to be possible for any given language to be taught unless he has specified it? The problem could be easily solved simply by leaving out the words suggested in the amendment. I support the amendment.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I too support this amendment. I agree with what was said earlier by my noble friend Lord Baldwin that the Secretary of State is giving himself too much power in directing what shall be taught and what shall not be taught.
This is a matter for the headmaster who is on the spot. He knows what languages are desirable and what are not for particular pupils—not the Secretary of State who is sitting in his office in Whitehall. The man on the spot should decide. It is entirely inappropriate for such decisions to be within the power of the Secretary of State.
Incidentally, I express the hope that the vast majority of the young who are learning foreign languages will first learn to speak their own language properly.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this clause seems to be part of what I have described on other occasions as the notion of a planned economy of learning, a control over local initiative. It is an excessive discouragement to local initiative. As the Bill stands, if I understand it correctly, if the Secretary of State should fail to specify a specific language, he has in effect killed that language.
I make no imputation against the Secretary of State. I do not think he has any wish to go round killing languages, but there are many languages which he may on occasion not get round to specifying. I take an example which happens to be within my recent memory. I have a pupil who is by birth half Finnish and who has a great desire to maintain her own language. It is possible that, with the best will in the world, the Secretary of State might happen to forget to specify the Finnish language. She would then be doing something illegal and that seems to be altogether unnecessary.
These points have been made by others as well as myself. I should like to quote from a document that I believe other noble Lords have also received. I shall be interested to see how long it is before any noble Lord recognises the source from which I am quoting.
422
The document states:
"In sharp contrast to the Tory emphasis on freedom, choice and decentralisation in these parts of the Bill, the clauses on what is to be taught follow an almost socialist line and give power to the DES undreamed of until now. In particular we would find it intolerably prescriptive for boys between 14 and 16 who would have less opportunity to study the foreign languages and the sciences which the Government rightly wishes to encourage. I hope that by the time you read these words, the Bill will have been amended to allow some sensible flexibility".
Those are the words of the headmaster of Eton, writing the foreword to the annual newsletter of the Old Etonian Association. It is not often that I have the pleasure of sporting my old school tie in support of my party loyalty, but today I do.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, there is a point on this amendment which has not yet been mentioned. There are a number of children who speak a language other than English at home and learn English as a second language. The time when it is easiest for them to learn English is when their own language development is taking place, when they are young in junior school. I understand from those who teach languages to young children that English is best taught at the same time as they are being taught the basics and proper grammar of their own language so that the two languages develop together.
If the Secretary of State does not specify all the languages that small children learn at home, and speak at home, a number of them will be hampered in their learning of English. Consequently, it will be more difficult for them as they go up the school and in life generally thereafter. Therefore, I believe that this amendment has a lot to be said for it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I understand the desire for choice and diversity. The Government too believe that there should be a variety of modern foreign languages on offer to secondary pupils both for their own benefit and to improve the country's range of language expertise. We have made our intentions clear in the policy statement on modern languages in the school curriculum which we published earlier this year. That is also why we have not specified one or two particular languages as the modern foreign language foundation subject in the Bill itself.
This amendment would go too far. Schools would be able to offer any language, however obscure, in fulfilment of this part of the national curriculum, regardless of whether it would be useful to pupils in their adult life or formed a good basis for further language learning. I believe we would be doing children a disservice if, having required them to study a modern foreign language for the first five years of their secondary schooling, we did not build in certain safeguards about which languages they should study. I also feel sure that secondary schools themselves would welcome a firm indication of which languages they should teach as a first foreign language to pupils. They will still of course be free to decide which of the languages specified in the order they teach as a first language and also which languages they offer as second foreign languages in the sixth form or at an earlier stage.

423
That said, I stress that no final decision has been taken on which languages should be specified in the order. There are clearly educational advantages in requiring children to have the experience and discipline of learning a language which is neither the national language nor their mother tongue and which will be of value to them in adult life and employment. But this is a framework Bill and the detail is a matter for further consideration. I repeat that no modern foreign languages have yet been ruled out.
The first requirement will be that a modern foreign language should be taught "for a reasonable time" before any attainment targets or programmes of study are specified. My right honourable friend has no wish to make it difficult for schools to meet that requirement, and he is likely to take a fairly liberal view of what languages should qualify so as to reflect existing practice in schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, specifically asked what I meant by regional variations. Existing practice must be one of them. It could be the supply of teachers in a particular language. Indeed, it may be the effect of the predominance of certain community languages. However, the intention is to allow local education authorities to decide which foreign languages should be taught in their schools and they then have to make sure that they have the appropriately qualified teachers. We want diversification of the first foreign language, not every school teaching French.
I have listened carefully to your Lordships' arguments about which languages should be included and we shall give them full consideration before coming forward with our further proposals. As I said, we also intend to undertake consultations and seek advice from the National Curriculum Council on this matter. Should your Lordships think that the list of languages is unduly restrictive or that the wrong languages are being specified when the order is made under Clause 3(2)(6), your Lordships will be able to pray against the order under the negative resolution procedure. I hope that with this reassurance noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, did the noble Baroness say that if this amendment was carried languages would be taught almost willy-nilly and that head teachers would introduce languages that did not matter or did not have to be taught? I do not think that it was intended, but I took it to be an insult to head teachers to suggest that they would teach languages whether or not they were relevant.
I find that proposition difficult to accept. I live and operate in the London area. I know the difficulties experienced by head teachers in deciding which languages to teach out of the scores of languages that exist in the Greater London area. I should have thought that the noble Baroness would welcome this amendment. It would introduce the flexibility that is absolutely essential if heads are going to meet modern conditions in the inner city areas.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that is why we feel that this is an important
424
topic that requires further consideration and consultation.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, that would seem to be the perfect reason why there would be no need for specification. You must trust somebody somewhere. The idea that the Secretary of State might inadvertently omit something from his schedule that he would otherwise specify seems to me to be terrible.
I am surprised to hear the Minister put forward the idea that one should teach a language that is foreign both to the language spoken at home and to the language spoken in the school. That puts a much heavier burden on those who at home speak a language which is different from the language they are taught at school than on those who only speak English. I am sure that it was not intentional, but that is the effect of what the noble Baroness said. If there are those who naturally speak Chinese or Greek at home and there are sufficient numbers of people in the area to teach that language at school as the foreign language, why should that not be done? Why should they have to learn a different language?
I should have thought that parents, in the kind of exotic situation suggested by the Minister of teaching a language that was going to be of no use, would be able to operate under Clause 21 of this Bill very easily. I cannot see schools in Bradford teaching Eskimo languages. In the circumstances, and not wishing to delay the progress of the Bill, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 4 [Duty to establish the National Curriculum by order]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 42. after ("subjects") insert ("other than art, music and physical education").
The noble Lord, said: My Lords, with permission I will speak to Amendment No. 4 and also Amendment No. 5. I put forward this amendment in the hope of a sympathetic response from the Government because it follows on from what Ministers have already said.
Essentially this amendment concerns the degree and detail of prescription of attainment targets and programmes of study. The amendment as it stands differentiates between core subjects where there will be very detailed prescription of programmes and attainment targets. We approve of that because that is the spirit of the view that we put forward—that we ought to have concentrated on the core subjects in the first place.
The second level refers to what should always be referred to as the other foundation subjects, except for three. There, one has a medium level of detailed programmes and attainment targets. I assume that one of the purposes of the medium level is to emphasise the point that within that area in particular cross-curricular study will be possible and highly desirable. The noble Baroness has certainly said something to that effect. Level three applies

425
specifically as it stands to music, art and physical education, where, for perfectly obvious reasons, it is impossible to write such detailed programmes.
The amendment seems to correspond precisely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said when she distinguished those subjects and reassured your Lordships that that degree of difference in detail and degree of prescription would he possible within the Bill. It is our view that Ministers are being extremely sensible in taking that point of view and in responding to the wishes of noble Lords who have spoken on these matters. However, it is our view that this is precisely the kind of matter that ought to appear on the face of the Bill because it is not something which should be left to chance or subsequent arbitrary decision. It should be in the Bill at this point in time.
I should like to make another point on a related theme. The Bill refers to music and art, but I take it from comments that Ministers have made that it would be right to interpret music and art in a very broad sense to include "the arts". In other words, there is no intention that related arts of a dramatic kind would be left out. That is not central to the amendment but I use this opportunity to ask for some reassurance on that point.
What is being said here is very much within the spirit of the Bill. It is certainly within the spirit of the debates that have taken place and I believe that it is within the spirit of what the noble Baroness has herself said. I simply press the Government to say that this is an amendment which they ought to accept. I beg to move.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I should like to support the last point very strongly. There is great confusion in the arts world as to what the Government mean by art. I hope that they mean the arts, which include, drama, dance, crafts and architecture. I should like to know what they mean by the arts. If they do not know, they ought to.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that with regard to the core subjects, the three Rs and science, a high degree of prescription is appropriate. It may be that in a few years' time if we have this, there will be less general semi-literacy in the country, which is one of the problems worrying the Government. With regard to the other foundation subjects, I am still worried about the compatibility between what is said here and what was said in 1986. I laboured this point at an earlier stage of the Bill. I will not take longer than I have to now. At the earlier stage it could have been four o'clock in the morning, but I cannot remember.
The 1986 Act says that it is the duty of every local education authority to determine and keep under review their policy in relation to the secular curriculum. It is also their duty to consider the range of the secular curriculum and the balance between its different components. It is then the duty of the governing body to consider the policy of the local education authority, to decide what their aims are and how that policy should be modified for the particular school for which they are responsible.
426
Finally, it is the duty of the head teacher of every school to see that the curriculum authority is implemented. I cannot see how all of that is compatible with the Secretary of State's national curriculum.
I asked the Minister to write to me on this point and she was kind enough to do so. Indeed she made some valid points. She said that the local education authorities would remain responsible for those subjects which were outside the national curriculum and for sixth-form work. But I still do not see how they can determine a curriculum policy in which the attainment targets and programmes of study have already been specified by the Secretary of State. It does not seem to me to be compatible.
I have had no representations from local education authorities on this subject. I have done all the thinking myself, but I feel sure that they must he thinking on these lines. If we had an amendment such as the present one which described more clearly how far the specification of the Secretary of State went and how in the other foundation subjects it was less specific and merely referred to guidelines with art, music and PE, it would be much clearer and would be closer to being compatible with existing legislation. Otherwise it seems to me that local authorities will be in a terrible muddle as to what will be expected and required of them by the law.
I should like to add more generally that it is kind to the teachers. We are in all this dependent on our teachers. If you say to a teacher, "You will do this. You will not do that, and you will aim at such and such", you will gradually remove from him all creative and inventive incentive. The joy of teaching, if you are a teacher, is to be able to be creative and inventive. If you remove all that by telling him exactly what he has to teach by being too prescriptive, you take the pleasure out of it and we shall not have any good teachers, because the creative ones are the good teachers.
We have just been talking about languages. If the Secretary of State is going to produce an immense list of all the languages that may be taught, how is he to prescribe programmes of study and attainment targets for each one of 30, 40, 50, 170 languages? It does not seem to make sense. This amendment, or something close to it, would make things much clearer and would give our teachers, on whom we are totally dependent, a much happier future.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I should like to say a few words with regard to music alone, and I am speaking only about individual teaching of music. It is very difficult indeed for anybody who is not a musician to assess the progress of any particular pupil. In fact it is difficult for anybody except the pupil's teacher himself or herself.
We have the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music grading examinations which are practically universally used not only throughout the country but abroad as well. They have always proved to be completely satisfactory. I cannot see why they should not still be adhered to and used. I cannot think that any interference with that method of grading would do any good whatsoever.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, these amendments are a recipe for a three-tier national curriculum. They seek to set out in statute what we have repeatedly said is intended to happen; that attainment targets and programmes of study for the core subjects will be set out more fully than those for other foundation subjects, and that in the case of music, art and PE what is provided will amount to very broad guidelines. But these distinctions do not transfer happily into statute.
As I understand it, the amendment would, for example, allow the Secretary of State to prescribe detailed programmes of study for maths, science and English, so where is the flexibility that has been asked for there? What we intend for all subjects is a framework within which there will be considerable freedom for teachers to develop their own syllabuses, and I would hesitate to describe the programmes of study as "detailed" in any subject without that important qualification. And yet those who have argued equally strongly for the maximum professional freedom for teachers are happy to write these words onto the face of the Bill. I believe this proves at the very least that "detailed" does not have a generally accepted meaning in this context, and the same is true of the other words used—one man's "outline" is no doubt another man's "guideline".
Secondly, we feel that these amendments are unnecessary. We have set up statutory processes of consultation so that what is proposed in respect of each core and other foundation subject will be debated fully and openly. It is at that stage that the degree of detail of any attainment target or programme of study can be considered very carefully in the light of the views of those concerned, and this will allow us to make sure that what is prescribed is appropriate in each case. There is no danger of the present legal framework not allowing adequate flexibility—subject to the consultation process—because the Secretary of State can make orders which contain such attainment targets and other provisions "as he considers appropriate", and this will cover almost the full range of that which the proposers of this amendment envisage.
But the flexibility built into the Bill is not quite as great as that in the amendment, and this is in fact my third reason for rejecting it. The amendment envisages that, at whatever degree of generality, what is prescribed for music, art and PE should not be binding on schools. Now we are prepared to accept that for many reasons—the wide variations in pupils' aptitudes, the availability of certain specialist resources, the preservation of existing centres of excellence and the importance of regional and cultural factors—it would be right to give maximum freedom in these three subjects. But we do not want to cut them off from the other foundation subjects as a third tier of subjects, relegated to the status of a footnote in the national curriculum. Art, music and PE are part of our plans for the national curriculum, and we want that to be clearly seen in the Bill.
Since so much concern has been expressed on these subjects I shall go further and say that music and art are named as foundation subjects because we intend that, at the primary stages and in the early stages of secondary school, pupils should be enabled to build
428
on any artistic or musical talent and at the least have a better appreciation of these subjects. However, in the later secondary years, while some pupils may be taking GCSE in one or more of the expressive arts subjects, we intend that the majority will follow a broadly-based arts course that will embrace all the arts subjects including of course dance. For these reasons, which I believe are compelling, I trust that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I particularly liked the thought that one man's outline is another man's guideline. If you added "Discuss" it would make an admirable examination question, but since we are anxious to proceed I shall not work on it tonight. I am disappointed. I believe that there will come a day not long hence when the department and whoever is the Secretary of State will wish that they had written these precise amendments into the Bill, but that is by the way.
May I say, in order not to be misunderstood, that although I believe in great freedom and flexibility I do not believe in great freedom and flexibility when it comes to the core. One of the reasons why I was enthusiastic about a "well-defined and compulsory core" is that I want the attainment targets set very definitely, and I want the attainment targets attained. I hope that there is no moving back on the Government's side from that view at least on the core, because that is certainly my view. Having got that on the record, I shall not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
5.30 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line I, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 7. These amendments follow upon discussions arising from confusion among many noble Lords about a number of matters to do with the use of available time. Our concern is that the demands of the national curriculum will crowd out other desirable educational activities. The wording of the Bill and all that we have heard, in addition to the fact that the Government cannot quite agree on what share of the school day, week or year will be taken up by the national curriculum, give us cause for a modicum of worry, if not alarm.
If one looks at the way the programmes of study will be set out, there seems to be no mechanism for guaranteeing that they will be co-ordinated in terms of the use of time. Almost everybody who has experience of teaching—certainly at the higher level where I and my colleagues have experience—wants a share of the available time. When one adds up all those shares the total always comes to more than 100 per cent. Our real worry is that this will happen in respect of the programmes of study, especially if they are unco-ordinated.
The related worry in respect of use of time concerns teacher freedom. If we are moving away from the

429
core, one asks how much freedom is left. I have made the point that the core must be regarded as primary, but it should not to a degree that leaves no room for anything else. We are looking for some clarification of exactly what is supposed to happen. I am fairly certain from statements made by the noble Baroness that the Government are aware of the problem. What concerns me is whether the Government have any ideas on the solution.
Finally, I am bound to return to the compatibility of the curriculum with GCSE and TVEI. I am not persuaded that the national curriculum and the other parts fit together easily as the Government say they do. As one ends up with a certificate in the case of GCSE, I am convinced that it will crowd out everything else unless something
I have made a number of disparate points. I make no apology. On a day like this one has to bring as many points into a single amendment as one can. However, one is looking for some reassurance and clarification. I beg to move.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, there is a recurrent fear that the national curriculum will absorb all the time in the timetable; and for a particular reason. Governing bodies, head teachers, teachers, parents and children will all say and think that the only thing that matters is the national curriculum and that they cannot be bothered with anything else. I know what children are like. The children themselves say this, especially when they get into their teens. One must bear in mind that a school's reputation, a head teacher's reputation, a teacher's reputation, and so on, are all related to the results of these assessments, which will take the children up to the age of 14.
After that they will be preoccupied entirely with public examinations—the GCSE, TVEI and so on—and in this respect the position is rather reversed. The national curriculum subjects will threaten to interfere with the subjects which children are taking for GCSE. As I said on a previous occasion, a scientifically minded boy who is taking maths, chemistry, biology, physics, CDT, English language and English literature does not have the time or energy left to give his thoughts to history or geography or to pay lip service to music or art whatever that may mean at this stage—or PE. It does not make sense. One hopes that the amendment will do something to resolve this difficulty through the intervention, if necessary, of the Secretary of State.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, these amendments look very much like an attempt to give the Secretary of State more central control over the school timetable—a power we have never wanted and which, in response to Opposition pressure in another place, we have expressly ruled out in Clause 4 of the Bill. I am amazed that after hearing so much about the need to give teachers a free hand, to trust their professional judgment and to allow head teachers to use their powers to organise the curriculum, one now
430
hears in effect that teachers will not use the flexibility built into our orders in a sensible way.
Some signal about the minimum amount of time the Secretary of State would expect pupils in general to spend on particular national curriculum subjects is important. It will influence what is said to the subject working groups and will be reflected in the attainment targets and programmes of study which are proposed for each subject on which there will be full consultation. The overall intention that in years four and five of secondary school, in respect of which I realise considerable anxiety has been expressed, the national curriculum may take up only 70 per cent. of the curriculum if schools so choose, is already well understood. There will be many legitimate reasons for national curriculum subjects occupying individual pupils for different amounts of time. If the pupil has particular problems with English, or perhaps wishes to specialise in science, his timetable will have to reflect that. The proportion of time overall to be taken up with these subjects will be a matter for the head teacher and the governors who will bear in mind the need to offer the choices that pupils and parents value, including those offered within the TVEI programme, as well as the need for worthwhile study in the core and other foundation subjects.
We have not been silent on the topic of time allocations. We recognise the need to ensure that the national curriculum is deliverable with the flexibility we want within the time available. But we shall not seek to put any formal limit on teachers' and schools' discretion in this area. That promise has been widely welcomed by teachers. They were reassured when it was written into the Bill. I believe that teachers would not thank your Lordships for weakening the position, and I hope that the amendments will readily be withdrawn.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. There is a slight difference of view as to what the teachers believe in this matter; but I shall not pursue that. My point was not that teachers would willy-nilly create problems or be the source of difficulty. I say that outside pressures will be the cause of problems and difficulties and that teachers will feel obliged to respond to them, particularly along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie.
I am willing to accept that there are two views on this matter. I am also willing to accept that the Bill is highly experimental in what it proposes. We shall all survive to see the outcome. I am confident of the outcome I predict because that has been the outcome of similar pressures in our schools in the past. As a classic example, I merely refer to the effect of A-levels on narrowing the curriculum. The noble Baroness and even I are young enough to wait to see what the outcome will be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Collective worship]:
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 40. at end insert ("or of different faiths").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is a curtain-raiser for a large group of amendments the heartland being those to which the right reverend Prelate has lent his name and which he will be moving in due course. For that reason, in order to maximise his freedom of manoeuvre, I shall not make a long speech. It may be a convenient moment now to add that I shall not be moving Amendment No. 14 on advice that it would be controversial, time consuming and not really appropriate for Third Reading. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I very much appreciate the invitation from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and I am glad to be able to accept. I shall, if I may, first present my case and then speak specifically to the amendment tabled in the noble Earl's name. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 to 13, 18, 19, 20 and 21. I fear that I shall take a little time but I think that what I have to say falls within the categories of what is proper for Third Reading, as we were reminded by the noble Lord the Chief Whip earlier today.
The first amendment I propose will provide for the omission of Clause 6(3). That clause is, I admit, an over-simple formulation of what we intended to achieve and on which the original consultations were based. The purpose of that formulation was to legitimise good practice in school worship, while at the same time excluding over-easy options which do not solve the problems but, in fact, ignore them.
The latest amendments seek to set out in terms which have legal force and meaning the main elements of that earlier formulation. I should like here to acknowledge the great help that I have received from the Secretary of State, the Minister, the officials of the department and the parliamentary draftsman, because these amendments are very much a product of combined thinking.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that this is not the whole package; it is but part of the package. I shall not rehearse the other parts because it would be quite improper to do so on Third Reading. I simply remind the House of the parts we have already accepted and ask noble Lords to remember that what I now propose is in the context of those earlier amendments.
The spirit behind the whole package of the amendments is well summed up in a phrase from Amendment No. 15 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, which reads:
"to ensure that religious education, Christian or otherwise, shall promote respect, understanding and tolerance for those who adhere to other faiths".
I am glad to be able to say that I understand that the substance of what the amendment says will be included in a circular to be issued by the department. I hope that the Minister will confirm that when she speaks to this amendment.
The intention behind the new amendments is the avoidance of damaging divisions within a school and
432
its surrounding community. Differences of worship within a community need not divide a community; but they can do so, if, on the one hand, they are over-emphasised or, on the other other hand, suppressed or ignored. Sometimes the maintenance of harmony within a multi-faith school will be best achieved by expression of the differences that exist through provision for different forms of worship. There will also be occasions where common expression of common concerns and interests should be sought.
However, the decision as to which approach is right in any given situation is a decision which must be taken at a level close to the situation itself. That is why legislation must provide an appropriately broad framework of principles with a mechanism for flexible local application of those principles. Clause 6(3) was intended to set the framework and Clause 10(2)(a) the local mechanism. Both elements are retained in the new amendments but in ways which I am assured are now sufficiently precise in legal terms to be effective, which the earlier versions were not.
Our original agreed formulation in Clause 6(3)(a) required that in the main collective worship should reflect the broad traditions of Christian belief. Packed into the phrase "in the main" were three quite separate meanings. First, it meant that the norm in the country as a whole would be of this character and the great majority of schools would be bound by that requirement. Secondly, it meant that in the provision in any given school the norm would be of this character and most acts of collective worship would be bound by the requirement. Thirdly, it meant that the normal individual act of worship would itself, in the main, reflect the broad traditions of Christian belief. Those three meanings are kept separate in a new clause which is to follow Clause 6. Subsections (1) and (2) establish the required norm for all three meanings. They also establish, which was not previously clear, that an act of worship may be wholly Christian. That required norm applies to all county schools unless it is formally waived under the arrangements set out in subsection (6).
In all schools which are bound by the overall requirement, the flexibility in the overall pattern of provision of worship implied by "in the main" is allowed for in subsections (3) and (4)(a); namely, that on some occasions an act which is not broadly Christian would be permissible. Some flexibility in the content of individual acts of worship is allowed for in subsections (4)(b) and (4)(c).
Subsection (5) indicates the criteria which will govern the extent of the departure, if any, from the norm, the whole process being under the general guidance of the local standing advisory council, as indicated in Clause 10(1) of the Bill. But as well as this general guidance which the standing advisory council will be giving regarding normal situations, it will have a quite specific role in relation to any exceptional waiving of the mainly Christian requirement affecting a whole school or a distinctive part of one. That role is fully set out in our new clause to follow Clause 10 and it includes in subsection (9) the part played by parents in the process.

433
It is important to emphasise that it is open to a standing advisory council to decide on the waiving of the mainly Christian requirement not only in terms of a whole school, but also in terms of a relatively small part of the school or a relatively large part. For example, to illustrate the latter case, if a county school with, say, 90 per cent. Moslem pupils and 10 per cent. Christian pupils applied to the standing advisory council under the new clause, it would be open to the council to grant the application in terms of that 90 per cent. only, leaving the provision for the 10 per cent. of Christian pupils still under the requirements of subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause following Clause 6 as well as of Clause 6 itself. I hope I have made that clear and that I have not confused your Lordships by the references to clauses. However, I think that the substance of what I have said is clear.
What I have described so far refers to what is to be written on the face of the Bill. There will also be the possibility of informal arrangements made within a school to accommodate the wishes of those parents who feel it necessary to withdraw their children from the collective worship of the school. I am referring to the kind of situation mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, in an earlier debate. He asked whether those arrangements would still be possible under our amendments. I can assure him again that they will be possible in an informal way. There is nothing in either the original amendments, or the new ones,to prevent such arrangements being made.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what we have been trying to achieve. There was general agreement in Committee that the provisions were inadequate both from the Christian standpoint and that of other faiths now represented in our nation. It was accepted that whatever amendments were made they would need to have the goodwill, if not the support, of all who are concerned in our education system; namely, governing bodies, local authorities, teachers, parents, the Churches and representatives of other faiths. To that end, I undertook to have consultations with all involved, and that was done. As a result, I put forward my amendments on Report. While it was then accepted that they went a long way towards providing a satisfactory solution, time had not been on our side and, as I have said, those amendments needed clarification and further amendment to ensure that they would be legally effective. Working out the present amendments, I have had to bear in mind the need, on the one hand, to achieve that end, and, on the other, not to agree to amend the provisions in such a way that I should be breaking faith with those whom I have consulted, thus losing their confidence.
Throughout the process of wrestling with the amendments we have tried to uphold five main principles. We have sought to provide a framework for worship which, first, maintains the tradition of worship as part of the process of education, giving proper place to the Christian religion; secondly, maintains the contribution of the collective act of worship to the establishment of values within the school community; yet, thirdly, does not impose inappropriate forms of worship on certain groups of pupils; fourthly, does not break the school up into
434
communities based on the various faiths of the parents, especially in that it makes some groups feel that they are not really part of the community being educated in the school; and, lastly, is realisable and workable in practical terms of school accommodation and organisation.
Those five principles underlay our original consultations. Even though the words of these latest amendments may seem a long way from the original. simple formulation of Clause 6(3)(a), I can assure everyone concerned that the same five principles are still the foundation on which they have been built. In our judgment, they provide for those principles now to be implemented.
I hope that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, will appreciate from what I have said that I cannot accept his amendment. It would alter the basic position in all our schools, and I could not agree to it without further consultations for which, as he will appreciate, there is not time. I hope therefore that he will accept that this is a good and workable package which secures the aims which we originally set out to achieve and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I shall not speak for more than three minutes because the last thing that your Lordships want is another long debate on religion in schools. All I wish to do is to say thank you to all who have worked so hard to achieve the results which seemed impossible as recently as a few weeks ago and to clarify the position, as I see it now. In saying thank you, I must first and foremost thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and congratulate him on his immense efforts in negotiating so many complex issues with so many people representing such diverse interests to achieve a situation which I believe should satisfy Christians and those of other faiths. I also wish to thank the many other people inside and outside your Lordships' House who have worked so hard. I shall not say "tirelessly" because I suspect that many are exhausted. They are too numerous to name in the compass of three minutes, but they too deserve congratulations on all that has been achieved.
What has been achieved is historic. There is now explicit recognition on the face of the Bill of the expectations that religious education and worship should, in the main, be Christian, thus enshrining Christianity as the main spiritual tradition of this country and providing young people with opportunities to learn about Christianity and to experience Christian worship, opportunities which have too often been denied to many of them in recent years. There is also enshrined a respect for the other major faiths and opportunites for those of other faith communities to teach and to worship according to those faiths if parents request that and teachers find it feasible. That provision for other faiths is also historic and is warmly to be welcomed.
The provisions contained in the amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate may not seem to be crystal clear on the face of Bill. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give an assurance that there will be a circular from the DES which will make clear to parents and teachers the rights and

435
opportunities, as they have been explained to us by the right reverend Prelate this afternoon.
As I conclude, perhaps I may say that my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft wishes to be associated with all that I have just said. We believe that the amendments with which we are associated are not now necessary. We also hope that the amendments in the name of the right reverend Prelate, and the associated amendments in the name of my noble friend the Minister, will receive the support of your Lordships because they provide a framework within which Christians, and those of other faiths who are concerned about religion in schools, will be able to develop education and worship according to the integrity of their faith.
However, the making of the law is only the beginning. It can provide the opportunities. It will then be up to teachers, parents and the relevant authorities to ensure that the law is interpreted and applied in ways which will give our young people the spiritual education which is our heritage and their birthright. If that can be ensured, the Bill will prove historic indeed, not just in its provisions but in its effects, in matters which those of all faiths see as of ultimate importance.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, we from this Front Bench support the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate and congratulate him on achieving what I would regard as an almost impossible task of realising, in the main, a consensus. On this issue of course we would not apply any Whip. Members of the party to which I belong will be free to vote in any way that they wish. However, the Front Bench retains one or two worries about the provision of collective worship and religious education as set out in the Bill. The first is fairly straightforward. Why have the Government changed their attitude during the Bill's progress through Parliament? In another place the Government's attitude, as I understand it, was that the 1944 Act needed no amendment. Perhaps we may have some indication of why there was that change.
My second point is that we doubt whether the facilities are available, especially the trained teachers of religious education, to make this provision in any way a reality. Without having effective training facilities and properly trained teachers of religious education. We can pass as many laws as we like, but they will not happen.
The third point is that we hope that these provisions will do nothing to damage the furtherance of a collective community spirit in any school. The collective act of gathering all pupils together is most important to create and foster a spirit of tolerance and community, recognising the values of people of different colours and faiths. It would be unfortunate if the effect of the amendments was in any way to separate off people of different religions into different camps, so to speak. Speaking as one who was brought up in a city in the West of Scotland, I can perhaps say that I know something of the dangers that can arise from that type of competition.
436
I wish to end by quoting from an excellent—in the sense that I totally agree with it—letter from Sir Hermann Bondi which appeared in The Times on the 4th of this month in which he said:
"Democracy involves respect for minorities no less than rule by majority. Could it be made explicitly clear, in the Bill or at least in DES guidance, that the teaching given in Christianity must be such that it in no way brands non-Christians as inferior, misguided or followers of untruths, for otherwise it creates undesirable tensions and conflicts in the minority chiildren and, even worse, intolerance in the majority children".
6 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps I may say that I have always regarded a government who are prepared to change their mind as a result of discussion in Parliament as a model to be followed by all parties. On this occasion an effort which started as a Christian denominational effort has finished up as an inter-faith effort to secure the individuality and respect of all religions. I hope it is recognised in the minority faiths that for the first time there is a statutory route to the provision within our schools, not by withdrawal, for religious worship in their faith and that that will add to the cohesion not only of the school community but of the community of which the school is part and in which it operates.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that it places a great obligation on the Churches and on all the faiths. They now have the responsibility in the SACRE to develop the agreed syllabuses and the provisions for worship. They will be responsible for that to their flocks. It is also the responsibility of the Churches to encourage young people to come forward and teach in the schools and of the training colleges to train those teachers to do it. I am delighted with these amendments, to the extent that I put my name upon them. It is not therefore necessary for me to speak further.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I too support the amendment before us. What has been done in the amendment as it is now is to clarify much of the misunderstanding that has arisen while we have been debating this subject. My own denomination and the Free Churches to which I belong welcome and support the amendment. Since it was printed I have had consultations with the leaders in our Church and they support it completely.
We are indebted, as I am sure are the majority of the Members of this House, to the work of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London in getting the amendment drawn up as it is. I wish to congratulate those who have supported him and I hope that the House—and I say this most sincerely—passes the amendment unanimously.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, since my name is down on Amendment No. 9, perhaps I may pay a tribute very briefly to my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord Elton. They have played a very important part in the development of these matters behind the scenes and have greatly assisted the right reverend Prelate in his arduous duties. It is right that your Lordships should know that that is the position. I wish to be associated with everything they have said.

437
Furthermore, it is now common ground between the Government, those who support Amendment No. 8, and Amendment No. 9 in my name and those who support the amendment of the right reverend Prelate that there should be a collective act of worship available in faiths other than the Christian faith in appropriate circumstances, with flexible local application. This is a novel and vastly important social provision which now appears on the face of the statute. It is a substantial, welcome and essential departure from the Bill as originally drafted and from the Bill as it stands unamended before your Lordships' House at Third Reading today.
I find the drafting of the amendments difficult to assimilate. My hope is that, when the department tries to make some intelligible representation for practical guidance, it will not look so much to the drafting as to the plain, simple words which the right reverend Prelate used today. Then it can look at the drafting and produce what could be helpful and authoritative guidance. It is totally right that the Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education should make all appropriate determinations in this regard.
In the hope that my noble friend the Minister—and of course it is a matter for her—can give the assurance that some intelligible guidance can be produced, it would not be my intention to move Amendment No. 9. I merely wish to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his good offices in the introduction of this new dimension of collective worship, relevant to a multi-faith society.
On Amendment No. 15, to which the right reverend Prelate was good enough to refer, I reserve my position, as I intend to move it briefly for opinions and to afford a moment for discussion in your Lordships' House. It would be wrong to pre-empt it, and I reserve my position.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the attention he has given to a point I raised in earlier debates on this matter. I am very glad to see that the formulae put before us now will make it possible for the arrangements, which I described in order to meet the problems of schools with students of different faiths, to be lawful. I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to that end.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I wish to support these amendments on collective worship in county schools in the name of the right reverend Prelate and myself as well as of the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
It is of the greatest importance that those students who are of Christian background should be introduced in school to Christian worship. But at the same time it is vital that there should be a sensitivity and consideration for the position of non-Christian religious groups. The amendments are an amplification of the earlier amendment and are in my view a surer way to achieve the two objectives I have mentioned. I welcome the way in which the Christian character of the worship is spelt out more distinctly. I welcome also the provision for certain schools to be relieved of the obligation of holding Christian
438
worship. This meets the position of a limited number of schools where the pupils are predominantly non-Christian in background.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I have spoken so often in this House over the years in favour of Christianity that I think it would be churlish not to pay a tribute today to those—pre-eminently of course the right reverend Prelate—who have managed to persuade this House to include Christianity in the Bill. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on this historic occasion at least. To use a phrase employed by Sir Winston Churchill during the war, may I, across the havoc of war, pay tribute to her labours? I think that without her frankly this result would not have been achieved.
This is a completely non-party matter. I believe that in years to come it will be the best thing this Government have done and one of the best things any government have done in this century. I do not mean the Bill itself, I regard it as a bad Bill, but it has a redeeming feature.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, perhaps I may follow the example of other noble Lords and speak very briefly at this final stage of the debate. I support what my noble friend Lord Elton has said in response to the noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench who asks why the Government have changed their mind on the issue. It is because they have listened to the argument in this House—yes, certainly this House. It is here that we get argument in our parliamentary system that is audible and intelligible.
Perhaps I might add a footnote to what the noble Lord has said. The great John Henry Newman once wrote, "To be human is to change and to be perfect is to have changed often". I am not encouraging the noble Baroness to change her mind again on this issue, but it is a matter for praise and encouragement rather than reproach when a government listen and alter their view.
The amendments are to a certain extent obscure. I must say that to the right reverend Prelate. They are obscure unless one is, as he is, an expert in exegesis. My noble friend Lady Cox expressed the hope that a DES circular would make everything crystal clear. Speaking as a former education Minister, I can say that it will be the first time in history that has happened. However, my noble friend is an eminent example of the Christian virtue of hope. Let us hope that hope once again triumphs over experience in this regard.
Finally, I wish to tell my noble friend that she is the heroine of this particular area. It is thanks to her unremitting efforts that these changes have been made. It is a tremendous encouragement to everybody that a single individual by dedication, devotion and persistence can bring about a major change by acting as a rallying point for others to express their views.
The task of my noble friend is only now beginning. I ask her to place herself at the head of a movement to find the teachers to take the opportunities that are provided by this Bill. That was the failure of the 1944 Act. As my noble friend Lord Eccles will know, the

439
teachers were not forthcoming. If my noble friend can secure a supply of teachers of religious education, trained and worthy of their task, that will be her greatest achievement to date.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I wish to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London on a considerable achievement. I also wish to take up a point about teachers made by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, and my noble friend on the Front Bench. When I was Secretary of State I paid great attention to this matter and I held two weekend seminars at St. George's House, Windsor. The predecessor of the right reverend Prelate attended for the whole weekend, as did Archbishop Beck, a number of eminent Free Church leaders and a great many teachers. We tried to hammer out some principles for the teaching of religion in schools.
Subsequently I talked to probably thousands of teachers throughout the country and in Scotland too. I was shocked—indeed, horrified—to discover that the majority of teachers were opposed to the teaching of religion in schools. I found whole schools where not a single teacher was prepared to teach religion. They objected to the assumptions which have to be made. One cannot teach religion unless one makes assumptions. One must assume that God is, that Christ was divine. One must assume the resurrection, the immaculate conception and other matters. I discovered that those assumptions were unacceptable to a vast number of teachers.
It is one thing to work out a formula. I, like the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London will provide us with an exegesis on his formula so that we can really understand it. It is one thing to work out the formula, but it will be another thing to ensure that it has any effect on the lives of our children. That cannot happen unless we have teachers who are willing, able and prepared to teach this subject.
The Bill, through the two councils funding the universities and the polytechnics, provides for contracts between the funding councils and the polytechnics and the universities to supply courses. I suggest that the Government should, immediately the Bill becomes law, discuss with the two funding councils putting out some fairly hefty contracts for the training of large numbers of teachers of religion. Unless they do that, there is no hope whatever that the marvellous, praiseworthy, considerable and historic efforts of the right reverend Prelate to work out this formula will have any effect whatever.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I wish to say one thing to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, which is simply that it was precisely because of the importance of the teachers that we took particular care in our consultations to consult them. It is with their goodwill that these amendments will go forward. I do not minimise the difficulties of which the noble Lord has spoken, but they certainly have the goodwill of the teaching profession.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, as a representative of the other faiths that have been mentioned so often and indeed of a people who have been called the great non-conformists of history may I, for my part, say that when I originally read the proposed new amendments in cold print, I was greatly perplexed, confused and in part considerably worried. But, having now listened to the exegesis of the right reverend Prelate, and particularly also the interpretations given by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and others, I feel immensely relieved and indeed encouraged.
Perhaps I feel some justification for the Jewish commitment to the oral law being more important than the written law. What I had feared was that the phrase in Amendment No. 13 calling for collective acts of worship which,
"shall be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character"
would mean that they are neither Christian nor representative of any other faith. That particular phrase sounded to me like expecting children to observe the fifth commandment by honouring people who were wholly or mainly father and mother, but not entirely so.
Therefore I want, now that I have heard what the intention of the new reading is, to join in the tributes paid to the enormous skill, ingenuity and persistence of the right reverend Prelate, as well as that of others who have contributed to this truly historic new Bill, as now amended. I wish to express the hope that not only by upgrading religion in the country as such and in the raising of our children, but also in particular through Amendment No. 15 by promoting respect and tolerance of other faiths as part of our national commitment, we may succeed together in restoring the fatherhood of God of all of us, through whom alone we can establish the brotherhood of man.
I hope it will become clear to other nations that have rejected this that only through that way can we win mutual understanding, mutual respect and a reverence for the traditions and for the heritage that we have in common but which make us distinct from one another. I congratulate all noble Lords.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I wish to add from these Benches our pleasure and delight that these long debates have resulted in a decision which is worthy of your Lordships' House. I cannot praise it more highly than by saying that. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord on the Woolsack will call my Amendment No. 17 when he comes to it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I think there must be unanimity on one point at least; that is, that we have all tried very hard in our different ways to get this right. Our thanks are due especially in this respect to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. But I am most grateful to all your Lordships who have contributed to the debates in our House and who have worked behind the scenes.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that I should have thought it was very clear from the discussions that we have had why the Government agreed to support the right reverend

441
Prelate in seeking a solution to meet the clearly expressed concerns from many sides of the House and indeed from outside the House. I should make it clear at the outset that the Government are recommending that your Lordships support the amendments which have been put down in my name as well as the package of amendments proposed by the right reverend Prelate and my noble friends the Duke of Norfolk and Lord Elton. In speaking to the amendments referred to by the right reverend Prelate—Amendments Nos. 8 to 21 and 46 to 50—I shall also speak to Amendment No. 124.
The Government's position in considering all the amendments tabled about collective worship has been conditioned by two major considerations additional to our general wish to support noble Lords in ensuring that pupils are exposed to worship in accordance with Christian traditions and beliefs. First, we wish as far as possible to ensure that the act of collective worship provided for in statute is indeed collective. It is because such an act of worship can perform an important function in binding together members of a school and helping to develop their sense of community that we in this country make collective worship in schools a statutory requirement, although other equally Christian countries do not do so. This educational value of worship must be clearly distinguished from confessional acts of worship which are properly pursued by practising Christians and members of other faiths. Maintaining the collective emphasis and minimising withdrawal of pupils from the act of worship is a proper concern of those responsible for education.
Secondly, we have to ensure that what is required in legislation is practicable for schools to do. It was that consideration which led us to initiate consultations last year concerning the timing and organisation of collective worship in schools in order that we might include in the Bill the provision which is now part of Clause 6.
Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 12 would put into statute provisions for separate alternative acts of worship to be organised for those of different faiths, albeit in an apparently discretionary way. Let me make the position clear. The law requires collective worship. Parents have the right to withdraw their children from such worship. Where enough pupils are withdrawn and their parents want them to have alternative worship on the school premises, it is open to the governing body and head teacher to organise alternative worship, voluntarily and on a good will basis. This is the sort of case described by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, to which the right reverend Prelate referred.
We think that that is a sensible position. The head can judge whether he or she has the resources to organise such provision and whether to do so would in any way upset relations and sensibilities within the school. Nothing in the Bill prevents such voluntary arrangements or makes them less likely to happen. I am happy to give noble Lords an assurance that the Government will issue a circular which will give specific guidance encouraging schools to make alternative provision for pupils who are withdrawn.
The amendments proposed by the right reverend Prelate have resulted from his consulations, as he has
442
explained. They will cater for situations where a high rate of withdrawal is inevitable—for example, in schools where most pupils are from non-Christian backgrounds—and where it will be right and proper that alternative provision for worship should be made. But his amendments do not encourage pressures for separate acts of worship according to faith and they put the SACRE in the position of deciding whether a school should be exempt from the normal requirement to provide broadly Christian worship so that they must instead provide alternative forms of worship for one or more faiths.
That is a sensible and controlled way of approaching the issue of separate collective worship for pupils of different faiths, and one which will ensure that all the circumstances, including parents' views, are taken into account. I believe that the amendments tabled by the right reverend Prelate fully meet the points made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. They have the added advantage of reflecting the consultations carried out by the right reverend Prelate before Report stage, and they fulfil the intention of the amendments he tabled previously as a result of those consultations.
Turning to the amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and others, we believe that head teachers and governors should take account of the views of parents on those matters. I have previously commended the arrangements proposed by the right reverend Prelate for doing precisely that. However, we believe that a ballot of parents is quite the wrong machinery for ensuring that. I therefore hope that in due course those amendments will be withdrawn.
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has said that he will not be moving Amendment No. 14, and I shall therefore not speak to it. Amendment No. 15, tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and others, is one with which I, like the right reverend Prelate, have sympathy. As I have mentioned, the Government intend to issue a circular in due course on all the religious education and collective worship provisions of the Bill. We believe that that will offer a more appropriate means of exhorting school governors and others involved in religious education and collective worship to promote the objectives of the amendment. I promise my noble friends that it is our intention to include a passage in the circular along those lines. I therefore hope that in due course, although my noble friend did not speak precisely to that amendment, he will feel able to withdraw it.
Perhaps I may also comment briefly on the amendment standing in my name to Schedule 1 of the Bill. It is a response to a point made at Report stage by my noble friend Lord Renton. He rightly pointed out that county schools should not be prohibited from giving religious education about catechisms and formularies of different denominations. The Government readily accept the good sense in that point. The amendment seeks to correct what was previously in the Bill. I urge the House to support the amendment. I hope that noble Lords will also support the amendments to Clauses 82 and 85 which amend provisions relating to worship in grant-maintained schools to take account of the package of amendments proposed by the right reverend Prelate.

443
In conclusion, I hope that noble Lords will take full account of the assurances which I have given concerning the guidance to be given to schools on making arrangements for pupils who will be withdrawn from statutory collective worship and on the need for religious education to engender mutual tolerance and understanding between faiths and denominations. I undertake to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that we shall use our best endeavours to make those matters as fully intelligible as possible.
I thank my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley for his kind remarks. I also take note of what he said and what was said by other noble Lords about implementation and the supply of teachers. However, it is now a question of saying, "Let's get on with it". I therefore strongly urge the House to accept the excellent package put forward by the right reverend Prelate, the consequential government amendments and the amendments which meet the case made by my noble friend Lord Renton.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask a question about Amendment No. 16, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Blackstone. As regards the question of a parents' ballot, all the Minister has said is that she believes it would be wrong. Surely the House is entitled to a fuller explanation. Much of the philosophy of the Government is based on ballots, both in this measure and in the five employment and trade union Acts which, if I may use the term, are riddled with the need for balloting. Why should it be wrong in this case? Perhaps the Minister will enlarge on why she believes it to be wrong.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we believe that in this case the legitimate concerns of parents, head teachers and governors of a school will be met by allowing for full consultation of parents to take place. The machinery which would be involved in conducting a ballot is not necessary in this instance.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in rising to wind up our debate on Amendment No. 8, I should like to add my congratulations to those of the rest of the House to the right reverend Prelate for delivering the package which he promised us on Second Reading in a form which has received acclaim from every speaker. That being so, it would be quite wrong of me not to respond to the request to withdraw my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 41, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 13:
444
After Clause 6 insert the following new clause:
("Special provisions as to collective worship in county schools.
.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, in the case of a county school the collective worship required in the school by section 6 of this Act shall be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, collective worship is of a broadly Christian character if it reflects the broad traditions of Christian belief without being distinctive of any particular Christian denomination.
(3) Every act of collective worship required by section 6 of this Act in the case of a county school need not comply with subsection (1) above provided that, taking any school terms as a whole, most such acts which take place in the school do comply with that subsection.
(4) Subject to subsections (1) and (3) above—

(a) the extent to which (if at all) any acts of collective worship required by section 6 of this Act which do not comply with subsection (1) above take place in a county school;

(b) the extent to which any act of collective worship in a county school which complies with subsection (1) above reflects the broad traditions of Christian belief: and

(c) the ways in which those traditions are reflected in any such act of collective worship;

shall be such as may be appropriate having regard to any relevant considerations relating to the pupils concerned which fall to be taken into account in accordance with subsection (5) below.
(5) Those considerations are—

(a) any circumstances relating to the family backgrounds of the pupils concerned which are relevant for determining the character of the collective worship which is appropriate in their case; and

(b) their ages and aptitudes.

(6) Where under section (Determination by advisory councils of the cases in which the requirement for Christian collective worship is not to apply) of this Act a standing advisory council on religious education determine that it is not appropriate for subsection (1) above to apply in the case of any county school, or in the case of any class or description of pupils at such a school, then, so long as that determination has effect—

(a) that subsection shall not apply in relation to that school or (as the case may be) in relation to those pupils; and

(b) the collective worship required by section 6 of this act in the case of that school or those pupils shall not be distinctive of any particular Christian or other religious denomination (hut this shall not be taken as preventing that worship from being distinctive of any particular faith).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Religious education required in the basic curriculum: further provisions]:
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 38, at end insert—
("(4) The Governors of a maintained school shall use their best endeavours to seek to ensure that religious education, Christian or otherwise, shall promote respect, understanding and tolerance for those who adhere to other faiths and a spirit of social unity within the realm subject to the rule of law.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I have already indicated, this amendment is concerned with religious education and the promotion of tolerance. I referred to this on Report (at cols. 711 and 712 of Hansard for 21st June) and expressly reserved my position on Third Reading suggesting that it was worthy of discussion and consideration by your Lordships, and no more. Since then it has apparently received the express approbation of the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi whom I did not consult on the matter. It also has the express approbation of the

445
right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London who informed me that such was his view. It also apparently has the sympathy of the Government.
The question is this. Apparently it has become common ground that this draft is acceptable. The only question is the means of implementation. Of course it is a matter for your Lordships to consider. There has been no discussion of any kind. This is not an amendment—and I stress the point—which the right reverend Prelate has to take back for further discussion. I think that the right reverend Prelate nods in my direction. This involves no further discussion. The issue is very simple. Is the principle of the promotion of tolerance to be the subject of one of those ministerial circulars to which my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley, having some experience of them, has referred, or is it to be on the face of the Bill as the amendment proposes? That is the question.
First, let us approach the issue swiftly and totally objectively. What is the objection to having this principle stated on the face of the Bill? Secondly, is it not of crucial consequence that in our multi-faith society this principle should be recognised in primary legislation on the face of the statute book and not, I was about to say, in some scruffy ministerial circular? The status of the two is wholly different.
Thirdly, the Bill as drafted on religious education originally, and indeed as it would stand today before amendment, would not require this amendment. The reason why this amendment is necessary is because of the historic advance made with the amendments brought in by the right reverend Prelate. This amendment is the statutory cement which binds the new concept of collective worship with religious education. This is why I am detaining your Lordships to ask: do we put this in a scruffy ministerial circular or do we have it on the face of the statute?
I am a lawyer and I see and prefer things on the face of statutes. I urge the consideration of your Lordships as to whether a concept of this importance, a novel principle relevant to our social needs, should not be on the face of the statute.
Unless any of your Lordships may think that this is unnecessary as a principle, the lessons of history have taught us never to dare to assume that religious education given in any faith, even the Christian faith, would be designed of necessity to promote tolerance of those who adhere to other faiths. I ask your Lordships and detain your Lordships only for the purpose of discussion. Of course I am entirely in the hands of your Lordships on this novel and important matter. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, as I have already indicated I entirely agree with the sentiments of this amendment. I said so in my speech earlier. I think that it is merely a matter for the House to decide whether or not it wishes the assurances to be enough and for the matter to be included in a circular or whether it wishes to see it enshrined in the Bill itself. I do not think that I would wish to say more than that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene, but I should like to warn your Lordships
446
about something. Procedurally I shall not be able to do so after the noble Baroness has sat down after replying to the debate.
From my own ministerial experience I fully expect her, for good reasons, to wish to place this requirement on circular rather than in statute. I am not a lawyer and I do not know whether questions like using best endeavour are justiciable when one is dealing with a board of governors. I shall not go into all that because no doubt my noble friend has thought it through.
I would say this to your Lordships. If the noble Baroness is not able to accept this amendment it would be very unfortunate indeed if it were to go to a Division and be lost. It would be very unfortunate indeed if it were to go to a Division and be won. If it were to go to a Division and be won it would override the—I presume, because we have not heard them—perfectly good reasons of my noble friend the Minister; if it were to go to a Division and be lost it would send the wholly misleading message, particularly to the minority faiths, that tolerance had been voted against by a Christian majority in the House of Lords.
I take the opportunity to congratulate my noble friend on the considerable flexibility and patience he has shown in dealing with other matters in this respect, outside the Chamber as well as in it. I ask him not to make this a set-piece event because either way it would be greatly damaging to the achievement we have just accomplished.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I too am not a lawyer, and at times I thank God that I am not a lawyer. I thank God that probably the only thing that I can offer this House is a great deal of common sense. I have been involved in education, and not the law, for the past 25 years. I realise that what we have done in education is to use a lot of common sense on many matters that are not in statute. Therefore I appeal to the House and I appeal to the noble Lord not to pursue this amendment because it will definitely be misunderstood by many people.
Even though I support the intention of the amendment I believe that we have achieved what we want with the earlier amendment. Therefore I think that this amendment is quite unnecessary. My plea is: leave it to the good sense of the governors of schools. They will recognise what Parliament really wants and what is best for their schools.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, since I touched on this amendment in my earlier remarks I shall be brief. I explained then why the government felt that it was preferable to deal with the expression of the sentiments, with which we all agree, in the circular which we propose should be issued.
In terms of a commitment on the face of the Bill, we can turn to Clause 1 where it is stated that there is a duty upon not only the governing body or head teacher of every school but also on every local education authority and indeed the Secretary of State to ensure that the national curriculum is delivered in a way that,
"promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society".

447
I believe that that, to some extent, covers the need expressed by my noble friend for having a statement of the intention on the face of the Bill. I hope that he will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing me the opportunity to bring this matter before the House for discussion. Having had that opportunity and the advantage of having heard what has been said, and even having a vestige of common sense and, I hope, a little common humanity, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Duties with respect to certain requirements]:
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 7, line 13, after ("secure") insert ("so far as is reasonably practicable").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is not closely related to the matters that we have been debating for some time. It is purely an administrative and possibly a legal point. The clause to which this amendment refers states that it will be the duty of the head teacher to secure that all pupils in attendance at a school take part in a daily collective act of worship.
Reference has been made by certain noble Lords, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Glenamara and Lord St. John of Fawsley, to the possible difficulty of finding teachers and members of staff who are capable of performing that duty. The Minister made reference to the head teacher being able to organise a minority group of children in the school who would be able to worship in another faith and perhaps pursue education in another faith. In practice head teachers may find themselves in difficulty trying to obtain the teachers. The few words of my amendment:
"so far as is reasonably practicable",
seem to me to be a harmless safety net for the teacher should he be approached by irate parents who say that he is failing to make provision for something for which it is not really in his power to make provision.
I do not think that those words will do any harm. In fact they will help the head teacher in the event of a complaint. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this amendment was part of the group that we discussed earlier, although my noble friend intimated that he would move his amendment separately.
Responding to the particular point raised, perhaps I may say that the amendment would require head teachers to secure the specified objects so far as is reasonably practicable. In law one cannot require someone to do something that is not reasonably practicable. One cannot legally demand the impossible. On any reading of the Bill that should be assumed. The amendment is therefore redundant and
448
I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it. I hope that the grouping will stand in relation to the other amendments.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having explained the point. I am relieved to hear that the law cannot command the impossible. I have been told that before but I am glad to hear it from her lips. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Standing advisory councils on religious education]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 are taken together.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendments Nos. 18 to 20:
Page 7, line 37, at end insert ("; and
(b) to carry out the functions conferred by section (Determination by advisory councils of the cases in which the requirement for Christian collective worship is not to apply) of this Act on councils constituted under this section.").
Page 7, line 38, leave out second ("section") and insert ("sections (Determination by advisory councils of the cases in which the requirement for Christian collective worship is not to apply) and").
Page 7, leave out lines 43 and 44.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
(" Determination by advisory councils of the cases in which the requirement for Christian collective worship is not to apply.
.— (1) it shall he the duty of the council, on an application made by the head teacher of any county school after consultation with the governing body, to consider whether it is appropriate for the requirement for Christian collective worship to apply in the ease of that school, or in the case of any class or description of pupils at that school.
References in this section to the requirement for Christian collective worship are references to the requirement imposed by section (Special provisions as to collective worship in county schools)(1) of this Act.
(2) In determining whether it is appropriate for that requirement to apply in the case of any such school or in the case of any class or description of pupils at such a school, the council shall have regard to any circumstances relating to the family backgrounds of the pupils at the school or of the pupils of the particular class or description in question which are relevant for determining the character of the collective worship appropriate in their case.
(3) The council shall give any head teacher who has made an application to them under this section written notification of their decision on the application.
(4) Where the council determine on any application under this section that it is not appropriate for the requirement for Christian collective worship to apply in the case of the school or any class or description of pupils at the school concerned, that determination shall take effect for the purposes of section (Special provisions as to collective worship in county schools) of this Act on such date as may be specified in the notification of their decision under subsection (3) above.
(5) Any determination of the council under this section by virtue of which the requirement for Christian collective worship does not for the time being apply in the case of any school or any class or description of pupils at any school shall he reviewed by the council—

(a) at any time on an application made by the head teacher of the school after consultation with the governing body; and

449

(b) in any event not later than the end of the period of five years beginning with the date on which the determination first took effect or (where it has since been reviewed under this subsection) with the effective date of the decision on the last such review.

(6) On any review under subsection (5)(b) above the council shall afford the head teacher an opportunity of making representations with respect to the determination under review; and the head teacher shall consult the governing body before making any such representations.
(7) On any review under subsection (5) above the council may confirm (with or without variation) or revoke the determination under review (without prejudice, in a case where they revoke the determination, to any further determination under this section); and they shall give the head teacher of the school written notification of their decision specifying the effective date of that decision for the purposes of subsection (5)(b) above.
(8) Any determination of the council which is required to be reviewed under subsection (5)(b) above shall cease to have effect, if not confirmed on such a review, at the end of the period there mentioned.
(9) The governing body of any county school, on being consulted by the head teacher under this section, may if they think fit take such steps as they consider appropriate for consulting all persons appearing to them to be parents of registered pupils at the school.
(10) Any application made to the council under this section shall be made in such manner and form as the council may require.").
The right reverend Prelate said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 12 [Establishment of Councils]:
Lady Kinloss:Lady Kinloss: moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 10, line 49, after ("require") insert—
("( ) to appoint a specialist advisory sub-committee on special educational needs, and at least one member of the sub-committee shall be a member of the Council which appointed it, regard shall be had to the desirability of that person being a person with a disability.").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, in moving this amendment on the issue of special needs, I should like to point out that at Report Stage the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said:
"The Bill will apply the national curriculum to all pupils, including those with special educational needs. The National Curriculum Council will have a specific remit to consider the requirements of those pupils".— [Official Report, 22/6/88; col. 870.]
She also said at Report stage that where necessary the councils:
"will be able to co-opt specialist members, appoint specialist advisory sub-committees and consult specialist interests".
This amendment does only this; it ensures that a subcommittee will be set up on special educational needs. That is what the Government have been saying continually that they will do and I cannot see any objection to having it enshrined in legislation. We have no doubt of the Government's good intentions in the area of special needs; indeed, they have responded sensitively in other areas. However, it is a small but significant step to include this amendment in the legislation.
'The noble Baroness also said:
"I expect that he [the Secretary of State] will see to it that appropriate expertise is included among council appointments in order to reinforce the links that the councils establish at professional level and through their committee structures".
What better way is there to ensure that appropriate expertise is consulted and that committee structures
450
function effectively than to make sure that one member of the sub-committee is on the main council that appointed it? How can a sub-committee function effectively if there is not a member of that subcommittee on the main council?
I feel that the time has come for the Government to write into legislation what they have committed themselves to verbally at previous stages of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, from these Benches I am pleased to support the amendment to which I have added my name. There have been numerous attempts at various stages of this Bill in both Houses to ensure that the problems and requirements of special educational need are fully taken into account in the work of the various councils that are mentioned in Clause 12. At Report stage the Government rejected the idea of a national advisory committee on special educational needs. However, as the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, pointed out, the Government have accepted that the National Curriculum Council and the other councils will have a special remit to consider the requirements of pupils with special educational needs. In order to ensure that that special remit is properly attended to this amendment builds on a suggestion made by the Secretary of State, Mr. Kenneth Baker, when (as reported in Hansard at col. 210) he said on 22nd March that the Government might want to set up a sub-committee to deal with special educational needs. The same day he said:
"Clearly we would want to take the advice of those who are expert in dealing with special needs".— [Official Report, Commons, 22/3'88; col. 234.]
I think that we have the support of the Secretary of State for this amendment. I hope that when the Minister replies she will not say that to allow this sub-committee will open the door for others. That is the classic, bureaucratic case for inaction. To put the matter quite simply, there is a special case under special educational need.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I said before and as the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, has reminded us, there is no reason why the NCC, SEAC or the Curriculum Council for Wales should not establish a special needs sub-committee if they think it necessary to do so. That is why Schedule 2 to the Bill provides for any of the councils to set up committees for any purpose and to appoint to those committees anyone they think fit and suitable.
This power and the fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has clearly stated his intention to ensure that the councils include members knowledgeable about special education needs should, I feel, provide reassurance, if indeed reassurance were needed, that the councils will have the necessary expertise available either directly or by co-option to committees. We believe that the councils must be allowed flexibility to organise themselves as they consider best and the amendment denies that to them.
I also recognise that an individual with a disability of one kind or another will have a particular knowledge of the needs of people who also have his or her disability, but I do not necessarily accept

451
therefore that they are the only people, or indeed the most appropriate people, to serve on those committees. In our view, the important matter is to secure that the councils include a wide range of expertise on education, the curriculum, assessment and testing, the world of work and so forth. However, as I have said, we are confident that within that range of expertise will be knowledge of special needs in education. I trust therefore that the noble Lady will withdraw her amendment.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness does not feel able to accept this amendment. I have tried hard to persuade her all the way through this Bill. I should like to see whether the House will agree with me on it.
6.50 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 92.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly. [Teller.]

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Listowel, E.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lytton, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Combermere, V.

McNair, L.

Craigavon, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mayhew, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morton of Shuna,L.

Diamond, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Oram, L.

Ennals, L.

Peston, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Flowers, L.

Rea, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Galpern, L.

Russell, E.

Glenamara, L.

Seebohm, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Gregson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Headfort, M.

Thurlow, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hylton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ingleby, V.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay, L.

Winstanley, L.

Jeger, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Borthwick, L.

Arran, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Auckland, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Beloff, L.

Caithness, E.

Belstead, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Bessborough, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Boardman, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

452

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Morris, L.

Cox, B.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L. [TellerL.]

Munster, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dundee, E.

Nelson, E.

Eccles, V.

Newall, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Elibank, L.

Orkney, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elton, L.

Pender, L.

Ferrers, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Goold, L.

Perth, E.

Grantchester, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rees, L.

Hesketh, L.

Renton, L.

Hives, L.

Romney. E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

St. Germans, E.

Hood, V.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stockton, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Swansea, L.

Knutsford, V.

Swinfen. L.

Layton, L.

Swinton, E.

London, Bp.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Long, V.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trafford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mansfield, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Marley, L.

Wolfson, L.

Marsh, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the ne disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 15 [Exceptions by regulations]:
6.58. p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 12, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations shall provide that where provisions of the National Curriculum are deemed not to apply, or are deemed to apply with modification, then the headteacher shall inform in writing the parent of the pupil of the decision and of that parent's rights under section 21.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is very simple. It is to ensure that where a child is either to be excluded from the national curriculum or is to have the curriculum modified as a result of Clause 15, the parents have the right to be informed in writing of the decision.
At Report the Government rejected amendments that would have given the parents the right to be consulted on the rather extraordinary grounds that such consultation would prevent head teachers acting quickly and flexibly. I am not sure how long it takes to write a letter. This amendment accepts that the head teacher must be able to act quickly and flexibly but also must inform the parents in writing of decisions concerning their child and the national curriculum. Not all parents are articulate and well-informed. Not all head teachers are sufficiently concerned about the role of parents. Even the parents who are articulate are not always kept fully informed of decisions affecting their child.
This amendment merely ensures that parents will be informed in writing of decisions affecting their

453
child's education. It is a right which exists under Clause 16 for children with special educational needs and under Clause 17 for temporary exceptions for individual pupils. We fail to understand why this right should not also apply to children affected by Clause 15. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord stongly on this amendment. I regret very much that the children without statements do not have leave to appeal to the governing body on disapplication or modification of the national curriculum. I feel at the very least that they should be informed of what is going on and of their right to complain under Clause 21.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I should like to support all that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, has said. Will parents be informed when they can make a complaint or will they be expected to know? The amendment is intended to ensure that it will be made clear and that they will know the complaints procedure.
Lord Peston: My Lords, briefly from these Benches I entirely agree with the views expressed by noble Lords and I am very sorry that the earlier amendment was not accepted. I should find it astonishing if the Government do not accept this amendment. It seems to me that the least a head teacher could do would be to inform the parents in writing both of the decision and of parental rights. One would hope that the head teacher would go further and see parents in all such cases. I hope strongly that this is an amendment that the Government will be able to accept.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I regret that I shall have to speak against this amendment. I much regret that after what has been said, but I hope your Lordships will permit me to say at this stage that it is our intention later today to accept a further amendment, Amendment No. 132, which will require parents of pupils whose statements of special need are amended to be told of their rights to appeal against that attention. But that is looking ahead.
We are now considering something rather different. The reasons we cannot accept it are twofold. First, the amendment is defective is using the word "deemed". Modification or disapplication of the national curriculum provisions under Clause 15 would be actual, not deemed. For that reason alone I could not accept the amendment.
But, more importantly, the amendment is unnecessary. I accept that all parents will need information about how the national curriculum is being applied in the case of their child, and if the national curriculum is modified or disapplied the parents' need for information will be all the greater. But we already have power to make regulations under Clause 20 dealing with this point— and are required by the Bill to consult on the scope and content of the regulations. I am sure this is the right way to proceed.
Similarly, all parents need to be informed of their right of complaint under Clause 21, and what duties
454
and responsibilities it covers. We shall use Clause 20 and Clause 21 as necessary to ensure that this is done in an appropriate way.
I can give your Lordships an assurance that we shall meet the parents' concerns and objectives by using the existing provisions of the Bill. On that basis I hope that noble Lords will be content not to press the amendment further.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I just add one thing. I have noticed, going round several— am I not allowed to come in?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, but my noble friend has now replied. I believe that the procedures on Third Reading are that there should not be interventions after the Minister has replied.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, they are being enforced also.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed with the Minister's answer and also that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was not able to intervene in the debate, because I understand that she wanted to. I believe that the consultations referred to under Clause 20 are with organisations, not with parents. I am not sure how that meets the requirements of the amendment. I suppose I have to accept the Minister's assurance that parents' rights will be protected. We have some doubts about this, but because of the speed of the debate and the time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships may consider that this is a suitable moment at which to break for dinner. I beg to move that further proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned until 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture Improvement (Variation) Scheme 1988
7.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 16th June be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with your permission, it would be convenient to consider this instrument together with the Agriculture Improvement (Amendment) Regulations 1988, which are closely related. The instruments make some modest and rather technical changes to our farm capital grants arrangements as they relate to the horticulture and pig sectors. Modest and technical though they may be, however, I know that the glasshouse arrangements in particular will be of considerable benefit to our growers.
I should like to say a few brief words about glasshouses. Glasshouse growers suffered particularly severely as a result of the great storm in October last year. We considered as a matter of urgency what we could do to assist the industry to get through the very difficult time following the storm. My right honourable friend the Minister was able to announce last November that growers who already held an improvement plan would get an extension of six months on the deadline for submission of claims (30th November this year) if they were unable to complete their investment plans on time because of shortage of labour and materials following the storm.
This arrangement, however, is only helpful to growers who already had an approved plan at the time of the storm. That left the case of those who needed to replace damaged facilities or who had been planning to start an investment programme this year. To help them, my right honourable friend the Minister was also able to announce last November that he would be extending for a further year from the end of November 1988 higher rates of grant for heated glasshouses. These will be at 45 per cent. for work carried out under an improvement plan and 35 per cent. for non-plan work with grants for heating systems at 20 per cent. The investment ceiling for this work has, however, had to be reduced to £ 74,000 in line with current EC rules. What the instruments before us today do is to give statutory affect to the substance of my right honourable friend's announcement. Extending advantageous rates of grant for a further year will make an important contribution to alleviating the difficulties faced by glasshouse growers both as a direct and indirect consequence of the storm.
Growers will now become eligible to start submitting applications for grant at the new rates on improvement plans from 1st September. From the same date we shall no longer be accepting applications at the current rates. This will allow for an orderly transition to the new arrangements. However, I should make clear that growers working under the current arrangements who are unable to complete their investments as quickly as expected and get their claims in by the end of November will still be able to qualify for the new grant of 45 per cent. on claims submitted after then, provided, of course, that their investment does not exceed £ 74,000 in value.
Unless your Lordships wish me to continue in depth, it only remains for me to explain to the House that these two instruments apply to Great Britain only. Parallel but separate measures will be taken by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I commend the Agriculture Improvement (Variation) Scheme 1988 to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Scheme laid before the House on 16th June be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee]. (Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for introducing the orders and regulations. I fully understand the requirement to comply with the
456
EC regulations. Regarding the pigs, I have just one small question. The number of pig places referred to in the variation scheme presumably applies to places for fattening pigs. I believe that that is implicit, but I should be grateful if the noble Baroness will confirm that.
As the House will know, pig keepers are having a very bad time at the moment with pig prices and the effect of the drought in America on the prices of feed-corn and proteins. In comparison with their present problems, this amendment is a pin prick.
I understand that the grant rate quoted for glasshouses of 45 per cent. is the most favourable that can be expected under Community guidelines. However, there are some constraints on the application of this scheme. A holding which has already benefited from the present IF scheme will be restricted to the new expenditure ceiling. The one-year extension is not a great deal of time for the planning and the work which must go into providing a new structure. I understand that there are still difficulties in respect of supplying materials and labour after the October hurricane.
To deal with a more general point, and with 1992 only four years away, I should like to point out that anything which affects the competitive position of British horticulture is to be deplored. We have already experienced growers in other member states— for example, Holland— who appear to benefit in possibly unfair ways from subsidies on fuel and so forth. I would welcome the Minister's assurance that our growers will not be put at any competitive disadvantage as a result of these regulations. With those reservations, I have pleasure in supporting the regulations from these Benches.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like to answer the noble Lord's queries. The answer to his first question in relation to pig places is that it applies to fattening pigs. As regards difficulties of replacement, the noble Lord may be interested to know that I have received an invitation to visit the glasshouse region around Chichester. I was most encouraged to read that the growers would like me to to see how well things are progressing, except in respect of some of the smaller growers. However, I shall inform myself of the situation when I see what is happening.
With regard to the European connection, I believe that the noble Lord knows as well as I that in the courts the Dutch fuel subsidy was found to be illegal. If the noble Lord has any concrete information about unfair subsidies I should be extremely grateful if he would pass it on to me or to my Ministry.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I believe that the NFU has produced a dossier on unfair practices. I am surprised that the Ministry has not seen it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agriculture Improvement (Amendment) Regulations 1988
7.12 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th June be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.13 to 7.45 p.m.]

Education Reform Bill
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 23 [Interpretation of Chapter I]:
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 19, line 12, at end insert ("and "foundation subjects" includes "core subjects" ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a tidying amendment arising from the debates which we have had in the course of the Bill about the exact definition of these two terms "core" and "foundation". Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of where the words are introduced in the Bill. We find "core and other foundation subjects" mentioned in Clause 2(2), Clause 3(2) and Clause 4(1). In Clause 4(2) we first come across the words "foundation subjects" on their own. It was in relation to that that most of the confusion arose at an earlier stage.
Clause 23 could dispel the confusion because it deals with interpretation but all it says is:
"'Core subjects', 'foundation subjects' and 'key stages' have the meanings given by Section 3 of this Act".
My contention is that that is inadequate as it stands because Clause 3 as drafted does not give a clear meaning to foundation subjects.
I accept the inference that "foundation" embraces "core". However, I do not feel that that is quite enough in the circumstances. After all, we spent nearly 20 minutes arguing the ins and outs of the matter in Committee, and as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, pointed out on Report, that being so the interpretation cannot be self-evident.
This is all rather reminiscent of the philosophy don who was going through a student's essay late at night, and against one argument he wrote, "This is obvious". He thought for a while and said, "No, it is not" and scratched it out again. He went to bed but could not sleep for thinking of it and eventually at dawn he got up and said to himself, "Of course it is obvious", and wrote it in again. I have a sneaking feeling that if one asked the average intelligent educationist even now to name the proposed core subjects and then the foundation subjects, he or she
458
would probably give a list of seven and not ten subjects for the latter.
Recognising those uncertainties, on 5th May the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said:
"I shall take it away and hope to come back with a clearer definition at Report stage".[Official Report, 5/6/88: col. 738].
Unfortunately that has not happened. I would concede that what we are discussing here might be thought to be a quibble were it not for the fact that it is concerned with a major feature of a major Bill. I do not believe that one should have to infer definitions in such an important context. The six words which we are proposing are designed to put the question beyond doubt. I hope that they will be accepted, and I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I intervene immediately to say that although, as I have said before, we believe the definition is quite clear as it stands, in view of the noble Earl's persuasiveness and persistence I am willing to concede the point and to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Admissions to county and voluntary schools]:
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 19, line 29, after ("is") insert ("more than ten").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it seems almost churlish to say this after the response of the noble Baroness to the last amendment, but this issue of open enrolment has seen the Government at their most inflexible. It has been raised in various guises in the course of the Bill and one can understand, even if one profoundly disagrees with, the view that the Secretary of State should take most of the decision-making powers out of local hands in the matter of filling schools or that the 20 per cent. margin below the 1979 standard number granted by this Government in 1980 should now be taken away or that no temporary respite should be allowed in certain specified circumstances. All these have been debated and the Government have shown an unwillingness to compromise which is verging on the pathological in pursuit of the purity of the standard number.
It is less easy to understand why the Government should object to the minimalist approach of Amendment No. 25 involving, as it does, a built-in leeway of not 10 per cent. but just 10 pupils. It is not much to ask that there should be this small degree of flexibility in accommodation, if needed, without having to go through the log jam of Clause 26 with its paperwork, procedures and probable months' long delay. That is the big problem here.
The arguments for a measure of flexibility have been well rehearsed but little appreciated by those who have never had to grapple with the task of reconciling many conflicting interests on the ground. What about existing community use, a parents' room, a too-sudden influx of new pupils, short-term building maintenance, a fire or some other event

459
which none of us has foreseen? What about special needs pupils? It is good to know that under the draft guidance on the admission of pupils which the Minister told the House about at Report stage, the formula which the Secretary of State will use in assessing the capacity of schools will give those pupils three to four times as much space as other pupils; but how, under the cumbersome procedures of Clause 26, can the admission number be reduced in time for the wheelchair girl who needs a place this September? With no built-in flexibility it will not be possible. She will be turned away.
There are then the possibly greater space needs of the national curriculum and some GCSE subjects. Official formulae may allow for this, but again can they allow for it fast enough in an ever-changing school situation? I doubt it. Incidentally, will the formulae themselves be adaptable as the curriculum develops?
The Government are not averse to allowing themselves flexibility, not to say carte blanche, for the unforeseen as in the employment provisions in Clause 220. Why should local people not have the same small amount proposed under this amendment?
I shall not repeat the arguments in favour of a local authority being able to manage its system of schools because I sense there is an unbridgeable gulf of perception here. I should like to deal shortly with one of the counter-arguments that is sometimes advanced. It is said that LEAs are motivated in restricting intakes by administrative tidiness at best and by all sorts of unmentionable motives at worst. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who unfortunately is not in her place, is a proponent of that argument. That probably has something to do with where she lives. The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, appears to believe that too.
I could not possibly say that no authority ever departs from the high standard of objectively assessing the public good. However. I can say that the motive of most professionals— and their pleasure, too, whether they are violinists, soldiers or education officers advising their elected members— is to exercise to the full their professional judgment and expertise. It is not administrative convenience that leads an educationist to propose restrictions which will land him or her with more work and more personal hassle and debate; it is the professional understanding that if there is absolutely no tempering of market forces more parents and children will be disappointed in the long run.
If the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, who also is not in his place, still feels like calling that arrogance, as I believe he did in Committee, I fancy that very few conscientious officials will escape his censure. Administrative convenience, I can assure the House, it is not. As Sir Peter Newsam once remarked when he was education officer of ILEA, the administratively convenient thing to do in those circumstances is to go home at five o'clock and curl up with a good book on curriculum development.
The hunt for an even greater degree of parental satisfaction— which is what underlies the Government's obsession with the standard number, the whole standard number
460
and nothing but the standard number— is a wild goose chase. I commend this amendment as offering some slight flexibility to cope with the unforeseen as well as the eminently foreseen. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I support the amendment. On this occasion the Government seem to be rigidly set on a procedure which would require, if they were dealing with space requirements, an excessively bureaucratic process. This small element of flexibility would allow something to be done because there is no information in the national curriculum on the space that may be required— I hope I have the Minister's attention; it is much easier if only one person is speaking at a time.
There are the problems of children with special needs. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said that pupils with special educational needs require four times the space entitlement of ordinary children. The minor flexibility in this amendment would permit that to happen and allow the changes that inevitably will happen with the differences in space required by the national curriculum. It would also permit the possibility of temporary changes in school accommodation to be dealt with. It would appear that on this, as on so many other matters, the Government are being rigid in what they require from local authorities while determining that they should have absolute flexibility on everything they want to do.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this proposal was discussed earlier but we still cannot accept the amendment because it runs counter to the basic principle of the Government's open enrolment policy. We have taken as the yardstick for judging physical capacity the standard number of a school, since this is closely related to physical capacity and all schools have one. It is important that parents should know that the admissions limit represents the actual number of pupils that a school can take.
The Bill already contains provisions for adjusting standard numbers where it is agreed that these no longer reflect true capacity and for allowing a local decision to raise the admissions limit above a low standard number without reference to the Secretary of State, so the necessary flexibility is already built into the legislation.
If admissions authorities consider that a school's standard number is no longer a fair reflection of its capacity, they will have to go through a statutory public procedure to have it reduced. We believe that is right, given the restriction in parental choice that such a reduction would imply, even if in respect of only a few pupils. The disappointment felt by the parents of a pupil refused admission will be no less whether he or she is the only one turned down or one of 20.
I hope that in the light of what I have just said the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, as I thought, we have a gulf which is unbridgeable. This chapter of the Bill is a recipe for bureaucracy but I recognise,

461
sadly, that that is the way the Government want it and that is the way it will be. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdaw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.
Clause 40 [Publication of schemes and financial statements, etc.]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 36, line 40, after ("school") insert—
("(hh) such particulars as may be prescribed of the basis on which the authority determine in the case of each such school—

(i) the amount of expenditure on excepted services by reference to which the information required to be included in the statement under paragraph (f) above is determined, and

(ii) the part of the authority's excluded expenditure under the scheme by reference to which the information required to be included in the statement under paragraph (g) above is determined:").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. It requires LEAs to provide information on the method by which they attribute expenditure on non-delegated amounts to individual schools covered by schemes of delegation. A similar requirement is already included in Clause 48 for schools not covered by schemes and the amendment is needed simply to make the two provisions consistent. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Staff employed by the local education authority]:
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Clause 44 [Community schools]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 40, line 9, leave out ("and 43(10)") and insert (", 43(10) and 45").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hooper and speak at the same time to Amendments No. 29 and 127. These are technical tidying up amendments dealing with the application of financial delegation to community schools.
Amendment No. 28 provides for Clause 45 to be among the staffing provisions which LEAs may apply, through their schemes, to staff at community schools who work partly or wholly on activities which we have described as non-school activities— activities such as adult education which are not part of the work of the school as such. Clause 45 gives the governors of schools with financial delegation discretion over the level of compensation awarded to staff who are dismissed. Under Clause 44 it will be up to LEAs to decide whether to apply the staffing provisions of financial delegation to community school staff engaged on non-school activities. This amendment simply rectifies the omission of Clause 45 from the list of provisions which LEAs may apply to these staff.
Amendment No. 29 transposes the order of Clauses 44 and 45. This is simply consequential on Amendment No. 28. Amendment No. 127 introduces two new subsections. The first makes it clear that the discretion over compensation for dismissals given to governors in Clause 45 does not apply to the temporary governors of new schools. This is simply to avoid confusion. The temporary governing bodies of new schools will not have the power to dismiss staff since this is not something they will need to do. They do not therefore need the discretion over compensation given in Clause 45. The second subsection deals with new community schools. Its effect is to put new community schools on the same footing as existing community schools. So if the LEA decides to apply the staffing provisions of the Bill to staff at existing community schools, those provisions will apply to the same extent to staff at new schools, which will be community schools.
These are clearly technical amendments. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 29:
Transpose Clause 44 to after Clause 45.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Financial statements in respect of schools not covered by statements under section 40]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 42, line 15, at end insert ("(as the case may be) with respect to each of the special").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are tidying amendments. I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31. They are designed to prevent any overlap in the case of special schools between the information required to be published under Clause 40, and that required under Clause 48. Any special schools covered by schemes will be covered by the former, while those not in schemes will be covered by the latter. This will avoid placing any unnecessary requirements on LEAs. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 42, line 24, at end insert ("other than one in respect of which, by virtue of any provision so made, any information is required to be included in a statement prepared by the authority in respect of that year under section 40 of this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 32:
age 42, line 37, leave out ("capital loan charges") and insert ("the repayment of the principal of, the payment of interest on and the discharge of any other financial obligation in connection with any loan raised to meet expenditure of a capital nature").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 33, 125 and 128. These are purely technical and consequential amendments, which clarify some specific terms in this chapter and Schedule 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [Interpretation of Chapter III and supplementary and consequential provisions]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 44, line 21, leave out ("and section 41(2)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Duty of Secretary of State to maintain certain schools]:
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 46, line 22, at end insert—
("or (c) provide for all maintained special schools, or any specified type of such schools, or any particular maintained special school, to be eligible for grant maintained status;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is a last-ditch attempt to try to provide special schools with a potential opportunity to opt out at some date in the future with the permission of the Secretary of State; in other words, to give them some options which are available to other maintained schools.
I emphasise that the amendment does not oblige maintained special schools to opt out. It does not even allow them to do so at present. It does not compel the Secretary of State to allow them to opt out. All it does is to give the Secretary of State the power, should be ever wish to use it, to allow maintained special schools that option. Even if this power were never used, it would at least be seen to be giving to special schools the same opportunity that is presently available to other schools. I think that they resent very much not even having that opportunity anywhere on the horizon.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider this amendment sympathetically. We do not know how the face of special education may change over the years to come, nor what provision we may need to take account of such change. At Report stage my noble friend Lord Trefgarne reiterated many of the reasons given at Committee stage by my noble friend Lady Hooper.
As my noble friend Lord Renton and I have already shown, according to the evidence we do not believe that my noble friend's arguments hold water. I do not intend to repeat the arguments because I know that we are under great pressure of time. My noble friend added that special schools, because they often serve such a wide area, might be able to look to their locality for the sort of support that grant maintained schools will need. This may or may not be so, but many non-maintained and independent special schools already flourish and do so in exceedingly large areas.
My noble friend made the valid point that opting out should not be a means of reprieve for a school which is proposed for closure as part of a properly considered and formulated set of rationalisation proposals put forward by a local authority. Local authorities still need to deal with the problems of falling rolls, as my noble friend said. We recognise that. The problem, however, is that in some cases falling rolls are caused more by local authority policy against special schools than by a genuine shortage of children eligible for them.
The London based Campaign for Choice in Special Education reports that over the past year or so many parents have stood up at meetings and complained of the struggle they have had to get their children into special schools. This is because the authority has not informed them of this option, because it has informed them in such a way as to show the special school in a very unattractive light, or because it has put other obstacles in their way. There are very real problems with regard to special schools. All we are asking is not that the Secretary of State should ever exercise that power in the foreseeable future, but that there should be opportunity for him so to do. In that way, if the ideology with regard to special education were to change in the future, there might not be the provision in certain areas for special schools. This amendment would at least give those schools a lifeline and an opportunity to continue to provide excellent specialist education which might in the future at some stage come under threat. I beg to move.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I heartily support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. There are many parents of handicapped children who are extremely apprehensive about the possibility of these special maintained schools being phased out, which as we know is the policy of some authorities. The parents feel that this is a dangerous sociological fashion. What they want above all is that the maintained schools, which are absolutely super, should remain. I hope that the Government will feel able to give this little thing which will bring much comfort to many parents.
Lord Renton: My Lords, owing to the rapid progress which I am happy to say your Lordships are making, this amendment finds me arriving rather out of breath, but 1 should like to support it.
There is one further point that I should like to make in addition to those that I am sure have already been made. Your Lordships will see that the amendment enables even one special school to be eligible for opting out. If the Goverment do not have the imagination to realise that there could be even one special school which found that it was not being properly treated by the local authority, then the parents of the unfortunate children attending this special school should be given the opportunity of expressing their views and of opting out.
I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind that more than one local authority has said that all special schools should be closed down and all the children in them, however extreme their cases, integrated in ordinary classes in other schools. Speaking as the father of a severely mentally handicapped daughter, I think that this could be a tragedy and cause great unhappiness. Therefore, I hope that the Government will not close their minds on this point.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the question of extending grant-maintained status to special schools is one which this House and the Government have considered on more than one occasion and at some length. The Government recognise that the present amendments represent a significant shift in approach. They would not permit special schools to apply for

465
grant-maintained status immediately this chapter of the Bill comes into operation but would enable the Secretary of State to extend the right to do so to either some or all special schools at some future date. But I am afraid that I have to tell my noble friends that the Government remain of the opinion that it would be inappropriate for special schools to achieve grant-maintained status, and therefore it would not be proper to encourage false hopes among the governors of special schools by accepting these amendments.
We believe that the arguments we advanced earlier remain valid. I shall not deploy them all again now— the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, did not either— but may I just touch on one of them. We believe that the extension of grant-maintained status to special schools would not increase parental choice which, in the case of admission to maintained schools, is limited by the duty of the LEA to assess special educational needs and determine the provision required upon the basis of that assessment. I am afraid I have to say to my noble friends, and to the noble Lord who spoke from the Cross-Benches, that I think we shall just have to agree to differ on this matter because I am afraid there is no prospect of the Government changing their view.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, perhaps I may say that, not surprisingly, I am disappointed with that answer, and I think my colleagues will be. Many people concerned with special education will also be disappointed. All I can say is that we have fought valiantly to put up a marker. We have put up arguments that we believe have not been successfully answered, and we hope that perhaps at some stage in the future Her Majesty's Government may reconsider this position and offer to special schools that opportunity which at the moment they are denied, which seems a most unacceptable discrimination against them. I have no intention of pressing this to a Division at this time of night, and I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
Clause 58 [Initiation of procedure for acquisition of grant-maintained status]:
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No 36:
Page 54, line 5, at end insert ("and if the school is a voluntary school the trustees do not give notice within 28 days of the receipt of the request that they object to a ballot").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the consent of the trustees of voluntary-aided schools to changes of status. Her Majesty's Government recognised that there was a problem concerning trustees of voluntary-aided schools which may wish in future to opt for grant-maintained status. They alleviated the problem by a Committee-stage amendment requiring the trustees to be consulted, and giving them a statutory right to object to the Secretary of State. Even that amendment may have a technical defect, as I pointed out at Report stage. In any case, it did not go far enough as it failed to provide for the express consent of the trustees.
The present situation therefore presents legal, constitutional, theological and practical difficulties. I have tried to circumvent these by asking the Government to publish the criteria upon which the Secretary of State will decide applications for grant-maintained status. I propose that judicial review should be available as a safeguard if trustees refused their consent to a proposed change of status. Alas, the Government have accepted neither of these constructive suggestions.
I regret that the Government rejected these four amendments when I moved them at Report. They did so at 11 p.m. under the glowering eye of the noble Lord the Chief Whip, who was anxious to adjourn the House. I am sorry that there was so little meeting of minds on what is a complex, technical but important matter. It remains the case that voluntary schools are being treated as if they were county schools, which they are not. The spirit of the Education Act 1944, which led to such excellent cooperation, is being, I suggest, violated on this point. This is a matter of considerable sadness over which an agreed solution could surely be reached.
Catholic parents, electors, governors and education committee members are slowly waking up to the shortcomings of this Bill. I have just received a petition of some 1,200 persons living in west London and Middlesex. It specifically asks for the consent of diocesan trustees to be preserved. Perhaps I would be in order in leaving it with the Clerks at the Table.
The covering letter that accompanies this petition made the excellent point that the schools are held in trust for the whole Catholic community and not just for the current set of children or parents. The schools, as I said before, form part of a functioning network and there can be no certainty that this will continue to work satisfactorily once it has begun to be fragmented. In the interests of the continued existence of a dual system of county and voluntary schools, I beg to move Amendment No. 36.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, like the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, who spoke at Report, I do not support these amendments, which were moved for the first time at Report. They were foreshadowed in speeches made in Committee, and at that time I made my own position clear. This is that I do not feel that Catholic parents should be deprived of the opportunities which are open to other parents of children in the voluntary and the county sectors. They would be treated as second-class citizens if they were.
The amendments were moved at Report on 23rd June, and this was an extra day slipped into the middle of the Report stage. Unfortunately I was unable to be present. I therefore come quite fresh to these amendments and have several points that I should like to make and develop. The first point— and I do not wish to develop this one— is that the noble Lord's lead amendment tonight is not the same as that with which he started his debate at Report. That amendment, which would have given the trustees power to veto a ballot called by the

467
governors, is not before us tonight. This appears to me to be an oversight and I shall speak to what I believe to be the noble Lord's intentions.
The amendments tonight provide that trustees may bring to a halt the procedures whereby parents of pupils in voluntary schools ballot to show whether or not they wish to seek grant-maintained status. This is to apply even before the parents have voted and shown their feelings one way or another. To my mind this is a curious way to go about things. I should have thought that were trustees to seek the power of veto they would at least concede that their veto should only be exercised after the parents had spoken.
The views of all the parents are surely factors which trustees, given a veto, ought to consider. These views can best be expressed by a ballot and the enthusiasm or otherwise that parents show by their votes for grant-maintained status. To my way of thinking, to apply the veto before the parents have voted is a very authoritative flaw in this series of amendments. The Bill provides for massive consultation to be carried out by the Secretary of State before he decides an application, but the amendments provide for no consultation by trustees before they effectively abort an application, and I find this most disturbing and unsatisfactory.
In his speech at Report on 23rd June my noble friend Lord Harvington drew attention to recent events at the Cardinal Vaughan School in west London, which he said amply justified giving this veto to trustees of voluntary schools. He said at col. 1037 of Hansard in relation to the Cardinal Vaughan School:
"The foundation governors were not in agreement with the trustee who had appointed them over the establishment of a new sixth form college. That college was necessary for the adequate provision of Catholic education in central London and was supported by many parents of the other schools involved. A long time was taken to bring matters to a head.
In the end the trustee decided to press ahead with his proposals and therefore dismissed the opposing foundation governors, whereupon the foundation governors took the trustee to court, hoping to set aside the trustee's decision, and lost their case".
That is what the amendments seek to deal with so that the trustee…can join the foundation governors and the rest to settle the opting out question without using the drastic method that I have described".
My noble friend's name was down as supporting the amendments at Report. It is not on the Marshalled List today but I understand that unfortunately he is unable to be present. It seems to me that the problems affecting the Cardinal Vaughan school do not have much to do with this Bill. Certainly the Bill would not stop the foundation governors of a voluntary school taking a view on opting out, or on any other matter, contrary to the wishes of the trustees who appointed them. Nor does the opting out question have much to do with the Cardinal Vaughan school. What happened there was in the quite different context of the requirement in Section 13 of the Education Act 1980 that the governing body of a voluntary school must publish proposals for making a change in the character of its school and submit them to the Secretary of State for approval. The Bill leaves all this intact.
468
I bring this matter up tonight because I have received letters from the chairman of the parents' committee and from the headmaster of the Cardinal Vaughan School. They disagree profoundly with much of what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said at Report. I should explain that the Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School is a voluntary-aided 11-to-18 secondary school with three forms entry. It is, to put it bluntly, one of the most successful ILEA schools. If and when the Bill is passed it will come under Kensington and Chelsea. The school was founded in 1914 as an independent fee-paying school, largely with money raised by nationwide subscription after the death of Cardinal Herbert Vaughan, of the old Catholic family of Vaughan of Courtfield, third Archbishop of Westminster and the builder of Westminster Cathedral. The school became a voluntary-aided grammar school in 1944, and so continued until in 1977 it abandoned selection and became the comprehensive school it is today.
The trustee decided that the present three forms entry 11-to-18 school should be replaced— for that is what it would amount to— by a four forms entry 11-to-16 school, but keeping the same name. It was this proposal which on three separate occasions the governing body did not pass. In order to ensure that the proposal was passed, the trustee dismissed and replaced two of the foundation governors. As my noble friend Lord Harvington said, there was then a court action, and the parents lost it. Your Lordships should know that legal aid for an appeal has been granted and the case will go to the Court of Appeal. I have no more to say about that.
What noble Lords should know also is that a petition against this fundamental reorganisation of their children's school was signed this year by the parents of 564 pupils out of a total roll of 566. The views of the Cardinal Vaughan School parents are clearly that those who support the amendment fail to distinguish between obedience owed by them as parents to their bishop on matters of faith and morals and their freedom to speak with equal authority on matters of purely educational organisation. The alleged need to close the Cardinal Vaughan sixth-form arises from falling school rolls in central London and the difficulty of providing sixth-form education in the Catholic voluntary sector for those pupils who need it. So there is a genuine dilemma here between the rights of the parents at the Cardinal Vaughan School and the perceived rights— I say "perceived" to point out that it is doubtful at least whether the proposed reorganisation would be for the long-term benefit of the Catholic community— of the Catholic children in other schools. What is beyond doubt to me is that the collectivism satirised by George Orwell in Animal Farm has been born again as the current social philosophy of Christian theologians in the 1980s. This comes to me clearly through the fog of the Cardinal Vaughan dispute.
In such circumstances of inbuilt collectivist bias it is right that where the sixth-form of the Cardinal Vaughan School is concerned the Secretary of State, as is the case under the Education Act 1980, should arbitrate the question and ultimately decide where the balance should lie between individual rights and

469
the claims of community. This is to me the lesson of the Cardinal Vaughan School in relation to the opting-out question and why opting for grant-maintained status should be left to the Secretary of State and not to the trustee.
I conclude by referring— and this is the first time it has been referrred to in the debates— to what I see is the position of the Church of England in this matter. I am glad to see that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is present because it seems to me that the amendment legislates for the parents of all children in voluntary schools— Church of England as well as Catholic. The trustees of Church of England voluntary schools arc, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out in committee,
"local bodies merely representing the individual schools.— [Official Report; 12/5/88, col. 1302.]
The right reverend Prelate welcomed the provision for consultation of these trustees added to the Bill by the government amendment in Committee. He is surely surprised to learn, as would be the parents in the Church of England voluntary schools, that these trustees would be given, if the amendments were carried, the right to prevent the taking of the vote of parents which is necessary before the Secretary of State can consider an application for grant-maintained status.
The right reverend Prelate explained that within his Church the education responsibility which falls in the Catholic Church on the diocesan bishops is taken up into a statutory body— the diocesan education committee. He said that provision would be made by a measure of the General Synod for the consultation of the diocesan education committee. He did not suggest— and it has not been suggested— that the diocesan education committee should have the right of veto. How surprising it is therefore to find these amendments putting the right of veto into the hands of local trustees, who, as I understand it, may be bodies quite unconnected either with the Church of England or with education. This is a quite unwarranted intrusion into the rights of parents of children in Church of England schools. For this reason, if for no other. the amendments should be rejected.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am sorry that we have not so far been able to set at rest the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on this subject. I have tried on a number of occasions to set out what are now in our view the substantial safeguards in the Bill for the role and interests of the trustees of Church and other voluntary schools which are contemplating an application for grant-maintained status, and so I shall not repeat them now.
In the light of what we have already done to establish common ground with the Churches, I am afraid that I cannot accept that there is a need to give the trustees of voluntary schools an absolute right of veto over applications for grant-maintained status, as these amendments would secure. Such a veto would be fundamentally inconsistent with our prime objective of giving parents in all maintained schools, both county and voluntary, greater influence over their conduct and future development.
470
From what he said, the noble Lord's essential concern is that the Bill unjustifiably treats the county and voluntary sectors of education as one. I cannot accept that charge. We are agreed, I am sure, that the essential feature of a Church school is the religious ethos it imparts to its pupils. The Bill expressly forbids a voluntary school to change its religious character or ethos in the course of becoming grant maintained; and any subsequent proposal to do so would require the express permission of the trustees. I suggest that those provisions clearly demonstrate the Government's full recognition of the special and valuable role which Church schools have always played and which they will continue to play under these proposals. In short, neither the trustees nor the schools for which they are responsible have anything to fear from these provisions.
In the light of these reassurances I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments, in the knowledge that we too are committed to the continuing contribution of the Churches to the maintained sector of education and that grant-maintained status is in no sense an obstacle to that contribution.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, perhaps I may begin with the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. I have no doubt that I would have benefited greatly from his drafting expertise when putting down the amendments. It may well be that he has a good point about better consultations or more formalised procedure for consultations between the trustees and the other parties involved. Nevertheless, when he began to expound at some length on the situation at the Cardinal Vaughan School I could not help thinking that it was something of a red herring, because surely that arose over a matter of the reorganisation of a whole pattern of schools, especially of their methods of dealing with sixth-form education, whereas on these amendments that I have proposed we are dealing with opting for a change of status, which to my mind is a different matter.
I move on now to the Government. I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, not only for her reply but also for writing to me in advance of this debate on the modification of deeds of trust and how that is dealt with under Clause 94 of the Bill. She also very kindly gave me an advance sight of the draft guidance which will be issued fairly soon, I suppose, about schools becoming grant maintained. I am also glad to know that major non-technical changes to trust deeds will still require the consent of the Charity Commissioners. That at least preserves one safeguard about which I had been concerned.
However, having said that, I have to say that I am a little disappointed. I feel that Her Majesty's Government have missed a possible chance to remove the real difficulties to which I have alluded. I should like to invite the Government at the first available legislative opportuntiy to do something over and above what they already did in Committee. It is not unreasonable to suppose that this major piece of legislation will require some corrections and improvements within perhaps the next two to three

471
years. So with that I shall say that I do not intend to divide the House in this rather late and uncertain hour. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 39 not moved.]
Clause 59 [Ballot of parents]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 55, line 35, at end insert ("within guidelines issued by the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment raises, as do the next three amendments which we shall shortly be discussing in a separate grouping, the question of who or what is a parent. The Bill under Clause 59(4) at present provides,
"For the purposes of subsection (3) above, it shall be for the governing body to determine any question whether a person is a parent of a registered pupil at the school".
As the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, brought George Orwell into the debate, perhaps I may bowdlerise him a bit and say that the Government's attitude seems to be one parent, bad, two parents, better, and four or more parents, best of all. That seems to be their attitude, which is to say that there should be one parent, one vote. It does not matter how many children the parents have, but the more parents the more votes. It is an extraordinary proposition. This amendment would at least give the governing bodies some guidance on it because the amendment says that it is to be,
"within guidelines issued by the Secretary of State".
That of course implies that the Secretary of State will issue guidelines. At the moment all we have— as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, told the House; I think, in Committee— is the definition contained in the Education Act 1944 which really does not tell the governors anything at all. Under Section 114 it says:
" 'parent', in relation to any child… includes"—
It does not define, in just includes—
"a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child or young person".
So if you consider the case of a child whose parents have divorced and remarried and who is staying at the time with a granny or its grandparents, that gives them a possibility of six votes for that child. I very much doubt that the Government, in their wisdon, are really going in for this kind of thing. We must have some guidance for the governors of schools as to how they are going to operate this ballot so that they know who the people are who are entitled to vote. It is a ridiculous position at the moment and some guideline is necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, perhaps I may point out that I raised this question in Committee and I have not yet heard anything said to clear it up. Who is going to be able to vote? A one-child family has two parents; do they get two votes? What about a one-parent family with, say, three or four children; do they get one vote? In one case there could be one vote for three or four children and in the other two votes
472
for just one child. It is a little practical point, but I think the Government should clear it up. I asked about it before but I have as yet received no reply.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, even though I should like to express my support for the amendment, I do not wish to detain the House. This is obviously not a party political point. However, as I understood it last time, it was perfectly possible for one child to be represented by four votes and another child to be represented by one vote. In any sane world that is Alice in Wonderland arithmetic. A normal distribution of parents is two to a child. That seems to be quite a reasonable compromise if the Government will accept it.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may follow on what the noble Baroness has just said. Of course, conversely, if we were to follow the logic of her argument, there could be a parent with one child who had one vote or a parent with four children who had four votes which some might think equally anomalous. However, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to issue guidelines to assist the governing body in determining any question as to whether a person is a parent of a registered pupil at the school for the purposes of a ballot on grant-maintained status.
I must say frankly that we do not see the need for the amendment. We have made it clear that we intend to issue guidance for governors on all aspects of the conduct of ballots. Indeed subsections (7) to (9) in the clause turn on that premise. In particular they require the governing body to take account of such guidance in conducting its ballot and empower my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to declare such a ballot void if it is not conducted in accordance with that guidance. A draft of our proposed—
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, if the position is that the Government are going to issue guidance anyway, what is wrong with their accepting this amendment, which just says precisely that? I do not see what we are arguing about.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I would reply to the noble Lord with this. What is the purpose of pressing the amendment if we have given the assurance which covers the point that he has sought? A draft of our proposed general guidance on grant-maintained status is already in circulation. This will be followed, after Royal Assent, by separate, more detailed guidance for governing bodies which will focus more closely on the statutory procedures for becoming grant maintained. It will set out the Government's views as to who is a parent for the purposes of Clause 59 and explain the role of the governing body in those exceptional cases where a question is raised about a particular—
Lord McNair: My Lords, if the draft is already in circulation, is it not possible for the noble Lord to tell us how it defines a parent?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, guidance which will cover new detail on that point will be available after Royal Assent, as I explained earlier. It will underline and amplify the existing document. We have discussed this matter at great length, not only at this stage of the Bill but more especially at earlier stages. The Government remain of the view that the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that it will not be pressed.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, it is very unsatisfactory.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I contrast the Bill with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Bill or even the Financial Services Bill, with both of which I was involved. On occasions the Opposition moved amendments which the Government regarded as unnecessary. If they were not inimical to the Government's purpose, they were occasionally accepted. If an amendment fits the Government's purpose, although the Government say that it is unnecessary because guidelines will be issued, why not just accept it?
If the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment and adopt a totally intransigent attitude, I intend to press the amendment. We are entitled to have something on the face of the Bill which says what a parent is. It should not be beyond the wit of the Government to discover who a parent is. They should have put that definition into guidelines, even if they are still in draft. I should have thought that they might have some idea of who a parent is.
The Bill has been before Parliament for nearly a year now. This difficulty must have been considered by the Government. I hope that the Minister can give me something on this point.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, they should explain the guidelines to us.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, as the guidelines are apparently to remain secret and the Government are not prepared to say a word about them, I must press the amendment. The Government's attitude is wholly irrational. On that ground, I press the amendment.
8.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 62.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ardwick, L.

Glenamara, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Gregson, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Carter, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hylton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

474

Lawrence, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

Russell, E.

Longford, E.

Seear, B.

McNair, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Swann, L.

Mountevans, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Peston, L.

Tordoff, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Underhill, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Winstanley, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Arran, E.

Killearn, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Mancroft, L.

Boardman, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Borthwick, L.

Mersey, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Morris, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Caithness, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Coleraine, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Craigavon, V.

Pender, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

St. Germans, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Dundee, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Eccles, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Elton, L.

Swinton, E.

Ferrers, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Fortescue, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Thurlow, L.

Grantchester, L.

Trafford, L.

Greenway, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hives, L.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 55, line 35, at end insert ("and every person shall, on submitting their name for inclusion in the school register as a parent, state their relationship to the child (which information shall be entered in the register)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can now raise the question of what is to go in the register. The governors, without guidance, are to determine any question of whether a person is a parent. The purpose of Amendment No. 41 is that:
"every person shall, on submitting their name for inclusion in the school register as a parent, state their relationship to the child".
It is a fairly reasonable request that somebody should state whether they are a father, a mother, a stepmother or stepfather, a grandparent, a foster parent or a social worker who has the child in his or her care. All those are within the definition of a parent in Section 114 of the Education Act 1944.
When one is dealing with this, I think the governors should be allowed to know, if Johnny is registered at the school as a pupil, who are registered as the parents and what the relationship claimed is. On the only definition we have in the statute, a parent is every person who has the actual custody of the child. If the child is staying for a week with auntie, is

475
she a parent for that week? In that case I can foresee a wonderful piece of juggling where a ballot comes along. Somebody who is unwise enough to be a single parent with two or three children will farm them out, put them into the custody of other people who will vote their way. That is what I would advise them to do under this extraordinary reluctance of the Government to define "parents" and to define how many votes there are to be for each child. That is Amendment No. 41.
It may be for the convenience of the House that I at least speak to Amendments Nos. 42 and 43. Amendment No. 42 is to allow the director of social services to vote as a parent in respect of a child subject to a care order. The director of social services is the person who has the custody of the child. He is therefore within the definition in the 1944 Act.
If we are dealing with children in custody, it is perhaps coincidental that we are dealing with this in the week of the Cleveland report. I remind noble Lords that in 1985, three years ago, there were in England 72,800 children in care. I suspect that the number may have gone up since then. Are all these children to be disfranchised on any question of a ballot? Or is the position that the director of social services is to have a vote in respect of what will happen to these children? Alternatively, are the actual parents— those whom the director of social services or a court has decided are improper to have the custody of these children at the time in question— to have the vote as to whether the school should opt out or not?
This is a matter about which the Government must have at least thought because I think this is the sixth stage of discussion of the Bill in its passage through Parliament. The question of who has the vote and how many votes there are has been considered, but the Government have shut their mind, shut their eyes, put their head down and charged through, without wishing to give any guidance at all, at any rate publicly, until the Bill receives Royal Assent, as to the definition of "parent" and who is to vote. Amendment No. 42 suggests that the children in care should not be disfranchised.
Amendment No. 43 provides that in respect of any child or children at school with the same parents, no more than two persons may vote. We proposed at Report stage that there should be one vote per child. The House disagreed with that view so we have come back with a different one. It seems to me quite extraordinary that the Government should take the view that the more divorces there are in the family or the more splits there are, the more votes there are. Therefore the children from a really divided home which is split up in all sorts of directions get more votes than the children who belong to, say, a two or three-child family with two parents or one parent who will only get one vote.
It seems to me that the position of the Government is quite insupportable. These amendments at least put some rationality into the situation. In this country we work basically on a democracy based on one adult person, one vote. The idea that the more you split up in marriage the more votes you will get
476
in a ballot on your children seems to me extraordinary. I think we should get something more rational into the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I wish to add a few remarks. When I inadvertently spoke out of turn previously because I thought we were moving all these amendments together, I said that there should be only two votes for the child. The Minister answered me by saying that by my logic, if there were four children the single parent would get four votes. I put it to the Minister that it is four children's education we are talking about.
The Minister used the word "logical". It seems to me far more logical, since we are concerned With children's education, that one parent with four children should have four votes than that one child with four parents should give those parents four votes for the one child. That surely is sounder logic than any the Minister presented.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this amendment appears to have uncovered a major ambiguity in the Government's thinking. The Government have said consistently that one of the purposes of this Bill is to transfer power to consumers. However, there is a considerable difficulty here about who actually consumes education. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, exposed the difference between us when he referred to a proposal which might have the effect of disfranchising children. It seems to us in both the opposition parties that if education has consumers, they are the children. They are not those who presumably at some future time will be asked to cross the palm with silver.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, the Government's attitude to Parliament in this Bill is completely incomprehensible. Throughout the Bill there have been anywhere between 30 and 50 simple amendments which the Government could have accepted but they dug their toes in and refused to do so. The last amendment on which we have just voted was a all-time low for the Government. They could have accepted it but they did not do so.
They have told us that these guidelines will be issued. They have told us that the guidelines are in existence. Why can we not be told what the guidelines contain? Parliament is in the dark about how this balloting is to take place. There are all kinds of questions; the noble Baroness has raised one. What about the couples living together? They may have children who are the children of the couple or of the man or of the woman. Do they both get a vote? The Government must take Parliament into their confidence.
If the local authorities are to be told, why cannot we be told? We are part of Parliament. This is treating Parliament with contempt. The Government have the information, they tell us that the guidelines are in existence. Please will the Government tell us what those guidelines contain about balloting? No messing about, tell us in clear, unambiguous terms who will get a vote.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord and others who have spoken by saying that of course the Bill has not yet completed its passage through Parliament. A number of changes have been made in the balloting arrangements, one at least of which was against the advice of the Government. That will have to be taken into account in the guidance that is eventually produced. Of course we do not yet know how the Bill will emerge in this respect because amendments that your Lordships have agreed to will have to be considered in another place and, if they are disagreed to, your Lordships may have to decide whether you wish to take the matter further.
Some draft guidelines— I emphasise the word "draft"— have been produced and I understand that these have been made available to a number of noble Lords who have taken part in this Bill. My noble friend Lady Hooper told me that she had sent them to a number of noble Lords who have spoken.
9 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I wish to make it quite clear that certainly those acting for the Front Bench of the main Opposition party have not been part of the bounty of the noble Baroness.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I am misinformed on the matter, I apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Lord now tell us what guidelines he is talking about? We are taiking about guidelines to do with this particular matter on balloting. Is that correct?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am talking about the guidelines on grant-maintained status. I understand that the guidelines do not yet go into great detail about the ballots because, as I have said, the final legislative form that the ballot arrangements will take has not yet been finally decided upon. Parliament has yet to reach a conclusion on all of these matters.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but we might as well know what we are talking about. There is a document of guidelines on grant-maintained status, but my reading of it is that it is not a set of guidelines to do with what I understood the noble Lord was talking about, which were the guidelines on balloting and in particular the specific points of this amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct. The guidelines to which I have referred do not go into great detail on the question of the ballots for the very reason that I have explained, which is that Parliament has not yet decided upon the legislative form that those balloting arrangements will take.
After Royal Assent, by which time the form of the Bill will be decided, more detailed guidelines will be issued upon which all will be able to express their views. But I wish to explain to your Lordships why I think that, despite the fact that the final form of the guidance is not yet available, this amendment and this group of amendments is unnecessary.
478
The governing body is already required under the pupils' registration regulations to maintain details of parents against pupils' names on the admissions register. In future details of all parents will have to be included on the register. It is that register which will be used in order to obtain the necessary information about names of parents for the purpose of conducting ballots under Clause 59 of the Bill.
In general it will be up to the parents to make themselves known to the school. The duty of the governing body in this respect is not to go to the end of the earth to track down every person who might conceivably qualify as the parent of a registered pupil at the school. It is a duty simply:
"to take such steps as are reasonably practicable"
to contact those people known to them to be parents.
We accept that there will be cases occasionally where a question will arise as to whether a particular person is a parent for the purposes of Clause 59 of the Bill. But we believe that such cases will be very few and far between and we do not believe that any attempt to define "parent" comprehensively could ever totally eliminate them.
It is of course because there may be rare cases where a genuine question as to whether a person is a parent could arise that we have provided in subsection (4) of Clause 59 for the governing body to be able to decide such a question. And I must remind your Lordships that similar provisions were included in both the 1980 and 1986 (No. 2) Education Acts in the context of arrangements for parent governor elections without, to my knowledge, any particular problem being brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of' State. In earlier discussions we have drawn your Lordships' attention to subsections (7) to (9) of Clause 59, which are predicated on the basis of my right honourable friend's intention to issue guidance on the question of who is a parent for the purposes of this clause.
I turn to Amendment No. 42, which would give a vote to the director of social services of the local authority in a case where parental rights and duties are vested in the local authority through an order of the courts. The Government take the view that a statutory corporation such as a local authority is not and should not be a parent for the purposes of Clause 59 of the Bill. But that is beside the point. We see no need to set out a comprehensive definition of a parent in the legislation which would anticipate all possible circumstances.
Where a genuine question arises about who is a parent, it is for the governing body to determine the question in the light of the guidance provided by my right honourable friend. That is not to say that a child in care will be left unrepresented. Section 114 of the 1944 Act defines a parent as including a person who has actual custody of the child. In this case that person would normally be the head of the children's home.
Amendment No. 43 raises a different matter. It seeks to restrict the number of votes per family to no more than two. As we have said before, amendments of this kind raise at least as many issues as they solve. In particular, they fail to address the fact that occasionally a child can have more than two parents

479
with a strong interest in his or her educational future— for example, natural, divorced parents and a step-parent. It would be very difficult to say which of these had the greater right to vote in the ballot. I have no wish to exacerbate existing family divisions, but I believe that this amendment would do just that. But in any case, our Bill is about enhancing the rights and influence of parents, and I remain firmly convinced that we should cast the ballot in those terms. It will have become apparent that—
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Bill was about enhancing the rights of parents. We now understand the rights of parents, not the rights of children. Is that correct?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have explained very carefully the Government's view in this matter. As regards this provision, we believe that it is the views of the parents that should be pre-eminent. I believe that in the light of all those considerations, noble Lords will understand that these amendments are not acceptable to the Government. I recognise that we have a gap here which I fear is fairly wide and perhaps unbridgeable. It is a clear difference of perception between us, but 1 am afraid that the Government's position is firm.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I regret this position. I thought that the Government had some attitude to accept the general importance of Parliament. The Government are treating the House with total and utter contempt. They have done so throughout our consideration of the Bill. The Government have listened time after time to views expressed in particular from this side of the House, on many occasion from the Cross-Benches and on several occasions from the Government Benches put forward by noble Lords who disagree with the Government and who have some knowledge in matters of education. On almost every occasion the Government have said: "This is what is in our Bill. We shall not even answer your argument. We shall not attempt to answer your argument. We stick by the Bill." In my view, that is treating Members of the House with contempt.
With respect to the Minister, in dealing with Amendment No. 41 he has said that it is up to parents to register their parentage with school governors and not up to the governors to— I believe his words were— "seek out in every byway" those who are entitled to be parents. He therefore could not accept the amendment. Perhaps the Minister will read Amendment No. 41. It contains precisely the point which the Minister put forward as a reason for refusing to accept the amendment. The amendment states that a person will put himself on the register as a parent and state his claim to parentage. The amendment says nothing about asking governors to go out and search in byways. If we accept the amendment, there is no duty placed on governors to search anywhere in order to find out who the parents are. They will look at the register and the register will tell them who the parents are.
480
If the secret guidelines which the Government may issue are produced, the governors may act on that and say, "So-and-so is a parent and so-and-so is not because she claims to be an aunt or great-grandmother or whatever". My amendment makes it clear that each person claiming to be a parent must put his or her claim on a register. What is wrong with that? We have heard not one word from the Minister as to why that suggestion is not acceptable. That is what I mean by saying that the Government are treating the House with contempt.
If the Government do not like the idea of using the director of social services, as stated in Amendment No. 42, they should produce an alternative amendment. Our amendments were put down some time ago. Perhaps the Government would prefer to use the head of a children's home. How many votes would the head of a children's home have? If the children's home had 14 or 15 children, would the head of the home have one vote for those children, whereas another child might have six votes because he or she had step-parents? There has been no real answer from the Minister. Again the Government are treating the House with contempt. There has been no answer in principle as to why Amendment No. 43, saying that for any child there should be no more than two parents, is totally unacceptable to a Government who allegedly adhere to Victorian values.
9.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 41) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 65.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Mountevans, L.

Blackstone, B.

Peston, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Craigavon, V.

Russell, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seear, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Glenamara, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gregson, L.

Swann, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L

Tordoff, L.

Hylton, L.

Underhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

White, B.

Lockwood, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Longford. E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Arran, E.

Caithness, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Beloff, L.

Carnegy of Lour. B.

Belstead, L.

Carnock, L.

Blatch, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Boardman, L.

Coleraine, L.

Borthwick, L.

Cox, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

481

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dundee, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eccles, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pender, L.

Elton, L.

Perth, E.

Ferrers, E.

Prior, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renton, L.

Grantchester, L.

St. Germans, E.

Greenway, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hesketh, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hives, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hooper, B.

Swinton, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Killearn, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Long, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trafford, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trumpington, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mersey, V.

Wynford, L.

Morris, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.20 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 not moved.]
Clause 60 [Proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 58, line 22, leave out ("and address").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I rise to move Amendment No. 44, which is a relatively minor amendment but nevertheless is evidence of our willingness to consider the arguments put to us. At Report stage my noble friend Lady Carnegy proposed an amendment to remove the requirement that proposals for a school to become grant-maintained must include the address of the head teacher. We made it clear that the Bill simply required an address where the head could be contacted and that this could be the school rather than the home address if the head so desired.
My noble friend argued, however, that in that case there seemed little point in requiring the inclusion of the address because everyone would know that the head could be contacted at the school. On reflection we have been persuaded of the force of this and agree that the offending words should be deleted. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for attending to this matter. In view of the discussion that we have just had on the previous amendment, I should like to remind noble Lords that the Front Bench strongly resisted eight or 10 amendments which I and my noble friend Lady Young tabled regarding the position of head teachers. I think that every single one of those points has eventually been met at a later stage. I am quite sure that head teachers all over the country will appreciate it very much indeed. I thank my noble friend.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I too should like to thank the Government and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. From her I learn the lesson
482
that if I have any amendments that I wish the Government to accept I know whom to approach on those Benches to act as my advocate. In due course I should still like to see some response by the Government to the amendments that I move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 72 [Transfer of property, etc., to governing body of grant-maintained school]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 71, line 37, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 45 and with your Lordships' permission I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 54, 57 and 121 at the same time. First, however, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the way to a Minister's heart as far as accepting amendments is concerned is to move amendments with merit rather than to persuade some noble Baroness or noble Lord on this side of the House to move them on his behalf.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the balance of knowledge on educational matters on this side of the House in comparison with the balance of knowledge on educational matters on his side of the House?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that that arises particularly on this amendment. I think it fair to say, however, that on educational matters almost every noble Lord considers himself to be an expert of one kind or another.
I turn to the amendments before your Lordships and first to Amendment No. 45. As I said, at the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 54, 57 and 121. These are minor technical amendments. Amendment No. 45 removes the provision relating to the transfer of property held on trust by a local education authority to the governing body of a new grant-maintained school. Amendment No. 121 consolidates this provision with provisions elsewhere and moves these provisions to the general interpretation clause, Clause 232. Amendments Nos. 54 and 57 clarify the arrrangements for the disposal of property or money held on trust when a grant-maintained school is wound up.
I hope that with that explanation your Lordships will agree to these simple amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 82 [Religious education in former county schools]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 46 to 50:
Page 82, line I, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, in the case of a school to which this section applies the collective worship required in the school by section 6 of this Act shall be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character.
(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, collective worship is of a broadly Christian character if it reflects the broad traditions of Christian belief without being distinctive of any particular Christian denominations.
(2B) Every act of collective worship required by section 6 of this Act in the case of a school to which this section applies need not comply with subsection (2) above provided that, taking any school term as a whole, most such acts which take place in the school do comply with that subsection.
(2C) Subject to subsections (2) and (2B) above—

(a) the extent to which (if at all) any acts of collective worship required by section 6 of this Act which do not comply with subsection (2) above take place in such a school;

(b) the extent to which any act of collective worship in such a school which complies with subsection (2) above reflects the broad traditions of Christian belief; and

(c) the ways in which those traditions are reflected in any such act of collective worship;

shall be such as may be appropriate having regard to any relevant considerations relating to the pupils concerned which fall to be taken into account in accordance with subsection (2D) below.
(2D) Those considerations are—

(a) any circumstances relating to the family backgrounds of the pupils concerned which are relevant for determining the character of the collective worship which is appropriate in their case; and

(b) their ages and aptitudes.").

Page 82, line 7, leave out ("such a school") and insert ("a school to which this section applies").
Page 82, line 11, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) That syllabus shall not provide for religious education to be given to pupils at such a school by means of any catechism or formulary which is distinctive of any particular religious denominations; but this provision is not to be taken as prohibiting provision in such a syllabus for the study of such catechisms or formularies.").
Page 82, line 47, at end insert—
("(11) References in this section to acts of collective worship in a school to which this section applies include references to any such act which under section 6 of this Act takes place otherwise than on the school premises.").
Clause 85, Page 84, line 49, leave out ("(10)") and insert ("(11)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendments Nos. 46 to 50 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 87 [Change of character or enlargement of grant-maintained school]:
Lord Stewart of Fulham Lord Stewart of Fulham moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 86, line 44, after ("may") insert ("by order").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 51 are connected Amendments Nos, 86, 117 and 119. Their common feature is their concern with the relations between Parliament and the powers of the Secretary of State to act when making orders and regulations. This Bill has been subjected rightly to criticism for the degree of power that it gives the Secretary of State to do this, that and the other simply by writing something down on a piece of paper which will sometimes be subject to the later consideration of Parliament and sometimes not.
Amendment No. 51 deals with the question of grant-maintained schools. It is possible for a grant-maintained school to make a change in its status if it receives among other things the sanction of the Secretary of State. However, that sanction can be given or withheld by the Secretary of State without Parliament having any say in the matter. If the Secretary of State makes a decision agreeing to a
484
change in the status or nature of a grant-maintained school, as the Bill now stands that is the end of the matter. In this amendment it is proposed that that decision by the Secretary of State should be in the form of an order that can be prayed against in Parliament. I believe that this is important, because what happens to grant-maintained schools can make a very considerable difference to the general impact of the Bill.
Although the arrangements for grant-maintained schools do not carry out the hope first expressed by the Prime Minister that they will be able to become fee-paying schools— the Government have withdrawn from that position— one very possible development of the grant-maintained school is this. If it is situated in a rather better-off neighbourhood of a local authority area it will be in a position to increase that quality. It will determine that parents sending their children to that school will be better-off parents. In general, the school will be better provided for than others. This is not a desirable arrangement.
To talk of giving freedom of choice to parents when one is offering a choice between a better and a worse school is not a particularly valuable freedom. Moreover, there is the possibility that the status of a grant-maintained school may be used to turn the school into one where entry is by selective tests of ability. If that becomes a general practice it will make a serious difference in our education system— and a difference for the worst. It will reproduce all the evils that existed in the days of the 11-plus examination.
In moving this amendment we are saying that if this change is being made in the status of grant-maintained schools, Parliament and the nation ought to be aware of it. That will be achieved if the Secretary of State, on making a decision in favour of such a change in the nature of a grant-maintained school, has to do so in a manner that can be prayed against in the Houses of Parliament.
Amendment No. 86 deals with the extraordinary power with which the Secretary of State is endowed, again without any recourse to Parliament as the Bill now stands. In considering what to do when he has destroyed ILEA, the Secretary of State will have to lay down what the management structure of the education system is to be in those London boroughs which inherit ILEA's task. After laying down that he has the power to decide what the management structure shall be, there is a remarkable provision that he can forbid the appointment to the senior post of anyone whom he considers not to be a fit and proper person to fill that post. This is an extremely wide power. He is not required to give statements of his reasons why he thinks that the person is not a fit and proper person. It is merely his diktat, his statement that "this person is not in my opinion fit and proper" which can settle the matter. This could mean quite easily that anybody to whose politics the Secretary of State objects is prevented from holding a senior position in the educational structure of an inner London borough.
We are not going so far as to say that the Secretary of State ought not to have that power. But we are saying that if he exercises a power of such a formidable nature the exercise of it ought to be a matter that can come before Parliament to be prayed

485
against. I find it very difficult to see how anybody who believes in the liberty of individuals can object to that. I do not know of any other example where a Secretary of State has been given a power of this kind to tell local authorities that they may not appoint a certain person as he is not a fit and proper person. As the Bill now stands he can do that without any recourse to Parliament or being subject to any parliamentary criticism.
I beg the noble Viscount's pardon.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I said nothing.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: I am sorry; I thought that the noble Viscount made a comment.
Amendment No. 117 deals with directions to the Universities Funding Council and the comparable body for the polytechnics. They are required, again in one of those sweeping phrases so common to the Bill, to comply with directions given to them by the Secretary of State. We are suggesting that this is a power of such scope that it ought not merely to be subject to the negative procedure of praying against it but ought to require the affirmative approval of Parliament for directions of that kind.
The Government have run into certain difficulties with the universities during the passage of the Bill. If they were prepared on this matter to accept a willingness and to make themselves subject in some degree to Parliament's scrutiny, I believe that would go some way towards healing the differences of opinion that have arisen between the Government and the universities.
I have mentioned these three matters. My noble friends who are to follow will enlarge on them and deal with one matter I have not mentioned; that is, Amendment No. 119, which deals with testing and assessment arrangements. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I shall comment briefly on two or three aspects of these amendments. I start with Amendment No. 86. Noble Lords will recall that when we were concerned about the abolition of the ILEA and the taking over of those educational functions by the individual boroughs as local education authorities, many of us on this side were worried about the ability of the local education authorities thus created to do the job. That was one of our arguments against the abolition of the ILEA.
However, we lost that argument and it is now all water under the bridge. We are now considering the individual boroughs themselves. I remember raising— and I believe other noble Lords also raised the issue again— the problems that will confront the individual boroughs as local education authorities. The reassurance we were given was that the Secretary of State and the DES would take an interest and would try to be helpful. The present Bill simply does not appear to be doing the job that we had in mind and about which I understood we had assurances from the Government, because its method of help is to have this veto power whereas the method of help we had in mind was something much more constructive. That is why we are extremely worried.
486
The other reason we are worried is on the political side because we have not heard in terms from Ministers that political considerations will not be relevant. If newspaper stories that we read are remotely near the truth the Government's concept of "political" seems to be slightly narrow, to say the least. I must make the point that, in my terms, simply disagreeing with the Government is not political. It is possible to disagree on grounds other than political difference. I know that Ministers often have difficulty in following that concept but I must assure them that there are other grounds for agreement and disagreement. To take an obvious example, it is possible to have different economic views and not to interpret them as being different political views. That is why the political point in respect of the amendment is of such importance.
Amendment No. 119 deals with the exclusion of testing from the negative procedures. I understand that the introduction of attainment targets and the programmes of study will be by negative order but that testing will be by statutory instrument made without a parliamentary resolution. I believe that noble Lords on this side of the House cannot understand the logic of that. In answer, the noble Baroness said that as regards assessment arrangements following the publication of the TGAT report there had been— to use her phrase— main consultation on all of that. I should like to press the Minister to tell the House a little more about the consultation that has taken place; at least about the consultation that the department believes has taken place. So far as we know, there has not been a great deal of consultation. If that is so then the Government's view on not subjecting the testing arrangements to negative procedures is most unsatisfactory.
I am well aware that such points could occupy the House for a long period but I have no desire to do that. However, I should like to have some kind of response to each of the amendments.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I believe that the fallacy that lies behind the argument for the amendments is the view specifically stated by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, that if one does not have to take the decisions by statutory instrument Parliament can do nothing about it. That is a complete fallacy. If the Secretary of State or any other Minister does something wrong it is perfectly possible for either House of Parliament to hold him to account. If he does something wrong, and scandalously wrong, it can be drawn to the attention of a local Member of another place or one of your Lordships. Through ordinary parliamentary proceedings, perhaps beginning with a parliamentary Question, it is perfectly possible to challenge a decision and bring it before Parliament. It is a fallacy to try to contrast decisions which have been taken by statutory instrument as therefore being subject to parliamentary control and decisions which do not require that as being immune from it.
Perhaps it is easier to look at the matter on its merits. If the merits are bad, as they could be— the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, was hinting that they could be— it is morally certain that the matter will be raised in either House. The Minister concerned will

487
be held to account and must defend himself. As the noble Lord knows, one can go much further. There can be motions of censure on the Minister if the offence is gross.
On the other hand, simply adding to the large number of statutory instruments which are solemnly put on the Order Paper and never looked at— the vast majority receive no attention— does not make any practical difference. I have at least as much enthusiasm as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, for parliamentary control of the administration. However, I suggest that his proposal will not help that.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I should like to put forward one or two sentences in support of the amendments. I do so because an important principle is involved. It is the supremacy of the legislature over the executive; in other words, Parliament controlling the Government. In the Bill the Government are proposing to take, and will take, over 300 new powers (I do not know the latest count) which were previously in the hands of the schools or the local authorities. This is without any doubt the biggest piece of centralising legislation in my 37 years in Parliament and probably the biggest ever in peacetime in this country. Therefore, it is a matter of some considerable importance.
In these three or four cases the Minister is taking new powers. We are not suggesting that he should not have those powers. All we suggest is that they should be subject to a parliamentary veto because they all involve the freedom of the individual in one way or another, and that makes them into a very important and sensitive category of new powers which the Government are taking. Perhaps I may repeat we are not proposing to take those powers away from the Minister. All we say is that they should be subject to parliamentary veto.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we are also deeply concerned about the accumulation of powers in the hands of the Secretary of State in this Bill and the excessive centralisation which goes with it.
In passing, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that surely he would agree— although being Third Reading he cannot— that prevention is better than cure. He has said that if the Secretary of State does something ghastly then a Member of Parliament will take it up but by that time the Secretary of State will have acted. If the order has to be laid before Parliament, the action can be avoided, which is surely desirable.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may just begin with a general observation about the basis of grant-maintained status. We would not for a moment accept that that is some sort of privileged status because the only privilege which grant-maintained schools will have will be the freedom to run their own affairs and to provide the education which they think best for their children. They will not be funded any more generously than they would have been had they
488
remained with their local education authority. They will maintain the character which they had as local authority schools and will continue to form part of the local system serving local people.
Their admission arrangements will have to be agreed with the Secretary of State and will have to be in keeping with their character, so that, for example, a comprehensive school must continue to admit across the ability range. Any parent not satisfied with the admission arrangements would be able to use the statutory appeals procedure. Of course education at grant-maintained schools will continue to be provided free.
Against that background, perhaps I may address the specific amendments. Amendment No. 51 would require my right honourable friend the Secretary of State by order to reject, approve or modify proposals submitted to him by a governing body to change the character or enlarge the premises of a grant-maintained school. By virtue of Clause 229(1) an order will have to be exercised by statutory instrument and laid before Parliament.
Under the existing provisions of this clause a grant-maintained school wishing to make such a change would be required to go through a public statutory procedure corresponding to that required for similar changes at LEA-maintained schools. All interested parties would have the right to put forward objections to or comments upon the governors' proposals, and my right honourable friend would be required to take these into account in deciding whether to approve the change.
I cannot see that submitting my right honourable friend's determination, whatever that may be, to the further consideration of Parliament by negative resolution would enhance the existing provisions. It would, on the other hand, add considerably to the bureaucracy and the length of time the processing of such proposals inevitably takes.
Amendment No. 86 would require my right honourable friend if he were to prohibit an appointment to an inner London LEA to do so by means of statutory instrument. That was not the method set out in the 1944 Act— and for good reason. The intention, as was made clear on Report, was that a borough would send to the Secretary of State for clearance a short list of candidates. In the unlikely event that the Secretary of State directed that one of the candidates was not a fit person to take on the duties of director of education, it would be rather odd for that person to have to be named in an order before he or she had been interviewed. It would also cause unnecessary delay and with little corresponding benefit in terms of protection for the individual concerned. The processes of administrative law can of course be brought to bear if it were to be believed that the Secretary of State had acted unreasonably.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, will not mind if I remind him that when he was the distinguished Secretary of State for Education he had just such a power under the 1944 Act. Under Section 88 he could veto the appointment of any chief education officer in the land. LEAs had to send to the noble Lord— the right honourable gentleman as he then was— a short list in each case. It is not, therefore,

489
such an extraordinary power. In this case it is limited, first, to the inner London boroughs when they become LEAs and, secondly, for a period of no more than five years.
I turn now to Amendment No. 117. Under Clause 132 the Secretary of State is empowered to confer additional functions on the UFC or PCFC. He is also empowered to give directions to the councils. However, both powers must be exercised by order. By virtue of Clause 229(4)(b) of the Bill such orders are subject to negative resolution of either House. This amendment seeks to make any direction subject to affirmative resolution. I believe that is unnecessary. If either a supplementary function or direction was at all controversial, of course it should be a matter of public interest and parliamentary debate. The negative resolution procedure is perfectly adequate for that.
During the passage of the Bill noble Lords and, indeed, honourable Members and right honourable Members in the other place, universities and other higher education institutions, demonstrated their alertness to parliamentary business concerning higher education. I have no doubt that that will continue once the funding councils have been set up.
The Government fully accept the need for parliamentary accountability in this respect. We have fully met it by requiring that the Secretary of State's powers to confer supplementary functions and to give directions should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and concurrence through the negative resolution procedure. Affirmative rather than negative resolution is, I believe, a needless reinforcement of that and I therefore hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
I now turn to the final amendment in this group, Amendment No. 119. We have debated on a number of occasions the case for treating orders governing assessment arrangements on all fours with those setting out attainment targets and programmes of study. I believe your Lordships have been convinced on each occasion by the very different nature of the assessment orders and the need to treat them accordingly. The subject matter to which assessment will relate, the attainment targets and programmes of study laid down by orders under Clause 4(2)(a) and (b) will be subject to the negative resolution under this clause and the principles on which the assessment arrangements are to be based are largely those recommended by TGAT, which have been widely debated and have received general support.
These orders will be technical in nature, setting out the arrangements for teacher assessment and test administration and listing the assessment and testing instruments which schools will apply towards the end of each of the key stages. These arrangements will be developed by bodies with proven knowledge and will have been piloted with expert advice. The detailed arrangements may vary from year to year as additional instruments are devised. It would not be appropriate for such orders to be subject to wide consultation and even less for them to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We should concentrate our efforts on ensuring that the objectives are clearly set out subject by subject and that the programmes of
490
study are defined in a way which gives teachers a clear, not a confusing, framework. Technical details of the precise assessment instruments are not appropriate subjects for the parliamentary process and I hope that the amendments will therefore not be pressed.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I cannot allow myself to be persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Towards the end of his speech he seemed to reach the point of saying that the less legal parliamentary control there was, the more actual control there would be. He argued that if you did not have the duty either to get an affirmative resolution or to pray against orders, there would be so much fuss made in Parliament that you would actually lose by having to go through either the affirmative or negative procedure.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene?
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, perhaps I may just finish this point. I was left feeling that if all that is true, why has Parliament bothered to provide for affirmative or negative procedures at all?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the second question asked by the noble Lord is a long one and I shall take a long time to answer. It depends upon the importance of the subject matter. Parliament has taken the view that matters above a certain degree of general importance should he subject to these procedures.
I have had the pleasure of having my arguments misinterpreted by the noble Lord for a great many years, as he will recall. I did not say that it would make it easier to deal with misconduct by the Minister if there were no such procedure as statutory instrument. I said that it was not necessary because his argument had been that, unless you had it, there was no parliamentary sanction or control. If the noble Lord looks at Hansard he will see that he said that several times. All that I did was to point out to him that Parliament has many resources for calling Ministers to account quite independent of statutory instruments and that simply piling up the number of orders that had to be circulated in the lists, in the hope that someone might be looking through them, was not going to be the effective check that he thought it was. The really effective check is the fact that in this House and in another place Ministers who do wrong things can be and are held to account.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I think that the argument now advanced is that Parliament has felt that you must look at the importance of the matter, and that helps you to decide whether you have—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Public importance.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: That helps to decide whether you have the affirmative or the negative procedure, or indeed no procedure at all. I tried to make the point with regard to each of these amendments that they are matters of public importance. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord

491
Trefgarne pointed out, that a grant-maintained school will not be better treated to begin with in regard to public funds. It is very likely to be the kind of school that benefits from gifts from better-off parents. It will become increasingly the kind of school that attracts that kind of parent and will become gradually separated, socially and economically, from the other schools. I regard this as a matter of considerable public importance. I would say the same about the other amendments.
The answer from the Minister was the usual thing: you must not have too many checks on the Minister because that is bureaucratic and will waste time. This is the regular argument of people who want to move towards an unparliamentary system of government— that the attempts to put checks on the executive are bureaucratic, a waste of time and all the rest of it. I do not think we can accept that. Nor do I feel disposed to accept the general position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who finds in every case a reason for not doing what is suggested by the Opposition. As mentioned by my noble friend, the Government always have some reason why they will not accept an amendment coming from the Opposition. I think that we have had enough of this, and I should like to test the opinion of the House on the amendment.
9.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 56.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ardwick, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Blackstone, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

492

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Flowers, L.

Glenamara, L.

Russell, E.

Gregson, L.

Seear, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Swann, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Longford, E.

Tordoff, L.

McNair, L.

Underhill, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

White, B.

Mountevans, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Peston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Hesketh, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hives, L.

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Beavcrhrook, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Beloff, L.

Killearn, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Caithness, E.

Morris, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carnock, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Prior, L.

Coleraine, L.

Renton, L.

Cox, B.

St. Germans, E.

Craigavon, V.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Swinfen, L.

Dundee, E.

Swinton, E.

Eccles, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Elton, L.

Trafford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Glenarthur,L.

Trumpington, B.

Grantchester, L.

Vaux of Harrowden. L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.2 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, before the next amendment is taken, I should like to ask the Government Chief Whip a question in the light of what I asked earlier today. What is his proposal concerning consideration of the remainder of the Third Reading and the debate that the Bill do now pass? It is now 10 o'clock and the House should rise at 11 o'clock.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for being able to make a firm statement only at this time. The time has now come when a firm statement must be made. There were a number of options before us. We were hoping, first, that we would finish the whole Third Reading stage of the Bill, including the debate on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. That clearly became unrealistic an hour or two ago. The second option was to finish the amendments to the Bill by about 11 o'clock, when two alternatives would have presented themselves; first, to carry on with the debate on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass; and, secondly, to adjourn the debate on the Motion until the next day. Even that second option is now no longer available to us. The only option we have is to finish the Bill tonight, which would mean vacating tomorrow's business. We have to take this decision now because it would be only fair to get in touch with noble Lords who were to have taken part in the debate tomorrow. They have been told that any decision would be passed to them at 10 o'clock. I must say to the House that, with regret, we must vacate tomorrow's business. The debate due for tomorrow, which was originally to have been held next Friday, will probably have to go back again to next Friday. I must apologise to the House but a decision must now be made.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for making that statement. I am quite certain that the decision must now be made, as noble Lords must be aware of the progress of business. When we discussed this earlier my noble friend Lord Cledwyn pointed out that it was likely that two days would be needed for Third Reading and the debate on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
Lord Denham: Yes, my Lords, I know that has been said. It would have been a very unusual step to have two days for the Third Reading of a Bill. As I said at the beginning of business today, amendments on Third Reading are usually of a minor nature, giving the Government an opportunity to meet arguments that had been made earlier in the process of the Bill. I am afraid that no option is now left and I hope that we shall be able to complete the amendments on the Bill as expeditiously as possible.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in the light of the discussions and exchanges we had previously, I must express my deep concern and dismay that this House may sit late or even all night again.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, as a Back-Bencher, I must protest against the option that the Chief Whip has accepted. It means that the final debate in this House on the Bill— when we have discussed the whole Bill as it has emerged— will be held in the
494
middle of the night. I think that this is most unfair, especially in view of the high average age of your Lordships, although perhaps, if I may say so, not the noble Lords who are present here now. I think it is most unfair that an important Bill of this kind, which is really four Bills in one, should be treated in this way. It is, as I said before on certain amendments, typical of the Government's handling of the Bill throughout. It is a contempt of Parliament by this Government that the Motion that the Bill pass should be taken in the middle of the night. I protest against it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to protest. The whole handling of the Bill has, in our view, been extremely unsatisfactory and this is just a culmination of a very bad phase.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I must say to the House— I think I shall get support on this alone— that we have a great deal of freedom in this Chamber in putting down amendments to a Bill at this stage which is denied to Members of another place. We have no selection of amendments; we have no timetable and we have no guillotine. It is a freedom that the House greatly values, but it is a freedom that sometimes has to be paid for, by possibly sitting rather later than we would normally do. In saying that, I must apologise for any inconvenience that the House has caused for the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, and the others who have complained.
Baroness White: My Lords, can the Government Chief Whip explain to us why we cannot adjourn at around 11 o'clock this evening and finish the Bill tomorrow? If we are going to lose tomorrow's business in any event, why not deal with this Bill in a civilised and intelligent manner?
Perhaps I may ask him a supplementary question. Is he giving us a firm assurance that the debate which was to have been held tomorrow— I am one of those who would be inconvenienced, but I put it no higher than that— will be taken next week? I should like to know if he is giving us a firm decision— because we have had no decisions about the business that we can rely upon— that tomorrow's business will be tabled for tomorrow week.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I can give a firm undertaking to the House that time will be found for tomorrow's business. I think it looks like being tomorrow week. However, my difficulty is that the Opposition Chief Whip and I were due to meet to discuss the matter about one minute after the time that the Division bell rang. Therefore that discussion was pre-empted by the Division bell. In my view, the noble Lord quite rightly thought that it was only fair to the House that an announcement should be made. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss the finer points of detail. However, I shall be meeting the noble Lord immediately after this and I hope to make a further announcement fairly soon.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I still cannot understand why we cannot adjourn at 11 o'clock and then carry on with this business tomorrow. Surely that is the sensible way of dealing with the situation.
Lord Denham: My Lords, these matters are discussed through the usual channels. This particular discussion has taken place and I think it is a mistake to discuss business of this kind on the Floor of the House.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, no! We are entitled to discuss the matter. We are the people who are sitting here and who will have to go on through the night. Surely we should be consulted on something as important as this.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may just say that some Members of the House have other duties tomorrow.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the point that the noble Earl has just made is very apposite. Therefore I think it would be possibly even more inconvenient for many people if we did not finish the Bill tonight.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that when he comes to discuss the matter in a few minutes with my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip, that is one of the matters they will consider; that is, the possibility of sitting tomorrow?
Lord Denham: My Lords, of course I am prepared to discuss any possibility with the noble friend of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. However, I cannot make any firm statement on the matter now.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not know whether those of us who are doing the work are allowed to speak on this matter. I hope that the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip will bear in mind that some of us are finding this extremely hard work and are anxious to do it properly. I for one should find it easier to do it properly at 11 a.m. tomorrow rather than being hurried tonight and being under undue pressure. I know that the noble Lord the Chief Whip has to take all matters into account. I am not pressing him for an answer now. The point made by my noble friend Lord Taylor is one that must be taken seriously. We have worked hard on the Bill from the very first day, and it would be a pity to ruin it at this late stage.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as Back-Benchers are taking part in this discussion, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that it would be possible to debate how we resolve this matter all night. The purpose of restricting the discussions to the usual channels is that the respective Chief Whips take the views of their respective Back Benchers. They will dispose of the matter much more quickly in the Prince's Chamber than we can do now.
Clause 92 [Winding up]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 92, line 44, leave out from ("any") to ("used") in line 46 and insert ("interest belonging to the governing body or held by any trustees on trust for the purposes of the school in any dwelling-house").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 53, 55 and 56. They are purely technical amendments. They clarify the definition of "school premises" for the purposes of property disposal by a grant-maintained school which is being wound up. I hope that with that modest explanation your Lordships will be able to agree to the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, these are technical amendments. They are some of the 73 amendments, not all of them technical, which the Government have enrolled for Third Reading. It is perhaps worthy of note that more than half of the amendments that we have to consider at this stage of the Bill are government amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 92, line 47, leave out ("teacher") and insert ("person employed to work").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 93 [Disposal of school property]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 94, line 8, after ("concerned") insert ("beneficially").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments No. 55 and 56:
Page 95, line 3, after ("premises") insert ("(including any interest in a dwelling-house such as is mentioned in section 92(7)(b)(ii) of this Act)").
Page 95, line 9, at end insert—
("(13A) Nothing in any provision included in an order under section 92 of this Act by virtue of this section shall affect any interest or right of any person in, to or over any school property which is held by that person otherwise than for the purposes of the school.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 94 [Surplus money and investments]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 95, line 32, at end insert—
("(2A) Without prejudice to the power of the Secretary of State under subsection (2) above, any payment of money or transfer of investments under this section shall be free of any trusts on which the money or investments are held by the governing body before the payment or transfer is made.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has likewise already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 95 [Discharge, transfer and termination of liabilities, etc.]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 58, 59, 60 and 61:
Page 95, line 46, leave out ("property") and insert ("premises").

497
Page 95, line 47, leave out ("the school") and insert ("those").
Clause 97, page 100, line 19, leave out ("property") and insert ("premises").
Page 100, line 20, leave out ("the school") and insert ("those").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments are all technical amendments which ensure that where school premises have been transferred these clauses concerning the recovery of public investment will bite. There is no need for all school property to be transferred. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 102 [Interpretation of Chapter IV]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 62 to 66:
Page 105, line 3, leave out ("and").
Page 105, line 12, at end insert ("; and
(j) references in relation to such a school, to school property include, in the case of such property as is mentioned in section 92(7)(b)(iii) of this Act, references to any right to such property.").
Page 105, line 25, leave out ("such a school") and insert ("a grant-maintained school").
Page 105, line 28, after ("in") insert ("or easement, right or charge in, to or over").
Page 106, line 12, column 2, at end insert ("and subsection (1)(j) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are purely technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 67:
Before Clause 103, insert the following new clause:
("Local education authorities duty in respect of special education.
In the 1981 Act the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (4) of section 2—
"(4)(a) It shall he the duty of every local education authority—

(i) to prepare and publish within twelve months of the coming into force of this Act a scheme for ensuring that special education provision is made for any child for whom they are responsible who may have special educational needs;

(ii) to ensure that such scheme provides for such children to be educated in ordinary schools or further education provision wherever practicable;

(iii) to ensure that such scheme is regularly reviewed and kept up to date so as to take account of changing circumstances;

(iv) to submit such scheme to the Secretary of State for his approval on first preparation and from time to time as it is revised.

(b) The Secretary of State shall have a duty, after consultation with all relevant interests, to issue guidance to local education authorities setting out the matters to which they shall have regard in drawing up their schemes for ensuring that special educational provision is made for any child for whom they are responsible who may have special educational needs, and establishing standards of good practice for local education authorities." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithful! and Lady Warnock. The noble Baronesses cannot be present tonight, though they would have liked to be here to support the amendment.
Although this amendment is starred today, it has had a slightly ill-starred history in this House in that it was the very first or among the first of the amendments to be tabled in Committee. Unfortunately I was not well at the Committee stage and the amendment was therefore not moved. When I moved it on Report, the noble Baroness was, for perfectly understandable reasons, not able to give me a reply. She very kindly indicated that she would expect me to raise the matter again on Third Reading, which I do now.
I wish to say at the outset that I am deeply grateful to the Government for the concessions they have already made or indicated in regard to special educational needs. This amendment is designed not so much for the detail of the delivery of special educational needs as to provide a structure for the schemes which must be set up on a local education authority basis. It is subject to the guidance which I believe the Secretary of State must give to those local education authorities; otherwise the result will inevitably fall short of the wishes of all of us.
I wish to explain the amendment very briefly and say why I think it fits in with the general philosophy of the Bill. For instance, in Committee in another place on 8th March the Parliamentary Secretary seemed wholeheartedly to associate himself with this in the debate on what was then the new Clause 19. That discussion was about the value of the role of local education authorities in exercising a positive management function on special education. Again, I do not believe that it is against the policy of the Government. It must be in the swim of the Government's policy, when they have taken so many powers themselves, for this amendment to give power to the Secretary of State. He would have the power to formulate, as it were, a code of guidance for the LEAs on special educational need and for the local education authorities to have regard to the Secretary of State's advice or guidance.
I believe that this amendment, which I am putting forward together with my colleagues from all round the House, is in the spirit of the Bill, both as regards its mechanics and, in the use of the word "scheme", as regards the formulation of schemes and the overriding guidance of the Secretary of State. The intention is to ensure that all local authorities make schemes, publish the schemes, alter them from time to time and submit them to the Secretary of State so that he can give guidance on them.
All that is very roughly what is said precisely in the amendment. I certainly do not want to press this amendment. I do not want to take the time at this stage because my main purpose in moving it is to elicit a reasoned reply from the noble Baroness. It may be that the wording is not perfect. It may be that the amendment could contain further provisions. For instance, as I mentioned at the Report stage, it could well to advantage contain provision for local education authorities to co-operate with each other. I hope they will do that in any case. But it does not do so because that was not in my mind nor in the minds of my colleagues when the amendment was drafted. The fact is that the amendment provides the structure for the delivery of special educational needs, and that is its whole purpose.
If the noble Baroness could indicate that the Government were broadly in agreement with the provision and that, although they cannot accept the amendment as drafted, they could perhaps bring in something on the lines of this amendment by regulation after the passing of this Bill, I should be very happy indeed. In the hope of eliciting that kind of answer, I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, of course I recognise the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and the co-sponsors of this amendment. That concern is shared by the Government. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said on Report and to what he said today.
Perhaps I could set out the present law. Section 8 of the Education Act 1944 gives local education authorities a duty to secure that there shall be sufficient schools available for their area. In carrying out this duty they must have regard:
"to the need for securing that special educational provision is made for pupils who have special educational need".
That description, by the way, includes not only the small minority for whom the local authority makes statements but the larger though still minority group— Warnock's one in six— who may have special needs. Section 2(4) of the 1981 Act requires local education authorities to keep their arrangements for special educational provision under review.
Under the 1981 Act, governors of schools maintained by local education authorities have a duty to secure that, if a pupil in the school has special educational needs, the special educational provision that is required for him is made. The present Bill extends that duty to the governors of grant-maintained schools by Schedule 12, paragraph 26.
The amendment here proposed would add nothing of substance to the existing duties of local education authorities to secure provision and keep it under review. But I have to say that it would add to the number of bits of paper that local education authorities produce. It would also add to the amount of correspondence between local education authorities and the Department of Education and Science.
I fear that it would result in the kind of bureaucracy we all seek to avoid, without necessarily improving the provision made in the schools. Most particularly, it would divert the time of local education authority officers away from the real job of providing for the individual children.
Finally, the new Clause would require my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to issue guidance to local education authorities on the principles which would guide their schemes, and for the publication of guidance on good practice. Examples of good practice are always valuable and successive Ministers have looked to the support they get from HM Inspectorate and others in offering such guidance, not least in the area of special needs. I can certainly undertake to continue to do that. Examples of good practice will continue to be sought and will
500
be published. Moreover, guidance will be issued in good time in advance of the implementation of the Act.
However, the spirit of the Education Act 1981 concentrates not on general standards of provision but provision to meet the needs of the individual child. This means that there needs to be a great deal of flexibility in the arrangements made by local education authorities, and I do not think that this proposal contributes to that objective. So in accepting the spirit of this amendment, I must reiterate that it is our view that existing requirements already offer sufficient safeguards. I hope that the noble Lord, as he has indeed indicated, will not press his new clause.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Clearly the intention of the amendment was to spell out and amplify the provisions of the 1981 Act. However, I accept what the Minister has said. She has made it clear that the intention of the amendment is fulfilled by the provisions of the 1981 Act and that local education authorities already have the duty which the amendment desires to provide for them.
In addition, the Minister mentioned that the Secretary of State fully intends to issue guidance as provided for in paragraph (b) of the amendment. That being the case, I am of course willing to withdraw the amendment. I shall only say that the difference between the amendment and what the Minister has said about the issuing of guidance is that the amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State, whereas all we have— it is very welcome—is the Minister's undertaking that the Secretary of State will provide that guidance. Having noted that difference, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 103 [Agreements for establishment, etc. of city technology colleges]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 106, line 30 [shown as line 12], after ("or) insert ("either—(i)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 68 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 69 to 71 and 102. These amendments will not bring with them any great changes within the CTC programme. They respond to an amendment tabled at Report stage by my noble friend Lord St. John of Fawsley.
Like CTCs, city colleges for the technology of the arts will be required to implement the substance of the national curriculum. They will also equally involve sponsors from industry in the running of schools. The two types of college will be entirely complementary. Both will emphasise technology. Both will emphasise the importance of preparing young people effectively for their adult lives and for jobs in industries increasingly dominated by new and changing technologies.
But the colleges which might emerge if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Young of

501
Dartington, were accepted would be very different. They would have no curricular emphasis on science and technology or on the application of technology to the creative and performing arts. These are central to the CTC programme. We would lose this common critical element and divert efforts from the central purposes of the Government's CTC initiative if we were to extend the programme in the way advocated by the noble Lord. I therefore urge the House to reject the noble Lord's amendment.
The arts industries are faced with the need to implement rapidly changing technologies. These are, however, creating new job opportunities particularly relevant to young people. We believe it is right to enable this industry to play a full part in the development of the CTC programme.
The CTC programme continues to make excellent progress. Announcements of new CTCs have been made recently and more will follow. Over £ 20 million is being raised by private sponsors. That will continue. These government amendments will enable further growth of the programme and I urge the House to accept them. I beg to move.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the amendment that she has tabled on behalf of the Government. I am gratified that my little mouse of an amendment, which was moved at Report stage, has been transformed into a mountain by the technical efficiency with which the present amendment has been drafted. Thanks to my noble friend, it has become the mouse that roared. It is a transformation scene for which I am grateful.
I welcome the strengthening of the role of the arts in education, which is the whole point of the amendment. It matters not, as far as I am concerned, that it strengthens the idea of the city technology college as such, although that is a thought that at Report stage succeeded in igniting the noble Lord, Lord Peston, into an incandescent rage which caused everyone present great surprise. The point is that the noble Lord was not looking at the merits of the amendment as such. He so hated the idea of city technology colleges that he did not want to see them improved in any way.
The other and more constructive point of view was put by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who made it quite clear that she did not particularly like the idea of the CTCs but that she would rather see a better version than a worse one. I think that is a perfectly reasonable attitude to take.
I would have preferred to see a school for the performing arts as such. We have European schools, after all, which emphasise European issues and policies but which also have a general curriculum. It would have been a very good thing to have an arts school or schools following a general curriculum but giving to those who manifest talent and interest in the arts at an early stage an opportunity to develop that talent.
Unfortunately, there does not seem to have been enough cash from sponsorship for that purpose. About £ 1·5 million would be needed and the amount of money that was promised came nowhere near that sum. I hope that a sponsor will be found for that
502
college, or school as it in fact is, in its new form. The concept of technical, or technical and arts, colleges is to build a new bridge between the public and private sector. That, I think, is a good thing. Although one could call such a school elitist, it offers a new opportunity to a certain number of children within the educational system. It is for that reason that I hope that noble Lords will support this government amendment whatever side of the House they happen to sit on. It opens up a new opportunity for children to appreciate what is after all our most precious inheritance, the arts.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, following upon what the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, has said, I should like to give the government amendment a moderate welcome and also speak in support of my own amendment, Amendment No. 71. It is not that I like city technology colleges, but I should dislike them less if those new colleges were not to be confined to science and technology alone. I am hoping against hope that even at this hour it may be possible to persuade the Minister to take a more broad-minded view and go a little further than the amendment in her name.
I have argued at every stage of the Bill that there is a case for more variety in schools so that parents and children can have more choice. I have always given as examples of the schools we need but do not have schools with a bias towards the performing and the creative arts. That is a reason for being glad that the Government have taken one step. albeit such a small step, towards greater variety by proposing the setting up of new schools, not just in technology, but in technology in its application to the performing and creative arts. But why such a narrow and narrow-minded extension? Technology in the arts is important: film, television, video and so on are important. But technology in the arts is much less important than the arts themselves.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Young of Dartington: To circumscribe in this way is to recognise on the face of the Bill that the arts matter, but only if they are pulled along by the chariot of technology, secondary and subservient. That in itself is to denigrate the arts. It means that there could be no schools like Cheetham secondary school in Manchester which specialises in music and which has been so flourishing unless presumably the whole emphasis in such a school was on electronic music which would be absurd. There would be no new visual arts school like the Arts Secondary School which used to flourish in Manchester unless it were devoted to the chemistry of pigmentation or the optics of colour or some such matters; and presumably no ballet schools at all. I do not see how technology can be allied to the ballet in a way that would bring it within what the Government are proposing.
A noble Lord: Robots, my Lords!
Lord Young of Dartington: Yes, robots. Not many of us would want to attend Covent Garden to see a performance of robots.
My last plea to the noble Baroness leads to a submission that the Government would be making an ass of themselves if they were to support the arts but only on the back of technology as though the arts were thoroughly secondary and subservient, whereas here in this very small amendment— if only they were ready to accept it— they would be recognising that the arts have and should have a central place, and that new schools could be set up which would have a bias toward the performing and creative arts as well as those which have a bias toward technology.
I submit that it is a considerable opportunity. I hope that the noble Baroness at this late hour will feel herself able to accept it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I hope that I shall not get into the incandescent fury about which the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, spoke. I have a difficulty in that I do not recollect my noble friend glowing incandescent. He can occasionally be firm in his views. Indeed, I hear him whisper that he was incandescent. I regret that I did not see it.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would give way. It was indeed a pyrotechnic display. It was like seeing an extinct volcano suddenly erupt.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I regret that I did not see that resumption of life. The "mouse" of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, perhaps was suggested and certainly has been welcomed by the Government at a very late stage in the Bill giving us no time to consider this aspect. It is totally absurd that we should be considering such a radical departure at this very late stage.
I suggest that these amendments represent a further departure from the Government's original conception of the city technology colleges. It is perhaps typical of the Government that the amendments have been published without even the cursory description of a curriculum content and the allocation of time to various subjects which was available in the original publicity booklet, presumably now totally out of date, called A new choice of school.
Apparently it is the case that the Government are making desperate, obvious and rather tawdry efforts to secure sponsorship from one part of the industrial and commercial world to try to conceal the total failure of the original concept to attract other than a relatively modest level of support. The changes that the Government have made to the CTC ground rules are striking. The principal ones are the heavy Treasury support for capital as opposed to revenue costs and the extension of the permitted locations of CTCs from inner city areas to any urban areas. Even as a Scot, I was rather surprised to find suggestions that inner city areas include Croydon and Solihull; but this is perhaps the rather surprising education in the geography of England that I have to come to expect.
504
There is the abandonment of the new Bill principle in favour of trying to persuade local education authorities to give up existing and functioning schools, and some of them seem to be successful schools such as Riverside and Aske's. The total sponsorship that they have secured from industry is little more than £ 20 million. I suggest that this is a clear verdict on the whole concept given by industry. Companies prefer to direct their investment in education, which local authorities greatly welcome, into proposals that benefit children across an authority's area. One example is the London compact. A more recent one is a project sponsored by Northumberland local education authority and British Gas, whereby local companies are being asked to donate between £ 5,000 and £ 25,000 of equipment each year for five years to schools in the county. In that way it is hoped to raise a total of between £ 400 and £ 500 each year for each local authority in the North-East.
The companies would be asked to provide training in the schools as well as industrial placements of the teachers. The schools would ensure that learning targets were met; for example, in information technology. The intention is that all secondary pupils would benefit, not just a selected few. I suggest that that is the total concept, the basis of the CTCs. They are not a new opportunity based on the curriculum needs of particular pupils. They are a return to selection, and the diversion of resources to the favoured minority. That is the reason that we oppose these amendments.
Lord McNair: My Lords, perhaps I may say a brief word in support of the amendment to the amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, and a general word on the question of technology, about which I am profoundly suspicious.
I am not certain about the position under Clause 103, and even less so about these colleges. After all, what is technology? It is the study of skills. It teaches you know-how but it does not teach you know-what. If one goes to one of the technology of art colleges one will learn how to do all kinds of things but it is only the artist who knows what to do.
I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, is satisfied with what he appears to have got out of the Government. I very strongly prefer what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, is asking for.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should very much like to support what my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna has said. I should also like to defend my noble friend Lord Peston. He is by no means an extinct volcano; he erupts very effectively on many occasions when the circumstances require it, and I think that this is one of those occasions.
However, I wish to focus in particular on one aspect of the points that were made by my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna. In doing so, I speak as a very strong supporter of the arts and of arts education. If one considers the current provision of arts education in our secondary schools I believe it is

505
something of which we can be relatively proud. There are areas of the curriculum in secondary education in this country that are not well covered. Arts education is not one of those. It is something that we do rather well compared with many other countries. At the same time we are now seeing the introduction of a national curriculum which will constrain the provision of arts education. It has caused a great deal of concern to the Arts Council, which has made various representations on this issue.
We shall see dance and drama— two very important performing arts— excluded from the national curriculum. I therefore find it rather odd that on the one hand the Government should be reducing the availability of scope for teachers to develop arts education, in particular in the performing arts, and at the same time that they should be introducing a new institution (with the oddest title for a school that I have ever heard) to specialise, it appears, in arts education. Surely there is some inconsistency here. Perhaps the Minister can explain why the Government are doing one thing with one hand and something quite different with the other in proposing to set up these new institutions.
Before an amendment issued at this very late stage is agreed to, surely we need much more information about it. How many of these new institutions will there be? Is the purpose of this amendment simply to allow Mr. Richard Branson partially to fund a school in Croydon; or is it, as we are told in the newspapers, to allow hundreds of these institutions to be set up? I believe that the House deserves some indication of what the Government's intentions are here.
Can the noble Baroness also tell us how the pupils of this new institution are to be selected? Is geographical proximity to be the basis for selection, or is it to be ability or talent? Again I believe these are very important questions. But most important of all is what on earth these institutions are to teach. What degree of specialisation is entailed? The noble Baroness referred to the substance of the national curriculum being covered. Will she perhaps elaborate a little on what that means?
What expenditure from public funds is to be involved? What is the balance to be between private and public funding for these institutions? Last of all I should very much like her to answer this question. Why are we not strengthening arts education in existing schools? Surely that would be more consistent with the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Fawsley, than what we are presented with here. Can we have answers to all these questions before we go any further?
10.45 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, the noble Baroness who has just spoken raised the question of this very odd name, a college of technology, and its application to the performing and creative arts— not a college studying the performing and creative arts, nor a college apparently studying technology, but a college devoted to the study of the application of technology to the performing and creative arts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, used an expression while she was speaking— I cannot
506
remember the exact wording but she suggested that technology was playing an increasing part in the arts and that this was providing employment. I wish we could hear a little more about that. The more I think about it the harder I find it to picture anything that can be described as the application of technology to the performing and creative arts. However, I can think of something, but the odd thing is that it is about 23 centuries out of date.
In classical Greek drama one finds striking examples of the application of technology to the performing and creative arts. The essence of a Greek drama was that it was a religious service and that consequently the persons of the actors were sacred. One could not knock them about or knock them down in the course of the play. If anybody was to be killed in the course of the action it had to be done behind the scenes. The audience could hear that something was happening, but they could not see any fisticuffs. It would be a good idea if this rule were applied, I believe, to some television programmes, but that is by the way.
When it was finished the doors of the palace opened, a kind of platform rolled forward on wheels and the audience could see the two corpses and the triumphant avenger standing over them. Again if one wrote a play that contained not only mortal men and women but immortal gods descending from heaven, one needed a crane of some kind to bring them down, which, indeed, the ancient Greeks had.
I am not wasting the House's time. I am talking in the most literal and precise sense about the application of technology to the performing and creative arts. I respectfully submit that so far I am the only person who has given an exact example of what is meant by that.
It would be rather fun if these colleges were really to go into the study and presentation of Greek drama, with all the applications of modern technology to what the Greeks no doubt did in a rather crude way. It would be great fun to have colleges doing that, but I do not see who would be prepared to pay for them and I do not think the Government would approve of them.
If these colleges are not to be what I have been describing, what on earth is this expression, the application of technology to the performing and creative arts? It is quite extraordinary that as new a concept as this should have been sprung upon us at this stage of the debate. It does not fall into the definitions that the Chief Whip was giving us earlier of the kind of subjects that Third Reading and "Bill do now pass" debates are designed for. I wish we could have an explanation of what the Government are going to do with these colleges whose curriculum will be based on the application of technology to the performing and creative arts.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I should like to ask a question supplementary to one of the important questions asked by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. She asked the Minister what would be the proportion of public and private expenditure on the colleges. Will the Minister deal specifically with the point that when they were first mentioned by the

507
Secretary of State they were to be entirely financed by private money? Is it not a fact that there has been a massive failure of industry and associated sources to come forward with money and that for that reason there has been a subtle change in statements made by all education Ministers in respect of this matter? I hope that we may be given a clear answer to that specific point.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, first, I should like to reassure the House, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, that existing schools with traditions and specialisations in music and the arts will continue. We hope that they will also continue to flourish.
I must correct the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who stated that dance and drama were excluded from the national curriculum. I have been at great pains to show that our intentions for art, music and PE in the national curriculum will also allow for drama and dance in the course of the curriculum—
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that neither dance nor drama are core or foundation subjects in the national curriculum? That is the point that I was trying to make.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in discussing the core and other foundation subjects of the curriculum I have explained that the intention is that at secondary school level, art, music and drama can be included in the core subject of English, and that dance can be included in the foundation subject of PE. As part of the flexibility that the Government intend for these subjects, schools will be able to implement them in accordance with any particular tradition or specialisation which they may have. I shall go further and say that in including in the national curriculum art and music we are emphasising their importance, which, in some schools, is not necessarily being emphasised at present.
CTCs were and are intended to provide additional choice to parents. They are aimed at involving industry not only as the sponsors of schools but in the actual running and consideration of the curriculum of the schools. Noble Lords have mentioned other arrangements for involving industry in the running of schools. They will also continue and we shall encourage that. The first of our CTCs is about to open. The response of parents has been, to say the least, encouraging and gratifying.
We had a discussion on the subject at the Report stage, when again my noble friend Lord St. John excelled himself by explaining the importance of technology in relation to the arts and the importance of the arts in relation to employment. Noble Lords who participated in the debate added to that. The arts industries are faced with the need to implement rapidly-changing technologies, and they are creating new job opportunities. We believe that they are particularly relevant to young people.
We expect that a range of potential sponsors will come foward to sponsor such colleges. Already a number have been talking to officials and ministerial
508
colleagues. These are private initiatives and it has always been our policy that the sponsors must decide when they wish to make public their intentions. I hope that your Lordships will respect that confidentiality. Over £ 20 million has already been pledged by sponsors and much more will eventually be raised. It has been interesting to note that initial sponsors have come forward with large amounts of money which has been complemented by local industry and commerce attracted by the idea of having such a school in their district. Albeit in small amounts they have added very considerably to the total. We hope that that trend will continue and that much more will eventually be raised. This is a truly unprecedented response to an educational initiative.
Nevertheless, establishing new institutions is not cheap and investment of public money is also necessary. We believe that this investment is justified by the dynamic effect that CTCs and CCTAs will have on the rest of the educational system. The amounts of public funding have been quoted at various exaggerated levels, but of course each CTC will have differing capital costs but in each case at least £ 1 million will be contributed by sponsors.
It is our intention that all schools should be influenced by the successes achieved and lessons learnt by CTCs and CCTAs within the system. We believe that the CTC idea is a good one which will be translated into practice as efficient centres of education for the benefit of our children. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask her, since we are discussing the arts, whether she is of the opinion that Amendment No. 70 is written in the English language as we know it. I have been puzzling over the matter for some time and I cannot make any sense of the syntax. It states:
"in the case of a school to be known as a city technology college, on science and technology".
I cannot give any meaning to that. There is similar syntax in sub-paragraph (ii), which states:
"in the case of a school to be known as a city college for the technology of the arts, on technology in its application to the performing and creative arts".
That is simply not a correct grammatical sentence. Indeed, given that we are discussing the arts, I should have thought that a minimum condition of passing an amendment of this sort is that it should be in the English language.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that in responding to the points raised by the noble Lord I shall have to look at the amendment in the context of the Bill.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am sure we have every sympathy with the noble Baroness, but perhaps one of the extinct volcanoes on the other side might help.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that this matter is perfectly clear, because we express one as a city technology college and the other as a city college for the technology of the arts. At this moment I

509
cannot fit them into the context of the Bill very easily but if there is any obscurity we shall ensure that all is revealed and that lightness is brought to the subject.
Lord Young of Dartington: With the leave of the House perhaps I may point out how it should read. At page 106, line 24, it should read:
"has a broad curriculum with an emphasis in the case of a school to be known as a city technology college, on science and technology."
The English may not be perfect but it has a meaning.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
10.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 68) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 30.

DIVISION NO. 6

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Arran, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Beloff, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Blyth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Boardrnan, L.

Killearn, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Long, V. [Teller]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mancroft, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carnock, L.

Morris, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cornwallis, L.

Renton. L.

Cox, B.

St. Germans, E.

Craigavon, V.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Saint Levan, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Davidson, V. [Teller]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L.

Swinfen, L.

Dundee, E.

Swinton, E.

Eccles, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Elton, L.

Trafford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

Grantchester, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

McNair, L.

Ardwick, L.

Mountevans, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Peston, L.

Blackstone, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller]

Carter, L. [Teller]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Russell, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Seear, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Flowers, L.

Swann, L.

Glenamara, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

White, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
11.6 p.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 106. line 31 [shown as line 13], leave out ("and having") and insert (". Or
(ii) and independent school to be known as a city college for the technology of the arts:
and having (in each case)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 together. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, there is an amendment to Amendment No. 70 which is Amendment No. 71. I think that we should take Amendment No. 69 first of all.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 106, line 42 [shown as line 24], leave out ("on science and technology") and insert ("—

(i) in the case of a school to be known as a city technology college, on science and technology: or

(ii) in the case of a school to be known as a city college for the technology of the arts, on technology in its application to the performing and creative arts.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move. [Amendment No. 71, as an amendment to Amendment No. 70, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 70 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 not moved.]
Clause 118 [Functions of local education authorities with respect to higher and further education]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 120, line 5, at end insert ("(which shall include adult education)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as on previous occasions, we are extremely anxious to make certain that adult education and the statutory requirement to provide it appears on the face of the Bill. I know that the noble Baroness has told us on previous occasions that adult education is a part of further education. It has not been so seen in the past when it has been widely understood, and indeed has been the case, that there is no statutory obligation to provide adult education. This is why we have repeatedly asked that it should be made quite clear on the face of the Bill that there is such a statutory obligation. The noble Baroness said that it did include it. If that is her view, then it can only be extremely helpful if she will accept this amendment. It is not the view of most people that there is such a statutory obligation. If there is no such statutory obligation there cannot be the slightest doubt that where local authorities are hard-up for cash— and that means nearly everywhere— those obligations for which there is no statutory requirement are bound to suffer. It would be a normal way for anybody to behave; that the authority will meet the requirements that they are statutorily obliged to meet, but will not meet, or will diminish their contribution to, those for which there is no statutory obligation. I do not intend to repeat the arguments that I put forward on previous occasions, but I beg the noble Baroness this time to

511
make sure that the requirement is on the face of the Bill and therefore it is understood that there is a statutory obligation. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in supporting this amendment I would particularly emphasise the point on clarification. I was intrigued by the point made earlier that further education included adult education in the sense in which we understood it. Nothing would please all of us more than to be told that further education includes adult education, because that would then cover everything that we have in mind.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, these two amendments would insert into Clause 118 explicit statements that adult education is a part of further education, as the noble Baroness has said. Amendments with much the same purpose have been moved at each stage in the Bill's passage through both Houses of Parliament. The Government recognise the value and importance of adult education and that is why our commitment has been amply demonstrated in the support we give to the National Institute of Adult and Continuing Education and indeed to various programmes to develop adult literacy and numeracy, and in our commitment in the education support grant programme.
However, the key point, which I must repeat, is that further education is already defined to include adult education. Clause 118 defines further education as including all full-time and part-time education for persons over compulsory school age, other than higher education. In this it follows closely the 1944 Act. Further education is not defined as being only for 16 to 19 year-olds, or only for those up to the age of 21. It is for all those over the age of 16.
I believe that this covers the point the noble Baroness made. I believe that we all recognise the value of adult education, but it would be a great mistake to believe that by supporting these amendments it would in some sense be supporting adult education itself. These amendments would do adult education no favours at all. They would only introduce confusion and divisions where none now exists. I therefore hope that the proposers of this amendment will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I deeply regret the reply of the noble Baroness. The adult education world does not understand the position as she has described it. It would have given the greatest support to it if she had confirmed what she believes to be the case by writing it into the Bill. However, at this time of night I am not proposing to press the amendment, although I would dearly like to. I must with the greatest regret— and it will be widely regretted throughout the adult education world— withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a business statement. Discussions have taken place through the usual
512
channels and it has been agreed that, in view of the lateness of the hour and of what has been said earlier on the Floor of the House by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, it would be right to adjourn further proceedings on this Bill until tomorrow and to finish the Bill tomorrow.
I think I should also say that I was unable before to make a statement about when the European Community debate that was scheduled for tomorrow would take place. I understand that there may be some difficulty for some of the people interested in that debate to manage next Friday, so discussions will continue as to when that business will take place.
I beg to move that further proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Tor Bay Harbour (Oxen Cove and Coastal Footpath, Brixham) Bill
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.

River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Bill [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  BARLOW CLOWES: INQUIRY TERMS OF REFERENCE
  BARLOW CLOWES: INQUIRY TERMS OF REFERENCE
  STOCK MARKET FALL, OCTOBER 1987: DTI REPORT
  STOCK MARKET FALL, OCTOBER 1987: DTI REPORT
  YOUNG OFFENDERS: UNIFIED CUSTODIAL SENTENCE
  YOUNG OFFENDERS: UNIFIED CUSTODIAL SENTENCE
  NUCLEAR POWERED SUBMARINES: CONTROL OF PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY
  NUCLEAR POWERED SUBMARINES: CONTROL OF PROPULSION TECHNOLOGY