Sitting of 18 July 1988

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

    Departmental Staff
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many established civil servants there are in his Department dealing with regional financial assistance to industry; and what were the figures for the same period in 1987, showing separately in both cases the numbers on temporary transfer (a) from and (b) to that division.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): On 1 July this year there were 86 established civil servants dealing with regional financial assistance. This compares with 80 on 1 July 1987. In neither case were there any staff transferred temporarily from or to the division concerned.
    Mr. Morgan: Given the announcement about the future of the Rover car pressings factory at Llanelli this morning and the loss of 900 jobs there, does the Secretary of State agree that he has grossly underestimated the demand and the need for greater concentration on regional assistance to industry in Wales? Does he agree also that he must abandon all plans to start dispersing civil servants from the Welsh Office industry department later this year?
    Mr. Walker: I have no such plans. All the staff at the industry department are fully employed and work a great deal of overtime as a result of the substantial number of applications for regional aid that they are processing. I am delighted to say that that will continue. I regret the announcement of any future closure. I hope that the positive approach to regional policy that we are pursuing will assist in finding many more new jobs.
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: With Wales becoming an increasingly attractive place in which to invest, does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of applications for regional assistance is likely to continue to increase? Will he assure me that he will continue to strive to reduce the time spent in processing each application?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. Applications for regional development grant, for example, are being processed at twice the rate of a year ago. There has been a great improvement. We shall ensure that every endeavour is made to process all applications as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I say nuts to the Secretary of State—especially pistachio nuts? Does he know that the Firegreen company has applied to the Welsh Office for a grant, which may lead in the end to 300 jobs, and certainly
    770
    over 100, in my constituency at Hawarden'? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman carefully to examine the application that has been made? Will he speed up the making of his decision so that the prospect of jobs might be realised?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman, with his experience, will understand that I cannot comment in detail on a particular application. Queries and inquiries are taking place. I realise the importance of the application, and it is receiving careful consideration in my Department, which is in touch with the firm concerned.

    Ministerial Visits
    Sir Anthony Meyer: To ask the Secretary of State for business since he took office as Secretary of State for Wales.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Four.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his achievements in securing jobs for Wales and in projecting a virile and energetic profile of Wales throughout the world are universally admired throughout Wales, and that the admiration is shared by many Labour-controlled councils? There is universal admiration, with the possible exception of two or three unreconstructed Labour Members.
    Mr. Walker: The progress is exceedingly good. Overseas investment this year is already more than the record which was set last year. I hope that this progress will continue. I am pleased to say that in the past few days a major new investment from Germany has been announced.
    Mr. Page: The House knows that whenever my right hon. Friend travels abroad he enhances the image of the Principality. Is he aware that he may be asked to reciprocate and to receive visitors? Will he guarantee that his officials will keep a welcome in the valleys for any visiting minor politician and ensure that he will not be held at gunpoint and sworn at?
    Mr. Walker: I assure the House that the hospitality of the Welsh Office is total and that no such incidents will take place.

    National Health Service
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what new proposals he has to improve the National Health Service in Wales in the light of the increasing average age of the population.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Grist): We shall continue our successful programme of improving the National Health Service to provide the people of Wales generally with the best care possible from the record levels of resources that we are making available.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware that a twin crisis is approaching that will peak in 1991, when we shall see a 9 per cent. increase over 1986 in the numbers aged 65 years and over, combined with the lowest figure for those aged between 50 years and 65 years, who provide the majority of family and voluntary carers? Will the Minister promise that Welsh area health authorities will be adequately funded for that dual crisis? Will he give us, for a start, a

    771
    guarantee that every health authority area will be adequately funded to enable it to meet the nurses' pay award? Will he confirm, or deny, the figures that have been quoted for the shortfall in Wales?
    Mr. Grist: In response to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I assure him that the funding of the Health Service will continue to be at the correct and proper level, as we have assured since we came to power. In response to the question about nurses' pay, we will have to wait and see precisely what demands are made when the regrading structure has been carried out.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that the county with the projected greatest increase in the number of elderly people is Gynedd, not only because of a natural increase, but because of a movement of retired people into private homes who, as they get older, may well bring additional pressure on the hospitals? In the light of that, will the Minister ensure that any consideration of the future of the hospitals in Gwynedd, particularly in Portmadoc and Caernarfon, will be part of a coherent long-term strategy and not an ad hoc reaction to short-term cash shortages?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I cannot comment on the particular hospitals that he has named. However, the fact that Gwynedd has an aging population is appreciated and taken into consideration in the various formulae for health authorities. This of course rather begs the question that all of us here are likely to fall in the next century into the age groups that we are now discussing. We should bear that mind.
    Mr. Foot: Leaving aside any invidious matters about age groups, will the Minister give an absolute assurance that the latest proposals put forward by the Gwent area health authority will be subject to genuine consultation with all the parties concerned, that the Welsh Office will listen carefully to all the representations and that if those representations point to the fact that there should be a very considerable increase in funding in Wales, the Welsh Office will carry that message back to the Government?
    Mr. Grist: I guarantee that all consultations carried out by the Welsh Office are carried out in a genuine, full and open fashion.
    Mr. Marlow: If a patient were to present himself to the Health Service in Wales with steam coming out of his ears, could my hon. Friend the Minister assure the House that there would be facilities for dealing with that complaint? Also, if anybody aspiring for a position of leadership in Wales or outside Wales were unable to control his temper, can my hon. Friend confirm that facilities exist where that person could get the necessary treatment?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Paul Murphy.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has received any representations from Welsh businesses in connection with the implementation of the proposed unified business rate.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Secretary of State agree that the deep unpopularity of the proposed business rate in Wales is due largely to the fact that it will mean an increase in the
    772
    commercial rate and because it threatens the vital link between local authorities and local industries, which is a major factor in determining industrial investment in Wales.
    Mr. Walker: I am delighted to say that of the 11 business organisations consulted, nine were in favour and only two against.
    Mr. Flynn: The result of the changes will be less accountability to Welsh councils, because up to 80 per cent. of the money received by Welsh councils will be determined centrally. How does that make Welsh local authorities more accountable?
    Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman would like less given centrally and more taken locally, I note his proposal.

    Hospitals
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospitals in Wales have (a) been closed and (b) been opened since 1979; and what is the net loss of hospital beds in that period.
    Mr. Grist: Twenty-three National Health Service hospitals in Wales closed between 1 January 1979 and 31 December 1987 and nine opened. The net loss of hospital beds in that period was 2,544, of which almost two thirds—1,690—were for people with a mental handicap or mental illness, in line with our policy that services should be developed in the community so that such people may lead as normal a life as possible.
    Mr. Williams: Is the Minister not ashamed of those figures, of 2,500 beds lost, and of fewer hospital beds in Wales today than when the National Health Service was formed in 1947? May I ask him about Mynydd Mawr hospital, which is just outside my constituency? Part of East Dyfed health authority's proposals for modernising Llanelli hospital include closing Mynydd Mawr hospital, with a loss of 58 beds for elderly people. Does the Minister not realise that cottage hospitals are much needed and wanted? Why is it that when it comes to hospital modernisation, the Government are willing to put up with certain losses of hospital beds?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman will know that the proposal he mentioned is purely the responsibility of the local health authority at the moment, which sees it in connection with the proposed expansion of phase 2 of the new Llanelli hospital. Clearly, that is not something on which I can comment at present. As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, since 1967—for the past 20 years—there has been a fall in the number of staffed beds in Wales, as the policy of closing beds to keep people in the community has been common to both sides of the House.
    Mrs. Clywd: Does the Minister not realise that the nine area health authorities have already said that if he is unable to fund the nurses' pay award in full they will be between £8 million and £10 million short? Where does the Minister expect them to find that money? Where are they to get it? Will that shortfall mean further ward closures and longer waiting lists? Will he tell the House?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Lady mistook what I first said. I said nothing to the effect that we are not going to fund the nurses' pay award.
    Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that there are 580 people waiting for ENT operations in Prince Charles hospital, Merthyr, alone, and that 80 per cent. of them are children? Is he aware of the distress caused to both children and their parents, who are now being driven to pay for private treatment—often to the consultants who are at the hospital? Does he not think that that is scandalous? Is it not time that he took action?
    Mr. Grist: If the hon. Gentleman is speaking of his own particular hospital, he will be aware that matters there are under investigation by the hospital's own authorities. My Department is keeping a close eye on those investigations.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is it not a fact that, as I have said on a number of occasions, each advance in medical science may increase the length of some waiting lists by enhancing the demand?
    Mr. Grist: That is true. Fifteen years ago one would not have had a waiting list for hip operations, because the operating method was unknown them.

    Mentally-Ill Patients
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of mentally-ill patients in Wales who have spent more than three months in (a) mental hospitals and (b) psychiatric wards in general hospitals.
    Mr. Grist: On 5 April 1987, the latest date for which this information is available, there were 2,680 patients in mental illness hospitals and units in Wales who had been resident for more then three months. Equivalent information is not available centrally in respect of patients cared for in general hospitals.
    Mr. Wardell: Does the Minister accept that Wales has one of the worst statistical records for the percentage of mentally-ill patients who are treated in general hospitals' psychiatric wards, as opposed to hospitals for the mentally ill in the Principality? The World Health Organisation has clearly pointed out that fact. What measures is the Minister taking to correct that imbalance and to remove the stigma that so many of our people suffer by being treated in mental] illness hospitals? For example, in West Glamorgan there is not a single bed in a psychiatric general hospital for the treatment of the mentally ill.
    Mr. Grist: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that, unfortuntely, mental illness still carries with it considerable stigma. That must change if we are to make a success of developing those locally based services of which I spoke earlier. That is our determination, and I think that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister share our concern that the poll tax may be the deciding factor in forcing families no longer to accommodate mentally-ill members of their own family, thus not only breaking up families, but increasing the burden on our psychiatric hospitals? How does the Minister reconcile the increased burden of the poll tax with the Government's professed aim of keeping mentally-ill people in the community?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman will know that the sort of people of whom he speaks will be disabled and therefore will not pay the poll tax.
    Mr. John: Does the Minister recognise that we all share the desire for a number of people in mental hospitals to be discharged into the community, but that that is not a cheap option? Can he tell me how much has been paid for the care and support of such people within the community following the Government's initiative, and how many places have been created within the community as a result of that initiative?
    Mr. Grist: I am not able to give the exact figures, but the hon. Gentleman is right: it is not a cheap option. According to the figures that I have, we are spending some £110 million a year on mental illness services, £65 million of which goes on the nine large hospitals in Wales.

    Sport and Recreation
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's proposals for private management of sports grounds, leisure and recreation facilities, in so far as they affect (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales.
    Mr. Grist: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 1 July.
    Mr. Jones: I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. Is he aware that the average deficit for a swimming pool in the Principality is £200,000? Attempting to make a profit in those circumstances is likely to mean having to cut staff or otherwise risk the safety of the pool's users. Has the Minister taken that into account?
    Mr. Grist: Certainly. All safety measures will have to be maintained by anyone who takes on a contract to run a swimming pool. That is absolute an in law.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my hon. Friend watch the position with some care? Is he aware that there is legitimate concern in many quarters about the possible consequences of privatising the sports centres, which could result in the introduction of fruit machines and other such undesirable intrusions into what should be a public amenity?
    Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that the management of these facilities will be under the control of the local authorities. People have not understood that, for instance, pricing and admission policies will also be something that the local authorities can lay down at the outset.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Does the Minister recognise that we are probably unanimous in the House in our deep concern at the exessive drinking, drug taking, vandalism and hooliganism among the young? Does he agree that there are enormous social gains to be made if, by providing positive activities for the young, we can reduce any of those crucial problems?
    Does the Minister accept in this context that merely fiddling with the management of existing facilities is irrelevant to, and a diversion from, the real problem, which is the need to provide more resources and facilities that are directly relevant to the needs of the young? What meaningful proposals has he to make?
    Mr. Grist: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would notice, for instance, the sprouting

    775
    around Wales of enormous numbers of leisure centres, which are a very new development. They will remain available, and the pricing and admission policies will remain in the hands of the local authorities when they lay down the contracts. Those who run such facilities will have an absolute incentive to persuade as many people as possible to take advantage of them, whereas at present they have no such incentive.

    Housing
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he will take to improve the quality and quantity of housing for rent in Wales at affordable prices; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Grist: The Government are seeking to improve the quantity and quality of housing available for rent principally by taking action to stimulate the development of the private sector, and by increasing the investment in housing association schemes.
    We are also taking steps to improve the management of rented accommodation in the public sector and providing new safeguards for private sector tenants against harassment.
    Mr. Michael: Does the Minister accept that the private rented sector now deals with only about 6 per cent. of households in Cardiff, and that there has been an increase of well over one third in the number of homelessness presentations in the capital city? Does he accept that there is a desperate need for the Government to give positive support to the council house sector if those homelessness figures are not to continue to escalate and the council house waiting list is not to continue to lengthen? Would it not be appropriate for the Minister to assure us that finances will be made available, not only for management, but for an increase in the number of houses in the public sector to meet that desperate need?
    Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the fact that the provision of private rented accommodation is too low. It has been sat on and harried for many years. We wish to bring that to an end and to expand both the private sector and the housing association movement. Local authorities ought to look after their stock and keep it in good repair. A great deal of publicly owned housing has fallen into serious disrepair and we have urged local councils to spend money on repairing it. Local councils are free to build, and they are doing so.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister failed to answer the key question, which is how much housing there will be for rent in Wales at affordable prices. Does the Housing Bill provide a guarantee to tenants that rented accommodation will cost no more than 20 per cent. of their income? If the Minister cannot say that it does, the promises in the Housing Bill are as nothing and will not meet the demand all over Wales for cheap, decent rented housing.
    Mr. Grist: We believe that social housing, or affordable rents, will be available through the housing association movement in particular. Housing benefit will be available to all who are paying rents at or below the market level.
    Mr. Wigley: The Minister has referred several times to housing associations, but in areas such as Gwynedd and Dyfed house prices are escalating so rapidly that housing
    776
    associations are finding it next to impossible, given the bureaucratic procedures, to compete in the market place and acquire housing. What additional provision does the Welsh Office intend to make available to housing associations to enable them to undertake the vital role to which the Minister referred?
    Mr. Grist: That is why we are making £60 million available this year to the Housing Corporation in Wales. I think that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the establishment of Housing for Wales, a body which will be able to take into account the factors to which he referred.

    Hospitals
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hospitals he has visited in Wales since 1 January.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I have visited two hospitals and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has visited four.
    Mr. Jones: When the Minister makes his visits, is he apprised of the serious national shortage of speech therapists and physiotherapists? Will he dwell on the distress and upset in many homes that shelter within them children who, when in language units at school, do not have sufficient time devoted to their speech defects? I ask the Minister to call an all-Wales conference, to give extra money to the health authorities and to give a lead in helping very distressed families.
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have increased the number of speech therapists in Wales and the money that is being spent on speech therapy. However, I recognise that this is an important area and that parents feel anxious and aggrieved. I should like the improvement to be continued.
    Dr. Marek: When does the Minister intend to keep the promise made by the Under-Secretary of State for Wales that by last spring nobody in Wales should have to wait more than a month for an urgent operation?
    Mr. Walker: I am glad to say that there has been a substantial improvement, unlike the sharp deterioration that occurred in the year before this Government took office.
    Mr. Alan Williams: On the Secretary of State's visits to various hospitals he will no doubt have noticed the shortage of nurses. Since the recent review exercise had, as part of its purpose, giving proper pay to nurses to ensure that they no longer left the profession and—equally important—to ensure that recruitment was improved to make up for shortages, has any provision been made to meet the costs of filling vacant nursing posts and, if so, precisely how much?
    Mr. Walker: That will vary from one district health authority to another, but the right hon. Gentleman must be very pleased that there are at least 13 per cent. more nurses today than there were when we took office.

    Sport and Recreation
    Mr. Rogers: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to improve the sporting leisure and

    777
    recreational facilities available to the people of (a) Rhondda, (b) the valleys of South Wales and (c) Wales as a whole.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Central Government support to sporting, leisure and recreational facilities is provided primarily through the Sports Council for Wales, the Welsh Arts Council and the Wales Tourist Board. Urban programme support will also be available for worthwhile projects. Developments in the Rhondda and other South Wales valleys will be given added impetus by the recently announced specific programmes announced in the Valleys programme.
    Mr. Rogers: Last week, in the debate on sport, the Minister drew attention to the enormous increase in the use of sporting and leisure activities in the past 10 years. After an intervention, and with some bad grace, he acknowledged that that was due to the efforts of local authorities. Will the Secretary of State now acknowledge the enormous contribution made by local authorities in the development of leisure and recreational activities? Will he give an assurance that the facilities in Wales will remain in public hands and not he ripped off for private profits?
    Mr. Walker: They will certainly remain in public hands. I am delighted that the various organisations and the servicing of them will be compared with private tenders, but they will remain in public hands. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted at the announcement of the £8·26 million of capital grant in the next three financial years for various leisure and sporting facilities, which will make quite an impact. Of course, local authorities make a major contribution. I am sure that local authorities in Wales are relieved that in recent years 66 per cent. of that contribution was financed by central Government.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to welcome the new pub hours due to be introduced in Wales by 1 September? Does he acknowledge that the introduction of the Licensing Act will not only add greatly to the facilities available for recreation and leisure in Wales but will enable the courts to crack down on under-age drinking?
    Mr. Walker: I certainly welcome any proposals that enable the courts to crack down on under-age drinking.

    Enterprise Education
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the provision of enterprise education in Wales.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The "Survey of Enterprise Education and School Industry Links," by Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools, which was published earlier this month, confirms that the enterprise culture is taking hold in Wales. Nearly 90 per cent. of all Welsh secondary schools are now involved in some form of enterprise education, with more than 70 per cent. specifically involved in mini-enterprise activities.
    The HMI report suggests that in the best schemes enterprise education has helped to relate the curriculum to industrial and commercial activities and to the local community. Pupils acquire an awareness of the world of business through practical experience and develop personal abilities and initiative.
    Mr. Jones: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Is he satisfied that the business community is now ready to play its new full role in the governance of schools and colleges?
    Mr. Roberts: Certainly the business community has reacted extremely well to the industry-schools initiative of 1986. There is a very prominent role for the business community in the governance of schools. Some 25 per cent. of the governors of local authority colleges are required to be representatives of the business community for the future.
    Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister agree that in encouraging enterprise in education, which is very desirable, one must take the greatest care not to affect the public service ethic, which is the foundation of all proper education, including the conduct of all our public examinations at GCSE level? In particular, does he agree that the activities of academic racketeers, such as Mr. William Hoole, the principal at New college, Cardiff, who has shown a great deal of enterprise but not very much ethic, are thoroughly undesirable? Does he also agree that if he were to study the dossier of allegations of misconduct in GCSE, O and A-level examinations at that college he would see that students were being given tip-offs about which subjects were coming up in A and O-level practical examinations, that atlases were being taken into examinations when that was not allowed under Welsh Joint Education Committee rules, and other examples of ways in which the public service ethic would be very seriously affected if that kind of thing were continued?
    Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is confusing at least two matters. With regard to the situation at New college, Cardiff, he is well aware that I have asked him to submit to me any information that he has. The premises will be visited by Her Majesty's inspectors for the second time in the coming year.
    On the hon. Gentleman's other point, of course education is a public service, whether it is provided by the private sector or the maintained sector. I am sure he will agree that an important part of education is that children should be introduced to the world of work.

    Welsh Parliament
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the establishment of a Welsh parliament since June 1987.
    Mr. Peter Walker: In the past year I have received only two letters specifically asking for a Welsh parliament.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the response by the people of Wales to Opposition Members' demands shows that they recognise the importance of being fully represented in this House and that they do not wish to see another tier of government added to the burden on the Welsh people? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the new-found interest of Opposition Members is merely a recognition of their impotence?
    Mr. Walker: In fairness, my hon. Friend must specify which Opposition Members have one view and which have another. The last official view of the Opposition was in their manifesto, which said:
    "Wales is an integral part of the United Kingdom. Labour rejects any proposals which would separate Wales in any way from the rest of Britain."

    779
    I trust that after his triumphant return from Zimbabwe the Leader of the Opposition will make clear the Labour party's position.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State accept that since 1979 thousands of people in Wales who voted no on that occasion have seen the potential merit of having a directly elected Welsh body, namely, that the responsibilities of the Welsh Office would come under the control of people elected in Wales who would answer to the people of Wales? If there were sufficient evidence from Wales that there was a strong desire for an elected tier of democracy there, would he for ever more pitch his heart against it?
    Mr. Walker: I noted the result of the last referendum on the subject. In fairness, the hon. Gentleman has remained consistent on the issue as has his party. Indeed, it is the main purpose of his party. The Conservative party has also remained consistent on the issue. The only party that changes its view from time to time is the Labour party.
    Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend propose to invite the Leader of the Opposition for discussions on this important matter on his return from Zimbabwe? Does he think that the Leader of the Opposition will have learnt anything of interest from his visit to Zimbabwe that will help the Welsh people, or does he believe that he will be so upset by what happened to him there that he will be incapable of any discussions on anything?
    Mr. Walker: I do not wish to join my hon. Friend in that sort of allegation. I happen to be one of the leaders of the belief that we must preserve the present Leader of the Opposition at all costs.

    Ogwr Borough (Development)
    Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much extra finance is available for any new development in the Ogwr borough area from his Valleys initiative programme.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The level of expenditure in Ogwr will depend to a large extent on the number and quality of projects which come forward from local authorities, industrialists and others in the area over the three years of the Valleys programme. But, there is no doubt the area will benefit. For example, in 1988–89 expenditure on derelict land clearance in the hon. Gentleman's constituency is forecast to be some £400,000—over 50 per cent. up on last year; Welsh Development Agency expenditure on factory building will be about £500,000 compared with nothing at all last year; and urban programme allocations to Ogwr borough council in 1988–89 total some £1·2 million—about 20 per cent. more than last year. In addition, I shall shortly be announcing a new experimental scheme based in the Bridgend area which will aim to improve the link between small businesses and private investors.
    Mr. Powell: Is the Secretary of State aware of the Welsh Institute of Directors' statement last Saturday? Clearly, they are appalled at his suggestion that the Valleys initiative will do anything without cash back-up? Can he explain to the House whether there is any new money for his new initiative? I remind him that in the Ogwr borough
    780
    area the only new initiative announced is the refurbishment of the Blaengarw working men's hall. The other proposals offered for Ogwr were already on the books long before he announced his Valleys initiative.
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman's constituency benefits massively from the enormous increase in factory building and derelict land clearance. The trouble is that the hon. Gentleman is horrified at the substantial improvements taking place in the valleys.

    Tenants' Choice
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his proposals for tenants' choice in Wales, in the light of the publication by the Secretary of State for the Environment of a document setting out the position in England.
    Mr. Grist: Exactly the same principles will govern the implementation of tenants' choice in Wales as will govern it in England. Once Housing for Wales has been established, it will take over the functions of the Housing Corporation in this regard, as in others, but will continue to apply the same principles. I am today issuing similar guidance to that which has been issued in England. Copies of the guidance are available in the Vote Office.
    Mr. Griffiths: What consultations did the Minister undertake with local authorities in Wales before publishing the guidelines? Will he explain how he foresees this initiative increasing the amount of housing available for people in Wales?
    Mr. Grist: The initiative increases tenants' choice. Labour Members have always opposed people's right to buy their houses or to have the landlords of their choice. The Labour party is not the party of freedom and choice for the individual.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    County Palatine
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next proposes to visit the County Palatine on official duties.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I frequently visit the County Palatine, and I expect to make more visits in the autumn.
    Mr. Pike: When the Chancellor next visits Lancashire, will he get away from the wining-and-dining circuit, visit north-east Lancashire, look at the difficulties of people being unable to get housing grants and of the problems that will arise as a result of the poll tax? If he meets ordinary Lancashire folk, he will find that the Government have been a disaster for Lancashire. Will he use his office to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to do something about the problems?
    Mr. Clarke: I wine and dine on quite a modest scale in Lancashire and meet many straightforward Lancashire folk. My experience of the county is that at present it is going through an extremely successful period. East Lancashire is experiencing one of the most sustained falls

    781
    in unemployment that the area has known for a long time. That is likely to continue as long as the British economy is doing so well.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the people of Lancashire take a very positive view of life, as he does himself? They resent Labour Members' denigration of a county that is flourishing. The only fly in the ointment is the high level of rates that has been levied since the Labour party took control of the council. Rates have almost doubled since it took over. Apart from that, it is a super county.
    Mr. Clarke: I agree that Lancashire is proving especially successful in attracting new investment and jobs, even in the constituency of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). The Burnley and Pendle development corporation has been doing very good work over the past two years. The fly in the ointment in parts of Lancashire has been the excessive spending of councils, which has resulted in high rates for local industry. Even some of the councils are beginning to learn the lesson.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Publications
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list the publications for which the Church Commissioners are responsible.
    The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners (Mr. Michael Alison): The commissioners' publications include their annual report and accounts, their report as the central stipends authority and, in partnership with the Central Board of Finance, "Crockford's Directory", and a three-yearly report on the Church's finances. The commissioners also publish a variety of material for information on such matters as parochial fees, the parochial expenses of the clergy and other matters for which they have some responsibility.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for his courteous reply. In considering the publications programme, will the Church Commissioners bear in mind the yearning of the British people for a moral lead? When they consider whether to publish the works of the Bishop of Durham, will they bear in mind that many of us would be reluctant to see my right hon. Friend charged with the once capital crime of heresy?
    Mr. Alison: I note carefully what my hon. Friend says. The utterances of the Bishop of Durham are as likely to find themselves recorded in the columns of Hansard as in any Church Commissioners' report. The utterances, teachings and moral exhortations of bishops and other clergy occur regularly at parish and diocesan level, where they are most valued and most effective.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it true that sentences of consecration must be issued on cemetary land and that such sentences were issued on the three cemetaries sold by Westminster city council? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those sentences of consecration prevent the sale of such land to property speculators? Will he confirm that the consistory court of the diocese—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question must be related to publications.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman instigate an inquiry into these matters?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question which, although profoundly relevant to many aspects of life and death, is outside my remit.

    Pensions and Lump Sum Payments
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, how much the Church Commissioners will be asked to contribute per head, in lump sums and in pension payments, to bishops and clergymen who opt out of holy orders in the event of the ordination of women; how many bishops and clergy are expected to be involved; at what estimated total cost; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: The draft legislation concerning the ordination of women and the related financial provisions is now awaiting consideration by a revision committee. I shall arrange for details of the payment provisions, as the legislation is at present drafted, to be published in the Official Report, but I can say that the cost per 100 men is estimated at some £3 million spread over five years. No reliable estimate can be made of the numbers who might resign.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a substantial number of men have said that they will leave holy orders in the Church of England in the event of the ordination of women, thereby creating a major schism within the Church? Will my right hon. Friend seek talks with the Church Commissioners to ensure that any men who exercise their right to leave holy orders are thoroughly compensated, as they should be?
    Mr. Alison: The details of possible compensation are already under scrutiny, as my answer revealed. My hon. Friend must bear in mind that there must be another election of the General Synod in 1990 before any irrevocable decision can be taken on the ordination of women. Such a decision is a long way off and far from certain at this stage.
    Following is the information:
    Under the draft Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure, a diocesan bishop would receive a lump sum loan of £15,990, a resettlement grant of £1,700 and periodic payments of £7,995 per annum for up to five years according to age. An incumbent would receive a lump sum loan of £15,990, a resettlement grant of £1,700 and periodic payments of £5,330 per annum for up to five years according to age.
    The total cost per 100 men is estimated at some £3 million spread over five years. Half of that relates to loans, which would be repayable from the lump sum payable at retirement age.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Auditors (Payment)
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission what is the total sum paid to

    783
    outside auditors by the National Audit Office for each of the last five years; and how many private sector audit practices were in receipt of such payments.
    Sir Peter Hordern (The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The main National Audit Office contracts for audit work placed with firms engaged in private sector audit practice amounted to £53,000—including VAT—in 1984–85 involving two firms. The figure for 1988–89 is estimated at £139,000. The number of firms involved this year is three. I have arranged for full details for the five years covered by the question to appear in the Official Report.
    Mr. Field: Can my hon. Friend really be satisfied with those figures, given the substantial size of the National Audit Office? Should we not look for a much greater proportion of the audit work being put out to the private sector?
    Sir Peter Hordern: It is open to the National Audit Office and the Comptroller and Auditor General, who has complete authority in these matters, to decide just how much work should be put out to the private sector. The Comptroller and Auditor General recognises the importance of the work being carried out in the private sector to help his auditors gain experience of the private sector market, as is happening increasingly.
    Following are the figures:
    The main National Audit Office contracts with firms engaged in private sector audit practice have been as follows:

    Year

    Total Contract Value (including VAT) £

    Number of firms

    1984–85

    53,000

    2

    1985–86

    81,000

    4

    1986–87

    88,00

    2

    1987–88

    97,000

    2

    1988–891

    139,000

    3

    1 Estimate.

    These contracts cover the audit of NAO's own accounts and audit work on other organisations' accounts on behalf of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

    Commission Meetings
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission when the Public Accounts Commission last met; and what matters were discussed.
    Sir Peter Hordern: The Commission's last meeting was held on Tuesday 12 July, when the subjects discussed included the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the salary of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General. The Commission also agreed a report on its recent activities. The report was published this morning.
    Mr. Allen: Does the hon. Gentleman have any comment to make on the respective salary levels that obtain within the Public Accounts Commission, especially for Northern Ireland, where the situation is difficult?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I have to report to the House that the Commission is not satisfied with the Government's attitude towards the salary of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General, which has been both
    784
    obstructive and negative. Ministers must understand that the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor General, whether here or in Northern Ireland, is vital to the proper execution of his duties. When I tell the House that it was seriously suggested that the Northern Ireland Civil Service should help to assess what the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General should be paid by way of salary, I think the House will appreciate how unsatisfactory the present position is.
    Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General did absolutely invaluable work in bringing forward the facts of the De Lorean scandal and making them known to the House? Is it not disgraceful that Ministers have left matters as they are? I know that my hon. Friend and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission have made a personal approach to Ministers, but will my hon. Friend go back to them again and insist that they take early action?
    Sir Peter Hordern: Yes, we shall do that.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the salaries of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland and of the Comptroller and Auditor General seem to be largely determined by the views of the Civil Service? As their function is to monitor and control expenditure by civil servants, that is a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs. Will the hon. Gentleman accept the strong support of the House for the action that he is taking?
    Sir Peter Hordern: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. What is particularly sad about the present impasse is that the common purpose that has existed for more than 100 years between this House and the National Audit Office has now been called into question. It is absolutely essential that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be seen to be independent of the Government and that his salary should not be directly related to any particular service or grade in the Civil Service. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we hope to have further discussions with the Government.
    Sir Barney Hayhoe: Will my hon. Friend take note of the general view of the House on this matter, which is clearly in support of the strong, but wholly appropriate, language that my hon. Friend used about the Government's attitude to the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland? It is very important, and I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that he makes the strongest renewed representations to Ministers asking them to think again.
    Sir Peter Hordern: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. I shall certainly do that. The trouble is that the affairs of the Public Accounts Commission are not widely known, and I would therefore commend to the House the report of the Commission, which appeared today.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Medical Facilities
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to improve the medical facilities open to Members and staff of the House.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to join me in paying tribute to the work of the nursing sister. The medical facilities of the House are kept under continuous review, with improvements being made from time to time on the advice of medical experts. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular point in mind, I suggest that in the first instance he should contact either my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Sir G. Vaughan) or the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie).
    Mr. Wareing: Does the Lord President of the Council realise that, notwithstanding the marvellous work done by the nursing sister, no other medical staff are available on a full-time basis either to the House of Commons or to Members of the other place? Should there not be medical staff, and should we not make provision for them to consider the health hazards and problems of Members and staff who work in this place? Heaven knows, with this Government introducing so much legislation, it is a wonder that there are still so many well people in this place.
    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It only adds to the time.
    Mr. Wareing: It is ludicrous that it should be the will of the electorate that determines how many members of the medical profession we have in this place. At the moment we happen to have one hon. Member on either side of the House who is a medical practitioner. Should there not be a more permanent arrangement than that?
    Mr. Wakeham: I agree that there could be a case for the review of a medical surveillance scheme for hon. Members. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least discuss his ideas with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.
    I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to Dr. Snashall, who operates the present service, and to his predecessor Dr. Gage. Provisions for dealing with emergencies of the kind that the hon. Gentleman may have in mind have been made on the advice of the Civil Service medical adviser and have included the training of a number of qualified first-aiders among the staff. In addition, we are fortunate in having a number of excellent hospitals nearby.
    Mr. Couchman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is to be a tug-of-war this evening between Members of the House and Members of the other place in aid of the Macmillan fund, which is an excellent charity? What arrangements has my right hon. Friend made to ensure that medical facilities are on hand in case of accidents in this perilous venture?
    Mr. Wakeham: I sincerely hope that no special arrangements will be required. I have seen some of the hon. Members who are taking part in the tug-of-war and they look pretty fit to me.

    Palace of Westminster (Passes)
    Mr. Chapman: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received about the number of passes issued to gain access to the Palace of Westminster, about the case for the numbers to be limited and about the feasibility of limiting pass holders to more restricted areas of the Palace.
    Mr. Wakeham: Since 10 November 1987, when the House resolved that the Services Committee should consider the control of access to the precincts of the House, I have received one letter from an hon. Member and answered 10 parliamentary questions on matters relating to the number of passes issued.
    In addition to that, during the course of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee's inquiry into access to the precincts of the House the Sub-Committee took oral evidence on four occasions and received some 35 memoranda. The Sub-Committee has just completed that inquiry and intends to publish the report, which encompasses, among other issues, numbers of passes, their limitation and the question of controlled areas, on Monday 25 July.
    Mr. Chapman: In view of my right hon. Friend's reply, I shall wait to read with interest the report of the Select Committee. In the meantime, could my right hon. Friend assure the House that the deliberations and proposals of this Committee will be based not only on grounds of security but on the simple fact that the Palace has limited facilities for a limited number of people and that, on the space factor alone, more restrictions will be necessary?
    Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the force of my hon. Friend's point. However, I recommend that he awaits publication of the report.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Leader of the House confirm that there are no fewer than 140 Government press officers with passes to this building which give them access to the Press Gallery, and that that means that there is one Government press officer for every three journalists entitled to get into the Press Gallery? Is that because Ministers are incapable of explaining the Government's policies?
    Mr. Wakeham: It is because they are capable of explaining their good policies and because they have plenty to say that, from time to time, press officers are required in the House. The hon. Gentleman is being mischievous if he thinks that the 140 are here together at any one time, because there are many Government Departments. The hon. Gentleman has some knowledge of these matters. I suggest that he awaits publication of the report, which he played some part in preparing.

    Dining Rooms (China and Cutlery)
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many pieces of (a) china and (b) cutlery are estimated to have been removed without authority

    787
    from House of Commons Dining Rooms in each of the past five years; at what cost to public funds; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Wakeham: The average cost per annum over the last five-year period of purchases of tableware amounted to £43,000, which represents approximately 2 per cent. of the Refreshment Department's annual turnover. These purchases were substantially to cover general wear and tear. It is not possible to give a breakdown.
    Mr. Greenway: It is annoying that we cannot have a breakdown of the figures for china. In view of the high cost of the replacement of china and cutlery—items of which are usually taken as souvenirs—will my right hon. Friend save the taxpayers' money by electronically tagging all china and cutlery? Will he consider issuing plastic knives, forks and spoons stamped with the House of Commons crest to all visitors, so that they can take them away with them?
    Mr. Wakeham: As usual, my right hon. Friend comes up with novel and interesting suggestions. I am not sure that the losses that we incur, although we want to keep them down to a minimum, are out of line with those for a busy Department. I shall refer my hon. Friend's suggestion to the General Manager of the Refreshment Department.
    Mr. Rees: Will the Leader of the House take account of what is done in one of the most expensive restaurants in London? As so much expensive cutlery is stolen, the men who attend the table now add the cost of it to the bill and, because the people who steal it are so ashamed, the issue is not raised? The owner of the restaurant says that he covers his account every year in that way.
    Mr. Wakeham: I do not know whether the 2 per cent. is added to the bill anyway, but I do not agree with that suggestion. The 2 per cent. is not an unreasonable figure. Again, I shall refer the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion to the head of the Refreshment Department.
    Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend accept a little advice from me? If he were to send a runner round the offices of Members of Parliament in this and other
    788
    buildings, he would find any number of cups, saucers, knives, spoons and forks, which have not been permanently removed, but have been taken, as a matter of convenience, when hon. Members have been sitting late through the night, and have then been left there. Rather than cast aspersions on the integrity of visitors to the House, he might follow that suggestion. I have two items in my office.
    Mr. Wakeham: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that he returns them forthwith; and, if other hon. Members have any, perhaps they could return them, too.

    Select Committees
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has for reviewing the work of the Select Committees.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have no present proposals for any such review.
    Mr. Dalyell: If a Government want to bury an inconvenient Select Committee report, what better than to have it published in the fourth week of July, preferably to coincide with a royal wedding or tercentencary celebrations? Now that we have a 10-minute rule for speeches, would it not be a good idea to debate each Select Committee report for at least half a day on the 10-minute basis for speeches? Would that not give some added point to the hard work that colleagues of all parties do in Select Committees?
    Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept that any Select Committee report that the hon. Gentleman finds interesting has been buried as a result of any Government activities. He should know that that is not the case. All Select Committee reports are available for comment. It is a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure, in the first instance, to consider whether arrangements for debating Select Committee reports could be changed.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the application under Standing Order No. 20 first.

Nelson Mandela
3.31 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the continuing imprisonment of Nelson Mandela and the urgent need to secure his immediate release on the occasion of his 70th birthday."
Yesterday, in Hyde park, a quarter of a million people heard Archbishop Tutu make the most impassioned appeal for the release of Nelson Mandela. Yesterday morning, at Canterbury cathedral, Archbishop Runcie made a speech about the dangers of racialism in the world.
Nelson Mandela is one of the most courageous world leaders. He has spent 26 years in prison. I, among many others, took part in the demonstrations at the time of the Rivonia trial when he was imprisoned for life. He is a symbol of the black people and of many white people in South Africa. His release has been demanded by many nations and national leaders across the world, the United Nations Security Council, the Commonwealth, the EEC Heads of State and the Churches, and has wide support across the House.
It is especially appropriate for the House to devote some time to this issue, in view of the historic and economic links with South Africa and the fact that it is Nelson Mandela's birthday. It is urgent because his continued detention is one of the factors leading to a daily loss of life in South Africa and his release would give fresh hope.
The House has adjourned to mark the death of great world statesmen. I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to allow the House to prevent the death of a great nation by the continued violence against Nelson Mandela.
I know very well the formula from which you, Mr. Speaker, read in rejecting applications under Standing Order No. 20, but I ask you to set those words aside today and to grant the request which may be effective in saving life as well as in honouring a great man wrongly imprisoned for great principles which are important to the future of the world.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the continued imprisonment of Mr. Nelson Mandela and the urgent need for further Government action to secure his immediate release on the occasion of his 70th birthday."
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am enjoined, under the Standing Order, not to give reasons for my decision but to take careful note of the criteria laid down in the Standing Order. I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Rover Group
3.34 pm
Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the statement by Mr. Graham Day this afternoon that he and the Rover board propose to close two Rover plants in the next year or so".
The matter is specific because Mr. Day has made no bones about his intention to close the Cowley south and Llanelli plants, with the loss of 4,900 jobs, very much along the lines of which many of us warned last week when two ministerial statements were made on the subject of Rover. This matter is also specific in that Mr. Day has indicated an established timetable for the carrying out of the closures.
The matter is clearly important, not only to the local economies and the people whose jobs will be destroyed but to the future of what remains of the British-controlled volume car industry. In effect, this development signals the end of that industry. It solves the puzzle of why the Rover corporate plan was regarded as a matter of such contention by the Government, the EEC Commission and British Aerospace. We now know why British Aerospace regarded it not as "neither important nor material", as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster maintained, but as an essential precondition to going ahead with privatisation. It is also important because one of the avowed intentions of the sale is to take the future of the British car industry out of the remit of the House and put it into the hands of those who will consider only commercial factors.
The matter requires urgent consideration because we have had two ministerial statements on Rover in the past week, neither of which ventured upon this development or gave any inkling that it was in store. In the light of Mr. Day's statement just two hours ago, we desperately need urgent ministerial clarification. The matter will be resolved one way or the other, presumably during the summer recess, so this may be the last opportunity for the House to consider this important matter. It would be outrageous if we were denied the chance to debate a development of such fateful significance to the British car industry.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the proposed closure by Rover group of two major plants in the next few years".
Again, I have listened with concern to what the hon. Member has said, but I have to give him the same answer as I gave to his right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I regret that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised meets the criteria for granting a debate under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Points of Order
3.37 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. "Erskine May" states that, whenever it seems to you a suitable occasion, you should communicate to the House letters and documents addressed to you as Speaker relating to the rights and privileges of the House or of its Members, such as communications announcing the arrest or imprisonment of a Member. Will you please make an announcement soon? At least half the House wants to know about the return of the bomber-jacketed ambassador for Britain, although sadly that half of the House does not include the Labour party.
Mr. Speaker: I have received no notification about that, and it is not a matter for me.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the speakers at yesterday's great demonstration in Hyde park was the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. On behalf of the Commonwealth, he made a very clear statement that the Commonwealth and all its members were in favour of the release of Nelson Mandela. On that basis, why cannot we have a debate on the subject in the House of Commons? [Interruption.] With respect, Mr. Speaker, is it not time that the yobbos on the Conservative Benches were kept in order?
In view of the statements made by Archbishop Tutu, Bishop Huddlestone—who has done more than anyone for peace, friendship and reconciliation—and the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, is it not possible to have a debate today? This is a very important day. Nelson Mandela is 70 years of age today and has spent 25 years in prison—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may think that this is a joke, but we do not.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the whole House treats this matter with great concern. [Interruption.] I do anyway. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have difficult decisions to take on Standing Order No. 20 applications about whether they meet the criteria. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any reasons for my decision.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not on the matter that I have already dealt with.
Mr. Forth: You, Mr. Speaker, are the custodian of this House and of its Members, and I know that from time to time you have contact with the Speakers of other Parliaments, particularly those in the Commonwealth. Have you made it your business to he in touch with the Speaker of the Parliament of Zimbabwe over recent distressing incidents involving a Member of the House?
Mr. Speaker: I have not been in touch with that Speaker, but I hope to have the pleasure of meeting him this week during the Commonwealth Speakers' conference.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You said that you would take very seriously indeed the issue of Nelson Mandela being kept in prison. As you know, it is 26 years since he went to prison, and today he celebrates his 70th birthday. We are a founder member of the Commonwealth, and every Commonwealth Parliament has passed motions deploring the continued detention of Nelson Mandela. I should like to ask for your advice on two matters.
First, as Speaker of the House, would you be willing to send a message to Nelson Mandela on his 70th birtday? That would be very much in line with the Government's view because they have said that they are against his being kept in prison. If they are against his being kept in prison, why cannot you, on our behalf, as Speaker of the British House of Commons, and because Britain is a member of the Commonwealth, send a message? Secondly, would you be willing to accept a manuscript motion asking you to do what I have just suggested?
Mr. Speaker: I would need to have the authority of the House to do that.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: On page 252 of "Erskine May", footnote 20 says:
"The Speaker's decision on the identity of the Leader of the Opposition is final".
You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that cases of doubt occasionally arise, especially abroad where the "Yesterday in Parliament" programme about proceedings in Parliament is not broadcast. Do you not think that it would be to the benefit of the House if on future tours by Leaders of the Opposition you were to accompany the right hon. Gentleman or were to issue him with a certificate saying, "Believe it or not, this person is actually the Leader of the Opposition"?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we will not reduce our deliberations in this place to a farce.

BILL PRESENTED
  RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF FREE TRADE UNIONISM
  Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Bernie Grant, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Bob Clay, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Pat Wall and Mr. Bill Michie, presented a Bill to repeal the Employment, Employment and Training, Trade Union and Wages Acts 1980 to 1988; to re-enact previous legislation repealed by those Acts, and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 199.]

  Education Reform Bill (Allocation of Time)
  3.43 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr.
  Kenneth Baker): I beg to move,
  That the Order of the House [1st February), as varied by the Order of the House [17th February], be supplemented as follows:

  Education Reform Bill (Allocation of Time)

    Lords Amendments
    1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in two allotted days.
    (2) The allotted days which arc given to those proceedings shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below, the Lords Amendments shall be taken in the order shown in that Table and, subject to the provisions of the Order [1st February], each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of that Table.

    Proceedings

    Allotted day

    Lords Amendments

    Time for conclusion of proceedings

    First day

    Nos. 1 to 6, 8 to 16, 147 to 186, 227, 476, 480 and 557

    6.45 pm

    Nos. 7, 17 to 25, 54, 68, 187, 188, 272, 275 and 537 to 539

    8.15 pm

    Nos. 26 to 38

    9.00 pm

    Nos. 89 to 146 and 189 to 226

    10.45 pm

    Nos. 39 to 53, 55 to 67 and 69 to 88

    11.30 pm

    Nos. 266 to 271, 273, 274 and 276 to 292

    Midnight

    Second day

    Nos. 228 to 265

    6.30 pm

    Nos. 293 to 342

    7.45 pm

    Nos. 343 to 395

    8.30 pm

    Nos. 396 to 437

    9.15 pm

    Nos. 438 to 475, 477 to 479, 481 to 536, 540 to 556 and 558 to 569

    10.00 pm

    2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

    (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

    (b) if Mr. Speaker is satisifed that any remaining Lords Amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue such as is required to be authorised by resolution of the House under Standing Order No. 47 (Certain proceedings relating to public money) and that such charge has not been so authorised, he shall in accordance with Standing Order No. 76(3) (Lords Amendments deemed to be disagreed to) delcare he is so satisfied and shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment;

    (c) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

    (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made
    794
    by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

    (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

    (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, Thai, this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and

    (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

    (d) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

    (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
    Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
    3. Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
    4. The proceedings on any such further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
    5. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

    (a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

    (b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

    (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

    (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

    (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

    Supplemental
    6.—(1) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons.
    (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.
    7.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the Report of such a Committee.
    (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
    (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
    (4) If the proceedings are interrupted at any time by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
    (5) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, is to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
    When the House discussed the guillotine motion in Committee on 1 February, I said that our purpose was to secure an even pattern of debate so that the major issues were properly dealt with. I gave an undertaking to try to ensure that every major matter was given full and measured debate. I said that it was in the interests of all both the Opposition and the Government—that this should happen. We have honoured that commitment. The House has already discussed the Bill for 203 hours and we are about to devote a further two days to it. That will make eight days on the Floor of the House and 22 days in Committee. In addition, the other place has given the Bill close scrutiny during about 150 hours of debate, or 15 days. I have been unable to find any measure since the war that has been more debated or has had more parliamentary time allocated to it.
    Despite the fact that this is a large Bill, each of the clauses that will stand in the final version has received, on average, one and a half hours consideration by Parliament. As a high proportion of clauses are technical in nature, the time spent in discussion of substantive issues has, quite rightly, been very much higher.
    As we reach the closing stages of the Bill, we need this timetable motion to ensure that Parliament's work bears fruit as early as possible. I have always made clear the urgency that the Government attach to the reforms of the Bill. We believe that they will have an enormously beneficial and stimulating effect on our education system. It is vital that they have a chance to begin to make their impact at the earliest opportunity. That is why we shall seek Royal Assent next week.
    I shall illustrate a few of the areas in which there would be significant delay if the Bill were enacted during the spillover period and not before the summer recess.
    First, there is the national curriculum. The provisions now in the Bill and the amendments to be considered by the House later today reflect discussion in Parliament over the past two months. We need to begin consultation over the summer on the draft orders designed to begin the process of bringing the national curriculum into effect from September 1989. I shall be publishing the reports of the science working group and the maths working group, which I know that many throughout the education system and the country will want to comment on. That process of consultation requires the enactment of the Bill, and we want to allow a proper period of time for it.
    Similarly, the National Curriculum Council needs formally to be in being if the consultation is to take place. If the Bill is not on the statute book until the autumn, I cannot set up the NCC with proper statutory duties. That will mean that our preparations for the national curriculum will be delayed for at least a year. So would be the improved standards that we seek to promote through the national curriculum
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Training Commission's TVEI proposals for the curriculum, which
    796
    are 30 per cent. of the 70 per cent. of time that the right hon. Gentleman says should be given to the national curriculum, would be taken up by technology and sciences? The result is that the rest of the national curriculum has to be included in that 40 per cent. period. That means that single subjects such as history and geography could be pushed out completely from any GCSE programme. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the situation for us?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman has come late to the debate. What he says is rubbish. The foundation subjects are laid down clearly in the Bill. That issue will be debated on two occasions later this evening. We want to ensure that the successful work of the technical vocational education initiative since 1983 is implemented in the full curriculum. I made that clear.
    Mr. Graham Allen: I am delighted that the Secretary of State has discovered consultation. I wish him success in the consultation that will take place. Would it not have been better to have had a longer period of consultation last summer? If that had been done, we would not have 569 amendments before us, the purpose of which is to try to make the Bill reasonable.
    Mr. Baker: There was a long process of consultation before the Bill was introduced, which was continued during its consideration in both Houses. Many of the amendments that were accepted in another place reflect the result of that consultation.
    If the passage of the Bill is delayed until the autumn, the national curriculum will be delayed for at least a year and our policy on school admissions will also be delayed. We want parents to be able as soon as possible to take advantage of the improved arrangements that are set out in the Bill. It is clear that the arrangements cannot begin to operate for secondary schools until September 1990. If the Bill is delayed until the autumn, it is likely that those arrangements will be delayed for a further year.
    Mr. Jack Straw: Why?
    Mr. Baker: There is a process of consultation locally on the standard number. The hon. Gentleman should know the Bill by now. We have already issued draft guidance and we must issue final guidance. If the Bill is delayed, final guidance will not be issued until Christmas or beyond.
    There are measures on financial delegation to schools and colleges. Nearly everyone on all sides of the political spectrum agrees with that part of the Bill. We want to see budgets handed down to the schools as soon as possible. However, that would be delayed. We have set a timetable and I have issued draft guidance. The guidance remains draft until the Bill reaches the statute book. If it is delayed, LEAs' proposals will be delayed for at least a year and that would delay implementation for another year.
    Finally, there are amendments relating to the reorganisation of education in inner London. If the Bill was delayed for enactment in the autumn, the transfer of powers to individual boroughs in London would certainly be delayed for another year. That would cause grave concern among Conservative-controlled boroughs. Having met representatives of the Labour-controlled boroughs in London, I am aware that they are very enthusiastic to see the end of the Inner London education authority and to take over its responsibilities. Any delay would spite the Labour party's supporters.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The Secretary of State should not deceive himself by suggesting that the Labour-controlled boroughs in London are enthusiastic about the abolition of ILEA. Like any responsible boroughs, if they are forced to confront the abolition of ILEA, they will be responsible for making adequate educational provision for their children. That is a big difference.
    Mr. Baker: I met leaders of the eight Labour-controlled boroughs in London a week or 10 days ago, and they convinced me that they will enjoy and use the powers to run their own education authorities—powers like those enjoyed by the local authority in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    I now want to refer to the number of amendments tabled in the House of Lords. Some 569 amendments were approved—
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: This point relates to the whole principle of consultation with which the Opposition would agree, particularly if it had been pre-legislative and not just post-legislative. Does the Secretary of State agree that the important Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 16, relating to religious education, are of great significance? However, does he also agree that due to the timing of this—their being passed very recently—it has been impossible for the Secretary of State or hon. Members to consult with those most concerned in the execution of any law that the House may approve?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman will remember the final stages of the Bill before it went to their Lordships, House when there was a debate on religious education. I mentioned several amendments that we were moving then as a result of a debate in this House. Further debates have taken place in the House of Lords on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report in which further changes have been made and voted upon by their Lordships. The first debate after this guillotine motion is agreed will be on those measures and the House will have an opportunity to express its views both corporately and individually, as I recognise that on these matters hon. Members have very strong and possibly different views.
    Nearly 500 of the 569 amendments approved by the other place are technical or consequential—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh, but they need only read through the Amendment Paper—a rather unfamiliar process for many of them—and they will learn that only 75 of the Government amendments can be described as amendments of substance. Of those, 18 were commitments given while the Bill was before this House. Of the remainder, 27 represent Government responses to debates in the other place. That leaves just 30 substantive amendments, not all by any means of great moment introduced solely on the Government's initiative. Some of those respond to concerns voiced during our continuing consultations. As we have said all along, we proposed to respond to those concerns as Opposition Members would know if they had listened to the arguments in Parliament and elsewhere.
    My Department has received more than 25,000 letters from an enormously wide range of people about our proposals. As the principles of the Bill become better known, people have been concentrating increasingly on the detailed way in which it is to be implemented. We have been willing at every stage to amend the Bill, both in
    798
    Committee and on Report. I cite as evidence the fact that the Government accepted more than 40 amendments from members of the other place, including those mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) concerning religious education.
    I noted that over the weekend the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) claimed that many of the amendments increased the Secretary of State for Education and Science's centralising powers. The Opposition have claimed all along that this is a centralising Bill. The truth is the reverse. The fact is that the Opposition dislike many of the measures that will give greater power to parents, governors and head teachers. Above all, they dislike grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges, because they will break the LEA monopoly of free education.
    Mr. Straw: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that there are 415 new central powers in the Bill?
    Mr. Baker: We have had this debate many times, and I say to the hon. Gentleman that many of the powers I have taken are designed to give institutions greater independence and authority. In order to free the polytechnics from local education authorities, I must have powers to free those polytechnics from the LEAs. In order to have grant-maintained schools, I must take powers to provide for a system ensuring that grant-maintained schools will come about. In order to give greater power to parents and parental choice, must take powers to ensure that parental choice will exist.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
    Mr. Baker: In a moment. I have given way a great deal. The more that I give way, the less time there will be in this hour for anybody else. I feel that I should not give way again.
    The hon. Member for Blackburn specifically asked about the powers that the Lords amendments give the Secretary of State. I can give the House examples of some of the amendments that give me extra powers. In financial delegation, we have strengthened the role of the head teacher. That is not increasing the Secretary of State's central power. In religious education, we have established the responsibility of the individual local authority's standing advisory committee on religious education. That is not giving the Secretary of State the power to impose a religious curriculum upon schools. The governors are being given greater control over the timing of the school day. The complaints machinery has been extended to all curriculum powers and duties, including religious education and collective worship. Parents are given a right of appeal against amendment of a statement of special educational need. Those cannot remotely—
    Mr. Dalyell rose—
    Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must say no, because this debate is restricted to one hour.
    I believe that a great deal of the opposition to the guillotine motion is synthetic. All through the debates in Committee the SLD has been making the running in opposition and not the Labour party. If Labour really feels strongly about this measure, where is the Leader of the Opposition? Why is he not leading the campaign against the Bill? We all know where he is—he is on the banks of

    799
    the Limpopo. That is where he is conducting his campaign—on the dark, grey-green, greasy banks of the Limpopo, surrounded by fever-trees.
    Mr. Straw rose—
    Mr. Baker: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, I hope that it is to tell me that the Leader of the Opposition is at this very moment rushing back to this country to attend this debate. Will the hon. Gentleman please tell us at which airport the Leader of the Opposition is landing, and whether we may be sure that he will come here?
    Mr. Straw: I was going to ask the Secretary of State why the Prime Minister is not here to support him.
    Mr. Baker: The Prime Minister will be in the Lobby supporting this Bill today—unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who will still be returning from the Limpopo.
    I have explained why the motion is both necessary and reasonable. It ushers in the final phase of what is undeniably one of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation ever put before Parliament. I commend the motion to the House.
    3.58 pm
    Mr. Jack Straw: The guillotine motion is an abuse of the procedures of the House. It is an example of the elective dictatorship that has become a hallmark of the present Administration. We must deal with 569 Lords amendments today and tomorrow at a rate of 70 seconds per amendment, and with 49 new state powers at a rate of 11 minutes for each power.
    I have heard some poor speeches, but few to match the Secretary of State's speech this afternoon. It was tawdry, specious and inconsequential. The right hon. Gentleman could come up with hardly any argument for not delaying consideration of the Bill and Royal Assent until the autumn Session. He says that we need to obtain Royal Assent in the next week because the national curriculum will be coming into force. He knows very well, however, that, owing to the shortage of teachers, the fact that the curriculum is so ill-prepared and the problems of which my hon. Friend the Member for Methyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has spoken, the curriculum's implementation will in any case be delayed until well into the next decade—long after the right hon. Gentleman has left his present office.
    The right hon. Gentleman talked of the need to get ahead because, he claimed, London borough leaders are enthusiastic for the reorganisation of ILEA. That is simply an untruth for which the right hon. Gentleman should apologise to the House. If that is their view, why did those London borough leaders urge us in March when the Bill was on Report to move an amendment—which was moved—seeking a delay in the implementation of the transfer of ILEA from April 1990 until 1991? It is the borough leaders—of whom, if I may say so, I have rather more knowledge than the Secretary of State—who have been telling us how difficult it would be to secure an effective transfer. They care about the children who will be in their charge, and they will work to do their best whatever circumstances are imposed on them. The simple reality is, however, that they wanted far more time than the Secretary of State has been willing to give them.
    800
    We all acknowledge that in any parliamentary system the side that commands a majority will ultimately see its will carried through, but any effective parliamentary system requires that proposals for legislation be fully and properly discussed so that the nation's elected representatives have a chance to consider Bills carefully and to cross-examine Ministers. The very notion of the rule of law depends on that. Yet this afternoon government by the process of law is being replaced by government by edict.
    Many of the issues raised in the amendments have never been debated here in detail. For example, the carefully constructed bipartisan approach to religious education and worship is to be replaced, through a string of amendments, by a wholly new edifice that many believe is retrograde and will unsettle the 1944 settlement that has kept religious intolerance out of schools for 50 years. Whatever the merits of the amendments—and they will be discussed in the next debate—surely no one can deny that they deserve much more time than two hours when they propose to overturn a settlement that has stood the test of time for 46 years. The unelected representatives in the other place spent days discussing religious education and worship. We are expected to do so for two hours and literally to take it or leave it, with no chance of any serious line-by-line examination.
    Significant changes in the conception of the national curriculum and of testing are written into the Bill. Some are welcome: they show that the Secretary of State has at last understood, however dimly, that his idea of imposing a state syllabus for 90 per cent. of a school's time—as he proposed in the consultative document on 20 July—was based on profound ignorance of how our state education system works or could ever work. However, other aspects of the national curriculum still arouse great controversy and need debate.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, in an intervention, drew the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Manpower Services Commission—or the Training Commission—has proposed new guidelines for schools that are to take the TVEI extension. It is proposed that 30 per cent. of the curriculum in respect of 14-to-16-year-olds should be devoted to technology and to what is described as balanced science. If a school's acceptance of TVEI extension depends on its acceptance of that condition, that leaves only 70 per cent. for all the other core and foundation subjects, for religious education and worship and for all the non-national curriculum subjects. Those who have written to my hon. Friend fear that that could seriously endanger the teaching of history and geography as separate subjects at GCSE level.
    This is a serious issue which needs proper debate, yet we are to have a total of an hour and a quarter to debate the whole of the national curriculum and assessment.
    Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the point.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: It is rubbish.
    Mr. Rowlands: I hope that the Secretary of State's judgment that it is rubbish is right, because we do not want it to happen.
    Given the Secretary of State's assurance that only 70 per cent. will cover the national curriculum core subjects, is it not likely that 14-to-16-year-olds will not be given

    801
    enough time to study subjects such as English literature, geography and history properly? That will jeopardise GCSE subjects, certainly as potential A-level subjects.
    Mr. Straw: I agree. That underlines the fact that there should be more consultation and discussion over the summer before the Bill becomes law, rather than afterwards.
    When the original guillotine motion was debated on 1 February, the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Bill on the future of ILEA was wholly different from their present policy. When we cross-examined the Leader of the House on that occasion, he refused point-blank to admit even that a change of policy was being contemplated, let alone what it was. At that time, the right hon. Members for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) had yet to work their poison on the Secretary of State. Then, individual boroughs were going to opt out where entire councils agreed. Now, ILEA is to be broken up altogether.
    Major changes in the arrangements for ILEA were made in the Lords. The Secretary of State has taken new powers to control education in individual boroughs, and unprecedented powers to veto not only appointments of chief education officers but appointments—I quote from Lords amendment No. 359—
    "to any designated post forming part of the management structure of the council".
    For the first time the Secretary of State—who has told us that he is not centralising power—is taking the power to veto appointments. That applies not just to chief education officers—there was some precedent for that before 1974—but to every other level of the management of an inner London education authority that he so designates.
    We have just half an hour to debate those new powers, and an hour and a half to debate changes in the balloting arrangements for opt-out schools. We have two hours to discuss academic freedom and the funding of universities. To debate city technology colleges, on which there has never been a debate in the House, because the Secretary of State is frit—afraid to discuss his policy—we have just two hours, two years after the policy was first announced.
    Mr. George Walden: I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman say earlier that it was wrong of unelected Members of the other place to tamper with the will of this Chamber in regard to religious education. I take it, therefore, that he will be equally opposed to their tampering with the will of the House in regard to opting-out schools. May I take it that he will support the Government's counter-amendment on those schools?
    Mr. Straw: I am tempted to say that I can now see why the hon. Gentleman retired hurt from the Government. He has not just twisted what I said; he has invented things that I never said. I do not dispute the right of the other place to make amendments. What I am disputing is the right of the Government to force through the House amendments made in the other place without proper discussion. If unelected Members can take days and days to discuss religious education and worship, this House should have the right to do so as well.
    It was Lord Hailsham who developed the phrase "elective dictatorship" to describe Governments who sought more and more power for themselves, with less and less scrutiny of the legislation. We heard this afternoon the classic Stalinist perversion of Marxist-Leninism, the
    802
    argument for the dictatorship of the proletariat: that in order to set people free we must put them in chains. That is the Secretary of State's argument. He says, "I am taking these powers only to set people free." Tell that to a London borough whose appointments will be subject to the Secretary of State's veto. Tell that to any university, or to the Universities Funding Council. They know that they will be subject to the Secretary of State's control. Tell that to an individual academic who is to be fired because he has lost tenure. Tell that to local democratically elected councillors who are losing one power after another to the Secretary of State. But he says that that is all being done in the name of freedom.
    When the Bill was published on 20 November, 175 new powers were written into the Bill. By Third Reading in this place that number had risen to 366, but another 49 new powers have been added to the Bill in the other place—all, the Secretary of State says, in the name of freedom. That makes 415 new powers of central control, a figure with which the Secretary of State did not disagree when I intervened a few moments ago.
    The Bill nationalises our education system. It takes away from local people their power to determine the kind of education that they wish their children to receive. In the autumn the Secretary of Stale is to visit the home of the Stalinist perversion of Marxist-Leninism, the Soviet Union. What a great irony it is that, as the Soviet Union is dismantling its powers of central control over education and the rest of its national life, the Secretary of State is going the other way. When he gets there, I wonder who will teach what to whom? Does he intend to worship at the shrine of Leonid Brezhnev to find out how to exercise these new powers?
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: If the Labour party is so opposed to centralism, why did the last two Labour Governments try to force all local authorities to go comprehensive?
    Mr. Straw: We passed the law, but the person who closed more grammar schools and who opened more comprehensive schools was none other than the Prime Minister when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science. We moved to impose law in that area and only after there had been a decade of change by consent and support for comprehensive education from Conservative authorities as well as from Labour authorities. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that comprehensive education is such a bad idea, why has no Conservative education authority in the country yet dismantled or even sought successfully to dismantle its own comprehensive system?
    The Secretary of State excuses 500 of the 569 amendments by saying that they are all technical and consequential. They are consequential indeed on the Secretary of State's inadequacy and lack of forethought, but that is not an excuse that the House ought to let him get away with. The Secretary of State allowed only 10 weeks for consultation last summer, most of it during the school holidays. We warned at the time that bad law would be the result.
    The Secretary of State has a reputation, although it may be a little tarnished after this afternoon's performance, for public relations. We are told that his internal meetings are dominated by presentational matters. It is a great pity for our children as well as for the making of law that the

    803
    Secretary of State does not spend more time on the content of policy, on thinking things through. These so-called technical amendments are the consequence of giving officials and parliamentary counsel neither the time nor the instructions to do a proper job in the first place. Hon. Members who will be detained later this week on the poll tax Bill by having to discuss hundreds of technical amendments should reflect on the fact that it is this Secretary of State, not the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is ultimately responsible for that mess, too—of selling to a sceptical Cabinet and sceptical party a policy that got the Conservative party out of a small, temporary, presentational difficulty, only to lead to a much greater permanent policy catastrophe.
    Nine years into government this Administration still lack a coherent well-thought-out policy for the education of all our children. We saw that during the last general election campaign when the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister disagreed so violently and publicly on opt-out schools. We have seen it since on testing, on academic freedom, and on religious education as Cabinet government is replaced by Downing street rule by aides and advisers, when the Secretary of State almost literally has to busk, to make things up as he goes along, when he is not told what to do. The approach that is so publicly humiliating to the Chancellor of the Exchequer today, with Downing street-inspired stories of the resurrection of Sir Alan Walters as economic adviser to Downing street, has already operated on the Secretary of State, for the mark of the Prime Minister's policy adviser, Professor Brian Griffiths—unelected and unaccountable—can be seen on page after page of the Bill.
    When the original guillotine was imposed on 1 February, the Leader of the House admitted that there was no justification for that abuse of power. He said:
    "I am not complaining about the rate of progress;… I am not suggesting that there has been any filibustering"—[Official Report, 1 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 726.]
    There was no justification then for a guillotine. There is even less justification today. We are dealing with the education of 7 million children and their futures. We owe it to them to get things right.
    On Thursday my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that
    "there are no action replays of childhood."—[Official Report, 14 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 557.]
    Authoritarian rule is not only offensive to democracy. In the end it is profoundly inefficient because so often it gets things wrong. This motion is an offence to democracy, and it is an offence to our children. It must be opposed.
    4.16 pm
    Mr. James Pawsey: In the light of the Education Act 1976, I must say that the comments of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science taking powers was a bit rich. We can recall, if he cannot remember, that it was that Act that took powers from local education authorities. But this Bill, when it is enacted, will ensure that powers and responsibilities are transferred to parents. They will decide what is best for their children.
    We have heard a fairly routine guillotine speech from the hon. Member for Blackburn. There were the usual
    804
    moans about time, there was the ritual anger and there were the same arguments, We heard all the same synthetic indignation when the timetable motion was announced for the Committee stage, but the fact is that the Bill received 180 hours of discussion in Committee and, in addition, the benefit of another 32 hours on the Floor of the House. This Bill has received more active consideration than any other Bill on any subject since the war. That demonstrates the importance that the Government attach to the education of children in the state sector.
    Their Lordships made a substantial number of amendments, but the majority of them are technical and they are designed—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) laughs, but she ought to refer to The Times Educational Supplement, which does not normally favour the Conservative party. An editorial dated 15 July, headed "Seven Months later…", says:
    "The great majority of the amendments—as is usual with a Bill of this size—were moved by Ministers, improving the drafting or shutting loopholes."
    Does the hon. Lady disagree with that statement? As she does not rise to intervene, we must presume that she agrees.
    Mr. Spearing: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that when I intervened, by the grace of the Secretary of State, he did not dissent from my point that the most important new clauses, 8 to 16, that deal with religious education and worship are not susceptible to proper consultation with those concerned outside this place before we debate them and that that makes us question whether we should pass them today?
    Mr. Pawsey: The amendments received substantial debate in the other place, and in addition they will receive more debate in this Chamber during the next few hours. If the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is really interested, he will have the opportunity to raise points on that specific item. It will be interesting to see whether he seeks to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    There is no doubt that this Bill will improve education to the maximum benefit of the children of our country. That is the raison d'etre of the legislation. Some of the amendments made in another place will improve the Bill and I have not the slightest doubt they will be accepted. Only a relatively small number—for example, those on religious education, to which the hon. Member for Newham, South referred, and those relating to grant maintained schools—are genuinely contentious. I have not the slightest doubt that they will receive the consideration that they warrant. They will be debated today and tomorrow—a further full two days debate on the Floor of the House—and will receive an appropriate amount of discussion.
    If Opposition Members are genuinely concerned about the amount of time available for the consideration of the amendments—then I hope that we do not get the usual string of bogus points of order which always seem to arise following Prime Minister's questions—perhaps they will exercise a degree of control tomorrow. Opposition Members are the time wasters—[Interruption.] I hear that they are the time servers as well. They choose to reduce the time available for debate.
    The Opposition should understand that the principal reason why we want the Bill to reach the statute book before the recess is so that its provisions can be available

    805
    for the commencement of the next school year. Some of those provisions, such as open enrolment, could take effect from September. Opposition Members may be cavalier in their attitude towards children's education, but Conservative Members take such matters rather more seriously and we are determined that the Bill should be enacted before we rise for the summer recess.
    The hon. Member for Blackburn referred to the anti-democratic guillotine. Opposition Members surely must remember that the record for the number of guillotines introduced in a single day belongs to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who is in his place today. The great democrat became the great dictator when he became the arbiter of parliamentary time.
    Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could stop the hon. Lady in pink, the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), from constantly hectoring and nagging my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey)? It really is a hit much if people in this House have to conform to sexual stereotypes.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I think that we had better get on with the debate.
    Mr. Pawsey: Matters could be worse. One could be married to the hon. Lady.
    This debate detracts from the amount of time available to discuss the Bill.
    Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On reflection, will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that remark, which was of a very personal nature?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very short debate, and I hope that it will be conducted in good humour.
    Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Member for Blackburn is somewhat thin skinned. To do her credit, even the hon. Member for Durham, North-West did not rise to that. However, if my remark caused offence either to the hon. Gentleman or to the hon. Lady, I willingly withdraw it.
    Even this debate detracts from the amount of time available for the discussion of the Bill. Would it not be wiser if we proceeded to the principal and more important business—the discussion of the Education Reform Bill? This debate and the time it takes will be the real measure of the Opposition's concern. The quicker we start to debate the substance of the Bill, the better.
    The Bill will improve the quality and the standing of state education. We are happy to debate it today and tomorrow. Who knows, if Opposition Members actually bring open minds to our discussion, they may join us in the Lobby.
    4.24 pm
    Mr. Michael Foot: Although I consider that the way in which the Bill is being put through is scandalous, and although I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said from the Opposition Front Bench, I wish to concentrate for a few minutes on the part of the Bill that has been introduced mainly in the House of Lords during the past few weeks and which gives rise to even more insult to the House of Commons. I refer to the provisions concerning religious education.
    806
    Whatever view people may take on different forms of religious education, surely a Minister responsible for education in this country should have enough knowledge of its history to know that for many decades, almost for centuries, arguments about religion have destroyed the possibility of sensible agreements and education reform. It was largely because of that understanding that that part of the 1944 Act was so successful.
    When R.A. Butler introduced that Bill, he took account of the consultation that he had taken on that subject for many months and many years. It is scandalous for the Secretary of State and the Government to say, "We push all that aside. We do not worry about the history of the country, the history of education or the history of religious argument. We know better and we shall push through a different arrangement for dealing with a very delicate subject which could give rise afresh to other arguments which could do great injury to our education in future." It is scandalous that the Secretary of State should have given his name to that.
    Of course, the right hon. Gentleman can say that it has all been thought up by the bishops in the other place, that they had a hole-in-the-corner meeting and that is supposed to be good enough for the House of Commons. It is not at all good enough for the House of Commons. Many besides bishops have a right to speak on the matter.
    If the right hon. Gentleman does not remember it, I can quote to him another verse from his famous anthology. It is by Jonathan Swift who knew something about the church and the bishops. In "Verses written upon windows", he wrote:
    "The Church and clergy here, no doubt,
    Are very near a-kin;
    Both weather-beaten are without;
    And empty both within."
    I do not apply that to any particular bishops in the other place, but it would embrace many of them. Seriously, it is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to think that a hole-in-the-corner compromise worked out in the other place, which has no representative authority in these matters, could be satisfactory for dealing with such a delicate subject. It is utterly shameful, so I ask the Government to withdraw it.
    I speak on behalf of those who uphold a humanist tradition in this country—a very proper and worthy tradition. We have as much right to be consulted about such things as have other people. We do not trust the bishops or the representatives of other denominations. We have a right to discuss such matters.
    The Secretary of State has been responsible for pushing aside all forms of consultation on the matter. I understand that a report was drawn up by one of the inspectors and that quite a lot of consultation was taking place. That report has been supressed, it was never properly debated and at the very last moment, when the Bill is being dragged through the House of Commons, we are told that we have to agree to the religious, non-religious or anti-religious measures. It is a scandal for the Government to deal with it in this way. If the Government have trouble in different schools—and we all know that there are many people of different religion in different schools around the country—if they believe that they know best and that they have only to take up these phrases that have been adopted by a few bishops at the other end of the corridor, push them

    807
    through the House of Commons and deal with a delicate problem that occurs in so many areas of the country, that is a scandalous way for them to deal with a major question.
    If the Secretary of State had any honour in these matters, he would never have brought the measures before us. He would have said that they would be brought in only after full consultation. On those grounds alone, the guillotine motion is an offence to the House of Commons. The Government are inviting trouble. There is a history of people disobeying education laws. I suppose the Prime Minister has forced this upon the Secretary of State, but Ministers should read up on some British history before they attempt to teach it to anybody else.
    4.30 pm
    Mr. John Bowis: The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was referring to the next debate, rather than this one. However, it was a pleasant contrast to the huffery and puffery of the opening speech made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) put his finger on the reason why there was so much huffery and puffery when he referred to the Labour party's policy of the past. It used to have a policy, which was to comprehensivise everything. Now, it has no education policy. Labour Members huff and puff and say that our policy is wrong, but they do not say what is right.
    The Labour party has formed a group called Parents in Partnership. The hon. Member for Blackburn will know about that. It has come up with various initiatives which have been dismissed as virtually worthless, not by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, but by Mr. Neil Fletcher, the, leader of the Inner London education authority and a member of the Labour party's new education forum. He, along with many in Labour local government circles, is critical of the knee-jerk policy-making of the parliamentary team. I will dwell no more on the knee jerking, but that is what we have had today.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett rose—
    Mr. Bowis: I am sorry, but I cannot give way because we want to speed this through.
    If the Labour party had been interested in the debate on the Education Reform Bill, it could have nodded the timetable motion through and let us get on with the debate. There has been sitting after sitting on the Bill. There was the Second Reading, 42 sittings in Committee, four days on Report, the days in the Lords, and now two more days in the House. No Bill can ever have had such rigorous debate and consideration. There have been probing and testing amendments, which have received consideration. The Committee and the House have listened and, above all, the Government have listened. That is why we have the amendments before us today. If the Government listen, they come forward with amendments. They listened to the House of Lords as well as the House of Commons, and tabled amendments in the Lords. Many of us are pleased about that.
    The nation wishes us to get on with it. The schools and colleges are waiting for the final go-ahead so that they can put the measures into practice. The public are looking forward to the new measures and there is further public
    808
    consultation to come. The public approval of the Bill is one reason why we can brook no delay. On London figures 72 per cent. of the public want the national curriculum, and only 16 per cent. are against it, 74 per cent. are in favour of core testing and only 20 per cent. are against and 75 per cent. are in favour of the grant-related status option and only 17 per cent. are against. Public opinion, parents and Parliament are in favour. The only people in favour of delay are Her Majesty's Opposition. We should brook no delay today.
    4.33 pm
    Mr. Derek Fatchett: The debate has been typical of the brevity with which the Government deal with education matters. I suspect that it is unique in that, probably for the first time in our experience of education debates, the Secretary of State, after a poor performance, is looking to the Minister of State to dig him out of a hole. I suspect that, given the Minister of State's record in Committee, the Secretary of State will be relying on something of a forlorn hope.
    The debate has been typical in its brevity and typical of the Government's consultation process. It is typical of a Government who allowed little time for consultation with parents, teachers, or local authorities. It is typical of a Government who introduced a guillotine in Committee when the Leader of the House said that there was no evidence that the Opposition were filibustering. This guillotine, as with the guillotine in Committee, and the shortness of time for consultation may show a damaging ideological triumphalism, but they also show an uncertainty about the measures that they are introducing. It is an uncertainty that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) referred to in terms of religious education, but it is an uncertainty that runs to the heart of the Bill.
    The Secretary of State said that the Bill had to be enacted over the next two weeks or it would be impossible to carry forward the consultation on the national curriculum. No argument could be more specious. The Secretary of State knows that the working parties are in operation and that he can establish shadow bodies and carry out the necessary consultation. The simple truth is that the national curriculum is a long way from formation because the Government rushed to legislation without having the courage and decency to consult teachers, parents or local authorities.
    The same is true of testing. The Government have shifted their ground on a number of occasions. We are told that the Secretary of State is in favour of diagnostic testing. We suspect that other Ministers are not in favour of such testing. One has reason to believe that the Minister of State is opposed to diagnostic testing and supports the Prime Minister in the need for simple competitive testing. We have every reason to believe, if the newspaper reports are correct, that it would be in the interest of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), to support the Prime Minister in that argument. The simple fact is that, on the crucial issue of testing, the Government's position is as unclear as it was 12 months ago.
    In terms of higher education, the Bill was transformed in the House of Lords. The Government have had no clearly defined position and no defined analysis and perception of the role of higher education. Nowhere has

    809
    that been made clearer than in an article by Lord Beloff in The Times last week. In relation to universities, the noble Lord said that there seemed to be disagreement, even among Ministers. The article said:
    "The Secretary of State … had praised the extent to which they"—
    the universities—
    "had already adapted themselves to the new demands made upon them by economic and social change and was usually ready with soft reassurances."
    How typical. The article went on:
    "On the other hand, the junior Minister for the universities, Robert Jackson, had left a trail of wounded feelings as he toured the universities to explain the Government's proposal."
    That division on higher education goes to the heart of the Government's policy and image.
    The guillotine is being used to protect an uncertain and weak ministerial team. Because of that uncertainty and weakness, Ministers lost the argument in Committee. They lost that argument and votes in the House of Lords. Because of that weakness and uncertainty, they seek to limit further debate. They know, as do all educationists, that the Bill will appear intemperate and irrelevant against the real educational needs of our children and our country. That is why we oppose the guillotine. There is a need for more time for debate and a proper education agenda for the country.
    4.38 pm
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I am sad to say that I have not been particularly impressed by the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) or, more recently, by those adduced by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). In Committee, the Opposition generally seemed a little hard put to find good arguments and they appeared to be supine before many of the arguments in support of the Bill put by my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friends.
    I was somewhat astonished, therefore, to hear the hon. Member for Leeds, Central say that it was important to have more time to discuss every item that comes before us after having been in the other place. For the record, let us be sure of what took place in Committee when we examined every clause and every amendment tabled. In Committee, the Opposition forced Divisions on 38 of the 147 clauses and on two of the 11 schedules. That does not appear to be an example of an Opposition firmly opposed to every part of the Bill.
    Occasional reports have appeared in the education press—and even in national newspapers—that the hon. Member for Blackburn said that the national curriculum was not my right hon. Friend's idea but his, and that the Labour party had proposed it some time ago. Had that been the case, I would have found it difficult to understand the arguments made by the hon. Member for Blackburn. He said that he did not agree with the proposals for the national curriculum. He would like to think that he proposed a national curriculum and, indeed, to put before the House and the other place proposals as good as those in the Bill.
    Much concern has been expressed about consultation. The Bill has been discussed for well over a year. Indeed, it was discussed before the general election in June 1987. The public were aware of the Government's proposals and voted decisively, in the light of experience, for them. The
    810
    consultation procedure has continued ever since. The Department of Education and Science has received no fewer than 25,000 letters about the Bill, all of which have received a reply and none of which have produced further comments. Much of what has been said during the consultation process has been reflected in the various amendments.
    The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who is no longer present, said that the technical and vocational educational initiative would take up 30 per cent. of the national curriculum. The Opposition argue that if the national curriculum takes up 70 per cent. of the time, that leaves only 40 per cent. remaining. I hope that Opposition Members will at least have an opportunity to watch their children going through the mathematics curriculum. It will allow them to understand that 30 per cent. of the curriculum will not be for subjects specified as core and foundation subjects but for other subjects. Time for TVEI will also be taken up partly within scientific and mathematics curriculum subjects. Mathematics is an important subject. It has been shown to be especially important for some Opposition Members.
    It is clear that there has been considerable discussion and much consultation. It is important therefore that the matters of concern to Opposition Members should be discussed, so I commend the motion to the House.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 183.

    Division No. 416]

    [4.43 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Allason, Rupert

    Burt, Alistair

    Amos, Alan

    Butcher, John

    Arbuthnot, James

    Butler, Chris

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Butterfill, John

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Ashby, David

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Atkins, Robert

    Carrington, Matthew

    Atkinson, David

    Cash, William

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Baldry, Tony

    Chapman, Sydney

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Chope, Christopher

    Batiste, Spencer

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

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Colvin, Michael

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Conway, Derek

    Benyon, W.

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Couchman, James

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Cran, James

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Critchley, Julian

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Boswell, Tim

    Curry, David

    Bottomley, Peter

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

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Day, Stephen

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Devlin, Tim

    Bowis, John

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Dicks, Terry

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Brazier, Julian

    Dover, Den

    Bright, Graham

    Dunn, Bob

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Durant, Tony

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Dykes, Hugh

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

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Evennett, David

    811

    Fallon, Michael

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Favell, Tony

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Fennor, Dame Peggy

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lightbown, David

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Lilley, Peter

    Forman, Nigel

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Forth, Eric

    Lord, Michael

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Freeman, Roger

    McCrindle, Robert

    French, Douglas

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Fry, Peter

    Maclean, David

    Gale, Roger

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gardiner, George

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Madel, David

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Malins, Humfrey

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mans, Keith

    Gorst, John

    Maples, John

    Gow, Ian

    Marland, Paul

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Marlow, Tony

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gregory, Conal

    Mates, Michael

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Grist, Ian

    Mellor, David

    Ground, Patrick

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Mills, Iain

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Hannam, John

    Moate, Roger

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

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Harris, David

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

    Hayward, Robert

    Moss, Malcolm

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Heddle, John

    Mudd, David

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Needham, Richard

    Hill, James

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hind, Kenneth

    Neubert, Michael

    Holt, Richard

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Howard, Michael

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

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

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Page, Richard

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Paice, James

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hunter, Andrew

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Irvine, Michael

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Jack, Michael

    Pawsey, James

    Jackson, Robert

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Janman, Tim

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jessel, Toby

    Portillo, Michael

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Price, Sir David

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Rathbone, Tim

    Key, Robert

    Redwood, John

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Renton, Tim

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Knapman, Roger

    Riddick, Graham

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Knowles, Michael

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Knox, David

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Lang, Ian

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Latham, Michael

    Rost, Peter

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Rowe, Andrew

    812

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Ryder, Richard

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Thorne, Neil

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Thurnham, Peter

    Scott, Nicholas

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Tracey, Richard

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Tredinnick, David

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Trippier, David

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Shersby, Michael

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Sims, Roger

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Walden, George

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Waller, Gary

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Ward, John

    Speed, Keith

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Watts, John

    Squire, Robin

    Wells, Bowen

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wheeler, John

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Whitney, Ray

    Steen, Anthony

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Stern, Michael

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Stevens, Lewis

    Wilkinson, John

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Wilshire, David

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Stokes, Sir John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Wood, Timothy

    Sumberg, David

    Woodcock, Mike

    Summerson, Hugo

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Tellers for the Ayes

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cousins, Jim

    Allen, Graham

    Cryer, Bob

    Alton, David

    Cummings, John

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Cunlifle, Lawrence

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Darling, Alistair

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

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

    Barron, Kevin

    Dewar, Donald

    Battle, John

    Dixon, Don

    Beckett, Margaret

    Dobson, Frank

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Doran, Frank

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

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Blair, Tony

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Boateng, Paul

    Eadie, Alexander

    Boyes, Roland

    Eastham, Ken

    Bradley, Keith

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Buchan, Norman

    Fatchett, Derek

    Buckley, George J.

    Faulds, Andrew

    Caborn, Richard

    Fearn, Ronald

    Callaghan, Jim

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Fisher, Mark

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Flannery, Martin

    Cartwright, John

    Flynn, Paul

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Foster, Derek

    Clay, Bob

    Foulkes, George

    Clelland, David

    Fraser, John

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Fyfe, Maria

    Cohen, Harry

    Galbraith, Sam

    Coleman, Donald

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    George, Bruce

    Corbett, Robin

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    813

    Gordon, Mildred

    Litherland, Robert

    Gould, Bryan

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McAllion, John

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Grocott, Bruce

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Hardy, Peter

    McKelvey, William

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    McLeish, Henry

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    McNamara, Kevin

    Heffer, Eric S.

    McWilliam, John

    Hinchliffe, David

    Madden, Max

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Home Robertson, John

    Marek, Dr John

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Maxton, John

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Meacher, Michael

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Meale, Alan

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Illsley, Eric

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Ingram, Adam

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Janner, Greville

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    John, Brynmor

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Morley, Elliott

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Lambie, Oavid

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Lamond, James

    Mullin, Chris

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Murphy, Paul

    Leighton, Ron

    Nellist, Dave

    814

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

    O'Neill, Martin

    Soley, Clive

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Spearing, Nigel

    Parry, Robert

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Patchett, Terry

    Strang, Gavin

    Pike, Peter L.

    Straw, Jack

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Turner, Dennis

    Radice, Giles

    Wall, Pat

    Randall, Stuart

    Wallace, James

    Redmond, Martin

    Walley, Joan

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Reid, Dr John

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Richardson, Jo

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Robertson, George

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Rogers, Allan

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Rooker, Jeff

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wilson, Brian

    Rowlands, Ted

    Winnick, David

    Ruddock, Joan

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Worthington, Tony

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wray, Jimmy

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Short, Clare

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Alun Michael.

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

    Question accordingly agreed to.

  Orders of the Day

    Education Reform Bill
    [IST ALLOTTED DAY]
    Lords amendments considered.
    4.55 pm
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for the fact that I was not able to give you notice, but I have only just ascertained a possible problem. Mr. Speaker has grouped together a number of amendments to be considered first. I am in a slight dilemma, because I happen to support some of those amendments and to oppose others. I understand that under the terms of the guillotine motion it is not possible to have separate votes on specific Lords amendments. Is that correct, or will it be possible for an hon. Member to indicate support for some amendments but to dissent from others?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): If the time stated in the guillotine motion is reached, it will be possible to have a vote on the main amendment being discussed.
    Mr. Spearing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry but, as you will appreciate from the debate on the guillotine motion, the following debate is important. Do I take it that we shall debate Lords amendment No. 1 and amendment (a) thereto, together
    "The curriculum for every maintained school shall comprise a basic curriculum which includes—

    (a) provision for religious education for all registered pupils at the school; and

    (b) a curriculum for all registered pupils at the school of compulsory school age (to be known as "The National Curriculum") which meets the requirements of subsection (2) below.

    (2) The curriculum referred to in subsection (1)(b) above shall comprise the core and other foundation subjects and specify"
    Amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, in line 5, after 'school', insert
    'in any area in respect of which an Order has been made by the Secretary of State and has come into effect'.
    Amendment (b) to the proposed Lords amendment, in line 7, after 'National', insert
    'Core Curriculum and the National Foundation'.
    Amendment (d) to the proposed Lords amendment, in line 10, after 'core' insert
    'subjects which shall be mandatory'.
    Amendment (e) to the proposed Lords amendment, in line 10, after 'subjects' insert 'which shall be advisory'.
    Lords amendments No. 3, 8 to 16, 147 to 185.
    "(3) Subsection (1)(a) above shall not apply in the case of a maintained special school."
    Lords amendment No. 186, in line 3, at end insert—
    "(1A) No proposals shall be published under this section for the purpose of making a significant change in the religious character of such a school unless the trustees of the school (if any) have given their consent in writing to the change in question."
    Amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, after 'section', insert `(a)'.
    Amendment (b) to the proposed Lords amendment, at end insert—
    with all the other amendments in the group? The implication of your ruling is that, if the Question is not put on the main amendment until the allocated time is reached, there will be no opportunity to vote on any of the other amendments.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. If the debate on Lords amendment No. 1, together with amendment (a) thereto, were to run the full time it would be possible to have a Division on amendment (a) and on the amendment itself. The Chairman would then be obliged to put the rest of the Lords amendments en bloc.

  Clause 1

    DUTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE CURRICULUM
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 17, leave out from "them" to "with" in line 18 and insert
    "by this Chapter with respect to religious education, religious worship and the National Curriculum".
    Read a Second time.
    Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, after "by" insert
    'an Order made by the Secretary of State under'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment (b) to the proposed Lords amendment, after 'education', insert 'and'.
    Amendment (c) to the proposed Lords amendment, after 'worship', insert
    'in respect of each local authority area'.
    Lords amendment No. 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out from beginning to "in" in line 6 and insert.
    '(b) for the purpose of introducing any form of selection by ability at the school; or
    (c) or the purpose of introducing any fees for educational provisions at the school, beyond that provided for under sections 95 to 100 below'.
    Lords amendments Nos. 227, 476, 480 and 557.
    Mr. Straw: Amendment (a) and the linked amendments provide that the arrangements written into the Bill for religious education and worship in each local authority area will come into effect by order by the Secretary of State as he becomes satisfied about them.
    We have just under two hours in which to debate a crucial part of our public and national life. When religious education and worship were last discussed in the House on 23 March, I said:
    "I accept the importance of religious worship and education in schools".
    I went on to say:
    "We can have no understanding of our history and culture unless we understand that we have a Christian tradition."—[Official Report, 23 March 1988; Vol. 130, c. 418.]
    I was expressing my personal view. This issue cannot and never should be a party issue. The Opposition have already made it clear that there is no Whip and that Opposition Members are free to vote as their consciences dictates.

    817
    I also said that we would do well to remember that one part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—has a capacity for great religious tension and strife. That point was underlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). I said that we must remember how easily religious division can turn into tribal destructiveness; that there was a fine and delicate balance between the two.
    In the Education Act 1944 Rab Butler did two things that guaranteed him a place in our history. First, the Act established a system of free education based upon principles of equality of opportunity. Secondly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent said, the Act secured a settlement in the great and divisive argument about the role of the Church and religion in schools. It may be trite to say that the 1944 settlement has stood the test of time, but it has. That is the considered view of the Opposition and it has also been the considered view of the Government. In the 1985 White Paper, "Better Schools", Lord Joseph, then Secretary of State for Education and Science, said:
    "the Government has no plans to propose changes in the provisions of the Education Act 1944 relating to religious education and collective worship in schools, provisions which have stood the test of time."
    I hope that we shall see the Secretary of State in his place to hear this important debate. The consultative document, published last July, said that the Secretary of State
    "has no plans, therefore, to propose changes in what the law requires"
    in respect of religious education. Speaking for the Government in the House of Lords in February this year, the Earl of Arran said:
    "That schools in this country have successfully provided religious education and worship for many years is, I think, a testimony not only to the success of the Education Act but also to the tolerance and understanding of the British people in overcoming the barriers of different faiths and denominations."
    He went to to say—a point that I shall put to the Secretary of State in this debate:
    "Evidence from Her Majesty's Inspectors shows very clearly that, generally, Christianity is still at the core of religious education in our schools … We would not wish to see a situation where children in maintained schools are divided into separate acts of worship for different religious groups."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 1988; Vol. 493, c. 1483–85.]
    That was the considered view of the Government and of the Secretary of State earlier this year. It was also a view that was repeated by the Secretary of State in our very good and constructive debate in the House on 23 March. He said:
    "The 1944 Act got the balance right."—[Official Report, 23 March 1988; Vol. 130, c. 422.]
    I agree with that, and the whole House agrees with that.
    The right hon. Gentleman went on to describe some modest amendments to the structure of the 1944 settlement. He said that religious education should be defined statutorily before the core and foundation subjects. He said that he would wish to strengthen the arrangements for a locally agreed syllabus. My clear recollection and reading of his remarks in that debate is that he proposed no significant changes to the structure of religious worship in schools. That arrangement was acceptable to both sides of the House and there were no Divisions on that occasion.
    818
    In the same debate the view was expressed that a requirement that teaching and worship should be Christian should be written into the Bill. A separate view was expressed that not only that concept but, more specifically, the notion of the scriptures should be written into the Bill. On 23 March, the Secretary of State resisted that proposition. I believe that he was correct to do so then and that the House would be right to do so tonight.
    We are a multi-cultural multi-faith, multi-religious and multi-denominational community, and we were even before the arrival of Asian and Afro-Caribbean communities in this country. Although the debate about the inclusion of the word "Christian" within a legal framework for religious education in a country with a Christian tradition may seem casuistical, the decision whether to incude those words raises profound issues of tolerance and questions about how we treat people who have different faiths from our own. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I hear some hon. Members saying "Rubbish". It is those who take one view and seek to rubbish the views of others who have been the cause of religious strife arid intolerance in this country, which some of us thought we had dealt with in 1944 and again on 23 March. I hope that we do not hear any more such abuse of one view by people with another view during the debate.
    When discussing such a sensitive issue, we should judge what should become law not by what is suitable for ourselves but by what is suitable for others, who may disagree with us. Those of us who regularly go to church know that we are in a minority. Those of us who take our children to church know that we are in an even smaller minority. We may regret that, but it is the truth. We must be careful about imposing our approach to family life and religion upon others. I think that that was the view taken by the Secretary of State on 23 March. It was certainly the view taken by the House of Lords in Committee on 3 May.
    The Lord Bishop of London, with the support of the Government and the Opposition, sought to write into law the arrangement in respect of religious education that the Secretary of State had described on 23 March. Baroness Hooper said:
    "I am glad to be able to say that they"—
    the amendments—
    "have our wholehearted support. I know also that they have the full support of the leaders of the Catholic and Methodist Churches. Today we have heard that they have the support of the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi. I am sure that the Committee will agree that his ecumenical unanimity is a most welcome development."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 3 May 1988; Vol. 496, c. 431.]
    Unfortunately, that was not the end of the matter. Baroness Cox and Lord Thorneycroft were entitled to their view. It is now a matter of public record that they decided that they wished the word Christian to be written into the Bill as a requirement in respect of religious 'education and worship. We know that they had the support of Professor Brian Griffiths and the Prime Minister. Baroness Cox is entitled to her view. She at least has the merit of having been consistent in this matter, although many hon. Members may find Lord Thorneycroft's latter-day conversion on the issue of religious education and worship strange. Days were spent on this issue as Baroness Cox and Lord Thorneycroft sought to impose what I regard as an intolerant structure in the law and prescribe that worship should be Christian.
    I respect their views but they have failed to respect the views of other people, including people of the Christian

    819
    faith. They have failed to take into account those of no faith, those of other faiths and those who may have begun to have doubts about their faith.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I have known for many years that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is most sincere in what he says. Is he aware, however, that he is taking an extremely dangerous line? Such arguments have almost led to the eclipse of religious education in schools. The argument that one should not teach Christianity for fear of offending people of other faiths has meant that there has been almost no Christian religious education in schools.
    Mr. Straw: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I say that that is a complete perversion of the position that I have taken. It shows the danger of intolerance in this respect. I said at the outset, and I say again, that I accept the importance of religious worship and education in schools. I made that point clearly on 23 March as well. It does not raise a difficulty for me, because I am a Christian and I raise my children in the Christian tradition. The problem for those of us who wish for a tolerant society is how far we impose our views on other people. Some of us should think about that carefully. I also said then:
    "We can have no understanding of our history and culture unless we understand that we have a Christian tradition."—[Official Report, 23 March 1988; Vol. 130, c. 418.]
    I accept that, broadly, included in religious education and worship ought to be an acknowledgement that we are a Christian country. The question is how far we write that into the law and when we do so, how we deal with people of other faiths—Jewish, Moslem or Hindu—or of no faith at all.
    I do not accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) that Christianity has departed from religious education and worship in our schools. That is not my experience with my children in an ILEA school and it is not the experience of Her Majesty's Ministers. I quote again the Earl of Arran, speaking on behalf of the Government on 26 February. He said:
    "Evidence from Her Majesty's Inspectors shows very clearly that, generally, Christianity is still at the core of general education in our schools."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 1988; Vol. 493, c. 1485.]
    It is no good the hon. Member for Ealing, North saying that my views are dangerous, because those views were accepted by the House on 23 March. There is some ambiguity in the law, but there has to be because there is a fine balance between securing a curriculum which reflects our country's Christian tradition and going overboard and seeking to impose that on people who do not have that faith. On 23 March, the Secretary of State arrived at the correct balance and we already know—and I can give quotations in support of this—that the structure that has been agreed in the other place, and on which we are now having a short debate, is unsettling and destabilising to the 1944 settlement.
    Mr. Martin FlanneryDoes my hon. Friend remember that in Committee, when this narrow approach was put forward by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), I pointed out that we are a multi-faith society and that the narrow approach that he was suggesting would antagonise those of other faiths—Hindus, Moslems and so on—who in time would need
    820
    their own schools? To his credit, the Secretary of State also opposed that narrow position. He did not use the language that I have used, because he was speaking to his own people, but he did not agree with it, and I see that he is not rising to say that he agrees with it now.
    Mr. Straw: That is true. Both the Secretary of State and the Minister of State supported the approach that we are now taking.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the provisions of the Education Act 1944 were such as to lead to the possible interpretation both that the standing advisory conference on further education should not contain any non-Christian beliefs and that the religious education curriculum should not contain any non-religious beliefs either? Specifically, Lords amendments Nos. 10 and 11 strengthen non-Christian religious education and the act of collective worship in schools for non-Christians.
    Mr. Straw: I am not arguing about the strengthening of the role or the composition of the standing advisory council on religious education in each area—not the standing advisory conference on further education. I have already said that we support the arrangements that the Secretary of State flagged out when he spoke on 23 March. Our concern is about the Baroness Cox arrangements, which were forced on the other place, to write into the Bill that teaching should be Christian. That imposes a duty that many people who have to teach religious education in schools do not want of adjudicating and invigilating on exceptions area by area, class by class and pupil by pupil. I refer the hon. Gentleman to Lords amendment No. 15. Unfortunately, what was agreed—in this House after a sensible debate, in Committee, and, on 3 May, in the other place—was not the end of the matter. For days and weeks, Baroness Cox and Lord Thorneycroft waged a guerrilla campaign in the other place with the full support of the Prime Minister.
    The final outcome is not as unsatisfactory as it might have been, and I pay tribute to the Bishop of London and peers on both sides who did their best to retrieve the situation. However, it is still unsatisfactory, and that needs to be made clear. A sign of that is that no one who was involved in putting together that compromise—for that is what it was—and to whom I have spoken has told me that that is a structure that they would wish. However, that is the best that they could get away with in the face of pressure from Lord Thorneycroft, Baroness Cox and those behind her.
    5.15 pm
    A subject as sensitive as this—the structure of religious education and worship that the country has to follow—should not be consequential on a deal struck in an unelected Chamber by people whom I regard as being over-zealous in their approach to religious education, to put it at its lowest. It should be unacceptable for such a change in the structure to be written into the Bill without any possibility of amendment in this House. We shall not even have the opportunity to vote amendment by amendment on what was decided in the other place. The House could approve of some of those amendments, but we wish to vote against some others. All the amendments are to be put by the Chair at one go, at 6.45, and we have literally to take it or leave it.

    821
    I have explained why the compromise is unsatisfactory. Lords amendment No. 10 says that religious worship should be
    "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character."
    Lords amendment No. 15 says that the standing advisory councils should be given powers to allow exemptions of a school, class or group of pupils. The previous system was a little ambiguous, but it worked well. I have already quoted the view of the Earl of Arran in the other place. He quoted Her Majesty's inspectors. A week ago, we learnt from The Guardian that a report on religious education and worship by the inspectorate has apparently got lost or been suppressed. I offer the Secretary of State a chance to intervene to tell us what has happened to that report. Why was it not published? Why did the House not have the benefit of seeing whatever it said—good, bad or indifferent?
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The hon. Gentleman knows the constitutional proprieties. It is entirely up to the senior chief inspector to decide which report is published, at what time it is to be published and the content of the report. I do not interfere in that.
    Mr. Straw: I know the proprieties, but surely it is possible for the Secretary of State to send a minute to the senior chief inspector to ask that the report be published. Could not the Secretary of State have asked for that?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that one of the great strengths of our system is that the inspectorate is independent. It can report on anything that it wishes in the school system. It can report on any school or on any curriculum activity. Ministers of the day do not interfere. That is the established position. They are Her Majesty's inspectors.
    Mr. Straw: I understand the proprieties, but we are all grown up lads and lasses here. I also understand that the history of the publication of the annual HMI report on the quality of education, over the past seven years, shows that the date has been directly related to whether there has been a general election in the offing. Ministers have some control over the publication of such reports. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), the Under-Secretary, is giving us a rum smile. We should have had that report. The Secretary of State's explanation is not satisfactory.
    The previous evidence, according to those who had bothered to look at it, was that the old system was satisfactory and had stood the test of time. It was a little ambiguous, but we need ambiguity if tolerance is to be preserved. The new arrangement, forced into the Bill without any adequate discussion in the House, may well be a recipe for local conflict. That is one reason why the arrangements in amendment (a)—I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that amendment (a) is acceptable—should be introduced by order, area by area, and after a long gestation period.
    We are also deeply unhappy about the whole structure of this aspect of the Bill. If it was not appropriate to write "Christian" into the Bill in 1944, when the country was overwhelmingly Christian, it is surely even less appropriate to do so today.
    Mr. Patrick Cormack: Surely that remark is not terribly profound. In 1944 it was taken
    822
    for granted that this was a Christian society. There have been many changes since then and if we wish to acknowledge that this is a Christian society and that our civilisation is based on Christianity, it is necessary to write it into the Bill.
    Mr. Straw: On the contrary, we should not confuse churches and schools. Children should be brought up to recognise that we have a Christian tradition in this country and to recognise the importance and power of faith, but Christianity and individual churches will survive in this country only on the basis of what they do, not what they write into the law for schools to do. That is a profound difference. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent referred to the desperate trouble caused in England in 1944. What does the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) think that 1688 was about? It was about resolving a great religious conflict that had torn the country apart for two centuries.
    Subsequently, in 1944, there was an understanding of the need to be careful and to provide some ambiguity in the law to prevent religious intolerance breaking out aga:in. That view was accepted in the House just three months ago. What has changed, apart from the pressures that have been brought to bear by Downing street and Baroness Cox in the other place?
    Mr. Spearing: Would my hon. Friend include the years 1900 to 1906 in his comments? At that time, people went to prison for refusing to pay rates and there was considerable community disruption as a result. Does he further agree that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), whom I respect, said, under the amendments, all non-church and non-voluntary schools will produce Christianity as a state religion? Those who do not attend voluntary schools, where the Church of England may make what arrangements it likes, will now be subject to a regime to which they were not subject under the 1944 Act.
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right, and I hope that the House will take note of his comments, as his devotion as a Methodist is well known.
    Mr. Conal Gregory: By agreeing with his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), does the hon. Gentleman not confirm that the Labour party wants disestablishment or denationalisation of the Church? I should like to hear what evidence Opposition Front-Bench Members have to show that there is any conformity with the 1944 Act, because, in York, that is certainly not the case. No school there currently complies with the Act.
    Mr. Straw: First, I stress that I am speaking personally. The Labour party has no policy on this issue. We regard it as a matter of conscience. I hope that the Conservative party does, too, if there is any spirit of tolerance left in that party. Secondly, the comments of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) are confounded by what Her Majesty's inspectors said, which was quoted with approval by the Earl of Arran in February. Thirdly, if there is a lack of conformity in this area, that could be dealt with perfectly adequately through the arrangements agreed by this House on 23 March to strengthen the standing advisory council. The Secretary of State accepted that view.
    Mr. Donald Coleman: Will my hon. Friend remind the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) that he is incorrect in his comments about the Labour party? Will he remind him that the Church in Wales, which is part of the Anglican communion, is already disestablished? The problem does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. Straw: I regard that as an inappropriate and unfortunate change. It has already unsettled and caused concern to Moslems. The National Moslem Education Council, meeting after the House of Lords had concluded its deliberations on 9 July, expressed concern about the changes made there and about what it described as a serious situation. It also expressed strong feelings about the need for other changes to be written into the Bill, which will not now be written into the Bill, if those changes were to go ahead.
    We should certainly take note of the Religious Education Council of England and Wales because it has the job of delivering this part of the law. It takes the view that this is not the appropriate way to proceed. When it was asked to comment on the Secretary of State's consultative paper last July, it said that it would be better to leave the 1944 settlement where it was. Mr. Brian Gates, chairman of the council, has authorised me to quote him as saying:
    "We are apprehensive about amendment (15) which makes specific requirements for Christian collective worship".
    The council is also concerned about the standing advisory council's duty to invigilate and adjudicate upon applications to opt out.
    This afternoon, we are asked to abandon a major plank of the 1944 settlement. When the House of Lords was considering the matter, it spent weeks on it. We are asked to secure that abandonment in less than two hours. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South expressing equal concern about that, whatever his personal views on the issue.
    Mr. Cormack: I did not vote for the guillotine.
    Mr. Straw: Such major and important changes should be made only after lengthy and careful deliberation. None of that has been possible here. For that reason alone, whatever hon. Members' views on the merits of the issue, we should reject the amendments from the other place and revert to a system that has, as the Secretary of State said less than three months ago, stood the test of time. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in the Lobbies tonight.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I ask the House not to pass the amendment, but I appreciate that it has been moved to initiate a debate on this important group of amendments. I wish to explain the Government's view on the matter and where we stand now that the Bill and the amendments have come back from the other place.
    Some hon. Members may recall that, in my Third Reading speech three months ago, I said that I could not recall a previous debate on religious education in my 20 years in the House. The fact that we have a second debate during the passage of the Bill shows the importance that hon. Members attach to the matter, and I welcome that.
    The general inattention given to religious education and worship in past years has contributed to their decline in schools. The provisions contained in the Bill constitute
    824
    a major step in reversing that decline and in ensuring that religious education and worship have a real value and meaning in schools.
    Mr. Spearing: The Government cannot do it by law.
    Mr. Baker: The 1944 Act did not seek to do it by law.
    The amendments included in the Bill in another place have their roots in two separate, though linked, concerns. The first is to ensure that religious education is established as a central element in the basic curriculum of all maintained schools. The second is to secure that proper regard is paid to our nation's Christian heritage and traditions, in the content of both religious education and collective worship.
    I strongly resist the implication of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that that leads to a degree of intolerance. There are many safeguards in the amendment that ensure against intolerance. No. hon. Members would support the intolerant imposition of one faith or one denomination in our schools or society.
    5.30 pm
    The Government have sought all along to ensure that religious education is not devalued or marginalised as a result of our proposals for the national curriculum. Measures were therefore introduced in the Bill from the outset to strengthen the position of religious education. The hon. Member for Blackburn implied that this had happened rather late in the day, but he was generous enough to recognise when the Bill was originally introduced as well as in Committee and on Report that we have sought to strengthen the position of religious education, placing an obligation on head teachers, local education authorities and governing bodies to ensure that it takes place. Following discussions with Church leaders, a famous agreement was reached earlier this year on a package of further strengthening measures, which I was able to announce to the House on Third Reading, and hon. Members were as one in welcoming the changes agreed. The changes, which were introduced into the Bill in another place by the Bishop of London, placed religious education firmly alongside the core and other foundation subjects but, in effect as primus inter pares. Religious education will thus be part of the basic curriculum for all pupils, alongside the national curriculum.
    To oversee the provision of religious education in schools, the amendments provide for standing advisory councils for religious education to be compulsory in all local education authorities. Some already exist, having been set up following the 1944 Act, but some have fallen into disuse. Authorities will be required to review their agreed syllabuses for religious education when asked to do so by their standing advisory council. The amendments ensure that within the broad statutory framework the content of religious education will be determined locally. I emphasise that there is no question of imposition of religious education by the Government or from the centre. The amendments also preserve the existing local agreed syllabus arrangements which the churches and the Government value and wish to retain. It is important that these matters have been satisfactorily resolved with the agreement of all concerned. The House should be in no doubt that the Government now intend to ensure that the new statutory provisions are properly adhered to.

    825
    With regard to the Christian content of religious education and collective worship, the remaining amendments introduced in another place have addressed the nature both of religious education and of collective worship. Here I acknowledge that the debate has moved on. These are questions which raise fundamental issues of conscience and I fully recognise that hon. Members in all parts of the House will have strongly held views and will wish to vote as they see fit on these matters. Nevertheless, it is important to set out the Government's position. Our position is quite clear. We fully support the amendments introduced into the Bill by the Bishop of London. I have had extensive consultations with him in the past few months as well as with representatives of other faiths and religions in this country. In our view, the amendments confirm the intention of the 1944 Act in recognising the rightful place of Christianity within the religious education provided in schools.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How extensive were the consultations with teachers, and is the Secretary of State satisfied that there are sufficient teachers to carry out the provisions? Will he explain the implications for the many agnostics and atheists who have been happy to carry out the religious education requirements of the 1944 Act but who are uncertain whether they are to be excluded from this area of education in the future?
    Mr. Baker: It is difficult for an agnostic or an atheist to instruct children in religious education. I find that an extraordinary proposition, as an atheist does not believe in any kind of theistic philosophy.
    Mr. Michael Latham: I was present at a meeting of the Council of Christians and Jews at which senior rabbis expressed considerable concern about the proposals. Will my right hon. Friend say more about his consultations with representatives of other faiths and reassure Members such as myself who wish to support the Lords amendments?
    Mr. Baker: I will come to that in a moment. So far, I have explained how the Bishop of London acted not just as spokesman for the Church of England but, in effect, as negotiator for the Catholic and Methodist churches and the Jewish faith as well as those who speak for the Moslem faith in this country. The proposals agreed in another place reflect the agreement of all those areas of the Christian communion and other denominations. I therefore assure the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) that the amendments emerge from a long process of negotiation.
    As the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said earlier, when Rab Butler introduced the 1944 legislation it was essentially a religious settlement which he had taken a great deal of time to negotiate with Archbishop Temple and others in the preceding two years. That is clear not just from the Act but from the memoirs of Rab himself and others who have written about that Act. It was implicit in the 1944 Act that religious education meant Christian education because at that time the only other religion represented in this country in any numbers was the Jewish religion. That is no longer the case, and many other faiths are devoutly held and strongly supported in this country.
    826
    As I have said, there was strong pressure from many individuals and groups for greater definition of the Christian content of religious education. Interestingly, the official Labour spokesman in the other House, Lord Morton of Shuna, did not vote against any of the amendments on Christian collective worship and Christian religious education. He said :
    "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."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 July 1988; Vol. 499, c. 435.]
    I do not wish to make any political point about this.
    Mr. Straw: The House of Lords had weeks of debate on this highly sensitive issue. We are being asked to agree the changes with only an hour and 10 minutes left to debate them. Does the Secretary of State regard that as satisfactory?
    Mr. Baker: These matters have been well bruited about and well debated. They have been well covered in the press and in the general reporting of what happened in the House of Lords.
    I repeat that many individuals and groups were pressing for a clearer definition of religious education and collective worship. Speaking on behalf of the Anglican Church, but with the agreement of the Catholic and Methodist Churches—I met representatives of both—and of representatives of the Jewish and Moslem faiths, the Bishop of London was able to reach a series of agreements. Negotiations were complex and difficult and in my many meetings with bishops of the Church of England and the Catholic Church in the past few months I have been constantly reminded that bishops move diagonally. Nevertheless, in all the discussions and debates I tried to find a way through those very difficult negotiations, and I believe that the outcome is satisfactory.
    Many people felt that the Christian element in worship and religious education had been watered down and in some cases had virtually disappeared. Yet our society has developed historically within a Christian background. That faith was brought to these islands by Saint Augustine and has woven its way through our history. It is the weft and warp of our country and any understanding of our country without an understanding of that background is poor and inadequate. For example, as many hon. Members pointed out in the debate in March, it has had a profound effect on the development of our language and on the moral and social development of our country.
    Certainly, fewer people now attend church and formally observe Christian traditions than was the case in 1944, as the hon. Member for Blackburn stated, but many who are not regularly practising Christians still turn to the church at solemn and important moments of their family lives, such as birth, marriage and death. Moreover, the Christian festivals of Christmas, Easter and Whitsun for many people have a meaning above that of merely another national holiday. Whether or not children come from a Christian background, it is right that they should receive a good understanding of the nation's Christian heritage and tradition. That point was made strongly by the Chief Rabbi in another place. At the same time, however, the amendments make very specific provision for agreed religious education syllabuses to take account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain.

    827
    The amendments specify that collective worship should be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character. But they also allow for the majority of schools to take account of the family background of pupils in deciding on the nature of such worship. The amendments also provide for schools in which Christian worship would be inappropriate. In such cases it will be open to the head teacher to apply to the standing advisory council to relieve the school of the duty to provide worship that is wholly or mainly Christian. I recognise that in some schools Christian worship would not be appropriate, and it is right that the Bill should acknowledge this.
    The Bill also now re-enacts the provisions of the Education Act 1944 in ensuring that all parents will have a right to withdraw their children from religious education or collective worship should they so wish. There is no concept or intention that a specific type of worship or religious education should be thrust down the throats of children when they or their parents do not want it. There will be nothing to stop schools allowing or helping to arrange separate religious education or acts of worship according to different faiths or denominations in circumstances where children are withdrawn. That practice is quite common in many schools.
    These provisions constitute a considerable improvement to the Bill as it left the House. As I have said, they are the results of detailed consultation by the Bishop of London, and he is to be complimented on his efforts.
    Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
    Mr. Baker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I should like to conclude my speech.
    The bishop has gone to great lengths to seek the views of others with a direct interest, including not only the leaders of different faiths and religious denominations, but the local authority and teacher associations as well as parents' and governors' organisations. The amendments allow for flexibility in dealing with different local circumstances. I am confident that they will continue to encourage truly collective worship in schools, which the Government believe to be of such importance in maintaining harmony and bringing the school and pupils together. At the same time the amendments take full account of the needs and aspirations of different faiths. I hope that the House will recognise that the amendments are the product of very careful consideration in order to meet a variety of concerns, and that they will be of long-term benefit to schools and to society as a whole.
    Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to be called immediately after the Minister because one factual matter must be correct. In view of the speed with which events have moved, perhaps I have misunderstood the matter. I do not dissent from the objectives outlined in the Secretary of State's speech. He spoke frequently about consultations by the noble prelate the Bishop of London. I hope that he will be precise about the parts of the amendments about which those extensive consultations have taken place. My understanding is that the consultations were about the non-controversial amendments that we discussed on Third Reading, especially those about the status and nature of religious education within the curriculum.
    I understand that the consultations did not apply to the more controversial clauses, about which my hon. Friend
    828
    the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) spoke, about writing in "mainly Christian" and "Christian", both of which terms were absent from the 1944 Act. Perhaps the Secretary of State will now tell the House about the degree of consultation in which the noble prelate and his friends participated other than with people such as Baroness Cox who introduced earlier amendments.
    As I ascertained in a point of order, we are invited to take a single vote on both sets of amendments. I strongly support the retention of religious education in the compulsory curriculum of schools, but I dissent from the other amendments produced by the noble prelate. Perhaps the Secretary of State will now enlighten us about which set of amendments received very full consultation.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: They all did.
    Mr. Spearing: The Secretary of State assures the House that they all did. I find that almost impossible to believe, because the final version of amendments Nos. 8 to 16, to which I take exception, were not available in printed form until after Third Reading in the other place. I spoke only this week to the secretary of the Christian Education Movement and asked whether he had seen them. He had not. This morning I spoke to religious education officers in my local education authority and they had not seen them. They know the broad thrust and outline because they have seen them in the newspapers.
    There has not been the time for negotiation and consultation on amendments Nos. 8 to 16 that there has been for amendment No. 2. If the Secretary of State wishes to say anything about that I shall gladly give way. Otherwise I shall move on, having made a fundamental and crucial point.
    The difference between the Opposition and Conservative Members is fairly narrow. I must declare an interest which I never thought I would have to declare in the House. For 40 years I have been a member of the Congregational, now the United Reformed, Church. I attempt to be a practising Christian in every respect. For 14 years I was a religious education teacher, at least part time, as well as teaching other subjects in a London secondary school. Therefore, I start from the same start line as the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. I hope that I am a practising Christian and that I shall develop in that way throughout my life. I have something in common with at least some Conservative Members.
    5.45 pm
    We are being asked to replace words in the 1944 Act that, up to a point, have stood the test of time with more specific words. Times are changing and we need to be reminded of our heritage and the extent to which religious belief has influenced and shaped this place and certainly our nation, its constitution and some of its public ways and benefits. Therefore, I understand the intention and appreciate the aims, but I disagree on the way in which this is to be done. Conservative Members wish it to be enshrined in law.
    I intervened during the speech of the Secretary of State to say that the Minister cannot use law to reverse the decline in religious education. I did not mean that such an intention could not be put on the statute book. Of course that can be done. Religious education was put on the statute book as the only compulsory subject, but it has

    829
    been done shockingly badly. In that respect I attack my own Christian churches. They had a special place by law and did not discharge their stewardship and responsibility. As I have said, I did my bit to help.
    After consultation, the 1944 Act offered some innate flexibility. I understand the aspirations of Conservative Members, but changing that Act will not achieve what they want. One of the reasons for that is that religious education is different from other subjects. Religion cannot be taught. It is caught and not taught and is qualitative and not quantitative. It is an offering, not something that is injected or taken.
    I understand and share the great wish that we should return to some of the moral imperatives that made this country what it was. Some of the moral imperatives in our public life could do with a little more attention. I do not want to be party political about that, although I could be. Whether one can do that by compulsorily injecting religion into the bloodstream of people is questionable. The injection may result in inoculating people against the very thing that one wishes to offer. As religious education teachers will know, we often come up against people who have been badly taught religious education and are impervious even to a religious view of life, let alone any specific denominational view.
    We cannot absolve ourselves of responsibility by taking the law into our hands. We have not provided for proper religious education even under the 1944 Act. I do not understand how we can do so with this measure. The Bishop of London acknowledged that everything depended on the job being carried out, and the necessary people are not available to implement the provisions that are set out in the 1944 Act. How are we to get the necessary people to carry out the provisions that we are discussing?
    The problems that will be involved in implementation may wreck the objective that the Secretary of State has outlined. We are bringing definitions of Christianity into law—what is "mainly Christian"? We know that there have been court cases on issues related to religious education, and there will be more. We have before us seven pages of legal complexity, and these will provide a feast for lawyers.
    Headmasters, especially in Newham, are battling to try to create corporate toleration in a sea of social and religious problems. Schools should have the chance to inculcate a degree of tolerance, understanding and unity. That chance should continue to be open to schools in the retention of the act of corporate worship, and among the other things in which I was involved in my teaching career was conducting and arranging religious assemblies. I know that it is a difficult task.
    If the Bill is enacted it will lead to division, especially in multi-cultural, multi-racial and multi-religious areas. It is true that under the 1944 Act, Jewish children in secondary schools can be separated from Christians. They have their assemblies at different times, for example. There has been pragmatism and understanding. We are now to proceed by law. I have spoken to teaching advisers, who have told me that there is alarm among head teachers about the additional problems that they will face. There is enough competition between members of different ethnic backgrounds as it is, and introducing legal requirements for assemblies and religious education may well exacerbate the problems. There are great risks. For that reason alone, I suggest that these provisions should not be written into the Bill.
    830
    Definitions of Christianity can vary greatly. I do not believe that there has been sufficient consultation with those who will have to do the job, despite the Secretary of State's assurances. It is wrong in principle for any hon. Member to agree to the amendments in the absence of proper consultation with those who will be involved. We are being invited to pass the amendments lock, stock and barrel. I am much in favour of amendment No. 2, but I disagree strongly with the views behind amendments Nos. 6 to 18. As you said in your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not have an opportunity in the Lobby to express my support of one amendment and my disapproval of others. It is all or nothing. I shall have to vote in the Aye Lobby because I am opposed to certain of the amendments and not because I am against compulsory religious education. In Newham and in other multi-cultural areas throughout the country, we shall be in danger of exacerbating existing problems.
    In 1659, the then Chaplain to this place wrote a prayer. I believe that that Christian prayer has been read on every occasion that the House has sat since that date. Hon. Members who attend Prayers will know its words. It asks for wisdom from above
    "to direct and guide us in all our consultations".
    Our consultations are not confined to those that take place here and in another place. They include consultation with those whom we represent and those who will have to do the work that will result from the provisions that we are now discussing. The prayer continues:
    "the publick wealth, peace and tranquillity of the Realm and the uniting and knitting together of the hearts of all persons and states within the same".
    I am sorry to say that, in my judgment, the amendments will not achieve that. Therefore, we should not agree with the Lords amendment.
    Mr. Michael Alison: I suspect that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I have a good deal in common in this area, although we may have differences in others. I disagree, however, with a significant part of his argument for rejecting writing Christianity into the Bill. He said that it would demoralise and do nothing to raise the standards, motivation, zeal and numbers of those committed to teaching Christianity by example, lifestyle and expertise.
    Without sounding too partisan, I make my point by using the analogy of what is happening in the Labour party. If the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) succeed in becoming the leader and deputy leader of the Labour party, it will be because it is believed that the projection of clear and distinctive Socialist policies will encourage enthusiasm and abandon or torpedo the apathy that is currently the enemy of the Labour party. We believe that exactly the same principle applies in restoring Christianity to the centrality of the Bill. It will encourage and mobilise. It will give hope to those who are presently dormant and apathetic, who are waiting for a clear trumpet note to be sounded. The writing of Christianity into the Bill will do exactly that.
    Mr. Anderson: If the right hon. Gentleman continues with that line, he may deter many of us who are determined to vote for the amendments.
    Mr. Alison: I said deliberately that I would use an analogy. The hon. Gentleman is well enough educated to know what an analogy means and when one fails to amount to demonstrable proof.
    I hope that the House will see fit to endorse the amendments. They are related to education, not indoctrination. They make ample provision for the teaching and practices of other principal religions which are represented in Great Britain. They uphold the traditional rights of parents to withdraw their children from religious education or worship. They have gained support from the Chief Rabbi, among others, as well as individual Moslems who are concerned with religious education. They accord with the wishes and aspirations of the great mass of British parents, both past and present. For all its secularism today, Britain remains, in my view, a Christian society. In T. S. Eliot's oft quoted words:
    "A society has not ceased to be Christian until it has become positively something else."
    The 1983 survey of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys concluded that the number of children in state schools whose country of origin disposed them to have a non-Christian cultural heritage was a little under 4 per cent. The comprehensive Bible Society-Gallup Poll survey of 1986 yielded the fact that 85 per cent. of the population liked to think of itself as Christian. I remind the House that the distinguished historian, Lord Blake, has written of the Christian religion as follows:
    "It is quite impossible to understand its political and cultural developments unless one understands the nature of religion which under changing forms and differing institutions permeated the consciousness of men and women, conditioned their ideas, shaped their politics and inspired so much of their culture."
    I conclude by reminding my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of a by-way of scripture that I fear will become tediously well trodden in the context of the Butler Act of 1944 and the Baker Act of 1988. There is a famous Old Testament story in Genesis, chapter 40, about Joseph in Egypt. Joseph was able to interpret the dreams of the Pharoah's chief butler and chief baker. One of them was lifted up to his former glory, while the other was lifted up on the gallows. I need not tell this well-educated House whether the butler or the baker was placed on the gallows. If any hon. Member does not know, that demonstrates the need for a greater emphasis to be placed on religious education.
    Suffice to say that I believe that the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be lifted up with esteem and gratitude for the courage, sympathy and dedication with which he has helped to negotiate and bring to fruition one of the most fundamental and significant improvements in the provision of education—above all, in religious education—in this country that we have seen for many centuries. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved and hope very much that the House will endorse the amendment.
    6 pm
    Mr. Greville Janner: In the beginning, before God created heaven and earth, there was chaos and confusion. This Bill will have the same effect because it has not had the careful consideration that it requires to deal with religious education, which is one of the most sensitive issues.
    I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House because I believe that I am the only person here from a
    832
    minority religion—[Interruption]—at least, the only such hon. Member who intends to take part in the debate. I remember with great hurt, my suffering as a child, through having to take part in Christian assemblies in Canada during the war. I remember the fear that I felt as Easter approached each year. My school mates, who were normally on very good terms with me, accused me of having personally killed Christ. I remember how I loathed, feared and resented having to take part in those assemblies.
    I fully appreciate that in the great and respected Christian tradition of this country, it is an enormous privilege for the grandson of four Jewish immigrants to represent a constituency in which there are practically no Jewish people, but where there is a majority of Christians, many of whom are non-practising, and a considerable minority of Hindus, Moslems and Sikhs. People are good enough to accept me for what I am and to allow me to attend their school assemblies, for what they are. I pay tribute to the teachers in so many of the multi-ethnic, multi-faith schools who try to make the children feel at home, whatever their religion. Some of the children greet me with Hebrew songs when I visit them.
    Others submit Hindu children to Christian practices. I have always believed that that was wrong. It is true that people can opt out. It is also true that, two generations back, Jewish people did not know their rights, did not necessarily speak the English language, and often did not exercise their rights. I am ill at ease about the opting-out principle that permeates this legislation.
    It was right for Lord Campbell of Alloway to seek to include an amendment
    "to ensure that religious education, Christian or otherwise, shall promote respect, understanding and tolerance for those who adhere to other faiths".
    I am sorry that that has been excluded. I am not encouraged by the statement that a circular will be issued by the Department which will confirm the intention. I have no faith in circulars.
    Much mention has been made of my dear and respected friend and leader, Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi. It will not come as a complete surprise to hon. Members, who have heard that there are one or two dissenting voices within the Christian faith and some difficulty even in defining Christianity, to realise that possibly there are occasional difficulties in other faiths as not all accept everything that their leaders say. However, Lord Jakobovits was very careful to say:
    "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."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 July 1988; Vol. 499, c. 440.]
    I hope that I will not be considered disloyal to my noble Friend the Chief Rabbi if I state that I do not feel that same sense of encouragement and relief. I believe in the printed word. As a lawyer and Queen's counsel I know to my cost and pleasure that courts interpret not what is said in exegesis by a noble Prelate, Baroness or Lord, but what is written into statute. I do not believe that what it is now proposed to write into statute provides the proper basis for what is now a multi-religious society, whatever polls referred to in this House may show.
    In the country overall, the polls may be correct. However, Britain is spotted and dappled with areas of

    833
    religious minority interest. I speak not simply as a member of the Jewish faith, but as an hon. Member who proudly represents constituents of all faiths. I believe that the needs and interests of the newer religions should have the greatest attention paid to them in the Bill. That attention is lacking.
    I pay tribute to the goodwill and intentions of the Secretary of State and his colleagues on this issue. I know that these provisions are not intended to do an unkindness. I appreciate that one of the glories of this great tradition of Christianity in this country is respect for the smaller religions and minority groups. I respectfully submit that they are not properly dealt with in the Bill. That is why I shall vote for the Opposition amendment and against the Lords amendment.
    Mr. Gregory: The section dealing with morning assembly and religious education is one of the most important aspects of the Bill.
    We do not today find the majority of schools following the tenet of the Education Act 1944, but teachers should appreciate that Britain is fundamentally a Christian country, as was said so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison).
    Parents and guardians expect a Christian ethic to be specifically manifested on a daily basis in the collective act of worship and less frequently in a programme of religious education. All young people should have the opportunity to learn the fundamental principles of the Christian faith. If they come from a religious background which finds it impossible to accept that at school, the Bill clearly allows them to opt out. It may surpise some people to learn that, sad to say, these clauses are required. Clearly we have moved a long way from the standards set following the Education Act 1944 which are not being upheld in many schools.
    I was so concerned about that fact that I carried out a survey of schools in York funded by the local authority. Of those which responded, only one secondary school and 12 out of 26 primary schools held a daily collective act of worship. Clearly there is a case for much more inquiry by school governors and for monitoring by Her Majesty's Inspectorate.
    In a city with a strong Christian ethic and little evidence of other faiths, it is incredible that children, even of primary school age, can be confused by a syllabus that seeks to compare different religions before a good grounding has been given in Christianity. Yet that is the experience even in York primary schools. Some even deny visits by Christian ministers.
    Ms. Hilary Armstrong: Does the hon. Member accept that one of the difficulties of delivering the Education Act 1944 is the shortage of available teachers and resources? It is a major source of concern to religious education teachers that we are passing legislation that is totally unworkable. The resources are not available, and they are unhappy about this legislation.
    Mr. Gregory: I do not accept either of those tenets. Resources do not need to take the form of the most ultra-modern videos, and suchlike. If any school cannot provide teachers with a genuinely strong Christian background—and I have yet to find one that cannot—there are visiting ministers who, on a denominational basis, will be very happy to provide support.
    Mr. Elliot Morley rose—
    Mr. Gregory: I must move on, because of the hour. I know that a number of hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) will understand.
    The problems that I have mentioned are not confined to York. The law on collective acts of worship and religious education is not being complied with in Newcastle, on Tyneside, in Doncaster, and in many parts of southern England. With the passing of this Bill, it will be essential for the Secretary of State to issue a circular, to which the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has referred, spelling out the terms and spirit of the Act in relation to both morning assembly and religious education. I hope that there will be an opportunity for my right hon. Friend to refer to that aspect, because there has been confusion in the past. With the passing of the Bill, we shall have clarity and certainty. Schools, and the vast majority of teachers, will accept and welcome that.
    Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I spoke in the 23 March debate which related specifically to the place and status of religious education. As the Secretary of State has reminded us, the debate has since moved on. Even in that earlier debate, anxiety was expressed by both sides of the House about violation of the Education Act 1944. The House has just heard from the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) why there was concern. Worry was also expressed on 23 March about the content of religious education and about worship at particular schools, or where the multi-faith approach has been adopted to the extent that all faiths are trivialised, as was observed by the Chief Rabbi in another place.
    There has also been consequential concern about the need to protect the integrity of Christianity and of other world religions. As a result—and it seems that this needs to be repeated, in view of what has passed in this debate—discussions have taken place with representatives of all the major Christian churches, representatives of other faiths, those representing local authorities, teachers' unions, parents' and governors' organisations, and educational organisations such as the Religious Education Council.
    6.15 pm
    The Bishop of London reported in another place that he and his colleagues received widespread support; none whom he and they consulted wishes to oppose the amendment. While affirming clearly the place of Christianity, the changes in the agreed syllabus provide for a flexibility of emphasis in areas where the vast majority of pupils are from other faiths. Similar provisions are made for worship. However, where the occasion requires—for example, in a school in which the family tradition is predominantly Moslem—the act of worship can draw on that tradition. The advice of the standing advisory councils and the use of the complaints procedure must be available in that respect. All that has been confirmed by the Secretary of State, but it is necessary again to place it on the record.
    I cannot see where the charge of imposition made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) arises. His dissent falls into three categories. First, he is concerned about any disturbance of the 1944 Act. Secondly, he is concerned that the churches are being allowed to make

    835
    their failure to reach the parents a reason for the statutory right to access to their children. Thirdly he is concerned about other faiths held, notably, by ethnic minorities.
    I do not believe that those are valid objections. What went wrong after the Education Act 1944 was that the churches did not involve themselves in the teaching of religion in schools. That attitude is changing and there is a greater confidence among the churches today, and they will now take a positive lead. As the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) reminded us, we are now dealing with a fundamentally changed situation. Recently, our religious life has been enriched by those outside the Judeo-Christian religion. West Indian children, of course, have a Christian cultual tradition. The parents of children of the Hindu and Moslem faiths expect their religion to be transmitted in the home, and are content for their children to learn in school about the religion of the host country.
    Over the weekend, I consulted yet again with the Moslem ethnic community's leader in the east end of Sheffield. He reminded me that nothing more insults him and his colleagues in their deep religious faith than the teaching of bits of alternative religions with no feeling for the depth of conviction of the faith of their adherents. We have—dare I say it?—an excellent relationship, and it is based largely on strongly held convictions on both sides. They do not reject the view that the story of Christianity should be told to their children, because they believe that their children cannot understand the nature of our country unless they are told that story. They join us in acknowledging that—as was said by the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison)—no one can understand our heritage in art, music and literature without having a deep knowledge of the Judeo-Christian tradition.
    Few if any of us believe that children can grow up with a genuine sense of moral purpose without a grounding in religion. However, I believe that in this country, the basic values of the Christian religion should also be known and taught. Morality, detached from its theological or philosophical foundations, would be no more than a series of arbitrary commands, with little claim on the allegiance of the heart or the mind. Furthermore, our parliamentary democracy owes everything to the teachings of the New Testament and to the Christian interpretation of the value of the individual.
    We also built a welfare state on the basis that we are each other's keepers and that we are members of a family. That also comes out of the New Testament. The children of today are the beneficiaries of a society created by people who held such values. Our democracy, our institutions and our freedom are dependent on Christian insights. Therefore, it goes beyond morality, but we can see how moral education has traditionally been associated with religious education. As all my hon. Friends know, there is no such thing as a value-free education. There is no such thing as neutral education. Even state schools are expected to transmit the religious and moral values that are accepted by the nation. Those values constitute the common possession of society. They are the basis of civilised life within our community.
    I go further. As I indicated on 23 March, I believe in the right of parents to have their children educated in their faith. That means more than being taught about their
    836
    religion. It entails inculcation of a unified system of beliefs and values that shape behaviour and things great and small. That is my view.
    I cannot see how the Lords amendments can possibly be regarded as evidence of a new move in the direction of Christian exclusivism. It is evidence, rather, of the seriousness with which many teachers of religious education now want to take a fresh look at the Judeo-Christian traditions that have contributed so richly to our western cultural heritage. It is evidence also of an increasing willingness to try to be clear about what Christianity is. It is evidence that most parents in this country want their children to be educated in the Christian tradition. The law grants them that right, and we are called upon tonight to see that it is observed honestly and efficiently. I therefore support the amendments.
    Sir Peter Emery: I shall be brief, because many hon. Members wish to speak. Let me add that no hon. Member who has spoken so far has not spoken with absolute honesty and conviction, whatever the views expressed.
    I think that many people believe that the structure and the strength of this country have been built up on an Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Christian society and its beliefs, and are greatly concerned that moral and ethical standards have declined and are still declining. If that decline is to be stopped, I believe that it can be limited only by a stronger return to religious structure. If we are indeed a Christian country, we should have the faith to do everything in our power to encourage that to be taught to our young people in schools. Surely it is right that they should understand the ethical structure of Christianity and the moral obligations that form the basis of a civilised society, and those, I believe, are best taught through some form of religious education.
    We are not attempting to suggest that Christianity should be universal; the amendments make specific allowances for members of other faiths to opt out of any of the Christian structures set out in them. Nevertheless, I do not believe that ethnic communities who come here to benefit from all that we have should expect their faith or social structure to change what has been the greatness of our own society—although that does not mean that we must stop them believing what they want to believe.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett rose—
    Sir Peter Emery: I will not give way, because many hon. Members wish to speak.
    The amendments spell that out. They urge that education should turn more to what I have been talking about than it has in the past. If, as has been suggested, there is a shortage of teachers, it is because we have not been urging that on the profession under the 1944 Act, as I believe Butler expected. The provision of the Act has been weakened. We need to strengthen it, and the amendments set out to do that. They will fulfil the wish of most parents, and for that reason they need the support of every hon. Member.
    Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I think that I am the first non-believer to speak in the debate. This may be a good day for the Christians, but it is a bad day for the sense and sensibilities of the rest of us. It is extraordinary that a new religious settlement should have been reached in haste and in dark

    837
    corners between an unacceptable bishop and an unelectable peer. The result is impoverished, impractical and unprincipled amendments which ought to be assigned to the dustbin of ideology gone wrong.
    We are being asked to enshrine in legislation unworkable and unrealisable pontifical nonsense which will cause chaos in our schools, dismay among pupils and divisions between all. Worse, I fear that we may inadvertently be introducing a charter for fundamentalists, bigots and zealots that will unleash forces of Byronic darkness in our schools. Perhaps I could tell the hon. Members a little more about Byronic darkness in a moment.
    I do not want to be unkind, but I believe that our message to the Lords in general and the Bishop of London in particular can be summed up in the words of Coleridge, who said:
    "He who begins by loving Christianity better than Truth will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, and end by loving himself better than all."
    Coleridge, I am sure, would have said that the amendments had been produced by a bad bishop and a bad peer. I cannot say that, because it is unparliamentary.
    Let me make it clear that I am not attacking Christianity per se, and that I am not sure that I agree with either Frank Harris or Balfour in their famous discussion about religion. I am sure that all hon. Members who have read Margot Asquith's biography of Balfour will recall the conversation. Frank Harris said: "The fact is, Mr. Balfour, all the faults of the age come from Christianity and journalism", to which Balfour replied delphically: "Christianity, of course, Mr. Harris, but why journalism?"
    In my view, for Parliament to assert the primacy of the Christian faith in the teaching in our schools is a morally, intellectually and metaphysically bankrupt exercise. For rabbis and imams to have to go to some standing council to ask for their own daily act of worship—even as other religions, and indeed secularism, are rising in this country while their own religion declines—shows the arrogance of the Christian establishment. It also shows how the religions fail daily to inspire the people who back them and who cannot manage without compulsory ritual. For Parliament to insist on the teaching of Christianity in what will inevitably be a crowded curriculum—putting it above learning that involves knowledge, understanding and awareness of the physical, mental and material world, and at the expense of science, logic, truth and the development of the imaginative faculties—shows just how easily in the modern world we can retreat inside ourselves, our guilt and our helplessness.
    The idea that a school can preach racial harmony at the same time as allowing two or three segregrated acts of worship to take place daily seems so foolhardy that it could only come from people who hear voices from the other world. As I watched the Secretary of State introduce the amendments, I was reminded of Parson Richards, a character in one of Shelley's ballads. Like the Secretary of State, Parson Richards is suave, well heeled and well fed. His greatest love was feeding his hound. He had also sired a bastard son. The mother of the child takes up the story:
    "Priest, consider that God who created us
    Meant this for a world of love—
    Remember the story of Lazarus
    You preach to the people of—…
    And yet I cannot imagine how we
    Can call him just and good,
    When he sends a wretched woman like me
    To a man like you for food.
    838
    Oh God! This poor dear child did I
    At thy command bear and cherish—
    Thou bads't us increase and multiply,
    And our tyrants bid us perish!"
    I am sure that the Secretary of State understands the metaphor. Let me ask him a simple question: what shall it profit a mother if under the Education Reform Bill she understands all the gods and loses her own body and son?
    If I were God—and, in the words of the negro spiritualist, if there has got to be a God, then why not me?—I would make sure that the Secretary of State expurgated his sins in the after life, and that his colleagues did the same, for all the suffering that they have caused in this life.
    When the other place debated these clauses, three journalists rushed into Westminster Hall and said to me that they were perturbed because Members of the other place and of this House were not prepared to stand up to the unwarranted claims that the bishops were making for the young minds of pupils. My reply was that we should consider Churchill's famous statement that we are all Socialists now, but in the modern world we are all cowards now and only too ready to accept the tyranny of the religions. It is a sure sign that we live in a country whose culture is in irreversible decline.
    6.30 pm
    The public know that a fair number of Members of Parliament are charlatans. They know the depths of hypocrisy to which Members of Parliament are prepared to descend and that often we preach morals that we do not practise, but they have a right to expect that on important matters of principle hon. Members should speak to the truth of their understanding and feelings. The public have a right to expect hon. Members not to give way to zealots and fanatics who demand the potential to bring darkness, even nemesis, into our schools. Byron wrote:
    "I had a dream, which was not all a dream.
    The bright sun was extinguish'd, and the stars
    Did wander darkling in the eternal space,
    Rayless, and pathless, and the icy earth
    Swung blind and blackening in the moonless air;
    Morn came, and went—and came, and brought no day,
    And men forgot their passions in the dread
    Of this their desolation; and all hearts
    Were chill'd into a selfish prayer for light: …
    And the clouds perished:
    Darkness had no need of aid from them—
    She was the universe."
    We have no right to introduce darkness into our schools.
    Mr. Cormack: Methinks that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) doth protest too much. One thing that he has certainly developed in an obviously most fascinating education is his imaginative faculty. I look forward to the anthology of verse that he will produce as a rejoinder to that recently produced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I suspect, though, that it will be less positive in its progress and a little more destructive in its impact.
    I strongly agree with two points made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I deplore the fact that we are debating this extremely important subject under a guillotine and I hope that every hon. Member will regard the vote as a free vote. I personally regard every vote as a free vote. I received my little document saying that my attendance was essential, and I am here, but tonight I shall have absolutely no hesitation in supporting my right hon.

    839
    Friend. What he said was just, right and fair and the alternations made to the Bill in another place were positive and sensible.
    We have to recognise that the Education Act 1944 has not worked properly, and I speak as one who was a schoolmaster. In far too many schools the daily act of worship has been perfunctory, if it has been held at all. Far too often, non-believers have been given the job of inculcating religion. In the previous debate I pointed out to my right hon. Friend that I believe that, as far as possible, the teaching of religion should be restricted to those who believe in the religion that they are teaching. The law has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Now that we are looking for the first time for almost half a century at the content and direction of our education system it is right to consider what should be written into this Education Reform Bill. It is also right to recognise without arrogance and intolerance that we live in a society that has been moulded, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) said in a brave and positive speech, by the Judeo-Christian civilisation. Many people never go near a church, but most of them recognise that inheritance. I will give just one example. In a village in my constituency, where I happened to be church warden, we had to raise a lot of money for the church. We were out one Sunday and found that some 85 per cent. of the inhabitants of the village gave something towards their church, for they recognised what it stood for, even though many of them rarely, if ever, darkened its doors.
    The law cannot impose morality or a religious faith but it can recognise the bedrock of society. If we pass these amendments, that is all that we shall be doing.
    I fully understand and sympathise with the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). One of the things that I am most pleased to have done in this House, together with him, is to found the all-party committee for the release of Soviet Jewry. We have worked together and we respect each other. I think we understand our respective points of view, but I am bound to say to him that I believe that the Chief Rabbi is right and that he is wrong. I can hardly be accused of great deviation from the joint cause that we espouse if I say that. The Chief Rabbi has recognised some great and profound truths. He has become one of the moral leaders of this nation, to whom we all look up, and I rejoice in his elevation to another place, of which he will be one of the most valuable Members and recognised as such in years to come.
    Christianity should, above all, teach tolerance. The second of the great commandments exhorts us to love our neighbours as ourselves. Those who have come to this country to settle or who have been born in this country into another faith have nothing to fear from the amendment or from Christianity that is properly practised and properly taught. There will always be bigots, zealots, charlatans and rogues, but we have a duty to recognise one of the fundamental truths of our society: that we are the inheritors of a great tradition that has been moulded by a great religion. The amendment recognises that fact. It does no more. Those who do not espouse the Christian religion have nothing to fear from the amendments that I hope we shall pass this evening.
    Mr. Paul Boateng: The real division in our society is not between Christians and non-Christians but between those who have faith and those who have not. The real division in our society is not between Hindus and Christians, Moslems and Christians and Sikhs and Christians but between those who need a place for the spirit. We should create in our schools a place for the spirit.
    My fear about what lies implicity and explicitly behind the speeches of those hon. Members who support the Lords amendment is the suggestion that the balance of the Education Act 1944 has been removed because of demographic changes. That view is fundamentally false. The real changes that have altered the balance of the 1944 Act have nothing to do with race or demography but everything to do with the rising tide of secularism and materialism. We in this place should be seeking to carve out a place within the curriculum that recognises that fact.
    The question is how best to do that. Do we do that by raising to a special position of prominence the faith to which I happen to adhere—the Christian religion—or do we recognise the real division that exists now between the faithless and the faithful, and say that we need to draw on the multiplicity of religious traditions that exists in our society? We should draw on the Hindu religion, the religion of the Sikhs and on Islam to enrich the spiritual body of our nation. Our challenge is to devise legislation to do just that.
    I listened with a certain amount of trepidation to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) that those who come new to this country have in some way to adapt to our "tradition." The reverse is true. We should recognise not simply the historical fact that when people from this country went to India they did not for one moment abandon Christianity; they took Christianity there. We should also recognise that we can draw on the Hindus, the Sikhs and the Moslems to enrich our spiritual pool. We should face that challenge, but I fear that the Lords amendments do not do that.
    However, we are doing something that we may live to regret. The law will create a scenario in which people will be able to opt out of that spiritual pool. We shall lose the Hindus, the Sikhs and the Moslems and the contributions that they make, with us, as Christians, to carving out that place for the spirit that can be so attractive—we know and believe that it can be attractive because we are people of faith—to people who at the moment travail without faith, have nothing to cling to and, as a result, are exposed to the moral buffeting to which so many of our people are subjected.
    Our choice is whether or not we enrich that spiritual pool. I hope that the House will make a choice for the spirit and reject the materialism, the secularism and, above all, the division that underlies the Lords amendments.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the Secretary of State have the leave of the House to speak again?
    Hon. Members: Yes.
    Mr. Baker: I must say how much I agree with the initial comment of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng). I believe that it is very important to open up to children the spiritual dimension of life. Education is not

    841
    just about the mental and physical development of a child. Children going through the education process should be aware of the spiritual dimension. I say at once that it does not necessarily have to be Christian.
    However, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's comments on the amendments. The amendments seek, first, to ensure that religious education is re-established and taught. Many people feel that since 1944 it has weakened. They also strengthen the Christian background and the Christian tradition. My hon. Friends the Members for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) have stressed how important that is to the framework of this country.
    One cannot live in this country without being aware of that. That point was made very clearly in the comments of the Chief Rabbi in the other place. He was quoting another rabbi when he said:
    "'From schools that had confidence in their Christianity, I learnt an answering pride in my Jewishness; and I discovered that those who best appreciate other faiths are those who treasure their own.'"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 May 1988; Vol. 496, c. 420.]
    That spirit infuses through the amendments moved by the Bishop of London in the other place.
    The amendments contain nothing intolerant. There is no imposition; there is scope for those who do not believe at all or who wish to believe in other faiths. We believe that there must be a bedrock in the basic teaching of Christianity in our schools, in both religious education and worship, because in that way our society is strengthened in a tolerant, humane and spiritual way.
    Mr. Straw: The issue before the House this evening concerns tolerance. We have to remember that within the memory of all right hon. and hon. Members there have been periods of great intolerance, not only against Hindus, Moslems or those of no faith, but against the Catholics, the Methodists and the Non-conformists.
    We do not dissent from much that has been said on both sides of the House about the aim. We object to the method and to the way in which we are being forced to vote on a block of amendments without discrimination. We object to the structure written into the Act—a structure we all know the Secretary of State opposed on 23 March. I believe that, in his heart, the Secretary of State opposes it still, as do other Ministers, as it is an unworkable and unacceptable structure.
    I commend amendment (a) to the House. Then we shall be forced to vote against the whole block of amendments, although we support some of them.
    It being a quarter to Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 362.

    Division No. 417]

    [6.45 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Allen, Graham

    Blair, Tony

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Boateng, Paul

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Boyes, Roland

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Bradley, Keith

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Battle, John

    Buchan, Norman

    Beckett, Margaret

    Caborn, Richard

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

    Callaghan, Jim

    842

    Canavan, Dennis

    McKelvey, William

    Cartwright, John

    McLeish, Henry

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    McTaggart, Bob

    Clay, Bob

    McWilliam, John

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Madden, Max

    Cohen, Harry

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Marek, Dr John

    Corbett, Robin

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Martlew, Eric

    Cousins, Jim

    Maxton, John

    Cryer, Bob

    Meacher, Michael

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Meale, Alan

    Dalyell, Tam

    Michael, Alun

    Darling, Alistair

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Dewar, Donald

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Dixon, Don

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Dobson, Frank

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Morley, Elliott

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Mullin, Chris

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Nellist, Dave

    Fatchett, Derek

    Parry, Robert

    Faulds, Andrew

    Patchett, Terry

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

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Fisher, Mark

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Flannery, Martin

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Flynn, Paul

    Radice, Giles

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Redmond, Martin

    Foster, Derek

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Foulkes, George

    Richardson, Jo

    Fraser, John

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Galbraith, Sam

    Robertson, George

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Rogers, Allan

    George, Bruce

    Rooker, Jeff

    Gordon, Mildred

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Gould, Bryan

    Ruddock, Joan

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Haynes, Frank

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

    Hinchliffe, David

    Soley, Clive

    Holland, Stuart

    Spearing, Nigel

    Hood, Jimmy

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Strang, Gavin

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Straw, Jack

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Turner, Dennis

    Illsley, Eric

    Vaz, Keith

    Janner, Greville

    Wall, Pat

    John, Brynmor

    Walley, Joan

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Lambie, David

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Leighton, Ron

    Wilson, Brian

    Litherland, Robert

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Loyden, Eddie

    McAllion, John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Mr. Ken Eastham and Mrs. Llin Golding.

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Batiste, Spencer

    Alexander, Richard

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Allason, Rupert

    Bendall, Vivian

    Alton, David

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Amos, Alan

    Benyon, W.

    Anderson, Donald

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Arbuthnot, James

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Ashby, David

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Atkins, Robert

    Body, Sir Richard

    Atkinson, David

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Boswell, Tim

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Baldry, Tony

    Bowden, A (Brighton Kpto'n)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    843

    Bowis, John

    Franks, Cecil

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Freeman, Roger

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    French, Douglas

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Fry, Peter

    Brazier, Julian

    Gale, Roger

    Bright, Graham

    Gardiner, George

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Gill, Christopher

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

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Buckley, George J.

    Gorst, John

    Burns, Simon

    Gow, Ian

    Burt, Alistair

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Butcher, John

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Butler, Chris

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Butterfill, John

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Gregory, Conal

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Grist, Ian

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Carrington, Matthew

    Ground, Patrick

    Carttiss, Michael

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Cash, William

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Chope, Christopher

    Hannam, John

    Churchill, Mr

    Hardy, Peter

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

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

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Harris, David

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Coleman, Donald

    Hayes, Jerry

    Colvin, Michael

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Conway, Derek

    Hayward, Robert

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Heddle, John

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Couchman, James

    Hill, James

    Cran, James

    Hind, Kenneth

    Critchley, Julian

    Holt, Richard

    Cummings, John

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Howard, Michael

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

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

    Curry, David

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

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

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

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

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Day, Stephen

    Hunter, Andrew

    Devlin, Tim

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Irvine, Michael

    Dicks, Terry

    Jack, Michael

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Jackson, Robert

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Janman, Tim

    Dover, Den

    Jessel, Toby

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Dunn, Bob

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Durant, Tony

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Kennedy, Charles

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Key, Robert

    Evennett, David

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Fallon, Michael

    Knapman, Roger

    Farr, Sir John

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Favell, Tony

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Fearn, Ronald

    Knowles, Michael

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Knox, David

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Lamond, James

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Lang, Ian

    Forman, Nigel

    Latham, Michael

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Forth, Eric

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    844

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Lightbown, David

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Lilley, Peter

    Rost, Peter

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Lord, Michael

    Ryder, Richard

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Maclean, David

    Scott, Nicholas

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    McNamara, Kevin

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Madel, David

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Mans, Keith

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Maples, John

    Shersby, Michael

    Marland, Paul

    Sims, Roger

    Marlow, Tony

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Speed, Keith

    Mates, Michael

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Squire, Robin

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Steen, Anthony

    Mills, Iain

    Stern, Michael

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stevens, Lewis

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Moate, Roger

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Stokes, Sir John

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Sumberg, David

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Mudd, David

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Murphy, Paul

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Neale, Gerrard

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Needham, Richard

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Neubert, Michael

    Thorne, Neil

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Thurnham, Peter

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Tracey, Richard

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Tredinnick, David

    Page, Richard

    Trippier, David

    Paice, James

    Trotter, Neville

    Patnick, Irvine

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Viggers, Peter

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Pawsey, James

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Walden, George

    Pike, Peter L.

    Wallace, James

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Waller, Gary

    Portillo, Michael

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Ward, John

    Price, Sir David

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Warren, Kenneth

    Randall, Stuart

    Watts, John

    Rathbone, Tim

    Wells, Bowen

    Renton, Tim

    Wheeler, John

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Riddick, Graham

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Wilkinson, John

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Wilshire, David

    845

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Wolfson, Mark

    Wood, Timothy

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Woodcock, Mike

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr Tristan Garel-Jones

    Yeo, Tim

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you explain whether we are voting just on Lords amendment No. 1, or on the whole block?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me clarify the position for the House. I have put the Question on Lords amendment No. 1. Once we have disposed of that, in accordance with the motion approved earlier by the House, I shall put the Question on all the outstanding Lords amendments in the group. For the sake of clarity, I will put the Question again.
    Question agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
    Question put forthwith,
    That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords amendments:—
    The House divided: Ayes 372, Noes 108.

    Division No. 418]

    [7 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

    Brazier, Julian

    Alexander, Richard

    Bright, Graham

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Allason, Rupert

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

    Alton, David

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Amos, Alan

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Anderson, Donald

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Arbuthnot, James

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Buckley, George J.

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Burns, Simon

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Burt, Alistair

    Ashby, David

    Butcher, John

    Atkins, Robert

    Butler, Chris

    Atkinson, David

    Butterfill, John

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Baldry, Tony

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Carrington, Matthew

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Carttiss, Michael

    Bellingham, Henry

    Cash, William

    Bendall, Vivian

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Benyon, W.

    Chapman, Sydney

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Chope, Christopher

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Churchill, Mr

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

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

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Coleman, Donald

    Boswell, Tim

    Colvin, Michael

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Conway, Derek

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Bowis, John

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Cormack, Patrick

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Couchman, James

    846

    Cousins, Jim

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Cran, James

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Critchley, Julian

    Hill, James

    Cummings, John

    Hind, Kenneth

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Holt, Richard

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Curry, David

    Howard, Michael

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

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

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Day, Stephen

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Devlin, Tim

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Dicks, Terry

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Dover, Den

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Irvine, Michael

    Dunn, Bob

    Jack, Michael

    Durant, Tony

    Jackson, Robert

    Dykes, Hugh

    Janman, Tim

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Jessel, Toby

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Evennett, David

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Fallon, Michael

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Farr, Sir John

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Favell, Tony

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Fearn, Ronald

    Kennedy, Charles

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Key, Robert

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thlield)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Knapman, Roger

    Flynn, Paul

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Forman, Nigel

    Knowles, Michael

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Knox, David

    Forth, Eric

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Lang, Ian

    Franks, Cecil

    Latham, Michael

    Freeman, Roger

    Lawrence, Ivan

    French, Douglas

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Fry, Peter

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Gale, Roger

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Gardiner, George

    Lightbown, David

    Gill, Christopher

    Lilley, Peter

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Lord, Michael

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gorst, John

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Gow, Ian

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Maclean, David

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Gregory, Conal

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Madel, David

    Grist, Ian

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Grocott, Bruce

    Malins, Humfrey

    Ground, Patrick

    Mans, Keith

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Maples, John

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Marland, Paul

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Marlow, Tony

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Hannam, John

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Hardy, Peter

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

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

    Mates, Michael

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Harris, David

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Hayes, Jerry

    Meale, Alan

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Hayward, Robert

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Mills, Iain

    Heddle, John

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    847

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Sims, Roger

    Moate, Roger

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Speed, Keith

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Squire, Robin

    Moss, Malcolm

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Steen, Anthony

    Mudd, David

    Stern, Michael

    Murphy, Paul

    Stevens, Lewis

    Neale, Gerrard

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Needham, Richard

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Neubert, Michael

    Stokes, Sir John

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Sumberg, David

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Page, Richard

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Paice, James

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Parry, Robert

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Patnick, Irvine

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Thorne, Neil

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Pawsey, James

    Thurnham, Peter

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Tracey, Richard

    Portillo, Michael

    Tredinnick, David

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Trippier, David

    Price, Sir David

    Trotter, Neville

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Randall, Stuart

    Viggers, Peter

    Rathbone, Tim

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Reid, Dr John

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Renton, Tim

    Walden, George

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Wallace, James

    Riddick, Graham

    Waller, Gary

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Ward, John

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Watts, John

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Wells, Bowen

    Rost, Peter

    Wheeler, John

    Rowe, Andrew

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Ryder, Richard

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Wilshire, David

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Scott, Nicholas

    Wolfson, Mark

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Wood, Timothy

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Woodcock, Mike

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Yeo, Tim

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and

    Shersby, Michael

    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    NOES

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Boyes, Roland

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Bradley, Keith

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Buchan, Norman

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Caborn, Richard

    Battle, John

    Callaghan, Jim

    Beckett, Margaret

    Canavan, Dennis

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

    Cartwright, John

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Boateng, Paul

    Clay, Bob

    848

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Cohen, Harry

    Marek, Dr John

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Corbett, Robin

    Martlew, Eric

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Maxton, John

    Cryer, Bob

    Meacher, Michael

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Morgan, Rhodri

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

    Morley, Elliott

    Dewar, Donald

    Mullin, Chris

    Dixon, Don

    Nellist, Dave

    Dobson, Frank

    Patchett, Terry

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Eastham, Ken

    Prescott, John

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Fatchett, Derek

    Radice, Giles

    Faulds, Andrew

    Redmond, Martin

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

    Richardson, Jo

    Fisher, Mark

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Foster, Derek

    Rogers, Allan

    Foulkes, George

    Rooker, Jeff

    Fraser, John

    Ruddock, Joan

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    George, Bruce

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Gordon, Mildred

    Skinner, Dennis

    Gould, Bryan

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

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

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Soley, Clive

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Spearing, Nigel

    Haynes, Frank

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Hinchliffe, David

    Strang, Gavin

    Holland, Stuart

    Straw, Jack

    Hood, Jimmy

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Turner, Dennis

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Wall, Pat

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Walley, Joan

    Illsley, Eric

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    Janner, Greville

    Wareing, Robert N.

    John, Brynmor

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Lambie, David

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Leighton, Ron

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Litherland, Robert

    Loyden, Eddie

    Tellers for the Noes:

    McWilliam, John

    Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. Martin Flannery.

    Madden, Max

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 8 to 16, 147 to 186, 227, 476, 480 and 557 agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 6 agreed to.
    Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that the vote related not to Lords amendment No. 1 but to at least two major issues and more than 14 amendments, which were grouped in one Question?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not for me to judge the importance of the matter which the House has just decided. If the hon. Member is in any doubt, perhaps I should explain that the House has just voted on Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6 inclusive, 8 to 16 inclusive, 147 to 186 inclusive, 227, 476, 480 and 557.I hope that that helps the hon. Member.

  Clause 4

    DUTY TO ESTABLISH THE NATIONAL CURRICULUM BY ORDER
    Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 3, line 46, leave out subsection (4).
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendment No. 18, in clause 10, page 7, line 46, leave out from "apply" to end of line 47 and insert
    "; or
    (b) shall apply with such modifications as may be so specified;
    in such cases or circumstances as may be so specified."
    Amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, at end add
    'and regulations made under this section shall in particular ensure that where the National Curriculum does not apply to a registered pupil or is applied with modifications in cases and circumstances specified in the regulations, the head teacher shall inform in writing the parent of the pupil of the effect of the regulations and of the parent's rights under section 21'.
    Amendment (b) to the proposed Lords amendment, at end add—
    `( ) Regulations made under this section shall in particular provide that where the National Curriculum does not apply to a registered pupil, or applies with modifications in cases and circumstances specified in the regulations, the parent of the pupil shall be informed in writing by the head teacher of the effect of the regulations, of the provision that it is propose will be made for the pupil, and of his right to appeal to the governing body if he does not agree with the application of the regulations to the pupil, or with the provision it is proposed to make for the pupil.
    ( ) On any such appeal the governing body may—

    (a) confirm the head teacher's action; or

    (b) direct the head teacher to take such action authorised by the regulations as they consider appropriate in the circumstances;
    and it shall be the duty of the head teacher to comply with any directions of the governing body under paragraph (b) above.'.

    Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 25.
    Lords amendment No. 54, in clause 30, page 27, line 3, at end insert
    "(including, in particular, the number of registered pupils at a school who have special educational needs and the nature of the special educational provision required to be made for them)."
    Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, leave out 'and'.
    Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, after 'them', insert
    'having regard to the capacity of the local education authority to provide central services, including the schools psychological service, which may be relevant to such provision.'.
    Amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, in line 3, after 'them', insert
    'and the numbers and grading of staff required to produce that level of provision'.
    Lords amendments Nos. 68, 187, 188.
    Lords amendment No. 272, in clause 104, page 103, line 3, at end insert—
    "(8A) In fulfilling that duty a local education authority shall also have regard to the requirements of persons over compulsory school age who have learning difficulties.
    (8B) Subject to subsection (8C) below, for the purposes of subsection (8A) above a person has a "learning difficulty" if—

    (a) he has a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of persons of his age; or

    (b) he has a disability which either prevents or hinders him from making use of facilities of a kind generally provided by the local education authority concerned in pursuance of their duty under subsection (1) above for persons of his age.

    850
    (8C) A person is not to be taken as having a learning difficulty solely because the language (or form of language) in which he is, or will be, taught is different from a language (or form of a language) which has at any time been spoken in his home."
    Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 2, leave out 'also have regard to' and insert
    'make adequate provision to meet'.
    Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment, in line 2, leave out 'have regard to' and insert
    'secure the provision for their area of adequate facilities suited to'.
    Amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, in line 3, after 'age', insert
    up to and including the age of 19'.
    Amendment (d) to the Lords amendment, in line 4. at end insert 'or special needs'
    Lords amendments Nos. 275, 278 and 537.
    Lords amendment No. 538, in page 211, line 42, at end insert—
    '74B. In section 8(1) of the 1981 Act (appeals against statements) for the words from "following" to the end there shall be substituted the words ''against the special educational provision specified in the statement—

    (a) following the first or any subsequent assessment of the child's special educational needs under section 5; and

    (b) where the authority make any amendment to the special educational provision specified in the statement otherwise than on the making of any such assessment."'

    Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, at end of subparagraph (a) leave out 'and'.
    Amendment (b) to the Lords amendment at end insert
    'and
    (c) where the authority cease to maintain a statement for a child for whom they are responsible.'.
    Lords amendment No. 539.
    Mr. Dunn: A striking feature of the passage of the Bill has been the concern shown for pupils with special needs not merely by Members in both Houses but by Members on both sides of each House. I am glad to observe that the welfare of children with special needs is one subject that can be guaranteed to transcend party divisions and to unite both sides of the House. I am glad to see the many familiar faces of hon. Members who touched on this subject in Committee. Life would not be the same without the lugubrious features of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). Much of what we did was the result of the agreements and concerns of both sides of the Committee, and the Government gave a lead on occasions, although we were not always given credit for what was done.
    That was also the case when we dealt with the application of the national curriculum provisions. Hon. Members, especially those who served on the Committee, will know that it has been our wish and intention from the beginning that the benefits from the introduction of the national curriculum should extend to pupils with special needs. That is why the provisions of chapter I of the Bill apply to special schools maintained by local education authorities. We realised, however, that there would need to be some flexibility in implementing the national curriculum pupils with special needs.
    7.15 pm
    In the consultative document which preceded the Bill, it was proposed that there should be provision for statements of special educational need to specify any requirements of the national curriculum which should not

    851
    apply to individual pupils. That provision became clause 11. There was a need for a similar provision for pupils who were not the subject of statements; so clause 4 allowed the Secretary of State, in making orders about the foundation subjects, to specify modifications in respect of particular categories of pupil.
    That word "categories" brought back memories of pre-1981 Act language, and we were criticised for it. It was also said that some parts of the national curriculum would be so inappropriate for the most severely affected children that what was needed was not modification, but exemption. It was also pointed out that the provisions we had made were aimed at pupils with permanent or long-term difficulties, and would be slow to bring to bear. There was sometimes a need for a school to be able to act quickly to meet a temporary change of circumstances.
    I listened to these criticisms and, as I am not just a "listening Minister", we made some changes. We introduced clause 10 to deal with pupils without statements; we amended clause 11 to allow for exemptions from the national curriculum; and we introduced clause 12 to give head teachers powers to deal with temporary situations. The use of those powers will be subject to safeguards for the rights of the pupils and their parents.
    The amendments made in another place build on our provisions and tidy them up. It became clear that the provisions in clauses 4 and 10 had much in common. Amendments Nos. 7 and 18 combine them. Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 are drafting amendments to clause 11. Amendment No. 23 acknowledges the fact that a pupil whose statement of special educational needs already specifies a modification to the national curriculum may need a further, temporary, change while those needs are being reassessed—perhaps because of a change of circumstances. Amendments Nos. 22, 24 and 25 are consequential amendments.
    Amendment No. 538 extends the parents' right of appeal under the Education Act 1981 to cover the case where a statement is being amended without a complete reassessment, as may be needed to write in modifications to the national curriculum. Amendment No. 539 requires the LEA to inform the parents of their right of appeal in such cases.
    Amendment No. 537 is slightly different. It enables local education authorities to provide for any non-educational provision which is specified in a child's statement of special educational needs under the Education Act 1981. As the House knows from experience of the legislation, the responsibility falls on the appropriate statutory agencies.
    The Government recognise the strength of feeling on this subject and we understand and recognise the uncertainty felt in many quarters about the provision of speech therapy following the Oxfordshire judgment in 1986. The fact that three separate attempts were made in the other place to secure an amendment on this matter is a tribute to the tenacity of their Lordships and an expression of their concern—and concern was expressed in this House as well. In that event, I am glad to say that it was third time lucky and the Government are happy to commend the amendment to the House.
    852
    Lords amendment No. 54—which has an air of familiarity for my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and others—is concerned with special needs in schemes of financial delegation. Concern has rightly been expressed that facilities for pupils with special educational needs should be safeguarded under schemes of financial delegation.
    As we have made clear both in this House and in the other place, the Government fully share that aim. The draft guidance issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes it clear that local education authorities will be expected to take account of special needs in their formula for allocating resources between schools. Nor is this merely advisory. Clause 26(2) requires the local education authority to take account of the guidance in preparing its scheme, and my right hon. Friend will not approve any scheme that fails to do so. In addition, provision may be safeguarded by local education authorities excepting from delegation a number of key areas, such as the school psychological and welfare services, and provision for pupils with statements of special needs.
    None the less, the Government recognise the force of the argument that there should be an explicit recognition of the position of special needs on the face of the Bill. Lords amendment No. 54 provides this by specifying special needs as a factor that may be taken into account in the resource allocation formula. Together with the clear requirement set out in the draft guidance, the amendment will ensure that local education authorities provide through their formula for variations in numbers and for the provision required for pupils with special needs. I hope that the House will welcome that as a further and explicit statement of the Government's aims.
    The new clause inserted by Lords amendment No. 68 is designed to ensure that local education authorities have the flexibility, where they wish, to include special schools as part of their schemes. The existing clause 35 provides for the Secretary of State to be able to require delegation to special schools by regulations. But, as my right hon. Friend has made clear in his draft guidance, he does not intend to make such regulations until there is more experience of voluntary delegation by local education authorities. It is therefore desirable that local education authorities should have the freedom, where they consider it appropriate, to extend delegation to special schools voluntarily.
    The provisions will allow individual special schools to be treated differently, in recognition of their widely different needs and characteristics. It would be open to local education authorities under the regulations to decide which individual special schools, if any, should be included in the scheme. The regulations would also serve to disapply requirements of this part of the Bill that would not be appropriate for special schools. In particular, we envisage that the application of the resource allocation formula will need to be different for special schools to take account of the specific nature of their needs.
    These provisions are permissive. Regulations made under them will be made only after more experience of delegation and extensive consultation. I hope that the House will support the aim of providing more flexibility, and accept and endorse the amendments. Lords amendment No. 187 requires the governors of a grant-maintained school who have published proposals under clause 77 for a change of character to the school or

    853
    enlargement of its premises to submit to the Secretary of State information on the extent to which the proposed premises would meet the minimum requirements of design note 18 on access to educational buildings for physically disabled people. The amendment will signal to governors the kind of detailed information that they will be expected to provide in such circumstances. It affords further reassurance and additional security for all those with special needs who will be users of grant-maintained schools. On those grounds, I commend the amendment to the House.
    Lords amendments Nos. 272, 275 and 278 deal with further and higher education. We recognise the need for special provision to be available for students with learning difficulties after they have left school. The revised version of section 41 of the Education Act 1944, which will be inserted by this Bill, gives local education authorities a duty to secure the provision of further education generally for their areas. This includes a duty to secure provision for students with special needs. Lords amendment No. 272 puts it beyond doubt that local education authorities must have regard to the requirements of such students. It defines these students by references to "learning difficulties", words that parallel those of the 1981 Act. Lords amendments Nos. 275 and 278 empower the higher education corporations to provide facilities for disabled students.
    I commend the amendments to the House.
    Mr. Derek Fatchett: This is a happy occasion in many respects as the Opposition agree with the Government and with the Lords amendments. It has been good to see the progress that the Government have made in relation to special educational needs. Those of us who have taken a keen interest in the subject will recall that just a year ago, in the document "The National Curriculum—5 to 16", only one paragraph was devoted to this important subject. If ever there was an argument in favour of the Standing Committee's proceedings, it is the progress that we have made on special educational needs.
    The Minister was right to say that concern was expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. No one can claim a monopoly of wisdom or concern on this subject.
    Mr. James Pawsey: We should not forget the Lords.
    Mr. Fatchett: I was about to praise the other place in this context as their Lordships certainly took a keen and effective interest in the matter. In Committee a key figure in our deliberations was my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) whose experience as the head of a special school enabled us to understand many special educational needs. He must take much of the credit for the progress that has been made, although that is not to detract from the contributions of others.
    I am delighted that there has been a substantial shift from the initial view taken by the Government in the national curriculum document. The Minister knows that at that stage the Government were subject to severe criticism from all sorts of organisations, whose representatives said, "Hold on a minute. What about those youngsters with special educational needs? Let us draft the legislation to take account of those needs." To give him
    854
    credit, as early as 17 December last, in Committee, the Minister said about provision for children's special educational needs:
    "There may be other aspects that the Committee has not discussed. If hon. Members are disposed to comment on them to me I shall consider them."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 17 December 1987; c. 248.]
    We did that and we are delighted that the Minister has proved himself to be not only, in his own words "a listening Minister" but, on this occasion, an acting Minister. This must be unique because it is rare that the Government listen and, if they do listen and hear, it is rare that they act on what they hear, so the Minister has achieved a great deal more than many of his colleagues and we welcome that. We also welcome the explanation that has been given for the amendments passed in the other place, and we shall support those amendments. Therefore, it would be foolish of me to waste the time of the House going through those amendments. However, I shall raise with the Minister certain issues about children with special educational needs that I hope that he will comment on as they are issues that are still important in this debate.
    7.30 pm
    I welcome what happened in the other place and the way in which the Bill has changed. However, does the Minister still feel that there is sufficient flexibility for statemented youngsters? The Association of County Councils recently made the point that it is difficult to see how regulations can provide for all the different circumstances of children with special educational needs. It has told Ministers that there is a need for even greater flexibility. Would it be possible, if not through this legislation then through an order, to have some instruction or practice note from the Ministry so that schools can be more flexible about statemented children?
    My second question is about non-statemented youngsters who are low achievers and who have special educational needs that relate to specific conditions or criteria but not across the board. There is a real concern about that group of low achieving youngsters, who will be above and beyond statemented children but who may nevertheless experience difficulties with the Government's notion of national curriculum attainment targets and all that goes with that. Those difficulties could make their role in the classroom awkward. The Warnock commit tee concept was that there was a need for a continuum on special educational needs and it related that continuum to roughly 20 per cent. of the school age population. Could the Government say whether it might be possible, not at this stage but in some other way, to recognise the needs of non-statemented youngsters who will fall into that Warnock 20 per cent., because those youngsters are important to us?
    I have a third question. I apologise to the Minister if I seem to be setting him a test, but these are issues on which the House would be interested to hear the Government's response. The Secretary of State said on Report that the National Curriculum Council may want to establish a sub-committee to deal with special educational needs. There is a great deal of merit in that argument and I would be interested to hear what progress has been made on that.
    Fourthly, I am concerned about youngsters in the post-16 age provision. Again, we note what the Minister has said and we welcome that because it has always seemed to me that there is a real danger that youngsters, having reached the age of 16, may simply fall off the edge in

    855
    education and training terms if they have special educational needs. There is a black hole—a vacuum—into which these youngsters disappear. We welcome Lords amendment No. 272, because, as the Minister rightly said, it places on local education authorities a duty and a responsibility towards those youngsters. There may be a need for extra resources to back up that duty so that the right training and education are provided. There may also be a need for much greater guidance and a better learning process between authorities so that we can see the good work that is going on, post-16, for youngsters with special educational needs, and can build on that good work.
    The Minister, in speaking about Lords amendment No. 54, spoke about the definition of local financial management. I hope that he will recognise that now special needs will be incorporated into the formula for local financial management for schools. Is there any possibility of including reference to special educational needs in the local financial management formula for further education colleges? If that is not included, there is the difficulty that the words incorporated in Lords amendment No. 262 will not necessarily be implemented simply because there may not be the financial resources or the space to do so.
    The House would like to hear the Minister's comments on those issues. They are part of the process that developed in Committee and through the proceedings on the Bill to advance the opportunities of youngsters with special educational needs.
    Amendment No. 537 deals primarily with speech therapy. If the other place achieved a success, it was in this amendment. It is a success also for all those organisations that represent speech therapists and all those parents who have been arguing for this important change in the law. I wrote to the Secretary of State on this issue earlier this year and received the normal courteous reply from the Under-Secretary, who explained to me the bureaucratic difficulties in the provision of speech therapy. It is the responsibility not of the local education authority but of the local health authority to provide speech therapy. Unfortunately, that created a bureaucratic vacuum, or, as the Minister described it to me in an off-the-record conversation with me, a lacuna, into which these youngsters fell, with the result that their needs were not satisfied.
    The Minister has moved from the explanation of the bureaucratic position that he sent me in a letter and from the comments that he made in Committee on 12 January, when he said:
    "No plans are afoot to make the changes".—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 12 January 1988; c. 398.]
    Such is the power of the Under-Secretary that, while he was saying those very words, I have no doubt that he was planning these changes. He was not trying to resist—his words were carefully selected. We knew that the Minister, with his deep sympathy for all children in these circumstances, was planning vigorously in Elizabeth house the process that led to Lords amendment No. 537 and an effective conclusion to a difficult problem. We welcome this amendment, which is particularly important for those youngsters who need speech therapy. The Government's acceptance of the amendment will be welcomed by parents, who have fought hard on behalf of their children and other children, and by organisations representing speech therapists and others involved in this problem.
    856
    The House has made substantial progress in the Bill to help youngsters with special educational needs. As part of the rhetoric of education debates we often talk about providing greater opportunity for youngsters. There is no greater or more poignant example of youngsters who need opportunity than those to whom these amendments relate. If we talk simply about the 10 per cent. or the 40 per cent. or the 30 per cent., we do many children, our education system and our country a disservice.
    In Committee and in the other place, we have succeeded in ensuring that the Government recognise the needs of the bottom 5 or 10 per cent., although I do not like the words "the bottom 5 or 10 per cent.". We have recognised the needs of all our children, including those with particular problems. That helps to extend opportunity, but more needs to be done. We shall continue to press for more, but we are grateful for what has been achieved so far.
    Mr. John Bowis: The tone of the opening speeches in this short debate sums up the spirit throughout the Bill on this subject. Tribute has been paid to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and to other hon. Members for taking forward the provisions step by step towards a better future for children with special needs and for their families.
    The Committee brought together a number of people who had had experience in one way or another, through teaching, family life or knowledge of that occasion when the family suddenly finds itself with a new arrival who is handicapped in some way and will grow up with special needs, or faces a horrific accident or illness later in life which results in the child developing such special needs, or faces the learning difficulties that may emerge at various stages in life. We have an understanding of those needs and a common desire and determination to ensure that the Bill does its best by those children and their families.
    The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) referred to the opportunities in educational life. The Bill is very much a Bill of opportunities. It says to parents throughout the country, "Let your children grow tall", but we know that, all too often, some children cannot grow tall on their own, for physical or mental reasons. Sometimes they are able to grow if adaptations are made to their learning establishment, if proper teaching facilities are provided and targeted on the children or if the families are given the necessary support.
    Children with special needs can achieve and many of them can compete. We should never suggest that they are at the bottom of the pile or that they are different from other children. Their opportunities may be different, but they are children nevertheless and we need to consider every child within its own lights and see what it can achieve. We are doing that by accepting the Lords amendments and we welcome the Government's amendments and their attitude to the Lords amendments.
    Many children can cope with integration into maintained schools, but others cannot be integrated. We want both categories of children to be looked after diligently. As a Member who represents an inner London constituency, I hope that the Government will pay special attention to those needs as the transfer of education to the boroughs take place. The boroughs are determined that they will do their best for the education of special needs children, but a watching brief from the Department is crucial and confirmation of that would be doubly welcome.

    857
    Hon. Members have a special responsibility for those children who need special help. When the Bill started its passage, we thought that the families and children perhaps felt left out. The Bill did not often refer to them and all hon. Members have pressed to ensure that it was made clear that special needs children are in the mainstream so far as the Bill and the Government's intentions are concerned. It is not the Government's intention to leave out such children and families, but it is important that their inclusion in the Bill is spelt out.
    7.45 pm
    All too often, where there was reference, the Bill referred to the exclusion rather than the inclusion of special needs children. Although exclusion is right in certain matters, I was interested to see that one of the amendments sought to ensure that those children who are excluded have rights of appeal to ensure that their cases are considered. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that because we must monitor progress when the Bill is enacted. We shall want to ensure that those rights and interests are safeguarded.
    My hon. Friend the Minister was kind enough to refer to one of my amendments which has been incorporated in another amendment. Other amendments have also been incorporated, including that of the hon. Member for City of Durham, although I do not wish to argue the paternity of any amendment. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central referred to financial delegation and the need to ensure that local authorities have a responsibility to produce their plans for children with special needs and to state the number of children involved.
    Amendment No. 54 is a step in the right direction. I might quibble that their Lordships saw fit to table the amendment to subsection 3(b) as opposed to subsection 3(a). We debated in Committee whether the word "shall" should replace the word "may". Their Lordships could have used either, but they appear to have opted for the word "may". I accept that with gratitude and we may one day make the obligation statutory, if it is thought to be necessary.
    In London, we have a particular interest to ensure that each individual is looked after. The amendments and the Bill encourage cases to be considered individually. There is a great debate within the special needs community in London between those who wish to see greater integration and those who fear it. Both have a fair case. It is crucial that, where appropriate and where the parents want it, a child should be integrated into a mainstream school and, where necessary, the school should be adapted to welcome the child. Equally, however, many parents are concerned about whether the child could cope with that environment. We must provide the special schools to enable that child to develop and compete within its own lights.
    I welcome the Government's proposals and the Opposition's welcome of them. These small steps underline the fact that those children are precious to the House and the fact that their opportunities to achieve and compete within their own capabilities are important to all hon. Members. We have often said during the passage of the Bill that such children will not be forgotten. This is the evidence that they have not been forgotten and I look forward to the implementation of these measures for the benefit of all children in this country, whatever their special needs may be.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that this is a short debate and speeches should be short.
    Mr. Gerry Steinberg: The difference between the Bill as it stands and as originally drafted is remarkable, especially in its treatment of children with special educational needs. The original Bill virtually ignored such children and mentioned only those subject to statements. It was as though 18 per cent. of the school population did not exist or had been forgotten. The Government had not taken into account the fact that 20 per cent. of the school population have special needs at some stage in their school life, although only 2 per cent. are subject to statements. In many cases, the 18 per cent. of children who were ignored were worse off than the 2 per cent. who were subject to statements.
    All children with special educational needs need individual work schemes designed to meet their particular needs. To force the 18 per cent. who are not statemented rigidly to follow the national curriculum is plainly stupid. Anyone who has had any dealings with such children knows that they need individual tuition geared to their particular strengths and weaknesses. It was clear that whoever originally drafted the Bill had no experience of children with special educational needs.
    Thanks to concentrated and successful debate and powerful arguments, Labour Members put great pressure on the Government to amend the Bill. I admit that we had some help from other quarters, but basically we shall take credit for the changes. I believe that we have forced the Government to see their own folly and the mistakes that they had made and eventually to concede that specific provision should be made for the 18 per cent. of the school population whom they had ignored. The Lords have attempted to make that provision and we fully support their efforts.
    In particular, I am delighted to support Lords amendment No. 537, which seeks to amend the Education Act 1981. Many children are identified and statemented as being in need of speech therapy. That takes place in the educational setting—it is important to note that—but at present the therapy can be provided only by the health authority, so the education authority is entirely at the mercy of the health authority. Many children do not receive the necessary therapy and at present education authorities cannot provide it independently. It is nonsense for a statement to say that the child needs speech therapy but for the education authority to have no power in law to provide that service. The amendment would ensure that local education authorities could make such provision, possibly by buying it in from health authorities.
    I should like to go further and allow education authorities to employ speech therapists. As a head teacher, I saw the desperate problems of children who needed speech therapy but did not receive it because the health authority could not deliver the goods. I wrote to the Minister recently about that, but his reply was downright unhelpful. I am therefore delighted to support the amendment and I hope that. the Minister will be more sympathetic in future.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). He knows that I deeply admire him. He has personally campaigned for this change and I am sure that his efforts had a huge bearing on the success

    859
    that has been achieved. It is a magnificent achievement, but no more than one would expect from so talented a Member.
    Children with special educational needs must have access to the best school environment and must receive full consideration in that respect, regardless of their disability. That is why I support Lords amendments Nos. 187 and 188. A child in a wheelchair has the same rights as an able-bodied child and must be able to attend the school of his choice. Schools must not be allowed to turn children away on such grounds. Nevertheless, I have seen it happen and I hope that the Minister will today give a guarantee that it will not happen in the future. It is even more important for a child with special needs to have more choice in education. Such children must not be denied acceptance because of their handicaps. There will be great pressure on schools to fill their places without accepting children with special needs and that will reduce the choice available to the parents of such children. The result will therefore be the opposite of the greater choice that the Government advocate.
    With regard to financial delegation, children with special needs are again under threat. That is why I support Lords amendment No. 54 and the amendments proposed to it. When a mainstream school controls its own budget there will be untold pressure on it to allocate the vast majority of its finance in favour of academic children, and provision for those with special needs may be neglected. Such provision is already not too brilliant in some schools and the situation could worsen if the amendments are not accepted. Lords amendment No. 54, as proposed to be amended, would go a long way towards securing financial support for children with special educational needs.
    Another point of great importance arises out of the draft consultative document, "The Education Reform Act: Financial Delegation to Schools". Educational psychologists are not covered by the mandatory services provided by local education authorities. In other words, the service could be delegated to the individual school's budget. That could have calamitous effects for children with special needs. Educational psychologists are an integral part of the team working with such children. The service would take a minute proportion of an education authority's budget but a huge proportion of an individual school's budget. If the service is delegated, there will be chaos in special needs provision. Special schools, in particular, will simply not be able to cope and their budgets will be drained if they have to pay for that service.
    Mr. Dunn: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the draft guidance on financial delegation emphasises that, in addition, provision may be safeguarded by education authorities excepting from delegation a number of key areas such as the schools' psychological and welfare services and provision for children with special needs. Does not that meet the point?
    Mr. Steinberg: It depends whether it is mandatory or discretionary. If it is mandatory and education authorities do not have discretion to delegate but are obliged to provide the service, I retract what I have said. If it is discretionary, however, some authorities—I would describe them as unscrupulous authorities—could pass the responsibility on to the schools, resulting in the problems
    860
    that I have mentioned. If it is discretionary, therefore, I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter and to make it mandatory on local education authorities to provide that service. As the Minister has said, inspectors and advisers will be centrally provided. The educational psychology service should be centrally provided as well.
    In support of the amendments to Lords amendment No. 272, it must be said that the provision made for pupils with special educational needs after the age of 16 is appalling. There is virtually nothing organised specifically for these youngsters. Parents are rightly demanding that their children should be able to continue in full-time education up to the age of 19 and that relevant courses should be organised for them. Before local education authorities can provide this extension they must be allocated the resources.
    Staying on at school creates problems because no funds are allocated for that purpose. Some children go to adult training centres run by the social services, but those centres tend to offer places only to 19-year-olds and younger people find that the courses are filled up. Many handicapped people end up staying at home and doing nothing. That has to stop. Ten years ago we hardly saw a pupil with special educational needs staying on at school after the age of 16, but now many of them stay on until the age of 19. However, the training and education that they receive from the age of 16 to 19 is a waste of time because local education authorities cannot afford to fund relevant courses.
    If it was a statutory requirement for pupils to receive education up to the age of 19, local education authorities would have to plan and organise fully-funded courses. That is why our amendments should be supported. I say again that, if it had not been for Labour Members, children with special educational needs would have been ignored. If the amendments are not accepted the Bill will be a recipe for disaster. To everything that the Government are offering we say, "Better late than never", or, "We told you so months ago."
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I shall not take much time, although the short time allowed to debate this issue and the fact that my party was excluded from the debate on the guillotine illustrate how fast the Bill is being pushed through. I regret that.
    I am afraid that this group of amendments shows the House how little, in drafting the Bill, the Government thought about children with special needs. The Minister was rather overgenerous in crediting himself and the Government with the changes that have been put forward. The first draft of the Bill contained 147 clauses but had only four lines about special education needs. I welcome these amendments because they make modest, sensible changes and are a great improvement on the original rather shoddy drafting of the Bill.
    We should not forget that the changes to the Bill came about as a result not of the Minister's deliberations but of lobbying, forceful argument and votes against the Government by all Opposition parties and by many Conservative Members. We should not ignore that because it is to be welcomed. It is regrettable that, initially, Ministers did not give as much thought to the matter as many hon. Members have given to it since.
    In addressing the amendments I shall confine myself to three points. First, Lords amendment No. 80 is silent about how cases and circumstances will be specified. If, as

    861
    we wish, the permitted scope of the clause successfully addresses the varying needs of gifted children and those with learning difficulties, there will need to be sensitive professional judgments about whether and when a child could benefit from the clause. The Minister has just left the Chamber. Perhaps if he responds to that point he will elaborate on whether that will be the case.
    Secondly, Lords amendment No. 272 deals with provision within further education, about which we have heard a great deal that I support. It is sad that we will not have a chance to vote either on amendment (b) tabled by my hon. Friends and I or on the similar amendment (a) to Lord's amendment No. 272 tabled by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), which would make it a duty to provide adequately for people with special education needs after their school years. Many hon. Members have made that point.
    My authority in Cornwall has a policy of continuing support for special education needs in further education colleges. Because of pressure on resources to meet statutory duties first, that policy is not easy to implement. Cornwall county council has only today had to take a decision to use contingency funds to continue FE courses for young adults with moderate learning difficulties. The Lords amendments to the Bill will not help Cornwall immediately, because what we really need is more resources. We will get them only if there is a statutory duty.
    I shall now turn to Lords amendment No. 537 and speech therapy. The Government are not fully meeting the needs of children because they fear the cost of doing so. Neither health authorities nor local education authorities can afford to provide as much speech therapy as is needed. We and other hon. Members certainly welcome Lords amendment No. 537, but it does not solve that important problem because it will press local education authorities to do more for children but will not give those authorities an extra penny.
    The problem of speech therapy directly affects some of my constituents. For example, a speech therapist in St. Austell has gone on maternity leave, but there is no cash available to cover for her while she is away. I hope that the Minister will give a commitment on those points, and that the Government recognise and will meet the financial consequences of the amendments that they have accepted rather than simply put the burden on local authorities by giving them permission to spend but not the means to follow through.
    Mr. FlanneryI shall he brief and address my remarks to one point. The Bill will wreak havoc on our education system. It will fling into great difficulty practically everybody connected with education, including parents and children. However, it would be churlish of me not to say that there are some good things peering out of the Bill. I shall address myself to one of those things because, inadequate though it is, Lords amendment No. 272 is still an advance.
    The amendments did not just appear. We have all paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who was head of a special school. He taught us all a great deal, and Conservative Members learnt a great deal from him. The Warnock report was followed by the 1981 Act, and then a tremendous piece of research had to be curtailed because of the general election. It was carried out by the Select Committee on
    862
    Education, Science and Arts, some of whose members went to other countries to look at special education needs. The impact that we had on Conservative Members is the product of many things, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham said, they have not quite noticed that impact.
    All over the country there is now a demand for work with children with special needs. That is not only because such children did not receive proper provision, but because many people have now had their consciences seized by this idea. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham says that all these things depend on money. Of course they do. When they are left to a local education authority, which is probably rate-capped and is having great difficulty imposed on it by the Government and when things are discretionary instead of mandatory, there is always great difficulty, especially in the case of people who are often at the end of the queue, as is the case with children with special needs.
    Lords amendment No. 272 says:
    "A person is not to be taken as having a learning difficulty solely because the language (or form of the language) in which he is, or will be, taught is different from a language (or form of a language) which has at any time been spoken in his home."
    We know that in ILEA many West Indian children are stigmatised even though much wonderful work has been done for such children. That is because they were not grasping what they were being taught. That was not their fault. That was due to our not realising that they could not keep pace because they did not know the language properly. Prior to that, there were other difficulties. Between the ages of 16 and 19 years, there was little or nothing for these children. There will be something for them now, and we want the provision to be increased and intensified.
    A fortnight ago I received a letter from a working-class couple on hard times with a daughter of 19 years who is inadequate but who can learn. Irrespective of whether there are special needs, the learning process goes on, and it is for us to ensure that it does. Sadly, education is halted at 19. I wrote to the Minister, the parents of the 19-year-old girl and the local education authority saying that the work that is being put in hand should be extended to include children—to an extent they are children—of 19 years who have difficulties. We have learnt something together, and featured in the amendments are good things that could be made better and that will stare out of what, in my opinion, is an appalling Bill.
    Mr. Spencer Batiste: The consideration of the Bill in Committee was exceptional in two regards, if not more. First, there was the quality of many of the debates. Perhaps some of the debates on special needs were among the most fluent and cogently argued. That fluency of argument was matched by the extraordinary openness with which the Government Front Bench team approached the issue, as with so many others that arose in Committee. There was an unprecedented willingness to respond to well-argued cases that were put before them.
    It became clear on statementing and on many other matters that we shall be discussing that within the relevant clauses there were issues which were implied and understood by the Government, and which would be shown to be by the way in which the Bill, when enacted, would be interpreted. When we came to examine specific clauses, however, it was fell that greater clarity and

    863
    certainty would be needed. That was true especially of our debates on special needs. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) brought great knowledge and expertise to the Committee—I am not sure how fluent he was in his praise of members of the Opposition Front Bench—as a result of his experience in dealing with special need.
    Mr. Steinberg: I hope that Conservative Members will stop praising me. I shall be deselected if I receive much more praise from them.
    Mr. Batiste: Far be it from me to embarrass the hon. Gentleman.
    There are two regards in which the case for amendment was made most strongly. First, it was said that a budget should be applied to individual schools to take account of the number of children with special needs within them. Secondly, there was the application of the curriculum to statemented children. The Government have responded fully to the proper and legitimate concerns that were raised. On behalf of Conservative Back-Bench Members who were Committee members, I warmly welcome the Government's response.
    Mr. Dunn: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). I hope that I will not cause him to be deselected if I say that he is a super, all-round decent nice guy.
    The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) raised legitimate concerns about non-statemented pupils. Clause 10 provides for regulations on foundation subjects. It provides for modifications and exemptions in specified cases and circumstances. We shall be looking to the subject working groups and the National Curriculum Council to advise us on the way in which that provision can be applied to non-statemented pupils.
    The hon. Member for Leeds, Central talked about a sub-committee of the NCC. I am pleased to say that the shadow NCC is meeting for the first time today. It is a little too soon to speculate upon and about the decisions that it might take on the sub-committee structure. I note the hon. Gentleman's argument and I shall ensure that it is brought to the attention of those who matter.
    The hon. Member for Leeds, Central asked whether there was sufficient flexibility for pupils with statements. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concern and advise him that clause 11 provides for a statement to specify modification or exemption for the individual pupil. This allows great flexibility in applying the national curriculum.
    Lords amendment No. 23 amends clause 12—
    It being a quarter past Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Question agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 7 agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
    Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 25, 54, 68, 187 and 188 agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 272 agreed to. [Special Entry]
    Lords amendments Nos. 275, 278 and 537 to 539 agreed to.
    Mr. Steinberg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A number of questions were unanswered because of the time constraint. Will the Minister be kind enough to reply to the questions in writing?
    Mr. Dunn: Of course I shall.

  Clause 5

    PROVISION OF INFORMATION
    Lords amendment: No. 26, in page 11, line 31, leave out
    "and the results of their assessments under this Chapter"
    and insert
    "(including the results of any assessments of those pupils, whether under this Chapter or otherwise, for the purpose of ascertaining those achievements)."
    Read a Second time.
    Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, leave out 'including' and insert
    `together with a statement by the local education authority as to the social composition of the school and its area, and a statement by the governing body as to matters it considers relevant to those achievements and'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 28 in page 12, line 2, leave out "under this Chapter" and insert
    "(whether under this Chapter or otherwise)"
    Mrs. Clwyd: Instead of standing at the Dispatch Box moving the amendment I should have been cheering on the House of Commons side in the tug of war, but fate has decreed otherwise.
    The purpose of the amendment is to insert into the Bill the one major and outstanding recommendation of the task group on assessment and testing report which has still not been accepted by the Government. It deals with the publication of reports on the social position of the school by the local education authority and the governors at the same time as the publication of test results. The original consultation document on the national curriculum stated that national assessment would enable LEAs to be better placed to test the strengths and weaknesses of their schools
    "taking due account of relevant socio-economic factors."
    That would include cultural differences.
    The thirtieth recommendation of the TGAT report states:
    "the only form in which results of national assessment for, and identifying, a given school should be published should be as part of a broader report by that school of its work as a whole."
    Recommendation No. 31 stated:
    "Any report by a school which includes national assessment results should include a general report for the area, prepared by the local authority, to indicate the nature of socio-economic and other influences which are known to affect schools. This report should give a general indication of the known effects of such influences on performance."
    The Government have repeatedly given assurances that they do not wish to create local league tables of schools resulting from the publication of raw data, and on both 3 and 5 May, in another place, Baroness Hooper repudiated any intention to create league tables. In the Bill, however, there is nothing to prevent the publication of such tables.
    The Government may say that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent school governors and LEAs from producing statements on social indicators if that is what they wish to do. On 5 May, the Baroness Hooper said in another place:

    865
    "It may well best be left to local initiative within some general guidance rather than even spelt out in regulations."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 May 1988; Vol. 496, c. 701.]
    When pressed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) in the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts last Wednesday on the issue of relative handicap in the tests at seven of children who have not received nursery education—and we have talked often enough about that particular problem, without having any effect on the Government's policy—the Secretary of State said that it was up to schools and LEAs to decide whether to publish the results, although earlier he had said that that was recommended and that schools could show the number of children with or without formal pre-school education in their reports if they so wished.
    The lack of importance that the Government place on social factors is evident. The Government state that aggregated test results "must" be published for pupils at the ages of 11, 14 and 16. However, it is "recommended" that aggregated test results are published for pupils at the age of seven. That means that there will be unreal and artificial comparisons between schools and a comparison of like with unlike. We should not be surprised at that, because the Government have been completely insensitive to the effect of their policies on children and their families.
    According to the Child Poverty Action Group, the number of children living in poverty, on or below supplementary benefit level, rose by 72 per cent. between 1979 and 1983. One in five families in Britain are now estimated to live on or below the poverty line. Recent changes in the social security system have had a severe effect on families throughout Britain. The new social fund provides loans in place of the single payment grants for items such as furniture, children's clothes and cooking equipment. That imposes a further hardship on families by requiring them to make repayments on those loans from their already inadequate levels of benefit.
    I am sure that I do not need to repeat the elements that determine whether a person is classified as deprived. I simply remind Conservative Members that in my constituency—as in many of my hon. Friends' constituencies—nearly one in three men have no job and 61 per cent. of those working have incomes of £4,000 a year or less. There is absolutely no comparison between the circumstances of and opportunities for children who grow up there and the circumstances of children who grow up in the lush, leafy lanes of Hampshire, where privilege and plenty are taken for granted.
    Children living in poverty are not evenly spread throughout the school system. If they were, there would be no need for my proposal. However, like it or not, social conditions have an enormous effect on performance in tests, as is shown by the work published by researchers at Sheffield university in an attempt to find a fair system of comparing examination results.
    Despite what Ministers say, when the results are published, inevitably they will be used to compare schools. League tables will be drawn up of local schools, despite the protestations of Baroness Hooper, who, on 3 May, said in another place:
    "It is not the Government's intention to create league tables in any event."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 May 1988; Vol. 496, c. 501.]
    She repeated that on 5 May saying:
    866
    "It is not true to say that the results would be given wide publication. It is certainly not intended to have a league table."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 May 1988; Vol. 496, c. 704.]
    What will prevent that? The Bill will not stop it. What did the noble Lady's colleagues mean, or did Baroness Hooper not understand? Was she simply groping in the dark? Was she as confused as everyone else about the Government's intentions? That includes the Secretary of State.
    We all know what will happen. There will be a wide publication of league tables of exam results. Local journalists will vie with one another to be the first off the mark with shock horror stories of successes and failures.
    If the Bill remains as it is, the results will be incomplete. They will provide a false impression of the performance of a school and its pupils. Without some form of adjustment, parents and policy makers will make judgments on the basis of incorrect information. Those judgments will perpetuate disadvantage because they will not examine the performance of the school and its children in relation to the surrounding conditions. Instead, they will ignore the factors that contribute to the results.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman—sorry, hon. Lady—give way?
    Mrs. Clwyd: As the hon. Gentleman cannot distinguish whether I am a lady or a gentleman and since he will not lift the guillotine motion, I will not give way.
    One of the Government's main arguments for the abolition of the Inner London education authority was its supposedly poor performance in exam results. Using the Sheffield study, ILEA was placed in an average position among LEAs once social factors were taken into account. In that study, the London borough of Bromley was given a very poor rating in exam results once its favourable social factors were taken into account. An under secretary at the Department of Education and Science, Mr. Barry Wakefield, was reported in the Evening Standard on 31 May as saying that it was vital to consider much more than exam results when rating a school's performance. Does that mean that the Secretary of State is out of tune with his own officials as well as with the Prime Minister?
    Universal health care based on need is under severe attack. While individuals may not yet live or die according to their hank accounts or their employer's insurance, for many the quality of life is set from birth. The same process is now occurring in our schools where the size of parents' bank accounts increasingly determines whether there are enough books to go round or whether children learn to play a musical instrument. The hardship funds of many parent associations are overstretched for basic educational needs. That cycle of deprivation means that the children of the poor and deprived are condemned to become the parents of the poor and deprived. Our amendment will ensure that far better information about the quality and performance of schools will reach parents and LEAs than would result from the publication of the crude test scores that the Government plan.
    The Government will claim that there is nothing to stop LEAs publishing a statement on the social composition of the school if they so wish. However, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent governors from publishing what they believe is relevant in achieving the results. They may even go so far as to promise that they will give guidance to governors and local authorities in publishing the statements. However, that is not enough. If a statement of

    867
    the social composition of a school is purely voluntary, some schools and LEAs will not publish it. Unless all schools publish a statement, it will be a worthless exercise. People will still compare like with unlike.
    We are asking the Government to accept the recommendations of the TGAT report in full. We believe that the implementation of the Bill without our amendment will result in the publication of test results that falsely indict a teacher or a school. To do that on the basis of the publication of incomplete and therefore unrepresentative inaccurate test results is completely immoral.
    8.30 pm
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The Lords amendments clarify the scope of the provisions covering the publication of assessment results, so that they might also cover, for example, GCSE and A-level results. Those are already covered by the Education (School Information) Regulations 1981, but it will be helpful to have them brought within the scope of the new provisions to ensure the consistent treatment of results of various assessments.
    The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) seeks to add to those amendments an amendment dealing with the publication of aggregate assessment results. In a moment, I shall deal with our reasons for not wishing to accept that amendment, but at this stage I shall make certain general remarks about the assessment arrangements for which the Bill provides so that they may be set in context.
    My right hon. Friend's statement in the House on 7 June, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), defined the main principles that the Government have decided should form the basis for a national assessment and testing system. First, the task group on assessment and testing endorsed the Government's proposal to test pupils at the ages of seven, 11, 14 and 16. It pointed out that age seven in particular represents the point of transition from one phase of schooling to the next, when children move from an infant to a junior school. If at that point a pupil's literacy and numeracy foundations have not been properly laid, he is more likely to fall increasingly behind than if assessed and tested at that age so that one can know exactly what progress the child has made. Age seven also comes at least two years into the first phase of schooling, so that pupils feel settled by that time and teachers will have an opportunity to know them better.
    Secondly, we are not talking about a series of pass or fail examinations, as Opposition Members sometimes like to portray, consisting entirely of pencil and paper tests. We refer rather to attainment targets, set to establish what children should normally be expected to know, understand and be able to do at given ages. They will enable the progress of each child to be measured against national standards. Assessment will be by a combination of national external tests and internal assessment by teachers, moderated to ensure consistent standards. Both teacher assessment and testing will be curriculum-related, focusing on attainment targets for the core and foundation subjects.
    At age seven, and also largely at age 11, the TGAT report sensibly recommended the use of topic-style tasks as the main form of test, in assessing attainment in the core
    868
    subjects and in certain other key areas. At all ages, oral and practical—as well as written—means of assessment will be employed. In other words, the work that will be tested and assessed will be very much the kind of best practice that one sees currently in our schools.
    Assessment results will be used formatively to help better teaching and guide teachers' decisions about a pupil's next steps, and summatively to inform parents about their child's progress; in other words, to answer those frequent questions from parents which are often considered simplistic but the answers to which indicate to the parents, if to no one else, how much progress their child has made.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Minister give the House a guarantee that adequate resources will be available to help those children who are found to be falling behind to catch up—in particular, educational psychologists who may be needed to discover the specialised problems that children have? Testing is all right, but the key is whether the resources will be there to help children catch up, if they are found to have problems.
    Mrs. Rumbold: It is obvious that in taking on the task of trying to ensure that children reach a certain level of attainment, children who have fallen behind will be encouraged—as I hope happens at present—to have extra tuition or other help. I remind the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that such help is consistently given already in a variety of different ways. One would certainly expect schools, through their financial delegation, to allocate sums of money that will ensure that teachers and parents are satisfied, particularly at the child's early age, that any falling behind can be dealt with.
    Different levels of attainment and overall pupil progress will be registered on a 10-point scale, as also recommended by TGAT, covering all the years of compulsory schooling. Therefore, at a given age the level reached on the scale for a particular subject area will indicate whether a pupil is making satisfactory progress; whether special help is needed to enable him or her to overcome any apparent weaknesses; or whether such help is rather required to ensure that exceptionally rapid progress is sustained.
    At age 16, the GCSE will continue as the main form of assessment, especially in the core subjects of English, mathematics and science. Pupils not taking the GCSE in all the foundation subjects will be assessed in those subjects at an appropriate level under the national assessment system. That assessment framework has been widely welcomed and it will play a key part in maintaining and improving teaching and learning standards in our schools. We are satisfied that it is both practicable and affordable. With SEAC and other appropriate bodies, we shall as a matter of urgency determine the most cost-effective means of providing the necessary organisational and teacher training arrangements to underpin the new framework, with a view to its implementation alongside the national curriculum from September 1989.
    The hon. Member for Cynon Valley spoke about the difficult issues raised by the publication of assessment results. I remind the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends that individual pupil's assessment results will not be published as raw material, but that, as she said, aggregated results at ages 11, 14 and 16 will be. That needs to be done so that the wider public can make informed judgments about attainment in a school or local education authority.

    869
    Parents cannot make a judgment about a school unless they have information about the way in which that school's pupils perform in general, particularly at the key ages. There is no legal requirement for schools to publish results for seven-year-olds, although we strongly recommend that they should do so in the interests of consistency, as well as in the interests of the public's right to know. The importance of that is to enable parents to be informed at that crucial and critical stage about the performance of the primary school they are choosing for their children. We shall not expect or encourage schools to include results of children having special education needs as part of their aggregate figures.
    We are aware of the danger of such results being interpreted in an over-simplistic way and will take into account TGAT's advice that they should be presented only in the context of a full report on a school's activities, and with reference to any relevant socio-economic and other factors. However, it would not be appropriate to write into the Bill a detailed description such as that proposed by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley.
    Mr. Straw: Why not?
    Mrs. Rumbold: Because the Bill is a framework, and it is not designed to describe in detail every process for which it makes provision. The exact form of the regulations governing publication of assessment results will be decided following expert advice and after lengthy consultation—which I hope will be welcomed by Opposition Members, as they seem greatly to depend on consultation, and masses of it—and to pre-empt that by making the proposed amendment would be wrong.
    I know that many people have been concerned lest children with special education needs or with temporary problems, perhaps caused by trouble in their homes, are neglected under the new arrangements. For example, the needs of children whose first language is not English must be taken into consideration. Where appropriate, the Bill provides for exemption from, and modification to, the national curriculum and assessment arrangements for children with temporary difficulties as well as for those with special education needs. However, I emphasise that, so far as possible, we want all children to have attainable goals, to encourage their development and to promote their self-esteem.
    It is a mistake for people to assume that, because some children do not, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley described them,
    "grow up in the lush, leafy lanes … where privilege and plenty are taken for granted",
    they will not have potential at some point or another. That depends just as much on the quality of the school and its provision as on the child's background. It is a great mistake to make an assumption that will be detrimental to many children simply because they appear to suffer from a social disadvantage.
    The test developers will be asked to have in mind the requirements of children with special education needs when devising suitable tests to cover the range of attainment on a 10-point scale, and, where appropriate, TGAT has recommended that pupils having difficulty with English should be tested orally in their own language, except where the assessments relate to progress in English.
    I believe that any possible problems are outweighed by the need for schools, local education authorities and the public at large to have a better indication of how schools
    870
    are performing in relation to others, both in similar localities and across the nation as a whole. We shall certainly consult widely before deciding how results should be presented.
    Ms. Armstrong: As with other parts of the Bill, there are different reasons why different parts of the Government are interested in publishing results from schools. There is the "rational" reason put forward, as always, by the Secretary of State—and today by the Minister of State—and by some of his civil servants; and there are the atavistic gut feelings of the Prime Minister and her few friends.
    Let us pretend that the Secretary of State has won the debate—for the Prime Minister will presumably let him keep some aspects of the Bill for himself. Why would he be interested in publishing these results? In the first place, he argues that they will tell us which are the good schools and which are the bad, and that that knowledge will force schools to do better. Let us take him at his word, and argue the rational case for data about deprivation to be added to the information that he has already said is important.
    In the first place, any private enterprise company will only make sense of its output—in this case exam results—in relation to its input—in this case the children and their backgrounds. The DES would, I am sure, admit that all the research on educational attainment demonstrates that different children from different backgrounds have different chances of success in the education system. That is not to say that every child from a certain background will not get on or will inevitably end up taking a particular route, but the research tells us that background has some effect.
    I know that the Prime Minister thinks that all those facts are worth nothing when weighed against her corner-shop certainties, but even her friend Ronald Reagan has recognised some elements of the equation and reaffirmed his commitment to Head Start as a means of ensuring some compensatory work on background and deprivation. The Department of the Environment recognises it when it distributes rate support grant. Why cannot the Government recognise it in providing information about schools?
    If we fail to do this, it is inevitable that—given the educational knowledge that we have—some bad schools will appear good, favoured as they are by a certain sort of intake but failing to add much to it, or to "stretch" and "push" pupils in the way that we know is possible. I suspect that the few Tory chairs of local education authorities who are still talking to the Secretary of State would readily confirm that to him. By simply publishing outcomes, without the consequences of incomes, we shall lose the possibility of judgment.
    Some may argue that it is very difficult to sort out the criteria that matter from those that do not. That is true, but if the Government find it so hard, I suggest that they turn to the Department of the Environment, which has considerable expertise in deciding the different indicators for its distribution of rate support grant. If the Secretary of State has no faith in his colleague the Secretary of State for the Environment—which I might understand—perhaps the Government will listen to eduationists who have worked out a series of educational priority indicators.

    871
    8.45 pm
    We are not short of information and knowledge, although we are very short of politial understanding from some. If the Secretary of State has won the argument with the Prime Minister, he will accept our amendment and follow up the debate with his senior officers. If he has lost, however, we shall inevitably be left with a series of meaningless tables that will allow the Prime Minister and the friends in the gutter press whom she has honoured to pillory schools and localities.
    One statistic may help the Minister to understand what I am trying to say. Last year's general household survey demonstrated that the daughter of an unskilled worker had a 1 per cent. chance of obtaining a degree, while the son of a professional worker had a 54 per cent. chance. Some would say that those statistics lead us to believe that class and gender bear some relationship to educational opportunity. The Government may be happy with the statistics, but do not let us pretend that they have anything to do with a sensible educational policy or that real parental choice can be provided on the basis of such silly information. We cannot be expected to believe that it has anything to do with increasing opportunities for people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Opposition Members are interested in giving parents real choice and real information, and in giving real opportunities to children from disadvantaged as well as advantaged backgrounds. If that is what the Government are interested in, they will accept the amendments.
    But perhaps all this is just a bad dream. Perhaps this is the Bill of a civilised and intelligent person, and perhaps the civilisation in him will allow him to accept the amendment and provide a proper method of understanding the performance of our schools.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I am delighted to take part, for the first time, in a debate on the Education Reform Bill, albeit a debate on Lords amendments.
    The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) was in a quandary. I remember from the days when I was doing my postgraduate certificate of education that Socialist educationists always claimed that one of the reasons for having comprehensive schools was that it was the environment that shaped children's futures. Conservative Members accept that it is a mixture of environment, heredity and intelligence, and that intelligence is both innate and developed by circumstances. It is therefore important for parents to have the opportunity to see how schools operate to judge whether their children are receiving education appropriate to their intelligence and aptitude.
    I cannot understand why, every time we put forward a measure to increase the amount of information available to parents, Socialist Members vote against it. It was true in 1981, when we put forward the Education (School Information) Regulations. At that time we argued that O-level and CSE results should be made available. We heard then from the predecessor of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) the same objections that there would be league tables, that parents would make the wrong decisions and that the press would get the wrong end of the stick. After seven years' experience of the school information regulations, we know that that has not happened.
    872
    It is important to look at academic information and research. It shows clearly the effect that schools can have on a child's progress. One returns to Neville Bennett's report 'Teaching Styles and Pupil Progress" published in 1976. After he had looked at 871 primary schools in Lancashire, he said that the results formed a coherent pattern and that
    "The effect of teaching style is statistically and educationally significant in all attainment areas tested."
    He said that teaching style clearly had a more powerful effect on progress than does pupil personality, since most pupil types show better progress under formal teaching. Mr. Bennett continued:
    "The central factor emerging from this study is that a degree of teacher direction is necessary, and that the learning experiences provided need to be clearly sequenced and structured."
    Michael Rutter, writing in 1979 a research paper "15,000 Hours" into secondary schools in the inner London education authority, said that, although they served an inner city area of chronic social disadvantage, some of the schools seemed nevertheless to have provided a positive influence on their pupils' development, while others had been less successful in doing so. He continued:
    "In general, schools performed fairly similarly on all the various measures of outcome. That is, schools which did better than average in terms of the children's behaviour in school tended also to do better than average in terms of examination success and delinquency."
    The latest research is by Peter Mortimore, a former ILEA officer who was a member of ILEA's staff when I was an ILEA member but is now professor of educational research at Lancaster university. Writing in his book "Better Schools" this year, he said that he looked at 50 ILEA junior schools and that reading progress and the quality of school that a child attended was four times as important as a child's age, sex or background. In maths, he said that the school was 10 times more important. He also said that there is a vast difference between the best and the worst schools. Children in the best schools were 28 per cent. above the average in reading, while those in the worst were 19 per cent. below the average. In maths, pupils at the best schools were performing 21 per cent. above the average, while those at the worst were 21 per cent. below average.
    Mr. Straw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Bennett: No. Peter Mortimore said:
    "The quality of school that children attend has more effect on their educational progress than their social background. The essential factor influencing pupils' progress is the quality of the school."
    Mr. Straw rose—
    Mr. Bennett: Those are three quotations—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Two hon. Members cannot be on their feet at the same time.
    Mr. Bennett: Those are three quotations from three different academic works, published in the last 10 years, that show the importance of the school on the child's progress.
    If parents are to make decisions about whether a child's progress is being hampered, they have to have information. Knowledge is power. What disturbs me is that Opposition Members adopt the same attitudes as have pervaded the educational establishment for the last 40 or 50 years. In the past there was the secret garden of the

    873
    curriculum. Only the teachers' unions had the key to that garden. Parents were excluded. The educational progress was described by writers on education as a black box: children walked into it at one end and walked out of it at the other and what happened in the middle was nothing to do with the parents or the wider community. Those days have gone. We are determined to have open government and open management of schools. Assessment testing at seven, 11 and 14 is vital. We cannot say to parents, "We shall not allow you to see how your child is doing against national standards." The results must be published and parents must be able to see which schools in an area are not doing as well as others.
    The time has come when we should trust the people to make sensible decisions on the information that is made available. It is time that the Socialist attitude towards parents of not trusting the people should end. I have been a teacher. I have also been an education officer with responsibility for writing the annual reports of the education committee on the performance of schools and their examination results. I know, therefore, how important it is for parents, councillors and everybody who is involved in education to see exactly how schools are performing.
    Therefore, I advise my hon. Friends to reject the Opposition's case. They do not trust the people of Britain. They believe that educationists are the only people who are capable of making decisions and that we should continue to have a secret garden from which the public are excluded.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: There are two essential issues. First, how close are the Secretary of State's proposals to the TGAT recommendations? Secondly, how close are they to the wish of the Secretary of State's rival, the Prime Minister, for straightforward, crude testing? The Minister of State offered no reassurance. She offered a softly, softly approach. She said that the Government accept TGAT but that they reject the social factors that are needed to make it work.
    The alternative to crude testing is to work with the teaching professions and with educational experts to implement not just the theory but the letter and spirit of TGAT. That will be achieved only with proper resources and only if we are prepared to shoulder the practical difficulties of publishing meaningful background information to illuminate the test results.
    The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) ignored the substance of the Opposition's case, which is to give parents the information that they need and to give them the ability to see what is going on in schools. The Prime Minister will not let her Secretary of State for Education and Science do what he knows is right. Anybody who believes that the Government mean to make TGAT a reality must be worried by what is happening in the school branches of the Secretary of State's Department. The assessment of performance and public examinations used to be part of schools branch 3, in common with curriculum policy under the same Under-Secretary of State. All assessment testing and examination policy has been taken away from that branch and given to the new schools branch 4.
    Will the Minister explain why assessment policy in its new home has been put alongside the highly political promotion of city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools? It illustrates that real control is in the hands of the political bosses in Downing street, not in
    874
    those of the educationists in the Secretary of State's Department or the profession. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that point. Then the hon. Member for Pembroke might look for genuine, real and full information, not for the kind of phoney, half information that he peddled earlier on.
    Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—
    The House divided Ayes 193, Noes 314.

    Division No 419]

    [8.58 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Flannery, Martin

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Flynn, Paul

    Allen, Graham

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Alton, David

    Foster, Derek

    Anderson, Donald

    Foulkes, George

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Fraser, John

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Fyfe, Maria

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Galbraith, Sam

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Barron, Kevin

    George, Bruce

    Battle, John

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Beckett, Margaret

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Bell, Stuart

    Gordon, Mildred

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

    Gould, Bryan

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Graham, Thomas

    Blair, Tony

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Boateng, Paul

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Boyes, Roland

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Bradley, Keith

    Grocott, Bruce

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Buchan, Norman

    Haynes, Frank

    Buckley, George J.

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Caborn, Richard

    Hinchliffe, David

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Holland, Stuart

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Home Robertson, John

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cartwright, John

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Clay, Bob

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Clelland, David

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Illsley, Eric

    Cohen, Harry

    Ingram, Adam

    Coleman, Donald

    Janner, Greville

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    John, Brynmor

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Corbett, Robin

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Kennedy, Charles

    Cousins, Jim

    Lambie, David

    Cryer, Bob

    Lamond, James

    Cummings, John

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Leighton, Ron

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Litherland, Robert

    Dalyell, Tam

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Darling, Alistair

    Loyden, Eddie

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

    McAllion, John

    Dewar, Donald

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Dixon, Don

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Dobson, Frank

    McKelvey, William

    Doran, Frank

    McLeish, Henry

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    McNamara, Kevin

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    McTaggart, Bob

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    McWilliam, John

    Eadie, Alexander

    Madden, Max

    Eastham, Ken

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Marek, Dr John

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Fatchett, Derek

    Martlew, Eric

    Faulds, Andrew

    Maxton, John

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Meacher, Michael

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

    Meale, Alan

    Fisher, Mark

    Michael, Alun

    875

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Short, Clare

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Morley, Elliott

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

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Soley, Clive

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Mullin, Chris

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Murphy, Paul

    Strang, Gavin

    Nellist, Dave

    Straw, Jack

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Parry, Robert

    Turner, Dennis

    Patchett, Terry

    Vaz, Keith

    Pike, Peter L.

    Wall, Pat

    Prescott, John

    Walley, Joan

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Warden, Gareth (Gower)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Radice, Giles

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    Randall, Stuart

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Redmond, Martin

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Reid, Dr John

    Wilson, Brian

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Winnick, David

    Robertson, George

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Worthington, Tony

    Rogers, Allan

    Wray, Jimmy

    Rooker, Jeff

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rowlands, Ted

    Mr. Ray Powell and Mr. Robert N. Wareing

    Ruddock, Joan

    Sedgemore, Brian

    NOES

    Adley. Robert

    Butcher, John

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Butler, Chris

    Alexander, Richard

    Butterfill, John

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Allason, Rupert

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Amos, Alan

    Carrington, Matthew

    Arbuthnot, James

    Carttiss, Michael

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Cash, William

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Ashby, David

    Chapman, Sydney

    Atkinson, David

    Chope, Christopher

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Churchill, Mr

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

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

    Baldry, Tony

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Colvin, Michael

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Conway, Derek

    Bellingham, Henry

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Benyon, W.

    Cormack, Patrick

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Couchman, James

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Cran, James

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Critchley, Julian

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Curry, David

    Body, Sir Richard

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

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Boswell, Tim

    Day, Stephen

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Devlin, Tim

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Bowis, John

    Dicks, Terry

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Dover, Den

    Brazier, Julian

    Dunn, Bob

    Bright, Graham

    Durant, Tony

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

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

    Evennett, David

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Farr, Sir John

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Favell, Tony

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Burns, Simon

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Burt, Alistair

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    876

    Forman, Nigel

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Forth, Eric

    McCrindle, Robert

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Franks, Cecil

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Freeman, Roger

    Maclean, David

    French, Douglas

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Fry, Peter

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Gale, Roger

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Gardiner, George

    Madel, David

    Gill, Christopher

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Malins, Humfrey

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Mans, Keith

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Marland, Paul

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Gorst, John

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gow, Ian

    Mates, Michael

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Mellor, David

    Grist, Ian

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Ground, Patrick

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Mills, Iain

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Hannam, John

    Monro, Sir Hector

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

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Harris, David

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Hayes, Jerry

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Hayward, Robert

    Mudd, David

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Neale, Gerrard

    Heddle, John

    Needham, Richard

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Neubert, Michael

    Hill, James

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hind, Kenneth

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Holt, Richard

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Howard, Michael

    Oppenheim, Phillip

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

    Page, Richard

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Paice, James

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Irvine, Michael

    Pawsey, James

    Irving, Charles

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Jack, Michael

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Jackson, Robert

    Portillo, Michael

    Janman, Tim

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Jessel, Toby

    Price, Sir David

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Redwood, John

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Renton, Tim

    Key, Robert

    Rhodes James, Robert

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Riddick, Graham

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Knapman, Roger

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Knowles, Michael

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Knox, David

    Rossi, Sir Hugh

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Rost, Peter

    Lang, Ian

    Rowe, Andrew

    Latham, Michael

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Ryder, Richard

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Lightbown, David

    Scott, Nicholas

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Lord, Michael

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    877

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Shersby, Michael

    Tracey, Richard

    Sims, Roger

    Tredinnick, David

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Trippier, David

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Trotter, Neville

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Viggers, Peter

    Speed, Keith

    Walden, George

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Waller, Gary

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Squire, Robin

    Ward, John

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Warren, Kenneth

    Steen, Anthony

    Watts, John

    Stern, Michael

    Wells, Bowen

    Stevens, Lewis

    Whitney, Ray

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Wilkinson, John

    Stokes, Sir John

    Wilshire, David

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Sumberg, David

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Summerson, Hugo

    Wolfson, Mark

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Wood, Timothy

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Woodcock, Mike

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Yeo, Tim

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Question accordingly negatived.
    It being after Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
    Lords amendment No. 26 agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 38 agreed to.

  Clause 42

    DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO MAINTAIN CERTAIN SCHOOLS
    Lords amendment: No. 89, in page 36, line 22, after "Chapter" insert
    'and the granting of approval to proposals submitted under section 52(2) below in accordance with the provisions of that section'
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
    Lords amendment: No. 113, clause 52, in page 46, line 31, after "majority" insert
    'of parents eligible to vote'
    Amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, in page 45, line 9, leave out from 'is' to 'is' in line 10 and insert
    `eligible to vote in the ballot'.
    Amendment (b) to the proposed Lords amendment, in page 45, line 19, leave out subsection (4).
    Amendment (c) to the proposed Lords amendment, in page 46, line 11, at end insert—
    '(7A) Where in the case of any ballot held in repect of a school in accordance with this section other than one held by virtue of this subsection ("the first ballot") the total number of votes cast in the ballot by persons eligible to vote in the ballot is less than fifty per cent. of the number of persons so eligible, it shall be the duty of the governing body to secure that another ballot ("the second ballot") is held before the end
    878
    of the period of fourteen days beginning with the date immediately following that on which the result of the first ballot is determined.
    (7B) In any case to which subsection (7A) above applies—

    (a) the result of the first ballot shall be disregarded for the purposes of section 52(1) of this Act; and

    (b) subject to subsection (7C) below, the provisions of this section shall apply as they apply in a case where the governing body of a school is under a duty by virtue of section 50 of this Act to secure that a ballot is held in accordance with this section.

    (7C) In any such case—

    (a) those provisions shall apply with the omission of subsections (3)(a) and (5); and

    (b) subsection (5A) above shall be read as if the information there referred to were the information given for the purposes of the first ballot.'.

    Amendment (d) to the proposed Lords amendment, in page 46, line 28, at end insert—
    '(10A) For the purposes of this section, a person is eligible to vote in any ballot held in respect of a school in accordance with this section if he is—

    (a) known to the governing body to be a parent of a registered pupil at the school; and

    (b) named as a parent of such a pupil in the register kept in accordance with the requirements of the 1944 Act in the case of the school, as that register has effect on the date immediately following the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the date on which the relevant resolution or request was passed or received by the governing body.

    (10B) For the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection (10A) 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; and in paragraph (b) of that subsection the reference to the relevant resolution or request is a reference to the resolution or request (mentioned in section 50(4) of this Act) by reference to which the ballot is required to be held or, where the ballot is a second ballot under subsection (7A) above, by reference to which the first ballot was required to be held.'.
    Amendment (e) to the proposed Lords amendment, in page 46, line 31, after 'majority', insert
    `of votes cast in the ballot by persons eligible to vote in the ballot (within the meaning of that section)'.
    Amendment (f) to the proposed Lords amendment, in page 62, line 16, at end insert—
    'Where section 51(7A) of this Act applies in the case of any such ballot, the references in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (b) above to the result of that ballot shall be read as references to the result of the second ballot required by that subsection.'.
    Amendment (g) to the proposed Lords amendment, in page 90, line 40, leave out from 'given' to 'and' in line 41, and insert
    `for the purposes of the originating ballot to persons eligible to vote in that ballot (within the meaning of section 51)'.
    Amendment (h) to the proposed Lords amendment, in page 206, line 26, at end insert—
    '50A. In section 80 of that Act (registration of pupils at schools), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
    "(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) of this section, the prescribed particulars shall include particulars of the name and address of every person known to the proprietor of the school to be a parent of a pupil at the school.".'.
    Mr. Baker: As my noble Friend, Lord Trefgarne, said in another place, we see no need for amendment No. 89. No school may become grant maintained unless it has followed all the procedures set out in the Bill. The amendment adds nothing to these requirements. However, if the House wishes the amendment to remain, I do not intend to press the matter. The substantive amendment is

    879
    amendment No. 113. I am asking the House to agree not with that Lords amendment but with the amendments that we have tabled.
    We have spent many hours in the House and in another place debating the proposals for grant-maintained schools. Curiously, perhaps, the Opposition have used much of that time not to consider the concept of grant-maintained schools or their financing and staffing but to concentrate on the proposed testing of parental opinion. They have argued about who is a parent, although we have stated the Government's position many times. They have tried to invent fancy franchises that would ensure that few applications come forward, and they have implied that the ballot of parents somehow decides whether a school becomes grant-maintained instead of simply being part of a process whereby an application is submitted for my consideration.
    What has all the fuss been about? It has been about our proposal that a simple majority of the parents voting in a ballot should determine the outcome of that ballot. Our system of democracy has surely survived on the principle that the majority derives its legitimacy from voting. Any other approach will always be open to challenge. A simple majority of those voting is a clear, comprehensible and straightforward way of testing opinion. The arrangements for a secret postal ballot—which in these circumstances will be organised by the Electoral Reform Society—and for the distribution of fact-sheets with ballot papers will ensure that every parent has the chance to cast an informed vote.
    Mr. Cormack: My right hon. Friend will remember that when the House dealt with referendums for Ireland, Scotland and Wales it built in certain requirements for majorities.
    Mr. Baker: I am aware of that point. Someone reminded me of the Division record on the qualifed majority on the Scottish referendum. Apparently I was not present in the House. If I had been, I probably would have supported it. On the European referendum, there was not a qualified majority but a straightforward majority.
    Mr. Straw: What about a qualified majority?
    Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman asked me that question in Committee, and I shall answer it in exactly the same terms as I did then. I do not favour a qualified majority. A better way of solving most of these matters is with a simple majority, as I have said consistently.
    Mr. Straw: As the right hon. Gentleman does not favour a qualified majority, will he explain why in the Employment Bill 1982 he voted for what was not just a qualified majority but an overwhelming majority of 80 per cent. before a closed shop could be accepted?
    9.15 pm
    Mr. Baker: The answer is straightforward. I voted that way because that ballot was very decisive and men's and women's jobs were at risk. There is no risk of anyone's job being put at risk as a result of these ballots.
    In another place the view has been expressed that a majority of those eligible to vote should endorse the making of an application. In other words, if 1,000 parents are eligible to vote, 501 must be in favour of an application
    880
    before it can go forward. To put it another way, if 499 vote and they are all in favour, no application results. The prime effect of this approach would be to enfranchise apathy and to give the abstainers equal weight with the opponents in blocking changes which others want. In my example, the 501 parents who chose not to vote would be assumed to be opposed to an application for grant-maintained status. I see no reason why that should be so. I therefore invite the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 113.
    I accept that those who supported the amendment in the other place were not all totally hostile to the concept of grant-maintained status. I accept that in some cases there were worries that a well-organised minority group from one or other end of the political spectrum might, so to speak, hijack a school before the majority of parents fully appreciated the importance of what was happening. That point was made not only in the House but by several speakers in the other place. I think it most unlikely that parents will have the wool pulled over their eyes in that way, but, as the concern is such a real one for some people, I have given considerable thought to ways of meeting it.
    I am willing to build in some further safeguards, and that is why I have tabled the amendments to the proposed Lords amendment. Those amendments will ensure that the process by which an application for grant-maintained status is initiated will be fully legitimised by the involvement of the whole parent body. With the permission of the House, I shall explain my amendments in more detail.
    The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that all parents enjoy every possible opportunity to express a view on the proposition that their child's school should become grant maintained—whether that view is for or against. Not one parent should be able to say, once the dust has settled, that he or she did not fully understand that it was important to vote in the ballot. Not one parent should be left feeling that he or she had been misled into thinking that the ballot was somebody else's business. As I have said before, I am confident that there will always be tremendous public debate and parental interest in the run-up to a ballot. I do not believe that parents will not bother to vote. I am sure that many LEAs will campaign strongly against the proposal and will urge a big turnout. Just to be quite sure, I propose to introduce a new dual-ballot arrangement.
    The arrangement will operate in the following way: a ballot will be held and, if 50 per cent. or more of the registered parents vote, the results will he determined by a simple majority of those voting. That is a straightforward ballot. If less than 50 per cent. of parents vote in the first ballot, a second ballot will have to be held within 14 days of the result of the first one being declared. Once again, all the parents will receive ballot papers from the Electoral Reform Society, this time with a statement explaining why the second ballot is necessary and reminding them what they are being asked to decide. The result of the second ballot will again be determined by a simple majority of those voting, but this time it will be conclusive, irrespective of the turnout.
    Mr. Straw: I wonder whether the Secretary of State can answer an important point of detail. The first ballot might he held in mid-December—say, on 18 December—in

    881
    which case the 14 days would fall in the Christmas and new year period. That is perfectly possible. Is there any provision to take account of that?
    Mr. Baker: We intend to issue guidance and we shall try to encourage schools and governing bodies not to hold ballots on the last day of term. It is most unlikely that that will happen. The hon. Gentleman is looking for extreme cases. If that is the best criticism that he can find of our proposals, it is a pretty poor effort.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. Friend has clearly stated that it will be a simple majority, but I cannot find specific reference to that in the amendment. Does the amendment specify that it will be a simple majority?
    Mr. Baker: I shall give my hon. Friend the exact phrase when it is brought to my attention, but I assure her that I am satisfied that it will be done by simple majority.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will clarify another matter. After all the procedures have been gone through, including the second ballot, if necessary, will the decision remain his? Will he be able to overturn the second ballot, if necessary?
    Mr. Baker: Let me remind the House of the procedures for obtaining grant-maintained status. First, the governing body must meet to consider whether it wants to proceed. If it decides that it wishes to proceed, it must meet again within 28 days so that the governors can reflect upon the decision, as it is clearly an important matter. They must then ask the Electoral Reform Society to organise a postal ballot along the lines that I have described. The postal ballot will then be held, and on some occasions there may be a second postal ballot. However, the ballot itself does not determine whether a school becomes a grant-maintained school. It merely triggers the third process. The governors then have to put forward a proposal and publish it just as they do with a proposal under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 for the amalgamation, closure or expansion of a school. The proposal has to be advertised and will be the subject of public meetings. It will then be submitted to the Secretary of State, who has to decide whether it should go ahead. That is the procedure.
    Sir Charles Morrison: The Government believe in the concept of parent power. Interpretation of parent power is up to the individual. I presume, however, that it implies a decision by a large proportion of parents. Under the Government's amendment to the Lords amendment, it would be possible in the first ballot for 25 per cent. of parents plus one to decide the future of the school. If the second ballot had to be held it would be possible for I per cent. of parents, or even one parent, to decide. If I am right, does that not mean that the Secretary of State, rather than the parents, is making the decision?
    Mr. Baker: It has always been implicit in the arrangements that the Secretary of State must be the person who decides whether a school becomes grant maintained, just as the Secretary of State decides about school closures or expansions. That has not changed. It will always be the Secretary of State who decides. Under the dual-ballot procedure, a second ballot will be held if 50 per cent. of the parents do not vote. If more than 50 per cent. vote—whether it is 51 per cent. or 80 per cent.—the first ballot is conclusive and the next stage is triggered. If
    882
    the turnout is lower, a simple majority is sufficient in the second ballot, and the second ballot will determine whether the trigger is pulled for the application.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: As my right hon. Friend knows, I was reluctant to accept the Government's original proposal. I still find it difficult to understand how this convoluted and possibly expensive system of two ballots is preferable to the normal procedure for changing the constitution of an organisation, whether it be a cricket club or a building society. My right hon. Friend will recall from his lime at the Department of the Environment that 75 per cent. of members' votes are required before the constitution of a building society can be changed. I cannot understand why a simple proposition of the kind which requires a majority at least of those eligible to vote should not be sufficient to determine this matter.
    Mr. Baker: I am afraid that I disagree with my hon. Friend. There are many constitutional issues, not least election of local authorities, which depend not on qualified majorities but on simple majorities. The argument that I have put forward consistently—in Committee, on Report and around the country—is that a simple majority is the right and appropriate way to do it. In these amendments, I have tried to recognise the views that have been put to me, specifically by some church members, and the anxiety that a small group of parents could hijack a school and rush through the change. I have met that anxiety by these changes.
    Dr. Keith Hampson: My right hon. Friend has accepted an important principle, for which we have been arguing. Will he make it clear that he would be unlikely to accept a decision taken by a simple majority of a 50 per cent. turnout on the first ballot? That would mean that about 25 per cent. plus one would carry the decision when the original trigger is 20 per cent., which would put him in a dilemma.
    Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is tempting me a little too far, as that would fetter not only my discretion but that of any holder of my office. I am sure that, legally, I would not be allowed to do so. In the same way, I cannot fetter the holder of my office by making commitments on grammar schools, comprehensives or reorganisations of schools. The extent of the turnout will be a material factor—material both to the parents and to the future of the school—and is bound to weigh heavily with the holder of my office. Before we had this dual system of 50 per cent. on the first round and then a conclusive decision on the second round, my argument was that if there were a derisory turnout—I do not accept that that would happen because, when the future of a school is at stake, parents are tremendously involved, as all hon. Members will know, and there is a huge turnout—and the holder of my office had taken a decision approving grant-maintained status, that may be a reason for setting aside that decision on judicial review. That is one of the factors that has to be taken into account. The reasonableness of the decision taken by the holder of my office would have to be apparent and patent. I have tried to explain, by question and answer, how this would be dealt with.
    I emphasise that, in the procedure that I have outlined, no small group of committed parents would be able to bounce a school into an application for grant-maintained

    883
    status, but those who are determined to be apathetic, however many opportunities they might be given to participate, will not be an obstacle to those who believe that grant-maintained status is right for the school, and are prepared to put their energies into making it a success.
    Once again, I emphasise that the ballot procedure is only the start of a statutory process—a point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). The holder of my office will still have to look at the resulting application on its merits, taking account of any objections that may be made, whether by parents or others concerned. The introduction of this two-stage procedure should put paid, once and for all, to anxieties about hijacks by well-organised minority groups.
    The remaining amendments in this group are consequential. They may also clarify some points that have exercised hon. Members on both sides of the House. They establish once and for all that the electoral roll is the list of parents held on the admissions register at the school, and that it is for the governing body to make a determination in any case where a question is raised about a person's claim to be a parent. They also provide that parents should have 14 days to check that they are on the list once it has been formally decided that a ballot should be held that is to say, the governor's second meeting. Amendments to the later clause clarify references to first and second ballots.
    The amendments demonstrate that we have listened to concerns expressed to us and done our best to meet them. I believe that these amendments finally remove any possible risk that a small group of parents could seek to determine the future of a school without the consequences being fully appreciated by all the parents.
    Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: When the local authority is acting in loco parentis, because a child is in care, will the authority have a parent's vote for each child in care?
    9.30 pm
    Mr. Baker: That was made clear in Committee. The head of the home will be able to exercise the vote in the case of a child in care.
    I have tried to make it clear that the amendment proposing a dual ballot is an attempt by the Government to meet the anxieties that have been expressed. It meets those anxieties, but I have no intention of yielding ground on the principle that a simple majority of those voting should determine the outcome of a ballot. That concept is well understood and conveys legitimacy. It has served us well over the years and will do so in the future.
    Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State made clear, in the closing seconds of his speech, that the amendment is a concession without substance. The Government's original policy was to provide for a scheme by which a simple majority, however small the proportion of those voting, could trigger an application for opt-out status. That remains the position under these amendments, the only difference being that, where there is less than a 50 per cent. turnout in the first ballot, there may then be a second ballot. However, as the hon. Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) spelt out, there could, arithmetically, be a 1 per cent. turnout at the first ballot and a 1 per cent. turnout at the second ballot, which would still trigger an application
    884
    for opt-out. As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) said, this is a convoluted and expensive arrangement written into the amendments which is designed to provide a veneer of democracy and legitimacy around a bad scheme.
    The Secretary of State, wanting, as ever, to have it both ways, said in an answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson)—I am glad to see a wry smile on the hon. Gentleman's face—that the extent of the turnout would be a material factor to weigh in his mind when he came to decide whether to accept an application. If the extent of the turnout is to be a material factor in the mind of the Secretary of State when he comes to weigh up whether to accept or reject an application, is it not appropriate that it should be a material factor in the mind of the House in establishing the scheme of voting in the first place? We should not just leave it to the Secretary of State—not just this Secretary of State, but any Secretary of State—but should meet the legitimate concerns of all hon. Members and state what should be a minimum proportion before which an application could be triggered.
    The Secretary of State sought to brush aside a history of complete inconsistency on the matter of his votes on franchises by dismissing any suggestion, from anyone who was seeking other than a simple majority on any turnout, that we were in favour of fancy franchises. The Secretary of State's history in this House is that of a man who picks a franchise to get a result. I would not mind that argument from the Secretary of State if, every time an issue of the franchise had come up, he had said that the simple majority of those voting is inviolable and fundamental to our democracy.
    The Secretary of State admits, however, that in relation to the referendums for Scotland and Wales he supported the requirement for a 40 per cent. minimum vote in favour of assemblies in those countries before such powers could be triggered. On the Employment Bill, he voted with many of his right hon. and hon. Friends for a scheme requiring that before a closed shop could be established there must be an 85 per cent. majority of those voting or an 80 per cent. majority of those eligible to vote. The then Under-Secretary of State for Employment—the right hon. and learned Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), now the Government Patronage Secretary—justified that proposal by the argument that the closed shop must have the overwhelming support of the work force because of the "immense importance for individual rights."—[Official Report. Standing Committee G, 30 March 1982; c. 775.]
    I do not agree with that argument, but I understand it. The present Secretary of State for Education and Science reflected that statement when he said that men's and women's jobs would be at stake in a closed shop. That may be so, but is not something quite important at stake if a school opts out of local authority control? Many parents will believe that their children's education is at stake when they consider the possibility of transfer from the local education authority to state nationalised education by the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Pawsey: In that case, they will vote.
    Mr. Straw: We used that argument in relation to the closed shop, but it was not accepted by the Minister in charge or by the present Secretary of State for Education and Science.
    The Housing Bill has been going through the House at the same time as the Education Reform Bill. On the very

    885
    day when the Secretary of State for Education and Science was asking the Standing Committee to accept this fancy franchise whereby a minority of parents could force a ballot through and trigger an opt-out application, he supported in the Cabinet what was then clause 96 of the Housing Bill whereby the absolute reverse obtained and tenants on a council estate could not prevent a private landlord from taking over their estate unless a majority of those eligible voted against the application. Were I outside the House, I should call that hyprocrisy. As I am in the House, I shall call it a double standard—the most excruciating, excoriating double standard on the part of a Government who do not understand the meaning of morality.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does the hon. Gentleman realise how synthetic his indignation sounds—[Interruption.] I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) would not shout at me like some shrew. The Labour party supported unions which for more than 100 years had leaders elected to positions of great power and authority by less than 10 per cent. of their membership. The hon. Gentleman's party never complained about that.
    Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman is making a serious point, I should point out that there is a distinction between elections for office when someone has to be elected because otherwise there will be a vacancy and elections which determine major changes in the status quo of institutions when, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green pointed out, it is important to have the consent of everyone concerned.
    I do not like low turnouts in any election. I want a high turnout in every election because that is how one achieves the maximum legitimacy for the decision reached. Incidentally, I remember hearing the Secretary of State pontificating in the House on the subject of challenging the legitimacy of local authorities on the basis of low turnouts in elections. There was no suggestion that, because local councillors had been elected on a plurality of the vote regardless of the turnout, somehow their position was not legitimate.
    In respect of a closed shop, of tenants on a council estate or of members of building societies, or in respect of something that Conservative Members understand rather well, the status quo of shareholders of a company, there must be what the Secretary of State would call fancy franchises—arrangements for which he has always voted in the past. For example, there might have to be a 75 per cent. majority at a special general meeting of a company in order to change the articles of that company or to do other things that could affect minority rights. Sometimes a substantial turnout with majorities larger than 50 per cent. has to be written in to respect the rights of minorities. That is the key issue here.
    Under these arrangements there will be two ballots. The hon. Member for Devizes has already blown a hole in the arithmetic of those two ballots. What is more, this is so ill-thought-out that the Secretary of State has not even given the parliamentary draftsmen time to draft amendments so that the 14 days runs through the school term and not through school holidays.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: I can give guidance.
    Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State shakes his head and says that he can give guidance. He should know enough about the law to know that his guidance is not above the law or even equal to the law. If a ballot is held on, for example, 14 December—and that is not impossible to imagine—and turns out to be unsatisfactory, the next ballot has to be held within 14 days.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Straw: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    The Secretary of State says that he will give guidance. What happens if that guidance is not accepted? It is possible for a ballot to be held at Christmas, and ballots could easily take place at Easter or in the summer. The Secretary of State might have given himself guidance last year when he chose to consult teachers and parents over the six weeks of the summer holidays, but he did not. He knows that it is perfectly possible for a group of parents who want to achieve a particular result to fix a ballot so that many parents are not able to vote. In that event, his guidance would not count for a row of beans.
    The Secretary of State spoke about the definition of parents. That matter was rightly subjected to great debate in the other place. Under the definition that the Secretary of State is applying, which I understand is section 114 of the 1944 Act, which is the bedrock definition, a parent of
    "any child or young person includes a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child or young person. "
    I think that the Secretary of State acknowledges that. That means that the number of votes that can be cast in respect of a child can be anything from nil to four or five.
    One third of marriages end in divorce. Some children live with grandparents during the week and with their parents at the weekend, or with one set of parents one week and another set the next week. We all know that such people exist: that is reality. In such cases four votes could be exercised on behalf of one child. At the other extreme a single parent mother, perhaps with three children at the same school, is able to exercise only one vote.
    Mr. Cormack: Is that true?
    Mr. Straw: It is true, but if the Secretary of State thinks otherwise I shall readily give way to him.
    The mathematics are quite horrendous. Some children could have 12 times as much voting weight exercised on their behalf as other children. A single child at school may have four effective parents, staying with one set one week and another set the next, and all have custody of the child and can exercise four votes on his behalf. On the other hand, there might be a single parent who is the only parent with custody of the child. He or She may have three children in school. The child with four parents and no siblings will have 12 times the voting weight exercised on his behalf than the child with one parent and two other siblings in the school.
    9.45 pm
    Dr. Hampson: This is interesting and important. I do not read the provision in the same way as the hon. Gentleman. Surely there has to be a registered parent. It does not only matter how many parents, in theory, there

    887
    might be. Only one will be registered with the school, and only he or she can vote. The governors have the final say on who the registered parent is.
    Mr. Straw: Yes. There is a registered parent. It is within my knowledge, however, that there are children who have two sets of parents. All of them will be registered—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Let the Secretary of State deny this if he wishes. Section 114 provides the bedrock definition of the 1944 Act. The Minister of State referred to and quoted this passage:
    —Parent', in relation to any child or young person, includes a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child or young person."
    The issue was argued out in another place over some weeks, and, as I understand it, it was acknowledged that the arithmetic to which I have referred could apply. That was acknowledged also in Committee. There has never been any dubiety about this. I am sorry that it has taken until the closing hours of our consideration of the Bill for Conservative Members to appreciate the profound unfairness and arbitrary nature of the proposed arrangements. We proposed that the system should be one child, one vote. The interest of the parent arises out of the interest of the child. That seemed to be a simple, straightforward and fair arrangement which would be fairer between children and fairer between parents.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: On the definition of parent, the position is that which I have outlined. It is no different from the position that governing bodies have to resolve on the election of parental governors. They have to determine who the parent is. There are usually two parents and there might be one parent. In a few cases the courts have decided that there should be four parents. As I have said, the system is the same for parental governors.
    The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has said that the Opposition favoured the system of-one parent to have one vote per child. That is a crazy system. How do we determine which parent votes when the mother and father think differently?
    Mr. Straw: Every advantage has a disadvantage. Our proposal is much less crazy and much fairer than the Government's, under which one child could carry forward four votes.
    Mr. Flannery: I intervene on a kindred point, not exactly the point that my hon. Friend has raised. Will my hon. Friend deal with the problem of feeder schools to a secondary school when it is the secondary school that will vote to opt out? There will probably be three or four feeder schools.
    Mr. Straw: I take my hon. Friend's point entirely.
    In the ILEA ballot there was one vote per child, and in many families there were two votes.
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: What a fiddle.
    Mr. Straw: No, it was not a fiddle. The only difficulty for the Secretary of State was when the result went the wrong way for him. There was no fiddle and there was no problem. The Secretary of State is wrong to draw an analogy with elections for parent governors. My experience—I think that it is shared by all my hon. Friends who have been involved in this process—is that the
    888
    elections are informal and often take place by acclamation. They raise none of the deeply divisive issues—
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: What of September?
    Mr. Straw: Many local authorities have had parent governors for years. Some areas have had so many parent governors that they will have to reduce the number of parent governors this autumn, not increase it. There has been no problem so far because this has not been fundamentally divisive to the interests of the school or the community.
    Mr. Latham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Straw: No, I will not give way, because I want to draw my remarks to a close. We are considering a different circumstance that might be deeply divisive to a school's interest.
    I want to ask the Secretary of State about the register of the list of parents. He said that the list of parents would be drawn up by the governing body and that parents would have 14 days to check on the list after the election had been announced. If the Secretary of State wants a fair election, would it not be far better after the governing body had decided to trigger a ballot—if these are to be fair elections, and if there is to be a clear register—for the register to be published at the beginning of each academic year because it could be used for other purposes, for example, the election of parent governors and so could be checked, than for it to be made available in a period of considerable controversy, in the 14 days before a ballot takes place?
    Throughout the debates there has been intense argument about what should he a legitimate vote to trigger an opt-out ballot. An opt-out ballot through which a school removes itself from local authority control and becomes a nationalised school is probably the most important decision that a school could make. We believe that, for that proposal to go forward, it must require the majority of the support of every parent in the school.
    In the previous debate the Secretary of State was happy to praise the Bishop of London for what he had done in respect of religious education. Our amendment, which the Secretary of State wants to overturn, was proposed by the Bishop of London and supported by a majority of the Members of the House of Lords, who were in favour of the simple democratic principle that a major institutional change of this kind should be supported by an absolute majority.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I want very briefly to define my attitude towards opting out, because this is a short debate. Opting out is an excellent scheme, particularly bearing in mind what has happened to education in certain parts of Brent. Many parents in Brent are waiting for the proposal to come into action. The sooner and easier it comes into action, the better.
    I should have liked the Secretary of State to go further with a full voucher system which would have revolutionised education in the way that we have revolutionised industry by making the consumer stronger than the producer. I welcome the present proposal as a stepping stone to that glorious time and praise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's move along the line.
    If we start these fancy franchises, where do we stop? Will people be elected to this House only if they get 51 per

    889
    cent. of a 98 per cent. poll? If so, hardly any of us would be here. If we stipulated 51 per cent. of the poll, two thirds of us would not be here now. Such a rule would obviously disfranchise the winner of the by-election in Kensington last week. Will we not allow the winner of that election to enter this House because there was only a 51 per cent. poll? Once we begin on this road, where do we stop?
    In council elections, the turnout can be less than 30 per cent. That is often the case in Labour areas, although I hate to say so and risk upsetting Opposition Members. It is important to keep the few Labour Members there are in the Chamber. It is interesting to compare how many of my hon. Friends are present against the number of Opposition Members. Where is the Labour party's enthusiasm for opposing this measure? The fact is that Opposition Members know that their constituents will like it, and that parents will be going through the voting lists to see whether they will be free to do what they wish.
    The more responsibility we give to parents, the better a society we shall have. In education, I have always supported the view of the parent against that of the so-called expert, who will always have a theory to defend and his future before him. The parent is the only person in education who is concerned purely for the education of his children. The more we put parents in charge, the better. There has been much talk recently about irresponsibility, and the only way to achieve responsibility among parents is to give them power. The state takes more and more power away from the family and then attacks parents for not doing their job.
    I commend my right hon. Friend on the amendment. He is being very courageous and generous. Others might have ignored this aspect and would have driven on, saying that a 0·5 per cent. majority rather than a 1 per cent. majority should be sufficient. This is an act of great generosity, and I am amazed that any Opposition Member should oppose it. It just shows how much the Opposition are out of touch with the men and women of this country.
    Mr. Morley: We should be clear that in this debate we are dealing with nothing more nor less than a form of institutionalised ballot rigging. The Secretary of State introduces this measure into the Bill and then makes an amendment that is of no credit to him or to the House. Every argument made by Conservative Members in support of this measure has been shot down by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
    One point that has not been covered is that concerning the ballot for the closed shops, where there must be an 85 per cent. majority. Somebody commented, "It's a question of freedom". There is also a question of freedom in this respect. I refer to the freedom of parents with children in the feeder schools, but who will not be given a vote on the question of opting out. Nevertheless, the result of that vote may have far-reaching effects on those parents and on their children when they reach the school concerned.
    Let us assume that in the first ballot, with 40 per cent. of parents voting, the majority goes against the school opting out. However, under the new amendment, because that percentage will be less than the majority of those eligible to vote, there would be a second vote, when 20 per cent. of eligible parents may vote to opt out. Which decision will influence the Secretary of State? He may argue that the ballot itself is simply a trigger mechanism. The argument against that is that the system will set parent against parent, will divide the community, and will drive a
    890
    wedge between the schools and the local authorities. At best, it will cause confusion, and at worst it will be a constant, running sore that will disrupt the children's education and the schools themselves, and they will be the losers.
    I turn to the definition of "parent". My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is right in saying that there could be four parents with a right to vote. In another place, Lord Trefgarne, for the Government, said that the education Acts
    "define a parent as including a guardian and every person who has the actual custody of the child or young person, so there may he circumstances where a child has more than two parents."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 May 1988; Vol. 496, c. 1326.]
    That confirms that, in some situations, four people may have a vote in respect of one child. Lord Trefgarne went on to say that there might be court actions to resolve who actually has the vote and the custody of the child. Do I take it that court actions could be triggered off simply to decide who is the registered parent, and who has the vote?
    Such examples are not uncommon. I knov, of one family in which one child is living with its grandparents, who have custody. In another family the children have gone to a sister, who has custody of the children within her own family. That can cause all sorts of problems and potential humiliation for stepfathers and stepmothers, who may find that the natural parents argue with the governors that they too have the right to vote in the registering process.
    10 pm
    Mr. Tony Baldry: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the rather tortuous example that he has given would apply whatever the system of voting? Is it not about time that we started to live in the real world? If there is a contentious issue in a school, a large number of parents will become involved; it will not be a case of a small number coming in silently one night to vote clandestinely. Why should the votes of those who want the school to opt out be worth any more or any less than the votes of those who want it to stay in local authority control? Why should they not be of equal strength?
    Mr. Morley: My point concerns the confusion and dissent that will result from the Secretary of State's amendment. I do not think that Conservative Members appreciate that in many institutions it is written into the constitution that any major constitutional change will require a majority of, say,75 per cent. or two thirds of those eligible.
    Once the vote is taken, it is irreversible. Once the school has opted out, the parents cannot vote to opt in again the following year. That makes it all the more important that the decision is made by the majority. If the Government truly believe in parental involvement, and if they are genuinely concerned about the quality of education and the involvement of parents rather than with simple political doctrine, they will support the Lords amendment.
    Dr. Hampson: Having started all this in Committee with a couple of attempted amendments that suggested either 50 per cent. or 40 per cent., let me first comment briefly on a couple of myths. It is a pity that my right hen. Friend continues to perpetuate them.
    One myth is that this is somehow like a local government or parliamentary election. It is not an

    891
    election; we are not in the business of 30, 40 or 50 per cent., as was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson). We are talking about an expression of opinion about something of tremendous and fundamental importance which has the potential to cause an upheaval in the entire structure of education established in the 1944 Act.
    Secondly, it is asked why 499 parents out of 1,000 should be denied their view. But we are talking about a vibrant, living community. The personal chemistry of parents, teachers and pupils is what makes it work, and if well over 50 per, cent. support cannot be achieved the school will be torn apart. The figure of 499 parents out of 1,000 essentially means that the decision will be taken by the parents of roughly 500 out of 2,000 pupils. If this is about the education of the children, as it should be, should we be changing the direction and future of the school on the basis of what the parents of 500 out of 2,000 would like to happen to their children?
    As the Government have acknowledged tonight, the issue is about turnout. We seem to be saying that it does not matter what the theory is or what the legislation will be: in practice it will turn out all right; because a highly controversial decision is to be taken, many people will turn out to vote.
    Educationists and parents are essentially conservative. Many of them will not want to take this tremendous leap into the dark, but when that happens there will. I agree, be a tremendous row and the local authority and the newspapers will weigh in. But that does not justify putting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his successors into an embarrassing position. He has acknowledged tonight that the courts may be asked to decide whether he is acting reasonably. Despite the compromise that my right hon. Friend has offered, it will ultimately be his decision.
    These are just trigger mechanisms. Are we suggesting that on one occasion the Secretary of State should approve a vote that is tantamount to 40 per cent., while on another occasion he should say no to a vote that is tantamount to 36 per cent.? If the figure for one school is different from that for another school, parents who are determined to opt out will challenge my right hon. Friend's decision. Furthermore, the teachers' unions may not want a school to opt out and they, too, will challenge the decision. The purpose of my amendment in Committee was to establish a clear yardstick so that potential uncertainties and consequential judicial review were eliminated. My amendment would have meant that, if the number fell below a clear proportion, opting out would not be considered.
    We have to decide whether the compromise is acceptable. If the principle of opting out is to be accepted by the public—I believe in it and I have advocated it for a number of schools—the Government must be seen to be acting fairly. Until now I did not believe that the formula made it look as though the Government were being fair. If we had nothing to worry about because there would be a huge turnout, what on earth did the Government have to lose by having a proportion enshrined in statute? It made it look as though we were deliberately trying to shove through any proposal that was put forward, regardless—in other words, as though we were trying to
    892
    gerrymander the system. Therefore, I accept generously my right hon. Friend's proposals. He has tried to meet the central point of fairness having to be perceived.
    I do not agree that the proposals are a recipe for a turnout on the second ballot that would be even smaller than the turnout on the first. If a second ballot has to take place, it will stimulate much more interest in the community and a very much larger turnout. That is at the heart of the compromise and I accept it.
    As for the criteria, it might be better if my right hon. Friend were to extend his powers so that he could decide whether there are circumstances that warrant a second ballot. Only 51 or 52 per cent. may vote in the first ballot, which means that only 25 per cent. or 26 per cent. of the parents will carry the day and change the future direction of the school. As the process is initially triggered by 20 per cent., it is unacceptable that a school should be able to opt out on the basis of 25 or 26 per cent. If the vote is just over 50 per cent. in the first ballot, my right hon. Friend ought to have the power to ask for a second ballot.
    I accept the spirit in which my right hon. Friend has offered the compromise. It meets the central problem and therefore should be accepted.
    Mr. Giles Radice: One cannot understand the Secretary of State's attitude to the voting procedures unless one understands the background to opting out. It has always been a confused proposal. The Secretary of State saw opting out as a safety valve, and a number of Conservative Members supported that view. However, the Prime Minister saw the opt-out as a kind of revolution, such as the proposal to buy council houses in the first and second Tory terms of office, and she overruled her Secretary of State.
    Those Conservative Members who supported opt-out as a safety valve realised that it was important to ensure that a minority of parents did not hijack the proposals. They saw, too, that to bring about such a change they needed overwhelming support among parents. That is why in Committee and on Report Conservative Members tabled amendments to write such criteria into the Bill. They were very sensible proposals, but unfortunately they were defeated.
    In another place, an amendment was carried against the wishes of the Government but with the backing of a number of Government supporters. It was moved by the Bishop of London. It is worth quoting a few points from his speech, as it was an excellent speech, and perhaps the Government have not taken it into account sufficiently. The bishop said:
    "If the Government intend to establish the means by which schools are allowed to opt out of the local authority system, then it must be a fair system and one which serves the majority of parents … Why then are the Government not willing to accept the principle that the majority of those eligible to vote should be required to make the decision for a school to opt out? If the Government wish to provide parents with a choice in the education of their children, logically this should mean a greater choice for the majority of parents; yet the Bill does not ensure that choice for the majority in the opting out."
    The bishop also pointed out the parallel with the Housing Bill. He said:
    "How can it be logical that where it is acceptable for a minority of parents at a school to decide its future, it is necessary for a majority of council tenants to decide to remain with the local authority? I am afraid one is driven to the point … that one purpose of the minority is to encourage schools to opt out"—[Official Report. House of Lords, 12 May 1988; Vol. 496, c. 1225–26.]

    893
    That is basically the case. This Government suit the franchise to whatever case they have in mind. In the Housing Bill, they wanted to make it easy for things to happen and in this Bill they want to make it easy for schools to opt out, hence there will be just an ordinary majority.
    The Secretary of State was faced with a dilemma, such as he has faced throughout the Bill. On the one hand, the Prime Minister would not allow the Secretary of State to accept the Lords amendments. On the other hand, he had to persuade the Conservative rebels and those in the other place. He had to come up with what he thought to be a clever wheeze which would be enough to disarm the rebels—after listening to the speeches that have been made I suspect he may have achieved that—without provoking an explosion from No. 10, and we have not heard that. Therefore, the Secretary of State might just have got away with it. However, the parents will be faced with a convoluted, cumbersome, confusing dual-ballot fudge which will still allow a well-organised minority to push through a grant-maintained school.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) rightly said, it is a concession without substance. I believe that it should be rejected and that instead we should accept the Lords amendment.
    Mr. Timothy Raison: It is indisputable that there has been a fair amount of unease about the qualifying procedure for opting out. I certainly welcome my right hon. Friend's willingness to make concessions. His concessions are not particularly radical, but they are helpful. However, I still wonder exactly how easy it will be to establish exactly who has the right to vote, and, even at this late stage, I wonder whether there is another way of looking at the matter.
    Clause 50(2) seems to leave it to governors to decide which parents are to decide, and apparently that is the situation in other respects. My right hon. Friend's amendment to Lords amendment No. 113 confirms that. It says that the voter has to be
    "known to the governing body to be a parent"
    and must be named as a parent in the register.
    10.15 pm
    Having listened to the debate and thought about it, I am still bemused about exactly who can or cannot be a parent. Obviously, there are what one might call the natural and married parents and there would usually be no difficulty about that. However, what is the position of step parents? In what circumstances are they regarded as parents? What is the position of natural parents who are named on the birth certificate but are involved in a union where there has been no marriage? What is the position of natural parents who are not named on the birth certificate? How do we find out about that? In the world as we know it, it would be extremely difficult in many cases to compile a list of parents. It has been pointed out already that in many parts of the country there is a growing proportion of one-parent families. Will it be the duty of the governors to try to find out who the father is when a child is living with its mother? It will be a difficult process. To say simply that it is a matter for the guardians of a child or those looking after it does not seem to answer the case fully.
    I want to press my right hon. Friend to explain things more fully and to ask him whether at this late stage there might be a different approach to the matter. My proposal to my right hon. Friend—if there is a chance to consider
    894
    it in the other place when the Bill returns there—is to require that those voting for the proposal are equal in number to more than half the number of pupils registered at the school. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take some interest in that proposal. That would mean that in a school of 1,000 pupils, at least 501 parents would have to vote for the proposal. There would also have to be a majority.
    It would be easier to peg the qualifying number to the number of pupils rather than the number of parents. I am not arguing—my right hon. Friend has referred to this already—that there should be only one parental vote for each child. I am simply saying that there should be a minimum. If more than one eligible parent votes, so be it. If we were to ensure that the total number required to achieve the qualifying stage was equivalent to one for each child, we would have a practical proposal. That is a way of facing a difficulty in my right hon. Friend's proposals as they stand and the difficulty in the proposals from the other place. I hope that my right hon. Friend, if he has a chance to think about the matter again, will follow my proposal.
    Why have I not put my proposal forward as an amendment? The answer must be that I thought of it too late for it to be put on the Amendment Paper. I sent it for consideration but it arrived too late. Whether we adopt the proposal from the other place or my right hon. Friend's proposal we are still left with the difficult problem of defining who are the parents and in drawing up a list—there has to be a list to establish the qualifying majority. I hope that there will be a chance to look at the alternative approach. Having said that. I reiterate that I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has shown willingness to make a concession at this stage.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: We have been opposed to schools opting out. [HON. MEMBERS: "We?"] We work as a team—a relay perhaps, but as a team.
    We are not opposed in principle to greater diversity in the provision of schools, but the Government's proposals are a charter for small groups of people to wreck a county's network of schools. Cornwall has relatively few schools—most of which are scattered with one per community—with shared arrangements for post-16 education. The loss of any one of those schools because of the interest of a temporary passing group of parents would be a permanent loss to the community that the school serves.
    I represent a fast-growing county. As population pressures operate, schools that have opted out will have to take decisions about who can attend them. To take those decisions, they may ask for contributions, test pupils' ability or, given the nature of my county, decide them on whose family has been in the county for three generations. Whatever decision is taken, certain children will be prevented from attending the school in their community. There should be a county-based education structure—not one that depends on the whims and fancies of the community—which should not depend on a tiny minority of parents taking a decision that will affect not only children attending the school at that time, but all those who will attend it in the future.
    Lords amendment No. 113 is a small but essential safeguard to ensure that there is a level of support for opting out before the proposal goes to the Secretary of State for his decision. It would have been better if the other

    895
    amendments debated in the other place to require more widespread consultation with the community and feeder schools had also been carried. It is surely right to require in law a minimum level of parental support before allowing politicians to exercise a political judgment. The Secretary of State said that his vote on a closed shop would be different because it would affect people's jobs. These proposals affect the future of the community's children and those children's children and make a far greater impact than the closed shop ever could.
    I hope that we will have time to debate the other amendments, including amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 111, which would help with the problem of defining a minimum level of parental support and would define who is a parent for the purposes of the ballot by setting an upper limit to the number of people who can participate in the ballot. We have already heard—the Secretary of State could not deny that this could happen—that 12 times as many votes could be cast on behalf of some children as of others. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) called a block vote.
    Amendments (a) to (h) to Lords amendment No. 113 break away from the essential principle outlined in the other place about the minimum stated level of parental support, and should be rejected for that reason. That should not be forgotten, especially as the Bill will not and cannot contain a balancing provision for a school to opt back in again. The Bill provides only for a one-way street. Therefore, most demanding requirements should be met before an irreversible decision is taken.
    The Government's proposals, which have been brought forward at the last moment to fend off an embarrassing defeat, are inadequate. The Secretary of State has not accepted the essential point that was carried in the other place, and the Bill is the worse for that. Hon. Members should stand by Lords amendment No. 113.
    Mr. David Madel: This was always going to be one of the most controversial parts of the Bill, from the time it emerged in the election campaign, and so it has proved. Guidelines by the Secretary of State still remain. Clause 51(7) states:
    "The Secretary of State shall publish any guidance given by him for the purposes of this section in such manner as he thinks fit."
    Under subsection (8), if it appears to the Secretary of State
    "that the governing body of any school have acted unreasonably in the discharge of their duties",
    he can declare the ballot void. I assume that the power to declare a ballot void for that reason applies also to the second ballot. The Secretary of State has those reserve powers. I was glad to hear, following the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), that the final decision on opting out remains with the Secretary of State. In the light of those two factors, there are plenty of safeguards against any unreasonable behaviour.
    We do not know when the Bill will become law. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has on his desk a number of cases of possible school closures. People ask what will cause a group of parents or governors to wish to opt out. There are some overwhelming reasons: constant threats of closure or clumsy attempts to reorganise education in such a way as would render a school a candidate for closure.
    896
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has probably guessed the point to which I am coming. Four calendar months ago, on 18 March, he kindly saw me and a delegation. For the third time in six years we have been trying to save Queensbury upper school in Dunstable from closure. Today I learned from his Department that Bedfordshire county council has demanded that it should see my right hon. Friend to argue the case for the closure of the school. If the Bill does not become law until the autumn, will my right hon. Friend take into account the results of a consultative referendum of parents on the future of their school? In the knowledge that the Bill is about to become law, that school and others under the threat of closure may try to opt out of control by the LEA, because the LEA has been trying to close them. Will my right hon. Friend take into account the results of a consultative referendum to be held early next term—I would not advocate such a ballot during the school holidays—among parents and governors on Queensbury's future if that is what those governors and parents want?
    I feel that it is appropriate to raise this matter now. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows how contentious it is in Bedfordshire. It is my constitutional duty to raise it on behalf of Queensbury upper school, the parents, teachers and governors.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: The Government's amendments are an attempt to put a cloak of respectability over an act of political cowardice. During the general election, the Secretary of State made it clear that he thought that this would be a minority sport for parents. He was drawn up abruptly by the Prime Minister, who made it clear that she thought that parents would adopt the opting-out procedure in droves. If the Secretary of State is so confident about the interest of parents in the opting-out procedure, why does he not, instead of adopting a two-ballot procedure to quell rebellion among his party, state that a clear majority of parents of children attending a school should vote to opt out of the LEA's control and care?
    10.30 pm
    It has already been pointed out that for council tenants to exercise the right to stop a private landlord taking over their estate, more than half of them have to vote. For the closed shop, it was 80 per cent. At the time of the devolution debate, it was at least 40 per cent. However, under this proposal the decision can be made by the majority of those voting. Under the double ballot procedure, it is hoped that further interest will be excited and additional votes cast. But what will happen if neither ballot produces a clear decision, although a small majority are in favour of opting out?
    The Secretary of State has been at pains to emphasise that the ballot procedure will not necessarily result in the opt-out provisions being made. He says that he will take account of the number of parents who vote and the majority that is achieved. He could have saved himself the pain of all this decision making. He has repeatedly told us that the Bill is not about taking powers to himself but about giving them to other people. Why did he not have the confidence to say that he would not decide whether a school should opt out but would leave that decision to a majority of parents who sent their children to the school? He has not done that.

    897
    Conservative Members have pointed out that we do not insist on such a procedure at general or local elections. We do not do so because we know that such elections are held regularly and that every three, four or five years the electorate has the opportunity to make a judgment on its previous decision about who to put into power. In this case, the parents will have no further opportunity. A school may be returned to local authority control and care only if there is a disaster in the management of the school, in which case the local authority will have to pick up the pieces.
    I appeal to those Conservative Members who from the beginning have had doubts about the proposal that a majority of those voting should be sufficient not to accept this facade of a double vote to encourage parental interest but to stick to their guns and be honest about the need to provide that a majority of parents must be prepared to vote for such a proposal.
    Mr. George Walden: I am a supporter of opting out, and the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) have not dissuaded me from that view. He seemed to me to be running around the periphery and pushing as hard as he could.
    I support opting out for two reasons. First, it will shake local authorities' monopoly. They will never again be so complacent about educational standards. The second, associated, reason is that it will offer the parents of ordinary children a choice of education for the first time.
    I know that the time is getting on, but I have three brief points to make. I have watched with interest the evolution of the Opposition's argument. They began by saying that parents would regard the very existence of the choice of opting out as so scandalous and unacceptable that there would be an overwhelming movement against it. The Opposition now say that the turnout might be too low to justify opting out. I invite Opposition Members to contemplate that contradiction.
    I do not accept the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) that we are involved in constitutional changes that have no connection with the position of local authorities.
    Let us take, for example, Lancashire—the hon. Member for Blackburn will know what I am talking about—where the turnout in the last county election was 43·6 per cent. I am discussing not monopolies or closed shops, but education. In effect, there is, for those children in Lancashire, one education authority all of the time based on a less than 50 per cent. turnout. I am concerned about educational reality, and I want the children of Lancashire, like the children in other counties, to have a real choice in their schooling.
    My third point relies on a hit of amateur sociological research. I looked carefully at the educational background of those in the other place who voted against my right hon. Friend's original intention. It is surprising that a large number of them had a de facto choice in their educational careers. They went either to opted out schools—by which I mean private schools—or to grammar schools. In other circumstances, our noble Friends are keen on the sporting interest. They should be encouraged to give a sporting chance to ordinary children, and let them have an educational choice as well.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Many people would be much more sympathetic to the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) about giving people choice if there were a choice of both opting in or opting out. He is saying that it must be a once and for all decision. The decision should be agreed by more than 50 per cent., because it cannot be reversed. The paradox of this debate is that Parliament is evading its responsibilities for education. The Bill should really be called the Evasion of Responsibility Bill, because we have spent a great deal of time talking about the opting out of schools when that has little relevance to what is going on in education. One finds that few teachers are concerned about opting out, so it is amazing that we should have spent hours in Committee and in the House dealing with that rather than with the real problems in education.
    I went to a function on Friday night at the school at which I used to teach to mark the retirement of two excellent teachers. I thought that I would be inundated with comments about the Bill, but almost all the conversation that I had with other teachers with whom I had worked, and who I knew to be excellent teachers, was about how lucky these colleagues were to be retiring, and how they were looking forward to getting out of teaching as quickly as possible because they did not want to have to implement the proposals in the Bill. They did not go into the details of it—they simply wanted to opt out. That is the real opting out—the opting out of teachers. The Secretary of State should have been using this legislation to build up the morale of those who work in the schools.
    Opting out will mean 12 months of uncertainty for the schools involved. That is the worst possible thing for education. Instead of getting on with improving the quality of education in a school and being concerned with what is going on in the classroom and with the individuals, people will be talking about the organisation of the school next year or the year after. As a former teacher, I know that when things are going wrong in the classroom, it is easy to start thinking about how one will plan things next year. The key point in education is to bring home to people the fact that the quality of teaching now is important, riot future planning.
    What a mess the Bill has got us into. There is now an extremely complicated problem with franchise. We start off with 20 per cent. support to request the ballot. There are then the two governors' meetings, which are useful for a cooling off period, and then there are the two polls. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has worked out how the voting will take place. It cannot happen in December, because, of the two following ballots, in one at least it would be difficult to return the forms over the Christmas period. It would also be difficult to have a vote over Easter, not just because of the problem of contacting parents over the holiday period but because some pupils leave school at Easter, so it will have to be decided whether those people remain on the electoral list between one date and the next. The same thing applies at Whitsun, when all the summer leavers come off the register, and there will be a problem with the franchise. There is a problem in August, because a new group comes on to the franchise. The Secretary of State now has a cumbersome procedure.
    The number of parents who could be involved came as a surprise to Conservative Members. The simplest procedure is one vote per child. The Secretary of State asked us how parents decide. From his experience, he should realise that one of the responsibilities of being a

    899
    parent is that one must take joint decisions. One has to decide which school the child attends. I am sure that he can think of many other examples. I assume that the Secretary of State manages to take such joint decisions in his household. Most parents have to make decisions. That may sometimes be a painful process, but parents have to take joint decisions, and it is ridiculous to suggest that that is impossible.
    In the last few seconds available to me, I want to ask the Secretary of State how quickly he will carry out his part of the function. The procedure involves going through the school and holding two parents' ballots and the matter then returns to the Secretary of State to make a decision. How quickly will he make that decision? He said that he would have to take into account, for example, the number of people who voted. Presumably he will also have to take into account the views of local Conservatives in the area. He should give the House an undertaking that, within a month of his being asked to give a decision, he will do so. If he does not do that, uncertainty will continue in schools. We shall have a measure that will divide a school for over 12 months into those who want to opt out and those who do not, to the detriment of the education of children in the school. I ask the House to support the Lords amendments and to throw out the Government's proposals.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: This has been an interesting, short and important debate. I have always been aware that, while Opposition Members have opposed the concept of grant-maintained schools, some Conservative Members have expressed anxiety about the legitimacy of the voting. That is why I have proposed the changes. I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) who moved amendments in Committee and has argued strongly for the amendments that the Government have now tabled. I hope that he will recognise that we have tried to meet the anxiety that has been expressed and I am grateful to him for his support.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) raised the question of a different way of defining the electorate. That comes late in our deliberations and I cannot incorporate those changes, although I shall consider them carefully. It may be possible to take on board some of my right hon. Friend's points in the guidance that we shall issue.
    "(7) Subject to subsection (8) below, it shall be the duty of the governing body of any school which is eligible for grant-maintained status, at the request of any parent of a registered pupil at the school, to make available to the parent for inspection (at all reasonable times and free of charge) at the school, and to supply the parent with a copy of, a list containing the name and address of every person who is known to the governing body to be such a parent if the request is made—

    (a) in connection with any proposal that a ballot should be held in accordance with section 51 of this Act; or

    (b) where the governing body are under a duty by virtue of this section to secure that such a ballot is held, in connection with the holding of the ballot.

    (8) A governing body shall not disclose to a parent under subsection (7) above the name and address of any person who has requested the governing body in writing not to disclose that information under that subsection; and accordingly the name and address of that person shall be excluded from the list there mentioned.
    (9) A governing body who in pursuance of subsection (7) above supply copies of the list there mentioned may charge such fee as they think fit (not exceeding the cost of supply) in respect of each copy so supplied.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) raised an important constituency point. He will know that I cannot comment on a proposal concerning a particular school, but I shall explain the general position to him. If there is a proposal before me concerning the closure of a school, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, that decision will be put on ice for a time, probably for two or three months, so that the governers can decide whether they wish to proceed with grant-maintained status. If so, I must make the decision on that before dealing with section 12 closures.
    We then had a contribution from the spokesman for the Liberal party. It was a typical Liberal contribution. In general, the Liberals are in favour of freedom of choice. They go up and down the country saying that they are in favour of choice, but when it comes to specific examples of choice for parents they run away. They then have the effrontery to talk of a qualifying majority. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is engaged in the leadership election of his party, but he is in favour of a simple majority. Will we have 40 per cent. for the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and 40 per cent. for the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)?
    The most extraordinary thing about the debate has been the absence of Labour Members. Opting-out is one of the main issues of the Bill. Labour Members were against that at the election. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said that he was against that. There are scarcely any Labour Members here. The entire speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was devoted to the technicalities of voting, not the issue of grant-maintained schools. After a year in post, supposedly determining Labour party policy, he has no policy save on one issue—for ballots, it is one vote per child. What a crazy idea that is. The hon. Gentleman has devised an electoral system that is likely to be in breach of the Equal Opportunities Act and will certainly divide husband and wife. After a year's constructive thought, the hon. Gentleman has no policy at all—
    It being a quarter to Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Lords amendment No. 89 agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour.
    Lords amendment No. 111: In page 44, line 48, at end insert—
    (10) For the purposes of this section, it shall be for the governing body to determine any question whether a person is a parent of a registered pupil at the school."
    Read a Second time.
    Amendment made to the proposed Lords amendment: (c) in line 10, at end insert
    'or section 51(7A) of this Ace'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
    Lords amendment No. 111, as amended, agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 112, in page 46, line 4, at end insert—
    "(5A) Where the governing body of any school are under a duty by virtue of section 50 of this Act to secure that a ballot is held in accordance with this section they shall make available to every person employed to work at the school for inspection (at all reasonable times and free of charge) at the school a document containing the information required by subsections (3)(a) and (5) above to be given to parents of registered pupils at the school."
    Read a Second time.
    Amendment made to the proposed Lords amendment:
    (a), in line 6, leave out
    'parents of registered pupils at the school'
    and insert
    'persons eligible to vote in the ballot'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
    Lords amendment No. 112, as amended, agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 113, in page 46, line 31, after
    "majority" insert
    "of parents eligible to vote"
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 334, Noes 198.

    Division No. 420]

    [10.45 pm

    AYES

    Adley, Robert

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

    Aitken, Jonathan

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Alexander, Richard

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Allason, Rupert

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Amos, Alan

    Burns, Simon

    Arbuthnot, James

    Burt, Alistair

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Butcher, John

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Butler, Chris

    Ashby, David

    Butterfill, John

    Atkins, Robert

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Atkinson, David

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Baldry, Tony

    Cash, William

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Batiste, Spencer

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Chapman, Sydney

    Bellingham, Henry

    Chope, Christopher

    Bendall, Vivian

    Churchill, Mr

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

    Benyon, W.

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Colvin, Michael

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Conway, Derek

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Boswell, Tim

    Couchman, James

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Cran, James

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Curry, David

    Bowis, John

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

    Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Day, Stephen

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Devlin, Tim

    Brazier, Julian

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Bright, Graham

    Dicks, Terry

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    902

    Dover, Den

    Key, Robert

    Dunn, Bob

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Durant, Tony

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Knapman, Roger

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Evennett, David

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Fallon, Michael

    Knowles, Michael

    Farr, Sir John

    Knox, David

    Favell, Tony

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Lang, Ian

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Latham, Michael

    Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Forman, Nigel

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Forth, Eric

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Lightbown, David

    Franks, Cecil

    Lilley, Peter

    Freeman, Roger

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    French, Douglas

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Fry, Peter

    Lord, Michael

    Gale, Roger

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Gardiner, George

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Gill, Christopher

    McCrindle, Robert

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Maclean, David

    Gorst, John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Gow, Ian

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

    Madel, David

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Gregory, Conal

    Mans, Keith

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Maples, John

    Grist, Ian

    Marland, Paul

    Ground, Patrick

    Marlow, Tony

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Mates, Michael

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Hannam, John

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

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

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Harris, David

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Hayes, Jerry

    Mills, Iain

    Hayward, Robert

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Heddle, John

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Moate, Roger

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Hill, James

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hind, Kenneth

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Holt, Richard

    Morris, M (N'hampton S)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Howard, Michael

    Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

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

    Moss, Malcolm

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Mudd, David

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Needham, Richard

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hunter, Andrew

    Neubert, Michael

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Irvine, Michael

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Irving, Charles

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Jack, Michael

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Jackson, Robert

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Janman, Tim

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Jessel, Toby

    Page, Richard

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Paice, James

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Patten, Chris (Bath)

    903

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Sumberg, David

    Pawsey, James

    Summerson, Hugo

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Portillo, Michael

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Price, Sir David

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Rathbone, Tim

    Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

    Redwood, John

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Renton, Tim

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Thorne, Neil

    Riddick, Graham

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Thurnham, Peter

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Tracey, Richard

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Tredinnick, David

    Rost, Peter

    Trippier, David

    Rowe, Andrew

    Trotter, Neville

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Ryder, Richard

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Viggers, Peter

    Sainsbury, Hon Tim

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Scott, Nicholas

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Walden, George

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Waller, Gary

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Ward, John

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Watts, John

    Shersby, Michael

    Wells, Bowen

    Sims, Roger

    Wheeler, John

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Whitney, Ray

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Wilkinson, John

    Speed, Keith

    Wilshire, David

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Squire, Robin

    Wolfson, Mark

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wood, Timothy

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Woodcock, Mike

    Steen, Anthony

    Yeo, Tim

    Stern, Michael

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Younger, Rt Hon George

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    Stokes, Sir John

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Callaghan, Jim

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

    Allen, Graham

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Alton, David

    Canavan, Dennis

    Anderson, Donald

    Cartwright, John

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Clay, Bob

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Clelland, David

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Cohen, Harry

    Barren, Kevin

    Coleman, Donald

    Battle, John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Beckett, Margaret

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Bell, Stuart

    Corbett, Robin

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

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Cousins, Jim

    Blair, Tony

    Cryer, Bob

    Boateng, Paul

    Cummings, John

    Boyes, Roland

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Bradley, Keith

    Cunningham, Dr John

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Dalyell, Tam

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Darling, Alistair

    Buchan, Norman

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

    Buckley, George J.

    Dewar, Donald

    Caborn, Richard

    Dixon, Don

    904

    Dobson, Frank

    Martlew, Eric

    Doran, Frank

    Maxton, John

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Meacher, Michael

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Meale, Alan

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Michael, Alun

    Eadie, Alexander

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Eastham, Ken

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Morley, Elliott

    Fatchett, Derek

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Mullin, Chris

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

    Murphy, Paul

    Fisher, Mark

    Nellist, Dave

    Flannery, Martin

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Flynn, Paul

    O'Neill, Martin

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Parry, Robert

    Foster, Derek

    Patchett, Terry

    Foulkes, George

    Pike, Peter L.

    Fraser, John

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Prescott, John

    Galbraith, Sam

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Garrett, John (Norwich South)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

    Radice, Giles

    George, Bruce

    Randall, Stuart

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Redmond, Martin

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Gordon, Mildred

    Reid, Dr John

    Gould, Bryan

    Richardson, Jo

    Graham, Thomas

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Robertson, George

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Robinson, Geoffrey

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Rogers, Allan

    Grocott, Bruce

    Rooker, Jeff

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Rowlands, Ted

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

    Ruddock, Joan

    Hinchliffe, David

    Salmond, Alex

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Holland, Stuart

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Home Robertson, John

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Hood, Jimmy

    Short, Clare

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

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

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

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

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Soley, Clive

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Illsley, Eric

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Ingram, Adam

    Strang, Gavin

    Janner, Greville

    Straw, Jack

    John, Brynmor

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Turner, Dennis

    Kennedy, Charles

    Vaz, Keith

    Lambie, David

    Wall, Pat

    Lamond, James

    Wallace, James

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Walley, Joan

    Leighton, Ron

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Litherland, Robert

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Loyden, Eddie

    Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

    McAllion, John

    Wigley, Dafydd

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    McKelvey, William

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    McLeish, Henry

    Wilson, Brian

    McNamara, Kevin

    Winnick, David

    McTaggart, Bob

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    McWilliam, John

    Worthington, Tony

    Madden, Max

    Wray, Jimmy

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Marek, Dr John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.

    Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Amendments (a) to (h) made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment last disagreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 135, 136, 138 to 141, 143, 144, 189 and 191 agreed to. [Special entry.]
    Lords amendments Nos. 90 to 110, 114 to 134, 137, 142, 145, 146, 190 and 192 to 226 agreed to.

  Clause 18

    INTERPRETATION OF CHAPTER I
    Lords amendment: No. 39, in page 13, line 42, at end insert
    `and "foundation subjects" includes "core subjects"'.
    Read a Second time.
    11 pm
    Mr. Fatchett: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 2, at end insert
    '(notwithstanding that "core subjects" shall be mandatory for all pupils in accordance with any Order made under section 4(2)(a) or (b) above, and that the other "foundation subjects" shall be advisory for the purposes of enabling teachers and headteachers to implement the National Curriculum having regard to any attainment targets or programmes of study specified under that section.)'.
    The background to the amendment is of particular interest. The original intention according to the Secretary of State was to have the national curriculum of a grammar school type. The argument was that that curriculum would be common to all parts of the country. We heard from one Minister after another that the major purpose was to ensure that if a child moved from Devon to Durham the curriculum would be exactly the same.
    During the life of the Bill in Committee, in another place and outside this House, that original notion of the national curriculum has been subject to heavy criticism. In his book "Take care, Mr. Baker!" Julian Haviland made the following comments on the Secretary of State's original concept of the national curriculum. He said:
    "I cannot recall one response that endorsed without reservation the structure for the curriculum which the Government was proposing."
    That criticism from outside was echoed in the Chamber and in Committee. In Committee and on Report, hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed concern about the original concept of the national curriculum—its inflexibility, its inability to take account of cross-curricular activity, its inability to take account of innovation and to satisfy the needs of those who advocated particular subjects.
    You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in the autumn last year we had a very interesting late-night Adjournment debate on the role of Latin in our schools and whether it should form part of the national curriculum. That reflected a debate, not just on the Opposition Benches but on Conservative Benches, about the composition, nature and structure of the national curriculum. Legitimate points were made about the flexibility of the original proposals.
    When the Bill reached another place, that process was strengthened by several contributions, not least that of Lord Joseph who argued very strongly that he was worried about the Government's national curriculum. He argued not that he was opposed to the Bill, but that he felt that the national curriculum was too prescriptive and was run in a way that was contrary to educational and political experience in other countries. He argued that it was contrary to his White Paper, "Better Schools", published two years previously in which the Government argued not for a national curriculum but for a core curriculum.
    The next point is crucial in terms of the chronology of events. In the debates in another place, the Government seem to have recognised the need for change from a curriculum that is tight and prescriptive to one that is a good deal more flexible. Baroness Hooper suggested—and
    908
    this reflects the purpose of the amendment—that there should be a three-tier national curriculum with different characteristics for each tier. It was said that there was to be a core curriculum of mathematics, English and science, and that within it there would be tight attainment targets and work projects. Outside the core curriculum, there are to be foundation subjects, in which the attainment targets and the proposed work will be less tightly prescribed and more flexible, leaving teachers with the initiative to develop work fitted to the needs of their schools and pupils.
    There will be a third area of subjects comprising music, art, physical education and—I would argue—religious education, where there will be even less prescription and content in terms of attainment targets, and even more flexibility for individual teachers. What we have is not the national curriculum that the Secretary of State introduced to the country a year ago, and which he said would be taught in all our schools. He gave the impression that it would be totally tight and totally prescriptive.
    We have now seen emerge from the House of Lords a wholly different animal, which suggests that the Government have learnt a great deal from the criticism they received from the House and those outside it. According to Baroness Hooper, the Government are now proposing a flexible, three-tier national curriculum. Tonight, we want to hear from the Minister of State whether she agrees with her ministerial colleague, and that the nature of the Government's curriculum is as her noble Friend described it.
    If it is, and if the Government have arrived at a nationally-determined core curriculum, could they not have saved themselves a great deal of trouble, and the House a great deal of time, if they had pursued their proposals in a different way, instead of refusing to consult teachers, local education authorities and parents? The Government had a unique opportunity to devise a nationally-agreed core curriculum, for which there was support from both major political parties, from the teachers' unions, and from parents. We now want to know whether the Minister has learnt from experience and agrees with us that this country needs a consensual, core curriculum for our children. That is the question that arises from these amendments.
    We are still awaiting an indication from the Government of the national curriculum's detailed time scale. They still like to believe, and to create the image, that there is a national curriculum ready to be taken off the shelf and delivered to parents, to schools and to children. That is far from the case. We want to hear from the Minister what are the nature of the time scales.
    We want to hear also how the Government will deliver the national curriculum. Where are the teachers? We now know that fewer and fewer youngsters are entering teacher training and that the Government will face acute embarassment in providing teachers of science and modern languages, and of other subjects as well. Where are those teachers to come from when we have a teaching profession that has been demoralised by the Government's actions?
    Finally, we want to know where the money will come from for the national curriculum. Time and again, we have been told that it will be easy to finance, but the truth is that the Government are spending more money this year on

    909
    promoting CTCs than they are on promoting the national curriculum for all of our children. That is a measure of the Government's priorities.
    When the Association of County Councils, which is not Labour led, told the Government that it needs £600 million of additional resources to implement the national curriculum, the Government responded not with money but with a deafening silence, which suggests that they have no interest in ensuring that our national curriculum is adequately resourced. The Government refused to give adequate time and resources to the GCSE examination, and thousands of children up and down the country have suffered as a result. Will they do the same with the national curriculum?
    Finally, let me raise a question that has already been raised by a number of people outside the House. Reliable sources suggest that the teaching of the languages of the European Community and of Russian, Arabic, Japanese and Chinese will be acceptable for the national curriculum. The Joint Council of Language Associations has written to me, and, I suspect, to other members of the Standing Committee. The letter says:
    "We are worried about the discrimination implicit in the very idea of listing languages. The above proposals would mean, for example, that a child with an Italian or Chinese background would be perfectly entitled to continue the study of their language at school and achieve examination recognition, whereas one from an Indian background would not."
    What have the Government in mind for foreign language teaching?
    What has happened to the national curriculum in the Bill's passage through the House is an indication of the effective opposition led by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). That opposition has allowed us time after time to put forward constructive criticism of the Government's proposals. We have been able to show that the Government's initial approach was too prescriptive, too inflexible and simply unworkable. We welcome a new flexible approach and a greater reliance on teachers and their expertise.
    The Government have learnt from Labour: they have learnt from our arguments and our criticisms. That learning process will not help the Secretary of State with some of his Back Benchers who wanted dogmatic, centralised control, and it may not help him with the Prime Minister, but it will certainly improve the national curriculum and the Bill. What now stands on the curriculum is a victory for the Opposition.
    Mrs. Rumbold: There is nothing really new about the statements made by my colleague in another place about the national curriculum. It is obvious from what the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) has been saying that Opposition Members have been labouring under serious misapprehensions during all our debates. Let me make it clear that Lords amendment No. 39 was not a Government amendment. We believed that the Bill was clear in including the three core subjects among the 10 foundation subjects as set out in clause 3. But the point caused some discussion in Committee and in another place, and we are therefore happy for the clarification to be included in the Bill.
    The amendment gives us an opportunity to consider the final shape of our national curriculum provisions as they have emerged from Parliament's consideration. They are, in essence, unchanged. The concept of a national
    910
    curriculum backed by statute has been generally accepted and, indeed, welcomed by all concerned, but there have certainly been some improvements as a result of extensive debate and consultations outside the House. The most important changes have increased the flexibility in the application of the curriculum. We debated many of the relevant issues in our earlier discussions on special educational needs, but we have seen off all attempts to increase flexibility to a point at which the curriculum's objectives would have been at risk. We have rejected the notion of schools opting out of a broad and balanced curriculum, and that of limiting the curriculum to a core of three subjects, which—as we have said on a number of occasions—would offer little improvement on the present position in schools.
    We have secured a framework within which all pupils, of all abilities, can be treated in accordance with their needs—needs which will be much better identified as a result of the new assessment arrangements. Schools will continue to have the opportunity to offer pupils a range of additional subjects in their later secondary years, and there is no question of subjects being under threat because they do not form part of the national curriculum. All we are saying is that such subjects cannot replace the elements of the national curriculum.
    11.15 pm
    The national curriculum is therefore central to our policies for improving standards. The Bill sets the framework, and what matters now is that all concerned should work together to implement the best possible curriculum for all pupils. I have been encouraged that, as more has become known about our practical proposals—for example, acceptance of the main TGAT recommendations—the more they have been welcomed. They have been welcomed by the teaching profession, by parents and by the outside world generally. I am confident that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State puts the formal proposals on maths and science to the new National Curriculum Council next month, which will be based on the working group's final report, they, too, wall be recognised by all teachers as reflecting good practice and as helping, not constraining, the classroom teacher.
    The NCC and SEAC are now established in shadow form. They are ready to get to grips with their important roles. The NCC is preparing to carry out the wide consultations that will be required on my right hon. Friend's statutory proposals. The timetable for this, and for the work on the assessment system that SEAC will carry out in parallel, is fairly tight, but I am confident that the new bodies will rise to the challenge.
    We shall be keeping up the momentum, with a view to introducing the first programmes of study and attainment targets in September 1989 for maths, science and primary English. We shall also on that date require that pupils in the first three key stages are offered the full range of foundation subjects.
    There is much to be done before September 1989 and thereafter as the national curriculum is implemented progressively for other subjects and age groups. We shall be keeping the education service and parents fully informed as the various requirements come on stream and helping the local education authorities and schools to meet their new responsibilities through the education support grants and in-service grants. But the next steps are very much in the hands of the local authorities, the schools and

    911
    the teachers who, I know, share our aim of offering a better education to all pupils. I hope that they will be prepared to seize the opportunity that we are offering them to do so much more effectively.
    I was asked during an earlier debate about the relationship between TVEI and the national curriculum. TVEI does not embody a specific curriculum. It is about the delivery, through a wide range of curricular frameworks, of a practical approach to learning. It is true that, as its name implies, schools in particular that participate in TVEI will be expected to bring out the technical implications, where that is appropriate, but anybody who has had any contact with this initiative will know that it allows room for a broad range of approaches to the curriculum and that it is one of the reasons why it has been such an outstanding success.
    As TVEI has developed, it has become increasingly clear that one cannot say that specified portions of the curriculum are or are not within the initiative. TVEI is something that, in the best examples, pervades the whole curriculum for pupils of all abilities.
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that in a document entitled "Checklist for scrutinising proposals," by education authorities for the TVEI extension, two questions are posed for education authorities? They are asked whether the technology time slot is 10 per cent. in the entitlement of core curricula and whether there is a balanced science time slot of 20 per cent. in the entitlement of core curricula. Added together, they mean that the TVEI extension will lead to local authorities expecting 30 per cent. of the core curriculum to be devoted to technology and basic science. The Secretary of State has made the point that 70 per cent. is the limit to cover all foundation and core curriculum subjects. If that is so, how can teachers be expected to cram all the other subjects into the remaining 40 per cent.?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman on that point. The working groups are making recommendations to the National Curriculum Council on what is contained in science and technology and on the practicalities of what they consider, after a great deal of consultation, to be the right amount of time that shall be spent by children in schools on those subjects. Whatever has been said by other bodies, the definitive statement on that will come when the recommendations are made to my right hon. Friend by the National Curriculum Council.
    Mr. Rowlands: The Minister has just made an important statement. May I assume that the Training Commission document, and particularly its checklist for scrutiny, has no real authority and certainly does not override the many other studies taking place with the National Curriculum Council and that it is not the definitive definition of how a TVEI scheme will be extended or how education authorities will qualify for those extensions?
    Mrs. Rumbold: In relation to what happens with TVEI, what the Training Commission has suggested will obviously be considered by the working groups on science and technology, but that will not be the definitive statement. We shall have to wait until both those working groups have produced recommendations about the
    912
    amount of time that they consider to be right and proper for pupils to spend on those subjects in conjunction with the rest of the timetable that has to be set out for the national curriculum subjects and other subjects.
    Mr. Fatchett: The Minister has raised a number of important points. Will the working parties be prescriptive on the amount of time in the school timetable to be taken on core subjects and on foundation subjects?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The task of the working parties and the groups on specific subjects is to set out for the National Curriculum Council attainment targets and programmes of work that they suggest youngsters should be able to reach at specified times during their school careers. All those recommendations from the working parties will go to the National Curriculum Council, which will consult widely with teachers and others who have a legitimate interest before it comes back to my right hon. Friend, who will take into account those consultations, make his orders accordingly, go out to consultation yet again to make sure that the time recommended to be spent on specified subjects is right, and finally lay orders before the House.
    That will allow the National Curriculum Council to continue to examine what is being taught, to update and progress the curriculum as it considers right, and to make proposals to my right hon. Friend, so that, if necessary, he can make amendments to what happens in schools.
    Mr. Fatchett: I am interested in what the Minister says about how the procedures will work. I understand what she was saying about the consultation period, but she said that at the end of the consultation period the Secretary of State would decide how much time on the timetable would be necessary for each subject, taking into account the comments made by the working parties and after consultation. Will the Secretary of State be prescriptive in that way?
    Mrs. Rumbold: No. The Secretary of State is unlikely to be in that position. It is not anticipated that there will be anything more than a broad outline of how much time youngsters will be expected to spend on certain subjects.
    Clearly, one could go round this particular mulberry bush indefinitely, because in a school curriculum, as everyone well knows, periods are allocated each day throughout the school week for certain subjects. I anticipate that most children will have an English lesson, a maths lesson and a science lesson at least once a day during the week if they are satisfactorily to conclude the work that they will need to do to fulfil the terms of the national curriculum. Similarly, other subjects will require a certain amount of time, but not so much as the maths, English and science, and possibly one or two other subjects. However, at this stage it is not for me or my right hon. Friend to make suggestions, because we have not yet received the recommendations from the working groups and certainly the National Curriculum Council has not had an opportunity to make its recommendations.
    Mr. Rowlands: The Minister has said that it is not a matter for her or for the Secretary of State. Therefore, it is certainly not a matter for the Training Commission. Will the Secretary of State write to the Training Commission to establish the authority and basis upon which the criteria are to be used? As I understand it, they are being used now to decide whether a TVEI extension scheme will be applied to an education authority.
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman's worries are somewhat premature because the National Curriculum Council has not yet fully started its work. As soon as it is established, it will take on board the recommendations from the working parties. Nothing that the Training Commission may have suggested to schools can override the National Curriculum Council's conclusions. That must be the reassurance for which the hon. Gentleman is looking.
    I have been pressed, particularly by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, about teacher numbers. The hon. Gentleman was concerned about that. Pupil numbers in secondary schools are still declining. In England, secondary school numbers will fall by 280,000 between now and 1991. That constitutes a drop of 9 per cent. The recovery in numbers will he much slower than the fall. It will be the year 2000 before the current year's level of secondary school numbers is reached again. At present the ratio of pupils to teachers is at its lowest ever level, and it is still falling. Our expenditure plans are framed on the assumption that it will fall as low as 17:1. That will provide local education authorities with scope to redeploy teachers and to make the most effective use of the collective skills and expertise of the teaching force in order to prepare for and implement the national curriculum.
    Some teachers will require further or new in-service training. We are preparing to make grants available in order to implement the possibility of teachers preparing for the specific requirements of the national curriculum.
    Ms. Armstrong: The Minister talked about falling rolls. That will mean fewer children leaving school at 18 and training as teachers. There will be fewer people available for recruitment. How can the Government estimate how many teachers they need, given that there is now such confusion about the amount of time that will be spent on each subject? How can the Government reassure parents and children that there will be sufficient teachers to be trained to deliver the curriculum?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The confusion is confined to the hon. Lady's mind. Falling rolls will have a considerable effect on the availability of teachers for retraining or for returning to the subject in which they were first trained. It is well known that there are some teachers, particularly in our secondary schools, who are not teaching their first discipline. It is also true that demographic changes will have some effect on the recruitment of people into teaching. It is for that reason that we have taken steps to undertake high profile recruitment at universities and among those who might return to teaching. It is also why my right hon. Friend has suggested that there may be a new form of teachers with licensed-teacher status to ensure that our children are provided with the best teaching force available.
    Under the orders listing foreign languages we can provide that a child cannot satisfy the national curriculum requirement by studying his or her mother language. We have not yet set up the working party on foreign languages. It will be for that working party to take into consideration the matter that has been raised with me.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: When considering the supply of teachers, will my hon. Friend also consider the supply of ancillary staff and technicians, who are just as important for the successful teaching of subjects?
    Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend makes an important point about ancillary staff—
    It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Amendment negatived.
    Lords amendment No. 39 agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 40 to 53, 55 to 67 and 69 to 88 agreed to.

  Clause 104

    FUNCTIONS OF LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES WITH RESPECT TO HIGHER AND FURTHER EDUCATION
    Lords amendment: No. 266, in page 102, line 4, leave out "subsection (3) below" and insert
    "the following provisions of this section"
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Lords amendment No. 267, in page 102, line 6, leave out from "education" to "and" in line 8 and insert
    "for persons over compulsory school age (including vocational, social, physical and recreational training);"
    Amendment (a) to the proposed Lords amendment, after 'training', insert 'and adult education'.
    Amendment (b) to the proposed Lords amendment, at end add
    'in association with the provision of youth service facilities'.
    Lords amendment No. 268, in page 102, leave out line 1 and insert—
    "(2A) In this Act 'further education' does not include higher education."
    Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, at end add
    'but does include adult education'.
    Amendments Nos. 269 to 271.
    Mr. Jackson: The amendments relate to higher and further education, and the most important are those tabled by the Opposition on adult education and that tabled by the Government, which provides for statutory subcommittees of the Universities Funding Council for Scotland and Wales.
    The Government were defeated in the other place on amendment No. 292, which required the UFC to establish an advisory sub-committee for Scotland. We continue to believe that such a provision is not necessary because a committee for this purpose would have been established. In view of the strength of feeling expressed in the House and the other place, we are prepared to give statutory expression to a Scottish committee and, because the arguments are similar, to a Welsh committee. That is the purpose of the Government's amendment.
    At several stages during the Bill's passage it has been suggested that the Bill does not do enough for adult education and that specific references to adult education should be inserted in the Bill. The amendments now proposed to Lords amendments Nos. 267 and 268 have the same purpose. The Government do not oppose those amendments—I emphasise this most strongly—out of a feeling that adult education is not important; quite the

    915
    contrary. The Government set great value by adult education. It provides many people up and down the country with enormous benefit and pleasure.
    The Government recognise the value and importance of adult education, but that does not necessarily mean that there is a need to make specific mention of adult education in the Bill in the way the amendments to the Lords amendments propose. Further education is already defined to include adult education. Clause 104, as amended in the other place, 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.
    It has been suggested that, because there is no specific mention of adult education in the Bill, there is therefore no statutory duty on LEAs to provide adult education. That concern is misplaced. The duty which clause 104 places on LEAs is to secure the provision for their area of adequate facilities for further education as a whole. It therefore already carries within it a duty to secure adequate facilities for further education for adults. Adult education is already part of the statutory system of education, and has been since the 1944 Act.
    There is a problem about definitions. Clause 104 defines what is meant by "further education" and "higher education." If we were to make specific reference to adult education in the Bill, we would first have to define it, because it would be different from further or higher education. That would get us into difficulties. At what age exactly is someone to become an adult for the purposes of these amendments? What sort of courses does adult education include? Does it include a middle-aged man on a professional, industrial and commercial updating programme course updating his skills in engineering? Does it include literacy and numeracy provision? Does it refer only to non-vocational liberal evening classes? I guess that we could find the term used in all those senses and more.
    We all recognise the value of adult education, but it would be a great mistake to believe that by inserting references to adult education in the Bill in the way that these Opposition amendments suggest we would in some sense be supporting adult education. I have to say bluntly that we would not. The sort of amendments that have been proposed would do adult education no favours at all. They would only introduce confusion and divisions where none now exist. I therefore hope that they will be withdrawn.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful for the fact that the Minister was allowed to refer to Lords amendment No. 292 and amendment (c) thereto. We are glad that the Government have bowed to all the pressures to establish in statute a Welsh and a Scottish sub-committee. That is an important concession. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Before I hear too many cheers from the Opposition, especially from Scottish Members, I point out that it would have been helpful if the Minister had told us a little about Scottish loans. There must be people in Scottish universities who have four-year degrees and who are fearful that the introduction of a loans scheme will discriminate against universities that offer four-year courses in favour of those that offer three-year courses. I
    916
    am sure that Scottish Members would have preferred to hear not just that there is to be a Scottish sub-committee but that there is to be a guarantee of resources for that sub-committee to allocate, especially to many of the hard-pressed universities in Scotland, and a guarantee that a student loans scheme will not discriminate against them.
    Like the Minister, I had better move on and return to amendments Nos. 266 and 267—the first to be considered in this short debate—and to adult education. It is extremely disappointing that, every time Labour Members—whether in Committee, on Report or in the other place—have argued for adult education, the Government have come out with the lame excuse that further education includes adult education. We would have had much more sympathy for the Government's view if they had talked about the necessary resources.
    Because adult education and the youth service—another aspect that the Government have resisted doing anything about in the Bill—get little mention in legislation, far too many local authorities and the Government feel that it is not important to allocate resources to them. The House should spell out the fundamental importance of adult education and the youth service if we want high-quality education for all. If we want to ensure the future prosperity of this country, we must spell out to people that education should not finish at 16 or 19. We must offer the educational opportunities to them throughout their lives.
    If we want Britain to be a peaceful country and a democracy, we should spell out the educational opportunities. We should accept that if we want to give people more than just a token of a vote, we must give them skills, knowledge and the ability to use information to make choices. We must encourage people to have the self-confidence to put their points of view. If we want Britain to be a democracy, good, adequate adult education for the whole community is fundamental. If we want to give people the opportunity to enjoy their leisure, we must look at the opportunities provided through good adult education.
    Many hon. Members wanted to talk about the need for religious education in schools. Surely every adult has the right to think about his or her existence and to develop an understanding of the universe. The opportunity to do that should not be restricted to the fortunate few who go on to higher education; it ought to be available to everyone. We should all be able to thirst after and obtain knowledge and be able to use it. We should make it clear in the Bill that we want to give people the opportunity to enjoy good-quality adult education.
    I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to put the arguments about adult education and about higher education in Scotland and Wales, so I shall conclude by suggesting to the Government that the failure to have a statutory youth service means that the money is not provided. Given that we do not provide the money, it is not surprising that we have so many disaffected young people who end up behaving destructively rather than constructively. The Government should accept that if they fail to provide the resources to channel youthful energies into useful activities, they will bear a great deal of the responsibility for that.
    In this short debate, we should record our regret that the Government have not committed themselves to providing any resources. In this respect, as in so many others, the Gerbil ends up as a great evasion of

    917
    Government responsibility. Opposition Members regard the Bill as a wasted opportunity. The Government have failed to address the problems of expanding education and youth opportunities. They have failed to provide resources for higher education. They should have spent far more time examining resources rather than advancing sterile arguments such as the one that we have just heard from the Minister, who suggests that the further education provisions are a simple way of including adult education and says that that is all that he has to offer the adult education lobby.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I pay tribute to my hon. Friends, both here and in another place, for succeeding in forcing the Government to concede this very important principle. We in Scotland greatly welcome the setting up of a separate sub-committee of the Universities Funding Council. That is a tremendous victory, but a word of caution is needed because I fear that even a separate sub-committee in Scotland will have minimal impact without proper resources.
    As recently as 28 June my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and I tabled a motion commenting on the grave threat posed to Scottish universities by Government underfunding and by a £12·5 million cut in recurrent grant since 1986. We pointed out that Scottish universities faced deficits totalling £5·5 million. In Edinburgh, the deficit is £3 million; in Aberdeen, £1 million; in Dundee, £312,000. Glasgow university has a deficit of £500,000, as does Heriot-Watt, while Stirling has a deficit of £300,000 this year.
    The sad fact is that up to 500 academic posts are threatened. That has a horrific impact on the university in our capital city, which is threatened with the loss of 170 posts by the end of the decade. At Aberdeen university the situation is hardly less serious. The number of jobs threatened—academic posts alone—is 130. Across in the west of Scotland, Strathclyde university is threatened with the loss of 56 academic posts; at Dundee, 45 posts are threatened; at St. Andrew's 39 and at Stirling, 25. At Glasgow and Heriot-Watt, too, posts are severely threatened.
    Such cuts threaten the viability of Scottish universities and with departments such as that of the international Soviet expert, John Erickson, at Edinburgh threatened with cuts, the impact is severe. It is ironic that, having had four universities at a time when England had only two, Scotland should now be faced with such severe cuts. I welcome the creation by this amendment of the sub-committee, which will highlight and, I hope, go some way to protect Scottish universities.
    11.45 pm
    Today, I received a letter from a doctor in the Edinburgh school of agriculture. The letter sets out why we need a properly resourced sub-committee. It says:
    "The treatment by the Department of Education and Science of University Staff, postgraduate students and of Universities in general, is extremely worrying. It bodes ill for the future of science-based industries in the UK … The result has been that even those of us who have strong scientific groups have very great difficulty in attracting applicants … The treatment of Universities such as Edinburgh which are successful in obtaining research grants and contracts is
    918
    deplorable. The more successful we are, the more we are effectively penalised … Despite the early US lead in Biotechnology, which is in part my own area of expertise, the UK has made many notable advances. If the present disregard for science continues, we shall be unable to maintain any momentum in developing new technology etc. in this area. In the longer term, the effect on cur balance of payments and on our general science base can only be disastrous."
    It does not stop there. On Saturday, the principal of Edinburgh university, Sir David Smith, warned new graduates that Government plans to strip the UGC of responsibility to train doctors and to transfer them to Government health departments threatened the very basis of the training of doctors, which would become separated from the advancement of medical knowledge and research, which is a key function of universities.
    The universities in Scotland, and elsewhere, have taken a hammering from the Government. The public, w ho believe in university education, have seen any faith they might have had in the Government betrayed. I began by saying that this is an important victory. Let us hope that it is not a Pyhrric victory.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Because of the shortness of time, I shall be brief, especially as the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), who is my namesake and is also left-handed—we have a lot in common—has shown that, while we welcome the Government's response to pressure put on in this House and in the other place to have a separate sub-committee for Wales and Scotland, we feel that they are ungracious in the way that they are conceding this to us, saying that it is not necessary.
    The way in which the cuts have been administered to the universities on the Celtic fringe shows, without going into details of the Welsh universities, that the reduction in funding in Wales was marginally worse than the reduction in funding in Scotland. In each of the Welsh universities there is a trail of destruction and cuts, with the prospect of 400 to 500 further job losses as a result of inadequate funding. I hope that the separate sub-committee for Wales will result in a return to extra attention being paid to the resources that are desparately needed for higher education in Wales.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I agree wholeheartedly that the amendment is welcome. However, is it not important that this sub-committee has teeth, and the resources necessary to do the job? If it is only window dressing, it will not be enough. It is important that we see a change in policy that gives the University of Wales new hope.
    Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman echoes the sentiments of myself and of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South. I hope that the Government will be able to provide more funding for the universities on the Celtic fringe.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: In a article sent to us by the vice-chancellors, the Minister's political friend, Professor Beloff, describes the Minister as lecturing the universities on Gibbonian slothfulness. During those lectures, did the Minister ask whether the funding councils or any sub-committee would be able to do anything to mitigate the pressure now that universities have to pay off many senior, experienced members of staff? Many of us have great reason to be grateful to often elderly teachers at

    919
    universities who, under the present set-up, will have their services dispensed with. Will the funding councils be able to tackle that problem?
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Like other hon. Members for the Celtic nations—unlike the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), I refer not to the Celtic fringe, but to the Celtic nations—we welcome amendment (c) to Lords amendment No. 292 because the establishment of sub-committees of the UFC for Wales and Scotland recognises not only our distinctive cultures, histories and education systems, but the innovations and challenges that lie ahead for our universities in Wales and Scotland. We welcome that very much.
    As an hon. Member who spoke on Report for a UFC for Scotland, I particularly welcome the extension of the idea to Wales. Here I wish to pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) who served as a member of the Committee and put forward a strong argument.
    It was interesting to note that the Minister, in his opening remarks, said that the Government had thought that it was not necessary to write in specific sub-committees for Scotland and Wales, but they opposed it when the amendment was passed in another place. One wonders why they are now conceding. Is there a firm commitment behind the Government's concession tonight'? That is what worries me. When we talk about advisory committees, I am worried that the Government may be paying lip service to the idea of Scotland and Wales having separate organisations. For example, what would be the role of the advisory committees in the problem that now faces Dundee in its fight to retain its dental school? Would it be overruled by the UFC? Would the committee have any strength in its arguments? That particular closure was described by Principal Hamlin at the graduation ceremony last weekend as "a scandal".
    I think also of the threat to Aberdeen university, which serves my region of Grampian, where six departments and 150 academic jobs are under threat. What would be the role of an advisory committee representing Scottish interests? We do not want to see ourselves, either in Scotland or Wales, being placed in a subsidiary position whereby lip service is paid to the idea of consultation and advice, but numerical strength overrules that at the end of the day.
    The Government must make it clear that this is more than a concession in the context of listening to what one or two people might say, ensuring that the sub-committees in Scotland and Wales have genuine strength and can argue the case for their universities on a geographical, research and development, cultural, historic and educational basis. They must not be dismissed as being peripheral; they must reflect the demand for national recognition.
    It has always seemed strange to me that the universities in Scotland have been separated from the rest of the education system. We firmly believe that they should be integrated. Until such time as we can achieve that, I wish to hear a clear commitment from the Government tonight that advisory does not mean dismissive, but means that strength will be given to our representatives to ensure that the well-being of our universities is safeguarded.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: Those of my colleagues who have managed to catch your eye in this short debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have laid great stress on the fact that there is no point in the Government's claiming that they intended to make a concession, which was then forced on them in another place following a debate which began in this House, if the bodies set up for Scotland and Wales are denied the ability to exercise their functions due to lack of finance.
    With all due respect to my colleagues in Wales, I believe that in Scotland the differences in the university system are so great as to require a full and clear statement from the Minister today that due regard will be given to the special features of the Scottish system. In all the discussions that Labour Members in Scotland have had with the University Grants Committee it has come over loud and clear that the UGC does not appreciate the significant difference in the four-year courses of Scottish universities. Unless the Minister makes a clear statement today that he recognises that and will ensure that it is taken on board by the UGC, the special advisory council for Scotland will not mean a great deal.
    My hon. Friends have referred to the severe cuts suffered by Scottish universities, especially Stirling, Aberdeen and Dundee. I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) had managed to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he would have made it clear that Aberdeen university will continue to face difficulties unless the UGC and the Minister accept the plans that it has submitted. Dundee university in my constituency is also anxiously waiting to hear whether its plans will be accepted by the UGC so that it can start to plan not just for the year ahead but beyond that into the 1990s.
    This has been a useful debate, but unless the Minister makes it clear that the proposed bodies will not be merely advisory but will be supported by real powers, the concessions will not mean much to universities in Scotland and Wales.
    Mr. Jackson: The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made much of resources for adult education. Local education authority spending on adult education has been rising steadily. On the national level, the Government have shown a strong commitment.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How much?
    Mr. Jackson: We are spending directly almost £30 million this financial year in support of initiatives for updating and for the adult unemployed. Our plans for next year include specific grant for expenditure by English local authorities totalling nearly £6 million for the expansion of educational guidance services for adults, for adult literacy schemes and for open learning opportunities. The hon. Gentleman confuses words in a Bill with the reality that resources are being provided on an extensive scale. We do not defer to the hon. Gentleman in any way in our commitment to adult education.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths rose—
    Mr. Jackson: I have no time to give way. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for something further on that.
    The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned an article in which my noble Friend Lord Beloff referred to "Gibbonian slothfulness". I found the adjective

    921
    strange in that context as Gibbon was certainly not slothful. He completed "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".
    The Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council will have to live within the means that are provided. Those means will be generous. Britain spends a higher proportion of its national product on education than any other western European country. The institutions that will come under the umbrella of the funding councils will have to live within the means that are provided. Hon. Members have mentioned the funding councils and the sub-committees for Scotland and Wales. I am grateful to the Opposition for the congratulations that they offered to the Government for our graceful concession about the establishment of the sub-committees. We always accepted that they would be set up.
    It being Twelve o'clock MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [18 July] to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Lords amendment No. 266 agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 292 disagreed to.
    Amendment (c) made to the Bill in lieu of the Lords amendment last disagreed to, in page 191, line 23, at end insert—

    `Scottish and Welsh Committees of Universities Funding Council
    9A. The Universities Funding Council shall establish committees under paragraph 9 above for the purpose of advising the Council on the exercise of their functions in relation to universities in Scotland and universities in Wales, respectively.'.
    Lords amendments Nos. 271 and 291 agreed to.
    [Special entry.]
    Lords amendments Nos. 267 to 270, 273, 274 and 276 to 290 agreed to.
    Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
    To be further considered this day.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

    OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION
    That the draft International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (1988 General Capital Increase) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 14th June, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
    Question agreed to.

    Paul Cleeland
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
    12.2 am
    Mr. John Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate about a miscarriage of justice. I should like to draw the attention of the House and the Minister to the case of the brother of one of my constituents, Paul Cleeland, who was committed to prison 16 years ago after being convicted of shooting a friend, Mr. Terry Clarke. Mr. Clarke was shot dead while he was returning home with his wife in their Jaguar. Clarke was shot first in the back and then in the chest. His wife did not recognise the killer. She thought the killer was 5 ft 8 in and dark, whereas Paul Cleeland, the accused, was 6 ft and fair.
    The case was fraught with irregularities from the outset. Paul Cleeland took the unusual step of dismissing his barrister who, in Cleeland's opinion, was not critical enough. He went on to conduct his own case. It was a complex case with many contradictions, and much of the evidence put forward by the police was discredited much later. The police attested at one stage through witnesses who were known criminals that they had sold the murder gun to Paul Cleeland. That later was conclusively refuted and it was established in fact that they had given it to the murdered man.
    The whole complicated process went through a trial and a retrial at which Paul Cleeland was found guilty. That disturbed many people who had followed the case, as much of the evidence had never been fully pursued. These disturbing facts have had the attention of many people who followed the case, people such as newspaper reporters and politicians, and they have requested the Home Office to carry out a further review and redress what they believe was an unjust conviction. Until that is brought about, it means that a murderer walks free and has been free for 16 years while Paul Cleeland languishes in gaol.
    The most recent representation of a lengthy period of representation was made by Paul Cleeland in petition form. Because of the limitations of time I shall put before the House a condensed version of that petition. On 11 March, 1986, PA Stanton, C3 division criminal department, informed B. M. Brimburgh and Co. that he was in receipt of a petition submitted by Jonathan Caplan, QC on behalf of Mr. Paul Cleeland. The petition was supported by written statements from an analytical consultant chemist, Dr. Grant., and a firearms specialist, J. G. J. Rothery. The brief of Mr. Rothery was to examine the murder gun, to establish the validity of the evidence concerning the shot pattern that was used to convict Paul Cleeland, and to comment on the shot penetration.
    The tests were carried out in the presence of inspector Ratcliffe, Mr. J. McCafferty, Mr. R. Jennings, Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Stevens. Inspector Ratcliffe provided the dead man's jacket and the weapon which Mr. McCafferty, the trial forensic witness, claimed was the murder weapon. A n examination of the jacket established that the shot pattern matched the wounds on the dead man's body. Internal measurements of the internal bores of the gun established that, when fired at the same distance, they would produce the same size pattern. The tests were carried out in a manner conducive to the circumstances that existed when the murder took place. At their conclusion Mr. Rothery

    923
    stated that if the firearm that he had tested had been fired 18 ft from the victim, as described by the prosecution forensic witness, Mr. McCafferty, far more damage would have been done to the car and to the back of the victim. The conclusion must therefore be drawn that, if the gun that he tested was the murder weapon, it was fired from a distance in excess of 38 ft. Alternatively, if the range was 18 ft, the gun that he tested was not the murder weapon. Mr. Rothery's statement was that if a frontal shot was fired at a distance of 18 ft, as attested by the forensic witness, Mr. McCafferty, material from the cartridge wadding would have remain affixed to the victim's jacket.
    There is much conflicting evidence. Mr. Rothery's tests established conclusively that the firearm which was defined as the murder weapon by the prosecution in the trial was not used to kill the victim. That positive declaration was further endorsed by tests conducted by R. H. Jennings and Dr. Rufus Crompton, who Dr. Grant referred to in his statement. In that statement he draws attention to the alarming major discrepancies of 18 to 20 ft between the distances calculated by the prosecution forensic witness, Mr. McCafferty, and the distances calculated by the other three firearm specialists. Dr. Grant also refers to erroneous prison records, which were admitted by the prison authorities. There are five falsified records for which the Home Office has never given an explanation. This is important information. It is of such major significance as to warrant a reopening of the Paul Cleeland case.
    There is more information which raises many doubts about the creditability of Paul Cleeland's conviction. It defines emphatically that a miscarriage of justice took place. As well as the tests on the guns having been contradictory, there was more police information which comes under the same classification. There is information that two days after the murder one police officer stated that he had delivered the murder weapon to a police laboratory. In contradiction, another officer swears that on the same day he had the murder weapon 30 miles away, taking photographs of it and cartridges. Both officers have stuck to their stories.
    There is also the evidence of particles of lead on Paul Cleeland's clothes that was used to convict Paul Cleeland. That forensic evidence would not be accepted now. It has no credence as it failed to differentiate between environmental contamination and lead from firearm residue.
    Many of those who have followed the case, and specialists referred to in Dr. Grant's report, have discredited the prosecution evidence. They have proven that Mr. McCafferty was not qualified to act as a prosecution forensic expert at Paul Cleeland's trial or any other trial as an expert for the department of public prosecution.
    That important qualification was not attained through the generous committed co-operation of the prison authorities, the judiciary or the Home Office—quite the opposite. It would never have been brought to light but for the tenacity of Paul Cleeland and newspaper reporters who assisted him. Their endeavours eventually sparked an inquiry conducted by assistant chief constable Boothby whose report was finalised just prior to 1979. In normal circumstances, that report would have affirmed that Paul Cleeland was guilty or that his case should be reopened or,
    924
    most importantly, it would have questioned the competency of the forensic witness Mr. McCafferty and most alarmingly bring into question the justice of every sentence passed at every trial at which McCafferty had given evidence.
    That report would bring to light the fact that innocent people had been convicted unjustly. For example, James Hanratty was hanged for a murder which many people believe involved MI5. The suppression of the report in addition to covering up the incompetence of Mr. McCafferty also covers up the inadequacies of the judiciary and the police. It has the most serious implications because over time the people involved have moved on to more esteemed positions to make bigger errors. As serious as the consequences may be for those individuals, the report must be made available to the public in the interests of Paul Cleeland.
    Paul Cleeland's circumstances demand publication as the injustice surrounding his trial has been compounded by his treatment in prison where he has fought against attempts to certify him as insane and attempts to administer drugs to him. He has been threatened like a political prisoner in Russia. He has been forced to fight the prison authorities at every step, otherwise he would have suffered the same fate as Des Warren, a member of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, who, following the building workers' strike in 1973, was forced to take habit-forming drugs in prison—a tranquilising medication known to prisoners as the liquid cosh. That medication was addictive and left Des Warren with severe health problems for which the Home Office has accepted responsibility.
    But for the strength of character of Paul Cleeland, that would have been his fate. He too would have finished up a malleable prisoner offering no problems to the prison authorities or threatening the stability of the police or judicial hierarchy who were involved in the trial and many, many more—even MI5.
    The three Home Secretaries who many people have approached to make available the report on Paul Cleeland's case have failed to do so. Tonight I add my name to the list of people who have made that request. If people are locked up, they should be properly in prison for the crime that they have committed. In Paul Cleeland's case, many questions remain unanswered. If it is simply a question of guilt or innocence because of evidence, the last word has not been said in this case.
    The circumstances surrounding the case demand that the report produced by Mr. Boothby be made available. The whole concept of justice demands that. There is no greater sin against humanity than the detention of an innocent man in gaol for 16 years. That sin against humanity is of a greater magnitude if anyone at ministerial level deliberately withholds a report that would prove an individual was innocent because publishing it would incriminate important people or Government Departments. Because of the irrefutable evidence—
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in relation to the prosecution case that he has outlined so well in his argument, there is a need for a judicial review of Paul Cleeland's case even though the Minister will almost certainly say that he cannot reveal the report to which the hon. Gentleman has referred? A judicial report would go over all the evidence. Mrs. Shirley Williams and I have pursued that aim for

    925
    some time. I have pursued it since 1979 and Mrs. Williams since before that, when she represented Hertford and Stevenage. We believe that that is the right way to proceed for justice to be seen to be done in the Paul Cleeland case.
    Mr. Hughes: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and I agree that a judicial review would assist Paul Cleeland. Nevertheless, I still believe that the Home Secretary should make the Boothby report available. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who is in the Chamber, has also been asked by my constituent to support that representation.
    Because of the irrefutable evidence and substantial fresh issues in this case, the question cannot be asked too many times: in the interests of justice, will the Home Secretary make the Boothby report available to enable a just assessment to be made and a judicial review to be undertaken?
    12.15 am
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I have a relatively short time in which to reply to the complex case marshalled by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes). I agree with him that there can be nothing worse than the wrongful imprisonment of someone convicted of a crime that he or she did not commit. I wish to assure both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), to whose intervention I listened with great attention, that the Home Office exercises considerable care in examining alleged miscarriages of justice. That is a tradition that goes back to the days when we had the death penalty in this country, and when the greatest and most scrupulous care needed to be taken by all who advised the Home Secretary of the day.
    I listened with considerable care to everything that was said by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, and I shall read and carefully reflect upon his remarks, as I shall reflect on my hon. Friend's suggestion of a judicial review, but I thought that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East was wrong to suggest that any prisoner in this country is treated like a political prisoner in Russia. That does not help the hon. Gentleman's case, and when he reads his speech in Hansard tomorrow he may reflect that that remark does not help his case.
    There are a number of threads to this complex case, which has been subject to continuous public scrutiny by a number of former and present hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, who has done so much in this case.
    It may be best if I begin by summarising the basic facts. Mr. Cleeland was convicted at St. Alban's Crown court on 25 June 1973 of the murder of Terence Clarke, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. That was on a second trial, when the jury's verdict was unanimous. Mr. Cleeland subsequently applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against his conviction. That application was refused on 26 February 1976.
    It is important that the circumstances of the offence are before the House tonight. Mr. and Mrs. Clarke were returning home with a friend in the early hours of the morning of 5 November 1972, in Stevenage. As Mr. Clarke got out of his car, he was fired at twice and fatally wounded by a man with a shotgun, who had presumably lain in wait for him. Neither Mrs. Clarke nor the car passenger was able to identify the assailant, but at the
    926
    scene police found distinctive wadding of a kind used in a particular make of cartridge known as Blue Rival. I am advised that the wadding used is particularly distinctive and allows clear identification.
    Later that day, 5 November 1972, in the same area children found a shotgun containing two expended cartridges and, lying nearby, a discarded box of unused Blue Rival cartridges. Later, tests carried out by Mr. McCafferty of the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory established that the Blue Rival cartridges, when fired from the abandoned shotgun found by the children, produce firemarks matching those on the spent cartridges found with it. Those were important findings. Further police inquiries produced a number of witnesses whose evidence linked Mr. Cleeland with the acquisition of both the shotgun and the cartridges shortly before the murder took place. The forensic evidence was formidable.
    Mr. Cleeland's defence at his trial was based on an alibi produced by his wife for the night in question, on evidence from another ballistics expert and on allegations against police officers concerned with the case and against prosecution witnesses, some of whom had criminal records—as both prosecution and defence witnesses sometimes have. In effect, the defence amounted to an allegation of conspiracy, probably by quite a large number of people, against Mr. Cleeland.
    It was not for Ministers of the day to decide on the facts of the case, any more than it would be if Mr. Cleeland were coming to trial now in a similar case. It was for the jury to decide, on the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defence, whether the charge against Mr. Cleeland was proved. I think it is fair to say that, by their verdict, the one notion that they did reject was the notion of any kind of conspiracy mounted against Mr. Cleeland by the authorities, to which, on the face of it, it seems very hard to give credence.
    Quite properly, from his point of view, Mr. Cleeland applied for leave to appeal against his conviction. The main element in his case was the evidence of a Mr. Michael Nash. Mr. Nash had for some time occupied a cell near Mr. Cleeland's at Stevenage police station, where the prosecution alleged that Mr. Cleeland had an incriminating conversation with a fellow prisoner. Mr. Cleeland maintained that the conversation never took place, and Mr. Nash supported him.
    It later came to light that a visit by a Mr. Russell to Mr. Cleeland in Wandworth prison had been wrongly recorded there as a meeting between Mr. Cleeland and Mr. Nash. That error, if left unremedied, would have fostered the suspicion that the two men had colluded over the evidence to be given at the appeal hearing. However, the Home Office prison department eventually established that mistakes had been made and corrected Mr. Cleeland's record accordingly. The Criminal Appeal Office was informed by the Home Office by letter on 8 January 1976 of what had occurred, and was left in no doubt that the Home Office accepted that there had been no prison visit to Mr. Cleeland by Mr. Nash.
    In rejecting Mr. Nash's evidence, the Court of Appeal referred to an attempt—I quote from the judgment—by
    "cunning criminals getting together to concoct a specious if, on the face of it, credible story to discredit the police."
    In reaching that conclusion, the court took account of Mr. Nash's credibility as a witness and of the circumstances in which he came to be giving his evidence. The court made it clear that the error disclosed in the Home Office letter

    927
    had no bearing on the outcome of Mr. Cleeland's appeal. It was accepted that the two men had not met face to face in Wandsworth prison. The court held—I think that this is important, because of the slight mystique of conspiracy that still surrounds the case—that
    "there was not a shred of evidence that either the Home Office or Prison Department were conspiring with the police."
    Meanwile, in July 1975 Mr. Cleeland made a complaint to the police alleging perjury by police officers concerned with his case. Subsequently he raised further complaints, which led to the setting up of an inquiry under section 49 of the Police Act 1964. At the request of the chief constable of Hertfordshire, the investigation into Mr. Cleeland's complaints was conducted by the then assistant chief constable of Northamptonshire, Mr. Boothby. After a lengthy investigation, during which the police were allowed full access to Mr. Cleeland's prison records, Mr. Boothby produced a thorough and extensive report, on the basis of which the Director of Public Prosecutions decided in November 1979 that there was no evidence to justify any criminal proceedings against any person named in the report.
    Subsequently the report was passed to the Home Office to see whether it revealed any matters that might have affected the safety of Mr. Cleeland's conviction. It was concluded that there would be no justification in recommending any interference with the decision of the courts in his case.
    The release of the police report has been raised by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, and I dare say the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who is also in the Chamber, supports his hon. Friend, in view of his interest in the case. It is a long-established principle that has effectively been accepted not just by successive Home Secretaries in this Administration but by successive Home Secretaries and Governments that police reports are confidential and are not made public—and never have been—either in whole or in part. The maintenance of that principle is crucial in ensuring full and frank communication between police officers themselves and between chief officers of police and the Home Secretary of the day. Many reports of investigations conducted by the police contain information that should not be disclosed freely, such as allegations and statements made to the police and facts disclosed in the course of an investigation that could be prejudicial to named persons. Such information always has been treated as confidential, partly on the ground that nobody should have a crime publicly imputed to him, except in court. That is what the release of many police reports of all sorts would consistently do. It is also treated as confidential partly to preserve the confidentiality of the investigations.
    The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford may rest assured that both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the then Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), have carefully considered Mr. Boothby's report
    928
    and can find nothing in its conclusions to suggest that it provides evidence that is supportive of Mr. Cleeland's claims. If it had, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department would not have hesitated to refer the case to the Court of Appeal, as he has done on other occasions.
    Whatever might be said by those who feel that Mr. Cleeland has been wrongfully convicted, I can say that since his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal hardly a year has passed, apart from the last 12 months, without some consideration having been given to the case. I understand that the interest of the former Member for Hertford and Stortford, Mrs. Shirley Williams, dates from 1974, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, who is here, has pursued the case since he succeeded Mrs. Williams in 1979 as the Member of Parliament for the constituency. Both have discussed the case with successive Home Office Ministers, and over the years there has been considerable correspondence between the parties.
    I am sure that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East has read the report of the debate in the House on 29 April 1982. There have been representations from solicitors acting on Mr. Cleeland's behalf and from Mr. Cleeland himself. On each occasion detailed and careful consideration has been given to the case as a whole and to the individual points that were raised. Of course, my right hon. Friend and I will reflect on the detailed points made by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East in exactly the same way.
    There has not at any stage been any delay in the way in which the examination has been carried out. Mr. Cleeland's allegations have been given the most exhaustive consideration and nothing so far has come to light to support his claim that his conviction resulted from perjury, collusion or faults in the forensic evidence to which the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East has referred.
    The exhaustive nature of the considerations is demonstrated by a long and detailed memorandum prepared by Home Office officials last year and sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford at that time. I shall certainly make a copy available to the hon. Members for Coventry, North-East and for Coventry, South-East, and I shall also place a copy in the Library of the House, because it is an important document.
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is always ready to make a reference under section 17 to the Court of Appeal when he considers that there are grounds for doing so. The House will know that my right hon. Friend has not hesitated to do so in notable cases in the past year or so, but none of the matters raised so far tonight, including those put so clearly and in such detail by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, seem to me at this stage to provide grounds for departing from the view already taken by my right hon. Friend about this case.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to One o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Official Documents (Use of Paper)
  Official Documents (Use of Paper)
  Wines (South Africa)
  Wines (South Africa)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inland Revenue (Correspondence)
  Inland Revenue (Correspondence)
  Voted and Consolidated Fund Receipts
  Voted and Consolidated Fund Receipts
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Government-owned Companies
  Government-owned Companies
  Nationalised Industries (Expenditure)
  Nationalised Industries (Expenditure)
  Income Distribution
  Income Distribution
  Inheritance Tax
  Inheritance Tax
  Earnings
  Earnings
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Customs Clearance Depots
  Customs Clearance Depots
THE ARTS
  Libraries
  Libraries
  Black and Asian Arts
  Black and Asian Arts
  Community Arts
  Community Arts
  Literature
  Literature
  Opera
  Opera
  Orchestral Music
  Orchestral Music
  Dance
  Dance
  Drama
  Drama
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
  Church of England (Disestablishment)
  Church of England (Disestablishment)
PRIME MINISTER
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Malta
  Malta
  Overseas Visits
  Overseas Visits
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  British Voice
  British Voice
  Consultants
  Consultants
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  St. John Ophthalmic Hospital, Jerusalem
  St. John Ophthalmic Hospital, Jerusalem
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Post-16 Qualifications
  Post-16 Qualifications
  Schools (Health and Safety)
  Schools (Health and Safety)
  Secondary Schools (Pupil Costs)
  Secondary Schools (Pupil Costs)
  Computer Work Stations
  Computer Work Stations
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Departmental Correspondence (Information Leaks)
  Departmental Correspondence (Information Leaks)
  City Technology Colleges
  City Technology Colleges
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Single European Market
  Single European Market
  Langford Scott and Partners
  Langford Scott and Partners
  Libya
  Libya
  Financial Services Act
  Financial Services Act
  Film, Radio and 'Television Industry
  Film, Radio and 'Television Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Satellite Broadcasting
  Satellite Broadcasting
  Rover Group
  Rover Group
TRANSPORT
  Manchester Ship Canal Company
  Manchester Ship Canal Company
  Heathrow Airport (Security)
  Heathrow Airport (Security)
  Bus Passenger Miles
  Bus Passenger Miles
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Road and Rail Services (Kent)
  Road and Rail Services (Kent)
  A20 (Delays)
  A20 (Delays)
  A2/M2 (Delays)
  A2/M2 (Delays)
  Rail Services (London)
  Rail Services (London)
  Cross-Channel Ferries
  Cross-Channel Ferries
  Light Aircraft Crash (Report)
  Light Aircraft Crash (Report)
  Shipping (Random Checks)
  Shipping (Random Checks)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
WALES
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  Speech Therapy and Physiotherapy
  Speech Therapy and Physiotherapy
  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Crown Classification Scheme
  Crown Classification Scheme
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Farming Unions
  Farming Unions
  Farming Industry
  Farming Industry
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Housing Capital Allocations
  Housing Capital Allocations
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Industry Watch
  Industry Watch
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Prisons (Overcrowding)
  Prisons (Overcrowding)
  Computer Work Stations
  Computer Work Stations
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Gloucester (Law and Order)
  Gloucester (Law and Order)
  Passports
  Passports
  Local Radio
  Local Radio
  Turkish President (Visit)
  Turkish President (Visit)
  Football Matches (Offences)
  Football Matches (Offences)
  Immigration (Members' Representations)
  Immigration (Members' Representations)
  Offenders (Punishment)
  Offenders (Punishment)
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Diplomatic Service
  Diplomatic Service
  Khmer Rouge
  Khmer Rouge
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Arrested Britons (Majorca)
  Arrested Britons (Majorca)
  St. Helena
  St. Helena
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Food Labelling
  Food Labelling
  Food Additives
  Food Additives
  Brewery Tenants
  Brewery Tenants
  Farming Industry
  Farming Industry
ENVIRONMENT
  Spandau Prison
  Spandau Prison
  Gas and Electricity Meters
  Gas and Electricity Meters
  Bonamy Estate, Southwark
  Bonamy Estate, Southwark
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Annunciator Monitors
  Annunciator Monitors
  Prospect Estate
  Prospect Estate
  Warrington and Runcorn (Rented Property)
  Warrington and Runcorn (Rented Property)
  Self-build Housing Associations
  Self-build Housing Associations
  Leeds Housing Action Trust
  Leeds Housing Action Trust
  Single Market
  Single Market
  Limehouse Link
  Limehouse Link
  Self Builders
  Self Builders
  Non-domestic Rates
  Non-domestic Rates
  Local Authorities (Capital Receipts)
  Local Authorities (Capital Receipts)
  Salmon Fishing (Rates)
  Salmon Fishing (Rates)
  Central Manchester Development Corporation
  Central Manchester Development Corporation
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Hazardous Substances
  Hazardous Substances
  Special Steels Ltd. (Sheffield)
  Special Steels Ltd. (Sheffield)
  Employment Training Scheme
  Employment Training Scheme
  Companies (Employee Involvement)
  Companies (Employee Involvement)
  Tourism
  Tourism
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Special Needs
  Special Needs
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Unemployed Claimants
  Unemployed Claimants
  Smoking-related Diseases
  Smoking-related Diseases
  Child Health Services
  Child Health Services
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Disablement Services Authority
  Disablement Services Authority
  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Griffiths Report (Representations)
  Griffiths Report (Representations)
  Allowances (Tribunal Appeals)
  Allowances (Tribunal Appeals)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Dental Treatment Claims
  Dental Treatment Claims
  Waste Paper (Recycling)
  Waste Paper (Recycling)
  Disabled Persons (Survey)
  Disabled Persons (Survey)
  Departmental Employees (Statistics)
  Departmental Employees (Statistics)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Income Support
  Income Support
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Benefit Claims (Persons Abroad)
  Benefit Claims (Persons Abroad)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Cervical Cancer Testing
  Cervical Cancer Testing
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Departmental Offices
  Departmental Offices
DEFENCE
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Low-flying Aircraft
  Low-flying Aircraft
  Hang Gliding
  Hang Gliding
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Bird Strikes
  Bird Strikes
  Trident Submarines
  Trident Submarines
  Royal Arsenal, Woolwich
  Royal Arsenal, Woolwich
  Persian Gulf (Air Defence)
  Persian Gulf (Air Defence)
  Helicopters
  Helicopters
  Persian Gulf (Iranian Aircraft)
  Persian Gulf (Iranian Aircraft)
  Royal Navy
  Royal Navy
SCOTLAND
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Uniform Business Rate
  Uniform Business Rate
  Woodland Grant Scheme
  Woodland Grant Scheme
  Timber Extraction
  Timber Extraction
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Drumbuie Oil Platform Inquiry
  Drumbuie Oil Platform Inquiry
  Forestry Grants
  Forestry Grants
  Glasgow Garden Festival
  Glasgow Garden Festival
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Rating Valuations
  Rating Valuations
  Health Boards
  Health Boards
  Ambulances
  Ambulances
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Farming (Employment)
  Farming (Employment)
  Education Reform
  Education Reform
  Islands (Exchequer Subsidies)
  Islands (Exchequer Subsidies)
  Wild Birds (Killing)
  Wild Birds (Killing)
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Private Landlords
  Private Landlords
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mentally Handicapped People
  Salmon Fishing (Rates)
  Salmon Fishing (Rates)
  Electricity (Privatisation)
  Electricity (Privatisation)
ENERGY
  Offshore Petroleum Licensing Round
  Offshore Petroleum Licensing Round
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Piper Alpha
  Piper Alpha
  Renewable Energy Sources
  Renewable Energy Sources
  UKAEA (Inquiry)
  UKAEA (Inquiry)
  Grant-aided Surveys Scheme
  Grant-aided Surveys Scheme
  British Coal
  British Coal
  Energy Efficiency Office
  Energy Efficiency Office
  Offshore Installations
  Offshore Installations

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

Message from the Queen: Tercentenary of the Revolutions of 1688–89
The Lord Chamberlain (The Earl of Airlie): My Lords, I have the honour to inform you that Her Majesty the Queen has appointed 11 o'clock on Wednesday 20th July in Westminster Hall to be the time and place at which Her Majesty will be attended by this House to receive their address on the occasion of the commemoration of the tercentenary of the Revolutions of 1688–89 and the Bill of Rights and Claim of Rights and has given her permission for your Lordships to be accompanied by presiding officers of the Upper Houses of Commonwealth parliaments.

British Industry: Investment Intentions
2.42 p.m.
Lord Rodney Lord Rodney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the latest information available concerning the level of investment planned by British industry for 1988–89.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the latest investment intentions survey carried out by Her Majesty's Government indicates that the level of investment, including leased assets, planned by manufacturing industry for 1988 amounts to £8.7 billion, an increase of 16 per cent. over the 1987 level. Indications for 1989 suggest a further, though smaller, increase.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. In view of the increased interest rates do Her Majesty's Government anticipate any slackening of these very encouraging investment rates?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, it is no doubt obvious to many of your Lordships that higher interest rates in themselves will not encourage investment. However, industry has far more to fear from a resurgence of inflation. A 1 per cent. rise in interest rates, even if sustained for a full year, adds to costs only a quarter of the amount that a 1 per cent. increase in wage settlements would add. I believe that the stable state of the economy will enable business to plan far better for the future than it has for many years.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is not the interest rate weapon a very blunt one? Does it not mean that at the same time as reining back consumer consumption and consumer credit, the Chancellor
1054
and the Government are also reining back investment and industry which are desperately needed to help keep down inflation?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as I have just said, investment is running at a very satisfactory level and at the moment is at a rate somewhat higher than the estimates in the FSBR. However, it is important to make sure that the growth in the economy is at a sustainable level. It would be quite irresponsible of government to let inflation run away. As I told your Lordships last week, the interest rate weapon is the Government's principal weapon in the war against inflation.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while it is encouraging to note that industrial investment is increasing, will the Government hear in mind that tomorrow's investment in industry is based on today's research? What is being done to stimulate research in industry?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, 1 know that the noble Lord attaches a great deal of importance to the matter of research, but it is a somewhat different question from the one on the Order Paper. If the noble Lord would like to table a Question on research. I should he happy to answer it.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what kind of figures illustrate the difference between what is planned on any occasion and what is achieved?
Lord Beaverbrook: I think, my Lords, that it is something called hindsight.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I welcome the pick-up in investment this year but may I ask the Minister whether he intended to place his Answer in the context that the ratio of investment to gross domestic product, both as a ratio and relative to that of our own competitors, has been lower during the lifetime of this Government than it was during the previous Labour Government and also lower than it was during the Conservative Government of the early 1960s?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, that may be the case but I think that the business sector can plan with far more confidence than was possible in the 1960s or 1970s. As I said, the Government attach the utmost importance to controlling inflation, and I believe that businessmen can have confidence that the Government's policy is to contain inflation. After all, an increase in inflation would be the most serious threat to business confidence.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, simply an indication of the gross domestic product having risen so satisfactorily as a result of the economic policies of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right and the level of investment is also very satisfactory.

Freehold Ownership of Flats
2.43 p.m.
Lord Jacques Lord Jacques asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the report of the working group in July 1987, they will introduce legislation on the subject of freehold ownership of flats and other interdependent buildings.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, as I said in a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Swinton on 8th June 1988 (Official Report, Vol. 497, col. 1486), the Government have arranged for legislation to be prepared at the Law Commission giving effect to an integrated scheme comprising the proposals set out in the group's report and the remainder of the proposals in the Law Commission's report on land obligations, The Law of Positive and Restrictive Covenants. I understand the work is now in hand.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. Perhaps I may put to him two supplementary questions. First, the working party declined to state any view on the subject of compulsion. Have the Government a view on the subject? Secondly, when can we expect the legislation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my answer to the noble Lord's second supplementary question is, as soon as parliamentary time is available. So far as concerns the first question, as he rightly said, the report left the question of compulsion open. At the moment legislation is being prepared but no final decision has yet been taken as to whether, and to what extent, there should be an element of compulsion. The noble Lord will know that other countries successfully operate condominium schemes without compulsion. The question of compulsion remains under consideration.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that under the terms of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 the landlord is obliged to give the tenants the right of first refusal or first option if he decides to sell the freehold?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that that is so, but I am speaking from memory. I have not had an opportunity to check it. I believe that that is probably right.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, can we expect such compulsion where a negligent landlord is not carrying out his obligations? Will the would-be freeholders be able to seek compulsory purchase?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a situation which I should certainly wish to bear in mind in considering whether we should have compulsion and, if so, to what extent.

Docklands Highway: Rehousing of Tenants
2.46 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the circumstances under which over 450 families at present living in council housing will be moved from their homes in Tower Hamlets to make way for a new docklands highway, to serve Canary Wharf.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, yes. Some 450 families living in sub-standard flats will be moved to better quality accommodation. In addition, 200 council homes will be refurbished. The cost of all this will be met by the London Docklands Development Corporation. We welcome this example of co-operation between the corporation and the local council.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I have no desire to stand in the way of redevelopment either in London docklands or in other urban development areas. However, I noted that the Minister referred to consultations with the local authority in the final part of his Answer. The local authority does not necessarily represent the views of the tenants who are being moved. Will the Minister ensure, in order that good will remains, that wherever large groups of families are being moved in this way the utmost consultation will take place with the tenants and not just with the local authority?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I note with considerable interest the emphasis that the noble Lord is putting on consultation with tenants rather than necessarily with the local authorities. I hope that we all bear that in mind in the Housing Bill. But of course there will be consultation with the tenants.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is it right that there were consultations with the tenants, the tenants' association, the local authority and the London Docklands Development Corporation, and that there was a concordat? The trouble now arises because a section of the tenants do not agree with the move. In a democracy we always have minorities. Can the Minister confirm that those bodies were consulted and agreement was reached?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that there was indeed very wide consultation with all those who would he affected, the local authority and the tenants, by the development corporation. This is an example where co-operation will be to the benefit of the tenants and indeed to all the community, because in addition there is a £30 million social project.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if consultation took place with the tenants, can the Minister tell us what has been done for those tenants who objected very strongly to being moved?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, at the moment there are heads of

1057
agreement. They are not legally binding and the final details are being worked out.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, of the 250 dwellings to be refurbished, can the Minister tell us how many are to be refurbished and made suitable for physically disabled people?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister referred to heads of agreement being worked out. Does that indicate that he will ensure that adequate provision is made for those tenants who disagree with the move? What will happen to them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, at this stage it is not a matter for the Government. It is a matter for the London Docklands Development Corporation.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the Minister say to where these tenants are to go? What is the location that is proposed for them? Is it near or far? Where is it in relation to their present housing?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am told that it is near.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a very special community spirit in that part of London? Is it not very important for good relationships with the new people coming into that area that that spirit remains?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble kinswoman is absolutely right in saying that one should retain the community spirit. I believe that moving the tenants into better accommodation will seek only to reinforce that.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the noble Earl be good enough to elaborate his answer to my question? Where are the tenants to go? I gave an easy opening for the answer, "Somewhere near". But where will that be?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand it, the replacement housing will be determined by tenant preference. Tenants being displaced will be offered a choice of two new or refurbished Housing Association units. Where the tenants decline those offers, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets will rehouse them in existing council stock.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, as this is the only recent example of people being disturbed by the wholesale developments in the South-East, can the Minister say whether the Government have any idea about the total disturbance which will be made by all the developments? If so, what are they going to do about it? Is it not about time that they responded to Mr. Heseltine and had an inquiry into the problems of the South-East?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord seeks to enlarge the Question quite considerably, but
1058
I am sure he will agree with me that where one is providing better accommodation for tenants that is to be welcomed.
Lord Mellish: My Lords. is the noble Lord aware that you will never have massive redevelopment of any kind and get complete unanimity? It is impossible. You can pay for it, but you do not get it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in one of his responses the Minister said that a minority of the tenants were strongly against the move. Therefore he must be aware that if those tenants stand by their ultimate rights it would take court action to evict them, which would mean a most expensive delay in terms of money for the redevelopers and everyone else'? Can the Minister use his best endeavours to ensure, wherever he can, that the fullest consultation takes place beforehand in order to avoid such a situation, which would benefit no one involved in the exercise?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has said. It is important. But it is up to the London Docklands Development Corporation rather than the Government at this stage. However I am sure that everyone wants the scheme to proceed as quickly as possible for the right reasons.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, when tenants are compulsorily removed after this fashion can the Minister tell me whether they carry with them the length of period during which they lived in their former home as a right towards the purchase of a freehold, should they wish to do so?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not know the totally correct answer to that question. I think that I know what the answer ought to he hut, as I am not entirely sure, it would be wrong for me to respond to the noble Viscount.

Thyssen Collection
2.52 p.m.
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to make an offer for the Thyssen-Bornemizsa collection of pictures, and, if so, how much money and what facilities they are prepared to make available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have put proposals for the future of the Thyssen collection to Baron Thyssen-Bornemizsa and his representatives. Details of these proposals and any discussions must at this stage remain confidential.
I apologise if I misheard my noble friend Lord Fanshawe the other evening during the debate on his

1059
Unstarred Question. My remarks were in reply to his and I should have picked up the figure of £100 million mentioned by him. The Government have not given any figures and I do not intend to do so this afternoon.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. I hope that in time she may be able to be a little more forthcoming, but I quite understand that negotiations are taking place. Does she know that the willingness of the Government to pay very large sums for this collection is most welcome as it shows an apparent new interest in the arts? Will she agree that our first obligation is to the living arts and indeed to existing collections? Some institutions cannot show all their pictures and some, such as the Royal Holloway College, are actually in danger of losing their pictures. If the purse strings are now much looser, will she ensure that our existing collections and our living arts— for example, opera, ballet, and so on—will receive their fair share?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Thyssen bid represents a unique opportunity. At this stage it would not be helpful to speculate on any alternative use for money which has been allocated to support the UK bid to house this important collection.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will accept congratulations to the Government for this bold attempt. However, will she bear in mind—if I may dare to use an agricultural metaphor—that it could turn out to be a mare's nest? If, unfortunately, it does so, will she ensure that the money is devoted to other arts projects—however large the sum may be—and principally to the Royal Opera House, the National Theatre and the Royal Fine Arts Commission?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not know about a mare's nest, but, speaking from the horse's mouth, I must make it clear that there would be no detrimental effect on the arts budget as presently set out.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister, after having said £150 million during the debate which took place the other day, withdrew the £150 million and replaced it with a figure of £100 million. If by chance this offer does not come to fruition, will the Government he prepared to take that sum—even if they do not use it for the performing arts—and use it for the visual arts by starting to reactivate the purchase grants for museums and galleries, which have now been frozen for four years?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have already said that it would be a pity to anticipate anything in this matter.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, may I ask whether consideration has been given to housing the pictures—if they come— across the river, next door, in County Hall?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, options have been identified which take account of preferences expressed by the Baron. I can give no further details on the options. Any final decision on the future home of the collection rests entirely with the Baron and his trustees.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that there are collections of paintings in this country whose value and worth far exceed those in the Thyssen collection? Further, should they come on to the market —owing to death or any other cause—will she give an assurance that the Government will not blench at acquiring them. however high the cost?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am aware of the many important collections that are in private hands in this country. We shall continue both through tax concessions designed to save heritage items, and by other means, to ensure that wherever possible such collections will be saved for the nation should the owners' circumstances place them at risk.

Business
2.56 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for one hour and that during the adjournment the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1988 will be taken.

Bristol Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1988
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the First Report from the Hybrid Instruments Committee be agreed to and that the Bristol Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1988 be referred to a Select Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Housing Bill
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Housing Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 7,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 8 to 24,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 25 to 39,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 40 to 46,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 47 to 59,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 60 to 62,

Schedules 7 and 8,

Clauses 63 to 76,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 77 and 78.

Schedule 10,

Clause 79,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 80 to 107,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 108 to 116,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 117 to 126,

Schedules 14 and 15,

Clause 127,

The title.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
2.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1[Prohibited weapons and ammunition]:
[Manuscript Amendment No. Al not moved?.]
3 p.m.
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I, line 16, leave out ("or pump-action").
The noble Lord said: I should first like to declare an interest in that I am a holder of a shotgun certificate and I have held a firearms certificate. Therefore I have an interest in the Bill. In the group we are discussing are Amendments Nos. 1 to 8, 18, 19, 21 and 29. I am particularly interested in Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 and shall speak to those.
1062
I support Amendments Nos. 18, 21 and 29 but shall wait to hear what the movers of the amendments have to say.
Amendment No. 1 leaves out the word "or pump-action" in the rifle section of the Bill. It gives the definition of:
"any self-loading or pump-action rifle other than one which is chambered for 22 rim-fire cartridges".
The amendment catches two groups of rifle which I believe cause no risk to the public and arc caught unnecessarily. Both groups have fixed magazines of limited capacity; five is the normal number. The first group largely contains vintage or veteran weapons made prior to 1939. Almost all are chambered for proprietary cartridges which are no longer available. They are very much collector items and, as far as I am aware, are not used in any form of target shooting. The second group largely contains American rifles but also a number of other foreign makes. They are typically of deer-stalking calibres of 243 or -270 inches. I am concerned that they may be brought in by overseas visitors coming to stalk in Scotland. The visitors may have the problem that their favourite rifle is impounded by Customs as a prohibited weapon. That is no good to the promotion of stalking activities in Scotland which are a good currency earner.
I emphasise that those rifles have fixed limited-capacity magazines. One cannot change the magazine and increase the rate of fire or the total capacity of the magazine. They must he reloaded after the magazine is empty. I understand that the speed of fire of the pump-action rifle is no faster than the efficient use of the bolt-action rifle or the lever-action rifle. I can see no reason why those categories should be caught as prohibited weapons and I shall be interested to hear the Government's view as to why that is so.
Amendment No. 4 is a probing amendment. Many revolver-calibre cartridges cover genuine rifles. However, during the 1914–18 war some genuine Luger and Mauser pistols were made but some had the facility of having stocks attached to them, as do one or two modern machine pistols. I understand that if a pistol does not have the appropriate attachments it is not caught in the Bill. It is a pistol; it is not a prohibited weapon but a category of firearm that can he licensed. Just because it happens to have the lugs, let us say, even if it is without a stock, it may be caught in a collector's hands. If it has the lugs and the collector has the stock I believe that there is a strong probability that it is caught.
Those are mostly collectors' items and it would be sad if one collector were caught, while another, because he has an extra piece of equipment or a slightly modified weapon, is not. Those are the points that I should like to make in respect of Amendments Nos. 1 and 4. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Lord TorphichenI should like to ask my noble friend Lord Ferrers to explain how the amendments to the Bill, which is an amendment to the 1968 Act, fit in? In Section 1 (1) (a) of the 1968 Act the prohibition is for a person:
"to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, a firearm".

1063
When one reads Clause 1 of the amendment Bill into the Act it becomes:
"any firearm which is so designed or adapted",
and so on. But there is no sentence prohibiting the possession of those firearms. Can my noble friend tell the Committee where the prohibition now is in the Bill?
Lord Swansea: I should like to begin by declaring an interest as chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council. I hope that it will not be necessary for me to do so each time I rise to my feet during the Committee. I should like to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, and in particular Amendment No. 1 which refers to pump-action rifles.
I support the amendment because the pump-action rifle is manually operated. In no way can it be classed in the same category as a self-loading rifle. The method of operation differs only in detail from a bolt-action or lever-action rifle. Thank goodness those types are still to be permitted and I can see no reason why pump-action rifles should be lumped together with self-loading rifles. They are fish of an entirely different colour.
On Second Reading I spoke at length about self-loading rifles, with which we are also concerned in this group of amendments. For over 40 years such rifles have been used legally in this country by civilians indulging in what has become known as "practical rifle shooting". It is now an international discipline and one in which our national representatives have achieved some success. They have carried on in that discipline for over 40 years without an accident occurring. The only incident which was linked with the use of those rifles was the tragedy at Hungerford last year when an individual went completely off his head.
In no way can that tragedy be connected with the legitimate use of firearms of that kind. Users of those firearms are being penalised for a crime that they have not committed. They have observed the law and held the firearms legally for many years. Only as a result of the Hungerford incident has any blame fallen on that type of firearm. It is manifestly unfair that, after they have been legally used for over 40 years, the Government should now move the goal posts.
One does not find that problem in other countries. In Switzerland, for example, after a period of national service every able-bodied male must remain on the reserve list for a certain number of years. He is obliged by law to keep his firearms and ammunition at home and to turn out for practice whenever required to do so. In that country the incidence of armed crime does not figure in the national statistics. I must apologise for my voice; something funny has happened to it and I hope that I shall be able to carry on. However, the whole crux of the matter is that in other countries the Government trust the people. Apparently in this country the Government are not prepared to trust the people. Those who have observed the law faithfully for a long time now find themselves being ruled out of order.
1064
The other point I should like to mention concerns Amendment No. 18 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, about the means by which a person might be permitted to retain ownership of a self-loading rifle. That covers various categories of people; for example, disabled people. I am sure that many of your Lordships know people who by reason of some disability—perhaps a war wound—may not be able to handle a bolt-action rifle very conveniently. That is an example of the kind of person who would be permitted to continue to own a self-loading rifle. He would be someone who has held a firearms certificate for a continuous period of three years before this application and someone who is thoroughly vouched for by a club affiliated to a recognised national association as being a well-established, bona fide target shooter and a thoroughly responsible person. That requirement seems to have been entirely overlooked by the Thames Valley police when they granted a firearms certificate to Michael Ryan. There is still a cloud of doubt hanging over that particular point.
The other category of person to whom 1 suggest this would be applicable is a left-handed person. There arc a great many left-handed people in this world. I am sure that many Members of the Committee are left-handed. Those people find it difficult or inconvenient to handle a rifle with a bolt action. That is another instance where a self-loading rifle or a pump-action rifle, which has been mentioned earlier, will be very useful to a left-hander.
Viscount Hanworth: Many of us believe that the Bill cannot have any immediate useful effect. In fact, it may have quite the reverse, because there are undoubtedly illegally held shotguns which will appear on the black market. However, I believe that those of us —and I include myself—who support the Bill are concerned with the future. There is no doubt that a few years ago there were very few armed robberies. However, at present, in the Metropolitan area alone I believe that there have been something like 1,700 armed robberies. Therefore, I am afraid that the argument put forward by the noble Lord who has just spoken that these weapons and others have been held for many years perfectly safely does not carry great weight with me. We must look at the increasing crime rate and the increasing use of guns. I believe that that is what the Bill is about and it should not be weakened.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I support Amendment No. 1. For over 50 years I have owned rifles and shotguns and even revolvers, but 1 have no ammunition for revolvers. I had my army revolver and my grandmother had a silver revolver. I do not know why she had it—perhaps she feared that something might happen to her. I also do not know where she secreted it. I now also own two revolvers which my father owned.
I particularly support Amendment No. 1. I have a pump-action 22 rifle which is now very, very old, and is invaluable for shooting rabbits when one is going along in the evening on the edge of a cornfield. I do not think that rabbits are very intelligent.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: One can bowl over one or two with a rifle —bang, bang—and they do not seem to worry unduly. One has to do that about four times before they come on the alert.
I believe that it would be a great pity not to allow pump-action 22 rifles. My noble friend behind me and the mover of the amendment has explained the reasons for the amendment which I support.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Strange: Perhaps Members of the Committee will forgive me if I intervene briefly to speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Swansea. If by chance a lunatic got hold of a Rover car, drove down the street and killed a whole lot of unarmed pedestrians, would we then be justified in immediately trying to ban all Rover cars? It seems to me that there is the same illogical over-reaction on this occasion.
Lord Burton: I wonder if the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has any idea how often illegally held firearms have been used for crime. I should be very interested to know whether he could give us any figures on this matter. I understand that illegally held firearms, particularly rifles, are used very seldom indeed, if ever. I believe that the only time that a self-loading automatic rifle has been used was in the case of Michael Ryan. Therefore I believe the noble Viscount should be very careful, and I should be interested to know if he could give us any facts.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to make a comment about pump-action guns. Once they become worn, particularly the 16-bore type of shotgun, it is sometimes extremely difficult to be quite certain that that gun has been emptied of its eight shots. I have known a person to work the pump like mad, believing that everything is out of the gun, then to pull the trigger and the last shot has still been there and has been fired on the floor.
Another matter is that as I understand it, from talking with firearms dealers—referring to lines 14 and 15 of the Bill—although the trigger may have to be pulled each time, one only needs to file off the head of the bolt and the eight shots can be fired off in a row without again pulling the trigger. That is the only other comment on the grounds of safety which I believe is worth mentioning.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I believe that it is possibly worth considering what might have happened had Michael Ryan run loose in Switzerland where a very large proportion of the adult population keep automatic rifles in their houses for civil defence purposes. Somebody would surely have popped into his house, popped out again with his rifle, and shot Michael Ryan. There would then have been no problem.
Lord John-Mackie: Perhaps I may intervene briefly on this very difficult subject of the self-loading or pump-action rifle and shotgun mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, a moment ago. There is no question that there is very strong feeling in clubs about this matter. The whole question of disabled
1066
people and women who are not quite so strong to pull the coil and so on, is something which the Government must consider as carefully as possible with due regard to the object of the Bill; namely, to try to control firearms as much as possible.
I suppose that I should declare an interest as have many others in this Committee. I have shot all my life with rifles and shotguns. I have two clubs which come to the farm regularly to shoot. I have discussed the question about pump-action guns and so on with them. It may intrigue your Lordships to know that they think of the point that Lord Balfour made about not being sure whether a pump-action gun, whether it be a rifle or not, is safe, because there have been many accidents, particularly when somebody has been holding a gun pointing downwards, has pulled the trigger and blown off someone's foot. That has happened quite often; I have two friends to whom that has happened. They are very careful, particularly with double-barrelled shotguns, to ensure that when one is carried it is broken, whether the gun is loaded or unloaded.
An ingenious man invented a dummy cartridge. I have one here. It goes into a pump action shotgun to ensure that it is safe. As one pulls the trigger the dummy cartridge is hit and nothing happens. Somebody has said that it will not fit into the case, but the man who invented it is ingenious and the cartridge folds up so that it can be put into the case. That demonstrates that these people are taking an interest in safety as regards these pump-action guns.
I appeal to the Government to give the matter very close thought indeed, having due regard to the object of the Bill.
The Earl of Northesk: I think these groupings are a little unfortunate because, although all these amendments attempt to achieve more or less the same thing, Amendments Nos. 18 and 29 attempt to achieve it in a slightly different way. I think these are the most sensible of all the amendments. Most of this clause attempts to legislate against guns. As we all know, it is not guns that kill people; it is people that kill people. These are two amendments which attempt to legislate against people, which seems to me to be the most sensible way of' going about it.
I am not the only person who has advocated for many years that there should be tests of some kind before one is allowed to possess a firearm or a shotgun. One has to take a test in order to drive a motor car, which is just as lethal as a gun; one has to take a test in order to be a solicitor, and a solicitor can perhaps be as lethal as a gun. There should be a test for competence; there should be a test for behaviour; there should be a test for recognition of species; above all, there should be a test for safety. I wonder how many of us would pass? However, that is a different question. The right approach must be to attempt to legislate against people rather than against guns.
Viscount Dilhorne: I have tabled a number of amendments. I missed a manuscript amendment, for which I apologise to the Committee, but I am sure that it was not contentious and that I shall be able to

1067
make amends later on. It was purely a drafting matter. There are a number of amendments standing in my name within the groupings that we have been given. I think that probably the best way of dealing with them is to take them in what I consider to be the most convenient order. I should like, first, to speak to Amendments Nos. 5 to 12, and then go on to the amendment about which my noble friend has just addressed your Lordships. Amendments Nos. 5 and 12 are couched in exactly the same language.
Earl Ferrers: May I interrupt my noble friend? I do not like to do so but I think that there might be a procedural complication. We were discussing Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 but not 12.
Viscount Dilhorne: I shall speak to Amendment No. 5 and will not repeat myself when we come to Amendment No. 12. The points that I wish to make on both these amendments are the same.
The words that I wish to see inserted are:
"or which was manufactured before 1st January 1937".
The reason for the amendment is that it seems to me that it would be a pity if we were to lose the heritage or history of firearms prior to that date if those firearms became prohibited weapons and had to be surrendered. There are not a lot of these weapons about. This is in a sense a fallback amendment if the other amendment in my name relating to pump-action shotguns and SLRs does not succeed. If the Government succeed, it seems that these old weapons, which have an intrinsic value, would be prohibited. There is no provision in the Bill for them to be kept except perhaps, one presumes, in forensic science laboratories. There is no provision for museums to keep them unless they receive a special dispensation, and it is impossible to say today whether or not a museum will have that.
These guns are part of our heritage, part of the history of firearms. I therefore beg to commend to my noble friend the Minister the amendment to page 1, line 17, which is the same as the one to line 22.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dilhorne for his intervention and I am sorry if I disturbed him in his flow. I was not surprised that he was not here to move his amendment because he tabled no less than four manuscript amendments today and even I had difficulty in obtaining the manuscript version. I received it five minutes before coming into the Chamber. I daresay the noble Lord was on his way here but did not succeed in arriving in time. I am grateful to him for having explained his views about this matter.
I should like to reassure my noble friend Lord Torphichen over the problem he mentioned regarding Clause 1 which he did not feel fitted happily into the Act as it is. This section of the Bill does not, of course, refer to Section 1 of the 1968 Act; it refers to Section 5 of the 1968 Act. I think that when my noble friend looks at that part he will see that the Bill as drafted sits comfortably within the original Act.
1068
All the amendments which have been moved and spoken to are, I realise, aimed at one of the major hearts of the Bill which concerns a great many people who have quite legitimately used their weapons and feel that they will be encumbered by the proposed legislation. It is right to attempt to see why that is so. All the amendments in this group are directed at the Government's proposals to inhibit high-powered self-loading and pump-action rifles. We thought it proper to do this because of the incident, about which your Lordships will not need reminding, when a self-loading rifle was used last year by Michael Ryan in Hungerford on a day which we shall all remember. That incident has led the Government to look very carefully at all the circumstances surrounding these dangerous and lethal weapons. In the light of that incident, the Government had to consider whether it was responsible and proper to continue to allow the private ownership of weapons of such awesome and lethal power.
Although lethality—as it has been generally called—was the prime factor in our decision, we also looked at the extent of the legitimate use of such weapons. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said he hoped that the Government would think hard about that proposal, and I can assure him that we have done so. A great many representations have been made to us, rightly and perfectly properly; and we have tried to find the correct balance. It is certainly not our intention to disrupt legitimate shooting activities where that can be avoided, but we estimate that only 5 per cent. of the firearms certificate holders in Great Britain out of a total of about 200,000 own weapons which are either self-loading rifles or pump-action rifles. They are used in practical shooting and in a few service rifle competitions in which some civilians participate. However, the service competitions give priority to servicemen and few civilians take part. Indeed, I think that only 24 out of 1,300 clubs affiliated to the National Rifle Association predominantly use self-loading rifles.
I recognise that the ban on self-loading rifles will adversely affect practical rifle shooters who will not be able to continue their sport using such weapons. It may be of little consolation to them to know that; but they will be able to continue to use the traditional bolt-action rifles or to participate in other practical shooting events using pistols or shotguns. I realise that that will not be a convenience to people who have been using, rightly and legitimately, self-loading or pump-action rifles. However, the limited sporting use of those weapons, in the Government's opinion, is far outweighed by their destructive potential and the risk that they pose to the community. Perhaps I may say that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, was right to draw attention to that. The risk of further abuse is not a risk which, frankly, the Government can accept or feel that they can ask the community at large to accept.
My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard expressed concern that he would not be able to shoot rabbits with a pump-action 22 rifle. He need not

1069
worry, because self-loading rifles which are chambered for 22 rim-fire ammunition—and are widely used for vermin control, as my noble friend uses them —will remain under Section 1 control as at present and they are not put under Section 5. They are lower powered and less accurate than the centre-fire models.
All the amendments that have been tabled, understandable though they are, in fact seek to water down the Government's proposals over self-loading or pump-action rifles. I accept that people feel their liberties are being curtailed. I can only make the point, as clearly as I can, that it is not a curtailment which we like to see but we believe that in the interests of public safety such weapons are not safe in the hands of anyone.
My noble friend Lord Swansea said that left-handed people found these weapons convenient to use. Others have said that the disabled find them convenient to use. I accept that point of view, but one comes hack to asking whether it is right to allow people who have certain constrictions nevertheless to use an instrument that is so dangerous that even in the hands of those who are fully able it is considered not appropriate for them to be available.
My noble friend Lady Strange asked whether, if a Rover motorcar had run into a number of people, we would ban all Rover motorcars. I believe my noble friend Lord Swansea put forward that suggestion at Second Reading. My noble friend Lady Strange is wrong. I said at Second Reading—and I think it is right that motor cars are lethal instruments and as such must he curtailed. The innocent motorist who is prefectly capable of driving a car at great speed is not allowed to do so in the interests of the whole community. It is the same for these dangerous weapons. In the hands of many people they are perfectly safe: hut in the interests of the whole they must be controlled.
My noble friend Lady Saltoun put forward the proposition and extended the imagination somewhat—a little unhelpfully, I thought—that had Michael Ryan been in Switzerland the sort of events in which he was involved would not have happened because someone in legitimate possession of a self-loading rifle would have come out and shot him. I do not think that is the kind of format that my noble friend believes should be introduced into this country. The argument for including self-loading rifles among legitimate weapons is totally destructive. My noble friend's argument destroyed her own case because it would be totally unsuitable for people to run around shooting others even though those shot were considered to be dangerous.
I absolutely accept that this is a difficult matter. I realise that there will he people who will find themselves curtailed from that which they have been allowed to do in the past. However, I hope the Committee will accept that the Government have done their best to meet, where possible, the interests of various lobbies. Nevertheless, we feel that self-loading rifles and pump-action rifles should be in the prohibited category. That is why I hope the Committee will agree that we have it right.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I hope that the noble Earl can clarify my mind about these weapons. I immediately say that I know very little about firearms. I have not used them a great deal in my life. Like everyone else, I was horrified at what Michael Ryan did in Hungerford. I live fairly near Hungerford and therefore it was a shock which affected me, as a near local, as it did everyone else.
I am not sure that this Bill will achieve what the Government seek to achieve. The noble Earl spoke about lethality. Is it correct that under this clause a pump-action ·410 shotgun would be banned, whereas a bolt-action·303 rifle or a single loader pistol would not be banned? In terms of lethality, even I know that a ·303 rifle is much more lethal than a ·410 shotgun, which in terms of lethality is almost a toy with a very restricted range.
It may be that I am wrong. It may be that the noble Earl will be able to tell me that the ·410 pump-action shotgun is not covered in this clause and will not be banned. However, perhaps it would be better if l now sat down and allowed the noble Earl to give me some advice.
Earl Ferrers: I shall give the not,:e Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, such advice as I can. I start by telling him as courteously as I can that he is wrong. We are dealing there with rifles. The difference between a rifle and a shotgun is one of the distinctions that we must make in this Bill. It is easy with ·22 shotguns and ·22 rifles to get them confused in one's mind. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that he does not know much about firearms. I can assure him that if he had had the advantage, or disadvantage, of studying this Bill very hard, as some of us have been obliged to do, he would have ended up knowing a great deal more than at the beginning—which has been my fate; even though there is much to be learnt.
The point is that we are dealing with self-loading and pump-action rifles, which are dangerous. They are considered to he so dangerous that they are put into a category where they should not be used. Shotguns come into a different category; namely, Section 2. Ordinary bolt-action rifles are in the Section 1 category. What we are doing here is to move the self-loading rifles out of the Section 1 category and into Section 5. That is because a rifle is considered to be, and is, very much more dangerous than a shotgun.
Viscount Thurso: May I ask the noble Earl a question?
The Earl of Northesk: I refer specifically to Amendments Nos. 18 and 29 because they are the ones which ask for some kind of test. During the course of the noble Earl's explanation he said that these guns are not safe in the hands of anyone. That is exactly the point. These amendments ask that people should take some kind of test and once they have they are no longer just anybody; they are people who are qualified, as I understand it, and capable of holding and using, for want of a better expression, a big bore self-loading rifle.
I ask my noble friend to refer specifically to this, and also refer it to his experts. Perhaps the noble Earl

1071
will consider referring it to the consultative committee (which I believe is to be formed as a result of this Bill) for consideration as something which may be reintroduced at a later date.
Earl Ferrers: It is perfectly fair of the noble Lord to raise that matter and to say that people should be permitted to take various tests. But I believe that he misses the onus of this clause, which is that these weapons are considered to be so dangerous that they should not be available for use. However, that does not mean to say that there are not plenty of people who would be perfectly capable of using them, because they would be in the right hands. The thrust of this clause is to say that these weapons should not be available.
My noble friend made the observation that perhaps one should have a test, rather like a driving test, to show that one can use such weapons, but that does not answer the point. What we are trying to do is not to be horrible to the legitimate shooting community, but to protect the community as a whole from dangerous weapons which can get into the wrong hands. The only way that this can be done is by having a system whereby some are not available and others should be subject to some kind of certification.
Viscount Thurso: I may be extremely stupid. I see the danger of a gas-operated rifle, which is one that reloads itself from the recoil of the cartridge, but can the noble Earl explain the essential difference between a pump-action rifle and a bolt-action rifle? As I understand it, a bolt-action rifle is one where the cartridge is ejected by pulling back the bolt and the rifle is loaded by pushing forward the bolt. With a lever-action rifle such as the Winchester the same thing is done; namely, the cartridge is rejected by pushing the lever forward and a rifle is loaded by pulling it back. In the case of a pump-action rifle exactly the same movement is done. The cartridge is ejected and one reloads. I can see that this method is useful for people who are disabled, but the action is no faster, more efficient or deadly than that of a bolt-action rifle. A gas-operated or a self-loading rifle is a totally different weapon, as indeed is a recoil-operated rifle. I do not see why a pump-action rifle is so much more deadly than a bolt-action rifle.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The simple answer—if one ever dares give a simple answer to anything of this nature—is that bolt-action rifles are legitimately used for a number of purposes such as stalking and other pursuits of the kind that happen in the part of the world from which the noble Viscount comes. In those circumstances the weapons are quite legitimately used and will continue to be. However, pump-action rifles have very much quicker fire power and therefore their lethality becomes much greater.
Lord Brain: Can the detailed information on this subject be put into the Library? Those of us who have received briefings on the subject understand that a pump-action weapon is no faster than an efficiently
1072
operated bolt-action rifle. Please may we have the information, because it is not good enough simply having a smoke screen.
Lord Swansea: It is a complete fallacy for my noble friend to say that a pump-action rifle is faster to operate and therefore more dangerous and lethal—if there is such a thing as degrees of lethality—than a self-loading rifle. It is sheer nonsense to equate a pump-action rifle with a self-loading one.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: It is true to a certain extent that with a pump-action weapon one does not have to divert one's aim at all. However, with a bolt-action rifle one has to move one's head to a certain extent.
Viscount Dilhorne: I wish to ask my noble friend a question. One can obtain a bolt-action rifle with a magazine with a capacity for up to 15 cartridges. There is a rifle called a Tikka. There is also the SLR, which has a limited magazine capacity and fires no quicker than experts can fire it. I am left-handed and about 15 years ago on the range I got off over 30 cartridges left-handed with a bolt-action rifle. It seems that there is no distinction that can be drawn between a rifle with a magazine and an SLR with a magazine. To say that the SLR is more lethal is not true. My noble friend has not given any evidence to prove that that is the case. It is simply a bald assertion.
If one abolishes the SLR and it is not restricted to the normal regime of rifle shooting, one throws away a rifle which is now used competitively worldwide. It is approved for shooting by different organisations around the world. One was used at Bisley this weekend and I believe it is called an SA80. This weapon beat all-comers from all over the world in competitive shooting. At Bisley this week the British weapon beat weapons from all countries including those of the East European bloc. It seems a great pity that a change which began long ago in Korea when it was known that the bolt-action rifle was becoming out of date and that something should be done to replace it should now be put aside and that no civilian should be allowed to own such a weapon but only the military. That weapon has been proved to be better in competition and it is a pity that it should be abolished. I ask my noble friend to answer the question as to what is the logical difference between a bolt-action rifle with a magazine and an SLR with a limited magazine that would be part of the provision of this Bill?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was asked about pump-action rifles by the noble Viscount and he asks why it is considered that this kind of weapon is more dangerous than one with a bolt-action. I can tell him as a matter of factual presentation that it is possible to have a bolt-action rifle which one can shoot perfectly reasonably and perfectly successfully. In the hands of the wrong person a pump-action rifle has a fire power far greater than a bolt-action rifle.
Noble Lords: No!
Earl Ferrers: My noble friends behind me say "No"; but they forget the fact that a self-loading rifle

1073
held perfectly legitimately caused great devastation. accept that many of my noble friends feel distressed about this matter but I ask them to address their minds to this problem. Although they have a perfectly legitimate interest to put forward they must also see the other side of the coin as the Government are obliged to do; namely, the interest of public safety. I can only revert hack to the, if I may say so, not very forceful argument about the motor car. If one has motor cars, one has to constrain them because they are lethal. These weapons are also lethal. The Government accept that by making constrictions they are inviting a certain degree of unpopularity, as the postbags of most noble Lords would admit. However, there is the point that if the public are to have confidence that these weapons will not be held in the public's hands, one must then turn round and say that these weapons ought to be included in Section 5.
My noble friend Lord Dilhorne was very persuasive when he questioned whether SLRs are more lethal. I can only repeat what I have told him; they are considered to be more dangerous. They have a limited sporting use because the bolt-action rifle has a considerable sporting use. These other weapons have much more limited use. if pump-action rifles were permitted and self-loading rifles were not, the chances are that there would be a considerable increase in the use and possibily the importation of pump-action rifles. We considered—and I believe that I will take the Committee with me over this that in the interests of public safety and while acknowledging that some people will face a certain degree of curtailment, nevertheless, these weapons are correctly held in the Section 5 category.
Viscount Brookeborough: When the army goes to a range, draws weapons from an armoury and uses them on that range, the public are quite happy. Why cannot the limited number of people who take part in practical shooting hold their weapons centrally—not centrally in the whole country but close to their range—so that they can then be drawn out for use on that range? We do not have madmen in the army killing masses of people on the range and there is no reason to suppose that if shooting clubs had those restrictions we would run into any trouble.
Earl Ferrers: It is easy to confuse the use of these weapons by the army with their use by civilians. The army has people specially trained in the use of weapons for certain purposes, primarily against the enemy. The use by the army and the use by civilians are different things. When my noble friend Lord 13rookeborough says that weapons can be held and brought out on special occasions I am bound to come hack to the point I made earlier. In the hands of private individuals, even though they are capable private individuals, these weapons are considered to be so dangerous that in the interests of public safety it would be better for them not to he in private hands.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I shall add only a few words. I apologise at the outset for not having been present at the beginning of the debate. That is why I have remained silent for a fairly significant time. After the Hungerford shootings the Home Secretary
1074
made a Statement in the House of Commons. The Government were then criticised from all sides of the House for not having proceeded with greater speed. It was, I think, right to take this matter at a more leisurely rate because inevitably some people believed that their liberties were to some extent being infringed by the provisions of Clause 1. However, having said that, I must also add this. As I said at Second Reading, I do not regard the provisions of the Bill as a grave blow to the liberties of the people of this country. After the Ryan shootings there was an explosion of public feeling and a great deal of anxiety to the effect that our firearms legislation was not framed in more stringent terms. Any government which ignored that would have done so at their peril.
It is right for me to add that there would be grave concern in the police service if amendments of this character were to be passed. As the noble Earl is aware, it is the view of the police service that the Bill is not couched in adequately strong terms. For the Committee to pass amendments of this kind would be a serious error and would cause the deepest disquiet among the public and the police service.
Lord Burton: Can my noble friend tell me the maximum number of rounds that Ryan fired at any individual? As I understand it, in most cases he fired only one or two shots. If that were the case the rate of fire has no bearing on the matter.
Earl Ferrers: I find it extremely difficult to get through to my noble friend the basis on which this legislation has come forward. Had he heard, as I am sure he did, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, he would have realised that there was great public outcry about the fact that these weapons were available. Whether one individual fired one round, two rounds or eight rounds is relatively immaterial. The fact is that these weapons were used. They were dangerous and we are trying to secure a reasonable degree—and it is only a reasonable degree—of protection for society.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is absolutely right. The police service thinks that the Bill is not strong enough, and the police force is responsible for trying to stop these weapons being used and for trying to find the perpetrators when they are irresponsibly used. The noble Lord was quite right to say that there is another side to this argument pitched right at the other end of the spectrum from that which we have heard from my noble friends behind me, which argument I respect and entirely understand. However, it is a question of getting the balance right.
Lord Swansea: The inclusion of pump-action rifles in this clause of the Bill is based on a complete misconception on the part of the Government. I can think of no other reason for it. Like so many other provisions of the Bill it is based on ignorance combined with prejudice. I should like to know why my noble friend thinks that a pump-action rifle can be considered to be as dangerous or as lethal—if he likes to put it that way—as a self-loading rifle and more dangerous than other types of rifle, all of which are only as dangerous as the person behind them.
Earl Ferrers: I do not wish to rise more than I should but I feel that I cannot let my noble friend's very courteous remark go by the board. He said that the Bill was brought forward as a result of ignorance and prejudice. I suggest that he uses those words to the people around Hungerford and elsewhere and see whether they think that that is so.
Lord Marsh: Does the noble Earl agree that it seems to be fairly obvious that the reason every modern army around the world has shifted from bolt-action rifles to self-loading rifles is precisely because they are more efficient vehicles for killing people?
4 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: If I may, I correct the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. They have not moved to self-loading rifles; they have moved to automatic rifles which is a different matter altogether.
I appreciate the Government's difficulties, and those of the noble Earl and appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said about public feeling. I could not agree more. This debate concerns particular rifles and guns—I forget the name of the noble Lord who sits at the back of the Chamber and who has later amendments—but it is not a question of a rifle or a weapon but of the person who owns and uses it. That is the important matter. The noble Lord has mentioned statistics, but I am not keen on statistics as they cannot prove anything. There are some police statistics which show that out of 157 crimes of one kind or another including criminal damage, wounding, homicides and robberies, 101 were committed with the aid of shotguns. That emphasises the argument. We should be concerned with the people who use the gun and who own it rather than the gun itself.
I appreciate the difficulties of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the Government have to do something about it, but I should like to see some extremely firm licensing of guns that would help people such as the noble Lord, Lord Wynford, and other disabled people.
Lord Brain: I said a little earlier that I felt that the noble Earl was putting up a smokescreen and was not giving us specific answers to specific questions. For example, he has totally ignored my comments about the definition of pistols and self-loading rifles in relation to Amendment No. 4. He has not done me the courtesy of saying a single word about it. I am surprised.
I wonder whether we have not also been discussing much too wide a group of amendments. We were talking specifically about pump-action rifles to begin with and I spoke about two specific types but received no response. He has spent his time talking about self-loading rifles. He has studiously avoided the question as to the speed of action of bolt-action or lever-action compared with pump-action. The noble Earl says, without substantiating it at all, that in the hands of an incompetent person they can be used more efficiently. Perhaps what he means is that they can be used from the hip much more efficiently than the others. If that is the case, why not say so?
1076
Concerning law and order and the police forces, I know that immediately after Hungerford people were speaking on the radio on behalf of the Association of Chief Constables, the senior officers and Police Federation. At that time one would have expected them to have reacted more violently and said, "We need greater controls". However, instead they agreed that the present controls are adequate and needed to be more efficiently and effectively applied, perhaps with minor amendments.
The Government have taken a steamroller to try to crack a nut, not just a sledge hammer. I should like to read what has been said or what has not been said and perhaps then come back to this matter at Report stage. As the names on this amendment also include that of the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, should he wish to proceed to a Division on the amendment I shall support him and we shall see what the Committee feels. But at the moment I am minded to withdraw and to come back at Report stage when I have read what has been said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wynford Lord Wynford moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 16, after ("one") insert ("which is incapable of having a magazine with a capacity greater than four cartridges, or").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 2 stands on its own. Amendment No. 3 is wrongly on the Marshalled List and I have been authorised to say that it was cancelled and should have been cancelled and not printed on the list. Therefore Amendment No. 3 does not concern me and I shall not be moving it.
Amendment No. 2 is directed at the interests of the disabled or other handicapped rifle shooters. Whether they are men or women, confined to wheelchairs or not, all have difficulty with bolt operation. I must declare an interest because obviously I am disabled, although my preference at the moment is for the shotgun rather than the rifle. 1 was lucky enough to have made contact immediately after the war with old Mr. Churchill, the famous gunmaker and government expert adviser on forensic matters. He was a specialist in one-handed guns. He fitted me out with one of his specials and I use it today.
My long Army service made me very familiar with rifles and competitive range shooting, whether target or practical. I mentioned the interests of the disabled in my Second Reading speech. I wish now to re-emphasise one or two of their needs and aspirations. All members of the Committee will recognise what I mean when I refer to the fierce determination of disabled people to challenge, to compete and to try to succeed if possible on equal terms with their luckier fellows. I know that myself; it is my own inclination. Rifle shooting is an area which has great scope for such people. It carries the world-wide reputation of excellence which our country has built up in skill at arms, always in the forefront since time immemorial, going back, as I said at Second Reading, to the bowmen of Agincourt. The disabled thrive on this challenge. To deny it to them would be an awful blow. The public will think very badly of it. We simply must not do this.
The amendment is clear and simple. I ask the Committee not to confuse it with other amendments at paragraph (ab) on page 1 of the Bill. These amendments will be considered later.
Self-loading and pump-action rifles have come to be specially mistrusted by the Government as we have heard already this afternoon at considerable length. They are mistrusted also by the media and some sections of the public, though not all. That is a misconception. They are not more dangerous than bolt-action, self-loading and pump-action weapons, and they are today the basic infantry weapon of our Army and allies and possible enemies. Neither type is an automatic burst-firing weapon. We all ought to be clear about that. We are talking about the self-loading rifle which has no automatic burst capability. That is a different kettle of fish and a most dangerous weapon. Such weapons are already banned under the existing law. Discussion in another place disclosed much government anxiety about self-loading rifles with large magazines, which are naturally considered to be especially dangerous. But not all self-loading rifles have large magazines.
Self-loading and pump-action rifles have two advantages. They have no manual bolt operation and they have less recoil against the shoulder. Some disabled people, left-handers, lightly built men or women, young people and elderly people, whom I will call the disadvantaged, cannot shoot with bolt-action rifles. Self-loaders may be preferred by some people for deer culling or stalking, but I shall leave that matter for others to go into. In none of those cases is a large magazine used or needed. For those reasons, amendments were moved in Standing Committee F in another place to allow continued ownership, on Section 1 certificates, of self-loading and pump-action rifles with limited magazine capacity.
The case seemed overwhelming. The Minister in charge of the Bill seemed to agree. He expressed (at col. 326) his understanding of the different threat posed by small and large magazine rifles. He said that as a self-loading rifle would fire three, four or five rounds over an extended period it was difficult to argue that the gun was more lethal than the traditional 10-shot bolt-action. Therefore, there was a case for that limited range of rifles, but a wholly different argument applied to large magazine guns. In other words, small-magazine self-loaders could be reconciled with government policy as against large-magazine loaders. The Minister went on to make it clear that that applied only to guns with magazines that could not be enlarged (at col. 330). That made good sense to Standing Committee F. It accepted the Minister's undertaking to study the matter seriously. As a result, it did not press the matter to a vote, which would almost certainly have established the concession. Since then the Government have backtracked.
For reasons unkown to me, the Government now seem to think that small magazines must be treated the same as large, no matter who or how many people are hurt in the process. "How many" is important. People are hurt. Some Members of the Committee will have received a letter which I sent last week in
1078
which I described four disabled male shooters and how they would be affected by the Bill. They were called John Gruff, Clifford Owen, Dave Adams and Colin Marshall. I sent out 150 copies of the letter. I shall try to paraphrase it because I know that we must not waste time.
Clifford Owen has held a firearms certificate since 1937. He was wounded in the spine and wrist at Normandy. He shoots roe deer and red deer in this country and red deer and wild boar in Poland. He uses a rifle that can shoot from either shoulder. He chose a Remington pump-action rifle. He spent much time and effort modifying it to meet his special needs. It has a capacity of four rounds only. It will be banned by the Bill.
John Gruff of Merseyside has been a shooter all his life. He is now crippled with arthritis throughout his body. Occasionally, when he is assisted into position, he can fire with his old self-loading rifle. Dave Adams lives in Scotland. He had a serious accident when he tried to fire a full-bore rifle with a normal recoil. He received a sensation of 240 volts passing through his body. He takes part in sport and deer management. He has a Heckler knock, three-shot self-loading rifle. The ban will rule him out.
Colin Marshall lives in Carlisle. He is a disabled ex-serviceman who suffers from polyneuritis. He is a target shooter and uses a self-loading rifle. It has a big magazine, and he knows that he will have to change it to a small magazine. If they are allowed, he will at least be able to continue his sport.
I have quoted four serious cases only, but there are many others. They cover all grades right down to the left-handed man who, like me, is otherwise perfectly fit. I do not pretend that the numbers are large. We are not talking about large numbers. However, since when have we refused to help the disabled and disadvantaged because they were not numerous? That is not a good reason. Those in another place, and I hope many Members of the Committee, want so to organise things that the disabled and disadvantaged can take part in the growing sport, hobby or recreation.
Self-loading riffles with small magazines are in good supply. The Browing Bar is easily the largest selling stalking rifle in the world. It has a three or four-round magazine. Its present sales are 30,000 per annum worldwide and 3,000 per annum in Europe. The rate of production could easily increase. Present sales in the United Kingdom are small, but the weapon is in use by the Forestry Commission in Scotland for red deer stalking.
Rouger has said that it can modify the mini fourteen with integral magazines of any preferred size. An integral magazine is one that is not and cannot be removed from the rifle. Mr. Marshall would exchange his rifle for one of those with a magazine specified by the Home Secretary, as provided in my later amendment.
The amendment I now propose follows government preference expressed in another place. It limits magazines to four cartridges. The rifle must not be capable or taking a larger magazine. I have shown that such rifles are commercially available. The onus is on the Minister to show why this humane and safe

1079
proposal is not acceptable. There is no added danger to the police or the public. There is a clear and positive gain for some of our citizens.
I shall be moving an amendent later which tries to deal with another group of people, the practical shooter. This will suggest a solution to the problem of large magazine rifles. But that situation is quite different from this one, which stands on its own. It does not follow that if the Government accept Amendment No. 2 on four cartridges, they are committed to anything else. Taken on its merits, this amendment must succeed. I beg to move.
The Earl of Portsmouth: I support this amendent so ably and eloquently moved by my noble friend Lord Wynford. As he says, it is primarily aimed at disabled, elderly and women shooters who either cannot operate a bolt-action rifle or who are unable to cope with the recoil of a full bore bolt-action rifle.
I raised this point at Second Reading and my noble friend Lord Ferrers very kindly took the trouble to write to me on this and other points. In his letter he says that the number of shooters who suffer from a physical handicap so severe that they cannot operate a bolt-action rifle at all and yet can use a small bore self-loading rifle is likely to be very small indeed. On the total number of shooters he may be right. However, great strides have been made in recent years in improving the quality of life for disabled people. Shooting has undoubtedly played a part here. I find it particularly depressing that among those shooters who will be affected will be some who have been wounded in the service of their country. The banning of self-loading rifles of the type which this amendment will permit will not make any measurable contribution to public safety.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers in his opening speech at Second Reading said that the Government remained ready to listen to legitimate concerns on matters of detail. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that these categories of shooters fall within that area of legitimate concern. I hope therefore that this amendment will be agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton: I should like to support this amendment. I did not speak to Amendment No. 1, as my noble friend may have noticed, but if the noble Lord, Lord Brain had pressed it to a Division, I should have been in somewhat of a quandary as to whether I should follow him through the Lobbies. If my noble friend decided to press this amendment I should have no hesitation in following him. The excuse which I have heard—and I hope my noble friend Lord Ferrers will not use it—is that this group of disabled people is so small that they are not worth bothering about. I do not think that that smacks of a Conservative Government, or indeed of any government, in this country. I hope it is not an argument to be put forward. I think that this amendment proposed so admirably by my noble friend Lord Wynford will bring much comfort for those who are disabled and enjoy the sport.
If my noble friend on the Front Bench cannot accept the amendment as printed, I hope at least that he will take it away and look at it. Then perhaps he
1080
will give an undertaking to consider something that might be worked out at a future stage in order to safeguard the interests of disabled people.
Earl Peel: I too should like to support what my noble friend Lord Wynford said in what can only be described as a persuasive and moving speech. Your Lordships' House has undoubtedly a first-class reputation as regards the way the disabled have been treated recently and I hope that this case will be no exception.
In practical terms, I should not have thought that four cartridges would give any additional risk to the proposals for firearms which the Government are trying to control. I do not think there is any doubt that many of us will be disappointed that a Minister in another place—I do not want to put the point too strongly—went back on the impression he gave of his intentions.
One other practical point which I should like to make is on the question of rifle shooting, particularly in connection with deer. I do not think there is any doubt that many people prefer this type of weapon purely and simply from a humane point of view. If unfortunately a beast is wounded, such a weapon can be used effectively and efficiently without the user having to re-sight the weapon. From that point of view alone I think there is justification for retaining it. However, I hope that my noble friend will consider very carefully what has been said. It is principally for the reasons of the disabled that I support this amendment.
Viscount Dilhorne: I also support the amendment because my Amendment No. 6 is couched in the same terms, with the same objective. It is phrased slightly differently, but it achieves exactly what my noble friend Lord Wynford has proposed. It would be a great pity to deprive the disabled—and I think it would be very wrong to do so—of a sport in which they can participate and which the prohibition of this weapon would prevent.
There was one further point which I wished to put on this. I should be very interested to know at some convenient time later from the Minister whether any other countries in the world actually ban SLRs from civilian use and if so which countries.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Wynford made, if I may say so, a very persuasive argument why these rifles should not be included in the Section 5 category if they do not have magazine capacities greater than four cartridges. He put forward with some considerable feeling, understandably, the position of the disabled. He said that there was a fierce determination of the disabled to compete. I accept that entirely. When a person has been disabled he has every intention of doing his best to overcome that disability. For those who have up to now used self-loading rifles, one can quite see how that has been of help to them.
However, he said that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary had undertaken to look at that. My noble friend Lord Peel said that the Government had gone back on their word. I do not think that is so. This was mentioned in another place

1081
and my honourable friend said that he would undertake to consider whether there was a case for exempting self-loading rifles of up to five-shot capacity. We undertook to do that and examined it. On examination, we found that only one or two models were on the market. We concluded, as my honourable friend explained on Report in another place, that this did not justify making an exemption from the total ban on self-loading and pump-action rifles, being the weapons that they are, for the reasons which I gave at the previous debate. I do not think it would help practical shooters who readily acknowledge that they need large magazine capacity.
My noble friend Lord Swinton said—I thought in a slightly cavalier and manifestly unjust way—that he hoped that the Government would not say that the disabled were so small in number that they were not worth bothering about. I do not think that the Government have ever said that. Certainly I have never said it and it is not my intention to do so.
I am bound to say to the Committee that if Parliament decides that this type of weapon, whoever uses it, is so dangerous that it ought to be put in a restricted category and not to be allowed to be used, I find it quite difficult to say that with all the handicaps of those who are disabled, for which we have enormous sympathy nevertheless they ought to he entitled to use these weapons which are extremely dangerous. I find it hard to believe that that is a correct approach.
I do not rest the argument there on this amendment, because if my noble friend's amendment were accepted this would apply not only to the disabled; it would apply to everyone. All self-loading rifles with a magazine capacity of under four would he readily available for everyone. That bursts open the whole principle that they should be put into a Section 5 category.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I should like to add a few words. I have supported everything that the Minister has said up to now, but I wish to make the point that it is important that disabled people should not be disqualified from doing something because of their disability. That case has been very strongly put this afternoon. As the Minister has said, the amendment before us now would mean that others besides the disabled would be allowed to use these weapons. Will the Minister put forward an amendment which would make a specific case for the disabled to be able to use these weapons, which are the only kind of weapons that they can use on account of their disability?
Lord Swansea: There are very few areas of sport and recreation in which disabled people can take part, although that depends on the nature of their disability. However, shooting is a sport in which they can take part. If the nature of a person's disability permits him to hold a rifle and fire it at a target, I can see no earthly reason why he should not be allowed to do so. The governments of nearly every other Western country are much more liberal in their attitude and they trust people. Why do this Government not trust the public?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: No doubt one of the reasons why the Government in this country are more cautious is that they have looked at what has happened in the United States and seen the appalling level of casualties affecting both the civilian population and the United States police service. It would be astonishing were we to accept the argument that, because in the United States there is no adequate federal legislation on firearms as a result of the power of the National Rifle Association, we should therefore move to a similar position in this country. That is totally unacceptable.
Lord Swansea: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, forgets that the law varies considerably from one state to another in the United States. Some are fairly liberal but others are very much more restrictive than this country.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I did not wish to intervene, but with great respect I must correct my noble friend as regards the position in the United States. By a curious quirk of the American constitution Article 2, I believe, of the so-called Bill of Rights states that nothing shall prevent the citizen from carrying arms. That applies to the whole of the United States and would be enforced by the Supreme Court. No doubt the regulations in different states differ to a great extent, but they cannot infringe the constitution of the United States of America.
Earl Ferrers: In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, who asked whether the Government would put down an amendment specifically relating to disability, I remind her that we shall come to an amendment regarding disability later. My view on that amendment is the same as it is on this amendment. If these weapons are considered to be of such a dangerous character that they should not be used, I think it is right that they should not be used even by disabled people. That does not mean to say that one is not concerned about disabled people. There is enormous concern. My noble friend Lord Wynford gave four impressive examples. But there is a saying that hard cases make had law. That applies in this case.
There cannot be many disabilities which entirely preclude the use of a bolt-action rifle but would allow the use of a self-loading or pump-action rifle, as has been said. I can conceive of a disability which would mean that a shooter could use a self-loading rifle more readily than a bolt-action one, but that is not the same thing. Therefore, I hope that for those reasons the Committee will agree to maintain the premise that these weapons should be put into the Section 5 category for whatever purposes they may be used.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The noble Earl has just said that hard cases make bad law. Surely Hungerford was a hard case, but look what we have in front of us?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lady is quite right. That was a very hard case and that is the reason why we are taking action.
Lord Torphichen: The question I am about to ask would hang better on Amendment No. 6 than on this amendment, but the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, may not move that amendment. What do the Government feel will happen to the standard British Army weapon, in use from about 1957 to 1987, which I understand is a single-shot self-loading rifle based on the Belgian FN weapon? I do not know how many of these there are, but their predecessor, the Mark IV Enfield, found its second use as everybody's first training weapon in schools and Army cadet forces.
As I understand it, this Bill would totally outlaw any kind of self-loading rifle whether single shot or more than a single shot per squeeze of the trigger. Where do the Government expect the weapons for the next generation of school pupils to train on to come from? Where do the Government intend the surplus 1957 to 1987 weapons, for the sake of a label for them, to go to?
Earl Ferrers: All rifles which are of a self-loading or pump-action nature will come into this category. They will not be used by schools.
Lord Torphichen: I apologise for intervening again. I was referring to the physical disposition of the weapons. Will the Army's weapons be scrapped, thrown down a mine or otherwise destroyed? If not, what market will they be put on to?
Earl Ferrers: This Bill has no bearing on military weapons used by the military.
Lord Torphichen: I find it difficult to understand the Government's thinking behind this provision. The numbers of these weapons will be very large. There must be some understanding of whether the Government are going to pulp the weapons or scrap them or whether they will be resold.
Earl Ferrers: I do not know whether it is profitable to pursue this example. However, I shall certainly look into what my noble friend has said to see whether there is a point which I have missed. There is certainly some slight confusion in my mind, if not in my noble friend's, as he referred to a single shot self-loading weapon. Either it is a single shot weapon or it is self-loading, in which case it is more than a single shot weapon. That might be the cause of some of the confusion.
Lord Torphichen: I am sorry to return to this point again. I intended to make a distinction between the burst fire weapons, the sub-machine guns, the Kalashnikovs, and the replacement British Army weapon, which may be fired either single shot or burst, and the weapon that the British Army used between 1957 and 1987, which had to have the trigger squeezed once and repeatedly once more each time the soldier wanted a single round to be fired. There is a distinction there.
Earl Ferrers: I shall pursue that point and write to my noble friend about it.
Lord Wynford: My noble friend the Minister has once again used the phrase "enormously dangerous"
1084
as a description of this self-loading rifle. I cannot accept that. I believe there are other Members of the Committee who cannot accept it too. Any rifle is dangerous. The Lee-Enfield—I could go further back—and other rifles were all dangerous. All firearms are dangerous. But I cannot see that this one is enormously dangerous. It reloads itself. It does not fire bursts. It requires a separate trigger pressure for every single shot that is fired. That is the mechanics of it. It is not an automatic weapon; it is a semiautomatic weapon. That is the point with which I have difficulty.
Secondly, I do not see why the concession to the disabled and disadvantaged should lead to a general provision relating to everyone. I have stated specifically that the restriction would apply to certain people. I have tabled two further amendments which will provide for a greater tightening up of firearms licences.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend for a moment. He stated that he had specifically said that his amendment is restricted to certain types of people. That may be what is in his mind. However, it is not what the amendment says.
Lord Wynford: I believe that the reference to the United States is a red herring. That is a very different matter. I shall divide the House on the issue.
4.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 162.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Abinger,L.

Mar, C.

Ailesbury, M.

Milverton, L.

Blatch, B.

Monson, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mountgarrett, V.

Brain, L.

Northesk, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Peel, E.

Burton, L.

Portsmouth, E. [Teller.]

Clitheroe, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Renwick, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Cross, V.

Savile, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Shannon, E.

Erroll, E.

Strange, B.

Halsbury, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Killearn, L.

Swansea, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Swinfen, L.

Lawrence, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L

Thurso, V.

Mancroft, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belstead, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ardwick, L.

Blease, L.

Arran, E.

Blyth, L.

Attlee, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Auckland, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Balfour, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Banks, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Caithness, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Beloff, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

1085

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carnock, L.

Long, V.

Carter, L.

Lurgan, L.

Cathcart, E.

Lyell, L.

Chandos, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Chelmer, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mais, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Manton, L.

Cox, B.

Marley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Croham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mayhew, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Mersey, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Donegall, M.

Munster, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nelson, E.

Dundee, E.

Newall, L.

Eccles, V.

Nicol, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Norrie, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Onslow, E.

Ennals, L.

Orkney, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Faithfull, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Falkland, V.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pender, L.

Fortescue, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peston, L.

Gainford, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Galpern, L.

Porritt, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Portland, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Richardson, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Gray of Conlin, L.

Rochester, L.

Greenway, L.

Rodney, L.

Grey, E.

Romney, E.

Gridley, L.

Rugby, L.

Grimond, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

St. Davids, V.

Sandford, L.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Hanworth, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Sharpies, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Slim, V.

Havers, L.

Somers, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hesketh, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hives, L.

Strathspey, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hooper, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hughes, L.

Terrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Teviot, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Thurlow, L.

Jacques, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jeger, B.

Trafford, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Trumpington, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Underhill, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kennet, L,

Wigoder, L.

Kimball, L.

Wigram, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Windlesham, L.

Layton, L.

Wise, L.

Listowel, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.50 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Brain Lord Brain had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 17, after ("rim-fire") insert (", recognised pistol or revolver calibre").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I hope that when the Minister has read the Official Report he will be kind enough to write me a letter. If he will do that, I shall be very happy not to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert (-or which was manufactured before 1st January 1937").
The noble Viscount said: I have already spoken to the amendment earlier in the debate, and therefore it is not moved.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Wynford Lord Wynford moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("or which complies with magazine specifications that the Secretary of State shall from time to time by order determine, and which is possessed by a person who holds a firearm certificate issued on conditions required by section (Conditions attaching to the possession of self-loading rifles) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 7 is linked to Amendment No. 29, which is a short new clause. I beg leave to speak to both amendments at the same time and to treat them as one.
This pair of amendments concerns those people who use self-loading rifles mainly for the distinct sport and discipline of practical shooting. I say "mainly" because ordinary static target shooting can also be undertaken: competitive, or with a view to experimenting for sighting, wind layoff, quick reloading or body positioning.
Practical shooting is a highly organised sport which involved competitors moving down the range from one firing point to another, perhaps running, and then while they are on the move shooting at moving targets or at fixed targets. The sport is practised in approved clubs, and safety considerations are of the highest. I think my noble friend Lord Portsmouth will be adding some remarks about that. The sport is a discipline in the true sense. There are about 18,600 members of clubs belonging to the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association who shoot with rifle or pistol or both. That is certainly not a negligible number, and it is larger than that for those practising basketball, fencing, water skiing or weight lifting.
Limiting it to those who use only the self-loading rifle, the number is more than 6,000; but I am unable to say how much more. There is a growing schedule of international competitions throughout Europe, involving competitors from America and some from Africa. While it is not yet an Olympic sport it is expected that it will be. No other country imposes a ban to prevent their responsible citizens from developing, practising and competing in the sport.
The proposal to relegate self-loading rifles to the prohibited class has been rejected by all United Kingdom governments of whatever persuasion since the matter was put forward in the 1973 Green Paper. The proposal was not simply shelved; it was generally agreed that it should be totally rejected.
In all the discussions since August 1987 the Government have been unable to cite one certain case other than that of Hungerford in which a self-loading rifle of the type proposed to be banned was being used in crime. Pump-action rifles have never featured.
Government policy made a wrong start because the policy was based on the weapon and not on the shooter. There is no logical reason for the distinction which the Government make between different types of weapon. From the very beginning the Secretary of State has had to admit that the Bill would not have prevented another Hungerford. Indeed, just as many horrible deaths at Hungerford were caused by a weapon not to be banned as were caused by a weapon now proposed to be banned. Prevention of recurrence can best be achieved by ensuring that only those fit to hold a firearm may do so. It is pie in the sky to hope that anything will be perfect, but controls can be greatly tightened.
The only government proposal has been that there should be a declaration by the signatory of the identifying photograph that he knows of no reason against the applicant's possession of a firearm. On the other hand, the Opposition suggest amendments for medical certificates and for the checking of referees. My amendment suggests a simpler, safer, and thus an altogether surer and more effective method. Those who know best whether a person is fit to have a firearm, and who have most to lose if they get it wrong, are those who practise and love the sport. They know how swiftly the public will judge them if they are lax. They know that they, the shooters, must spot the maverick, the unreliable, the sick or the rogue. They see their fellow sportsmen frequently, and if they do not see enough of them they will take action. My amendment uses that practical control.
The new clause, Amendment No. 29, imposes in addition four statutory controls over and above those to which I have already referred. First, a certificate to hold a self-loading rifle will not be given to a novice or to a probationer. Secondly, he will have been a member of a rifle club for three years and thus be well known to many members. Thirdly, he must join a club approved for practical shooting both by the two governing bodies of the sport and by the Secretary of State. So the Home Secretary will be able to distinguish between clubs that will be able to house practical shooting and those that will not. Presumably, he will impose necessary conditions on the clubs that he approves. Finally, the applicant will have to complete a practical shooting course specially set up by the governing bodies.
Those are four new, severe and practical safeguards, all of them under the control of the Home Secretary. However, my amendment goes still further. Many believe that as there is no logical reason to distinguish between one type of rifle and another, the proposal that I have just outlined in any new clause should be sufficient. I have taken into account the fact that the Government have become hooked on what they call the central pillar of their policy. As Mr. Hogg expressed it in another place, they define self-loading rifles as,
"full-bore, fast-firing, large-magazine guns with lethal properties".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F; 3/3/88, col. 281]
The new clause that I suggest incorporates an amendment to Clause 1(2)(ab), which limits the kind of self-loading rifle that will be allowed. The amendment gives the Home Secretary the responsibility to set out the specifications which he requires for acceptable magazines. Let it be for the Home Secretary, with advice, to decide the limits. It seems likely that those concerned with practical shooting can meet with the Home Secretary and work out specifications which are reasonable and effective. They will have the new consultative committee to help them if they so wish.
My two amendments, Amendments Nos. 7 and 29, improve the law in that they greatly strengthen government and police control over the kinds of people who can own and use lawfully an SL rifle. They allow for careful discussion in order to satisfy those involved in the sport and the needs of public safety while ensuring that self-loading rifles remain under firearms certificate control. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Portsmouth: I support the two amendments of my noble friend Lord Wynford. Their principal purpose is to enable the sport of practical rifle shooting to continue. In common I believe with many noble Lords, I had never heard of practical shooting until the introduction of this Bill, although it is a recognised shooting discipline involving marksmanship against the clock for which a full bore self-loading rifle is essential.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers has referred to practical rifle shooting as a minority sport. I am not sure what constitutes a minority sport, but a figure of 6,000 plus represents a significant minority. Practical rifle shooting has been portrayed in certain quarters and in certain sections of the media as a sport designed for survivalist fanatics and therefore a sport the demise of which is to be welcomed. Far from it. The sport has a long tradition, originating with practical musketry competitions which took place before the turn of the century. I have seen for myself a demonstration of practical rifle shooting. I was impressed by the high degree of range safety and discipline observed by the shooters and the range personnel.
In practical shooting competitions organised by the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association, which is the governing body, only full members of the association may take part and before being allowed to enter any UKPSA competition a member of an affiliated club must first attend and pass a basic training course in range safety procedures and competition technique. UKPSA-accredited range safety officers must officiate. There is a match director, range master and chief range officer who run the match. In addition, there is a range safety officer who is directly responsible for each individual competitor when shooting. It should also be said that practical shooters are concerned about their public image and actively discourage civilian participants from wearing para-military gear. In addition to a high level of supervision, the practical shooter in this sport must also go through the process of obtaining a firearms certificate. That process, I know from personal experience, is extremely rigorous.

1089
The proposed new clause, as my noble friend Lord Wynford has explained, is a most sensible additional safeguard. It is entirely welcomed by the shooting fraternity as it involves a strong element of self-policing. After all, for obvious reasons, club members have a clear interest in ensuring that they do not have in their midst unsuitable or unstable individuals armed with lethal weapons.
I turn to the amendment to Clause 1 which proposes an insertion at line 17. The amendment deals with the vexed question of magazine capacity which I know has given the Government headaches. It places the decision squarely in the hands of the Secretary of State who, it is to be hoped, will be advised by the consultative committee that is to be set up under the provisions of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made reference at Second Reading to the fact that while self-loading rifles were to be prohibited, automatic pistols would remain on Section I. I agree entirely with him about the illogicality of this state of affairs. As I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, automatic pistols which can easily be concealed about the person have far more potential for harm in the wrong hands. It is also entirely possible that many of those who will lose their self-loading rifles under the provisions of the Bill will switch to automatic pistols, thereby swelling the number in circulation. That development, I am sure, no one would welcome.
Among the reams of paper on this Bill with which I have been deluged, I have received many letters from obviously responsible and law-abiding shooters who ask why they will no longer be able to own self-loading rifles. They see the abolition of a sport, widely acknowledged to be the safest of the rifle shooting disciplines. Apart from the tragedy at Hungerford, they argue, there is no record of a legally held self-loading rifle having been used to commit a crime. I am glad that it is not my lot to have to justify the decision, because there is no real justification.
At Second Reading my noble friend Lord Ferrers made repeated reference to the need to achieve the right balance. These amendments not only represent a significant tightening-up of existing laws but give the Secretary of State a much greater degree of direct control, thus providing the balance sought by my noble friend without destroying the central pillar of his policy.
The Earl of Northesk: My name is also attached to this amendment. I have already spoken to it having been a little perturbed about the grouping of Amendments Nos. 18 and 29, to which my noble friend Lord Wynford, whether rightly or wrongly I am not altogether sure, has attached Amendment No. 19. I repeat what I said when I spoke earlier. This is an attempt to legislate against people rather than against guns, which surely must be the right approach in understanding how firearms should be used.
Lord Swansea: I should like to support my noble friend in the amendment that he has moved. It is entirely logical and provides a satisfactory machinery for allowing the continued possession of self-loading rifles. The national associations, together with their affiliated clubs, are entirely willing to help and co-
1090
operate with the police in any possible way by supervising their members and by giving their recommendation to an application for a firearms certificate only if they know the member thoroughly and are satisfied that he is a bona fide shooter and a responsible person. They, as much as anyone else, are anxious to preserve the good name of their sport and not to allow it to fall into disrepute, or to have the "Rambo" image attached to it.
This type of competition shooting is carried out under the strictest safety precautions, which are rigidly enforced. Apart from anything else, if we had a national emergency—which heaven forbid!—in which a large number of the population was called to arms, we should have, as a result of this Bill, a population of adult males of military age without experience in the use of firearms in the national defence.
The National Rifle Association was founded in 1860 under a royal charter for the express purpose of maintaining the standards of musketry in Her Majesty's volunteer forces. I like to think that competitive rifle shooting will continue to serve that purpose, and that it will continue to provide a body of people with experience in the use of firearms which I hope will never be necessary for national defence. However, one never knows what may happen one day. It is painful to think that we may no longer have a pool of people who are experienced either as shooters or as instructors in shooting.
Lord Torphichen: The amendment uses the expression "self-loading rifles" in the last sentence. It takes the words from Clause 1(2)(ab) and (ac) in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. The noble Lord. Lord Wynford, quoted a definition of a self-loading rifle from the other place which was totally at odds with the idea that I had of a self-loading rifle. Can my noble friend Lord Ferrers define what is a self-loading rifle? In what way does it differ from the 1968 Act definition in Section 5(1)(a), which states:
"Any firearm which is so designed or adapted that, if pressure is applied to the trigger, missiles continue to be discharged until pressure is removed from the trigger or the magazine containing the missiles is empty".
There are both single-shot and automatic types of self-loading rifles. The Committee will wish to be sure which it is intended to define.
Earl Ferrers: On the last point of my noble friend Lord Torphichen, what goes into a Section 5 category is self-loading rifles. They are those which can carry more than one burst, or one burst at a time. They will all be in the Section 5 category.
In moving this amendment, my noble friend Lord Wynford said that the Government's policy was wrong and that they had approached the matter in the wrong way because their policy was based on the weapon and not the shooter. My noble friend is quite right. That was the basis on which the matter was approached. My noble friend and I may differ, in that he says it is the wrong approach. However, he is right in thinking that it was the approach.
The reason is simply this, as I have tried to explain. There are such weapons which are very dangerous. In drawing up the provision we tried to consider which
R1

1091
were the most unsuitable to have in the public domain. These weapons were considered to be unsuitable in the public's hands and I believe that most people would agree.
My noble friend Lord Portsmouth said that this amendment, and Amendment No. 29, would be a good addition to the Bill. He said it was a sensible additional safeguard. However, that is not so, with the greatest respect. It explodes the whole principle. The beginning of Amendment No. 29 states:
"A firearms certificate may authorise a person to possess, purchase or acquire a self-loading or pump-action rifle".
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that people are not able to purchase, acquire or possess such a rifle. Therefore, although I understand my noble friend's concern, I am bound to say, because this issue is one of the central pillars of the Bill, that he cannot be quite so ingenious as to argue that his provision could easily be accepted.
I hope that my noble friend will realise that for those reasons I cannot advise the Committee to accept his amendments.
Lord Wynford: I find it difficult at the moment to gather up all the arguments from the Minister. I did not hear him clearly. I do not see why this amendment should be smeared with the accusation that it is not what it says it is. It provides very considerable additional safeguards. However, I should like to read the record of these exchanges. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment perhaps I may clarify one matter. I did not mean to smear anything that he said. He said that these amendments add additional safeguards. They add additional safeguards only once one has exploded the principle that these weapons should not be available to the public. Having destroyed that principle—which my noble friend wishes to do—he then puts in the safeguards. I was trying to tell my noble friend that the amendment demolishes one of the central pillars of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("or which is certified as designed and manufactured before 31st December 1936").
The noble Lord said: I hope that this amendment is in a rather different category although it applies to the so-called self-loading rifles. They are very old weapons. The amendment refers to a weapon which was designed and manufactured prior to 1937. They are therefore at least 50 years old. These weapons were designed for a rather different ammunition from that which is fired by modern weapons.
This point has not been brought out today. It is the ammunition which is more devastating than the weapon. Some of these modern bullets are extremely damaging. The main reason that I inserted this cutoff date is that it would be pre-1938, the start of the war. Furthermore, it would be before the Garand rifle. This was an extremely successful and efficient
1092
weapon which had not at that time come into being. Therefore many of these weapons are aged weapons.
In 1986 there were only 27 serious notifiable offences involving rifles. But I do not know how many of those offences concerned failure to notify the police, poaching, or whatever. I should be most surprised if even one of those 27 offences involved any of the fairly scarce weapons which I am now discussing. I think that it would be most unlikely that they would ever be involved. The weapons would be retained under a Section 1 certificate.
I draw the Committee's attention to remarks made from the Front Bench in this place in 1981 by the late Lord Avon when he was Minister of State. He said:
"Research has conclusively shown that there is no link between the level of crime and the number of guns held under a firearms certificate".
Then, again, the Home Secretary in 1983, when speaking to the Police Federation, said:
"The link between armed crime and the private possession of firearms is not clear-cut as is sometimes imagined. There is, in fact, no clear unambiguous evidence that the tightening of controls would have a significant effect on crime".
I feel that it would be a criminal act if such weapons were to fall within the terms of the Act, because they are old weapons and part of our national heritage. My noble friend on the Front Bench referred to the fact that they "should not be used". I am not quite sure what he meant by the word "used". Most of these weapons, being 50 years old, are not likely to be fired. It may be said that they would be taken out for exhibition but I am not sure how you define the term "use". I hope that when he said they will not be used that he was in fact referring to firing.
I feel that it would be a grave mistake if this part of our national heritage were to be destroyed because of this simple matter which is in no way likely to affect crime. I beg to move.
Viscount Dilhorne: With respect, I thought that it was 1919 and not 1936 as stated in the amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: It is 1936.
Viscount Dilhorne: I am much obliged. I should like to express my support for the amendment but can add very little to what my noble friend Lord Burton said. If these weapons, which are part of our national heritage, had to be deactivated or in any way changed that would in fact reduce their value. That factor should also be taken into account. They are part of our heritage and I think that that aspect should be considered by my noble friend the Minister.
Lord Swansea: I should like to support my noble friend in this amendment. The number of self-loading rifles tried and made before the date mentioned in the amendment is fairly small. They were nearly all experimental rifles or prototypes. There are not many of them about, but such rifles as there are should be preserved. They are of value to collectors; they are of interest to students of military history and they are also of value to museums. I do not recommend that many of them should actually be taken out to the range and fired now, with modern ammunition, but such as there are in this country should certainly be preserved.
Lord Renwick: I, too, should like to add my support to the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Burton on the basis that the Bill as a whole will involve a great deal of work for the authorities. Therefore, if we can exclude such weapons which are of a certain age and are most unlikely to be used in a situation such as the one which I believe caused this Firearms (Amendment) Bill to be put forward, I am sure that the Minister will look sympathetically at this amendment and the following one.
Earl Ferrers: I am most grateful to my noble friend for explaining the purpose of the amendment tabled in his name. He seeks to make a date before which it would be perfectly all right to have such weapons. Several dates have been put forward; for example, there is one in Amendment No. 8, the next one in Amendment No. 9 refers to the 31st December 1918 and in an earlier one, Amendment No. 5, reference is made to the 1st January 1937. All those dates are inevitably arbitrary.
Our proposal to prohibit high powered self-loading pump-action rifles is based on their lethality and not on the date when they were made. Efficient, self-loading rifles existed before the date which my noble friend has put down and many are still in circulation. Moreover, I suspect that we could expect large numbers of such guns to be imported from the United States and elsewhere to fill the gap left by the ban on more modern weapons.
It is worth remembering that many models of guns which would be affected by these amendments were manufactured from early this century right through to the 1960s without any significant change in their specification. They are therefore just as lethal if they were made before 1936 or 1937 as they are if manufactured after that date.
When my noble friend Lord Dilhorne said that such weapons are part of our national heritage, I think we must be clear—if one can be clear in this area—about what he is talking. When one talks about heritage one tends to think of items which belong to the past. Antiques come under the category of "heritage". Indeed, the Firearms Act 1968 exempts from the certification procedures antique firearms which are sold, transferred, purchased, acquired or possessed as a curiosity or an ornament. Therefore antiques are covered and are not affected by the Bill. What my noble friend seeks to do is to suggest an arbitrary cut-off point. I am bound to tell him that I would find it difficult to accept that because a weapon made before a certain date can be just as dangerous as one which was made after that date.
Viscount Dilhorne: I wonder whether my noble friend can help me on this point. The date of 1936 which was fixed was not in fact an arbitrary cut-off date; there was a reason for it. As I understand it, in 1937 one started to get in America mass production of SLRs—especially the Garand, which has an integrated magazine. Therefore the amendment deals with weapons which were not mass produced but which were specially made, probably by special order. My understanding was, although I may be wrong—if I am, I am sure my noble friend will tell
1094
me—that one is not talking about a great number of weapons that would fall within that category.
Earl Ferrers: That may well be so. However, the fact is that if it is considered to be undesirable to have self-loading or pump-action rifles because of the nature of the danger they pose, then it does not matter whether they were made before or after 1936. I am afraid I cannot help my noble friend any more than that.
Lord John-Mackie: I should like to make the point that such weapons would surely be in the Imperial War Museum and if anyone wanted to see them they would be able to view them there.
Earl Ferrers: That of course is perfectly all right.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: It is already covered.
Lord Burton: I am very disturbed. I am sorry if I was incoherent when I made my submission. However, I thought I had made it quite clear why we picked 1936; as my noble friend Lord Dilhorne said it was not an arbitrary date. It was picked for a specific reason; namely, that the bulk of such weapons were not then in operation. Many such weapons are now in private collections and have never caused any trouble anywhere, so far as I am aware. They must be 50 years old and during that time they have caused no trouble. I cannot understand why my noble friend suggests that they might now do so; it seems to be illogical. A red herring was introduced about importing from America. Surely import restrictions can be imposed.
I am referring to the few weapons which are in the hands of private collectors at the present time. Antiques are said to be covered, but these weapons will never become antiques. They should do so; that is the object of the amendment. The very articles which will be of great interest in 50 years time will be destroyed and for that reason I move the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend says that he cannot understand my argument. It was that many models of guns were manufactured from early in the century until the 1960s with no change in their specification. We are worried about whether they can he used. The fact that they have not been used is of great advantage. As regards banning such guns, I should like to point out that if a bullet goes up the spout it will do so with the same speed and accuracy whether the gun was built before or after a certain date. 1 am bound to tell my noble friend that for that reason I find it difficult to accept his amendment, although I understand his concern.
Lord Burton: I am sorry, but clearly I have little option other than to withdraw the amendment. I hope that my noble friend will look carefully at what has been said. I believe that to destroy such weapons is vandalism. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 9:
Page I, line 18, after ("gun") insert ("other than one which is certified as designed and manufactured before 31st December 1918").
The noble Lord said: I do not believe it can be said that these are highly dangerous weapons; it is a question of our national heritage. On this occasion I have gone back to 1918. That is not an arbitrary date but a date from which many of the weapons became well established. There are only a few weapons in existence which were made prior to that date. They are now 70 years old and, as far as I know, none has been used in crime during that period. Yet according to the Bill these old weapons must be destroyed. I cannot follow that and I hope that this time I shall receive a more reasonable answer from my noble friend.
In the Standing Committee in another place it was agreed that these old guns should not be banned and that they should be excluded from the Bill. The committee in another place agreed that but the Government removed the provision on Report with a three-line Whip. I do not believe that that is reasonable.
My noble friend will see that 1 have fallen over backwards to try to be reasonable. I hope only that he also will do so. In agreeing to the amendment he will in no way be endangering public security. I beg to move.
Earl Nelson: I cannot see how my noble friend, Lord Burton, can argue this amendment any better than he argued the previous one. The fact of the matter is that these guns are still in existence and up until 1960 they were little changed in design. The Shooters Rights Association propaganda magazine freely states that self-loading rifles have been used by shooters in this country since 1905. I suggest that the date to which one goes back is rather academic.
Earl Ferrers: I agree whole-heartedly with my noble friend Lord Nelson. I wondered how my noble friend, Lord Burton, would be able to argue the amendment any better than he argued the previous one. Indeed, he used almost the identical words. He said that before 1918 only very few weapons were made and he used almost identical words in respect of 1936 as proposed in a previous amendment.
The fact is that worldwide at least 100,000 self-loading rifles were manufactured by 1910. Therefore, if my noble friend tries to use that as a date he is using another arbitrary weapon. If he uses the same argument that not many weapons were made prior to those dates, as he did in respect of an earlier amendment, it means that not many weapons could have made between 1918 and 1936.
The same argument applies in respect of this amendment as applied to the previous one. It is that if they are capable of firing in the way in which they were manufactured so to do, they are dangerous weapons. The date of manufacture is relatively irrelevant.
Lord Burton: The difference is that in respect of these weapons the Committee in the other place agreed to the amendment. With a three-line Whip the
1096
Government arbitrarily took it out. I have noticed that the only other speaker apart from the Minister and myself has been the voice of the police. I can assure Members of the Committee that that is the great worry in respect of the Bill. It will give so much power to the police, some of whom have voiced the fact that they do not wish to have any firearms left in this country. This is a big step on the way towards that and that is why I am so worried about the Bill. However, I obviously have no option but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 18 after ("gun") insert ("excluding all air weapons").
The noble Viscount said: The purpose of the amendment is to remove from prohibition all air weapons, which must be included at the moment. I suggest, perhaps impertinently, that the Government have got it wrong and have done so from their point of view, not from those which have been propounded this afternoon.
It is clear that air weapons are included in the section as it is drawn. There is no definition of "pump-action" and to expel an air slug from the sharp end of an air gun one must pump air into it. That is a pump gun, but there is no definition of it. I suggest that the matter should be remedied by the Minister unless he wishes to exclude air weapons in the action of pump guns.
There is a little more to the issue than that. As regards the different types of air guns the Diana, a popular gun, has air pumped into the chamber in the way I have described. The air is then released behind the slugs, which go out one at a time. If instead of that air gun one buys what is called a "Saxby Palmer", in that case the cartridges are pumped into the gun. One can have 10 slugs in the chamber and the air operation is slightly different. Will the Minister make clear whether air weapons are included by omission or whether my amendment should be inserted into the Bill? I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: An air gun is excepted from the certification requirements of the 1968 Act unless it is classed as being especially dangerous; that is if it is capable of discharging a missile so that, on being discharged from the muzzle of the weapon, the missile has kinetic energy in excess of 6 foot pounds in the case of an air pistol or in excess of 12 foot pounds in the case of any other air gun. Air guns which are especially dangerous fall under Section 1 of the Act and an owner must obtain a firearms certificate.
My noble friend is concerned about air guns and their use. The compressed air gun is exempt from the 1968 Act. If it is very powerful, it can be controlled under the dangerous air weapons rules. Therefore, that comes under the firearms legislation. Gas fired air weapons are not exempt and come under Section 1. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend's amendment is not necessary.
Viscount Dilhorne: I am obliged to my noble friend for explaining the matter so clearly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1. line 22, leave out ("40") and insert ("36").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment and I have deliberately chosen the figure 36 which is significantly below the figure 40 so that we do not become involved in an argument as to whether I mean 39, 391 or 38. I suggest that there is a figure lower than 40 which one should consider as an acceptable length for a self-loading or pump-action shotgun.
The main reason for that is that I have a catalogue which in standard form for ladies' or youths' guns mentions in the case of a pump-action gun an overall length of 40 inches and in another case of a self-loading I 2-bore shotgun an overall length of 391 inches. Let us suppose that the person wishing to purchase this gun is of shorter stature or has a shorter arm than the standard. The gunsmith would normally fit the gun to the purchaser by reducing the length of the stock. That would immediately bring what was in one case a perfectly permissible gun and in the other case a non-standard gun into the nonstandard category.
I should like to know the Government's reasons for settling on 40 inches rather than a lesser figure. I shall not press my amendment. I want to hear the information and to see whether on Report it is possible to reach a compromise figure which we could all accept and agree. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: These amendments relate to Clause 1(2)(ac) which defines those self-loading or pump-action smooth bore guns which are to become prohibited. Both amendments seek to change the definition. Amendment No. 11 proposes a lower maximum length for such guns for the purpose of prohibition; Amendment No. 12 proposes a cut-off date for prohibition.
We have considered where the line on these definitions should be drawn very carefully. We have identified no legitimate sporting use for those weapons which have a shorter overall length of less than 40 inches, and do not consider that the public interest would be served by adjusting this. Although the noble Lord was kind enough to say that he would not press his amendment, if it were accepted it would weaken the provisions in the Bill as they are at the moment.
Lord Brain: Yet again I do not believe that the Government have answered the point. I have a catalogue showing sporting guns which are normally available, the length of which is right on the margin of the 40 inch length which the Government propose. 1 do not believe that it is an answer to say that the Government have done their homework and 40 inches is the right length. I believe that there is a need for greater statistics. Perhaps the Government would
1098
like to consider the matter and give me a little more information and if that is forthcoming—
Earl Ferrers: I believe that the noble Lord would like me to say something. The noble Lord said that I had not answered his point. I answered the matter as best I could. I did not answer the specific point which he raised because he has the advantage of a catalogue which I do not have. However, I shall certainly take the noble Lord's point into account and write to him on the matter.
As with all these matters, I do not believe that there is a specific magic about 40 inches as opposed to 391 or 401 inches. One has to draw the line at what appears to be an appropriate place. However, I shall write to the noble Lord on the specific point raised.
Lord Brain: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 12:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert ("or which was manufactured before 1st January 1937").
The noble Viscount said: I shall not move this amendment because it has already been spoken to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 1, line 23, after ("gun") insert ("Much has four or more chambers").
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to the proposed prohibition on any smooth-bore revolver gun. Because of the concession which the Government made in a Standing Committee in another place, self-loading pump-action shotguns with a magazine capacity of not more than two cartridges were exempted from that prohibition. That still remains the case in this Bill.
However, there is a class of revolver guns with a cylinder containing a certain number of chambers. They are not very common. At present they are mostly collectors items. However, one must not overlook the possibility that at some time in the future that type of gun may become more common for economic reasons because I believe that they would be less expensive to construct than a current double-barrelled shotgun. Therefore, I believe that it is conceivable that these guns may become more commonly used in the future.
I believe that our sportsmen and manufacturers should not be unnecessarily restricted in the type of guns which they are allowed to make. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Here we are of course dealing with smooth-bore revolver shotguns which are presently manufactured with a magazine capacity of up to 12 rounds. The Dragon and the Striker are two examples of that type. Our understanding is that they are used for riot control purposes by some countries overseas. They are not used for any sporting purposes and the Government do not intend to use them for riot control here. Therefore, we have decided to raise them to the prohibited category.

1099
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Swansea for saying that the type of guns which he wishes to see exempted are those with a capacity for three shots in the revolving chamber. We have not been able to identify any such guns manufactured with three chambers or less. To our knowledge none is envisaged at present. If my noble friend has information that this sort of weapon is likely to be manufactured in any number then we should have to take account of that. Our information is that that is not likely to happen as there seems to be no need for a revolving shotgun with three chambers rather than 12. That is why we thought it appropriate to keep them in that category.
Lord Swansea: I believe that my noble friend's attitude to this amendment is the same as that to his own Amendment No. 23 as regards development which might arise in the future. The type of gun with which this amendment is concerned may not be commonly used—certainly not for sporting purposes. It may be used for riot control. Personally, I am not concerned with that type of shotgun, but possibly people who shoot may be. In any case, I can see that there are technical difficulties here and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 1, line 24, after ("for") insert (". 22 or").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is an attempt to bring paragraph (ad) into line with paragraph (ac). Under (ac) one is permitted to have a pump-action or smooth-bore gun if it is chambered for ·22 rim-fire cartridges, which are used for ratting or similar purposes. I understand that there are also in use and in circulation smooth-bore revolver guns, again using the identical ·22 shot-loaded rim-fire cartridges. It seems a nonsense to me to permit this in a magazine-type gun but not in a revolver-type gun. In this amendment I seek to bring the two categories into line and I hope that for once we have found an amendment that the Government view favourably. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: We have at earlier stages gone quite a long way to meet the concerns of the shooting community by exempting from prohibition those short-barrelled pump-action or short-barrelled self-loading smooth-bore guns chambered for·.22 rim-fire cartridges, but I think that a distinction has to be drawn with revolving smooth-bore shotguns. Those guns are generally smooth-bore conversions of Section 1 revolvers—rifles rather than purpose-built weapons, and the availabilty of the more lethal bulleted·22 rim-fire ammunition, in addition to the shot cartridges which they are intended to be used with, has led to their being used in crime. We should therefore be hesitant about including them.
Lord Brain: While there may be a few, I understand that there is also a significant number of specially made long-barrelled weapons in this category.
With regard to the latter remark, there is available—albeit not often in this country—9mm
1100
rim-fire ball ammunition which could equally well be used in the 9mm revolving chamber shotgun. I find it difficult to follow the Government's argument but perhaps on reading it in Hansard I may see it more clearly. In view of that, I shall withdraw the amendment. If, on thinking about it, the Minister has any thoughts that he might like to write to me about I shall gratefully receive any letter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Dithorne Viscount Dithorne moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 1, line 29, at end insert—
("(af) any rifle or smooth bore gun designed or adapted to reduce the velocity of propelling gases on the existing barrel to a velocity of less than the speed of sound:").
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 all affect the same matter. One doubt I had about them is that perhaps they would be better placed in Clause 2 of the Bill headed "Weapons requiring firearm certificate". The purpose of these amendments is that silencers, or sound moderators, which I understand is a technical term, should come under Section 1 control. That means, if I understand it correctly, that the holder must have, and must give, sound and good reasons to have, hire, possess, purchase or acquire them, in the same way as he would for a pistol, revolver or rifle. The -22 silencer, which is a fairly popular one, is used on air rifles. That is not on the certificate. The same silencer can be used on a rim-fire rifle, which has to be authorised on a Section 1 certificate.
By this series of amendments I seek to propose that my noble friend the Minister should look more closely, between now and the Report stage, at the effect of having silencers on weapons and consider whether or not they should form part of a prohibition. At the moment one may have silencers on shotguns, which is a very popular ruse of poachers. The amendments that I have put down would prevent poachers from possessing them, in the main, and would enable the police to prevent the use of these weapons by taking them away. What happens, I understand—some of your Lordships may be more knowledgeable in the way of the poacher—is that the cartridge is emptied, the silencer is put on, candle wax is put into the cartridge and, while it is soft and not solidified, as many shots are put in so that a one-ball pellet surrounded by candle wax goes out through the silencer and cannot be picked up. Such a pellet can kill a deer. That is a dangerous weapon. I am not sure whether that is or is not covered by Section 1 of the Act. If it is not, I hope that my noble friend will make clear why it is not covered.
If you have a ·410 and you put a silencer on to it, that silencer can be used on ·45 calibre Colt revolver—the revolver which was used in Vietnam by the Americans. It seems to me that, if the Bill is directed towards allowing sportsmen to continue their sport within the limited context that we have heard this afternoon, there is no gound for anyone to have silencers that can be used on shotguns to poach game and other things in the dead of night—which is when it is usually done—when there is no chance of

1101
their being picked up. The use of a silencer can be an aid to a deadly weapon and can prevent a crime being picked up.
As I said when moving these amendments, it may be that they fit more felicitously into Clause 2 of the Bill: I looked at that clause and wondered whether they would or would not. I have probably backed the wrong 50:50 choice by putting it in here, but I shall be happy to amend that at a later date. This was a matter that was discussed at some length in Standing Committee F in the other place and, I think, left rather in the air. It is for that reason that I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider the points in the amendments I have put forward. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: I think my noble friend may perhaps have overlooked one point in his Amendment No. 15. What controls the velocity of a bullet is not the gun itself but the cartridge which is used in it. Some cartridges produce a muzzle velocity in excess of the speed of sound and some produce a muzzle velocity below the speed of sound. There are a good many ·22 rim-fire cartridges which produce the latter velocity, and it has been found by manufacturers that the best accuracy for competition purposes is produced by this ammunition which is below the speed of sound. My noble friend may perhaps not have been previously aware of this point, but it has an important bearing on his amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: The idea of having a sound moderator on a gun is, clearly, to cut down the amount of noise. I have a ·22 which has a sound moderator but I had to get the modification specially included on the firearms licence in order to obtain it. It is vitally important, if one is using a sound moderator, to have shot which is below the speed of sound in order to avoid the sharp crack when the shot goes through the sound barrier.
I have to say that the idea of using a sound moderator on a shotgun is alarming. I have not come across it but no doubt it exists. With a ·22, when one is after rabbits or vermin, a silencer makes all the difference in the world. It gives the chance of a second shot.
6 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Dilhorne wondered whether the amendment might be fitted more felicitously—that was, I think, the word he used—in another part of the Bill. I am not sure whether that is the case. My noble friend said that poachers use sound moderators and silencers, which is perfectly true; but so do farmers and other people who legitimately use shotguns fitted with sound moderators and silencers for vermin control. Therefore, if the Government were to suggest that they should be banned I fear that my noble friend might find even greater opposition than there has been to this modest amendment before us.
I do not believe that we can justifiably raise this sort of device, or even shotguns with an integral silencer, into the prohibited category. However, any
1102
accessory to a Section 1 firearm—which is not the same as a shotgun—designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon is already subject to certification. Any firearm or shotgun which is so designed or adapted is subject to the same level of control as one which is not. The existing controls on both silencers and the weapons to which they can be fitted are adequate in the context in which they are used.
Viscount Dilhorne: I wish to correct my noble friend on one small matter. I was not aware that I used the word "banned" but no doubt Hansard will show that I did. I said that I wished that sound moderators could be put in the category in which they were controlled; not banned, as SLRs are banned. I want them brought under control, as are rifles, and registered so that they are part and parcel of the whole.They are used with revolvers and with other weapons and in those circumstances that would be reasonably acceptable. I do not think I said that they should be banned.
Earl Ferrers: I dare say my noble friend did not use the word "banned" but that is the effect of his amendment. To use the word "banned" would put them into the prohibited category.
Viscount Dilhorne: There is nothing further I can add. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): Is Amendment No. 18 not moved?
Viscount Dilhorne: Not moved.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I now call Amendment No. 19.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 1, line 29, at end insert—
("(2A) (i) No firearms certificate shall authorise a person to possess, purchase or acquire a self-loading, or pump-action rifle to which section 5(2)(ab) below applies unless that person—

(a) is a physically disabled person prevented by that disability from using other types of rifle; or

(b) has held a firearms certificate for another type of rifle for a continuous period of three years immediately preceding his application under this section; and

(c) has served a period of probationary membership and qualified for full membership of a society, club or association approved by the Secretary of State as being suitable for sporting, target, or competition shooting with self loading action rifles; and

(d) has stated in the application for approval the type, style, calibre and description of rifle and cartridge for which authority is sought.").

The noble Viscount said: This amendment has already been largely discussed, put before this Committee and withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. I think my noble friend said "not moved" to Amendment No. 18. We are now on Amendment No. 19.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 19 is the amendment called.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: The confusion is possibly my fault. I was prompting my noble friend, I hope correctly, because he has already spoken to Amendment No. 18 in a previous speech.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I thought that my noble friend was not going to move Amendment No. 18 and that he wanted to say so.
Earl Ferrers: I think my noble friend Lord Dilhorne reacted to the prompting from my noble and learned friend because I thought I heard him say "not moved".
Viscount Dilhorne: I thought I said "not moved" to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. 1 then thought I heard Amendment No. 19 called. However, I have not spoken to Amendment No. 18.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: 1 call Amendment No. 18 in the name of the noble Viscount. Lord Dilhorne.
Viscount Dilhorne: Perhaps I may be permitted to speak to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 together if that would be of assistance to the Committee.
Amendment No. 18 is similar to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wynford, but drafted in a slightly different way. I know that I have the barrier—if I may so call it—of having to convince my noble friend on the Front Bench, if this amendment is to succeed, that these SLR weapons are not of such an enormously dangerous character. I will be brief because it is a large wall to climb over and I am not very agile.
Amendment No. 18 is intended to provide a means by which people could, with sufficient controls, own SLRs. It is, I hope, a way to overcome the difficulties regarding the disabled and ladies, who find SLRs useful weapons to use, and the competitive shooters. There are four main provisions which lay down the ground rules. The Committee will see that the amendment begins by excluding pump-action self-loading guns. Incidentally, the reference to Section 5(2)(ab) should read Section 5(1)(ab) which is in line with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Wynford and relates, of course, to the principal Act.
Paragraph (a) of the amendment allows physically disabled persons, prevented by their disability from using other types of rifle, to use self-loading or pump-action rifles. The provisions that I recommend in any move towards allowing SLRs, even in a limited form, so that people can compete with them, are slightly different from my noble friend's proposals. One difference is that such people must hold a firearms certificate for another type of rifle. That has been very fully addressed by my noble friend. By some chance the period of three years is the same. There is no conspiracy to table two amendments at the same time on the same subject; it is by accident that it has occurred. The three years is a requirement before a
1104
person may be allowed to proceed with any application under that subsection to own a SLR or pump-action gun.
In referring to pump-action guns, there are guns which are not mentioned in the Bill at all and I do not know where they stand. These are automatics which are often described as lever guns. They have a lever that sticks out. There may have been an innocent drafting omission. If not, it would be useful to know for what reasons these guns are treated differently to pump-action guns.
I have elaborated under paragraph (c) the probationary membership and qualification required. I have slightly altered the terminology to "society, club or association" because to include one would exclude the others. I shall not put that into Latin because I am not very good at it. I have forgotten most of what I ever knew of the language and in any case I am sure that there are other noble Lords more than capable of fulfilling that task.
The fourth condition requires an application for approval to state,
"the type, style, calibre and description of"
the weapon required. That is again an omnibus requirement to put in every particular about the weapon someone wishes to acquire. I am the first to admit that there is a lacuna, a gap, in that amendment. If someone wishes to use such a rifle for sporting purposes—for example, stalking —there would need to be an amendment to (c) or (d). From the way in which I have drawn the amendment one would need to be a member of "a society, club or association" before one could go stalking. I am sure that many who participate in the sport are not members of clubs or associations or the other category of membership. However, they may be and I believe that it would be wrong for them to be excluded from it.
I now speak to Amendment No. 19 which is taken from the Act. Its purpose is this. If one has an SLR and limits the capacity of the magazine to a certain number of cartridges about which I am not feeling at all dogmatic—it may be three, four or five cartridges as in the case of a bolt-action rifle—anything beyond that would be illegal and totally prohibited. The use of the weapon with that magazine would be prohibited. I believe it to be within the capability of those abused, hardworked and overworked statutory draftsmen, to devise a wording sufficient to deal with that matter. The wording in the Act seems to me to be satisfactory but it may be that the wording of Amendment No. 19 does not cater for the problem. This amendment goes a little further than that tabled by my noble friend Lord Wynford. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: There are a few observations that we wish to make about this amendment. We do not believe that a provision aimed at the disabled should be wrapped up with an entirely different category and in particular with the category of person who,
"has held a firearms certificate for another type of rifle for a continuous period of three years immediately preceding his application under this section;".
The Committee rejected Amendment No. 2 which was said to be aimed exclusively at the disabled

1105
though the proposed amendment in that case was wholly general in character. Here we have an amendment which is directed in part at the disabled, but it is wrapped up with other categories and that cannot be right. If there is a case for some easing of the controls as regards the disabled in order that they should not be prevented substantially from enjoying rifle shooting, surely it should be dealt with specifically and not in the context of other subjects.
We do not believe that the Committee should be impressed by any amendment which attempts to bring in a general loosening of controls upon these weapons on the back of the Committee's natural sympathy for the disabled sportsman or woman. We feel that this amendment is guilty of such an attempt because it couples physical disability with preventing the use of other kinds of rifle, with a general exception for those who have held for three years certificates for rifles and who belong to approved rifle clubs. When the noble Earl replies to the discussion we should welcome it if he could tell the Committee what consideration the Government have given to the special needs of the disabled and whether in the Government's view there can be any amendment which can apply exclusively to the disabled. We are firmly of the view that there should be no general loosening of control over guns on the back of a generalised sympathy for the disabled.
As regards the drafting of the amendment, we find rather ambiguous the use of the word "or" after (2A)(a) and the word, "and" after (b) and (c). Perhaps the noble Viscount can explain to the Committee whether he contends that conditions (c) and (d) apply only to (b) cases or to (a) cases as well. As the amendment stands it is not clear.
There is a more fundamental question upon which we should like assistance. The noble Viscount corrected his amendment from Section 5(2)(ab) to 5(1)(ab). If a rifle is a rifle to which the new Section 5(1)(ab) applies, is there any scope for a firearms certificate to be granted at all? Is it not a prohibited weapon under the principal Act? If so, it may not be possessed or acquired without the authority of the Secretary of State. I believe there is some assent to that. I believe it is not the intention behind these amendments that the Secretary of State should be able only to give his authority in the cases specified in this amendment, thus tightening the controls upon self-loading and pump-action rifles still further. if I am right then I cannot see the purpose of the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Auckland: I have listened very carefully to my noble friend and I bow to his great legal knowledge. However, I believe that there is one fundamental objection as regards paragaph (a). Who is to decide the amount of physical disability? Will a medical certificate be necessary? Obviously, one sympathises with people who are disabled whether it concerns shooting or playing cricket or any other kind of sport. We are here discussing weapons of a very dangerous and serious nature. While one has sympathy for those who are handicapped, as my noble friend the Minister said, we must at all times, albeit reluctantly, think in terms of the safety of the general public.
1106
There is also an objection to paragraph (d). The police already have enough difficulty in the issuing of firearms certificates. My interpretation of the amendment may be completely wrong, but many other kinds of information will need to be given which will add a great deal to the workload of the police authorities and the magistrates. For those reasons I do not think that these amendments should be accepted.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Dilhorne said that he had a difficult wall to climb and I believe that he has. I also have a difficult wall to climb because I have tried to persuade my noble friend that the Government's view is that these weapons are of such a nature that they should not he in private hands. That has not prevented my noble friend, quite reasonably I suppose, tabling such an amendment. This amendment would give people the ability to use self-loading and pump-action firearms. Both Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 propose that a shooter should hold a firearms certificate for at least three years and should meet certain other criteria. Those criteria are so widely drawn that more or less anyone who meets the three-year requirement would be able to make out a case for acquiring one of these guns. As soon as one does that, one undermines one of the central pillars on which the Bill is based.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who said that he did not feel that we should loosen the strict provisions in the Bill. As the noble Lord said, everyone has great sympathy for the disabled and one would not wish to take action to inhibit what they do unless it is necessary. We believe that it is necessary. I appreciate the concern that handicapped shooters may be disadvantaged by the Government's proposal to prohibit such guns. However, a blanket entitlement for handicapped shooters to possess these weapons, as my noble friend suggested, would be inappropriate.
My noble friend Lord Auckland put his finger on the point when he asked about the definition of "disabled". There are different types and degrees of disability, many of which would have no effect on a person's ability to use a bolt-action rifle. Unless the definition of "disabled" were carefully restricted, I think that quite a number of shooters would suddenly discover a disability which neither they nor anyone else had previously noticed.
It is difficult to envisage a disability which would entirely preclude the use of a bolt-action rifle but allow the use of a self-loading or pump-action one. I find it difficult to think of a disability which would mean that a shooter could use a self-loading rifle more readily than a bolt-action one, but that is not quite the same thing. Modifications can he made to bolt-action guns; and padded jackets can be used. One of the most effective measures is to change to a calibre and cartridge loading known to generate low levels of recoil.
Alternative measures can be taken by the disabled. I realise that that may be inconvienient to them but the inconvenience for the number of people who would be affected justifies keeping these weapons in the Section 5 category.
Lord Monson: I hope the noble Earl will forgive me if this question has been put to him before. How many crimes have been committed over the past 20 years or so in which self-loading or pump-action weapons have been utilised?
Earl Ferrers: I do not have the figures with me; but even if I had they would not really be very helpful. The whole point is that there is a requirement—not necessarily by those who participate in the shooting lobby but in the country as a whole—to tighten up the law in regard to weapons of extreme danger. That is the whole purpose behind the Bill. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that these weapons have been used on occasions. The public are concerned that these weapons, dangerous as they are, should not be in the hands of private individuals. That is why we have taken these measures.
Lord Gisborough: Is it not a fact that the only ones that have been used have not been held on certificates? Therefore it is only a matter of law enforcement.
Lord Ferrers: I do not think that is so. However, if it is so, that is an even stronger argument for having the law so that one can know where the guns are, which at the moment we do not.
Viscount Dilhorne: In view of what the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, have said, I should like at this stage to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert ("other than one designed for use for pyrotechnic purposes or in a signalling apparatus.").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the hope that the Government will tell me that it is totally unnecessary. Any sensible wildfowler going on to the marshes, over the sea wall at any time, day or night will have in his equipment—because mists may blow up, tides may come in or he may have an accident—12-bore cartridges. They will be loaded either to fire a coloured flare which will fire and show up as a rocket, going up the whole time and flaring, or go up and burst, again as a flare, or draw attention to a flare. The cartridge produces a sound that is in no way like the sound of normal 12-bore shotgun. It is a signalling device. As presently worded subsection (3)(c) on page 2 of the Bill probably bans these cartridges. For the noble Earl's information I have a leaflet which I shall pass to him later on in case he is not aware of the type of cartridges to which I am referring. This is a serious safety matter. If they are covered by subsection (3)(c) we should allow them to be permitted for this valuable purpose. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Brain, was kind enough to say that he tabled the amendment in order that I might assure him that it is totally unnecessary. I can so assure him. The amendment would specifically exclude from prohibition rockets or shells which are designed for use in pyrotechnic
1108
apparatus or in signalling equipment. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 already restricts the prohibition to rockets and shells designed to explode immediately before impact. By so doing that excludes the flares used for signalling and also rockets and shells where the explosive is used primarily for pyrotechnic effect. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Lord Brain: I thank the noble Earl very much. I thought that that was the case but I felt it necessary to probe for certainty. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert—
"(3A) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) An authority shall be given under this section where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person possesses a firearm of historic, artistic or scientific interest which should not he altered from its original form.".").
The noble Lord said: In this amendment I am again seeking to protect the country's heritage and without this time any possibility of causing danger to the public. So far as I can see we have been given no details about how weapons are to be immobilised. This is absolutely crucial in regard to several parts of the Bill. Will it be adequate to remove the firing pin? If not, how severely will we have to mutilate our weapons before we can say that they are immobilised? This is important because there are a good many fine weapons of considerable artistic and sentimental value. It is only reasonable that we should know to what extent we are expected to destroy these weapons. I only hope that in this case the Government will not show too much vandalism. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The whole purpose of this part of the Bill is to seek to ensure that pump-action or self-loading weapons should go into the category which prevents them from being used at all. That is the whole philosophy. My noble friend's amendment does not alter that very much. The whole purpose is that these kinds of rifles should not be in public hands because of their lethality.
Lord Burton: That still does not answer the question. How seriously shall we have to vandalise a weapon before it is allowed to remain in private hands? This is fundamental. As I said, some extremely valuable weapons are liable to be destroyed. I have spoken on previous occasions about the pigeon post and not receiving answers. Perhaps my noble friend did not recieve it the first time. I hope that this time there will be an answer because I believe it is fundamental to many parts of the Bill that we must know about this. There has been talk about marking weapons and other kinds of issues. But it is important that we know what we are expected to do.
Earl Ferrers: Weapons which are of historic interest can he held in museums under a special museums licence, but they cannot be held in private possession.
Lord Burton: We still do not have the answer. Weapons can be held in private hands if they arc properly immobilised, or certain weapons may be. But nothing has been said about how they are to be immobilised. Museums are already over-loaded. There seems no reason why a fine collection of weapons, if immobilised, should not be allowed in a person's possession when authorised by the Secretary of State. But how seriously do we have to immobilise the weapons?
Lord Gisborough: These weapons are allowed in museums, but not in private hands. Are they allowed in a private museum? For example, many houses have areas which are effectively museum rooms. Would they he allowed there?
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend is concerned about how he can keep weapons which have been deactivated. In Clause 8 he will see that certain processes can be gone through which would have to be agreed by a proof house to show that a weapon has been deactivated. I cannot tell my noble friend exactly what the process is because it would depend on the weapon in each case. But if weapons are taken, deactivated and certified as deactivated, then my noble friend will be able to keep them.
Lord Burton: We can return to this on Clause 8. To avoid wasting time perhaps we may then have the answer to my question: what is necessary to deactify a weapon? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I call the next amendment I should inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 22 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 23 to 26.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 9, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Viscount said: The provisions of subsection (4), it seems to me, are widely drawn and bestow very considerable powers. I have proposed that the subsection shall be left out totally. I make no point concerning the words:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State that the provisions of the principal Act"—
down to "or ammunition which". I am concerned with the words in paragraphs (a) and (b), and particularly the following words,
"he may by order add it to the weapons or ammunition specified in that subsection".
The powers given to the Minister seem to me considerable. If those powers had been included in the 1968 Act my understanding is that we should not be here today because the SLRs and other weapons would by order be prohibited. It seems to me an excessively strong power and highly authoritarian. I feel that it is a matter which should be put before Parliament if there are weapons that come on sale
1110
lawfully in Great Britain in substantial numbers at any time before 1988. That leaves only six months.
I am not clear either what the words mean. They seem to me to bestow a power which states that any weapons that come on sale after 1988 can be ordered to be prohibited. I am sure that this is probably only a drafting matter; it may easily be resolved by my noble friend the Minister. As the clause is drawn, there is no fetter on the exercise of his power or that of his successors to order what they like. I feel that that is very strongly drawn. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: I should like to support my noble friend in his amendment. Shooting interests have been caused a great deal of concern. Who can say what might be prohibited in the future? It could be something that has not yet appeared on the market, something that we do not know about. We seem to be seeking to ban something which does not yet exist. To give the Secretary of State such wide-ranging powers as this without any hope of reversal is, I believe, entirely mistaken. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will think carefully about whether this clause is desirable.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I believe that I should point out to my noble friends that subsection (5) makes these orders subject to the positive approval of both Houses of Parliament. Thus the arguments that my noble friends have presented are totally without foundation.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: We urge the House not to support this amendment. We support the retention of Clause 1(4). It is clear that the prohibited list contained in Section 5 of the 1968 Act is a valuable and essential means of ensuring that the most dangerous types of weapon, those of which there is least need to have private possession, do not circulate freely within society. Much of the Committee's time has been taken up in debating how Section 5 of the principal Act ought to be amended so as to enlarge the category of prohibited weapons. I wonder whether any members of the Committee would go so far as to deny that there is a clear need for at least some enlargement of the class of prohibited weapons.
We suggest that there is an undisputed need for change. That need has come about substantially, though, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, explained, not exclusively through technological change. Weapons are now available which did not exist in 1968. Doubtless there are other weapons which were in theory available at that time but where the technology had not advanced to a stage where they were produced or distributed in significant numbers.
It must be the case that the pace of weapons technology will not slacken in the future. It is more likely, surely, to accelerate. There must also be a risk that the Bill will itself constitute an incentive to the development of new and lethal weapons designed to fall outside the strict language of Section 5 as amended. We cannot believe that it is right that the law should not be able to catch up with such new weaponry until parliamentary time can be found for changes to the primary legislation. We are very conscious that there may not always be a Hungerford

1111
to concentrate the mind of the Government of the day. Indeed, the desire to pre-empt and not merely to react to such a tragedy is one of the reasons for supporting the retention of Clause 1(4).
It is better to make the statute technological-proof, as it were, than to have a government amend and reamend the primary legislation. It is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, pointed out, always subject to Clause 1(5). The Opposition do not approve of the tendency of Parliament to legislate in the barest outline and to give Ministers virtual carte blanche to make sweeping changes in the law. In the course of the Legal Aid Bill the Opposition objected to that. However, a power to keep primary legislation abreast of new technology in this area is unobjectionable so long as it is accompanied by proper safeguards. There are proper safeguards in Clause 1(4). The power to add to the prohibited category can be exercised only in the case of new types of firearms. There is also the safeguard that the weapon must appear to the Secretary of State to be especially dangerous. We see no scope for abuse.
Lord Burton: On this occasion, I am pleased to say that I have some sympathy with the Government's views. However, we are not at all happy, as has been made clear this afternoon, about a good deal of the advice that the Government are receiving. That may become even more apparent when we deal with the following amendment. At a later stage of the Bill, might it be advisable to include something such as, "subject to consultation with the Advisory Committee"?
Earl Ferrers: I am deeply indebted to my noble friend Lord Burton for saying that he has some sympathy with the Government. I knew that there would be a turning point in his views. I was not too certain when it would come, but it has arrived. The clause is essential. It merely provides that the Secretary of State can put into subsection (5) weapons or ammunition which are not:
"for the time being specified in subsection (1) of Section 5 but appears to him to be specially dangerous; and
(b) in the case of a firearm, was not lawfully on sale in Great Britain in substantial numbers at any time before 1988".
As the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, rightly said, that is a part of the Bill which is designed to look to the future. I believe that to be correct. We hope, by means of the power, to deal with plastic guns and weapons which may be capable of escaping detection by metal detectors.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham put, in a characteristically trenchant way, to my noble friend Lord Dilhorne, that he was wrong because he had not addressed himself to subsection (5), and had he done so he would have seen that it does not give unfettered right to the Secretary of State or his successors to do what they like. He has to come to Parliament with the proposals which would have to be debated under the affirmative resolution procedure. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend will agree that it is right to keep the subsection in the Bill.
Viscount Dilhorne: I accept that explanation. I must apologise. The noble and learned Lord was right with his comment. I had overlooked that subsection, if I may add that gloss to what he said and be completely honest. I can only say, more haste less speed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: if Amendment No. 23 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 24.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 11, leave out from ("to") to end of line 15 and insert—
("(a) any firearm (not being an air weapon) which is not for the time being specified in subsection (I) of section 5. was not lawfully on sale in Great Britain in substantial numbers at any time before 1988 and appears to him to be—

(i) specially dangerous; or

(ii)wholly or partly composed of material making it not readily detectable by apparatus used for detecting metal objects; or

(b) any ammunition which is not for the time being specified in that subsection but appears to him to be specially dangerous,").
The noble Earl said: The amendment takes power to add to the list of prohibited weapons by order any firearm which by reason of the material of which it is composed appears to the Secretary of State to be not readily detectable by apparatus used for detecting metal objects. There are plastic guns and other metals which might turn up in the future. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 23, Amendment No. 23A:
"Line 2 leave out ("not being an air weapon").
The noble Earl said: The amendment leaves out "not being an air weapon" in the amendment moved by my noble friend the Minister. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 23B, which inserts "or projectile" after "ammunition". The powers available to the Secretary of State should not restrict him to excluding an air weapon. From what I can gather, the only legislation remaining on the statute book is Statutory Instrument No. 47 of 1969, which has been referred to. It deals with 6 foot pounds and 12 foot pounds of kinetic energy for the various guns. It is not in our best interests that air weapons should be excluded when the Secretary of State may come across something new.
As the Committee will know from my speech on Second Reading, I was concerned about the steel crossbow, which is why in Amendment No. 23B I suggest that we add "or projectile" after "any ammunition", which is not for the time being specified in that subsection. Otherwise I wholeheartedly support Amendment No. 23.
Lord Gisborough: I support the amendment because there has been a great deal of trouble from air weapons for a number of years. They are lethal. There are almost too many uncontrolled air weapons at the moment. Anything that can be done to control them a little is welcome.
Lord Swansea: I know why the amendment has been introduced by my noble friend the Minister. It has all been sparked off by the invention of certain automatic pistols originating in Austria, some parts of which are composed of plastic (non-metallic). Most of that weapon will not show up on an X-ray machine. It is absurd to describe such a weapon as one which would pass an X-ray machine. So long as there are steel barrels, metallic springs and metallic ammunition, that concept is pie in the sky.
Nearly every firearm has a wooden or plastic stock. I wonder whether that has occurred to the noble Earl. It could rule out practically every firearm or shotgun in existence. I think that needs looking at again very seriously and I suggest to my noble friend that he should not press this amendment today but should take it away and think about it again.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: From these Benches we support Amendment No. 23 moved by the noble Earl. It appears to us to be right that even if a firearm is not especially dangerous it should be capable of being prohibited if not readily detectable by metal detectors.
I wonder whether the noble Earl, when replying to the debate on Amendments Nos. 23 and 23A, could say whether firearms not readily detectable by metal detectors are already lawfully on sale in Great Britain in substantial numbers. If they are then his new amendment would not cover that situation. It may be that there is no substance in the concern which I expressed, but if there is substance in it then surely the amendment should expressly cater for that possible situation.
Lord Monson: I sympathise with both the noble Earls, Lord Ferrers and Lord Balfour, in respect of the amendments. I must say that I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, that crossbows are just as dangerous as air rifles and probably more so. I wonder whether the projectiles he has in mind include crossbow bolts. It would be interesting to know.
Would the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, explain the phrase "in substantial numbers"? Is this not a rather vague phrase to use in an Act of Parliament?
Earl Ferrers: With regard to the last point, I think that "substantial numbers" means what it says; namely, that they are there in large numbers. The whole purpose of the amendment is to cover things which are likely to happen after 1988. If it were to be found that there were one, two or three already in existence before 1988, clearly that prohibition should not be excluded just because one or two were available before 1988. That is why we have suggested these words, so that it covers only the new forms of weapons which might be used in the future.
When my noble friend Lord Swansea asks whether we are aware that there are some weapons which have stocks made of wood and so forth and that they might not be covered, I think perhaps he should look at the amendment and subsection (a)(ii) which refers to a weapon which is:
"wholly or partly composed of material making it not readily detectable".
1114
So that even if the detectable weapon had a wooden stock and was made from the same plastic which was not readily detectable by a detector, it would nevertheless be caught under this provision because it is wholly or partly composed of such material.
My noble friend Lord Balfour explained that his concern lay with crossbows and air weapons. I think we are all concerned about the use of those. But the incidence of the misuse of crossbows is relatively rare. The great majority of owners are responsible people who take considerable care of their weapons. They present no problem to public safety or peace. Crossbow archery is a well established sport. There are apparently 200,000 crossbows in circulation in this country although relatively few owners belong to clubs.
The overall picture of misuse tends to become distorted through the prominence given by the media to individual incidents. Under the Crossbows Act 1987 it is already an offence to sell a crossbow to a person who is under the age of 17 or for someone under 17 to purchase a crossbow or to have one in his possession, unless accompanied by a person aged 21 or over. In addition, the actual misuse of a crossbow usually constitutes an offence under a wide variety of other existing legislation.
With regard to air weapons, there are already a number of regulations controlling their purchase, possession and use especially by juveniles. Again, given the very large numbers of air weapons in circulation, the rate of misuse is comparatively low. It is encouraging that the criminal statistics for 1986 showed a decline in the number of notifiable offences involving air weapons, compared with 1985 and 1987. The 1987 figures, although they are still provisional, point to a further decrease.
We are keeping a particularly close eye on crossbows but my noble friend's amendment which would provide the power to ban such weapons outright is not a road down which we particularly wish to go. One doubts that crossbows are that dangerous. They are dangerous but one wonders whether they are especially dangerous in the same way as a self-loading rifle, a fast-firing shotgun or an automatic sub-machine gun. Those are especially dangerous and they are the types of weapons to which this Bill refers.
In any case, the reserve power is essentially a mechanism by which new technological developments in firearms which will escape the definition of this Bill can be tackled. That is why firearms on sale in substantial numbers before 1988 are exempted. Crossbows have been with us for a long time, since medieval times, and I believe in some forms since Roman times. I think that rapid and innovative technological development in that sphere is unlikely, given the score over the last few hundred years.
If the amendment were made, the types of crossbows which are currently available could not be affected by the reserve powers because they were available before 1988. So even if we accepted my noble friend's amendment, I do not think it would achieve his purpose.

1115
The amendment also mentions projectiles. Perhaps my noble friend fears that the term "ammunition" used in subsection (4) is too narrow. I think I can reassure him on that point. Section 57(2) of the 1968 Act explains that the expression "ammunition" means ammunition for any firearm and includes grenades, bombs and other like missiles, whether capable of use with a firearm or not. I hope that my noble friend will agree that this definition would cover any projectile which we are likely to want to add to the prohibited category.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I do not want to prolong this debate but just to say to the noble Lord on the Cross Benches and to my noble friend Lord Swansea that what we are discussing is the power which the Secretary of State would have, if my noble friend's amendment is passed, to bring before Parliament a draft order for its approval. Therefore the short answer to what the noble Lord on the Cross Benches has said is that it would be part of the case which any Minister would have to bring before this House and the other place that the weapon under discussion was not present in substantial numbers. That is a question of fact and degree, about which this House at any rate would expect to be reassured.
Of course, the fact and degree would depend on the circumstances at the time. The same is true in answer to my noble friend Lord Swansea because he would also have to show that subsection (a) (ii) of the proposed amendment was not applicable. In the case of wooden stocks and things like that, what has to be shown is that it is wholly or partly composed of material "making it"—which I take it means the weapon under discussion—
"not readily detectable by apparatus used for detecting metal Objects".
In the case postulated by my noble friend, that would not arise when the Government of the day came to make their case to the two Houses of Parliament.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I do not wish unduly to prolong the debate, but the noble Earl did not reply to the specific question which I invited him to respond to in my short contribution. I may be wrong, but I simply draw attention to what may be a deficiency in his amendment. If it is the case that there were in 1988.
"lawfully on sale in Great Britain in substantial numbers"—
I emphasise "substantial numbers" and not the "small numbers" that the noble Earl mentioned—the plastic guns to which he referred, which were,
"wholly or partly composed of material making it not readily detectable",
his amendment would not reach that situation. Therefore I invite the noble Earl to give thought to the factual possibility that they may have been on sale in substantial numbers in 1987. If so his amendment should reach that situation, but it does not.
Earl Ferrers: I apologise to the noble Lord for not having replied to that point earlier. I had intended to do so. We are not aware of any firearms currently on the market which would escape detection.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I wish to say a few words on crossbows, of which I have had experience. They are highly lethal, far more so than an air gun. They have a flat trajectory up to 100 yards. They have telescopic sights. They are silent and they fire a steel bolt which is nearly a foot long. Several people have been shot by them. If they hit somebody in the chest they go right through and kill them. I hope that the Government will keep a close eye upon these weapons. I have nothing against them for target shooting, but how can one prevent people who are using them for target shooting committing a criminal act and killing somebody? They are of course also often used for poaching.
Lord Burton: Will my noble friend have another look at the wording of (a)(ii). When I initially looked at it, I obtained the same impression as my noble friend Lord Swansea. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone has explained the situation. However, I think the wording could be misleading, and possibly a slight revision of it might help.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am a little surprised to hear the Minister's defence of crossbows for sport and target shooting when he is not prepared to allow self-loading rifles or pump-guns for disabled shooters. Has he seen photographs of animals that have been shot with crossbows? Those weapons are by no means all in responsible hands. Some are in very irresponsible hands. The wounds and the pain that they inflict on animals are horrific.
Earl Ferrers: I did not seek to suggest that crossbows could not do substantial damage. I said that there was no evidence that their misuse was very frequent. I think that the noble Lady will agree that they are not the same as a self-loading rifle or a pump-action gun. They are motivated by different forces and their ranges are different. Of course we keep crossbows under very strict control. They have their own laws by which they are controlled. If there is evidence that they are getting out of control, we shall take note of it and take the necessary action. But that is not the same thing as saying that they are equivalent to self-loading rifles.
The Earl of Balfour: At this stage I think it would be quite right if I withdrew Amendment No. 23A. However, at the same time I wish to ask one other question in view of part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. When Amendment No. 23 refers to Great Britain, does that include Northern Ireland?
Noble Lords: No!
The Earl of Balfour: It does not. That is fair enough. Is it the Government's intention that it should not cover Northern Ireland? However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 23, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 23 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: This might be a suitable moment at which to break for dinner. I suggest that we return to the Committee stage of the Bill at 8.5 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1988
7.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur)The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords on behalf of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne I beg to move.
The purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, which together provide the basis for the disciplinary arrangements in the three services. The concept of annual parliamentary approval for the special legal position of the serviceman—subject as he is to the constraints of service discipline, as well as the rule of civil law—is a long established one in British constitutional practice. Every fifth year the opportunity is taken to review in depth the needs of the service disciplinary systems, and an Armed Forces Act is passed, making such amendments to those systems as are considered necessary. As noble Lords will recall, the last such Act was passed in 1986.
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces mentioned last week in another place a number of subjects affecting discipline and welfare in the Armed Forces to which we have been paying particular attention. I would pick out in particular the comprehensive package of measures now being implemented to tackle the problem of bullying, about which concern has rightly been expressed; the review of all Armed Forces allowances, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced in May; and also I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the pamphlet we have recently introduced setting out in plain language the rights and responsibilities of servicemen.
I am pleased that this order provides an opportunity for such issues to be debated. The order keeps in place a disciplinary system that balances the rights of a serviceman as a citizen with his special responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces. It plays an indispensable role in the maintenance of the services' high standards and professionalism, to which I am delighted to pay tribute today.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, the order is part of the traditional practice of taking an annual look at the disciplinary
1118
arrangements for the Army, Navy and Air Force with a five-yearly opportunity to introduce a Bill and to make more fundamental changes.
Many things can influence the discipline in our Armed Forces. The one which could affect recruitment most is the one that the noble Lord has mentioned. It has given rise to much publicity in the past year or two. Since 1986, 45 allegations of bullying have not only been made but have been substantiated and have resulted in disciplinary action. So that is not a fantasy of someone merely looking at the services without knowing the facts.
Nothing could more discourage young men—especially at a time of demographic changes and the competition from a rapidly growing economy—from joining Her Majesty's Forces. It is not easy to make a proper distinction between the toughness of the Army, which we need if it is to be an effective fighting force, and bullying. But I think that it is absolutely clear that the distinction should be made. It should be made clear that bullying will not be tolerated under any circumstances and neither will the rather bizarre initiation ceremonies which have humiliated a number of young soldiers. The sentences which are awarded should show our disapproval of such behaviour and our determination to stop it.
I very much welcome the package of measures which the Minister has announced tonight. When shall we be able to see them in detail? I welcome the new pamphlet which he has mentioned—The Armed Forces: Your rights and responsibilities—and I should like to echo the point made by my honourable friend in another place when he said that it should be issued not only to recruits but also to all members of the Armed Forces.
Racism in the Armed Forces should be discouraged. It is difficult to determine whether it is a factor of any significance, because anyone suffering in that way is encouraged to go to his commanding officer and discouraged from engaging in publicity. Does the Minister have information on that matter? We hope that racism is at a very minimal level and that everything possible is being done to stop it if it exists. It is important in recruitment to get a proper mix commensurate with the balance of ethnic groups in our society as a whole.
I believe that the allegation has been made and substantiated that in a number of cases, because of inadequate work done by private contractors, some commanding officers, perhaps very naturally, have urged their soldiers to make good defaults by private contractors. That would be a signal failure on the part of the army authorities. It would do a great deal to lessen the morale of the Armed Forces. A soldier does not join the Army in order to make good the failures of other people.
I have difficulty in understanding the treatment of widows' pensions between the years up to 1973 and the following years. The explanation given by the noble Lord's honourable friend in another place is quite inadequate. He said that the reason was lack of resources. In that area we should not allow lack of resources to penalise anyone. Any intelligent and sensible soldier who joins the Army will want to know that, if the worst happens to him, his widow

1119
will be left in reasonable circumstances. I find any excuse of that kind totally unacceptable.
Another matter which was raised in the other place was disclosure of information. My honourable friend in another place pointed to the fact that Section 24 of the Armed Forces Act 1971 says:
"It shall he a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to believe that the information disclosed related to a matter upon which information would or might be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy".
The proposed reform of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 recommends that:
"It should not be necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence of the likely damage to the operation of the security forces or intelligence services when information relating to security or intelligence has been disclosed by a member or former member of the services".
There is clearly a conflict. Can the Minister tell me whether there will be a change and whether Section 24 will be amended?
7.15 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, sometimes we pass orders without any discussion. Sometimes, as the noble Lord, Lord Irving, has just done, we raise a wide range of matters affecting the Armed Forces. I have decided to ask questions on the subject of setbacks in the Polaris production programme. I do so because of the unwillingness of the Government to answer questions about the matter candidly.
I have a fairly long experience of parliamentary handling of defence questions. I am bound to say that the Third Report of the House of Commons Defence Committee entitled The Progress of the Trident Programme is a revelation in terms of the language which is used, the lack of candour displayed by the Government and the unwillingness to give straightforward unclassified information.
Perhaps I may quote one or two paragraphs from the report. Paragraph 45 of Part IV states:
"For three years the Government has made reports on the progress of the sonar suite"—
that is the sonar equipment for Trident—
"which did not include important facts about serious problems and delays which had arisen. This is unacceptable … Such demonstrable lack of frankness in respect of one element of the programme will inevitably tend to cast doubt on other elements which are accurately reported and where there is no cause for concern".
Another part of the report states:
"some features of the MoD's reports to the previous Defence Committee do not encourage us to accept such reports unquestioningly in the future … We consider that the MoD have little cause for complaint if future assurances are not taken at face value".
The matter is very serious. I take this opportunity to invite the Government to clear up the situation. I put a number of questions this morning to the MoD to give the Government an opportunity to clear the air on a subject which gives increasing concern. The report was produced by an all-party committee consisting of distinguished and unusually sober-minded Members of Parliament. The statements are not made lightly.
I therefore wish to ask the Minister several questions. What steps have been taken to overcome
1120
the shortage of scientific staff'? Perhaps I may quote again from the report:
"The latest figures given to us for the shortfall show the position at 1st March 1988: I 1 1 in the Administrative, Executive and Clerical grades, 65 specialists, and 40 craft industrials".
Those figures refer to Aldermaston. What steps have been taken to overcome that serious shortage?
I also wish to ask the Minister about the production of nuclear weapons. It seems that existing production facilities are sufficient for the first submarine. That is not certain but it seems possible. The Ministry says constantly that it can meet the in-service date for Trident. However, it is not clear what that means. for the second and subsequent submarines, altogether new facilities for nuclear warhead production will be needed. It is by no means certain that those new production facilities—the A.90 production complex—will be ready in time. Can the Minister assure us that when the Ministry says that it can meet the in-service date for Trident, it means that there will be enough warheads in time for the Trident fleet?
Does the ministry have it in mind to extend the life of the Polaris fleet? For some little time we have been expecting a statement on whether the Polaris submarine "Resolution" is going to be refitted. We have not had that statement. Will fewer warheads be fitted in each submarine? There may be other good reasons for that, but it would be ironical if the Government felt compelled to do it simply because the warheads were not there.
These are some of the important questions to which I think we are entitled to answers. I feel we are entitled to expect full and candid answers, unlike those that were given to the House of Commons Defence Committee.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. Those of the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, were of particular relevance to the order before us and perhaps I may take his points first.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord when he says that bullying is a serious matter and one to be deplored. That applies too to some of the so-called initiation ceremonies which are alleged to have taken place. I confirm that bullying and ill treatment have no place whatever in service life. I assure the noble Lord that each allegation is viewed most seriously. That fact is reflected both in the sentences awarded to those found responsible and in the comprehensive package of measures being implemented to stamp out the problem in the Army.
The noble Lord asked whether or not I had full details. I have. They are set out at cols. 551 and 552 of the Official Report of another place of 7th June. The noble Lord will find, I think, the information he seeks. Naturally, should further cases come to light, that would lead to further reviews, but I believe that the problem has been effectively and firmly dealt with.
On the question of ethnic monitoring and any form of racial discrimination within the Armed Forces, I assure the noble Lord that the Services are fully integrated non-discriminatory organisations and

1121
that no discrimination is tolerated. The recent report of the Defence Committee of another place is generally welcomed and the Government have now responded to it. The results of the first year of monitoring the ethnic origins of applicants and recruits will be published later this year.
The noble Lord raised the matter of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and Section 60 of the Army Act. Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 which deals with the wrongful communication of official information contains no defence of lack of knowledge of the effect of disclosure. At present a serviceman suspected of making such a disclosure could in theory be charged under either Section 2 or Section 60 of the Army Act, or the equivalent section of the other service discipline Acts. In practice, a prosecution under Section 2, which would require the consent of the Attorney-General, would be brought in the most serious cases only. That will remain the position if the White Paper proposals are implemented; but the defence of lack of knowledge will be available to all defendants except those working in or closely associated with the security and intelligence services. I believe that that provides the degree of reassurance which the noble Lord seeks.
The noble Lord asked about contractors and also raised the matter of pre-1973 widows. I regret that 1 do not have much to add to the points made by my honourable friend in another place when he answered a debate on a similar Motion. I can only acknowledge that he and my noble friend Lord Trefgarne are aware of that point. We believe that in this case the trade unionists, the Services and the Ministry of Defence all have a common cause in making sure that service personnel do not assist contractors in the fulfilment of their contractual obligations. I understand that service commands will be reminded that such assistance should not be given. I hope that that goes some way towards meeting the noble Lord's concern.
As to widows' pensions, I know that the noble Lord feels the answer that it is a matter of resources is an insufficient one. However, as I know from my own experience as a Minister in the DHSS, it is a matter which continually concerns Ministers in that department. They are well aware of the concerns and it is a matter they are looking at. The noble Lord may feel that it is not a matter of resources. But it very largely does come down to a matter of resources and the fact that the other benefits available to widows of servicemen post-1973 are an improvement in some detail on what was previously available. However, I should like to study the noble Lord's remarks and to respond to him more fully in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has strayed into an area in which I know he has a particular interest. I hope that I can answer shortly the points he raised. First, he raised the concern about the Sonar programme for Trident. Obviously, I cannot anticipate the formal response of the Government to the Defence Committee's recent criticisms. The noble Lord will not expect me to do that. All I can say is that the Government will shortly be responding in detail to those points. I can however tell him that the Sonar 2054 programme is on track to meet the Trident timescales.
1122
With regard to scientific staff shortages in the strategic weapons system area, it is hoped to fill the remaining vacancies during an ongoing recruiting initiative. However, we shall continue to use contractors as a means of offsetting the shortage for as long as may be necessary. It is important to bear in mind the reasons why the shortage might have arisen. The competitive nature of recruitment, both nationally and in the Thames Valley area, calls for continuing and intensive recruitment activity in order to combat natural wastage from retirements and resignations. But it is a matter which is in hand along the lines that I have suggested.
The noble Lord asked for a categorical assurance to build upon remarks that have been made by others about warhead production and allegations that it is a major risk to the Trident programme. All I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is that the Ministry of Defence remains confident that the in-service date of the mid-1990s for Trident will be met, and I would add that there will be no shortfall in the planned number of warheads. I cannot conceive how it is possible to be more categorical than that. I hope that that at least goes sonic way towards meeting the noble Lord's concern.
As regards HMS "Resolution", the noble Lord may be aware that that matter is being considered at present. I cannot give him an answer now, but I would expect that it will soon be possible to make an announcement on a final decision.
Those were, I believe, the main points raised by the noble Lord and by the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford. I believe that this order, which is for a particular and important purpose, is one that the House will welcome. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.30 to 8.5 p.m.]

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): As Amendment No. 23 was agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 24. I therefore call Amendment No. 25.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("or that those provisions should no longer apply to any firearm or ammunition at present specified in subsection (I) of section 5").
The noble Lord said: This amendment makes no material change to the wording of the Bill but clarifies it somewhat. Because of the concession made by the Government in Standing Committee in another place, self-loading and pump-action shotguns with a magazine that will hold not more than two cartridges can now stay in Section 2. However, there is an undesirable side effect because, although originally

1123
Clause 2 concerned self-loading and pump-action shotguns, when amended it dropped the reference to self-loading and simply mentioned a gun which:
"has no magazine or has a non-detachable magazine incapable of holding more than two cartridges."
The effect is to catch some bolt-action magazine-fed shotguns which were excluded from the previous description. I am assured that it had not been the Government's intention that such guns should fall into this net.
There are quite a lot of them. They are former military rifles which have been bored out to smoothbore to take ·410 cartridges. There are an enormous number of them about—I think that more than 1,000 have been converted to shotguns. The trouble is that those former rifles which are now shotguns have a box magazine which was designed and manufactured to accept.303 rifle cartridges. They are not capable of holding 410 shot cartridges, so in effect this gun which has been converted from a rifle is in fact a single-shot shotgun because it cannot be used with the magazine. Although the magazine is capable of holding 10.303 cartridges, it is not capable of holding any 410 shot cartridges. In effect the gun is a single shot although the magazine could formerly hold 10 303 cartridges.
This amendment refers to a gun having a magazine incapable of holding more then two cartridges. This would—
Lord Brain: I am finding it difficult to follow which amendment we are on. I believed that we were on Amendment No. 25. I have a suspicion that the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, is speaking to Amendment No. 27.
Lord Swansea: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, is quite right. 1 must start again. I apologise.
Amendment No. 25 concerns the clause with the residual powers of the Home Secretary to add to the list firearms hitherto unknown. At present the clause concerns a one-way traffic. Once an item has been included in Section 5 of the Act it cannot be taken out. That is something which the amendment is designed to rectify.
There could be circumstances in which a firearms weapon or ammunition may be mistakenly included in Section 5. The Government should have powers to withdraw it from that section without having recourse to primary legislation. No government is infallible—Parliament is not infallible either. They sometimes make mistakes; I think that everyone acknowledges that. If the amendment is passed, the Government can then by order make an amendment to withdraw an item from the prohibited list as well as to add one.
Then there is the question of technical change. Firearms which today may be considered as especially dangerous may not always be regarded in that light. Special safety devices may be invented. There may be technological advances of one kind or another which may make it unnecessary to retain a certain item on the prohibited list.
1124
The Government have made the amendment even more necessary by their own amendments, the last of which we dealt with before we rose for dinner. That amendment extended possible bans to firearms made of material not readily detectable by metal detectors. The system of security and detection could radically change and affect the means by which such firearms may or may not be detected. The amendment places no obligation on the Government to remove anything from the prohibited list. It simply gives them power to do so. It ought to be a two-way traffic. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: These amendments would empower the Secretary of State to make orders to remove weapons and ammunition from the prohibited category in cases where controls under Section 5 of the 1968 Firearms Act were no longer considered necessary. This power would apply not only to firearms which may be prohibited in the future, but also to weapons which are already controlled under Section 5, such as fully automatic weapons, and those which this Bill will prohibit, such as self-loading rifles.
My noble friend said that some firearms might be mistakenly put into the wrong category. I find that hard to believe. Weapons and ammunition are not, and will not be, prohibited lightly. Where both the Secretary of State and Parliament are satisfied that a particular type of firearm or ammunition is so specially dangerous as to warrant raising it to the prohibited category, I think it most unlikely that, in the foreseeable future, a decision would need to be made to relax controls on that sort of weapon or ammunition.
My noble friend said that security and detection alter. In the previous amendment we had taken account of that. Security and detection may alter but the ability of a weapon to cause the destruction which puts it into a restricted category is unlikely to alter. I do not think that this amendment would be appropriate.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: We also oppose these amendments and support what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Despite the elegant way in which the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, represented the even-handedness that there would be between the power to add to the list of prohibited weapons and the power which he proposes to remove weapons from that category, we suggest that there is no true parallel. There is a great difference between the two powers. The Secretary of State needs the power to add to the list because developments in weapon technology may lead to lethal and appalling weapons being insufficiently controlled.
As I ventured to observe earlier, Parliament cannot constantly be expected to legislate afresh. The Act therefore needs to be technology-proof. However, by contrast, on the footing that the Bill passes into law, it will have been the conscious decision of Parliament that the weapons and ammunition specified should be prohibited. If certain of the categories now covered had not been included in the Bill, some of us

1125
on this side would certainly have wished to bring them in by way of amendment.
We say that it would be quite wrong for the Secretary of State to have power to undo that which Parliament has quite deliberately decided should be done.
Lord Monson: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has been somewhat less than fair to the amendment. Unless at some future date we have some totally irresponsible Secretary of State—surely an unthinkable proposition—then acceptance of this amendment could not do any harm and may very well do some good.
Lord Swansea: As regards the last amendment which was agreed to before we rose for dinner, the Committee agreed to give the Secretary of State powers to place on the prohibited list something which is at present unknown; and we cannot foretell what that may be.
My amendment seeks to do the same thing in reverse. It seeks to make provision for the removal of something at present unknown from that prohibited list if the circumstances arise which justify it. That is all that I am asking my noble friend to agree to. It places no obligation of any kind on the Government. It simply gives them powers to make this a two-way valve rather than a one-way valve.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend puts his persuasive argument on this amendment very clearly. He says that if we have the ability to put various weapons into a certain category let us have the ability to take them out. With the greatest respect to my noble friend, he has not addressed his mind to the likely circumstances that would permit a weapon—which is considered so dangerous as to be put into a certain category—suddenly to become less dangerous so that one takes it out of the category again. If that were the case, the Government could always come to Parliament and ask for permission to do so. However, I honestly think that that is not likely to happen. My noble friend puts the amendment very attractively but I do not think that such power is very likely to be used.
Lord Gisborough: Is not the obvious answer this? Enormous effort is being made in the Falkland Islands to develop machines—whether X-ray, or whatever—to detect the presence of plastic mines. If that is effectively achieved, then presumably the same apparatus would detect the plastic guns about which we talked earlier. If it then became possible to detect plastic guns, then all the previous arguments would no longer be valid.
Earl Ferrers: I think that my noble friend Lord Gisborough is misdirected in the matter. What the amendment deals with is nothing to do with plastic guns or new types of weapon; it is those weapons which have been put into a certain cateogory because they are so dangerous. The amendment proposed by my noble friend suggests that there might be circumstances when they ought to be pulled out of that category and made widely available again. All I
1126
am trying to say, as courteously as possible, is that that eventuality is most unlikely to come about.
Lord Swansea: I hope, as my noble friend says, that that situation is as unlikely to come about as the invention of a wholly plastic firearm,which was dealt with under the previous amendment. I can only express the hope that when the placing of any item on the prohibited list which is not on it now is contemplated by the Government they will go through the proper process of consultation with shooting interests and with the trade before deciding what they will put on the list and presenting it to Parliament. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Re-definition of exempted shot guns]:
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 2, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (ii) and insert—
("(ii) is not a self-loading or pump-action gun which is capable of having a magazine with a capacity greater than two cartridges").
The noble Lord said: There are many shot guns in existence that have been converted from former military rifles bored out to smooth-bore and adapted to take a ·410 shot cartridge. Therefore at present they are classed as shotguns. Most of those converted rifles still have their original magazine attached to them, which was intended to
take 10 ·303 rifle cartridges, a former military cartridge, and they are not capable of accepting ·410 shot cartridges. So in effect that shotgun is a single shotgun and is not capable of taking any cartridges in the magazine. I think that it was accepted in another place by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary when he said that such a converted rifle is in fact a shotgun and would fall within the purview of Section 2 of the principal Act.
As I understand it, a great many such rifles—some 60,000—have been converted to 410 in the past 25 years, so there must be many of them about. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Government. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment seeks to alter the new definition of a shotgun which is set out in Subsection (2) of Clause 2. This provides that a smooth-bore gun will be treated as a shotgun for the purposes of Section 2 of the 1968 Act if it has a barrel not less than 24 inches in length, and a bore not more than 2 inches; it either has no magazine or has a non-detachable magazine capable of holding no more than two cartridges; and it is not a revolver gun. It is the second of the three requirements which my noble friend's amendment addresses. It has the effect that any smooth-bore gun with a detachable magazine, or a non-detachable magazine of more than two rounds, will in future be subject to Section 1 control. My noble friend seeks to restrict this to self-loading and pump-action guns, thereby excluding bolt-action and lever-action guns and allowing them to remain on Section 2.
We believe that there are a fair number of bolt-action shotguns in circulation: many of these have,

1127
we understand, detachable two-shot magazines. There is no reason why they should be treated any differently than pump-action or self-loading shotguns with detachable two-shot magazines. The same is true of lever-action shotguns, which are rather less common. The revised definition of a shotgun in Clause 2 meets the concerns expressed in another place that pump-action and self-loading smoothbore guns, which are popular with a wide range of sportsmen, should still be available on a shotgun certificate. Where they have a non-detachable magazine of no more than two rounds, this will be the case, and bolt and lever-action guns will be similarly available. Where they have a higher magazine capacity, or a detachable magazine, they will need a Section 1 certificate. This principle should apply to any smooth-bore gun, and there are no grounds for exempting bolt and lever-action guns as my noble friend proposes.
Lord Swansea: I am not entirely certain that my noble friend has grasped the full purport of the amendment. It is a perfectly innocent one and simply refers to shotguns which have been converted from former military rifles. They will have the detachable magazine on them which was intended for the original cartridge, but they are not capable of taking shot cartridges. I should have thought that that could have been quite happily classed as a single shotgun and would then come under Section 2 of the principal Act. However, I shall not press the point at this stage; but I may reconsider it for the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Brain Lord Brain had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 28:
Page 2, line 36, after ("cartridges") insert ("other than ·22 rim-fire cartridges;").
The noble Lord said: I shall be very brief in speaking to this amendment. It is a follow-up to the one I talked to earlier about revolver ·22 cartridges and their use in revolver guns and smooth-bore. I should make one point about that. When the noble Earl replied he commented about the fact that such guns could take solid ammunition. That solid ammunition is already controlled by Section 1 and I was mildly surprised about that.
All I ask in regard to this amendment is that the noble Earl looks at it in the same light as the rest of the ·22 rim-fire ammunition and the use of magazines. I hope that he will bear that in mind when he writes to me. I therefore do not need to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Wynford Lord Wynford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Conditions attaching to the possession of self-loading rifles.
—A firearm certificate may authorise a person to possess, purchase or acquire a self-loading or pump-action rifle to which section 5(1)(ab) of the principal Act applies if that person—
1128

(a) has held a firearms certificate for at least three years, and

(b) has been a member of a rifle club for at least three years, and

(c) is a member of a club affiliated to the National Rifle Association or the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association and which has been approved by the Secretary of State as a club suitable for target shooting with self-loading rifles, and has satisfactorily completed a course of service rifle or practical rifle shooting approved by either of these Associations.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment earlier in conjunction with Amendment No. 7. I was dealing with both amendments together and I said so at the time. I withdrew Amendment No. 7 and consequently now I shall not move Amendment No. 29.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Grant and renewal of shot gun certificates]:
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 3, line 13, at end insert—
("(IAA) No such certificate shall be granted if the number of shotguns to be specified in it exceeds the maximum number specified by the chief officer of police in accordance with subsection (4) below".).
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 49. I do so because I have had experience in talking to the police. I had a neighbour who owned two or three shot guns which were stolen and afterwards the police discovered that one had been used in an armed robbery. During the discussions we have heard stories about people who own eight or 10 shotguns. Other than someone running a big shoot and having visitors from abroad, I can imagine no one who requires to own that number of shotguns.
I pointed out earlier in the proceedings that statistics show that sawn-off shotguns are the main weapons used by criminals in armed robberies. I recently asked someone how many shotguns he had. He replied that he owned three or four but he was not sure. It is essential that during the obtaining of a certificate the number of shotguns owned should be controlled. The situation must be controlled because the statistics show that the shotgun is the main armoury of those who carry out armed robberies and so forth. We wish to make certain that the number of shotguns and the reason for holding them is shown on the Certificate. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and restrictive. Under the Bill the conditions imposed on the chief officer of police when assessing the suitability of an applicant should be sufficient in deciding whether a person should hold a shotgun. To pose a restriction on the number of shotguns held is going a little too far down the line. We have not yet had an opportunity of debating the question of safety, but I hope that the Committee will do so when I move the next amendment. Presumably when the chief officer of police sees the number of guns owned by an individual he will assess his suitability according to the safety covering those guns.

1129
I should like to raise in particular the question of consistency; that is not only with the Bill but also with the 1968 Act. I believe that it is imperative that chief officers of police must have instructions from the Home Office which will result in their being even towards all applicants. I hope that that matter will he discussed later during the course of the Bill. If the amendment is successful it will be a matter for chief constables of police and no doubt there will be a great variance throughout the country in the number of weapons that individuals are allowed to keep. That would be totally wrong.
The Earl of Swinton: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Peel. It will come as no surprise that I have tabled Amendment No. 45 which proposes exactly the opposite of that now proposed by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. I declare an interest in that I am one of those fortunate people with a pair of guns of my own. I also have a pair of guns which were left by my grandfather to my younger brother and which he does not use very much but I tend to use if something goes wrong with mine. I have a selection of guns used in the control of pests by my farm men, keepers and foresters and also various guns of various sizes used by my children. I believe that it would be wrong for a chief of police to make such a decision. I can think of at least one chief constable who may say, "The Lord Almighty has told me that a man should have only one gun". I believe that that chief constable is inclined to receive messages from on High. It is a most dangerous amendment. I hope that the Minister will listen to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Peel and by me and will not support the amendment.
Lord Burton: During Committee stage in another place the Minister gave a considerable undertaking that the Government would not limit the number of shotguns. I hope that on this occasion my noble friend will be as intransigent as he has been in respect of other amendments that have been tabled today.
I say that for various reasons. For example, I know of a shooting lodge in the Highlands which is let commercially. It has a most interesting and valuable collection of shotguns belonging to famous people including royalty and it is of considerable interest to the clients. It is securely kept and is of no risk to the public. I can see no reason why those fine old weapons should be restricted to a private individual.
I am concerned that the Bill as presently worded will allow chief constables to limit the number of weapons. Under the Firearms Act a dealer was recently limited to six weapons. When the case went to the Crown Court the judge found for the police. If that case were to stand it could apply equally well to shotguns. I believe that that is a dangerous situation and I hope that the Committee will support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinton, which appears to be perfectly reasonable. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will stand firm.
Lord Monson: I also oppose the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asserts that shotguns are often used in armed robberies. That may
1130
well be so—indeed it is so—but whether an individual owns five, six or seven shotguns is neither here nor there as regards the incidence of armed trobbery.
There are two reasons why some people own an unusually large number of shotguns. First, many people have children who shoot and their friends and cousins also shoot and wish to have guns available when they stay. Secondly, some people own antique guns. I have inherited an eight-bore gun with a barrel of about 5 feet in length. It is never used and I doubt whether ammunition is available, but it exists. I do not believe that the amendment has any merit whatever.
Lord Swansea: I am afraid that the amendment is a non-starter. If it is agreed to it could open the door for wide interpretation by individual police constables. It is already well known that many interpret the law in widely differing ways. The way in which the Bill is presently worded is open to misinterpretation. If this amendment is agreed to misinterpretation will be a certainty.
There is no need to put a statutory limit on the number of shotguns which individuals may hold. The principal of shotgun certification over the past 20 years has been to license the individual and not the guns. Hitherto there has been no limitation on the number of shotguns which a person may own and there is no need for it. 1 understand that it is not the Government's intention to place a limit on the number. However, if that is their intention, perhaps they could improve the wording of this subsection to remove any uncertainty.
Viscount Brookeborough: I cannot support this amendment because later in the Bill we come on to the numbering of guns on certificates and I believe that when that part of the Bill is reached it will provide the security for people who cannot remember how many shotguns they own and therefore, if they lose them and those weapons are found, it can at least be seen where the weapons came from.
The point about chief constables deciding matters keeps coming up in the Bill and I am not sure that it is totally understood as regards how much power chief constables will have and how much they will know about what is going on. In Northern Ireland—and I know that this Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland—we have a system under which the chief constable can supposedly control the number of weapons or how and when they are used. However, we have a firearms branch within the police force which deals with the matter, as I suspect would happen in the rest of the UK. The chief constable cannot be worried the whole time by individuals who require a firearm for this or that. It is the people in the firearms sections well below the level of chief constable who will decide. Therefore, the idea that the chief constable will decide may not be true. It may be a chief inspector or a sergeant who decides on the number of arms held by an individual. When those weapons are numbered it will not matter how many weapons a person has, because they will be traceable.
Lord Brain: I believe that the last speaker is very optimistic because, as I understand it, the shotgun

1131
certificate is to allow one to use certain guns and not just to own them, especially if they are numbered. I can see a situation where a group of three or four people will own a particular wildfowling gun as a syndicate. They will all have that gun on their certificate but only one will use it at any one time. Should it become lost the police will have to go to the four people to see who has lost it. However, the law will say only that the person who sells the gun has to inform the chief constable that he has sold it and it will then be removed from his certificate. The other three people will still have it on their certificates and even more confusion will follow.
Coming back to the number of guns on a certificate, we have already had examples of pairs of guns. Two pairs make four guns. There are special clay pigeon guns, wildfowling guns and the numerous guns for children which will be duplicated because the child will have the gun on his certificate and the parent, because he looks after and houses the gun, will have it on his certificate. I believe that this will so complicate the enforcement of an already complicated and difficult law that it will cause more rather than less confusion. I shall oppose this amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: Perhaps I may correct the last speaker as regards what happens in Northern Ireland. The primary owner of a weapon has that weapon on his certificate. Anyone else who wishes to use it has it on loan. When a weapon is sold and the certificate goes back to the firearms branch, the branch automatically corrects the other certificate holders. That problem does not arise.
Lord Burton: Perhaps I may just add one further matter. It has occurred to me that one may have a second pair of barrels for one gun. How is one placed then?
Lord John-Mackie: It may be that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, wishes me to reply to the debate myself. I have never heard so many people, in opposing something, so effectively giving away their case. They have referred to the guns being spread over keepers, farmworkers and children. That was the point I was making. These guns are spread over so many people that it is impossible to keep track of them. The only person who made a valid point was the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, when he said that if all the guns are numbered properly then they can be traced. At present, there are literally millions of guns in the country spread over all these people whom Members of the Committee have mentioned. That is why it is necessary for the chief constable to have some control over people buying eight, 10 or 20 guns.
The Earl of Swinton: Perhaps I may just say that my guns are kept in a separate gun room behind a steel cabinet which is locked. There is a key. If one of my employees comes to ask for the key he has to sign for it and sign it back in the evening and somebody else makes sure that the gun is locked up in that cabinet. I should hate the noble Lord to feel that I
1132
have armies of people wandering over North Yorkshire firing from the hip with my guns, because I believe that would be totally unfair.
Lord John-Mackie: There are exceptions to the rule, of course.
Earl Ferrers: I feel a certain sorrow for the noble and poor Lord, Lord John-Mackie, because he has not found many adherents to his amendment this evening. My noble friend Lord Burton asked that I should be as intransigent on this amendment as I have been on others, but it is not a question of being intransigent but of trying to get it right. On this occasion I am happy to find myself siding with my noble friends behind me, Lord Swansea, Lord Peel, Lord Swinton and Lord Burton.
My noble friend Lord Swinton said that he hoped the Government would listen to him. We do listen, and have listened for this reason; namely, that we believe there would be little benefit in terms of public safety in imposing arbitrary limits on the number of shotguns which may be held on a shotgun certificate. It is even more difficult to see the advantages of a system under which each chief officer of police could set a limit on the number of shotguns to be held on a certificate in his force area. My noble friend Lord Peel said that this amendment would be unnecessary and restrictive, and I believe that he is right. Each force could require different limits. There would be no consistency—a point which my noble friend was anxious to make.
No provision is made for an existing certificate holder who moves to an area where the maximum number of guns on the certificate is fewer than he already holds. I believe that that could have some bizarre consequences. I am puzzled by the proposal that a person who, in applying for a shotgun certificate, specifies a greater number of guns than the maximum permitted in that area should not be given a shotgun certificate at all. I believe that these amendments would make a shotgun certificate system unworkable. It would also cut right across one of the fundamental characteristics of a shotgun certificate, which, under Section 2 of the 1968 Act, authorises the holder to possess shotguns without limitation. Acceptance of these amendments would require a fundamental reappraisal of provisions of the 1968 Act. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will be content with the Bill as it is.
Lord John-Mackie: I have held myself up to the strictures of Members of the Committee. The amount of support I have received from behind me does not warrant that I do much more than beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 3, line 13, at end insert—
("(1 AA) No such certificate shall be granted or renewed unless the chief officer of police has required from the applicant a written undertaking that reasonable care will be taken to maintain the gun or guns in safe keeping.
The chief officer of police shall inform the applicant when requiring this undertaking to be made that the duty of care owed is that which it is appropriate to expect from anyone in possession of a potentially lethal weapon.").
The noble Earl said: To date no mention has been made in this Bill of the question of security. Of course, that is largely because the security aspects of the Bill are going to be dealt with under the firearms rules, which will not be debated in this Chamber.
Obviously it is recognised that the whole question of security is an integral part of this Bill. It is for that reason that I move this amendment, in the belief that, because of its importance, it should be a condition of the Bill. Before the chief officer of police is prepared to issue a shotgun certificate, obviously he has to be satisfied that the applicant's security arrangements for such weapons are adequate. One of the questions I should like to ask my noble friend is how this is to be done. I come back to the question of consistency which I hope will exist throughout all police forces with regard to this question.
The effect of this amendment would be to transfer a proportion of the responsibility for security to the owner of a shotgun, which 1 believe to be a basic requirement for any sensible shooter. I envisage from this amendment a standard security form which would be issued by the police. The applicant would satisfy the police officer concerned that one of the major considerations when assessing an applicant's credibility had been met. We are all conscious of the fact that it will be impossible for the police to check on the ability of every single applicant to keep his guns in a secure place. I hope that the amendment will go some way towards satisfying the police and that it will make their job easier.
The question of consistency concerns me—not just on this matter but on all matters regarding current legislation and the proposals contained in the Bill. I believe that the amendment would help to establish a uniform requirement on security. It would streamline the job of the police and give them more confidence in the applicant's ability to prove that his security was up to standard. The shooting public would also know where they stood and it would reduce the likelihood of conflict between the police and shotgun owners, something which I believe we must try to achieve wherever possible. I beg to move.
Viscount Mountgarret: I do not wish to cross swords with my noble friend but I am not sure that he is going about this matter in quite the right way. The amendment seeks to put the responsibility on the applicant for a certificate. I am sorry to say that in this instance I feel very strongly that the responsibility must rest yet again with the unfortunate gentleman, the chief officer of police, who seems to be a very busy man throughout this Bill. It is not very difficult for the police to ensure that an applicant will take reasonable care of his shotguns. On re-application for, or issue of, a shotgun certificate a police constable at the moment—at any rate in our part of North Yorkshire—visits one and asks specific questions about where one keeps one's guns how they are kept, and so forth. It does not take very long. He simply wishes to be satisfied that they are kept under reasonable care. While agreeing entirely with my noble friend that ensuring security is a prime requirement in this Bill, I should have thought that we should place the onus on the police rather than
1134
require the applicant to sign a certificate. It is very easy for anyone to sign a piece of paper and get away with it. The chief officer of police must ensure that security is adhered to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: At the moment there is no statutory obligation on the possessor of a shotgun licence to follow the advice of the police. You would not put yourself at risk of losing your licence if you did not take proper steps to ensure the security of your weapon. The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, referred to the position in North Yorkshire. I would suggest that the chief officer of police there regards it as a crime prevention measure so far as some of his officers are concerned. Personally I think it essential to ensure that people are put at risk of losing their licence if they do not take proper care of their weapon. 1 hope we shall hear from the noble Earl that that is the position of the Government. I suspect that that is the case; I very much hope that it will be confirmed.
I strongly support what the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has said. However, I am extremely doubtful whether it is possible to achieve absolute consistency in every police force area. I think the noble Earl or one of his colleagues asked an hour or so ago if the Home Office would give "instructions". The Home Office cannot give instructions to any chief officer of police. The only way they could give instructions would be if we had a national police force, which we do not have. Most of us in this Chamber, I believe, would not be in favour of a national police force.
I suspect the position in many force areas, including the major metropolitan areas. will be that the police want to assure themselves that possessors of licences have taken adequate steps to protect the security of their weapons. Again, I should he very glad to hear from the noble Earl whether I am right. I suspect I am. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, has raised a useful point. This is to some degree a probing amendment, as I understand it; we all look forward to hearing from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, what the position of the Government is.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: It is not easy for a gamekeeper living in a small cottage. He can keep his gun or rifle under the bed. In the daytime, if his house is empty, it is difficult to hide it. It is far easier in a large house. Your Lordships will probably know that some extremely strong gun safes are made: quite a few people now have them. It is very difficult for burglars to break them open. However, they are very expensive. If a man cannot afford one, he cannot afford it. As far as gamekeepers are concerned, probably an employer would see that the firearms used on the estate were safely protected. It is quite a problem for some people.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: It seems to me not at all difficult to impose certain security requirements on the safekeeping of shotguns in the home of the owner. However, what will happen when the owner takes his shotgun and goes to stay in an hotel for a shoot? The hotel may not have any approved security arrangements. It seems to me that there is a great

1135
problem here, and I wonder what the Government's thoughts are on the matter.
Lord Burton: The noble Lady has raised a point which I had very much in mind and which I shall raise later when dealing with my own amendment concerning foreigners visiting this country and what they are to do with their weapons.
My noble friend Lord Peel has a good point in putting the onus more on the owner of the weapon. As has been said, circumstances vary. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret may have a fortress in which to maintain his weapons while he is not using them. I believe he was only thinking of where he kept them when he was not using them, if he is now allowed to. Just in the last week, as I was wondering what the position would be, my keeper drew up at the front door of the office. And there, on the rack behind him, was his shotgun. Was he to take it into the office or leave it in the Land Rover? He had solved the problem by bringing along in the car a fierce dog which would have eaten anyone who tried to take the gun. I think that in that particular instance the weapon was secure.
There are difficulties and my noble friend Lord Peel possibly has a solution in leaving it to the discretion of the owner or handler of the weapon. rather than asking the police to enforce legislation.
9 p.m.
Lord Monson: I draw the Committee's attention to some curious wording in the amendment. The second paragraph describes a shotgun as "a potentially lethal weapon". A shotgun is not potentially a lethal weapon; it is a lethal weapon pure and simple. Its lethal characteristics are precisely what people buy a shotgun for. Apart from clay pigeon shooting, which is a rehearsal for the genuine thing, people do not buy shotguns for target practice; they buy them for killing game or vermin.
That brings me to the main point of the amendment. In practice, a motor car is a vastly more lethal weapon than a shotgun. At least a thousand more people are killed every year by motor cars than are killed by shotguns. However, no motor car owner is required to give a written undertaking as a condition of receiving his licence.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Does not the noble Lord realise that if the owner of a car behaves irresponsibly he can lose his licence? That is the issue.
Lord Monson: If the noble Lord will bear with me I shall come to that point. No motor car owner is required to give a written undertaking that reasonable care will be taken in the driving or parking of his car. He is not obliged to lock his car when leaving it. He is entitled to leave it on a hill with the handbrake not properly adjusted. That is potentially extremely dangerous. He will not lose his licence merely for doing that. He ought to, perhaps, but as the law stands at present he will not do so. Therefore, I do not think that shotgun owners should be required to give a written undertaking which is not also imposed upon the owners of motor cars.
Lord Gisborough: In following that up, what about owners of knives, pickaxe handles or anything else? All such items are thoroughly lethal weapons. Logic would suggest that the owners should also sign an undertaking.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Peel has introduced an important amendment and I understand exactly what he is getting at. He wishes to ensure that these weapons are properly kept in safe places. There is no difference between us on that. The Government have already announced their intention to amend the firearms rules so that in future a safekeeping requirement will appear as a condition on the face of a shotgun certificate, as it already does on a firearms certificate.
The safe-keeping requirements envisaged in my noble friend's amendment have no sanction. It is proposed that an applicant for a shotgun certificate, before he can be granted a certificate, should be required to sign an undertaking that he will keep his gun, or his guns, secure. However, once he has been granted a certificate the amendment provides no sanctions for failure to fulfil that undertaking. However, breach of a condition which is attached to a certificate is an offence.
Subsection (2) of the amendment would require chief constables to inform applicants of their duty to look after their guns, but there are no provisions to ensure that that advice is heeded. It would simply be creating further work for the police without any likely benefits. Given the terms in which subsection (2) is couched, I suspect that many shooters would find the advice somewhat patronising.
There is a further consideration. There is no requirement for the applicant for a firearms certificate to give such an undertaking. We would be placing applicants for shotgun certificates in a worse position than applicants for firearms certificates. Therefore, this amendment would achieve significantly less in terms of fairness and in ensuring public safety than the proposed safe-keeping requirements which the Government have in mind.
My noble friend Lord Peel asked how security would be assured. Under the 1968 Act, firearms must be kept at all times in a secure place with a view to preventing access to them by unauthorised persons. Shotguns will be treated in a similar way. Exactly how that is to be achieved will be discussed with shooting interests. The rules will provide standard safe-keeping conditions for shotguns when they are in actual use and when they are in transit. I have no doubt that those rules, when they are produced, will cover what happens when the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, stays in a hotel surrounded with her guns.
I agree that there should be consistency. That is best achieved by the guidance in the memorandum which the police will have on the operation of those rules. Putting all that on the face of the Bill will not help to ensure consistency of application by chief officers of police, but I understand the motivations which prompted my noble friend to table his amendments.
Earl Peel: I take heart to a degree from what my noble friend said. Clearly I am delighted to hear that

1137
the rules are to be reviewed. I accept that the amendment has shortcomings. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who pointed out the aspect concerning the words "potentially lethal weapons". Frankly, it does not concern me overmuch and I do not wish to be pedantic because the amendment was tabled principally as a probing amendment, as I said when moving it.
However, I am still unhappy to a certain extent about security. I come back to the point about consistency—consistency in security and consistency in all aspects of this Bill as regards the instructions to be given to the chief officers of police. I put one question to my noble friend in the hope that he can give me an assurance. Are the requirements for the safe-keeping of shotguns—I use those words carefully—to be uniform throughout various police forces in this country? Perhaps my noble friend could answer that specific point.
Earl Ferrers: The requirements for safe-keeping are, as my noble friend will realise, for the individual chief officers of police. The way in which we hope to get consistency is by publishing, as we are doing, the memorandum which gives guidance to the police on what they ought to do. That memorandum has not been previously published but it has been given out to police officers. However, to meet the points of concern of my noble friend, among others, we have decided to publish this guidance so that people may comment and criticise if they wish. They will be able to see what the guidance is.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, one cannot instruct chief officers of police because if that were the case there would be a national police force. All one can do is to give guidance. My noble friend will be able to see what is the guidance and by that we hope to achieve consistency. I point out to my noble friend that in each area the chief constable is responsible. He has to be assured that these weapons are kept in secure conditions. That is his final responsibility.
Viscount Brookeborough: Surely the problem is the vagueness of the term "safe keeping". My noble friend Lord Ferrers says that he cannot instruct chief constables. The Government have no say over speed limits or many other matters. Would it not be simple for a definition of "safe keeping" to be that these weapons should be held in a metal cabinet built for the purpose of safe keeping? Admittedly, there would be slight variations in the amount of security supplied but every gun owner in the country would have a cabinet for the purpose of safe keeping.
Earl Ferrers: That is one solution. I have suggested that exactly how safe keeping should be achieved is a matter for discussion. The shooting interests will he considered during these discussions and we shall therefore try to get the matter as right as we reasonably can.
Earl Peel: I am glad that the memorandum of guidance is to be published and everyone will welcome my noble friend's statement on that point. It is not enforceable, as I understand it, so I fear it means that, no matter how clear are the instructions
1138
to the chief officers of police, there is no guarantee that we shall have the consistency that I believe is so very important. I do not intend to go any further with this matter. I shall read very carefully what my noble friend said. However, I believe it is a matter that we shall return to at the Report stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 35:
Page 3, line 14, leave Out ("(b) of subsection (1A)") and insert ("(c)") of subsection (1)").
The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this amendment is to leave out a passage in page 3, in line 14. Having pulled for the Chamber's successful team against the House of Commons, I am in some disarray. I believe that the Committee will wish to know that we won and others of the team are enjoying themselves celebrating their victory. I believe that I had better not move this amendment and delay the working of the Committee. I shall move it on another day.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 3, line 16, after ("purposes") insert ("whether or not the applicant at the time of the application knows where the gun will he used").
The noble Lady said: The purpose of this amendment is to prevent a possibly over-zealous police officer, probably in a city and with no understanding of game shooting and how it works, demanding that an applicant for a shotgun certificate shall say where he will be using his gun. That is what usually happens at present when one applies for a firearms certificate. In such a situation, if one owns an estate or a farm one usually has no problem because one says that one will be using one's rifle on one's estate and on any other where one may he invited to stalk or shoot deer or whatever.
However, if one does not have suitable property of one's own, one may well be refused a firearms certificate because one cannot say, before being invited or before one has arranged to rent stalking, where one will be stalking. In the case of the firearms certificate and the rifle there is not usually a problem because one uses the estate rifle, which is illegal if one is under 17. That is a situation which a later amendment is designed to rectify. However, if the same were to apply to applications for shotgun certificates, it would blight the lives of many people who, while obliged to reside in a town or city in order to earn their livings and having no estate or farm of their own, very much enjoy shooting and who, in the season, are accustomed to accept invitations to shoot at the weekends, sometimes at quite short notice. While it is reasonably satisfactory to use a strange rifle, a shotgun is a different matter. It is a little like a suit; it has to fit. No estate can be expected to own a whole arsenal of guns of all sizes—for the right and left eye, for the right-handed and left-handed and so on—to lend to, say, six, eight or more people for a

1139
pheasant shoot or a grouse shoot. It really is impossible.
In a letter the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has assured me that there will be no power for police forces to attach individual conditions to shotgun certificates. In the first place I am not entirely clear whether "individual conditions" covers territorial conditions, which is what I am talking about. Secondly, I do not anticipate that there will be anything in the draft memorandum to encourage the police to require to know where a shotgun is to be used. The memorandum is merely guidelines and does not have the force of law. We do not have a national police force and therefore the memorandum can only be guidelines and may be disregarded.
As to Clause 3 as it is presently drafted, I very much fear lest proof of the intention to use the gun for sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin might be demanded by some overzealous officer who was possibly biased against blood sports in any case. I should very much like to have on the face of the Bill a safeguard against that happening. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I support what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has said and I should like to raise another point. One is still required to have a shotgun certificate to use a shotgun even if one does not necessarily own a gun oneself. I had a shotgun certificate quite a long time before I actually owned one outright. This was in addition to the game licence and the other papers one must have. Members of a syndicate could be shooting miles away from their own homes or just at invitation shoots. The only time many of us go shooting is when we are invited to go somewhere. This point must be taken into consideration as well.
Viscount Mountgarret: While I sympathise with the aims of the noble Lady, is not the amendment somewhat superfluous? The point which she made about unexpected sporting invitations or competitions is already covered in the Bill as it stands. Clause 3(1)(1B) states:
"an applicant shall, in particular, be regarded as having a good reason if the gun is intended to be used for sporting or competition purposes".
Surely one has only to show that that is the requirement and Bob is one's proverbial uncle.
Lord Burton: My noble friend is wrong again. I totally agree with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. In many parts of the country the police have been trying to impose territorial conditions on firearms. If that is extended to shotguns there is little doubt that certain places will also try to impose them for shotguns. A provision in the nature of what the noble Lady has suggested would ensure that that did not happen.
My noble friend Lord Dulverton had a territorial condition imposed. I am pleased to say that that was removed. The last time I renewed my firearms certificate the police tried to say that if ever I was asked to stalk elsewhere I would have to ask
1140
permission before I went there. I am pleased to say that I had that removed. This idea has been creeping in with rifles; and there is little doubt that if we do not change the Bill this will also happen with shotguns.
Lord Monson: I should like to support my noble friend's excellent amendment. Before we adjourned for dinner, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in resisting calls for stricter controls on crossbows, reminded the Committee that crossbows have been with us for a long time. I should like to remind the Committee that shotguns have also been with us for a long time, albeit for decades rather than centuries.
For the past 100 years or so shotguns have almost automatically been available, unless someone has been convicted of a relatively serious offence or is deemed to be a person of bad character. That state of affairs should continue. I see no reason for imposing heavy restrictions and regulations on shotgun owners. Therefore I fully support the amendment and give notice that I shall resist amendments to come, such as Amendment No. 38, which are designed to make it more difficult for people to hold shotgun licences.
Viscount Brookeborough: I support the noble Lady's amendment from the point of view of experience. We have this rule in Northern Ireland. It is impossible to get permission from the police at short notice for shooting on somebody else's land by giving a day's notice or whatever. However it could be easily worked out—assuming that one is a law-abiding person permitted to have a gun in the first place—and it should be possible to state on a certificate that weapons may be used on land where one has permission to use them. There would be absolutely no problem with that. To have to go back through the police at a weekend or on a bank holiday is unreasonable and too restrictive.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I briefly support the noble Lady's amendment. Often one is asked to shoot in different places, sometimes even abroad, so it is difficult to say where one will be shooting. One can shoot at home, which presumably is all right, but for rifles it is a different matter. One may be stalking on one's own ground or asked to stalk somewhere else, and one can even be asked to go abroad with a rifle. I agree with the amendment. I do not believe one needs to tell the police because it would be difficult to tell them where you will be keeping your gun because you may be fairly mobile.
Viscount Brookeborough: I should like to point out also that a lack of understanding of shooting prevails among the police. When we started getting restrictive practices in Northern Ireland, I mentioned to the police in a written letter accompanying my application that I might wish to take my rifle abroad to shoot wild boar in Germany or stalk in Scotland and they put on my certificate that I had permission to shoot wild boar in Scotland and West Germany!
Earl Ferrers: I wonder whether I may help the Committee over this vexed problem, because the Government have taken many reasonable steps to

1141
allay the fears of the shooting community that the new system of shotgun certification outlined in Clause 3 might be used to deny certificates to legitimate sportsmen and others who had valid reasons for the possession of a shotgun. Clause 3 makes clear that except where an applicant is a prohibited person or is unfit to possess a shotgun, a certificate shall be refused only if the police are satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason to possess, to purchase or to acquire such a gun. We have also gone so far as to specify certain uses which shall be regarded as good reasons for the use of a certificate. But the noble Lady's amendment proposes that we go a step further than that. She suggests that where a person wants a shotgun for sporting or competition purposes we should require a chief constable to issue the certificate, even if the applicant has no idea at all where, and by implication when, the gun will be used.
I believe that that is undesirable. Of course there may be cases where a person is likely at some stage to he invited on a shoot and wants to have a gun handy just in case. Many noble Lords seem to have experienced just that happy situation. But the police will have discretion to issue a shotgun certificate in those cases to that kind of person. They will take into account a person's background and his connections. However, the great majority of the population are, quite frankly, unlikely ever to be invited on a shooting weekend and I believe it would be unfortunate if the police were required, for example, to issue a shotgun certificate to a person living in a block of flats in the city centre and having no past experience of shooting and no evidence of contacts in the shooting world, simply because he claimed that he might want to go shooting at some time in the future.
I understand the reasons that the noble Lady has put forward, but I assure her that the Bill covers the problem to which she referred. I hope therefore that that will not continue to cause her anxiety. Both she and my noble friend Lord Burton referred to the territorial conditions which can be placed upon firearms. There is no power under Clause 3 for the police to impose individual conditions, such as a territorial condition, upon a shotgun certificate. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Lady that, although her fears are understood, I do not believe that her amendment would help the Bill. I believe that her fears are covered, but if her amendment were included in the Bill it would create considerably more problems of the type she might wish to avoid.
Lord Monson: Before the Minister sits down, can he confirm that as the law stands at present the individual living in a block of flats in a city to whom he referred would be almost automatically entitled to a shot gun certificate unless he had a conviction or was deemed to be of bad character?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is right. That is the difference. Under the Bill we wish to give a chief officer of police power to refuse a certificate unless he is convinced that it is being used for a reasonable
1142
purpose. At the moment he is obliged to give a certificate.
Viscount Dilhorne: Before my noble friend sits down, one of the difficulties experienced under subsection (1B) is that there are some types of activity which are considered reasonable. Under the normal drafting principles which I understand, if one says that one includes certain types of activity, other activities which are not mentioned are excluded unless there are terms saying that the provisions are not exhaustive or someting like that. There is a danger in subsection (1B)—this is perhaps what is behind the noble Lady's amendment—that certain activities are not considered reasonable when certain other activities are named as reasonable. If my noble friend could give some indication as to whether that could be achieved by a cosmetic change in the drafting, I should be interested to hear it.
Earl Ferrers: I am not certain that I have hoisted on board the problem to which my noble friend alludes, unless it be that because certain uses are conferred in subsection (1B) those which are not referred to are therefore explicitly excluded. I do not believe that that is so. If my noble friend were, with his agile legal brain, to read subsection (1B) he would see that it says:
"For the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1B) above an applicant shall, in particular, be regarded as having a good reason if the gun is intended to be used for sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin; and an application shall not be refused by virtue of that paragraph merely because the applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it for anyone else to use".
Those words are used to allay the fears of the shooting community that that provision may operate against its interests. Just because those references are made, it does not mean others should be excluded. The whole point is to give a chief officer of police the right to refuse a certificate where he believes that it should not be issued because the applicant is, in his view, deemed not to be suitable to receive it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I shall read it carefully in Hansard> tomorrow. I am not altogether happy about the point because I have a slight suspicion that under the clause as drafted the police could take it upon themselves to want proof of intention. We may be up against one law for the duke and another for the dustman. I do not like that because not all legitimate and very responsible shooters are rich men. Some of them live in council flats in towns or cities. They are perfectly responsible people but they might possibly have problems.
Meanwhile, I shall read very carefully what the noble Earl has replied, as I said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, reserving the right to come back to it at Report stage.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Lady withdraws her amendment, perhaps I may say this. She was concerned that there might be one law for the duke and another for the dustman. It would be wholly wrong if that were to be the case. There are certain,

1143
if not dukes, maybe some peers, who might be considered inappropriate to hold a shotgun certificate for various reasons. Similarly there may be some people who, if they were not dustmen, might otherwise be living in a city centre and who might also in turn be unsuitable.
The point is—and this is important—that the chief constable should have the power of saying, "That person is not suitable". But he will do so only if he thinks that the public interest is protected by that reason. If the noble Lady were to have pursued her amendment, it would have removed that ability for the police chief constable to say, "This person is not a suitable person to have a shotgun certificate".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before calling Amendment No. 38, I should remind the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 39 to 42.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, leave out lines 17 to 19 and insert (", the shooting of vermin, sentimental reasons, collection or the safekeeping by relatives for persons under the age of seventeen years").
The noble Viscount said: If I can persuade my noble friend Lord Burton to agree with me on this, I shall have achieved something this evening. He has disagreed with me on two points already.
The purpose of this amendment is to go some way towards meeting the point of my noble friend Lord Dilhorne about things which may not be included in the Bill and may automatically be excluded. Leading on from that, I am very unhappy, quite frankly, that there is provision in this Bill to suggest that the chief officer of police can grant a shotgun certificate to somebody who neither intends to use the wretched thing when he has a certificate, nor indeed to lend it to anyone else. So what in fortune's name, I ask, does he want a certificate for? This must be wrong. Therefore I wonder whether perhaps an amendment such as I have tabled might go some way towards meeting that point.
I have tried to draft the amendment in a way which meets the original drafting. In other words, it will read that in particular we regard it as being a good reason if the gun is intended for sport or for competition purposes, the shooting of vermin and for sentimental reasons. There are many reasons why people might require to have a certificate in order to enable them to retain something of family interest to them. It may have no interest to anybody else, it may be absolutely worthless to anybody else, but that is not the point.
Perhaps I may refer to my personal circumstances. My father had a pistol which he wore during the war. I have never used the pistol; I think I have only shot a pistol once in my life. I did not want to get rid of it; I just wanted to keep it. It was my father's. Why should I not keep it for sentimental reasons? The same goes for many other people. So why should we not specify that in the Bill?
Then the amendment goes on to say "collection". People should have a certificate in order to collect
1144
guns. Many people are very interested in collecting guns. They find them of great interest, and not necessarily guns of great antiquity. There are guns produced for special occasions. I think that not so long ago Holland and Holland had a centenary or an anniversary and produced a pair of double-barrelled guns of great beauty. They probably could be used, but it is more likely that the person who bought them wanted them for collection purposes. They could be of great value in the long-term future.
A gun came up the other day in my part of the world which was, I believe, the third gun of the late Marquess of Ripon. A local person bought it. He was not going to use it; it was a hammer gun. It was bought for a collection, and it will have some value in the future. So it would be unreasonable not to allow a certificate to hold a shotgun to people who wished to indulge in that kind of thing.
Those of what one might call tender years who are under the age of 17 are not, quite rightly, permitted to hold a shotgun certificate. They have already been referred to this evening. But what happens in the case of people of younger years to whom guns have been left by their grandparents or their parents? What should one do in that case? A widow's late husband may have had a pair of guns and have left them to his son. What is the widow going to do? It would be very unfair to tell her that she should hand the guns in and that if they are out of sight they are out of mind. It would be perfectly reasonable to allow that person to have a shotgun certificate to enable the weapon or weapons to be kept for the people for whom they were originally destined. The weapons could then be handed over at the right time. It is for those reasons that I have tried to expand slightly on the drafting of the Bill as it stands.
I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I should refer to my Amendment No. 61. I have tried to safeguard the security aspect of this matter, in the event of Amendment No. 38 being accepted, by stating that no ammunition should be allowed to be possessed by the people to whom certificates are given specifically for collection purposes, safe keeping, or sentimental reasons. I remember the pistol I have on my firearm certificate. The certificate specifically states that I can have the pistol but that I am not allowed to keep ammunition for it. That is perfectly reasonable. If this amendment is not agreed to, there is little point in raising the matter of the possession of ammunition under Amendment No. 61. I hope that that is relatively self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: We oppose this amendment. We would leave these points to the discretion of the police. We entirely agree with the point that was made by more than one noble Lord on Second Reading that there was a need for greater consistency between police forces in the exercise of their discretion and perhaps for a code of practice to that end. But ultimately it is inevitable that there will remain a considerable area in which Parliament inevitably must trust in the discretion and sound judgment of the police.
The position is that no one will be able to obtain a shotgun certificate under the new Section 28 unless

1145
he satisfies the chief officer of police that he can be permitted to possess it:
"without danger to the public safety or to the peace".
That is one protection. Another is that a certificate will not he issued if there is no good reason for the applicant to have the gun. That is obviously right too. The question surely on this amendment is how much guidance Parliament should give about what amounts to a good reason. The present Clause 3(1B) says in effect that sport, competition and vermin control are automatically to be regarded as good reasons. That seems to me to be fair enough.
What this amendment seeks to do is to add to the list of automatically good reasons, sentimental reasons, the forming of a collection and the safe keeping of guns for children. We do not go along with that. Whether or not the forming of a collection is a good reason for having a gun, to take that example, must surely depend on the particular circumstances. It depends on the nature of the gun, on whether the applicant would have the facilities to house a collection and to keep it secure and safe and other things of that kind. A good reason for holding a certificate could be, for example, that a gun was a family heirloom and that it was being kept, let us say, by a widow for her son, until he was of age. It may not be a good reason if someone wants to buy a gun to be held for his new-born daughter, notwithstanding how genuine the intention may be. Surely it all depends on the circumstances.
However, something is capable of being a good reason without being an automatically good reason. The interest of the collector and the person who has an old firearm for sentimental reasons are sufficiently protected by the provision that there may be a good reason although the gun is not to be used. We think that to go further than that is neither necessary nor desirable. We therefore oppose the amendment.
Lord Monson: Quite apart from the fact that the amendment is, to my mind, unacceptably restrictive, perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, will explain why he wishes to prevent people keeping shotguns for relatives who happen to be over the age of 17. Many people living in the country have sons or daughters, nephews or neices, brothers or sisters who happen to live in London or other large cities and have no storage facilities for shotguns. They may much prefer to leave their guns in the country. It seems to me to be quite wrong to prevent them from leaving a gun in the country with a relative who happens to live there.
Viscount Mountgarret: The answer is quite simple. Anybody who is over the age of 17 may apply for a shotgun certificate. Provided that he shows he is keeping the weapon safely, whether it is kept in his own house or in someone else's, there should be no problem. I very much regret what I have heard from the Benches opposite. I do not understand the thinking there. The amendment is quite reasonable. It does not lay down specifically the reasons for keeping a shotgun, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said earlier. It is a guideline as to what will be regarded as
1146
a good reason. I think that the amendment is constructive. Perhaps it may be taken in a different way.
Earl Ferrers: New subsection (1B) in Clause 3, which sets out the new criteria for the issue of shotgun certificates, makes clear that an application for a certificate is not to be refused solely on the grounds that an applicant does not intend to use the shotgun himself or lend it to anyone else to use.
The purpose of my noble friend's amendment is to specify more precisely the sort of circumstances in which such an application may not be refused on the ground of non-use alone. He has correctly deduced that our main concern when drafting this provision was the situation where someone wishes to retain a gun for sentimental reasons: where a widow wishes to retain her husband's shotgun, for instance, or where a grandfather intends to pass his gun on to his grandson. Again, my noble friend is correct in assuming we also intend to accommodate the person who collects shotguns either for their historical interest or for their value, but who has no intention of using them.
The other element of Amendment No. 38 deals with the safekeeping by a relative of a shotgun belonging to someone under 17 years of age. While I appreciate my noble friend's concern, I am afraid that this proposal does not square with the restrictions on the possession of shotguns by persons under the age of 17 which are set out in the 1968 Act. There is no statutory minimum age limit for the issue of a shotgun certificate, and while a person under the age of 17 cannot buy a shotgun or ammunition, he can possess one and use it under the supervision of a person aged 21 or over. It is also an offence to give a shotgun or ammunition to a person under the age of 15. The aim of these provisions is to ensure that young people using shotguns are under proper supervision at all times. Needless to say, chief officers of police consider very carefully indeed any application for a shotgun certificate from a young person.
My main concern about this amendment, however, is that in seeking to be specific about the sort of case where someone may wish to have a shotgun without using it, it may unwittingly exclude other genuine cases. It is much better to have the sort of general formulation which is already in the Bill, which can prove flexible enough to accommodate all the genuine cases.
Amendment No. 47, which is attached to this one, seeks to provide that a shotgun certificate shall specify the purposes for which the guns listed on it are to be used, but a shotgun certificate can only he granted under Section 2 of the 1968 Act authorising the holder to possess shotguns. It cannot authorise the possession of a gun for a specific purpose. What my noble friend is proposing would involve a fundamental reappraisal of the provisions of the 1968 Act relating to the different treatment of firearms and shotgun certificates.
My noble friend's amendment assumes a level of control over the use of shotguns which we are not seeking to attain, which is to some extent

1147
unattainable and which we feel, and I hope that my noble friend would also feel on reflection, is probably unnecessary.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am very grateful to my noble friend for the courteous way in which he has
1148
explained why he feels that the clause should remain as it stands. I am happy with that explanation and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before calling Amendent No. 39 I should point out that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendent No. 40.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("and an") and insert ("(3) An").
The noble Viscount said: I should like to take Amendment No. 41 with Amendment No. 39 because they are both pure drafting amendments. Put very simply, the proposal is that the words "and an" and "by virtue of that paragraph" are totally surplus to the requirement of the section and should be left out. It would read very much better if it just read:
"an application shall not he refused merely because".
The words "by virtue of that paragraph" add nothing.
I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee on a small drafting point, and I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Amendment No. 39 appears to be a paving amendment for my noble friend's more substantive later amendments. The words that he proposes are not in fact necessary, but if I may I shall write to my noble friend about it.
Viscount Dilhorne: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 3, line 17, after ("and") insert ("(1C)").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee in moving this amendment I should like to speak to Amendment No. 43 standing in my name, which is really the amendment that matters.
I am seeking here to grant a person permission to keep a shotgun when he has no intention of using it, but under those circumstances he certainly should not have ammunition as well.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. Just before the war I was given a pair of old Army 4·5 revolvers dating from about 1894. I kept them, and eventually when I got a firearms certificate many years later, in about 1950, I had those two revolvers put onto that certificate, but it stated quite clearly on the certificate that I was not permitted to buy any ammunition.
About 15 years ago there were a few unpleasant burglaries in which firearms were used and I felt that if somebody broke into the house there was too great a risk of their getting hold of the Army 4.5s. I decided the best thing that I could do was to take them to the police and ask them to put them through the guillotine. That was the end of it. Basically I am trying to say that, where a person has no intention of using the gun himself or of lending it to someone else, the fore-end should be removed—so that even if someone steals the gun it cannot be used—and that no ammunition should be kept. It is as simple as that. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: May I ask my noble friend what would happen if someone who was, say, a very good clay pigeon shot were to leave to his grandson a Browning over-and-under gun, which I gather is the best shotgun for shooting clay pigeons and from which the fore-end is undetachable? In that case the wretched thing would have to be sawn off and the gun would be useless for evermore.
Lord Burton: Perhaps I may say that if one has an ordinary double-barrelled shotgun that one can break, one can fire it without a fore-end. On the other hand one cannot eject without one. However, one can at least fire off two shots.
The Earl of Balfour: I thought that all shotguns could be disabled by removing the fore-end, which shows that I am not 100 per cent. correct in that respect. I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out that my amendment is defective. Would it be possible to consider that if someone does not intend to use the gun he should not possess ammunition, which is my other point?
Viscount Mountgarret: I can come to the aid of my noble friend and tell him that removal of the fore-end correctly will not eject a cartridge. It is even more true if one uses a gun with the fore-end removed. One cannot then recock the hammers unless one takes the bits and recocks it by hand.
Lord Swansea: I was about to mention the same point. It is perfectly feasible to immobilise a shotgun, so to speak, by removing the fore-end, provided that one first snaps the locks—in other words one releases the tumblers inside by pressing the triggers and then one removes the fore-end. Without the fore-end the action cannot be recocked and, as the locks have already been established, the gun cannot be fired again without being recocked. Also there are some guns—the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, mentioned the Browning over-and-under and of course there are others such as slide-action self-loading shotguns—in which another part of the mechanism such as the belt or breechblock and not just the fore-end must be removed to immobilise the gun.
Lord Gisborough: I should like to dispute the point that has just been made. I believe that it is possible to recock the guns again against a table simply by using force.
The Earl of Balfour: Yes; the ordinary burglar might not know that.
Lord John-Mackie: Am I right in thinking with the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, that all guns are not ejectors? If one takes off the fore-end of an old dog-head gun one can fire it any way one likes, if one is prepared to have one's fingers nipped.
Lord Swansea: Yes, all guns are not ejectors. If a gun is a non-ejector, one presses the triggers to snap off the locks before removing the fore-end. The fore-end is necessary before recocking the gun, so the gun cannot be recocked.
Earl Ferrers: I am bound to say that the Bill is fairly complicated to understand in certain areas. However, that is nothing compared with the mental acrobatics that one is obliged to perform when listening to the professionalism and experience of my noble friends asking what happens when one cocks a certain gun in a certain direction or removes a breechblock and certain other things. I prefer to defer taking part in such a debate for fear that I may become somewhat lost and, as a result, inaccurate. I should prefer to address my few remarks to the substance of the amendment as we see it.
The problem with the amendment, I think, is that it is largely counterproductive. It implies a greater level of control over shotguns than we are envisaging. Under the 1968 Act a chief officer of police may impose specific conditions on a firearms certificate. Where the certificate relates to a collection it is customary to prohibit the holder from possessing ammunition. But there is no power to impose conditions in respect of shotgun certificates reflecting the lower level of control, and we do not intend to introduce one. To make a specific statutory provision to this effect in all such cases would constitute a considerably more severe restraint on shotgun holders than firearm holders. We do not seek to put shotgun controls on a par with firearms control. I hope my noble friend can accept this.
There is the very real likelihood that a person who holds a shotgun which he does not intend to use may subsequently acquire other shotguns, by virtue of his shotgun certificate, which he does intend to use but which if my noble friend's amendment were accepted he would be unable to use because his certificate would prevent him from acquiring any ammunition. The main reason for this provision in the first place is to enable people to retain those guns for sentimental reasons, as a kind of heirloom if one likes, or as part of collections. But there is little point in their doing so unless they are able to display the gun to its best advantage, which at the least means keeping it in an assembled form. For that reason I hope that my noble friend will see why we feel that his amendment would be inappropriate.
The Earl of Balfour: I am most grateful for what my noble friends around me have said. Clearly this amendment is defective. I apologise for wasting the Committee's time to some extent. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 44 is agreed to I remind the Committee that I cannot call Amendments Nos. 45 to 48.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 3, line 20, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lady said: Clause 3(2) has its attractions when first looked at, but there are a number of difficulties. Different types of shotgun of the same make can have very similar serial numbers, thus causing confusion. Some shotguns have no serial number. Apart from these technical matters, there is the question of gathering numbers and descriptions. The only way that the police can do this is if every individual owner of shotguns voluntarily provides them with the information required. Knowing the way that some officers can use their powers, one can foresee that where a police officer felt that he was not being fully informed he could assume that an offence was being committed and come back with a search warrant to search a person's house to be sure that he was being supplied with the numbers and descriptions of all the shotguns.
The system is supposed to be effective in assisting with the prevention and detection of crime. To be able to be effective the fullest information would have to be collected in the first place at constabulary level. This would have to be recorded at national level and the records would have to be meticulously maintained. When it is considered that there may be some 3 million shotguns in this country, a large organisation at national level will be necessary.
Other police forces have looked into this in some detail in other countries. As long ago as 1930 the New Zealand police gave up the idea of listing shotguns as being of no value. I do not see that all these measures will have the effect intended, which is to assist in the fight against crime and in the interests of public safety. They will create a mountain of bureaucracy surrounding the control of shotguns. They will take the police off the street—police who are needed there to fight ever-increasing serious crime, in particular in our large cities. These proposals will do more to remove the police from their proper role to that of a purely administrative role than anything else. I beg to move.
Lord Kimball: There is one other underlying fear behind the amendment which the noble Lady has moved. When information technology is advanced to such a state that all shotguns with their numbers can be held on one central computer—which is quite feasible in the not too distant future—we shall find that, rather like putting the clock back on a motor car, a great many of the serial numbers of some of the best guns in his country, made by the London gun trade, are not totally accurate. That, I believe, is partly due to the war and records being destroyed by bombs. However, there are some guns that carry serial numbers which make them look younger than they are.
The assurance we wish to achieve this evening from my noble friend is that in the event of problems arising over the number of shotguns, there will never be an attempt by the police to stamp their numbers on existing weapons. That is something which many people fear. I hope that we can have an assurance tonight that, whatever muddles may emerge over the serial numbering of shotguns in this country, there will be no attempt by the police to overnumber with their own numbers to meet whatever computer they may bring forward.
10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that some members of the shooting community are concerned that the proposed requirement for the details of shotguns held to be listed on a certificate will be used at a later date to restrict the number of guns that an individual may hold.
If that is so, I can assure the Committee that such fears are unfounded. It has also been suggested that listing shotguns on a certificate merely imposes a burden on shooters and the police without any benefits in terms of public safety. There is, however, a justifiable concern that the present shotgun controls do not link guns to their owners and a certificate holder is therefore not accountable for the weapons he possesses. In other words, police have no way of knowing who possesses what. It is not possible to tell whether this results in abuses such as, for example, sales to non-certificate holders, since under the present system no reliable statistics can be compiled.
The Government believe it is now time that shotguns were listed on the owner's certificate, and the notification requirements in Clause 4 will ensure both that the police are kept informed of any subsequent acquisitions or disposals and that transfers are properly recorded on the certificate itself. That seems to me to be reasonable.
The amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lady seeks to remove half of that structure of controls, while at the same time leaving in place the notification of transfers. That would leave us with a bureaucracy which would have little benefit, because the police would still have to record transfers without ever being able to compile an accurate record of shotgun ownership as existing holdings would not be recorded. I think that the amendment would seriously weaken the Government's proposal for improved controls on shotguns. Therefore I hope that the noble Lady will be satisfied with what I have said about that.
With regard to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Kimball, I know of no reason why the police should stamp other serial numbers on people's guns without their knowledge or permission.
Lord Burton: I am rather surprised at the noble Earl's reply to this amendment. For a long time now—I suppose at least since 1968, but probably before—we have had to make a proper record of all firearms, rifles and so on on our certificate. It seems to me that that has been a waste of time to a large extent. I am not sure what advantage there is. A great deal of police time, apart from one's own time, goes into putting such matters on record. The only check that is made is when you come to renew your certificate and the police come to see whether you still have the same weapons.
There was a case the other day, which I spoke about on Second Reading, when we apprehended a man with a weapon to which he was not entitled and which had clearly been lent to him by someone else. I asked the police, "What happened to the owner of the rifle?" They said, "We do not know who it was". What was the point of having all the serial numbers recorded if they did not know who the owner was?
1154
There was another case where some time ago a murder was committed with a Luger pistol and the police had possession of it. My brother had a Luger pistol and after the murder the police asked him whether he still had it. I understand that some of those guns have similar numbers so it is possible that the weapon owned by my brother had the same number as that which was involved in the murder.
In that case the police did not have a central computer. I believe that if they had it would have caused many difficulties and a great deal of expense. At present the listing of firearms does little or no good and to enlarge it to include the enormous number of shotguns would be a complete waste of time.
Lord Brain: The noble Lady has already said that many years ago New Zealand abandoned a register of shotguns. I understand that in Australia the State of Victoria has had a three-year trial of registering shotguns. It is, in the fourth year, abandoning the trial as a waste of police time and a total source of non-information.
The Bill states that a person requires a shot gun certificate in order to possess a gun. It does not state that only one person can possess that gun; there can be several joint owners. A computer will continue to throw up nonsenses as to who is the joint owner and where the gun is located at any particular time. It may happen that a joint owner lives in London, another in Manchester and another in Edinburgh, while the gun is stored on the family estate in Norfolk and is possibly listed on the parents' certificate. In that case who will chase round the country to find out where the weapon is, whether it is lost or check the certificate when it is renewed? The owners may say that the safe keeping for the gun is in Norfolk. I believe that the police are seeking a bureaucracy which, after five years, they will wish they had never started.
Viscount Brookeborough: I should like to point out that in Northern Ireland the numbering of weapons has been carried out since 1926. The system works, albeit that at present there may be many weapons which do not appear to have an owner or be held legally. If we do not start now, when shall we start? The problem can only become worse. From the point of view of the shooting community, surely it must be right that the weapons are numbered on certificates.
Where joint ownership occurs it is simple for an on-loan certificate to relate to either the smaller shareholders or the people who have loan of the weapon. Having regard to the computers now available, it is not unreasonable that there should be a national register and that the on-loan feature should be listed. When a weapon is disposed of—be it sold or destroyed—the relevant firearm certificate can be altered accordingly by entering it on a computer. The system works in Northern Ireland. As a member of the shooting community there—and I also shoot in England—I see no reason why it should not work here.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am glad that the noble Viscount has made that point because I was thinking of volunteering the same information. Having discussed the matter with the Royal Ulster

1155
Constabulary I can say that it is quite clear that the form of record keeping which it has established in Northern Ireland is of substantial advantage to it in investigating crime. I believe that to be of more relevance than what may have happened in New Zealand in 1930.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: With respect to the noble Viscount, I should like to ask what a computer will make of a shotgun without a number, or of two shotguns with identical or similar numbers. The mind boggles.
Viscount Brookeborough: Perhaps I may attempt to answer that. There are very few shotguns without a number. In addition, it would be quite feasible from a forensic evidence point of view, should a shotgun be used, to link the empty case to a particular weapon. They would probably not all be test fired on registration but if it were thought advisable that could happen. We have hand guns test fired by the forensic department before a certificate is issued. Therefore, should an empty case be found anywhere in the country, assuming the weapon was lawfully held, that case would match up to a weapon.
Viscount Mountgarret: This amendment is a God sent opportunity to try to bring shotgun certificates into line with firearm certificates. It seems to me that the method by which firearm certificates are issued and the weapons registered and so on should now be translated into shotgun certificates. It may be deemed inconvenient to many people who are not used to handling firearm certificates, but operated properly it is not a great inconvenience. It is the price we should be prepared to pay to try to assist in bringing about some degree of control and preventing weapons falling into the wrong hands.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful for what my noble friend Lord Mountgarret said and also for the remarks of my noble friend Lord Brookeborough with regard to his experience in Northern Ireland. I do not see any real problem because all we are trying to do, as my noble friend has said, is to list and record the whereabouts of shotguns. If there are shotguns which do not have a number then they cannot be listed. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, makes rather a meal of this by asking what the computer will do if a gun has no serial number. I do not suppose that it will be the first problem faced by computers or computer operators. However, to use that in support of the argument that there should be no listing of shotguns seems to me somewhat tenuous. All we are trying to ensure is that where shotgun certificates are issued the numbers should be listed.
I hesitate to draw an analogy with something totally different. Let us, however, consider the number of motor cars there are and the problems which people have when motor cars get into the wrong hands and the engine, registration and chassis numbers are switched around. I do not believe that Members of the Committee would say that we should therefore dispose of the listing of registration
1156
numbers of motor cars. That system has been a tremendous help in keeping track of motor cars and those which have been wrongly used. In a similar way, that is what we are trying to do here.
Lord Swansea: Can my noble friend give an assurance that it is not the Government's intention to put a limit on the number of shotguns which can be held by an individual? If that is the case, will he agree that the wording of this subsection is somewhat vague and should be amended at the next stage?
Earl Ferrers: I believe that the answer to my noble friend's first question is yes and, with respect, the answer to the second question is no. We have no intention of limiting the amount of shotguns which a person owns or can keep. As far as I can see, the Bill does not imply that in any respect. I believe that the Bill as it is would cause no problems at all in that regard.
Lord Swansea: Does the Minister not agree that in its present form the Bill is open to misinterpretation, particularly by the police who might seek to impose arbitrary limits?
Earl Ferrers: I believe that my noble friend will have to spell that out more clearly. There is nothing in the Bill which I have seen—and I have looked at it carefully, for the reasons which my noble friend suggests—to make one believe there is any limitation. I do not see that. If my noble friend has any reason to believe that the Bill imposes such limitations, I should be grateful if he could explain.
Lord Burton: I wonder if the Minister has any figures as to the extra number of personnel required to administer the documentation of firearms. I have some figures which have been worked out from the documentation of rifles. It is calculated, as a very conservative estimate, that at least 220 extra policemen will be needed plus 50 extra civilians. I understood that we were already short of police. I should have thought that, if we needed 200 extra policemen for something which is worthless, we should do much better to have them on the beat. Another estimate says that the figure might go up as high as 500 extra policemen.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Will the noble Lord make it clear who is giving these estimates?
Lord Burton: It is quite easily worked out from the amount of time taken—which I think is given by the police anyway—on administering firearms certificates at the present time. The unknown figure is, of course, the number of shotguns. That is why there is the variation between the 220 extra policemen plus 50 civilians and the 500 extra policemen. No one knows how many shotguns there are, so it is difficult to work out exactly the right number. Whatever it may be, it is a very large number. I contend that it would be much better to have those policemen on the beat.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend puts forward an avant-garde suggestion that we should use between 200 and 500 extra policemen, and he says that the figure can be worked out quite easily. I do not know how he worked it out so easily if he was a factor of 100 per cent. wrong.
Some of your Lordships have been concerned about the cost of all this. From our inquiries we know that many forces have adopted the practice of interviewing all first-time applicants for shotgun certificates so that some judgment can be made about their suitability and advice given about safekeeping. Inspection of security arrangements can be built into this interview at very little cost. We anticipate that at the renewal stage home inspections will be carried out much more selectively within existing manpower resources only where there are grounds for concern. Similarly, there may be scope for some compensating reduction in the inquiries that are at present made in straightforward Section 1 renewal cases.
Our proposals with regard to making firearms certificates and shotgun certificates coterminus in their application will also assist. The notification system will clearly impose some additional burdens on the police, but we believe that all these changes can be contained within the manpower increase which is set out in the explanatory memorandum. I anticipate that the shotgun certificate fee will need to be raised. I cannot set a precise figure on it, but it is likely to be below that for a firearms certificate.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: We have had a very interesting debate on this amendment. I am not entirely convinced, but I shall read with great care tomorrow what the noble Earl has said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 3, line 22, after ("specify") insert ("but not limit").
The noble Earl said: It is with some confidence that I rise to move this amendment in spite of the interruptions during the last amendment of my noble friend Lord Swansea because I was much impressed by the answers given by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, and the robust way in which he answered the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie.
This amendment seeks to insert "but not limit" after "specify" in Clause 3 of the Bill. The Minister said that this was the case. I can see no reason why he should fail to agree to put this on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: I feel that this amendment is very necessary. It must be borne in mind that a statement given by a Minister in either of' the Houses of Parliament does not stand up in a court of law. I have suffered from this. On two or three occasions I have been given assurances by Ministers which have subsequently been found by the courts to be wrong because they were not contained in the Act. I think it is vital that, in spite of the assurances given here and in the other place, this is written into the Act. 1 strongly support my noble friend.
Earl Peel: I also support my noble friend on this. I was encouraged when my noble friend on the Front Bench said that he had no intention of limiting the number of shotguns on a certificate. We must bear in mind that, as the law stands at the moment, technically no such limitation exists, yet it is my information that certain chief officers of police are in fact limiting the number of guns that an applicant may have on his licence. Therefore, bearing that in mind, I believe that this amendment is particularly worthy of support.
Viscount Dilhorne: I too support the amendment. It must be made clear that there must not be a limit. My Amendment No. 46 suggests that the number should be left out because the number will in any case be obvious from the description of the guns on the certificate. It would be only a small addition to include the three words proposed by my noble friend Lord Swinton and remove all shadow of doubt that there is no limit.
Lord Monson: I too support this amendment. I hope that the noble Earl who tabled the amendment will consider testing the opinion of the Committee if it is not accepted by the Government. Those of us who have doubts have been very patient. We have accepted the Government's negative replies to all our suggestions. Now is the time to stand firm.
Viscount Brookeborough: I support this amendment. I do so because when this register of weapons is compiled there will be chief constables who will be amazed by the number of' shotguns involved. It will be their natural inclination to think, "Goodness, that is far too many". Without instructions that they do not have the right to limit the number of guns held on a certificate I feel sure—indeed, we have heard this already —that perhaps some chief constables will feel disinclined to license a person for all his weapons. The only answer would be perhaps a bottle of scotch when the chief constable opens the letter with all the weapons listed on it.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend is concerned to ensure that there is no scope in Clause 3(2) for chief officers of police to impose arbitrary limits on the number of shotguns which may be held on a certificate. I have explained that there is no intention that that should be done. Where subsection (2)(a) refers to a certificate specifying the number of shotguns to which it relates we are speaking merely of the number of guns listed on the certificate at any one time. There is no overall limit on the number of guns which may be held. The certificate holder is free to increase them or, for that matter, to reduce them. The number of guns on the certificate at any one time is at the choice of the owner of the certificate.
I can assure my noble friend that there is no intention to impose a limit. We do not expect a limit. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest a limit. I understand my noble friend's anxiety but it is misplaced because there is no requirement to impose a limit.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: A few moments ago the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, made a suggestion which I hope, on reflection, he will withdraw.
Lord Blease: I earnestly appeal to the noble Viscount to do that. I feel it was made in the heat of the moment and in a facetious manner. I hope he will withdraw the remark.
Viscount Brookeborough: I withdraw it.
Lord Swansea: I spoke on this point on the previous amendment. I firmly believe that all doubt should be removed from the Bill. The clause as it stands is open to misinterpretation, especially by some police forces which may wish to impose an arbitrary limit. In spite of what my noble friend said, they could read this clause as entitlement to impose such an arbitrary limit.
Lord Gisborough: If a chief constable reads the clause as entitlement to limit and informs someone accordingly, it is highly unlikely that that person will feel confident to challenge the police on a matter of law. He will accept that the police must know the law. Therefore, it is necessary to spell out that there is no limit.
Viscount Mountgarret: I also join my noble friends who have spoken in support of this amendment. It is important that this point is written into the Bill. If my noble friend on the Front Bench cannot support it then perhaps my noble friend will want to find out the views of the Committee on this matter.
Lord Brain: It is open to misinterpretation because the certificate could read, "This certificate is valid for six guns", and describe only four. I believe that that six might then be said to be the maximum. If someone wished to add three more guns to the certificate the chief constable would say, "Sorry, the specified number is six". I believe it is open to misinterpretation and I support this amendment.
The Earl of Swinton: I heard what my noble friend said and I cannot see why he cannot accept this amendment. He agrees that there is no intention to impose a limitation. I do not consider that the addition of these three words makes any great difference to the Bill. I am very grateful for the support I have received from many noble Lords on all sides of the Committee. I agree that this clause could be subject to misinterpretation and I feel that I have no alternative but to test the opinion of the Committee on the matter.
Earl Ferrers: Before my noble friend does that, perhaps I may be allowed to add to what I have said. I realise that the Committee feels concern about this matter. I explained that it is the view of the Government that there is no limit applied or suggested at all. Quite clearly, the Committee is concerned, for reasons which I understand. I accept entirely the principle that my noble friend has put forward but I wonder whether he would be good enough not to press this amendment tonight but to
1160
allow me to take it back to reconsider the drafting. If we are at fault and we can improve it, then we shall try to do so.
The Earl of Northesk: In view of the suggestion that some issuing authorities are already imposing a limit, would it be of some help if we were assured that this idea of no limit was written into the code of guidance? If that were done and the code of guidance were published, I believe we should be that much more satisfied.
Earl Peel: My information is that anything written into the code of guidance would not be binding under statute.
Viscount Mountgarret: My noble friend said that he would take away this problem and look at it again. This is the Committee stage and what seems to be happening is that such points are discussed in Committee, taken away, and the whole matter is then debated again at the Report stage. Is it not time that we came to a decision? There may be points of substance that need to be considered very carefully and we can return to them at the Report stage. However, this is not the point of substance, but a point of fact. There is no argument about it.
Earl Ferrers: With respect to my noble friend he is getting the reins between his teeth a little. I have given my noble friend an undertaking that I will consider this point again. There is nothing between us as to the principle. We believe that the wording in the Act is right. If I give an undertaking to look at the matter again, it is a little churlish of my noble friend to say that, despite that undertaking, we should vote upon the matter. If my noble friend wishes to do so it is a matter for him, but I have told him that I will consider the point and consider it quite genuinely and sincerely. I am prepared to do that.
The Earl of Swinton: I am very grateful for what my noble friend said. I am tempted both ways. I have great faith in my noble friend and in his honesty and integrity and I trust him very far. On the other hand, certain undertakings were given in another place by his honourable friend who later returned to say that the matter had been looked at but nothing further was to be done. Nevertheless, I have great trust in my noble friend and I will not press the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 3, line 23, after ("including") insert ("the purposes for which they arc to be used and").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment follows the theme of trying to bring shotgun certificates into line with firearms certificates. A firearm certificate

1161
states the purposes for which the weapon is required to be used. In some ways this conflicts with a previous amendment which was not agreed to. It sought to delete the words in new subsection (1B):
"an application shall not be refused…merely because the applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it for anyone else to use".
I suppose that in a way it could be said that events have overtaken this amendment. However, I wonder whether it could be desirable, in so far as it is possible to have a requirement on the shotgun certificate, to indicate the purposes for which it is being used. I should like to know what my noble friend feels about this. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: It gives us an unaccustomed sense of satisfaction for the first time today to join forces with the still serried, although somewhat diminishing, ranks behind the noble Earl to which he has thus far not been able to give very great comfort in Committee. We rather hope that our support will cause him to think with an open and reflective mind about the worth of this amendment.
When speaking to an earlier amendment the noble Earl indicated that under the 1968 Act a certificate only authorises the possession of a shotgun and that the function of the certificate is not to specify the purpose for which the shotgun is held. That is all very well as regards the 1968 Act, but we invite him to say that he will rethink his position in relation to that. There is no reason why the Government should not rethink their position and there is every reason why, in line with this amendment, they should rethink their position.
It seems to follow logically from the new requirement in Clause 3(1A)(b) that the applicant must show a good reason for wanting a shotgun. If he must show a good reason for wanting a shotgun, surely this must involve him stating to the police the purpose for which it is to he used. We cannot see how one can show a good reason for wanting a shotgun without stating the purpose for which it is to be used. Surely, therefore, leaving aside the structure or the object of the 1968 Act 20 years ago, it is right that that purpose should be recorded on the certificate so that a person who obtains a certificate on the basis, let us say, that he wishes to hold the gun in safe keeping for a minor cannot then go out shooting with it.
We believe that it would be right and proper always to confine the holder to his original stated purpose. If he suddenly finds that he wants to use his shotgun for a different purpose, he can go along and ask for the certificate to be varied. There is a great deal of common sense behind this amendment and we hope that reasons other than the thinking as it was in 1968 can be given for rejecting the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I quite see the view put foward by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, but the difficulty is that a shotgun certificate can only be granted under Section 2 of the 1968 Act authorising the holder to possess a shotgun. It cannot authorise possession of a gun for a specific purpose. What my noble friend proposes in this amendment involves quite a fundamental change in the provisions of the 1968 Act
1162
relating to the different treatment of firearms and shotgun certificates. It would be difficult to put this into the Bill if as a result a shotgun certificate can only be issued to allow the shotgun to be used for a specific purposes. In fact the purpose of the shotgun certificate is to permit a person to possess a shotgun and to use it for what purposes he thinks fit.
Viscount Mountgarret: I really do not follow the argument. It is very simple to state for what purposes one needs a certificate. It is clearly laid down in subsection (1B) that a good reason for having a gun is if it,
"is intended to be used for sporting or competition purposes"—
and so on and so forth. It that is so why cannot that be put down on the certificate? I am sorry, but I do not follow the argument.
Earl Ferrers: I probably explained it extremely badly. I apologise to my noble friend for doing so. The 1968 Act gives permission for the issuing of shotgun certificates. Having given the owner a certificate, it authorises the owner to possess a shotgun. My noble friend is seeking to put on the certificate the purposes for which that shotgun is to be used. In other words, the certificate authorises the shotgun to be used for specific purposes. What happens if on the shotgun certificate the holder states that he wants to use it for vermin control because he is a farmer and then he is invited by my noble friend to go to shoot pheasant? He then apparently is using a shotgun for a purpose for which the shotgun certificate does not give him permission.
If my noble friend wished to do that, it would create quite a change from the 1968 Act because the 1968 Act allows a person to possess a shotgun. It does not say what he ought to use it for. That is why, if my noble friend's amendment were to be accepted, it would mean a complete change in the 1968 Act.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: Will the noble Earl be good enough to explain why the dead hand of 1968 should rule us from its grave?
Viscount Mountgarret: I did not understand that. I thought that the Bill was to change the 1968 Act. I am trying to look up quickly the reference in the Bill, but I cannot find it. Will my noble friend please tell me whether it is a fact that a certificate for a firearm as opposed to a certificate for a shotgun can only be granted provided that the purpose for which it is to be used is specified? I believe that is so, but I may he mistaken.
Lord Gisborough: Surely with the firearms certificate any use is allowed. It is only weapons such as pistols with a special limit attached that are restricted to use for certain purposes. I believe that my noble friend the Minister was right when he said that effectively somebody could obtain a gun in the belief that he wanted it only for one purpose. It would never occur to him that he would want it for anything else until somebody suggests that he should go to a pigeon shoot, and he agrees but finds that he does not have permission to do so. I think it is a crazy idea.
Lord Monson: Surely the other answer to the noble Viscount is that a rifle or a pistol has a much greater range than a shotgun and is therefore much more dangerous.
Earl Ferrers: The whole purpose of a firearms certificate is that it gives a greater degree of control, because of the lethality to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred. The whole purpose of a shotgun certificate is that it does not require that degree of control. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said that this is the dead hand of the 1968 Act. Of course it is not a dead hand at all. The Bill is being built on to the 1968 Act, which is the basis of this legislation.
I believe that we should be in difficulties if exactly the purposes for which the shotgun were to be used were to be put on a certificate. The resource implications for the police force would be considerable if they had to chase up and find out the occasions on which those guns were being used and if they were being used for purposes for which the certificate did not permit.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am grateful to my noble friend. My attention has been drawn to Section 27 of the 1968 Act. It does not state that the purpose for which the firearm is to be used is to be stated on the certificate. I should like to see provisions relating to shotguns on similar lines to those for firearms. It would be over-egging the pudding at this stage for us to include the purposes for which the shotgun is to be used. I hope that my noble friend will take the point on board to see whether we should include the purposes for which the weapons are being used. At the moment, it might be best if I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 3, line 24, at end insert—
("(2B) When a possessor of a shotgun certificate is convicted of a criminal offence, the certificate will be revoked by the chief constable for the remainder of its validity and no application for any renewal will be considered for a period of three years after the date of conviction.").
The noble Viscount said: This is a different matter. A chief officer of police, on the recommendations of his assistants, superintendents and constables, considers whether an applicant is a suitable person to hold a shotgun certificate. The chief officer of police sees no reason why the certificate should not be granted. That person obtains a certificate, and off he goes.
Things may change. Things may happen. The holder of the shotgun certificate may do something which would have rendered him unsuitable to hold that certificate if he had done it at the time he applied for it. It is only right and proper that anyone holding a shotgun certificate who commits a criminal offence should have his certificate revoked under the Bill. It puts an unfair burden on the police if they have to decide that the offence is one which should cause the certificate to be removed. It may differ from one area of the country to another.
The 1968 Act gives a court power to revoke the certificate of a person who is convicted of a criminal
1164
offence, whatever that offence may be. The court may choose not to revoke it. If that happens the responsibility rests upon the police. That is an unfair burden for them to have to bear. That is what happened to me. That was fair enough. The court did not say, "You will lose your shotgun certificate". It was left to the police. Thank goodness, and quite rightly, they said, "Oy, this is not good enough", and they revoked my certificate.
The second half of the amendment follows on from that. I believe that it is relevant and fair. I am all for being fair, even if one is hard. If someone commits an offence; for example, assaults someone, that person will know that he will go down for six months, a year or for however long it is. At any rate, the criminal knows now long he will serve. There is no provision under the 1968 Act, or any other Act so far as I am aware, which enables a person who has had his shotgun or firearms certificate revoked, to know when he will have it returned. That is unfair.
We should find some way to write into the Bill a provision that a certificate which has been revoked will not be re-issued for a minimum of three years. The person will then know that he is off the road—for want of a better word—for three years. But he knows where he stands. The police know where they stand: they do not have to think, "Is it fair? Should it be one year, two years or what?" They knows it is three years off the road and then it can be reconsidered. After all, in three years' time a person may have changed substantially and proved that he is a worthy possessor of a shotgun certificate. Therefore, on those two points I think there is something to be thought about. I shall be interested to know whether it has any support or any substance. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I wonder whether it would be wise to make this amendment and whether the noble Viscount has considered the implications. As I read it, any criminal conviction would lead to the certificate being revoked. That is the language of the amendment. Let us say, for example, that someone is convicted of the offence of shoplifting. He has a licence. Is it suggested that automatically he loses his licence? I cannot see any advantage in such a procedure. It seems to me an act of gross injustice to the person concerned. The noble Viscount appears to be surprised. But why should a person who, after a blameless life, is convicted of a single offence of shoplifting, automatically lose his shotgun licence? It seems to me to be a very strange proposition.
Viscount Mountgarret: Perhaps I may come back to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on that specific point. Yes, I am very surprised. Shoplifting could be one stage before breaking and entering. If someone is prepared to go shoplifting and so on and he is the possessor of a shotgun certificate, it could just be that he is not fit to hold a licence. But I take the point. How else does one word the proposal to satisfy the point one is trying to get at? I agree about the areas the noble Lord has mentioned. But how else can we achieve the aim which I think ought to be considered?
Lord Irvine of Lairg: The revocation of firearms certificates is dealt with by Section 30 of the 1968 Act. That must mean that it is inappropriate for this amendment in any event to be directed to Section 28. However, that is a minor point.
Under Section 30, the relevant chief officer of police is empowered to revoke certificates if among other things he considers that the holder is unfit to be entrusted with such a firearm, or if the holder cannot be permitted to possess a shotgun without danger to public safety or to the peace. These are very wide powers of revocation, the noble Viscount may think. Surely, they amply cover the case of a holder of a certificate who is convicted of a serious criminal offence.
The only effect of the noble Viscount's amendment is to remove the chief officer's discretion and the right of appeal under Section 30(3) in cases to which his amendment would apply and to substitute what I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is a very, very blunt instrument indeed. It just cannot be right that a person convicted of a parking offence or shoplifting, and who will be punished for an offence of that order in any event, should automatically forfeit his or her firearm certificate and further be barred from applying for another for three years. Even if the offence were a more serious one, but without any overtones of violence, it would be difficult to see why revocation should always follow although often it might be appropriate.
We believe that the discretion of the police should not be fettered in this way. However, we sympathise to an extent with the spirit of the amendment. The police should take the greatest care to see that the criminal fraternity and persons of violent disposition are not permitted lawfully to possess lethal weapons. I wonder whether the noble Earl, when replying, can tell us whether application forms presently require past convictions to be revealed. I imagine that they do, but I do not know. Plainly, they should. I am sure that the Committee would he interested to know the answer.
Lord Monson: I follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in opposing the amendment. I am not a lawyer but as I understand it the distinction between a misdemeanour and a felony was abolished some years ago. I am not saying that shoplifting is not serious, but a lesser offence could be caught by the amendment as it stands, such as doing 35 miles an hour in urban areas or failing to submit one's VAT return before the due date. Is it really suggested that someone should lose his shotgun licence on those grounds? The noble Viscount asked how this amendment could best be worded. If the amendment restricted itself, for example, to criminal offences for which a sentence of imprisonment had been imposed, it might well be acceptable. But as it stands I believe it goes much too far.
Lord Burton: I am delighted to find something in the Bill on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. What he said could be a mere technicality under the Bill. It is quite wrong that one should lose one's firearm certificate for three years for
1166
a mere technicality and yet someone could use a shotgun for assault and still only lose the certificate for three years. The whole object of the exercise is that the chief constable should have discretion. Therefore, I agree with the Opposition and I hope that my noble friend will once more stand firm.
Earl Ferrers: I am delighted to have such encouragement from my noble friend Lord Burton. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is right. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, put his finger on it when he referred to the existing powers of a chief officer.
Before I come on to the main substance of the matter perhaps I could tell the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, that offences other than minor traffic offences have to be admitted on an application form for a firearm and a shotgun certificate. Existing firearms legislation already provides that a person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three months or more is prohibited from possessing a firearm or ammunition for five years from the date of his release, or for life for sentences of three years or more. A chief officer already has, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said, the power under Section 30 of the 1968 Act to revoke a licence where he is satisfied that the holder is so prohibited. The amendment proposed by my noble friend would therefore only have effect where a custodial sentence of less than three months, or indeed a non-custodial sentence, was imposed by the courts. This would include minor traffic offences, infractions of by-laws and other misdemeanours which would most likely have no bearing on an individual's suitability to possess a shotgun.
In extreme cases, the chief officer also has the power to revoke a certificate where he is satisfied that in the case of a firearm certificate, the holder is unfitted to be entrusted with a Section 1 firearm or ammunition or, in the case of both a firearm or a shotgun certificate, that he constitutes a danger to the public safety or the peace. Yet this amendment proposes to make revocation of a shotgun certificate mandatory in the case of any conviction and the ex-holder will have to wait three years before he can apply for a new certificate. This seems unnecessarily severe, and would also be anomalous unless the same rules were to apply to Section 1 firearm certificates.
Chief police officers can, and do, revoke both shotgun and firearm certificates where a person's behaviour is such as to bring into question his suitability to possess firearms or, at least, without danger to the public. In many cases, a revocation may follow upon conviction of a criminal offence, when the courts, too, can order the cancellation of a certificate. But I believe that the existing legislation strikes the right balance by imposing a mandatory prohibition only for the more serious offences and, in other cases, leaving the decision to revoke a certificate to the discretion of the police and the courts.
My noble friend Lord Burton said that he thought that it was important that chief officers should have discretion. I think that is right. I do not believe that it would be correct to have a fixed period before a person reapplied for a certificate. The point is that

1167
any person can apply for a certificate at any time. It is up to the chief constable to consider whether that person, at the time of application, is a fit and proper person to hold a firearm.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am grateful to my noble friend. I agree that the amendment is surplus to requirements. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Burton: I feel that Clause 3 is very unsatisfactory in many respects. As our debate has progressed, I have become even more convinced of it. Most of the points which I intended to make have already been aired. However, the clause as a whole has caused discussion, argument and disagreement.
I have heard very little complaint about the 1968 Act as regards firearms certificates. I do not see why we cannot return to that Act. The relevant section in the 1968 Act is much the same as the clause as suggested. However, the clause adds several other matters. One is the complete change of emphasis from the automatic right to have a gun to the need to have a good reason for having a gun. It also provides for the marking and recording of shotguns.
Perhaps my noble friend can tell me what is wrong with the section in the 1968 Act. Is it expected that Clause 3 will reduce crime? If so, how? Does the Minister have any good reason for changing the 1968 Act as regards shotgun certificates? We might perhaps strengthen the hand of chief officers of police by imposing medical restrictions. That is not contained in the clause and I shall not go into the matter now because Amendment No. 60, which is to be proposed from the Benches opposite, is concerned with that possibility.
Any changes imposed by the clause will lead to substantial extra work for the police. It will certainly lead to much antagonism on the part of law-abiding citizens from whose co-operation the police could well benefit. The firearms lobby as a whole is most unhappy with the legislation. I fear that it will cause much aggravation.
The Government have done noble work in cutting down unnecessary public expenditure. In this Bill they are promoting totally unnecessary and substantial public expenditure. I mentioned previously that a substantial number of extra police officers will be necessary. It is going to cost—well, it will not cost the country a lot of money. But, no doubt, it is going to be pushed on to the wretched Firearms Act and that again will cause aggravation. I feel that we ought to cut out the clause and keep the provisions of the 1968 Act which appear to have raised no controversy.
Lord Monson: I feel unhappy about the clause as a whole. The Minister has said repeatedly that the essential purpose of Clause 3 and the clauses immediately following it is to prevent unsuitable individuals from owning shotguns. I suppose he
1168
means not only those who have been convicted of offences, as at present, but also those who, it is thought, might be convicted of an offence in the future; or maybe those people who have anti-social tendencies falling short of criminality, or who may be mentally unstable.
Despite the somewhat un-British nature of the intention to judge an individual guilty unless he can prove himself innocent, I suppose we can tolerate that, albeit with reservations. One suspects that the Government's intentions go beyond that. I should like to ask the noble Earl what the Government's feelings are about elderly or perhaps not so elderly individuals, possibly living remote from neighbours, who have been mugged, raped, robbed with violence, repeatedly burgled or had their house vandalised, who do not have any game in the vicinity to shoot and who live in urban areas where there is little vermin. Is it the intention that they should be allowed to keep the shotguns which they possess or not?
11 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I am sorry that my noble friend feels that this clause is not very satisfactory. It has been debated in much detail, and its purpose is to try to tighten up not so much the control of shotguns but the knowledge of where they are and who owns them. In doing this there is inevitably extra bureaucracy; there is bound to be a certain amount of imposition on people.
I think that most people would agree that where shotguns are used, as they are quite a lot in the criminal world, it is right that the police should know where the guns are. It is not unreasonable for somebody to say, "I have a shotgun; this is my number"', or "I have 10 shotguns; these are the numbers", so that we know where the weapons are kept. If that means a slight imposition on people, I think most would agree that it is not unreasonable.
The main thrust of this clause is to give the obligation to a chief officer of police to refuse the granting of a certificate to a person whom he thinks is unsuitable to hold it. Previously he was obliged to issue a certificate even if he thought that the person was unsuitable to hold it. That is the major change.
Since most people are concerned about violence and criminal acts, I do not think it would be considered unreasonable for a chief officer to deny a person a certificate if he thought that he was unsuitable to have it.
I hope that on consideration my noble friend will not feel that this is a bad clause and that it is one he would like to see expunged from the Bill. I think if he were to do so that he would be quite alone in that.
Lord Burton: I do not think that the Government have got it right. My noble friend referred to trying to tighten up on shotguns to stop them falling into criminal hands, but very few legally held weapons of any sort are used in criminal acts. I do not know how the figures are arrived at, but those who have studied the matter say they think there are at least two illegally held weapons in the illegal pool for every one legally held. When a criminal uses a weapon it almost invariably comes from that pool. This clause will do nothing to change the situation.
Lord Monson: May I ask the noble Earl to reply to my question about the vulnerable individuals who keep a shotgun within the four walls of their house as a means of protection against violent criminals?
Earl Ferrers: That would be for the chief officer of police to determine. But if a person were to go to a chief officer and say "Please may I have a shotgun certificate because 1 want to keep a shotgun in my house and to blow it off in the face of any intruder?" my guess is that most chief constables would say that that was not a proper reason for holding it.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Transfer of shotguns]:
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 3, line 47, after ("sent") insert ("on the prescribed form").
The noble Lord said: I hope this will simplify matters for the police forces. The clause as drafted requires quite a lot of information to be supplied both by the transferee and the transferor whenever a transfer or transaction takes place.
With motor cars, when such a transfer takes place it is done on a prescribed form which can then be readily computerised. All the information is supplied and there is no risk of error, no following up, no coming back and saying "Did you mean to write this?" or "Where is it?" If there is a prescribed form available, either supplied with the shotgun certificate so that it can be returned whenever a transfer takes place or available from post offices or gunsmiths, I am sure it would be a useful and speedy way of having transactions correctly carried out. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I think that this amendment would in fact add to the bureaucracy of the system rather than alleviate it, because it complicates the procedure and there is a risk that more people would be dissuaded from complying with the requirement. If the purpose is to notify a chief officer if there is to be a change of ownership, it should not be necessary for a person to put that information on a special form. Indeed, it ought to be adequate to send in such a notification by letter.
What happens if the person cannot get a form? Then he does not notify the police. Or what happens if the police receive a letter to notify them that there has been a change? Are the police then to turn round and say to the person concerned, "We are so sorry, but we cannot possibly register this because it has come by letter and you have to write it on a form"? I think that it would add to the problems and not simplify them. It should be sufficient for people who wish to notify the police to do so by whatever method they think best and not necessarily on a special form.
Lord Brain: I am afraid that I disagree with the Minister because I think that the police will themselves start issuing forms fairly quickly. They will vary for each part of the country, and people will get into a muddle and waste much police time trying to punch things into a computer. If the information is on a form one will simply punch it into a computer in the correct order. One will not have to chase
1170
through a letter, turn over pages and so on. After all, there will be several items, numbers and descriptions of guns, information as to the correct description and such matters.
I hope that when the department reads the record of this debate it will see the logic of my argument and perhaps the Minister will come back at the next stage with something that will meet the situation. In the meantime I shall read in Hansard> what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Restriction on sale of ammunition for smooth-bore guns]:
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 4, line 12, after ("produces") insert ("or has previously produced").
The noble Lord said: I do not know, but it is possible that this amendment may be unnecessary. However, I suggest that the word "produces" seems to indicate that the relevant certificate has to be produced either in person or by correspondence or something like that each time a transaction takes place.
Let us suppose that somebody regularly orders his ammunition from a firm which is near his shoot in the country and asks for it be be delivered for the following Saturday's purposes. He telephones. Surely if he has already produced his certificate to that supplier, either a photocopy is on file or all the details are suitably recorded. He should not have to produce the certificate each time. He should be able to complete the transaction by telephone.
I think that this is a reasonable amendment, though I have no doubt that the Minister will find good reasons for rejecting it. He has been most successful today in rejecting amendments. Nevertheless, I shall try it on him. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: I should like to support the noble Lord in his amendment. The certificate holder may be resident in a far part of the country, perhaps in Scotland or Wales. He is accustomed to buying his shotgun cartridges from a certain dealer in London. He likes that brand and will not use any other. It is convenient for him to purchase from that dealer. It should not be necessary for him to produce the shotgun certificate to that dealer for every purchase that he makes when he may be some 200 miles away. He could easily make the order over the telephone, having previously satisfied the dealer on another occasion that he is in possession of a valid certificate. I support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment seeks to extend the category of person who may purchase ammunition to a person who has previously produced a certificate. The amendment is somewhat loose in that it does not specify at what stage such a certificate must be produced or indeed to whom. A person who produced his certificate to a vendor 10 years ago

1171
would be covered by the amendment. The vendor would have no way of knowing whether a current valid certificate was still held, or whether it had been revoked or surrendered in the meantime.
What happens if the shop changes hands? The words that the noble Lord, Lord Brain, suggests open up this part of the Bill in a way that is unsuitable. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that it would be better to keep the position as it is, because there is much more control. Not only need the person himself produce the certificate, but he can let a person buy ammunition on his behalf provided that he takes the certificate with him.
Lord Brain: I do not quite follow the argument of the noble Earl. The provision states, "produces a certificate". It does not say "produces a valid certificate". His argument that one would not know whether or not the certificate was valid seems to be just as applicable to his own wording as to mine. I had naturally anticipated that because the certificate had been produced, all the details, including its duration and validity, would have been noted down. That was the purpose of having produced it.
However, I wonder whether the noble Earl would like to comment on whether or not the certificate has to be valid or just "a certificate". I shall then probably feel minded to withdraw the amendment. Perhaps he would like to comment.
Earl Ferrer: Obviously the certificate has to be valid. If a person goes to buy some ammunition and says, "Here is a certificate but as a matter of fact it ran out 10 years ago", the person from whom he was hoping to buy the ammunition would not sell it to him.
Lord Brain: The noble Earl has answered the point. I was suggesting that the provision should refer to, "has produced a certificate" authorising him to do something. It presumably authorises him to do it at this time and not with an expired certificate. Nevertheless, at this time of the night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 4, line 18, at end insert ("stating calibre, type and quantity.").
The noble Viscount said: As the Bill is written, a person could purchase ammunition for a shotgun on the instructions of the owner of the shotgun. The intendment of this amendment is to ensure that the precise quantity of ammunition is listed on any written authority or instruction shown to the seller. The person buying could purchase any amount—for example, 1,000 cartridges—under the Bill as written and then tell the owner that he had bought under 1,000. There seems to be a slight gap in the provisions.
I know that there are provisions in the Bill to which my noble friend has already adverted and which relate to people who are under age and people of a certain age. But the provision in the amendment for
1172
"calibre, type and quantity" would ensure that when authority is given the precise number of cartridges are given to that person on his, the buyer's, behalf and that there is no gap for someone to go away with the extra 500 or to fiddle the amount, because it will be noted.
At present there is a hiatus between what you get and how you dispose of it. If we are to have a provision then it should be effective. As it now stands it is deficient to the extent that I have stated. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Amendment No. 53 would insert an additional qualification in Clause 5(2)(c) which makes it an offence to sell ammunition for a smoothbore gun to a third party unless he produces the relevant firearm or shotgun certificate, together with the certificate owner's written authority to purchase on his behalf. The amendment requires that kind of written authority to specify the "calibre, type and quantity" of the ammunition to be purchased.
I can see that the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord is intended to stop abuse of this provision. However, I think that the amendment would not take us much further forward. For instance, I cannot see that a legitimate certificate holder would authorise someone other than a reliable person to purchase shot on his behalf. The risk to such a person buying shot for his own purposes must therefore be minimal. Further, it would have no effect as regards a stolen certificate as both the authority and the quantity would be forged. Therefore the requirement for a written authority is sufficient and I hope that my noble friend will agree with what I have said.
Viscount Dilhorne: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his explanation. However, I still remain most concerned that a person who does not have a certificate is enabled by a person who does have a certificate to get hold of these cartridges. It seems to me that the amendment is really in the interest of public safety. It also prevents people from being tempted to doing something which they are not entitled to do, in the terms in which my noble friend couched his answer.
However, I am most happy, on what my noble friend has said and in the hope that he will reconsider the matter before the Report stage, to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Before we continue, perhaps I may just mention something. Can the noble Earl, or the Leader of the House, give us some indication of how late we shall be sitting tonight? As I understand it the informal agreement was that we would have risen earlier; namely, an hour or so ago. I may in fact be entirely misinformed. But although it gives us all great delight to engage the noble Earl and his colleagues in debate, it is now 11.15 p.m. and it would, I think, be reasonable to give some indication to the Committee as to how long we shall continue.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): On the Government side, we were hoping to reach Amendment No. 84, which would have taken us to page 11 of the Marshalled List. Bearing in mind that we have other business on Wednesday, we thought that that would have given us a good opportunity to finish the Committee stage of the Bill in two days and would have taken us through to page 18 of the Marshalled List.
However, we have important business to deal with tomorrow and the House has had a long day, so perhaps I may suggest that we continue for just one more hour and whatever stage we have reached by a quarter past twelve we will call it a day.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Shortening of barrels]:
The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 4, line 23, after ("shorten") insert ("the overall length to less than 40 inches or to shorten").
The noble Earl said: Clause 6 deals with the offence of shortening the barrel of a gun. I should like to draw the Committee's attention to line 22 of the first page of the Bill, which states:
"less than 40 inches in length overall".
I suggest that, as it is an offence to shorten the barrel, it should also be an offence to shorten the overall length of the gun. Through mail order firms one can unfortunately obtain all kinds of attachments and one needs nothing more than a screwdriver to take off the stock and have something held by two handles. It is as simple as that, and I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: In tabling the amendment my noble friend may have assumed that the special penalty in Clause 6 for shortening the barrels of rapid fire smooth-bore guns relates to the fact that, once the barrels have been shortened, the weapons will in future fall into the prohibited category under Clause l(2)(ac). We are simply preserving the status quo> under Section 4 of the 1968 Firearms Act, which creates the offence of shortening the barrel of any shotgun to less than 24 inches except by a firearms dealer for the sole purposes of resleeving the gun. Clause 2 of the Bill contains a new, more restricted definition of a shotgun which excludes most rapid fire and revolver guns, and Clause 6 is needed to ensure that it remains an offence to shorten the barrels of such guns to less than 24 inches.
Section 4 of the 1968 Act was intended to combat the practice of sawing down the barrels of shotguns for easy concealment for use in crime. The practice has unfortunately not diminshed in the intervening years and there is still an obvious need to prohibit the shortening below 24 inches of the barrel of any shotgun. As a crime prevention measure there is less need to create a specific offence of shortening the overall length of a smooth-bore gun to less than 40 inches because the kind of gun envisaged here could not easily he concealed even with a shortened barrel. The reason for the prohibition of pump-action and self-loading shotguns of overall length in Clause 1(2)(ac) is to remove from the market a specific type of
1174
gun; namely the paramilitary shotguns with large magazines such as the Franchi Spas. It would still be an offence to possess such a gun without a Section 5 authority.
The Earl of Balfour: With that assurance it is clear that the amendment is not necessary and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) It is not an offence under section 5 of the principal Act for a registered firearms dealer to smooth-bore the barrel of a self loading pistol or revolver, or to have in his possession such a smooth bored pistol or revolver, for the purpose of relining a defective rifled barrel with a replacement rifled tube or liner so as to produce a serviceable rifled barrelled pistol or revolver.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 6(2) permits a registered firearms dealer to sleeve a barrel for a shotgun. The new clause which I propose in the amendment tries to cope with the offence created in Clause 1 of having a short-barrelled, self-loading revolver smooth-bore gun. A registered firearms dealer can, in the process of repairing or the equivalent of resleeving a revolver, create a weapon which falls under that catch-all part of Clause 1. If he is to carry out the standard operation of fitting a new rifling to a revolver, self-loading pistol or similar weapon, he will at some stage create a banned smooth-bore weapon.
I have tabled the amendment in order to allow the repair to be carried out; that is the rerifling of the pistol. It is a weapon which is permitted within the firearms section of the Bill. There should not be created a banned weapon during the period of its mechanical and engineering alteration and repair. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, demonstrates a concern that a firearms dealer may be committing an offence while undertaking the re-lining of a pistol or revolver barrel. It seems to be based on the notion that for a period when the barrel is smooth-bored, the dealer would be in possession of a smooth-bored short barrelled self-loading gun, subject to Section 5. A dealer who did not hold an authority under Section 5 may therefore be committing an offence by possessing such a gun.
However, that fear is unfounded. We understand that in carrying out work of this nature, the barrel would normally be removed from the gun entirely. The drilling out of both barrel and chamber would therefore be carried out when the gun is not operable, and we understand that the extent of the drilling would in itself mean that the gun could not be used. It would become usable again only when relined and reassembled. In the circumstances we do not believe that a dealer would be in possession of a Section 5 weapon at any stage, and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Lord Brain: The Minister has put certain caveats in his reply, and I shall read it again in Hansard>. I hope he will also look at what he has said and perhaps seek

1175
certain advice. However, on that basis and at this time of night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Conversion not to affect classification]:
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 4, line 39, at end insert—
("(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall apply to a self-loading or pump-action smooth-bore gun that is permanently modified to have a non-detachable barrel not less than 24 inches in length.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to self-loading and pump-action shotguns. They come from the factory and are catalogued as having barrels of different lengths available for them. Some are put on the market with short barrels and some with longer barrels. When he purchases or orders such a gun the customer can specify to a dealer what length of barrel he would like to have fitted.
If one of those guns emerges from the factory with a barrel shorter than 24 inches and at the customer's request the dealer fits a longer barrel to it in excess of 24 inches, that brings the gun within the legal ambit but because it formerly had a shorter barrel fitted, it comes under this catch-all Clause 7. If the new barrel when fitted is permanently attached so that it cannot be removed, I suggest that that gun is then legal in all respects and need not be caught by Clause 7. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend's amendment would provide holders of smooth-bore, short-barrel, self-loading, pump-action guns with an opportunity to obtain their weapons and have the barrel extended, which would take them outside the scope of the prohibition in Clause 1. The amendment would cut across the Government's policy on conversion.
We regard it as undesirable that weapons which fall within the prohibited category should be converted to make them subject to a lesser degree of control. If an individual wishes to keep a gun which is to become prohibited by reason of the Bill, it will be open to him to have it deactivated under the arrangements set out in Clause 8.
Lord Swansea: If the gun is converted so as to have a barrel of legal length, what harm is there in that? The owner has complied with the law. He has provided himself with a gun with a barrel of legal length.
11.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: With the greatest respect, he will not have complied with the law, because the law, if it takes the present form, will say that if a particular weapon was a Section 5 weapon, then once a Section 5 weapon, it is always a Section 5 weapon, and one cannot monkey around with it and make it into a lower category weapon. What one can do is have it de-activated. If one has it de-activated and it is, as the
1176
Americans would say, non-functionable, it can be kept.
Lord Swansea: This exchange only goes to show what a nonsense Clause 7 is. Once a gun has been fitted with a longer barrel which is permanently fixed and not detachable, I cannot see what objection there could be to the owner's retaining possession of it in a functional form. This underlines the fact that Clause 7 really is a nonsense. I will not detain your Lordships at this late hour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 5, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of subsection (2) above there shall he disregarded the shortening of a barrel by a registered firearms dealer for the sole purpose or replacing part of it so as to produce a barrel not less than 24 inches in length.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment addresses a technical point as regards subsection (2) of Clause 7 which deals with the conversion of certain firearms to which Section 1 of the 1968 Act applies. It refers to a firearm which at any time has had a barrel length of less than 24 inches. The purpose of this is to stop the practice of converting pistols by smooth-boring and extending their barrels so that they can be held on shotgun certificates. It is not our intention to prevent rifles which have been converted into shotguns from being held on a shotgun certificate.
There are two ways in which conversion is achieved. The first, and more common, method is to drill through the barrel to remove the rifling, thereby producing a smooth-bored gun. Subsection (2) adequately caters for this. The second, and less common, method is to reline the existing barrel. The existing barrel is sawn off close to the chamber, the remaining part of the barrel is drilled through and a new smooth-bored barrel is inserted into the stub of the original barrel. This is known as sleeving. This is where the problem lies. During the sleeving process, albeit for only a very short while, the firearm concerned could be regarded as having a barrel less than 24 inches in length. As the subsection stands, the firearm would therefore still be subject to Section 1 control. This is not what we intended and is not what we want.
Amendment 57 rectifies the situation by providing an exception for the case where a barrel has been shortened by a registered firearms dealer to a length less than 24 inches for the sole purpose of replacing the part removed with a different part so as to produce a barrel not less than 24 inches in length. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: How can my noble friend reconcile what he has just said with what the said to the amendment which I moved previously?
Earl Ferrers: Because they are two different amendments.
Lord Brain: I do not think that that is a fair remark. The principle that the Minister expounded previously was once a Section 5 weapon, always a Section 5

1177
weapon. He has suggested now that one can do a conversion by altering something. A rifle that is shortened becomes a Section 5 weapon—one rebarrels it. That is the nonsense of the whole clause and that is why, in a minute, I shall be talking about the point in much more detail.
Earl Ferrers: I think there really is a perfectly reasonable argument about this. In my noble friend's earlier amendment he tried to show that, if one has a Section 5 category weapon, and one does certain things to it, one can bring it into a lower category. What I said about that amendment was that once it was a Section 5 weapon it was always a Section 5 weapon because one cannot try to bring it down into a different category.
This amendment is different. It covers the case where a person is doing something like re-sleeving, which involves chopping off the barrel. By having the barrel chopped off by a registered firearms dealer, one is inadvertently putting it into a category which it was not intended to be in, and it is then put back into its other category. This was done at the behest of those who are concerned with repairing guns because they found that they would be caught under the Bill if it was not amended. We therefore produced the amendment in order to be ameliorating and considerate to those whose lives are affected by these matters.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 7, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Brain: In some ways the noble Earl has supported my argument. He said that one is permitted to turn a firearm into a shotgun. To the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, the noble Earl now says that a Section 5 weapon may not be turned into a Section 1 firearm.
I believe that it has long been a principle in this country that the status of an item is what it is at the time one is looking at it. A perfectly valid firearms section weapon cannot in any way, if one has removed all the parts, be converted into a Section 5 weapon; even when all the work has been done in a proper workshop by people registered to carry out such work.
I find it difficult to understand why compensation should be paid to people who would be happy with a weapon they can keep and use and would like to retain rather than have it sent in and scrapped. This clause, which was firmly defeated in Committee in another place, is making nonsense of the use of weapons at the time of registration. We are being foolish in passing the clause. I know that it will in the end be passed, but I feel that this broad point must be made here and now.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord for making his point. All I can say is that it is perfectly all right to allow rifles to be converted to shotguns because they are converted to a different type of instrument which is kept under a different category. It is one thing to have a rifle in a Section 1 category
1178
and another to have a shotgun in a Section 5 category.
Where I find it difficult to take my noble friend with me is, when you remove something out of Section 5 into a lower category one is letting out of the Section 5 category weapons which are particularly destructive. That is why we have taken the view that once a weapon is a Section 5 weapon, and only a Section 5 weapon, it must remain so.
Lord Brain: I take that point, but one can envisage where a Section 5 weapon is dismantled and the barrel, which is perfectly usable, is refitted to something else. It is a pity that a good barrel cannot be fitted to a new mechanism. I accept that the noble Earl has nothing more to say and I leave it at that. I merely say that it is a pity.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Photographs on certificates]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Blease: I beg the indulgence of the Committee. I invite the Minister to help me with Clause 9. As other noble Lords have been approached and lobbied by various people and organisations with interests in this Bill, one of the matters raised with me has been the Government's proposal to increase from one to two the number of photographs required to be submitted by applicants for firearms and shotgun certificates.
I understand from representatives of the police, especially from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, that they consider that it would greatly help the effective administration of legislation to have three photographs as a statutory requirement. It is strongly held that this should enable one photograph of every certificated firearms holder to be deposited and readily available at the local police station nearest to the permanent residence of the holder. That would result in one photograph being held at police headquarters, one at the local police station and the other will be on the holder's certificate. If the noble Earl considers that there is some merit in the suggestion I shall be pleased to await the Report stage in order to have the Minister's reply.
Earl Ferrers: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for explaining the purpose of his concern. The rules which are currently in force are those of 1968 and they do not require an application for a certificate to be accompanied by a photograph of the applicant. The 1968 Act prescribes the form of a firearm or shotgun certificate so as to include a power to require such certificate to bear a photograph of the holder. We therefore thought it was suitable to have two photographs and were not aware that it would be appropriate to have three. I shall look into the position and I shall write to the noble Lord about it.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Statements in support of applications for certificates]:
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 5, line 32, leave out from ("above") to end of line 33.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 58 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 60, 62 and 63. We tabled this batch of amendments to back up the point that both my noble friend Lord Mishcon and I made at Second Reading; namely, that the person either buying or using the gun was more important than the gun and that that person should be suitable in every way.
It took me some time today, when looking at Amendment No. 58, to understand why we had tabled it. I believe it was because this amendment alters Section 26(2)(b) in the original Act of 1968. This amendment was tabled because we believed it better that a person should give a reason why he should have a firearms certificate. It does not fit in well with amending the original Bill and I believe the reason to be that somewhere about the middle of last week we ran out of lawyers to advise us. We believe that that amendment can be worded better.
As regards Amendment No. 60 it states that we:
"require any application for a certificate to be accompanied by a medical certificate as to the applicant's mental condition.".
I have spoken with two doctors on this matter and they agree that getting a certificate for firearms of any description should be very closely watched. They did point out that doctors do not know patients unless they have had them for some considerable time. It is not that they would be afraid to give a certificate but they felt that it might be difficult with new patients and so on. I think the noble Earl will agree that Michael Ryan should have been properly looked at by a doctor. Somebody who met Ryan said that it did not need a doctor to know that he was completely unstable and that it was absolute madness that he should have a certificate.
Amendment No. 62 requires an application to be accompanied by two references,
"one of which must refer to the applicant's suitability to own and use a firearm".
It has been suggested than an applicant should be a member of a club for three years and so on. We believe that applications should be backed up by at least two references.
Amendment No. 63 states:
"It shall be the duty of the police to check the reliability of the referees in any application for a firearm or shotgun certificate".
Over many years of employing people and getting references I have been amazed by how careless people are in giving a reference. I am sorry to say that parsons are the biggest sinners in this respect. They think that if somebody goes to church and puts a pound in the plate he is worthy of a reference. This is something totally different from a person's religious beliefs. It is important that the police check the reliability of the referees in any application. If the three amendments were agreed to, we would be satisfied that we were doing our best to ensure that the person—I emphasise the person and not the gun—was suitable for having a certificate. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Burton: There is something to be said for having a medical certificate, but I am not sure that what the noble Lord proposes is right. If one is over 60 one has to have a certificate to drive a heavy goods vehicle. That costs £20 and so I imagine that what he proposes will cost something in that vicinity, which will not be very popular with those who want a firearms certificate. If I thought that there ought to be a medical certificate I would include a provision relating to drink. There is nothing in this amendment to cover alcohol, which in this respect might be one of the most dangerous problems of all.
One of the best references I ever received for an employee, who unfortunately I took on, came from a minister of the church. He gave a glowing reference for a man and his wife. It was only after I took him on that I found that he was one of the biggest thieves in the countryside and that his wife was filthy. The house was in an appalling condition. The glowing reference came from a minister of the church. I am not sure how much use references will be.
Viscount Mountgarret: There is much to commend the amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and I should like to say a few words in their support. There is no reference in the Bill to the mental state of people, which is a very relevant factor. My noble friend referred to alcoholism. Such matters should be fairly well known locally by those concerned who would be able to judge whether a person was suitable for having a shotgun certificate. The point made about references is 100 per cent. correct. They are the most notoriously unreliable source of information one could ever imagine.
Lord Torphichen: Surely the only way one can check a reference is if one personally knows the person who writes the reference. I cannot see that this can be of any use in this case.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has already damned his Amendment No. 60 with the faintest of praise. Of course it is difficult for a doctor who does not know the patient well to issue a medical certificate as to the applicant's mental condition. There is another point. A person's condition may be perfectly all right on the day the certificate is issued. However, it may deteriorate within a week or two afterwards and the certificate will be valid for a number of years.
There are two other curious points about this series of rather bureaucratic and restrictive amendments. Amendment No. 62 is confined to firearms certificates, Amendment No. 63 to both firearms and shotgun certificates, but Amendment No. 60 is not clear whether it applies to both or merely to one or the other. It would be useful to have some elucidation about that.
Lord John-Mackie: I said that we had lawyers drafting these amendments. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, understands the spirit of them.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have no doubt that the noble Earl will be telling us in a moment that there are

1181
great difficulties about accepting these amendments and, I suspect, that there will be problems for the medical profession in giving certificates of this kind without imposing charges. However, having said that, there are substantial problems about this issue.
I am very concerned about people possibly with considerable alcohol abuse problems getting licences far too easily. I am concerned about people possibly with a history of mental imbalance getting certificates too easily. I very much hope that the noble Earl will not shut the door completely on this issue. I have no doubt that the amendments are not phrased in satisfactory language, hut there is a problem here and I hope that he will undertake to consider this matter while the Bill is going through the House, possibly at a later stage.
Earl Ferrers: I understand the problem that has promoted the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, to put this amendment down. I am happy to say that I find myself, however, in agreement with my noble friend Lord Burton, which is a happy position to be in.
We have looked very carefully into the feasibility of a provision such as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has suggested in consultation with the British Medical Association. The association expressed the view that a general practitioner could not reasonably be asked to make a judgment as to whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to possess a firearm, though I suppose he could offer a purely factual statement about an applicant's medical and psychiatric history and whether he was at present taking any psychotropic, hypnotic or controlled drugs. It was the association's view that general practitioners should be able to retain the right to decline to offer any such statement, and therefore there ought not to be a legal obligation on them to provide such information. The BMA's view also was, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, guessed correctly, that a fee should he charged.
In view of all this, and the fact that only a negative factual statement could be offered rather than a positive judgmental one, we were persuaded that this course would not take us a good deal further. Amendment No. 62 requires any application for a certificate to be accompanied by two references, one of which must refer to the applicant's suitability to own and use a firearm. I can see little difference between this and Clause 10 as it presently stands. The fact that the amendment requires two referees would not make the verification any more reliable, especially as only one referee is obliged to deal with the applicant's suitability to hold a firearm.
Amendment No. 62 seeks to impose on the police a duty to check the reliability of the referees in any application for a firearm or shotgun certificate. I believe that this is unnecessary. The firearms rules of 1969 make it clear that the counter-signature requirement on shotgun certificates, which relates only to matters of fact, must be filled by a Member of Parliament, Justice of the Peace, minister of religion, doctor, lawyer, bank officer or person of similar standing. This will also be the case in respect of the new statement required in support of both shotgun and firearms applications under Clause 10. It will, I
1182
hope the Committee will agree, be sufficient to ensure that the referees concerned should, despite the experiences of my noble friend Lord Burton, on the whole be reliable without imposing on the police the burden of seeking to confirm it.
Lord John-Mackie: One of the Members of the Committee said that the Minister was very good at putting his case and wrapping the amender's case around it. That is what he has done with my amendment. He has had further consultations with the BMA and top medical people. If he is satisfied that the police can be sure about the references in the way that he suggested, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 63 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Grant of co-terminous certificates]:
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 6, line 3, leave out from ("renewed") to end of line 7 and insert ("no extra fee shall he required.")
The noble Lord said: The Bill contains the idea that for simplification and general co-ordination the simultaneous renewal of firearm and shotgun certificates should he encouraged. That will enable one visit to be made on matters of security and the right to possess the certificates, as well as to check the number of weapons and carry out all the bureaucratic paraphernalia that is needed each time either of those certificates is renewed.
In an earlier aside, which I shall not be able to check in Hansard> until tomorrow—or the day after, because I believe that it was only recently said—the Minister commented that visits and checks on new applicants are already being carried out in certain police regions. If one visit only is being made, why charge an extra £5? Why not let us forget the fee and by charging them nothing, encourage people to opt for co-ordination? It would not cost much, and I suspect that £4 of that £5, or something of the sort will be spent on collecting the fee. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: I support the noble Lord, Lord Brain, who has moved the amendment. I should also like to take the opportunity to say one nice thing about the Bill; that is, to welcome what we have in Clause 11. Making shotgun and firearm certificates renewable on the same date is something for which shooting interests have been pressing for a long time. That provision has at last been put into the Bill, and I welcome it. At the same time, I feel, as does the noble Lord, Lord Brain, that, as little administrative work will be involved in renewing a shotgun certificate at the same time as a firearm certificate, the shotgun certificate fee could be remitted altogether.
Earl Ferrers: It has been the policy of successive governments that the costs of issuing certificates such as those granted under the Firearms Act should be recovered through the fees. By allowing a firearm certificate holder to acquire a shotgun certificate at no extra cost, we should be asking the taxpayer in

1183
general to carry the financial burden of meeting the costs involved in issuing a separate shotgun certificate. It may not be a large sum, but there is a cost, and we do not believe that the taxpayer should stand it. The fact that the fee has been set at a lower figure than both the issue fee, which is at present £12, and the renewal fee, which is at present £8, reflects the fact that less work is involved in issuing the shotgun certificate at the same time as the firearm certificate.
Lord Brain: I am still disappointed because I very much doubt whether £5 represents the extra work. It is supplying one form instead of two, or I suspect that we shall get one joint certificate fairly quickly which will cover both operations on one piece of paper. I am disappointed with the Minister's reply, but hardly surprised. I should have thought that it could have been covered in the firearms certificate or that it could have been perfectly nominal.
However at this time of night and because I hope we shall finish now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at one minute past midnight.

  HELSINKI FINAL ACT: IMPLEMENTATION
  HELSINKI FINAL ACT: IMPLEMENTATION
  OFFENDERS: PUNISHMENT IN THE COMMUNITY
  OFFENDERS: PUNISHMENT IN THE COMMUNITY
  RESIDUARY BODIES: CAPITAL RECEIPTS AND DISPOSALS
  RESIDUARY BODIES: CAPITAL RECEIPTS AND DISPOSALS
  TAX RELIEF FOR CHARITIES: EC LAW
  TAX RELIEF FOR CHARITIES: EC LAW
  TAX RELIEF FOR INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS: EC LAW
  TAX RELIEF FOR INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS: EC LAW