Sitting of 28 June 1988

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

    NATO (Strategy)
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation last reviewed the relationship within its overall strategy between conventional and nuclear weapons; and what role Her Majesty's Government played in that process.
    Mr. Heffer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation last reviewed the relationship within its overall strategy between conventional and nuclear weapons; and what role Her Majesty's Government played in that process.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): NATO and its member nations keep all aspects of Alliance strategy under constant review, in order to ensure that it remains effective. As Defence Ministers reaffirmed at the meeting of the Defence Planning Committee last month, the strategy of flexible response and forward defence, based on an appropriate mix of adequate and effective nuclear and conventional forces, remains vital to our security.
    Mr. Fatchett: Does the Secretary of State accept that the mix to which he referred is increasingly veering towards the nuclear and that that imposes particular constraints on conventional weapons and on expenditure on conventional weapons? Does he further accept that, because of those constraints, the British Army has been unable to place orders for the new generation of tanks and that that is typical of the problems facing the armed forces? When will that order be placed, and how much of it will come to the Vickers factory in Leeds?
    Mr. Younger: I am afraid that I cannot agree with either of the hon. Gentleman's points. On the first point, of a much larger defence budget, no less than 95 per cent. is spent on conventional, not nuclear, armaments. That disposes effectively of the hon. Gentleman's first point.
    Secondly, as he will be aware, a number of new regiments of Challenger tanks are now in production, and we ordered a seventh regiment last year. Decisions will have to be taken about further replacements, and I hope that that will be done before the end of the year.
    Mr. Heffer: Are not the Government speaking—as the Indians in the old Westerns used to say—with forked voice?—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Tongue."] Forked voice or
    178
    forked tongue, it is the same thing. On the one hand the Government say that they welcome the initiatives of the Soviet Union, and on the other they introduce proposals that reinforce the concept of nuclear weapons. Is it not time that they accepted the initiative of the Soviet Union and got down to believing the words of Mr. Gorbachev rather than suggesting that he speaks with a forked tongue? Is it not time that they did something positive for once about getting rid of nuclear weapons, rather than using conventional weapons to reintroduce them, which is what they are doing at the moment?
    Mr. Younger: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I suggest that he must be thinking with a forked mind. It was not in any sense Mr. Gorbachev's initiative that led to the INF treaty. It was an initiative taken by the Western Alliance in 1981 which, after a few years of prevarication, was eventually agreed to by the Soviet Union. The thing that really brought the Russians to the negotiating table was the knowledge that we were prepared to defend ourselves.
    Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we were to obey Opposition Members' theories there would be an extraction of our independent nuclear deterrent, and if we were to extract our nuclear input from the negotiations independently it would be grossly destablising and would upset the whole process of negotiation?
    Mr. Younger: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. If we had obeyed the instructions of Opposition Members—which, thank goodness, we did not—we should have cruise missiles for ever facing each other in Europe, which we now do not. If we agreed to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) in future, there is no doubt that further reductions and arms control would be very unlikely.
    Mr. Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if we had no nuclear deterrent, we would need to spend three times as much on conventional weapons to maintain any parity with the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Younger: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend's sentiment, but I must beg to differ. Even if we were to spend three times as much, we would not get anything like the same effect that we get out of our present nuclear deterrent. It is worth reminding ourselves that the entire NATO Alliance—all countries of all political persuasions—is united in its determination that the doctrine of flexible response is the best security for all of us.
    Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that when he tries to detract from Mr. Gorbachev having made any contribution to such an agreement as we have recently had he makes himself look utterly ridiculous? When he insists on the phrase "flexible response", as he always does, will he take into account the fact that, in certain circumstances, it means that the NATO Alliance, or Britain, would be prepared to use nuclear weapons first? It may be that even he is not insane enough to contemplate that.
    Mr. Younger: If the right hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so, I never said that Mr. Gorbachev made no contribution to the INF treaty. He has. I have made it clear that he has made a contribution to it, but it was not

    179
    his initiative that brought us to the discussion. It was a Western initiative. The right hon. Gentleman really must accept that.
    None of the NATO allies has any doubt about the use of flexible response. It is based on the facts that NATO will never use any weapon first, and, if NATO were to be attacked by an aggressor, it would have a deterrent and, if necessary, in extremis, would use it.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: What is my right hon. Friend's view of the impact on strategic planning of the yo-yo nuclear and conventional defence policies of the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition?
    Mr. Younger: It is too difficult for me to speculate on the Leader of the Opposition's shifting views on nuclear defence.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that supplementary questions must relate to the question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. O'Neill: Is the Secretary of State still confident that he can meet his forward defence responsibilities within NATO, given reports about the deplorable rundown in the surface fleet? Is he prepared to announce orders for the type 23 frigates that the country and our shipyards desperately require?
    Mr. Younger: I most warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position and look forward to debating defence matters with him. I am sure that he will be able to put forward his party's nuclear defence policy every bit as well as the Leader of the Opposition.
    There has been no official report of the sort that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We intend in future to keep a force of about 50 destroyers and frigates. I shall announce orders for further frigates as soon as the process of assessing bids is completed.

    Advanced Defence Equipment Project
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the level of collaboration between the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany on advanced defence equipment projects.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The Federal Republic of Germany has been one of our most frequent and successful partners in co-operative equipment procurement programmes, and is likely to remain so.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that as we are happily taking the lead on key aspects in the development of the European fighter aircraft—for example, the airframe and engine—in the true spirit of European co-operation with the Germans, it would be right and fair for other aspects of the development programme to be led by other partners, including Germany? In particular, I refer to radar.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend will be aware that the MOU for the European fighter aircraft provides for a work share based on the declared off-take of participating countries. Therefore, the work share of a country or
    180
    company for any particular piece of equipment will depend upon the assessment of competitive bids that are sought for each type of equipment.
    Ms. Short: Does the Minister agree that there is enormous worry in Germany about a strategy that might involve a nuclear war being fought on its soil and that that is likely to undermine co-operation? Is it true that, in evidence to the Defence Select Committee, his Department recently said that Britain's and NATO's strategy is to look forward to a limited nuclear war in Europe?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope the hon. Lady recognises that NATO's strategy is to prevent war.
    Mr. Jack: One other successful collaborative venture with Germany has been the Tornado. When will my hon. Friend make an announcement about the mid-life update of that aeroplane?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I agree that that has been a remarkably successful collaborative venture. However, I cannot answer my hon. Friend's particular question at this stage.
    Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister accept that it is about time that the West Germans committed themselves to the ECR 90 radar rather than pursuing the route of the American Phantom derivation? Does he further accept that the ECR 90 radar is important to British industry, not only because it is of European design and fulfils all the operational requirements of the European fighter aircraft, but, more than that, because it safeguards our technology and prevents us from becoming subservient to the Americans in this important sector? It will also save many thousands of jobs in Scotland.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I agree that the radar is a vital part of the equipment of the EFA. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that competitive bids from two consortia, both of which include British companies, are being analysed.

    Service Men (Pensions)
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when service men will be able to purchase additional voluntary contributions for pension purposes.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): Facilities for service men to make additional voluntary contributions to enhance pension benefits in particular categories have been available from earlier this year. Action is in hand to extend the range and scope of those facilities as far and as quickly as is practicable.
    Mr. Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend accept that his answer will be widely welcomed in the armed forces, not only because it will maintain the quality of the pension, as is the case in civilian life, but because it will be especially good for morale? It will also help in the matter of retention.
    Mr. Freeman: I agree that the armed forces pension scheme is excellent. It costs the taxpayer £1 billion a year and enables a service man after, for example, 22 years' service to retire with an immediate and indexed pension. That must contribute to the excellent morale of our armed forces.
    Mr. Stern: Has my hon. Friend learnt from the experience of other Government Departments that in the coming year there is scope for improving the arrangements for members of the armed forces to take up additional voluntary contributions? Does he agree that the need for flexibility in pension provision—however good the armed services pension scheme—is one of the great advances, especially for the armed forces, of the Social Security Act 1986?
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with my hon. Friend. It was not just the 1986 Act but the 1987 Act that made provision for additional voluntary contributions, both free-standing and in-house, for service men and, indeed, for civilians. I confirm that we are making rapid progress on completing the introduction of facilities for additional voluntary contributions for pensions for service men.

    Military Stores
    Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current total value of military equipment held in his Department's stores; and what resources his Department devotes to safeguarding these stores against fire.
    Mr. Freeman: The most recent estimate of the value of stocks held in major stores depots is approximately £10 billion. Fire prevention measures include dispersal and segregation of stocks; provision of fire control equipment, such as fire mains and hydrants; automatic fire detection and suppression systems; and our own fire brigades, where appropriate.
    Mr. Graham: Is the Minister aware that after the fire at Donnington a number of recommendations were not implemented before there was a second fire? Will he assure us that he will instruct his Department fully to implement safety proposals in all Ministry of Defence stores so that people can sleep safely and comfortably at night?
    Mr. Freeman: I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the personnel at our military units, and, indeed, any civilians nearby, can sleep safely at night. After the 1983 fire all the recommendations made by the military board of inquiry were acted upon. After the fire at Donnington a few months ago, a military board of inquiry was set up to examine just how many and to what degree the recommendations made in 1983 were properly implemented. I look forward, as do all my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, to receiving the report of that board of inquiry.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: What is the annual wastage from Ministry of Defence establishments as a result of fire or other damage?
    Mr. Freeman: Over the past 10 years I estimate that the wastage figure has been about £50 million per annum, but, of course, that must be set in the context of stores valued at about £10 billion.

    Trident
    Mr. Cartwright: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on the progress of the Trident programme.
    Mr. Younger: I am pleased to be able to reaffirm that the Trident programme remains on schedule and to budget.
    Mr. Cartwright: Will the Secretary of State confirm that all work on Trident submarine building at Barrow has been halted for the past three weeks as a direct result of the management's attempt to compel the entire work force to take its summer holiday during the same two weeks in August? In view of the past successes at Barrow, is it not ridiculous that that Victorian attitude to industrial relations should be allowed to imperil something as vital as Trident? As there is no sign of a settlement in the future, what steps will the Secretary of State take to safeguard the future of the Trident programme?
    Mr. Younger: I would not wish to intervene in what is essentially an industrial dispute between employers and employees, but I hope that that dispute will be resolved as soon as possible.
    Mr. Fallon: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the subcontract for the Trident shiplift at Faslane will shortly be awarded either to Harland and Wolff or to Cleveland Bridge in my constituency? Will he confirm that, this time, the competition between Northern Ireland and the north-east will be fair?
    Mr. Younger: Yes. I confirm that every possible effort will be made to ensure that the competition is absolutely fair. The work on the shiplift facilities and so on at Faslane is presently proceeding on schedule.
    Dr. Godman: With reference to the Clyde end of the Trident programme, will the Secretary of State now confirm that the contract for the floating jetty for the Royal Naval armaments division at Coulport is to be awarded to McAlpine and that it will be constructed of concrete at Ardyne Point?
    Mr. Younger: I cannot confirm any decisions of that sort. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put down a question about it, I shall try to answer it.
    Mr. Burt: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as an investment for peace, Trident is still tremendously effective? At its peak it will be absorbing only 11 per cent. of the defence equipment budget, which is less than the Tornado aircraft will absorb at its peak.
    Mr. Younger: Yes, it is certainly true that the Trident programme is not as expensive as the Tornado programme, but it is extremely valuable. There is no way in which, by equivalent expenditure, an equivalent benefit could be given to the defence of the West and Britain.
    Mr. O'Neill: Will the Secretary of State give the House the assurance that the Select Committee was unable to receive from his officials, that the delays in the Trident programme, in particular the delays at Aldermaston and Burghfield, are now being avoided and that the programme is truly up to schedule and not delayed, as has been suggested?
    Mr. Younger: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it would be right for me to give a proper and measured response to the Select Committee report. I hope to do so as soon as possible.

    British Army Equipment Exhibition
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why it is the Government's policy not to disclose who is invited to the British Army equipment exhibition.
    Mr. Sainsbury: It has been the policy of this and previous Administrations not to release details of invitations to the British Army equipment exhibition. Invitations are issued on a confidential basis, and it would be a breach of trust to release names.
    Mr. Soley: That is a pretty weak and pathetic excuse. Given that we are supposed to be protecting a free and open society, would it not be a good idea if, in common with most other Western democracies, we were a little better at freedom of information?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the rights of those who are asked to the exhibition to the protection of their own confidential information. We should respect their entitlement to that.
    Mr. Couchman: When my hon. Friend looks at the exhibitors at the British Army equipment exhibition, will he bear in mind Vickers' need to be able to forward-plan its programme and make an announcement as soon as possible about the new tank replacement, which is needed for the 1990s?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The equipment on display covers a wide range and is a valuable display for all who attend. It is probably more important for those who attend from overseas than for members of the British Army, who can see the equipment in other ways.
    Mr. Wallace: Given the Minister's negative attitude to freedom of information in the context of these invitations, do the Government propose to adopt a more open attitude when it comes to supporting the United Nations register of arms transfers?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am not sure that that arises directly out of this question. If there were an effectively policed and verified international register, we would support it.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As information on who is invited to this military exhibition is to remain confidential, will my hon. Friend slip an invitation to the Leader of the Opposition, so that he can pick up some——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Please stick to the question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and useful suggestion. I assure——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that we must stick to the question.
    Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is fine to rule a question out of order, but it seems senseless to rule it out of order if you then allow it to be answered.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the Minister was going to answer the bit that was relevant.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    A large number of right hon. and hon. Members receive invitations and attend the exhibition. If other right hon. and hon. Members would like to attend and would let us know, we should probably be able to arrange invitations.

    Cruise Missiles
    Ms. Primarolo: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy not to acquire for British forces any warheads previously removed from cruise missiles under the terms of the intermediate nuclear forces treaty; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Ian Stewart): The warheads for cruise missiles being withdrawn under the terms of the INF treaty are the property of the United States Government, and their disposal is therefore entirely a matter for them.
    Ms. Primarolo: Could not some of the nuclear-capable warheads of the multi-launch rocket system that Britain is now acquiring, or some of the American base nuclear weapons in this country, be recycled as cruise missiles, which were supposedly negotiated away under the INF agreement? The Department of Energy in the United States told Congress that that was likely to happen. Therefore, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that it will not happen to any weapons, British or American, based in this country?
    Mr. Stewart: I think that the hon. Lady may be referring to nuclear material contained in warheads. As regards warheads from cruise missiles, I should point out that we are getting rid of ground-launched cruise missiles from this country under the INF treaty. We have no plans to acquire submarine or air-launched cruise missiles for our forces, so the hon. Lady's worries do not arise.
    Mr. Sayeed: Will my hon. Friend continue to do his level best to continue to reduce the cost of defence procurement?
    Mr. Stewart: Certainly, in such modest ways as I can contribute to that worthy objective. However, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who is more directly concerned with these matters, will have heard my hon. Friend's remarks.

    Trident
    Mr. Allan Roberts: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he proposes to take in the light of the conclusions of the Defence Committee in its recent report on the progress of the trident programme, with particular reference to the allegedly inaccurate evidence given to the Committee by his Department.
    Mr. Younger: A formal Government response to the Committee's comprehensive report will be made in due course and it would be inappropriate for me to anticipate that response. I was, however, pleased to note that the Committee felt that the Trident programme was generally well run.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that the Government are still misleading the House and the country about the cost of Trident? The Ministry of Defence is being economic with the truth rather than economic with taxpayers' money, and the Select Committee on Defence has condemned the Ministry for misleading the Committee and not telling the truth to the House.
    Mr. Younger: That is a serious charge. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to anticipate our response to a Select Committee report. He is completely wrong to say that we have misled the House on the cost of Trident which is decreasing in terms of foreign exchange costs and actual costs. I should have thought that he would be pleased to know that.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that whatever figure we take for the cost of Trident, it represents a comparatively modest proportion of our future defence spending and, as such, is excellent value for money? Will he further confirm that at least one of the two main parties remains firmly committed to that programme, although both were committed to it nine years ago?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. By any standards, the cost of Trident is extremely good value for money. I repeat that 95 per cent. of our much larger defence budget is spent on non-nuclear defence. That answers the other part of my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State reflect on the balance between a strategic defence commitment to Trident and the need to maintain, as the Select Committee on Defence said today, a viable surface fleet with more frigates and destroyers in operation than the number that he has available now? Will he give us a straight answer about the number of frigates and destroyers that are in operation today? When will he update his commitment to place orders for at least three frigates by the end of June?
    Mr. Younger: The size of the Royal Navy is at a very high level. There are about 143 commissioned ships, and the Government intend to keep about 50 destroyers or frigates as part of a large and effective fleet. At present, 47 ships are available for service—and very valuable service they are doing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that whereas 10 years ago frigates and destroyers spent 27 per cent. of their lives in refit, today they spend only 12 per cent. of their lives in refit, which is a great improvement.
    Mr. Franks: May I remind the Secretary of State that the calculation of the cost of Trident has been based on an exchange rate of £1·30 to the pound? In view of the recent, but long-sustained, increase in the exchange rate, is it not time to take a new exchange rate and thus reduce the figures presented to the House?
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct to say that the movement in the exchange rate has an effect on these matters. It has been a convention that towards the beginning of each year we announce the recosting of the Trident programme, and we base that figure on the exchange rate of the previous June. It is best to keep the figures comparable by using the same system on each occasion. As my hon. Friend knows, in each of the past two years there have been substantial reductions in the exchange rate costs and the actual costs of the Trident programme.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is irresponsible to keep on building nuclear-powered submarines while we still have no safe way of disposing of the propulsion units when they are decommissioned? Will he comment on the reports in the Scottish press on Sunday
    186
    that he has decided to consider disposal of those units at sea off the coast of Scotland? Has he decided that, and at so, when will a formal announcement be made about it?
    Mr. Younger: That report in the papers on Sunday had no basis in fact. No such decision has been taken. It is inescapable, because so many nations have nuclear-powered submarines, that their disposal must be considered. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have been considering the problem for some time.

    Cadet Units
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cadet units of the three services exist in inner city areas of the United Kingdom; and what steps are being taken to examine further expansion.
    Mr. Freeman: There are 65 detachments of the Army Cadet Force, Air Training Corps and Sea Cadets located in or near inner-city areas. We are examining the feasibility of introducing a pilot expansion programme in the west midlands, initially covering the Army Cadet Force and, we hope, the Sea Cadets.
    Mr. King: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is much better that young people honour our flag as the sea cadets do, rather than dishonouring it as hooligans overseas? In considering further support for the cadet movement, will he pay particular attention to the training ship Cirius in the Bartley Green area of my constituency, which has only just commenced operations and requires all the encouragement that it can possibly get for its excellent work?
    Mr. Freeman: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The cadets is not a military organisation but is part of the national youth movement. It contributes to good citizenship, a sense of good discipline and is to be congratulated. I understand that the unit in my hon. Friend's constituency is a trial one and I shall follow its progress, as I am sure he will, very carefully.
    Mr. Cryer: When the Ministry of Defence is dealing with cadet units, how does it explain that one of the philosophies of the British armed forces is the potential mass extermination of men, women and children on a scale never yet contemplated on our planet, and that this will be done whatever the views of those men, women and children, through the use of nuclear weapons? Is that not one of the most horrific and immoral attitudes, similar to the extermination of the Jews by Hitler in the 1939 war? How does the Minister square that with the philosophy——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going miles wide of the question. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Cryer rose——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must stick to the question.
    Sir Jim Spicer: I am certain that my hon. Friend will be assured of the support of most hon. Members in his laudable efforts to increase the number of units in inner city areas, but is there any way in which he can encourage local authorities and education authorities to stop blocking the expansion of units and to encourage them to be set up in association with schools?
    Mr. Freeman: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is regrettable that some schools and local education authorities do not permit those seeking to establish cadet organisations in schools——
    Mr. Rogers: Where?
    Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) will table a question, I shall answer it. The purpose of the cadet organisations is to serve Queen and country and to defend this country.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Would it not be better if the Minister encouraged our young people to join the woodcraft folk [Interruption.]——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are making slow progress.
    Mr. Banks: It is a fairly reasonable question. If they joined the woodcraft folk they could learn about peaceful co-existence and go to the countryside and have a good time rather than learning about killing people.
    Mr. Freeman: The purpose of the cadet organisations and the junior elements of the regular armed forces is to teach, in part, the elements of self-discipline, self-respect and service to the community.

    Bullying
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received seeking further action to combat bullying in the Army.
    Mr. Freeman: I have received no such representations since I announced the measures to combat bullying to the House on 26 January. I last made a statement on progress in implementing these measures on 7 June.
    Mr. Knapman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the steps that he has taken to date. Will he say what are the costs involved and how many allegations of bullying have been made?
    Mr. Freeman: The full cost of implementing the measures that I announced is approximately £2 million per annum. The Ministry of Defence has not shrunk from allocating the necessary resources for dealing with the problem. Over the past 18 months there have been about 130 allegations of bullying, of which 104 were investigated and 60-odd were found to be completely without foundation.
    Mr. Bernie Grant: Is the Minister aware that two of the most obnoxious forms of bullying in the Army are racial harassment and racial abuse? In view of the recent exposure of the practice in the Army, what does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Freeman: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement. Racial harassment and racial discrimination are obnoxious. The Government's position has been made crystal clear on that subject. No racial harassment or discrimination is permitted or tolerated in the British armed forces.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a clear distinction between bullying and teasing, and will he assure the House that his Department will always carefully evaluate allegations of bullying in that light?
    Mr. Freeman: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend, but I am sure that he would not wish to suggest that bullying is something that the British Army should tolerate. It is absolutely obnoxious and unnecessary. One does not need to bully people in order to draw the best out of them and instil in them a sense of self-discipline.

    Dog Training
    Mr. Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a further statement on the progress of the efficiency study into the activities relating to dog training at RAF Newton and the RAVC centre, Melton Mowbray; and when the report will be available.
    Mr. Freeman: The consultants report should be received by the Ministry by August. A decision on the future of training will be made as soon as possible thereafter.
    Mr. Latham: Now that the 11 th investigation in 22 years into the training of dogs is coming to an end, will my hon. Friend please stop wasting money on all these interminable investigations and simply let the RAVC get on with its valuable job?
    Mr. Freeman: That is a trifle uncharitable. We are not wasting taxpayers' money by making sure that there is a thorough and proper study of the options available. I hope that my hon. Friend will avail himself of the Ministry of Defence's invitation to come in and express his views in detail on the subject.

    Nuclear Weapons Testing (Compensation)
    Mr. Clay: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received seeking the establishment of a compensation fund to assist service men who claim that their health was adversely affected by their participation in nuclear weapons testing in the 1950s.
    Mr. Sainsbury: A number of proposals have been made by right hon. and hon. Members and by others regarding compensation for participants in the United Kingdom's nuclear weapon test programme. The Government remain confident, however, that the radiological safety precautions adopted during the test programme were effective and that the chance of anyone suffering harm to health as a consequence of participation in the tests was extremely small. We believe that the recently published NRPB report vindicates this view.
    Mr. Clay: Is it not the case that, apart from deaths from leukemia and multiple myeloma, which are now established, there are many other instances of death from various diseases among those test veterans? Is it not also the case that a high proportion of them are sterile and that those who are not sterile have had partners who have given birth to deformed children to a remarkable extent, well above the average that one would expect? Are the Government simply mean, callous and heartless, or is the reason why they will not pay up that they are terrified that to do so would have the most devastating effect on the current debate on nuclear weapons and civil nuclear power?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I have a great deal of sympathy with those who are suffering ill health and who firmly and sincerely believe that they are suffering because of their

    189
    participation in the tests. However, if the hon. Gentleman studies the NRPB report he will find that it in no way supports the allegations that he has just made.
    Mr. Sean Hughes: Is it not particularly disgraceful that a Government who are so obsessed with the role of nuclear weapons in their defence policy can be so dismissive of those who have suffered the most appalling injuries in the promotion of that weapon?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that underlying the phrasing of his question is the assumption that there is a direct connection between the ill health from which those people are suffering and their participation in the tests. That view is not supported by the NRPB report, and I can assure him that if there were definite evidence linking the ill health of participants to their participation in the tests we would of course come forward with offers of compensation.
    Mr. Higgins: Can the Minister undertake to review the figures each year to see whether there is any clear statistical correlation as the situation develops?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. Further work will be done by the NRPB to follow up the excellent work which it has already done and which has led, I am glad to say, to what has been recognised as a genuinely independent and authoritative report.

    British Army Equipment Exhibition
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received seeking the withdrawal of invitations to attend the British Army equipment exhibition from 26 June to 1 July issued to any country with a record of human rights abuses.
    Mr. Sainsbury: A number of representations have been received.
    Miss Lestor: Is it not a fact that over 10,000 letters and a very large petition have already been sent complaining bitterly about the fact that one third of the countries that were at the 1986 exhibition were on Amnesty International's torture list, and that the weapons that they can buy can be used for internal repression and torture? Is it not about time that this vile trade was cleared up and the Government had some mechanism to prevent those people from attending?
    Mr. Sainsbury: May I point out to the hon. Lady that it is individuals rather than companies that are asked. I assume from the wording of her question that the hon. Lady is entirely against trade in armaments. May I remind her that the successful sale of arms overseas by the British defence industry supports 100,000 jobs?

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hayward: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have been asked to reply.
    190
    My right hon. Friend is in Hanover for a meeting of the European Council.
    Mr. Hayward: Can my right hon. Friend this afternoon express on behalf of the Government the disgust felt throughout the country at the attempt by terrorists not only to bomb the driver of a school bus in Northern Ireland but to kill the schoolchildren on that bus? Is it not a tragic irony that the children were then treated at the same hospital in Enniskillen as the people who were killed and injured in the Enniskillen bombing last year? Will my right hon. Friend send full reports of this bombing to Congressman Joe Kennedy in the United States?
    Mr. Wakeham: This was a cowardly and disgusting act against an off-duty part-time member of the UDR in a situation in which many children and young people might have been killed. It indicates that there are no depths to which terrorists are not prepared to sink: first a remembrance service, then a charity fun-run, and now a school bus. I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing horror, coupled with thankfulness that no one was killed and more people were not injured.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I first join the right hon. Gentleman in strongly condemning this vile attack; indeed, no words could give full force to what decent, normal, ordinary people feel.
    Just three months ago, in the Budget, the Chancellor predicted a balance of payments deficit of £4 billion for 1988. Using the same expert advice, what is the Government's prediction now?
    Mr. Wakeham: First, I am glad to see the Leader of the Opposition safely in his place after his morning's activities.
    The Chancellor told the House on 16 June that recent figures pointed to a larger deficit than forecast at Budget time. But, of course, current account deficit is the counterpart of capital inflows. These reflect a new-found confidence in the United Kingdom as a place to invest and are financing high investment by the private sector, which will boost future performance.
    Mr. Kinnock: If everything is going so well, why are interest rates going up?
    Mr. Wakeham: As the Chancellor said:
    "Short-term interest rates remain the essential instrument of monetary policy. Within a continuous and comprehensive assessment of monetary conditions, I will continue to set interest rates at the level necessary to ensure downward pressure on inflation."—[Official Report, 15 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 997.]
    That is what he did today. A ½ per cent. increase reflects a further tightening of monetary conditions in line with moves earlier this month.
    Mr. Kinnock: I recall the Chancellor and the Prime Minister saying that short-term interest rates were the essential lever of monetary policy. There have been seven changes in short-term interest rates in 12 weeks. Has the lever come off in the Chancellor's hand?
    Mr. Wakeham: No. As the Leader of the Opposition will surely recognise, interest rates are an essential weapon in controlling monetary conditions. However, what is more to the point is that a 1 per cent. increase in wage costs is four times as damaging to industry as a 1 per cent. increase in interest costs.
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Walker: Will my right hon. Friend attempt to organise visits to the annual conferences of the National Union of Mineworkers and the Scotch Whisky Association, because if he could he would find that the National Union of Mineworkers seems to support industrial unrest, and even the occasional killing of innocent people, while the Scotch Whisky Association employs 16,000 people, has exports worth £1 billion and contributes £1 billion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget? Does not that clear comparison show which is the more important to the nation?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry to give my hon. Friend a disappointing reply. My duties in this House will not allow me to attend either event. On the question of Scotch whisky, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the successful passage of his private Member's Bill. As for the NUM, I hope that whoever goes to its conference will find an opportunity to condemn the use of violence in industrial action.
    Mr. Steel: Since the high value of the pound, aided by runaway easy credit, sucks in imports and worsens our balance of payments crisis, why, even today, does the Prime Minister continue to resist seeking exchange rate stability through joining the European monetary system? Will the Leader of the House explain the contrast between the Prime Minister's resistance to that and her tactless enthusiasm in the Canadian House of Commons last week for Canada to join an economic unit with its larger, single neighbour?
    Mr. Wakeham: The control of inflation is paramount and the Government will not bail out excessive increases in domestic costs by allowing exchange rate depreciation. Restraint of industry's costs is in its own hands. The Prime Minister is discussing those issues in Hanover today. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman awaits her statement on Thursday.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: In his discussions with the Prime Minister, will my right hon. Friend take note of the remarkable increase in charitable giving in this country in recent years, and especially the help that that provides in specific areas? Will he also convey to the Prime Minister the wide support for payroll-giving relief in the recent Budet? How does the Methodist Church think that we can behave otherwise than by that way of helping particular people? Will he condemn the Methodists' negative approach?
    Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a remarkable record for a whole series of ways in which he has assisted charities in this country, and that is set to continue.
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nellist: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to view last night's "World In Action" programme on her return, and especially to vet the activities of millionaire gangster Nicholas van Hoogstraten, who describes himself as "probably ruthless" and "probably violent" and who has been charged on several occasions with violence against tenants? In passing the Housing Bill last night, have not the Government given the green light to such ruthless gangsters to harass tenants further under the motto "Cry, 'Havoc' and let slip the ghosts of Rachman"?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that no one in the House would support criminal activities by any landlord in any form. Bad landlord behaviour is the product of the Rent Acts, which held down rents and denied landlords a reasonable rate of return. The Housing Bill remedies that.
    Dame Jill Knight: Has my right hon. Friend noted today the case of Dean Scott, who died so tragically as a result of parental neglect, although warnings were both given and received by the police and the local authorities? Did he note that the three local authorities concerned have said that no blame attaches to them and that they followed all existing procedures? Will my right hon. Friend use his considerable influence to ensure that existing procedures are altered?
    Mr. Wakeham: I cannot be expected to comment on the particular court case and the judgment that was reached, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will look carefully at all the lessons that are to be learnt from that distressing case and will see to it that any necessary changes are made and, certainly, that the proper procedures are brought to the attention of all those concerned.
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Morgan: When the Prime Minister returns from her latest overseas mission, will the Leader of the House ask the right hon. Lady, or the Mother of Parliament as she was mistakenly referred to in Ottawa last week—I am told that Canadian Opposition Members called her something different—urgently to knock together the heads of the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Wales for their further shilly-shallying over the second Severn crossing, as its further delay and the contradictions in Government policy over the matter are standing on the jugular vein of the Welsh economy?
    Mr. Wakeham: As one who goes over the bridge quite frequently, I recognise that the increasing prosperity that the Government are bringing to south Wales is increasing the amount of traffic over the bridge. Both my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Transport have those matters in hand and will make an announcement in due course.
    Mr. Goodlad: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Goodlad: Will my right hon. Friend, during the course of his busy day, find time to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the National Health Service, which takes place this weekend? Will he convey to all the people who work in it the hope that the scope and quality of the services offered will, over the next 40 years, increase by as much as they have over the past 40 years, the majority under Conservative Governments?
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right to raise that matter. I am aware of the 40th anniversary of the National Health Service. It caused me to reflect that, for 26 years of that time, there has been a Conservative Government. We have consistently increased spending on the National Health Service, which now treats more patients with more new treatments than ever before. That contrasts with the record of the Labour party, which cut expenditure and nurses' pay and increased waiting lists.
    Dr. Bray: If, as the Leader of the House has said, the root of the Chancellor's problem is that foreigners are so eager to thrust their money upon us, why has he increased interest rates?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have already answered the question about interest rates and indicated that the movement of interest rates reflects a need to keep inflation under control, which is the paramount need of the economy at any time. The problem of people wishing to invest in this country would not be there if the hon. Gentleman's party were in government.
    Mr. Baldry: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her oficial engagements for Tuesday 28 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend explain the constitutional significance of the glorious revolution? Did it herald the dawn of a new era and a new realism?
    Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of his question and for having drafted the reply.
    The glorious revolution granted many freedoms that we enjoy today. It heralded the realism that the will of the people is paramount and cannot be subjugated to any group in our community. Those who find themselves in the thrall of certain trade union leaders would do well to remember that.
    Mr. Terry Fields: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fields: Is the Leader of the House not appalled at the farce that passes for Prime Minister's Question Time? Two 15-minute periods a week are spent by the Prime Minister in what can only be described as an abuse of her office. Is it not time that the Prime Minister, who is ultimately responsible for the balance of trade deficit, the crisis in the Health Service, 4 million unemployed, despair, homelessness and poverty, was ordered to come to the House to give an account of her bankrupt stewardship to the nation?
    Mr. Wakeham: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. I can think of better things to do with 15 minutes of my time every now and again. [Interruption.] To give the hon. Gentleman a serious answer, Prime Minister's Question Time is determined by the House, not by the Prime Minister. The Committee on Procedure has many times considered the way in which Prime Minister's Question Time is conducted. I know that my right hon. Friend would be willing to change the format if that is what the House wanted. I suspect that the present format is generally acceptable to most right hon. and hon. Members. If there is any criticism of it, it is of the quality of the questions that come from Opposition Members.

Council Estates (Wales)
3.30 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: 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 Government's plan for the sale of council estates in Wales."
This is a specific matter for debate because separate guidelines have been produced for Wales and these have not been given the parliamentary scrutiny which, belatedly, was possible for the equivalent proposals for England. For thousands of people throughout Wales—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly.
Mr. Michael: For thousands of people throughout Wales who will be affected by the proposals it is vital that the document should be discussed fully in the House. Ministers should explain it and answer questions on the practical effect that it will have on existing council tenants, on homeless people, on young people seeking a home for their start in life and on the growing number of elderly people who should be able to count on a comfortable and secure home in their remaining years.
It is a matter of urgency, because the document was not made available in the Vote Office in the usual way, and emerged in the Library only yesterday. There has been a transparent and successful attempt to evade debate on it during consideration of the Housing Bill, and a debate without further delay is the only way to restore accountability to the House by the Secretary of State for Wales.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the pleas that were made for the document, along with the document on tenants' choice in Wales, which is still missing, believed to be hidden to be produced two or three weeks ago, so that they could be considered with the Housing Bill. The Welsh
196
Office stated in the press that there would be quite a different document for Wales and that Welsh Members wanted it published and debated as quickly as possible. Those whose homes are under threat have a right to expect the House to move as a matter of urgency to allow a debate that could clarify their future.
You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that council housing and the entire topic of social housing is a matter of serious public concern. Members have complained at the chaotic way in which the House has been engulfed in a flood of Government amendments to the Housing Bill. You have heard the angry complaints of hon. Members who are concerned about the housing needs of their constituents, who find it difficult to deal with the shifting sands of Government policy-maing long after consideration of the Housing Bill in Committee has been completed.
This is a specific matter of public concern which has been prevented, cynically and deliberately, from receiving an airing during debates on the Housing Bill. That is why the public interest demands that time be made available, as a matter of urgency, for the House to debate the Secretary of State's document, which pretends to show concern for social housing, but leaves unanswered so many important fundamental questions for the future of such housing in Wales that our failure to debate it would be an abrogation of our responsibility and would appear to condone the Secretary of State's failure to seek open discussion of his proposals.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the Government's plan for the sale of council estates in Wales."
I listened with great care to the hon. Member. As he knows, my decision on Standing Order No. 20 applications is based on whether they meet the criteria laid down under the Standing Order. I regret that I do not consider that the matter that the hon. Member has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

Question Time (Points of Order)
3.34 pm
Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Obviously I have not sat through as many Question Times as you have, but I think that you will concede that I frequently sit here at Question Time. Normally, you rightly rule out of order all points of order raised during Question Time, but today the hon. Member for Stockton. North (Mr. Cook) was allowed to put a point of order during Question Time. Are you creating a precedent? Is this a special arrangement with the hon. Member for Stockton, North? Will you explain how I can raise a point of order during Question Time in future?
Mr. Speaker: That is an unworthy comment for an hon. Member to make. The hon. Member well knows that if a matter arises that needs my immediate consideration it is always legitimate to raise a point of order. I hope that that will not happen too often during Question Time, because it would obviously delay the proceedings. This has always been the established rule. That is what I did today.
Mr. Holt: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept that I may be naive, thick and all the other things that you have suggested, but you must have immense foresight if you are able to rule that a point of order is in order before you have heard it. [Interruption.] Despite the rabble among the Opposition, I should like an honest appraisal of how you know that a point of order is in order before it is raised. Unless you do that, in future all of us should be able to raise our points of order.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is right. Until a point of order is raised, it is impossible for the Chair to know whether it is in order. If today's point of order had not been one needing my immediate attention, I would have deferred it. [Interruption.] The House well understands the rules.

Police Act 1964 (Amendment)
3.37 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In the interests of the happy procedures of the House, I want to raise this matter before we embark upon the ten-minute Bill. I understand that the Bill requires police constables to give information about their membership of freemasonry. Freemasonry involves a direct pecuniary interest and advantage to any member of the freemasons. I hasten to say that I am not a freemason.
If hon. Members have a direct pecuniary interest in a matter, they are not allowed to vote on it. This does not involve general legislation. Because the constables covered by the Bill could be members of the lodges of which hon. Members are members, there will be a direct link. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will listen to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and conclude that hon. Members who are freemasons, but who are not, unfortunately, required to make a declaration to that effect, should stay out of the Division Lobby when the vote is taken, thereby avoiding any suspicion that they are voting for, or against, the Bill for their financial benefit.
Mr. Speaker: I think that we should wait to hear what is said in introducing the Bill. Like the hon. Member, I am not a mason. I understand that it is very difficult to find out who is a mason.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you will not take the advice offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (M r. Cryer), perhaps the hon. Members concerned will roll up their trouser legs when they go into the Lobbies.
Mr. Speaker: I shall watch most carefully.
3.39 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to amend the form of declaration for a constable prescribed by the Police Act 1964.
The Bill is about freemasonry and the police, and would amend the service declaration that is made by a newly appointed police officer under schedule 2 to the Police Act 1964 by adding the words:
"I shall abstain from any activity which is likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of my duties or which is likely to give rise to the impression amongst members of the public that it may so interfere."
This amendment to the law, which I first canvassed m 1985, is designed specifically to stop practising freemasons from serving as police officers. The core of my objection is that the secretly sworn oath of allegiance between freemasons may conflict with the publicly declared loyalty of police officers to the community as a whole.
No condition can be allowed by which a police officer's loyalty can be divided. Freemasonry is a secretive organisation that encourages secret membership. Its members use secret methods of identification designed specifically so that non-members are left unaware of the connection between them. It is the duty of the police officer to enforce the law, to quote the service declaration, "without favour or affection". Police officers can succeed in that vital task only if they have the full confidence of the public that they are acting impartially.

199
Over the years, serious allegations have repeatedly been made that freemasons in the police force have received preferential treatment over appointments, promotion, disciplinary procedures and, most important, that they may not be impartially investigating criminal cases in which other freemasons are involved. Over many years my constituency mailbag, and recent public reaction to the case of Detective Chief Inspector Woollard have reflected widespread public anxiety over this issue.
Let me make it clear that my attack is not on the altruistic principles of freemasonry. It is often justifiably claimed that freemasons are responsible for many laudable charitable activities. I unreservedly accept and applaud that. However, I strongly believe that membership of that organisation in its present secretive form is inappropriate, not only for police officers, but also for the judiciary and for those responsible for public administration.
If freemasonry were to transform itself and shed its secrecy, exclusivity and oath of allegiance, I should have no objection to police officers being members. As things stand, however, police officers should not be freemasons, and those who are already members should resign either from the lodge or from the police force. It is one or the other; it cannot be both.
Over three years ago, Sir Kenneth Newman, the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan police—and at that time the most important police officer in the country—made exactly the point that I make now. In the book "Principles of Policing and Guidance for Professional Behaviour", he and his colleagues identified the
"special dilemma of a police officer who is a freemason, and the conflict between his service declaration of impartiality and the sworn obligation to avoid any activity likely to interfere with impartiality or to give the impression that it may do so."
Sir Kenneth went on to say:
"A freemason's oath holds inevitably the implication that loyalty to fellow freemasons may supersede any other loyalty. One who is already a freemason would also be wise to ponder from time to time whether he should continue as a freemason."
That view was shared by Sir Kenneth's successor and by at least five other chief constables, who immediately issued similar advice and guidance. In response, freemasonry closed ranks. The new and powerful lodge of St. James was forged, made up almost exclusively of Metropolitan police officers, some say as an act of defiance and a calculated insult to the commissioner. Its tentacles ran deep, with strong Conservative connections.
Sir Kenneth's concerns were prompted by a long history of problems involving freemasonry in the police force. One example that he must have had in mind was Operation Countryman, in the mid-1970s, when over 250 police officers were forced to resign and many faced criminal charges after investigations revealed that police membership of particular lodges formed the nucleus of a criminal conspiracy.
If revelations of wrongdoing and insidious corruption are not enough, what about the worries of the sergeant on the beat passed over for promotion for a less experienced or less able but better connected colleague, the disciplinary complaint against an official inexplicably overlooked, or the drunken driver who is not breathalysed?
Today, masonic penetration of the police force appears to be greater than ever. A survey in 1981 revealed that an estimated 33 out of 50 chief constables were freemasons. It
200
has been alleged that 50 per cent. of the active membership of the Police Federation are freemasons. The latest authoritative study suggests that as many as one in five of all policemen are masons. The author of that study concluded:
"An astonishing number of policemen are freemasons—out of all proportion with the population as a whole."
I am told that in London alone at least four lodges are made up entirely of freemason policemen. Just what are they doing?
That brings me to the case of Detective Chief Inspector Brian Woollard. One must support his campaign against the unacceptable influence of freemasonry within the Metropolitan police. Woollard's career has clearly been ruined as a result of his diligent investigation of criminal conspiracy involving freemasonry—the career of a man with an outstanding record and picked out for high command. Woollard had received seven commendations. He had served at Downing street, at Buckingham palace, with the anti-terrorist squad, and with the elite public sector corruption squad. He had even served as personal protection officer to a former Home Secretary. He was a high flyer. The mistake that he made was to question a senior DPP official who showed an unprecedented interest in his case. Of course, that official turned out to be a freemason.
The authorities have not altogether written off the case. I understand that senior officers have been working on a report that shows that a high proportion of police above the rank of inspector are freemasons. There is a particularly strong concentration in certain CID squads, in personnel and in management departments generally. Even the Police Foundation, an advisory body to the Government, has commented on freemasons' "obsession with secrecy".
Regrettably, the problem is a national one and reaches as far as my constituency in Cumbria. I received a letter from a local police officer who said:
"You are quite correct when you say that policemen feel that impartiality is not always as it should be, but it could never be proved, as any example cited would obviously be met with an immediate denial from those in authority."
I put those concerns to the then chief constable of Cumbria, Barry Price, and asked him to issue guidance of the sort recommended by Sir Kenneth Newman. I received the curt reply, "I won't."
Another policeman told me that Cumbria police force was riddled with freemasonry and that non-masons were often heard privately to complain. I should add that former Chief Constable Price was later reported to me to be a freemason. I should have realised earlier.
The parliamentary questions that I tabled in 1985 resulted in a vast mailbag. Commander Higham, grand secretary of the United Grand lodge of England and Wales, attempted to reassure me with a masterful euphemism. He said that his was not a secret organisation, but rather had
"a respectable inclination to privacy."
When I tried to find out who or how many he represented, I was told that the information was not secret but "private".
Freemasonry is plagued with contradictions. It claims to be open to all, yet it bars women. It makes high moral claims, yet it offends the Church. It contains some of the most powerful and respected people in the land, yet subjects them to bizarre ritual that invites ridicule.

201
I argue that freemasons should not serve as police officers and that police officers should sever their links with their lodges. Their inter-tribal oath of loyalty is utterly incompatible with the duty to serve the whole community impartially. The secrecy of the organisation makes it impossible to check whether impartiality might be at risk in a particular case.
I submit that the police force is considerably damaged by its links with freemasonry. Good policemen are embarrassed. We all recognise that the police depend on the full co-operation of the public in solving crime. That co-operation depends in turn on trust and a belief in their impartiality. Undermine that trust, and one undermines the fight against crime. The police force is an important institution pledged to uphold the principles of an open, free and democratic society. We all support it. It is unhealthy that large numbers of its officers should be involved in an organisation whose practices are so entirely out of keeping with those principles.
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member have leave to bring in his Bill?
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the Ayes have it.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: I shall put the Question again. Hon. Members must follow their voices. The Question is, That the hon. Member have leave to bring in his Bill.
Hon. Members: No.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):
The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 16.

Division No. 384]

[3.49 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Dixon, Don

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dobson, Frank

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Doran, Frank

Ashton, Joe

Eastham, Ken

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Battle, John

Fatchett, Derek

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

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Bermingham, Gerald

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

Blair, Tony

Fisher, Mark

Blunkett, David

Flannery, Martin

Boateng, Paul

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Boyes, Roland

Foster, Derek

Bradley, Keith

Fyfe, Maria

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Galloway, George

Caborn, Richard

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Callaghan, Jim

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Canavan, Dennis

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Grocott, Bruce

Clay, Bob

Haynes, Frank

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Heffer, Eric S.

Cohen, Harry

Henderson, Doug

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hinchliffe, David

Corbett, Robin

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Cryer, Bob

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Howells, Geraint

Dalyell. Tam

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

202

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Primarolo, Dawn

Kennedy, Charles

Quin, Ms Joyce

Leighton, Ron

Reid, Dr John

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Richardson, Jo

Lewis, Terry

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Livingstone, Ken

Rogers, Allan

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Loyden, Eddie

Short, Clare

McAllion, John

Skinner, Dennis

Macdonald, Calum A.

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

McFall, John

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

McKelvey, William

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

McTaggart, Bob

Steinberg, Gerry

Madden, Max

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Martlew, Eric

Turner, Dennis

Meacher, Michael

Vaz, Keith

Michael, Alun

Wall, Pat

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Wareing, Robert N.

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Wigley, Dafydd

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Morley, Elliott

Wilson, Brian

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Winnick, David

Mullin, Chris

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Nellist, Dave

Worthington, Tony

O'Neill, Martin

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Tellers for the Ayes:

Patchett, Terry

Mr. Brian Sedgemore and

Pendry, Tom

Mr. Nicholas Brown.

Pike, Peter L.

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Janman, Tim

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Beggs, Roy

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Bendall, Vivian

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Woodcock, Mike

Farr, Sir John

Fearn, Ronald

Tellers for the Noes:

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Mr. Alan Meale and

Forth, Eric

Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Tony Lloyd, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Nicholas Brown, Mr. Derek Fatchett, Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. Brian Sedgemore and Mrs. Ann Clwyd.

POLICE ACT 1964 (AMENDMENT)
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours accordingly presented a Bill to amend the form of declaration for a constable prescribed by the Police Act 1964: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 184.]
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the ten-minute Bill presented so ably by my hon. Friend for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has been carried by such a substantial majority, you might be reflecting on why there was such a small number of Members opposed to it. Has it been reported to you that there seemed to be a masonic picket at the entrance to the No Lobby? Will you confirm that the Select Committee on Members' Interest is considering a request from me that Members who are masons should be required to declare their masonic membership in the Register of Members' Interests?
Lastly, will you confirm that attempts by me to table questions and a motion asking the Prime Minister to confirm that she is a member of the Lodge of the Eastern Star, which she is rumoured to have joined in 1975, have

203
been blocked on the grounds that they would cause annoyance? As the excellent ten-minute Bill has been carried requiring the police to declare masonic membership, it is high time that such a declaration was required of Members of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker: We have a busy day ahead of us. I do not know anything about the pickets. I understand that normally the Whips act as pickets on an ordinary division, but I do not believe that they are on for a ten-minute Bill. I have no knowledge of the other matters the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall not take up much of your time, but the pickets—there were more than six of them—were composed exclusively of Conservative Members, including members of the Whips Office. Therefore, would it be fair to draw the conclusion that the House of Commons freemason's lodge is centred in the Conservative party?
Mr. Speaker: I draw no conclusions at all.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, & c.
Ordered,
That the draft Harbour Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, & c.
That the draft Environmental Assessment (Afforestation) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, & c.
That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 1) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 1065) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, & c.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Orders of the Day

  Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
  4.3 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister is unable to answer my question now I hope that we shall have some clarification from the Government later in our proceedings.
  You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when we last discussed the Bill on 16 June, we dealt with new clause 80, which relates to DNA testing in Northern Ireland. At that time, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office gave certain assurances about the new clause. On the basis of those assurances, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) accepted that the new clause should be added to the Bill, and Ministers will recall that we did not divide the House on that matter.
  An article has now been published in the New Scientist that disputes the information given by the Minister of State. It demonstrates that the tests that the Minister suggested would be carried out to obtain a mouth swab would not be sufficient to obtain the necessary information, and that an intimate sample would be required. I seek an assurance from the Minister of State that, if intimate samples are required, they will be covered by other provisions in the Bill.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to clarify the point that the hon. Lady has raised—I hope to her satisfaction.
  When my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office moved the new clause on 16 June, he said that the scientific procedures were satisfactory regarding the taking of mouth swab samples. The article in the New Scientist does not lead the Government to change their views in any way at all.
  Mrs. Taylor rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the matter could best be clarified on Third Reading.

New Clause 64

  RIGHT OF ANONYMITY TO ALL VICTIMS OF AND DEFENDANTS IN SEXUAL OFFENCES CASES
  '(1) The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (1) of section 4 (Anonymity of complainants in rape etc. cases)—
  "(1) Except as authorised by a direction of this section—

  (a) After an allegation that a person has been the victim of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967 has been made by the person or by any other person neither the person's name nor his address nor a still or moving picture of him shall during his lifetime—

  205

  (i) Be published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public; or

  (ii) Be broadcast or included in a cable programme in England and Wales.

  if that is likely to lead members of the public to identify him as an alleged victim of such an offence; and

  (b) After a person is accused of such an offence no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify a person as the complainant in relation to that accusation shall during his lifetime—

  (i) Be published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public; or

  (ii) Be broadcast or included in a cable programme in England and Wales,

  but nothing in this subsection prohibits the publication or broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme of matters consisting only of a report of criminal proceedings other than proceedings at or intended to lead to, or on an Appeal arising out of, a trial at which the accused is charged with the offence.
  (1A) In subsection (1) above 'picture' includes a likeness however produced.".
  (3) In subsection (2) and subsection (4) and subsection (7) of that section for the words "a rape offence" there shall be substituted the words "an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967".

  (4) In subsection (3) of that section—

  (a) the words "before the Crown Court at which a person is charged with a rape offence" and "relating to the complainant" shall cease to have effect; and

  (b) for the words "an acquittal of a defendant at" there shall be substituted the words "the outcome of".

  (5) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (5) of that section—

  "(5A) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (5) of this section in respect of the publication or broadcast of any matter or the inclusion of any matter in a cable programme, it shall be a defence, subject to subsection (5B) below, to prove that the publication, broadcast or cable programme in which the matter appeared was one in respect of which the person had given written consent to the appearance of matter of that description.

  (5B) Written consent is not a defence if it is proved that any person interfered unreasonably with the person's peace of comfort with intent to obtain the consent."

  (6) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (6) of that section—

  "(1) For the purposes of this Section 'an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967' means any of the following, namely, any offence specified in these Acts, any attempt to commit any offence specified in these Acts, aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring any offence or an attempt to commit any offence specified in these Acts, incitements to commit any offence specified in these Acts, conspiracy to commit any offence specified in these Acts and burglary with intent to commit any offence specified in these Acts.

  (2) For the purposes of this Section a person is accused of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967; if

  (a) An information is laid alleging that he has committed such an offence; or

  (b) He appears before a Court charged with such an offence, or

  (c) A Court before which he is appearing commits him for trial on a new charge alleging such an offence; or

  (d) A bill of indictment charging him with such an offence is preferred before a court in which he may lawfully be indicted for the offence,
  206
  and references in this section and section 7(5) of this Act to an accusation alleging such an offence shall be construed accordingly; and in this section—

  'a broadcast' means a broadcast by wireless telegraphy of sounds or visual images intended for general reception, and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly;

  'complainant', in relation to a person accused of such an offence or an accusation alleging such an offence, means the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed; and

  'written publication' includes a film, a sound track and any other record in permanent form about but does not include an Indictment or other documents prepared for use in particular legal proceedings.".

  (7) In section 6 (Anonymity of defendants in rape etc. cases)—

  (a) Wherever the words "a rape offence" appear in that section there shall be substituted the words "an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967".

  (b) In subsection (1) of that section, after the words "broadcast" there shall be added the words "or included in a cable programme" and after the words "at a trial before the Crown Court" shall be added the words "or the Magistrates Court".

  (c) In subsection (6) of that section after the words "subsections (5) to (7) of section 4 of this Act" shall be added the words "as amended by section 150 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988".

  (d) In subsection (4)(a) of that section after the words "before the Crown Court" shall be added the words "or the Magistrates Court".—[Mr. Corbett.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 65—Right of anonymity to all victims of sexual offences—

  `(1) The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 shall be amended as follows.,

  (2) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (1) of section 4 (Anonymity of complainants in rape etc. cases)—

  "(1) Except as authorised by a direction of this section—

  (a) After an allegation that a person has been the victim of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967 has been made by the person or by any other person neither the person's name nor his address nor a still or moving picture of him shall during his life time—

  (i) Be published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public; or

  (ii) Be broadcast or included in a cable programme in England and Wales,

  if that is likely to lead members of the public to identify him as an alleged victim of such an offence; and

  (b) After a person is accused of such an offence no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify a person as the complainant in relation to that accusation shall during his lifetime—

  (i) Be published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public; or

  (ii) Be broadcast or included in a cable programme in England and Wales,

  but nothing in this subsection prohibits the publication or broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme of matters consisting only of a report of criminal proceedings other than

  207
  proceedings at or intended to lead to, or on an Appeal arising out of, a trial at which the accused is charged with the offence.

  (1A) In subsection (1) above 'picture' includes a likeness however produced.".

  (3) In subsection (2) and subsection (4) and subsection (7) of that section for the words "a rape offence" there shall be substituted the words "an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967".

  (4) In subsection (3) of that section—

  (a) the words "before the Crown Court at which a person is charged with a rape offence" and "relating to the complainant" shall cease to have effect; and

  (b) for the words "an acquittal of a defendant at" there shall be substituted the words "the outcome or'.

  (5) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (5) of that section—

  "(5A) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (5) of this section in respect of the publication or broadcast of any matter or the inclusion of any matter in a cable programme, it shall be a defence, subject to subsection (5B) below, to prove that the publication, broadcast or cable programme in which the matter appeared was one in respect of which the person had given written consent to the appearance of matter to that description.

  (5B) Written consent is not a defence if it is proved that any person interfered unreasonably with the person's peace or comfort with intent to obtain the consent."

  (6) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (6) of that section—

  "(1) for the purposes of this Section 'an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967 means any of the following, namely, an offence specified in these Acts, any attempt to commit any offence specified in these Acts, aiding, abetting, counselling and procuring any offence or an attempt to commit any offence specified in these Acts, incitements to commit any offence specified in these Acts, conspiracy to commit any offence specified in these Acts and burglary with intent to commit any offence specified in these Acts.

  (2) for the purposes of this Section a person is accused of an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 or the Sexual Offences Act 1967; if

  (a) An information is laid alleging that he has committed such an offence; or

  (b) He appears before a Court charged with such an offence, or

  (c) A Court before which he is appearing commits him for trial on a new charge alleging such an offence; or

  (d) A bill of indictment charging him with such an offence is preferred before a court in which he may lawfully be indicted for the offence,

  and references in this section and section 7(5) of this Act to an accusation alleging such an offence shall be construed accordingly; and in this section—

  'a broadcast' means a broadcast by wireless telegraphy of sounds or visual images intended for general reception, and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly;

  `complainant', in relation to a person accused of such an offence or an accusation alleging such an offence, means the person against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed; and

  `written publication' includes a film, a sound track and any other record in permanent form about but does not include an indictment or other documents prepared for use in particular legal proceedings.".

  (7) In section 6 (Anonymity of defendants in rape etc cases)—

  208

  (a) In subsection (1) of that section after the words "broadcast" there shall be added the words "or included in a cable programme".

  (b) In subsection (6) of that section after the words "subsections (5) to (7) of section 4 of this Act" shall be added the words "as amended by section 150 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988".'.

  Amendment No. 209, in clause 150, in page 96, line 3, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

  (5) In section 6 (Anonymity of defendants in rape etc cases)—

  (a) In subsection (1) of that section after the word "broadcast" there shall be added the words "or included in a cable programme".

  (b) In subsection (6) of that section after the words "subsections (5) to (7) of section 4 of this Act" shall be added the words "as amended by section 150 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988".'.

  Mr. Corbett: May I remind the House that I was the author of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, which first provided anonymity for rape victims from the moment that an information was laid or a charge was made, and for defendants unless convicted. The House will no doubt recall that the Act was built upon a report by Mrs. Justice Heilbron.
  Two issues are involved here. The first is that of how better to shield rape victims from sensation-seeking newspapers while ensuring that the defendant has a fair trial. Rape trials—or, indeed, any others—are in no way concerned with helping newspaper publishers, on the back of salacious reporting, to add to their circulations. We are concerned with the proper administration of the law.
  Rape is perhaps the vilest crime that can be committed against women. That is why the 1976 Act extended extra and special protection by means of anonymity and restricting the amount of sexual mud-slinging that had undoubtedly taken place in previous rape trials. Parliament felt it right to take those steps.
  I unreservedly congratulate the Government on going further with this Bill, because anonymity will now start from the moment when an allegation of rape has been made by a woman or any other person. It must be acknowledged that that gives the earliest possible protection to rape victims. It is a wide and welcome extra protection, which is needed to reassure women. The House may recall how, in 1986, the sewer Sun ran a certain obscene front-page photograph of what was alleged to be a rape victim. Unhappily, when I questioned the Attorney-General about the chances of prosecution, he told me that the way in which the 1976 Act was drawn did not legally prevent that sort of publication. That was extremely regrettable and it underlined the need, to which I am glad the Government have responded, to make the anonymity provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act come into play earlier.
  We should be clear what the clause does for rape victims. It dates the protection of anonymity from the moment when a woman or any other person makes an allegation of rape. That is wholly justified, but it is a unique provision. I can think of no other circumstances in which a complainant would get such treatment before possible court proceedings. In no way do I object to that; indeed, I commend it. However, if it is right to make this important exception for women who allege rape, it must be right to extend a similar protection to the defendant man.
  Twelve years ago, when the 1976 Act was being debated, what won the argument and persuaded the House was the simple proposition that both complainant woman

  209
  and defendant man in a rape trial should have identical treatment before the court as far as possible. That legal exception was designed to recognise the seriousness of a rape charge for the complainant and the defendant. It was my firm belief then, and it remains so now, that a man charged with rape who is subsequently found not guilty is never wholly free of the stigma in his community, among those with whom he works or the people who are responsible for his career. That follows from the special nature of the offence.
  There is a more specific and compelling reason for maintaining anonymity for the defendant unless he is convicted. It has more to do with the victim than with the defendant. A major survey in Woman's Own in 1986, in which 25,000 women took part, showed that 55 per cent. of all rape victims knew their attacker. Most rapists were shown to be boy friends or former husbands or someone known to the woman. I ask the House and the Minister to reflect on those figures. One third of all rapes took place in the victim's home. Even in the one in eight rapes in which the attacker was unknown, the incident took place in the woman's home.
  These figures provide a warning. If the rape victim knows her attacker in most cases, so do many other people. Enabling the defendant to be named will, in most cases, almost automatically indentify the rape victim, which in turn will undo the extra protection that the Bill seeks to give victims.
  4.15 pm
  It is sometimes argued that anonymity for the man suspected of rape can get in the way of police trying to find a suspect who is also wanted in connection with other serious criminal offences. That claim is nonsense. I acknowledge that in some circumstances—for example, the horrific M50 murder hunt—the use of indentikit drawings or photographs can help in tracing a suspect, but if that needs to be done the police can say that the man they are looking for is wanted in connection with serious criminal offences—without detailing them. In passing, I am a mite surprised that there has been no argument before the courts, in cases in which these "wanted" posters have been issued, by defence counsel contesting that matters of identification have been prejudged by the publication of drawings or photographs to such an extent that it is difficult for the client to get a fair trial.
  There is not the slightest evidence—although there may be hearsay—that the provisions of the 1976 Act in respect of defendant men have in any way inhibited the police. So I do not believe the case is made. As I have said, the main argument for retaining this matching anonymity is to protect that of the victim. More than 55 per cent. of rape victims know their attacker. Those figures from Woman's Own tell us more than any single opinion.
  The House must not risk putting rape victims in the real danger of being accidentally indentified through the naming of defendant men. At the very least, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the Government's proposal to remove anonymity for the defendant man will run the risk, if no more than that, of harming the victim and of perhaps deterring even more women from reporting rape to the police. The Woman's Own survey showed that three out of every four women keep quiet about rape because they feel they will not be believed. If the Government's proposal becomes law, it will force even
  210
  more women to keep quiet, which in turn will mean even more rapists walking free to strike again, when they should be behind bars.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: All hon. Members are united in abhorrence of the offence of rape. Almost all will sympathise with the sentiments behind the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). However, I hope that on reflection he will consider that there are a number of pitfalls in what he proposes.
  For the reasons that the hon. Member for Erdington outlined, there have, over a period, been good causes for Parliament and the courts seeking to protect victims in rape offences. History has shown that the vicitims of rape have often felt afraid that, however, innocent they are and however much they are the violated party, there is always the danger of a stigma attaching to them if they are dragged into the courts. That is why Parliament has properly given them anonymity from the moment when they make a complaint. However, it would be dangerous to make the logical jump and give anonymity to the defendant, for the following reasons.
  We have an open system of justice, in which magistrates courts must decide whether there is a prima facie case against a defendant. As soon as the courts have found that there is, the defendant is named and the fact is promulgated that the defendant will be tried by a magistrates court or, in the case of rape, committed for Crown court trial. That is a public and open system of justice, in which everyone knows what is happening.
  Inevitably, in a system of justice in which some people are found not guilty after trial, they may well consider that their names have been besmirched for ever more. That price must be paid in any system of justice, however hard one tries to perfect it. There is always a danger that a wholly innocent party may be brought before the courts and found not gulity, but his reputation may suffer irreparably ever after. But the reputations of the middle-aged woman who is accused of shoplifting or the company director who is accused of tax evasion are just as much at risk as the reputation of the man accused of rape.
  The hon. Member for Erdington said that many rape victims know their attackers, and that therefore they should be given added protection. The same argument could be made in many murder cases. Many murders occur in the home, often as a result of grievous bodily harm going wrong. Does one then say that those who are accused of murder should be granted anonymity? If we did that, we should be moving from an open system of justice to a system full of exceptions and caveats.
  Throughout this century we have had a public system of justice, with good checks and balances between the complainant and the defendant. The system works. 'The only exception to that should be, for the reasons stated, that complainants in rape cases should receive anonymity. But there is no need to extend anonymity to defendants in rape cases. To do so would he to set a dangerous precedent that could lead to many other ramifications in our system of criminal justice. All we need to ensure is similar treatment for every defendant. We must ensure that every defendant in every court case is treated the same, and we should not make exceptions for some defendants that are not available to others.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: This matter was fully debated in Committee, and in the intervening months I have thought deeply about it. I remain convinced that it is right to make an exception in the case of defendants in rape cases.
  In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) made powerful speeches about the consequences to defendants of allegations that are made against them. My hon. Friend mentioned the case of the mother of an accused person whose life was destroyed by the accusation, and the hon. Member for Thanet, South told us about a suicide that occurred after a false allegation of rape.
  I was pleased to hear the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) today. He made a point that I made in Committee, although I did not have the information to substantiate it at the time. As the Woman's Own survey showed, there is little point in protecting the victim of the alleged rape if the name of the accused is published. That survey showed that 55 per cent. of rape victims know their attackers. In smaller communities especially, to name the accused would be to name the victim.
  Some hon. Members have said that the new clause goes down a dangerous road, and in Committee the Minister said that if we gave anonymity to defendants in rape cases we would have to consider doing the same in other cases. But we should examine the extension of anonymity to all defendants. I accept the point about our open system of justice, but the primary rule is that one is innocent until proven guilty. We should take account of the fact that people who have been publicly accused of offences never shake off that accusation. It is not true to say that a company director accused of fraud or a middle-aged women accused of shoplifting need the same protection as a rape victim. No one could regard those offences as being similar to rape. A powerful case has been made for saying that rape carries a unique stigma and that we must protect the victims of that offence. But if the stigma exists for the victim, it also exists for the alleged perpetrator, and that is why I support the new clause.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: I oppose the new clause. I am probably one of the few Members of Parliament who has defended and prosecuted people charged with rape. I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) about the openness of justice. It is an important point that we must consider. Once we start to protect the identity of some accused people, we are in danger of extending it to others. There is no sound reason why a man accused of rape should have the protection of anonymity while those who are accused of robbery, murder, manslaughter or causing death by reckless driving do not enjoy that protection. Once we open the door, we shall have opened the floodgates to a series of extensions of the rule, which would not be in the interests of open justice.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hind: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later. As he knows, normally I would give way to him.
  Some hon. Members have suggested that the stigma of being accused of rape is carried by the defendant for the
  212
  rest of his life. Of course it is, but whatever the type of offence, the stigma is carried by people accused in every criminal case. There are more serious offences than rape.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: It takes a man to say that.
  Mr. Hind: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but there are cases of murder, robbery and the most atrocious acts of violence. I accept that rape is terrible, but I do not understand why the man accused of rape should have his identity concealed by the courts.
  Hon. Members said that it is a terrible thing for relatives. From my experience, I know that the most difficult thing for a man charged with a sexual offence or any other serious offence is to tell his mother or wife about it. That is the hardest audience with which he must deal. It is easier to tell one's counsel or admit it in court than to confess to one's loved ones.
  Over five years ago, I represented a 17-year-old charged with the attempted rape of an 81-year-old woman. I advised him that, on the evidence, he had no choice but to plead guilty. He said to me, "The difficult thing is to tell his mother." I brought his mother into the cell, he told her that he was guilty and he went into court and pleaded guilty. I saw his mother two years later, following her son's release, and she insisted on disbelieving that her son could have committed such an offence. The relatives of an accused person are in a unique position. Many do not want to believe that their loved ones have been involved in offences, and that applies to every type of offence.
  4.30 pm
  The general public will stand behind Conservative Members in opposing the new clause because they think it right that the identity of the accused should be brought to their notice.
  Rape is not a sexual offence. That mistake is made over and over again. It is not purely sexually motivated. Its root is to dominate the woman, and it is more connected with violence. It is a most horrible offence, but often the main motivation is to dominate or possess a woman. The sexual attack is a side issue; the main issue is physical aggression and domination. As the defendant's identity is put before the public in similar horrible offences, I do not understand why defendants should be protected in rape cases.
  I fully endorse the point that was made in Committee about protecting victims. For many years I have fought to ensure that victims are protected, and I am glad to note that provisions relating to that are in the Bill. I advise Opposition Members to turn the clock back to when defendants were protected and were anonymous and consider the reasons why the law was changed to remove that anonymity. Those reasons are as valid today as they were then.
  Mr. Bermingham: I did not intend to speak to the new clause until the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) failed to give way to me.
  The hon. Member has not read the new clause. He has avoided the central issue of the problem, which, to a large extent, lies with the sensationalising by the press of any major crime.
  Mr. Hind indicated assent.
  Mr. Bermingham: I see the hon. Gentleman nodding in agreement. Even before charge, details are given of the person detained in custody. Details of the offence are

  213
  given, and the press is awash with the gory details of the allegation. I often wonder how the accused in such sensational cases receives a fair trial.
  Rape is a bestial crime if ever there was one. I disagree with the hon. Member for Lancashire, West that it has no sexual basis; it is well proven that it has. What will happen in rape cases? Often they are the most sensational and give rise to front-page headlines. What will happen to the families of an accused who is subsequently acquitted? All the damage will have been done.
  Many rapes occur between family or friends—between people who know each other. By naming the defendant before the trial, one effectively names the victim, thus defeating the object of the exercise.
  Sometimes, cant and dogma take over our law. I beg the Minister to think back to what was said in Committee. Over the past few days there have been several sensational cases, unconnected with rape, in which people have been named before charge as being detained. Until we find some way of protecting people accused of serious criminal offences before trial, we must keep what few shields we have left. The new clause is designed to strengthen those shields until the time comes when nobody is named before charge—at which time the screens come down on reporting restrictions—so that everybody receives a trial by court and evidence, not by newspaper and innuendo.
  Mr. John Patten: This has been an excellent debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on the way in which he introduced the new clause.
  Anonymity for rape victims is widely supported. Clause 150 rightly extends the anonymity given to rape victims to the point at which an allegation is made rather than when a man is charged. The hon. Member for Erdington was good enough to say that that is a good move. It has received all-party support and is a matter of bipartisan consent. The question whether a defendant should be granted anonymity should be considered in isolation. Although hon. Members may not entirely agree, this is a matter not of party politics but of judgment.
  Why are victims in rape cases granted anonymity? The Heilbron committee, which reported in 1985, found that the public knowledge of rape was a severe deterrent, leading victims not to report offences. The hon. Member for Erdington gave the full history of that Committee's deliberations and how they led to his private Member's Bill—the hon. Gentleman has achieved more than I ever have in the House—so it would be otiose to repeat the detail he gave.
  The key question is, why should suspected rapists but not other suspected criminals enjoy anonymity? Hon. Members have addressed themselves entirely to that point. Judgments have been made on either side of the argument. Surely those accused of murder are under the same pressure as those accused of rape. Murder is the most terrible of all crimes, and those accused of murder are subject to acute public scrutiny, yet I have never heard an hon. Member suggest that suspected murderers should not be named.
  Mr. Bermingham: In the case of a suspected murderer, the victim's identity is known, so no further harm can be done to the victim. That distinguishes it from a rape case, in which the object is to keep the victim's identity secret so that society can attempt to protect and cosset her.
  Mr. Patten: We are not doing anything that would reveal the alleged victim's identity. It may be that the murder victim's name is indeed known. Not everyone, however, accused of murder is found guilty. Those who are found not guilty can suffer the most terrible damage because of the old argument that there is no smoke without fire.
  The 15th report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which was published in 1984, says:
  "Rape is but one of many offences where a defendant who is acquitted may nevertheless suffer damage to his reputation."
  That must be true. It is not applicable only to sexual offences. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) put is finger on the problem when he said that a business man or a company director who was wrongly accused of fraud, or a vicar wrongly accused of shoplifting, could be in much the same difficulty.
  The hon. Member for Erdington says that the difference in a rape case is that the victim is not named—that point was also made by the hon. Member for St. Helen's, South (Mr. Bermingham)—so she can make her accusation with impunity. But we must remember that victims are not named in other areas of the criminal law. The victim of blackmail is not named. Such people are treated specially. The same applies to child victims—the subject of a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) on the previous occasion that we considered the Bill on Report. But alleged blackmailers and alleged offenders against children do not benefit from anonymity. Their names are known. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) was right in the point that he made about that.
  Let me set at rest the mind of the hon. Member for Erdington. He feared that, should the identification of an assailant become law, that could often lead to the identification of the victim. That is not so. If he looks at clause 150, he will see that it prohibits the publication of any information that is likely to lead to the identification of the victim. Therefore, no newspaper could name the alleged assailant and say that he was the victim's boy friend or next-door neighbour, because that would indirectly identify the victim.
  The terms of the new clause illustrate the difficulty of knowing where to draw the line if we once cease to regard rape as unique for these purposes. The new clauses would include all offences under the Sexual Offences Acts of 1956 and 1967, and that would bring specifically into the provision not only offences for which we have all recognised that a good case could be made, even if we did not agree across the Floor of the House about it— for example, indecent assault—but others for which anonymity provisions, especially for the defendant, seem to be highly inappropriate, to put it mildly. For example, that would include those people accused of letting premises for a brothel, living on the earnings of prostitution, controlling a prostitute, solicitation by a man, homosexual acts in public, and so on. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would really want to include all those potential offences. I would not wish to do so.
  There is a balance to be struck between, on the one hand, encouraging victims to report offences and relieving them of their ordeal as much as possible, and, on the other hand, what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury referred to as the principle of open justice.

  215
  I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Erdington. He played a major role in the 1976 legislation, and we should all listen carefully to what he has to say. The case for imposing reporting restrictions for the benefit of rape victims is overwhelming, but in giving protection against the interests of open justice, I find the balance tipping in the other direction.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mt. Corbett), not for the first time, is seeking to achieve, but there is another practical argument that the Minister might have adduced. Where some horrendous offence has taken place, whether rape or any other, the police are required to search for the potential assailant. To do so they must give wide publicity. I wish to make no comment on matters that may be coming before the courts shortly, but the House will know that identikit pictures need to be made widely available. They will identify. To that extent, it is impracticable to refuse to identify the potential accused.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right. We must do nothing that inhibits the work of the police in tracking down alleged rapists and bringing them to whatever justice the courts bring to bear on them.
  I am sorry to part company with the hon. Member for Erdington but, on a matter of judgment, not on a partisan matter or a party political matter, I simply do not agree with him, and I cannot advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the new clauses.
  Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with this, although he clearly arrives at a different conclusion, on what I accept is a matter of judgment. The Minister and the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) tried to liken a defendant in a rape trial to a defendant in a manslaughter or a murder trial or to a defendant in a case of causing death by reckless driving. It is a blinding glimpse of the obvious, but I repeat that in each of those instances the victim is dead, known and usually named. Therefore, that comparison does not stand up.
  I disagree with much of what the hon. Member for Lancashire, West said. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) shouted across to him that one of his remarks could only have been made by a man. We should treat that comment with the deepest respect, because as much as we as men try to imagine how rape victims feel, we cannot do so because we are not women. We can imagine it, but I am trying to establish the case that the House should recognise that for a woman rape is a vile offence, the consequences of which last many women throughout the rest of their lives. Indeed, I know a woman who was raped 40 or 50 years ago, but was prevented from reporting it, who still bears the marks of that assault. I am sure that she is by no means alone in that.
  Two hon. Members have made the general point that it would be wrong for defendants to have such protection from the courts. Under the present legislation, defendants do not have that protection from the courts, if that is the way to look at it, because where a man is charged with rape and found guilty he is named. But we are not talking about
  216
  protecting defendants from the courts; as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said, we are talking about protecting defendants from trial by radio, newspaper and television. No more is that true than in rape trials, when salaciousness is played up in a bid to sell extra copies of newspapers.
  I say again that that has nothing to do with the administration of justice or with helping the sales of newspapers. Indeed, one of the complaints that I have made, as a former pencil journalist, is that the coverage of our courts by the press is now so random that any claim that it once had to represent the public in order that justice could be seen to be done has long since gone out of the window. We know that from shoplifting cases. Only someone who is famous or married to someone famous will be reported. Therefore, the press does not have a leg to stand on.
  I understand what the Minister is saying. Yes, defendants in rape cases are being treated differently. I have tried to persuade the House why they should be treated differently. Whether or not newspapers can, through the naming of the defendant, name the victim—some would be pushed to do so—is not really the point. The point is that, if 55 per cent. of rape victims know their attacker, as the Woman's Own survey showed, within the small communities in streets, towns and villages, around pubs and clubs and in the work place, if the defendant is named, that will automatically undo the extra protection that the Bill rightly offers to rape victims. None of us can want that.
  I do not want to rehearse the arguments, because all hon. Members will be familiar with them, but one of the purposes of both provisions of the 1976 Act was to ensure anonymity for the victim and reduce the amount of sexual mud-slinging that went on in cross-examination because it was discovered that the woman had had an illegitimate child. One hon. Member said in as many words at one stage that a woman like that could not be raped.
  Uniquely in rape cases—I think that this has to be and is sustainable—it is the complainant woman who feels very much on trial. Very often, because of the nature of the offence, it is a one-to-one thing; in essence, it is the woman's word against that of the man. That was why it was so important to try to narrow and limit the scope of the questions that could be asked about previous sexual experience, for example.
  At the very least, there is a risk that, through naming the defendant, it will be easier for people to identify the complainant rape victim. It must be so, on the basis of the Woman's Own survey. I hope it is not so, but the effect of that will deter even more women from going to the police and making allegations of rape. That is going in completely the opposite direction from the extra protections which the Government and the Committee have written into the Bill for the victim.
  I am sorry that this has to become a matter for the Division Lobbies, but we shall pursue it to a vote.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
  The House proceeded to a Division:
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Hon. Members may like to know that there is doubt about the functioning of the digital clock, which I believe has been wrong by about two minutes. Therefore, the Division doors will be open for another two minutes.
  The House having divided: Ayes 150, Noes 274.

  Division No. 385]

  [4.51 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Alton, David

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Anderson, Donald

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Janner, Greville

  Armstrong, Hilary

  John, Brynmor

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Ashton, Joe

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Battle, John

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Bell, Stuart

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Leighton, Ron

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

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Lewis, Terry

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Livingstone, Ken

  Blair, Tony

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Blunkett, David

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Boateng. Paul

  Loyden, Eddie

  Boyes, Roland

  McAllion, John

  Bradley, Keith

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  McKelvey, William

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  McWilliam, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Madden, Max

  Caborn, Richard

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Callaghan, Jim

  Meacher, Michael

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Meale, Alan

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Cartwright, John

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Morley, Elliott

  Clay, Bob

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Clelland, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Cohen, Harry

  Murphy, Paul

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Nellist, Dave

  Corbett, Robin

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Cryer, Bob

  Patchett, Terry

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Pendry, Tom

  Dalyell, Tam

  Pike, Peter L.

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Dixon, Don

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Dobson, Frank

  Reid, Dr John

  Doran, Frank

  Richardson, Jo

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Rogers, Allan

  Eastham, Ken

  Rooker, Jeff

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Fatchett, Derek

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Fearn, Ronald

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Short, Clare

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

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fisher, Mark

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Flannery. Martin

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

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Foster, Derek

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Foulkes, George

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Fyfe, Maria

  Strang, Gavin

  Galloway, George

  Straw, Jack

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Turner, Dennis

  Gould, Bryan

  Vaz, Keith

  Graham, Thomas

  Wall, Pat

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Wallace, James

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Grocott, Bruce

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Haynes, Frank

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Wilson, Brian

  Henderson, Doug

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hinchliffe, David

  Worthington, Tony

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Mr. Frank Cook and

  Howells, Geraint

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

  218

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Alexander, Richard

  Forth, Eric

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Allason, Rupert

  Franks, Cecil

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Freeman, Roger

  Amess, David

  French, Douglas

  Arbuthnot, James

  Gardiner, George

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Gill, Christopher

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Ashby, David

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Atkins, Robert

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Gorst, John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Gow, Ian

  Baldry, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Beggs, Roy

  Gregory, Conal

  Bendall, Vivian

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Grist, Ian

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Grylls, Michael

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Boswell, Tim

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hannam,John

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

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

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Bowis, John

  Harris, David

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hayward, Robert

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Heddle, John

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Hind, Kenneth

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Holt, Richard

  Burns, Simon

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Burt, Alistair

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

  Butcher, John

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Butler, Chris

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Butterfill, John

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Carttiss, Michael

  Irvine, Michael

  Cash, William

  Irving, Charles

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Jack, Michael

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

  Janman, Tim

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Colvin, Michael

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Conway, Derek

  Key, Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Kilfedder, James

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Couchman, James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Cran, James

  Knapman, Roger

  Critchley, Julian

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Curry, David

  Knowles, Michael

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

  Knox, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Day, Stephen

  Lang, Ian

  Devlin, Tim

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dicks, Terry

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Dover, Den

  Lightbown, David

  Dunn, Bob

  Lilley, Peter

  Durant, Tony

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Eggar, Tim

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Evennett, David

  McCrindle, Robert

  Fallon, Michael

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Favell, Tony

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Maclean, David

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Forman, Nigel

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  219

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Shersby, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Sims, Roger

  Malins, Humfrey

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Mans, Keith

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Maples, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Marland, Paul

  Speller, Tony

  Marlow, Tony

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Squire, Robin

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Steen, Anthony

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stern, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mellor, David

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Mills. Iain

  Stokes, Sir John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Sumberg, David

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Neubert, Michael

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Thorne, Neil

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Tracey, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Paice, James

  Trippier, David

  Patnick, Irvine

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Pawsey, James

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Walden, George

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Portillo, Michael

  Waller, Gary

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Price, Sir David

  Ward, John

  Raffan, Keith

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Warren, Kenneth

  Redwood, John

  Watts, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wells, Bowen

  Riddick, Graham

  Wheeler, John

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Whitney, Ray

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Ryder, Richard

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wood, Timothy

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Woodcock, Mike

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Royal Assent
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed further with the Criminal Justice Bill, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  1. Dartford—Thurrock Crossing Act 1988

  2. Consumer Arbitration Agreements Act 1988

  3. Scotch Whisky Act 1988

  4. Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Act 1988

  220

  5. Dartmouth—Kingswear Floating Bridge Act 1988

  6. Brighton and Preston Cemetery Act 1988

  7. Associated British Ports (Barrow) Act 1988

  Criminal Justice Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
New Clause 83

  AMENDMENT OF PRESCRIBED LIMITS
  `In Schedule 8 of the Transport Act 1981, in the definition of "the prescribed limit" in paragraph 12(2), for the figures "35", "80", and "107", there shall be subsituted the figures "22", "50" and "67".'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I note that the measures which have just been proclaimed as having received the Royal Assent include the Scotch Whisky Act 1988, followed quickly by the Brighton and Preston Cemetery Act 1988. Without wishing to make fun of a serious situation, that is apt when we consider the problems relating to drinking and driving.
  New clause 83 is an important new clause which seeks to amend the prescribed limits of alcohol which are permissible in the bloodstream when someone is allowed to drive legally in this country. I emphasise the word "legally," because we are all well aware that many people take risks and drink and drive, often without realising the impact that that will have on their driving ability. That affects the safety of our roads and of many people.
  Those who have studied the problem realise that drinking and driving is extremely serious, and the problem has escalated in recent years. Our actions to deal with the problem in Britain lag behind those of many other countries, especially in western Europe.
  Many problems are associated with drinking and driving. It is a major cause—perhaps the major cause—of avoidable deaths in this country. Figures show that between 1,400 and 1,600 people per year are killed on our roads as a direct result of people drinking and driving. We are all well aware of the grief, anguish and misery that drunken drivers cause, although many of them feel that they are capable of driving when they set out in their motor cars.
  The problem of drinking and driving is always highlighted at one particular time of the year. It is good to see a representative of the Department of Transport in the Chamber, because it is the campaigns of the Department of Transport which bring the dangers of drinking and driving most before the public, usually around Christmas. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but that is not necessarily the worst time for accidents involving drinking and driving. Indeed, I understand that most accidents involving drinking and driving occur at this time of the year when the evenings are light and many people go out to country pubs for a drink. People often drink more than they should until they are over the limit, and they cause accidents and frequently deaths.
  The problem of drinking and driving is difficult, and it causes, as I have said, a great deal of grief and anguish. It is a problem that the House would do well to recognise and

  221
  take seriously. It is because we think that the time is right to take action on this problem that we have tabled new clause 83.
  The question is what we should do about the problem of drinking and driving. I do not think that anyone would dispute the fact that it is a serious problem. We can, of course, wring our hands and express regret, but the House could take a whole range of measures that would directly reduce the problem. The new clause deals with one of our suggestions of how to reduce the problem. That suggestion—amendment of the prescribed limit—would have an impact, although obviously it would have most impact if it were introduced as part of a whole range of measures. I am thinking particularly of such items as the random breath test, which I believe we shall eventually have in this country. We tabled an amendment on that, but unfortunately it was not selected.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Is the hon. Lady aware that random breath-testing was introduced in Australia recently and that it has led to a great reduction in drinking by people who intend to drive?
  Mrs. Taylor: Australia's experience is shared by other countries that have introduced random breath-testing. I shall deal later with some of the other evidence from Australia. There is increasing evidence from many countries, both in Europe and beyond, which suggests that, if we had random breath tests and tightened up a range of matters, there would be safer roads and fewer lives lost as a result of drinking and driving.
  The random breath test would be a contribution, as would a revision of the penalties involved and more action to help those people who have a drink problem, but who, unfortunately, believe that they are capable of driving. Home Office Ministers should consider the defence that is sometimes advanced—called the hip-flask defence—whereby those who are charged have a drink after the offence has been committed and use that as a means of getting themselves acquitted.
  All those measures have a part to play, but I want to concentrate my remarks, to keep in order, on the amendment to limit the prescribed amount of alcohol in a person's bloodstream when he or she is driving. We are all aware that, 20 years ago, when the original drinking and driving legislation was introduced, there was an outcry from some people that it was an infringement of liberty and that we should let people drink and drive and use their own judgment of their ability to drive and when they had to exercise restraint. That outcry faded very quickly, and the breathalyser is now generally accepted as being right and a constructive measure in road safety.
  Unfortunately, the initial impact of the breathalyser has worn off for some people. That is one of the reasons why so many people are now drinking and driving above the limit and why it is a major problem in this country. It is a major problem for the victims and their families and for the Health Service and the police. We therefore need to do more. It is interesting to see how the number of people charged with drinking and driving has increased over the years, which substantiates the argument that the initial impact of the breathalyser has worn off.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: Can my hon. Friend say whether the figure has increased in line with the number of drivers? Is she aware that there are now three
  222
  times more drivers and three times more cars on the road than there were when the legislation was introduced, yet there are not three times more convictions?
  Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Since the introduction of the breath test 20 years ago, there has been a fivefold increase in convictions in England and Wales, and findings of guilty for those who drink and drive, per 100,000 vehicles, which takes into account my hon. Friend's point about more vehicles on the road, have increased from 225 in 1969 to 545 in 1984. That shows that the fivefold increase in convictions has been the result of people becoming more lax in their attitudes to drinking and driving. All the evidence about people's reaction time when they are drinking and driving shows that it is extremely unwise to drink and drive, that reaction time is increased, that concentration and attention are reduced, that people are slower to process information and that their visual functions are impaired.
  The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley)indicated assent.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am glad to see the Minister agreeing with all those points. All the evidence from all the countries, including this country, shows that drivers have a poorer performance when alcohol has been consumed. Although many drivers may be confident about their driving ability when they have been drinking, it is false confidence. That is one of the problems related to alcohol consumption.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Hind: The hon. Lady has a good point, but does she not think that we should be considering other factors in relation to this matter? First, perhaps we should consider more severe sentences for those people convicted of such offences. Secondly, we should consider whether getting into a car while over the limit for driving is a reckless act in itself and, therefore, we should be looking to charge people with reckless driving. Thirdly, to assist in that, we should consider whether the police should have the power to conduct random breath tests whenever they wish to do so.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber during the whole of my speech, but I made those three points earlier. I agree that we must consider the sentencing of people who are found guilty and the charges made against people. Many hon. Members agree that there is a strong case for random breath tests, which I would support because it would be a constructive measure.
  Sir Ian Lloyd: I have followed the hon. Lady's comments with great. interest. I had hoped that, having read the speech, that I made on the Adjournment some months ago, when I described in great detail what is now possible, she would be admitting, welcoming and asking the Government to endorse a new possibility. The problem can be dealt with by technology. It does not require law. It requires a willingness to recognise, as has occurred in Australia, that the breathalyser ignition lock and various associated attachments could make it impossible for anyone to drink and drive, provided that it became a law of this country that every new car coming into use after a certain date should be fitted with a breathalyser ignition lock.
  Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting suggestion. That would be one way of preventing those people who have been drinking to excess from driving. However, I believe that we have a greater responsibility. We must stop people drinking and then wanting to drive. We must ensure that people recognise their responsibilities and the dangers inherent in drinking and driving. Unfortunately, many people underestimate the impact of drinking on their driving ability.
  I mentioned a moment ago some of the many difficulties that result from drinking and the way in which a driver's reaction is impaired. Many people do not realise that impairment starts at a very low level. The present level of 80 mg is rather high when compared with many other countries. All the evidence shows that concentration is impaired at as low a level as 30 mg of alcohol in the blood. Therefore, we should carefully consider reducing the present legal limit.
  It is a simple fact that, at the present level of 80 mg, the average person is four times more likely to have an accident than if he or she had not been drinking. At 50 mg, the average person is still twice as likely to have an accident than if he or she had not been drinking at all.
  Mr. Ashton: A short while ago my hon. Friend said that only 500 drivers out of every 100,000 are convicted of drink-driving. That is half of 1 per cent. On my hon. Friend's figures—not on mine—the original rate was 200 for every 100,000, which is 0·.2 of 1 per cent. Surely my hon. Friend is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
  Mrs. Taylor: I do not know whether my hon. Friend recalls the figures that I produced, but they showed a fivefold increase in convictions since the breathalyser was introduced. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be complacent about the impact of drinking on driving. I am sure that he would not want to encourage motorists to drink and drive. It is the attitude of those who think that they are capable of drinking and driving that leads to so many of the serious accidents that occur. We all have a responsibility to ensure that motorists do not drink and drive, and that if they feel a need to drink they should minimise their drinking to the smallest level possible.
  Sir Neil Macfarlane: Many of my hon. Friends and I have sympathy with what the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) is saying, and many of her sentiments will be echoed throughout the country. Part of the problem is that the courts are not severe enough on those who are prepared to take the risk and do drink and drive. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) referred to this indirectly in his comments about reckless driving. The 1957 legislation bore upon this and eliminated some of the potential convictions.
  Mrs. Taylor: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That was one of the reasons why we tabled a new clause that called for the introduction of random breath tests. Unfortunately, it was not selected for debate. We see the proposal in new clause 83 as one of the measures that should be introduced. We would also support the introduction of random breath tests, because a lowering of "the prescribed limit" and random testing, when taken together, could have a significant impact on the number of deaths that occur through drinking and driving.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I am listening carefully to the exposition of my hon. Friend the Member
  224
  for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). Sympathetic comments have been made by some Conservative Members, who want to see improved road safety and a reduction in drinking and driving. Many of them, however, found themselves in what might be called the brewers' lobby when the Licensing Bill, as it then was, was proceeding through the House. They voted for longer opening hours, to provide a greater opportunity to drink more and then to drive.
  Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It was one that we raised when the Licensing Bill was passing through the House some months ago. We felt that the Government were creating a serious problem by legislating to increase pub opening hours before doing anything to tackle a range of problems associated with alcohol abuse, of which drinking and driving is one. If my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) considers the evidence in Scotland, where there has been all-day opening for some time, he will find that the peak time for drink-related road accidents starts in the late afternoon, at about 5 o'clock. Many of us are worried that that trend might be found in this country when the new licensing laws come into operation.
  I shall return to the main issues raised by the new clause rather than get sidetracked on to some of the important but slightly wider issues that arise from it. I shall mention some of the difficulties that arise from the present limit of 80 mg when breathalyser tests are carried out. At 80 mg, the average person is four times more likely to have an accident than if he had not consumed alcohol. There are particular problems for certain groups in the population. Many countries have undertaken a great deal of research and obtained a considerable amount of information about the problems that arise for those of certain ages.
  The House may be interested to know that drivers over the age of 55 years have an increased risk of having an accident while driving even if they have consumed only very small amounts of alcohol. Other research shows that 18 to 24-year-olds especially have a much higher increased rate of accidents when they have been drinking and driving. I hope that the Minister will consider introducing an even lower limit than the 50 mg that we are suggesting for learner drivers and new drivers. The mixture of motorists new to driving and new to drinking alcohol can be lethal. Young drivers, especially young men, who are drinking and driving and trying to improve their standing among their peer group in terms of the macho image, which, unfortunately, is so popular now, are in a particularly dangerous position.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): I have listened with great attention to the most recent argument advanced by the hon. Member, but I wonder whether it is not part of a wider one. Should not the size and maximum speed of cars be related to the experience of those driving them? The hon. Lady's figures do not, as she has presented them, differentiate clearly between the weight that we should put on experience and the weight that we should place on our experience in the consumption of alcohol.
  Mrs. Taylor: I do not wish to follow the hon. Gentleman down that path. He has raised some interesting issues, but I do not think that they are especially pertinent to the new clause. They go somewhat wider than the clause. I agree that there is a range of road safety matters that we should be considering. Many countries have already revised their limits, and these are in line with the

  225
  suggestion that is set out in new clause 83. Australia, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, Iceland, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and parts of the United States have accepted that a limit of 50 mg is right and that it can he introduced with public acceptance. It is recognised that it is adequate for the police to monitor and enforce.
  I believe that the time has come for us to revise the breath test laws. There is sufficient public concern and acceptance of the introduction of random breath tests and of a reduction in the amount of alcohol that can be permitted when someone is proposing to drive, but reducing the amount of alcohol that is allowed to be consumed by motorists is only one development. We must ensure also that there is enforcement of the limit, and of the right limit.
  That is why I hope that the Government are considering carefully the introduction of random breath tests and the other measures that I have outlined. I believe that it is only a matter of time before we have random breath tests and a reduction of the limit. I hope that the House will not delay any longer, because with every delay we shall lose more lives. We should act now. The House should accept the new clause, which sets out a constructive suggestion which would help to save lives on our roads.
  Sir Bernard Braine: I rise to support the new clause, which was moved so persuasively by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). I give it my full support, hut I have one reservation, which concerns its effective enforcement. First, however, I shall deal with the reasons why I believe that it should be accepted. This is one of the occasions—they are all too few—when we can take a view across party lines. We are all in close touch with our constituents and I feel that there are many Opposition Members who will agree with a great deal of what I have to say. I hope too, that I shall be persuasive enough to ensure that many of my hon. Friends will agree with me as well.
  The reason for my concern can be expressed quite simply. The international scientific consensus is that a blood alcohol level of 50 mg is the maximum compatible with the safety of other road users. Almost exactly 30 years ago an article appeared in the British Medical Journal reporting the results of a series of experiments to test the effect of small doses of alcohol on driving skill. The conclusion of the article was:
  "performance begins to deteriorate with very low blood alcohol concentrations, certainly of the order of 20–30mg per cent. and that the deterioration is progressive and linearly related to blood alcohol level. There is, in the study, no evidence of a threshold effect."
  The key words were:
  "with alcohol there is no threshold, behaviour begins to deteriorate as soon as it is in the blood."
  Some people may argue that, on that basis, the legal alcohol limit for driving should be reduced to 30 mg, or even to zero. I myself have great sympathy with that view. The absence of a clear threshold means that the choice of any blood alcohol level must to some degree be arbitrary. It involves accepting a level of consumption that has already impaired the capacity to drive safely. Therefore, no legal limit can be a safe limit, but some legal limits are considerably more unsafe than others. I hope that the Government will consider further whether even a 50 mg limit may be too high, especially for the young and inexperienced driver.
  226
  5.30 pm
  On 13 January 1981, in the debate on the Transport Bill, I referred to the suggestion made by Miss Barbara Sabey, then of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, that there should be a differential lower limit of 30 mg for young drivers. Since then, such legislation has been introduced in Australia. I hope that the Department of Transport keeps a watching brief on developments there and will be able to inform the House of the effects. It is sad that, despite so many warnings over the years—it has not happened just recently—from experts outside, here and elsewhere in the world and from parliamentarians on both sides of the House, we are still pressing the obvious, without any satisfaction.
  One specific reason for reducing the present limit is that the introduction of evidential breath testing actually resulted in the legal limit in effect being raised to a level above 80 mg. The normal practice of not prosecuting drivers whose blood alcohol level is 40 micrograms per 100 ml of breath means that, in practice, the legal alcohol limit is now over 90 mg. There is, therefore, a compelling case for reducing the legal limit simply to take account of that factor, let alone the known effects of even small quantities of alcohol in impairing driving performance.
  The argument normally put forward against lowering the limit is that the majority of those convicted of drinking and driving are found to be, not slightly above the present limit, but two or three times over it. Thus the majority of offenders do not make a slight, innocent error in calculating their blood alcohol level: they make no attempt to remain within the limit. There is little reason, therefore, to suppose that a lower limit would make any difference to them.
  That argument is not, by any means, wholly convincing, because it overlooks the substantial change in public attitudes towards drinking and driving that appears to be taking place, as we know from our local newspapers. All of us have conversed with our constituents at our weekly surgeries and know that they are worried that we do not appear to be acting in the face of the mayhem on the roads caused by drinking drivers. Many people are increasingly inclined to see a contradiction between the message of the Government's anti-drink drive campaign that "One drink can kill" and a legal limit that still permits the consumption of large quantities of alcohol.
  A reduction of the legal limit to 50 mg would therefore be an acknowledgment of the shift in public attitudes and a move in the right direction. For that reason alone, I would support the new clause. Such a reduction would be far more consistent with the message of the Government's campaign. If that is not grasped by Ministers, I for one cannot take their campaign seriously.
  The difficulty about enforcement cannot be ignored, and that is the weakness of the new clause. If we do not succeed in enforcing effectively the present 80 mg limit, there is a danger that a lower limit will result in even greater difficulties. In the words of one of the early authorities on this subject, the Blennerhassett committee:
  "to reduce"
  the limit to 50mg
  "would be of doubtful benefit while police resources remain severely limited; there are real disadvantages in enlarging the category of potential offenders when it is certain that many over the present limit avoid detection."
  The majority of those who drink and drive are playing the percentage game. They know that their chance of

  227
  detection on any journey is so small as to be negligible. No less a body than the National Audit Office pointed that out just two weeks ago. Countries such as Finland, Norway and Sweden and most of the states of Australia which are tackling drinking and driving successfully have a 50mg limit, but they also have random breath testing to ensure that the limit is enforced.
  I do not believe that a 50mg limit, any more than an 80mg limit, could be enforced primarily by an education and publicity campaign. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic has campaigned vigorously in this direction and one cannot fail to admire him for that, but he has recently claimed that his campaign is having a greater effect than would random testing. That is a bold claim and is wholly at variance with experience in this as well as in other countries. The Government's interdepartmental review of road safety pointed out that education and publicity campaigns have not been shown to be effective in reducing the number of casualties. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make available to the House the evidence on which he bases his claim.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I shall certainly do that. The interdepartmental review took place before the last year and a half of the campaign, and drink driving above the legal limit has halved among young men, who are the primary target group. That is a greater reduction than the drop claimed in Finland and Australia. It is worth remembering that 20,000 people were last year discovered to be above the legal limit in Sweden, which has one seventh of our population. That suggests that there is more drink driving there than here.
  Sir Bernard Braine: After all the intensive efforts that have been made, I should be surprised if there had not been some results. As my hon. Friend chose to intervene at this point, I would point out that I asked for this information in a letter to him. In his reply, he perhaps absent-mindedly omitted to provide it. Of course, the proper place to provide it is on the Floor of the House of Commons. However, I take comfort from the fact that he has promised to provide that information. I suspect, however, that the evidence to which he refers is no more than a bit of market research data, derived from interviews with extremely small samples of the population, and is not, therefore, a measure of the real frequency of drinking and driving.
  These days one cannot open up a newspaper after the weekend without seeing what is happening in the towns and villages of our peaceful countryside. Mobs of drunken youths, many of them arriving and leaving in their cars, are causing unprecedented disturbances. [Interruption.] It is no use my hon. Friend the Minister shaking his head. The evidence is there in the newspapers and in what chief officers of police have been saying. I hope that this matter will be taken seriously. I assure my hon. Friend that it is taken seriously in the country as a whole, and this is reflected in Members' postbags, certainly in mine. Market research is a doubtful means of finding out something entirely different—the willingness of people to admit that they drink and drive.
  We have had anti-drink driving campaigns in Britain for decades.
  Mr. Ashton: They do not work.
  Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Gentleman should say that to people who have lost dear ones in road accidents. Death and injuries are happening all the time. An improvement is certainly welcome, but the casualties still occur. Hon. Members and Ministers in this responsible Parliament should not forget that the toll goes on and that our efforts should not cease until it is reduced much further.
  The slogan "If you drink don't drive, and if you drive don't drink" must be at least 50 years old. I was chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism for about nine years and that slogan was well known and greatly flourished at that time. Yet, in spite of it, the carnage on our roads has continued. Ironically, the main effect of the present campaign may well have been to firm up public opinion in favour of a lower legal limit and an effective system of enforcing that limit.
  Despite the harsh words that I used about my hon. Friend the Minister, I admire a great deal of what he is trying to do and the energy that he puts into it. However, if he wants his campaign to succeed, he must accept something along the lines of the new clause. He must accept random breath testing, and he must demonstrate to the nation as a whole that he means serious business. I shortly hope to raise this and other matters with the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Lords.
  I shall listen intently, therefore, to the Minister's reply. I should like him to give an assurance that the Government have an open mind on this question, are receptive to change, and are prepared to consider a lowering of the limit and effective enforcement of that lower limit. No hon. Member can have constituents who have not lost a loved one or a friend or a neighbour due to the recklessness of those who drink and drive. The nation is looking to the House to take effective action. If we fail to do so, it will not lightly forgive those responsible. I commend the new clause to the House on the understanding that the nettle of enforcement—that is the key—is firmly grasped.
  Mr. Ashton: It is difficult to defend drunken driving, and I do not intend to do so. No hon. Member has any pity for someone who drinks and drives and causes an accident. However, we should get away from some of the extremism in the debate and look at the matter rationally. I shall begin by giving a few statistics. They are not my statistics, but come from reputable newspapers such as this week's Sunday Times.
  Britain does not have an alcohol problem. A tiny section of the population, mainly teenagers in the open air marching down the streets to a football match or on the Costa Brava, at the Notting Hill carnival or in New Year's Eve celebrations, can be seen drinking from cans of lager and showing off, vandalising and wrecking the neighbourhood. That is where the problem with alcohol lies. The problem is not with the average middle-aged bloke who has a couple of pints in the pub and then goes home for his Sunday lunch or who goes home at half-past 10 during the week.
  Britain's record on alcohol consumption is good. We are 20th in the world league table; and that statistic is taken from this week's Sunday Times. I do not want to bore the House but I shall read out the league table. France is at the top, followed by East Germany, Portugal, Hungary, Spain, West Germany, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Italy, Australia—which hon. Members have mentioned many times—

  229
  Argentina, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada and the USA. All those countries have a greater alcohol consumption per head of population than Britain.
  5.45 pm
  Statistics show that the consumption of alcohol in Britain is going down every year. Last year it went down another 1·5 per cent. Britain drinks only half the amount that it consumed 50 years ago. However, there is much more hysteria now, more media attention and publicity campaigns and more effective protests by the temperance lobby. That is why there is a cry of wolf against the average person having a drink in a pub.
  In 1968, when the legislation was introduced, there were far fewer cars on the road. There are now three times as many cars and three times as many drivers as when the breathalyser was brought in, but there are about the same number of accidents caused by drivers over the limit. There has been a great improvement not just in terms of drink and driving accidents but in terms of all accidents. The standard of driving is much higher and the cars are of much better quality. There are not as many 20-year-old cars on the road as there were in 1968, and roads are better, and better lit. As I say, in terms of drunken accidents or other accidents, the statistics are far better than they were in 1968. The number of positive tests has dropped by two thirds.
  I am wary of statistics, because I often hear them trotted out about accidents involving drink and then find that many of them are caused by drunken pedestrians. They are the people who stagger out of a pub and walk into the middle of the road. A perfectly sober motorist is unable to avoid such a person, the pedestrian is knocked down, and that becomes a drink-related accident and goes into the statistics.
  I shared a flat with the late Frank McElhone who was a Member of this House. He drove home from the pictures in Glasgow one night where he had been with his wife. It was New Year's Eve and as usual a drunk shouted, "Hello, Jimmy," and walked into the middle of the road and was knocked down. Frank had to go to be breathalysed, and was very upset. It was quite right that he was breathalysed, but it went on to the statistics as a drink-related accident. Far too often, people deliberately confuse the statistics. The present system is working well. I do not defend drunken drivers and have no lack of sympathy for people who have had relatives or friends injured in a drunk driving accident. Later in my speech, I shall look at how to prevent such accidents.
  In my constituency we had a massive experience of random breath testing, as did the whole of Nottinghamshire in 1986 and, I think, 1985 when we had a chief constable, Mr. McLaughlin, who was a teetotaller and took on himself a one-man crusade to introduce random breath testing. I think that in doing that he broke the law, but nobody could stop him because there is no democratic control over chief constables.
  In 1986 in Nottinghamshire, Mr. McLaughlin tested 4,733 people in about 10 days around Christmas. In the county of Derbyshire, 528 people were tested. South Yorkshire next door tested 652 people and in Cleveland 54 people were tested. When all these people had been tested it was found that 3 per cent. of them were over the limit. The percentage was exactly the same in Derbyshire or anywhere else. Mr. McLaughlin tested 10 times as many people as the other counties.
  230
  My constituents reacted with intense anger and uproar about the way in which the tests had been carried out. People were tested while they were filling their cars with petrol. A policeman would come up and say, "I suspect that you are over the limit." That used to happen at 5 o'clock, when people were on their way home from work. There were allegations that policemen had been given quotas and had been told—perhaps not by the chief constable but by others down the ladder—that they were expected to breath-test 35 motorists every day. People driving home from work when the pubs were shut were doing no harm at all but were faced with road blocks and were told by the police that they were conducting a test on tyres or windscreen wipers. When a motorist had demonstrated the windscreen wipers, he was given a breathalyser bag to blow into.
  Such things caused an enormous protest, especially from people who did not drink. They were incensed that they had been stopped on their way home from work or stopped at a petrol station and forced into random breath testing. The other unfair aspect was that it depended on which county one lived in.
  What is random? Does one stop one in 10 or one in 20, or is it up to the chief superintendent, who may feel liverish that morning, or may think that statistics are down and need bolstering? Perhaps the police will go out on odd days of the week and check every car with an odd number or every car with an even number. What is random? It depends on whether the chief constable is a teetotaller. It is the same with hon. Members, whose views are influenced by whether they are anti-drink. They are entitled to their opinion, but they should make it clear that they are anti-drink rather than against the present limits.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I remind the House that, when Mrs. Barbara Castle introduced the Act in 1986, I assisted her in taking it through the House. The House was given an assurance that there would be no random testing under that legislation. We must accept that, whatever one's views of random testing, a change in the law is needed if it is to be authorised.
  Mr. Ashton: Testing can be carried out only when a moving traffic offence has been committed. That was not the case in Nottinghamshire during those two Christmases. There was certainly a massive amount of testing—4,000 tests in 10 days.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I hope that my hon. Friend will press the Minister on the specific point about whether random breath testing is legal at present. The Minister for Public Transport implied that random testing was possible, but Home Office Ministers have always insisted that a driver can be stopped at random for a purpose, but that there cannot be random testing. The Minister for Public Transport was slightly misleading the House.
  Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend illustrates the problems of this difficult matter well. If we accept the new clause, far more people will appear in court. There will be far more wrangles and extended arguments, and loopholes will be found. Matters will be far worse than at present.
  Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Smallheath): Does my hon. Friend accept the fundamental proposition that the civil liberties of the people of this country should prevent them from being apprehended and inquired into in

  231
  circumstances that are an affront to their dignity, if there is no evidence available to the police officer to cause him to apprehend them?
  Mr. Ashton: My right hon. Friend is right. Such an action would irritate and annoy the public to such an extent that any affection that they might have for the police would be quickly alienated.
  Lowering the levels would have a great effect on rural constituencies such as mine. My constituency covers 300 square miles, with 50 towns, villages and parish councils. My constituents cannot be told to use public transport; there is no public transport. Many of the villages do not have a bus service after 6.30 in the evening. If people want to go for a casual drink, they have to go in their car or walk a mile along an unlit road with no pavement, which they do not want to do, especially in winter.
  If the levels are lowered, many of the smaller clubs, such as miners' institutes and labour clubs, will close. There is no question about that. They will close because the average 50-year-old bloke who takes his wife out does not have a lot of money on which to get drunk. Even poor people in such areas have to have a car because there are no buses. Their night out means going down to a working man's club for a game of darts, two pints of bitter and a shandy, and when they drive home the only thing they meet on the road is a rabbit. There is nothing else to be seen on the road.
  If the new clause is accepted, those people would sit indoors watching television with a can of lager. The new clause would have a great effect on the social fabric of rural areas. The institutes and the working men's clubs—where mums and dads go on Saturday nights to have a game of bingo—are the backbone of the community. Club members lay on the pensioners' treats at Christmas and organise a couple of bags of coal for them. I went to a function at one of these clubs last week. At the club, there were 259 widows from one pit in my constituency. They would never have gone out or done anything or got any attention if it were not for the miners' institute. It is only the Friday and Saturday nights that keep the institutes going.
  In rural areas, there is little recorded drunken driving. The drink-driving accidents that occur, as the Minister said, involve 21 or 22-year-old yobboes driving old bangers, and not the people who keep the clubs going.
  I understand why hon. Members want to prevent death on the roads. I should be more enamoured of the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and of the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) if they covered all death on the road, and not just drunken driving. As the Minister knows, one of the biggest killers is weight and speed, not drinking and driving. Heavy lorries on motorways, particularly in fog, may plough into a line of cars and kill 60 or 70 people at a stroke. That causes far more damage than the average drink-driver. Why do we not have weighbridges and police to divert lorries off the M1 for compulsory weighing to establish whether they are carrying a weight too heavy for their brakes?
  If hon. Members tied in their campaign with death on the roads from causes such as that, rather than hounding all those who have a drink, I should have more sympathy with their arguments. But they do not. They adopt the
  232
  King Herod principle and say that the way to stop death on the roads is to stop all drinking. They might as well abolish all motor cars. They might as well say that to stop women being raped we should have a curfew and that women should not be allowed out after 6 o'clock at night. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury tabled a very good new clause dealing with rape. If we had rape legislation equivalent to this new clause, there would be a tremendous public outcry.
  People who go two or three times over the limit and kill others must be punished far more severely. That is the way to solve the problem. The Government should bring in legislation providing that anyone who kills someone while they are over the limit is charged with manslaughter and spends 10 or 15 years in prison. That would produce a far bigger decrease in the number of people over the limits. Word would get round that drivers who were over the limit would not just be fined £500, lose their licence for six months and pay more insurance, but would go to prison like anyone else who takes a life. I would support that 100 per cent. Collective punishment—the argument that the way to catch the culprit is to stop everyone—does not work. It builds up public resentment.
  I accept that there is too much of a gamble. I accept that at the moment people weigh up the odds of getting stopped on the way home, work out that there is a 40:1 chance and think, "I am only one pint over. I will take the chance." They take that chance knowing that, if they get caught. they will only have to pay a £500 fine and lose their licence for six months. If they knew that they would have to go to prison and that the crime was classed with other crimes of violence such as grievous bodily harm and manslaughter and attracted the same penalties, they would adopt the same attitude to drink-driving as to those crimes. That would be a far better proposal.
  We are at risk of setting a dangerous parliamentary precedent. The proposal should be dealt with in private Member's legislation. If we vote for the new clause, it will reach the statute book with less than an hour's debate. There has been no consultation with our constituents and none of the argy-bargy of listening to lobby groups. The new clause will not have been considered and wrangled over in Committee, as the Abortion (Amendment) Bill was. It will become law, it will have been bounced through and the reaction in the headlines tomorrow will rightly be one of outrage. It would be undemocratic to do so. A controversial subject such as this should be debated in Parliament over several weeks, not one hour. That is what the House is about. It would be a retrograde step to approve the new clause.
  6 pm
  Sir Ian Lloyd: I agree with so much of what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said that I am able to keep my remarks briefer than I intended. Obviously, there is general agreement about the objective. No hon. Member would disagree with that. We wish to reduce the consequences of drunken driving, however and wherever they occur. That is obviously a matter of the gravest common sense. However, there is disagreement about the subsidiary objectives and the methods to achieve them. We must start thinking much more fundamentally about that point.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to say that, if we go too far and too quickly down this road, we shall pose a major

  233
  challenge to the social fabric and social behaviour patterns. Surely we do not have to recall the experience of prohibition in the United States to realise that the most powerful legislature can make an awful damned fool of itself if it passes laws that are effectively unenforceable because they require too radical, too drastic and too far-reaching a change in social behaviour, and require it too quickly.
  Apart from the merits of the alcohol limit, it has been clear to me for a long time that there is a paradox, an inherent inconsistency between the law as it stands, which prescribes a limit that may or may not be too high—it is probably about right, but there is room for argument—and the suggestion that no one should drink and drive. That is an absolutist view. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we shall achieve that only by eliminating driving or by eliminating drinking. That is not realistic.
  The country spends on alcohol just under what it spends on the National Health Service. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it spends half that sum on drinking alcohol in 2·5 million public houses. The vast majority of those who consume alcohol in such places get to and from them by car. That will not be changed by Government, and it will not be changed by law. Even the proper objective of eliminating drunken hooligan youths causing mayhem in villages and towns cannot be achieved by law, but it can be eliminated if no cars can be started by drunken drivers.
  The technology is now available. It has been effectively demonstrated in Australia, where limits are lower, and it has been used for drivers on probation in California. The technology is not all that expensive. Obviously, it cannot be brought in overnight, and it will probably be difficult to apply it to existing vehicles, but if the House is serious and it wants to eliminate drunken driving, there is only one way to do it, and that is to fit every vehicle with a breathalyser ignition lock. That would create one problem. In any society there are always individuals who will say, "I shall get around that. I shall fiddle with the sealed box. I shall break the seals and tamper with the electronics in such a way that, even though the car has a breathalyser ignition lock, I can override its commands."
  That would pose the same kind of problem as going through the green customs channel when one should go through the red channel. Obviously, the penalties must be infinitely higher. It will not eliminate the need for occasional or systematic checks of drivers' alcohol intake, but the police would be entitled to assume that every vehicle beyond a certain age and which was so equipped could not he driven by a drunken driver. In such cases, the penalties for so doing could properly be five or 10 times those for drivers of any other vehicle. The problem can be taken care of.
  The essence of this extremely difficult and important matter is that we shall not achieve our objective by any changes in the law that have as their basic assumption—my hon. Friend the Minister takes it as his basic assumption—total abstinence on the part of every driver on every possible occasion. That is a counsel of perfection. Human societies do not achieve perfection. For heaven's sake, when technology comes rushing in with new devices that enable us to achieve our objectives without draconian laws and draconian enforcement, let us use them.
  Mr. Roland Boyes: My speech will be quite brief, as I made the case for lowering
  234
  the blood alcohol limit when I presented a private Member's Bill earlier this year. That Bill was supported by all political parties.
  Tomorrow, Parliament will receive a lobby group. That is not exceptional—Parliament receives many lobby groups. But tomorrow's lobby will be the most emotional for some considerable time. It is organised by the Campaign Against Drinking and Driving, a group that supports the families of people who are killed or injured by drunken, irresponsible drivers. I invite my hon. Friend the Member Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and other hon. Members to attend the meeting in the Grand Committee Room at half past 2 tomorrow afternoon.
  My hon. Friend is a forceful speaker, and he made his points strongly. He said that, when random checks were made in several counties, 3 per cent. of drivers were found to be over the limit. Three per cent. is one car in every 30. If one stands beside fast-moving traffic, 30 cars will pass by every minute. If one in 30 drivers is over the limit, people on motorways or fast-moving dual carriageways are at significant risk. Three per cent. is a huge figure.
  Mr. Ashton: It was 3 per cent. who were over the limit, not 3 per cent. who were involved in accidents. That is a different figure.
  Mr. Boyes: I concede that 3 per cent. of all drivers were over the limit. If one is over the present limit, one's chances of being in an accident are high. I shall be even more wary if, every time I drive my car, one driver out of the 30 drivers that pass me is over the legal limit. If that is the case, a large number of people are breaking the law.
  My hon. Friend referred to non-drinkers being incensed. He knows full well that I am a non-drinker. He went on to suggest that non-drinkers are against alcohol. Living in the north-east of England and being a member of two dozen workmen's clubs, many of which I visit regularly——
  Mr. Ashton: Not any longer.
  Mr. Boyes: My hon. Friend says, "Not any longer." I have introduced two private Member's Bills, one on random breath testing and one on lowering the blood alcohol limit. On each occasion, the response was favourable, because the people I represent—the working people in the north-east—have more wit. They understand the family consequences of some drunken slob killing somebody.
  Mr. Ashton: Send the driver to gaol.
  Mr. Boyes: The victim does not go to gaol. It is too late to send people to gaol when they have wiped out a family or a part of a family.
  Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend said that the reaction of the public was favourable. Is he aware that Barbara Castle said exactly the same when she introduced the original Bill, but in the following month at a Leicester by-election the Labour party was slaughtered and lost a seat as a result of public reaction? The silent majority are those who do not write letters. My hon. Friend would find a different reaction from people in his club if the amendment were passed.
  Mr. Boyes: My hon. Friend said that he was suspicious of data and market research; I am dubious and suspicious about that little piece of evidence. He said that people

  235
  would react but, obviously, he has not been reading the recent opinion polls, especially those on random breath tests. The latest shows that more than 80 per cent. of the public wished random breath testing to be introduced.
  Even in the correspondence column of the Spectator, I have praised what the Minister for Roads and Traffic is doing. In fact, I praise anybody, especially the Government, who does anything about drinking and driving and alcohol abuse. All hon. Members should welcome that. I cannot understand why my hon. Friend has a blind spot. On everything else he is going in the right direction, but he runs into a brick wall whenever random breath tests are mentioned.
  Mr. Ashton rose——
  Mr. Boyes: Will my hon. Friend give me a second or two? He had a long crack at his speech. The Whip is looking at me and we all know that that means that I must end my speech.
  I have never lived in a city, but when the canny and sensible folk in the north-east go out in fours, three of them will drink and one will not—[Interruption.] I notice that the heckling is coming from my hon. Friends.
  I wish that the Government would do more to promote non-alcoholic drinks, because that would solve part of the problem. People could spend an evening in a pub, club, hotel or wherever and drink as many non-alcoholic beers as they wished. I am not an expert on these matters, but my friends who drink non-alcoholic beers tell me that they are as enjoyable as alcoholic ones. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] I still advocate them, and I ask the Minister to push them very strongly.
  The Campaign Against Drinking and Driving press release states that at half past 2 tomorrow:
  "A representative group of victim families, from as far afield as Manchester and Newcastle"—
  and, I understand, Northern Ireland—
  "will be pleading with M.P.s to work for the introduction of an effective system of random breath testing before another 500 innocent victims are killed on our roads by drinking drivers.
  Each will carry a white flower for the dead victim(s) in their family who has been killed in circumstances which they regard as a form of murder."
  One family coming tomorrow will be carrying three white flowers. Just think what that actually means—some arrogant, selfish individual killed three members of one family. It is all right for my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to say, "They should have sent him to jail," but that is not the solution. I do not want more people in jail. I want people to drive cars without alcohol in their systems. That will stop people being killed on our roads.
  Reference has been made to the cost of the alcohol industry. The latest paper that I have received states that drink-related accidents are costing the NHS—the taxpayer about £400 million a year. Therefore, not only are people being killed, but a heavy strain and cost is being placed on the Health Service.
  6.15 pm
  I support lower alcohol limits. I do not have time to read the letters that I received each time that I introduced my ten-minute Bills, but they are tragic and bring tears to my eyes, even when I re-read them. Many people are being killed on our roads. In fact, three people will be killed
  236
  today, three more people tomorrow and three more the day after. On every day of this year three people will be killed on the roads because some other people will drive with too much alcohol in their blood, thus impairing their driving.
  I support the proposal to reduce the blood alcohol limit. My advice to youngsters, new drivers and even experienced drivers—in fact, to everyone, and I am prepared to say it to my constituents broadly and loudly—is "if you go out with your car, do not drink alcohol." That must be the message.
  Sir Neil Macfarlane: I do not wish to detain the House for very long, because I know that my hon. Friends want to make progress. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) gave the House a powerful reminder of the dilemma that we face. Of course, the comments of hon. Members underline the dissent on both sides of the House.
  I have a general sympathy for the aims and objectives of the new clause that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) so articulately moved. Many people outside this House will echo her remarks. During the past few months there has been some disquiet about which Government Department is in charge. In recent years I had some loose connection with this problem in another area. While I commend my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic for his annual campaign, as I did not support the Licensing Bill I cannot help but feel that that campaign should be prolonged over a 12-month period, not just over four, six or eight weeks.
  However commendable the hon. Lady's proposal, I am not convinced that it is legislatively absolutely right. I shall listen closely to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has to say. If our right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State is to be believed, and from what I saw a few months ago on television, the Home Office is not entirely seduced by the argument on random breath testing. Our right hon. and noble Friend made it clear to the annual meeting of police officers that he would not encourage further conflict between the motoring fraternity and the police. If that lead is taken, this problem will be kicked into touch quite a long way.
  We have a problem with the relevant influence of the Department of Transport and the Home Office. Even if we accept only one quarter of what we read in the newspapers and see on television—not just in recent weeks or months, but the pattern during the past two or three years—no one doubts that alcohol abuse and alcohol and liquor consumption are problems.
  I shall listen closely to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has to say about the package that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs intends to introduce. We will be sitting on a powder keg if some serious action is not taken.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Drunken driving is an appalling offence, particularly when it leads to death. Everyone has a burning desire to stop it and to toughen the various penalties that exist, but there is a danger of over-reaction.
  What we are discussing is whether we have the balance right regarding our drink-driving laws, whether there should be a tightening up, and, if so, which direction that should take. It is not immediately apparent to me that

  237
  there are millions or even thousands of people who believe that the way in which to improve the situation is to reduce the level of alcohol that drivers can consume before they are not permitted to drive. I have received hardly any letters suggesting that that particular solution to the problem has the public's favour. If the changes in the law do not meet with public approval and support, they will do far more harm than good.
  We have been discussing random breath-testing, and I believe that something should be done. As the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has said, it is perfectly true that it is unlawful to breath-test at random. However, it is not unlawful to stop a driver at random and then to breath-test if there is a suspicion of alcohol in the breath. It seems to me that the end is the same. The public are disturbed by the fact that there is no lawful random breath-testing yet that is sometimes what the police seem to he enforcing. The matter must be clarified.
  Random breath-testing does take place. We are aware of police forces that carry it out and, as it were, say, "We are doing it; now take action against us." I believe that it should be open to the police to target campaigns when they choose in order to stop people getting into their cars after they have been drinking to excess. If that means that such campaigns would take place outside public houses or clubs, that would benefit society, provided that the police do it with good sense and provided that is what the law specifically allows. The confusion about whether random breath tests are allowed disturbs people and distracts one from the true argument. We should have a law that is clear to everyone and reduces the number of drivers who drive under the influence of drink.
  The courts have in recent years tightened up on drink-driving offences. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said that we must get rid of the hip flask defence, which enables a person to argue that he has taken a drink after he has got into a car and driven. The hon. Lady is behind the times. Such a defence was stopped seven years ago. The appeal courts are tightening up on the rules determining the degree of a person's blame while driving under the influence of drink.
  It is iniquitous that a driver under the influence of drink who kills somebody should be able to "cop a plea" of careless driving and receive a fine, together with disqualification. No wonder the public are appalled at that. I hope that the Government will take on board the new North committee proposals, which are designed to ensure that such a practice does not happen in the future, and that a drunken driver who kills receives a substantial sentence. It should no longer be possible for a court to accept pleas of guilty to a lesser charge. I hope that the fact that the Crown prosecution service has replaced the police as the prosecuting unit will have some effect.
  There are areas in which we can, with public acceptability, reduce the incidence of drink-driving. We must ask, however, whether the new clause will help. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will provide some facts and statistics that are somewhat different from the picture that is generally thought to exist. We are reducing the amount of drinking that goes on and there are fewer people driving vehicles under the influence of drink. Whenever there is a party or a gathering nowadays there are couples where one partner touches no drink and drives home. That habit is gaining momentum in our society.
  238
  There is a danger that we will over-react and tilt the balance in the wrong direction. We could stop people dying on the roads by banning the motor car. As a result 20,000 fewer deaths would occur. We could stop people dying from smoking by banning cigarettes—2,000 deaths a year would be avoided. We could stop people being killed by shotguns or any other firearm, accidentally or deliberately, by banning firearms. We could stop women being raped at night if we had a curfew on our women.
  Do we want to restrict movement in our society and alter the social fabric by implementing restrictions that are so extreme that they interfere with the broadly pleasant and happy life that our people enjoy? If we go too far to restrict the liberties of the individual and if we do not put some brake on the trend to do so, we may find ourselves living in a Britain where nobody wants to enjoy themselves and where few will want to stay.
  I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister should be cautious. We should do whatever we can, of course, to restrict and put an end to drinking and driving, if that is possible, but such restrictions must be acceptable to the public. I believe that the proposals in the new clause are years ahead of their time. I do not detect the public calling out for a further reduction in the level of drinking that takes place. Such a reduction would destroy a part of our rural life. The village pub may be several miles from some villagers and they would be unable to get to and from it unless they had a vehicle. Such village pubs are of value to our society and we would do well to try to maintain them and the rural way of life that they represent.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In common with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I am in favour of people living a broadly pleasant and happy life, but they can do so only if they manage to stay alive. Drink-driving wipes out far too many people.
  I disagreed with the original proposals introduced by Lady Castle. I believe that the driver of a vehicle should not drink at all. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton has said that such a custom has grown, but I believe that it should be the law of the land, as it is in many other countries. There should be a non-drinker in every vehicle. Given that that suggestion does not form part of the new clause, I believe that that new clause is the next best thing.
  I believe that it is exceedingly important that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should provide incentives for the supply of soft or low alcohol drinks. At the moment such drinks are as expensive or more expensive than the full-bodied beer, which Opposition Members appear to rate so highly. I plead with the Minister to make provision for a non-drinking driver in every vehicle but, in lieu of that, the new clause is the next best thing.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): There has been much discussion about random breath testing, and I believe it would be helpful to remind the House of the law. The position is governed by section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972. That Act enables the police to stop, at random, any motorist they choose. Having stopped a motorist, a policeman may require him to take the test if any of the ordinary three criteria exist: suspicion that the driver has alcohol in the blood, has committed a moving traffic offence, or has been involved in an accident. There is no

  239
  statutory power to require random tests, but there is a statutory power to stop at random and then, if the three ordinary criteria exist, the test may be required. That seems a sensible approach.
  6.30 pm
  My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) made a powerful argument in favour of some forms of technology. I know that he has a particular device in mind. This matter was addressed at some length by Dr. North in his recently published report, and I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 350 on page 44. There are serious problems with all the devices known to and identified by Dr. North in that report, but Dr. North recommends that the Government should keep in close contact with technological developments. I entirely agree, although I am somewhat cautious about the idea that one can resolve this problem by means of technological devices.
  The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), in a powerful speech, commended caution in making major changes in the law on Report. I agree with him. This would be a major change, and it would have been arrived at without the benefit of discussion in Committee. Therefore, I find myself strongly supporting the hon. Gentleman's argument.
  Turning to the major issue of whether we should lower the threshold——
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I accept my hon. Friend's general point, but I hope that he will apply it to his own right hon. and hon. Friends. He will know that only a few days before this debate the Government introduced on Report entirely new matter dealing with DNA. My hon. Friend was wrong to do that; but he is right to say that substantial changes should not be made without Committee stages on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Hogg: As a general proposition it is desirable not to introduce major changes on Report. However, when changes are introduced on Report they often reflect detailed discussion in Committee, although they were not the subject of specific amendments there. I am only asserting a general proposition. Of course I accept that there will be exceptions to it. I shall not rise to the bait that my hon. Friend has so seductively put before me.
  The threshold is the subject of the new clause. I do not think that drinking and driving mix. The conclusion to which I have come, and to which I now try to adhere in my own life, is that one cannot safely drive if one has been drinking. That is the only message that can properly be expressed. At the same time, I do not yet think it right to incorporate that view in statute.
  The essential question is the point at which to set the threshold. We are divided between two propositions-50 and 80 mg——
  Mr. Boyes: The Minister has said that it was not yet right. When will it be? How will he determine when it is right—when another 10,000, 20,000 or 50,000 people have been killed by drunken drivers?
  Mr. Hogg: I cannot answer that question, because the law must both reflect and lead public opinion in matters of this sort. The time may come when public opinion will favour a level of alcohol concentration so low as to amount to a no-drinking rule. I put it like that because the
  240
  body produces natural alcohol levels, so a certain level must be allowed for. That time, however, has not yet come and I cannot see it coming in the near future. It may come. I do not close down the range of possibilities.
  The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) suggested that our level of 80 mg is on the high side compared with other countries. I think that she is mistaken. It is true that a number of countries have a lower level, but many countries have the same one. I use the 1985 figures because they are the latest ones known to me. Countries which have a level similar to our own include Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and Switzerland.
  What should we be trying to do? We need to secure a greater compliance with the law rather than to reduce the threshold. The 1986 figures show that there were about 303,000 roadside tests, of which 68 per cent. were negative. I am glad to say that the proportion of negative tests has been rising substantially. In 1983, for example, it was 58 per cent.; in 1984, it was 59 per cent.; in 1985, it was 62 per cent.; and in 1986, 68 per cent. That shows, not conclusively but encouragingly, that drivers are now getting the message that drinking and driving do not mix.
  We are achieving success in this area by a process of education and persuasion. We should continue with that, rather than reduce the statutory threshold.
  Sir Ian Lloyd: It would be interesting to elucidate this point. When a breathalyser test—positive or negative—is given by the police, are the police obliged to record which of the three reasons entitled them to give the test?
  Mr. Hogg: I do not know the answer to that off hand. I note that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) thinks they do not. He may well be right. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall have to write to him with an answer.
  Dr. Lewis Moonie: I thank the Minister for giving way, especially as I have not been here for most of the debate.
  The argument is surely not about what other countries do, or what public opinion will accept, or whether there are other means of stopping people drinking and driving; it should be about whether the level of 50 mg is significantly safer than 80 mg. The Minister should be aware, as I am, that 80 mg in the blood is a level at which it is unsafe to drive. It impairs performance significantly. Both levels impair performance, but 50 mg does so significantly less.
  Mr. Hogg: The figure of 80 mg was fixed after careful research as being the point at which the risk increased sharply. I am not trying to pretend that people are not a little safer at 50 mg: they probably are. Nevertheless, 80 mg represented a considered assessment. We must take a balanced view and determine what we are trying to do. I believe that we should seek to achieve better compliance with the law before making statutory changes of the sort that have been canvassed tonight.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I shall be brief, because we want to discuss many other things tonight. I want to answer some of the points that have been raised.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) suggested that all who want a tightening up of the laws against drinking and driving are against drink, but

  241
  that is not so. Many people enjoy a drink and regard themselves as social and responsible drinkers, but understand from the available evidence that drinking and driving do not mix and that we have a responsibility to ensure that they do not.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) mentioned the lobby that will take place tomorrow when families of victims of drunken drivers will lobby Members for stiff penalties and for tighter laws on drinking and driving. I hope that hon. Members will listen to those families and that this evening they will consider the anguish that has been caused and the avoidable deaths that have been caused. In few other areas are so many people killed in a way that is avoidable. We cannot dispute the statistics, which show that every year 1,500 or 1,600 people are killed as a result of drinking and driving.
  Some Conservative Members, including the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and the Minister, talked about getting the balance right. There is little balance for the victims of drunken drivers. Their lives, and often the lives of their families, have been destroyed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who came in late because he had been detained at a meeting, made an important point to the Minister. Although the debate has been widened to include many aspects of drinking and driving such as random breath tests, because the new clause must be seen in the context of the existing breathalyser laws, the basic point is whether the permitted blood alcohol level should be 50 or 80 mg. All the evidence that has been presented by hon. Members on both sides of the House proves that there is a significantly higher risk of accidents if people are allowed to drive with a blood alcohol level of 80 mg.
  Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister said that the level of 80 mg was fixed in about 1967, based on the research then available? Since then considerably more research has been done and we know more about the subject. It is apparent that the danger risk level of 80 mg is far too high and that the appropriate level would be about 50 mg.
  Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right. The updated evidence from Australia and other countries supports that proposition. There is now general agreement on the matter.
  In an intervention, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport said that he spends much of his time and his Department spends much money campaigning against drinking and driving. He believes that it has had some effect. That may be the case, but the £2·5 million spent by the Department of Transport recognises the problem and I hope that he will persuade his hon. Friends in government that we should go further. We should campaign, not simply to discourage people from drinking and driving, but to ensure that there is a proper limit, and we suggest that 50 mg should he that limit.
  The matter gives rise to controversy among hon. Members on both sides of the House and it provokes strong feelings. The Licensing Act that the Government have just pushed through Parliament will allow people to drink throughout the day, and the pattern that has emerged in Scotland will be repeated here. The peak time for drink-related vehicle accidents will start earlier, as has
  242
  happened in Scotland. If there is to be more drinking throughout the day, we should do more about the problems created by drinking and driving. We need more than new clause 83, but it is a step in the right direction and I hope that the House will accept it.
  Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 281.

  Division No. 386]

  [6.43 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Alton, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Anderson, Donald

  John, Brynmor

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Kennedy, Charles

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Lewis, Terry

  Battle, John

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

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

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Loyden, Eddie

  Bidwell, Sydney

  McAllion, John

  Blair, Tony

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Blunkett, David

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Boyes, Roland

  McFall, John

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  McKelvey, William

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  McLeish, Henry

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  McTaggart, Bob

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  McWilliam, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Madden, Max

  Buchan, Norman

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Callaghan, Jim

  Meacher, Michael

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Michael, Alun

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Cartwright, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Clelland, David

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Morley, Elliott

  Cohen, Harry

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Corbett, Robin

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Cryer, Bob

  Mullin, Chris

  Dalyell, Tam

  Murphy, Paul

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Nellist, Dave

  Dixon, Don

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Dobson, Frank

  O'Neill, Martin

  Doran, Frank

  Patchett, Terry

  Douglas, Dick

  Pendry, Tom

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Pike, Peter L.

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Fatchett, Derek

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Fearn, Ronald

  Reid, Dr John

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

  Richardson, Jo

  Fisher, Mark

  Robertson, George

  Foster, Derek

  Rogers, Allan

  Foulkes, George

  Rooker, Jeff

  Fyfe, Maria

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Galloway, George

  Sedgemore, Brian

  George, Bruce

  Short, Clare

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Gordon, Mildred

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

  Graham, Thomas

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

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Strang, Gavin

  Grocott, Bruce

  Straw, Jack

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Haynes, Frank

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Vaz, Keith

  Henderson, Doug

  Wall, Pat

  Hinchliffe, David

  Wallace, James

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Holland, Stuart

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Hood, Jimmy

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Howells, Geraint

  Wilson, Brian

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Winnick, David

  243

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Frank Cook and

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Allason, Rupert

  Evennett, David

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Fallon, Michael

  Amess, David

  Favell, Tony

  Arbuthnot, James

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Forman, Nigel

  Ashby, David

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Ashton, Joe

  Forth, Eric

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Franks, Cecil

  Atkins, Robert

  Freeman, Roger

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  French, Douglas

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Gardiner, George

  Batiste, Spencer

  Gill, Christopher

  Beggs, Roy

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Bendall, Vivian

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Gorst, John

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Gow, Ian

  Body, Sir Richard

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Boswell, Tim

  Gregory, Conal

  Bottomley, Peter

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Grist, Ian

  Bowis, John

  Ground, Patrick

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hannam, John

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

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

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Harris, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hayes, Jerry

  Burns, Simon

  Hayward, Robert

  Burt, Alistair

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Butcher, John

  Heddle, John

  Butler, Chris

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Butterfill, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hind, Kenneth

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Holt, Richard

  Carttiss, Michael

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

  Cash, William

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Conway, Derek

  Irvine, Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Irving, Charles

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Couchman, James

  Janman, Tim

  Cran, James

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Critchley, Julian

  Key, Robert

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kilfedder, James

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Curry, David

  Kirkhope, Timothy

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

  Knapman, Roger

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knowles, Michael

  Dicks, Terry

  Knox, David

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Lang, Ian

  Dover, Den

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Dunn, Bob

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Durant, Tony

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Leighton, Ron

  244

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lightbown, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Lilley, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Shersby, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Sims, Roger

  Maclean, David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Speller, Tony

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Madel, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Squire, Robin

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mans, Keith

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Maples, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Marland, Paul

  Stern, Michael

  Marlow, Tony

  Stevens, Lewis

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stokes, Sir John

  Mates, Michael

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Sumberg, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Summerson, Hugo

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Thorne, Neil

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Neubert, Michael

  Tracey, Richard

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trippier, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Turner, Dennis

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walden, George

  Page, Richard

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Paice, James

  Waller, Gary

  Patnick, Irvine

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Ward, John

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Pawsey, James

  Warren, Kenneth

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Watts, John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Wells, Bowen

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wheeler, John

  Portillo, Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Price, Sir David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Raffan, Keith

  Wilshire, David

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Redwood, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wolfson, Mark

  Riddick, Graham

  Wood, Timothy

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Woodcock, Mike

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rowe, Andrew

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Ryder, Richard

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 84

  COURT'S POWER TO ORDER SUSPENSION OF PASSPORT
  `(1) Where a person is convicted for an offence punishable with imprisonment the Court by or before which he is convicted may in addition to or instead of dealing with him in

  245
  any other way disqualify him for holding or obtaining a United Kingdom passport, a British visitor's passport or a British Excursion Document.
  (2) A person who is disqualified by an order of a court from holding or obtaining a United Kingdom passport, a British visitor's passport or a British Extension Document may appeal against such order in the same manner as against a conviction and the court making such order may if it thinks fit suspend the disqualification pending an appeal against the order.'—[Mr. Favell]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Tony Favell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  I hope not to detain the House too long because since I tabled new clause 84 the Minister with responsibility for sport. my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), has announced the Government's five-point plan to combat football hooliganism. One of the proposals under consideration is to give courts the power to suspend passports in appropriate cases. Consequently, the idea has been thoroughly debated in the press, so my task made a little easier.
  My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport has an extraordinarily difficult job, and he has the support of hon. Members in his task of combating football hooliganism, which we have all witnessed on television in recent weeks. The majority of those to whom I have spoken since I tabled new clause 84 have said that they are behind him in his efforts to stamp out the sort of behaviour that we have witnessed, whether or not those measures have the whole-hearted support of the football hierarchy.
  Like many others, I am a keen football supporter. The fact that I regularly visit my boyhood team, Sheffield Wednesday, and also Stockport County, proves my bona fides. But the majority of football supporters are also proud of their country, and if the activities of the minority bring the country into disrepute, severe measures are warranted.
  7 pm
  My new clause is intended to give the courts power to suspend the passport of a convicted person in the same way that they are allowed to suspend a person's driving licence for some driving offences. If society judges that someone is not fit to drive for a set period, I see no earthly reason why a court should not decide that someone should be deprived of his British passport. The holding of a British passport is a privilege, and many would agree that it is a privilege which society has the right to withdraw.
  I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will suggest to the House that computerisation is not sufficiently advanced to enable the authorities properly to administer any such ban, certainly in the case of British visitors' passports and excursion documents. It might be a good idea if, with the leave of the House, my hon. Friend spoke early in the debate in order to set out the Government's position.
  The vast majority of the British people are worried about the activities of hooligans abroad, and it would be useful if the Minister could set out the Government's attitude to the new clause and in particular, for example, say whether the Government merely intend to delay its implementation or to introduce legislation of their own, and, if so, when we can expect it. In addition, when can we expect the passport system to be properly computerised in order to enable that legislation to be put into effect?
  246
  It might also be an idea if the problems posed by Belgium allowing British people into the country solely on proof of identity were to be addressed, and if the Belgian authorities were invited to withdraw that privilege. After the appalling disaster at the Heysel stadium, it might be a good idea for that country to have better checks on who enters.
  Not only would the suspension of passports reduce the likelihood of the kind of behaviour abroad in which football hooligans indulge; it would also reduce the kind of behaviour that we have seen in tourist resorts abroad, in particular in Spain. Many will consider it an act of punishment to have a British passport withdrawn. If somebody who has indulged in violent behaviour is told that they will not be able to go abroad on holiday, so much the better. That would be a suitable punishment, as well as ensuring that our name abroad is not besmirched.
  I have no doubt that the new clause, aimed at the mindless hooligan, will be opposed by some libertarians—the same mindless libertarians who, in the 1960s, extolled the virtues of a permissive society, of which we are now reaping the bitter harvest. The indiscipline that was then introduced into schools when freedom of expression took away the power of teachers properly to punish, as well as the lack of a proper curriculum, is now leading to the indiscipline of those teenagers.
  Those libertarians have had their day. Now it is the turn of those interested in a different type of freedom. It is now the turn of those who want the freedom to enjoy our national game of football at home and abroad, free from bad language, obscene gestures and violence. The time has now come for those who do not attend football matches but live near grounds to be able to enjoy a Saturday with their families free from fear of drunken louts damaging their property or worse. The turn has now come for those who want to enjoy their annual holidays in Majorca, Benidorm or on the Costa Brava, free from shame at the activities of their countrymen who don clothes bearing the Union Jack and then drag it through the mud. I commend my new clause to the House.
  Mr. Denis Howell: I am glad to be able to intervene in the debate in favour of what the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) is suggesting, although certainly not accepting the logic at the end of his speech. It is not apparent to me that the difficulties with which we are dealing, of evil-minded people misbehaving at home or abroad, at football matches or on beaches, can necessarily be put down to the changes in society about which he talked. He was unwise to take that line.
  Such a simplistic view encourages people such as me to remind the House that three years ago the Prime Minister sent for all the football authorities. The propaganda machine at No. 10 Downing street put out the fact that the Prime Minister was now in charge of matters relating to football hooliganism and all would now be dealt with satisfactorily. That, pre-eminently, has not been the case. It would be simplistic for me now to say that the Prime Minister, not the leaders of football, should be resigning for failing to carry out the promise that she made to the nation two years ago. I do not want to go that far. I want only to refute the hon. Gentleman's equally ludicrous proposition.
  There is one deficiency in the new clause, and that is that it does not tell us how offenders abroad will be dealt with. As I understand it, the new clause deals exclusively

  247
  with proceedings before British courts. It may well be that people who come before British courts are a threat to peace and order overseas and should be dealt with, but that is not immediately obvious from the new clause.
  An even greater deficiency is that the new clause does not enable people who cause trouble overseas to be dealt with by the British courts or to have their passports or other documents removed, as many of us would wish, if they have committed grave offences overseas.
  Mr. Favell: I recognise that the new clause deals merely with those people convicted of offences in Britain. Clearly, it would be more difficult to deal with offences that are committed abroad and, in particular, to give courts abroad power to withdraw British passports or, alternatively, for courts here to deal with offences that have been dealt with abroad. That does not mean to say that I rule that out or do not accept it. If the Government or the Opposition can find a way of dealing with that, they will have my vote.
  Mr. Howell: It is good to know that the hon. Gentleman will bow to superior wisdom when it is forthcoming from the Opposition Benches or elsewhere. However, he will accept that it is illogical to suggest that, because someone has been convicted of an offence in the British courts, we should assume that he will commit an offence abroad and therefore we should withdraw his passport. It may well be that that will happen, but that is not automatically the case.
  I want to ask the Minister several questions about our recent troubles. I start by reminding the House that at the same time as the Minister with responsibility for sport was in Germany having a look at the evil-doing of a few young people there—the majority of people there were well behaved, but a minority of people caused some serious disorder and it is important to understand the numbers involved—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was in Spain discussing with the Spanish Government the equally abhorrent activities of some British subjects on Spanish beaches and in Spanish bars. I make that point because we are dealing with a social disease that has nothing to do with football.
  This weekend in the Birmingham papers there was a headline about football hooligans going on the rampage and 50 Leicester city supporters being arrested. Last week we had people from Leamington Spa and Warwick, and it was said that that was because there was no football for them to go to. These activities have nothing to do with football, but unfortunately football is one of the ways through which these people pursue their activities.
  I believe that it would be sensible to improve the computerisation of the Home Office. If the Minister tells us that these things cannot be done yet, because Home Office computers are not sufficiently sophisticated to track down the holder of a passport or a travel document, I am sure that the whole House will say that he should get on and do something about improving the computerisation. A police officer in a motor car can be in touch with the Swansea computer and ask a motorist 30 seconds later why he is driving a car that is not registered in his name. That is the sophisticated computerisation available to the police in transport matters. Surely the Home Office ought by now to be moving in that direction.
  248
  If one of the Home Office's points is that it is willing to consider this as soon as it can be put into practical effect, that is to be welcomed, and it will certainly be welcomed by me. In the meantime, however, other things ought to be happening.
  One thing astonished me about the difficulties recently encountered with a few hundred people in Germany. The German police locked them up, sobered them up and let them out again. I find that quite incredible. I would like to know what sort of arrangements the Government had with the German authorities with regard to sending back here as soon as possible the people who were causing difficulties and offence in Germany.
  That can be done and, indeed, was done in the course of my experience. On one occasion, having no authority, as far as I know, to do any such thing, when I was the Minister with responsibility for sport and an important match was being played on the continent, I liaised with my colleague, the Dutch Minister for Sport, and said that anybody going to the match without a ticket, hotel accommodation and proper travel supervision ought not to be allowed into his country. As a result, the Dutch authorities allowed in everybody who had a ticket and told all those who had not got tickets that they had better get back on the boat and come back here. It was a very successful operation. I do not know whether any such operation has been contemplated by the present Government.
  Sir Neil Macfarlane: I think that the right hon. Gentleman and I have probably shared some similar experiences during the past couple of decades. European history over the past 20 years is littered with examples of European police forces surrounding a number of our so-called football fans, putting them in cells for the night and then getting them out of the country as quickly as possible without a conviction. That is the underlying problem. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that once there has been a conviction, there is the basis for some harmonisation with our European colleagues in getting that conviction endorsed on the passport.
  Mr. Howell: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is necessary to have a conviction. If the continental police practice is to round up people on suspicion without producing a conviction, I agree that it adds to the difficulties. Perhaps we might suggest to them, now that we are all in the European Community and Ministers meet from time to time, that our practices ought to be co-ordinated as soon as possible.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Ashton: Why is it necessary to have a conviction? Surely something could be written in the back of the passport indicating that the holder was detained overnight. When we had currency regulations many years ago, written in the back of one's passport was how much foreign currency one had drawn. If this was written in the passport, a ticket to travel abroad would not be issued.
  Mr. Howell: I am sufficiently keen to protect civil liberties in this country not to want people to be sent away just because the police are suspicious of them. I would not endorse the idea of any such thing being entered in a passport without a conviction.

  249
  If continental police procedures are not as precise in this respect as ours, they ought to be brought into line with ours. That would enable us to reach agreement.
  When Aston Villa, to which club I am addicted, played in the European cup final, I was involved in taking several thousand people to Rotterdam. We took them there and brought them back without the slightest problem from any one of them. We did it by organising the travel, hotel arrangements and stewarding arrangements in a sensible way. West Midlands police officers gave up their time. We put them in a yellow coach which could be easily identified. We took many of them over beforehand to liaise with the Rotterdam police. It was a tremendous success.
  I understand that on this occasion the Home Office refused to do any such thing with the England supporters. I cannot understand why the Home Office refused to repeat what had been a very successful operation. It is quite clear that when we are playing abroad there has to be a degree of supervision, for the protection of our decent supporters and the good name of this country. I urge that example on the Government, while they are getting their computers into good order to carry out a more detailed arrangement. It is possible to take people abroad and bring them back here without difficulties, and we owe it to our European partners to do that if it is possible.
  I understand that this recent operation, for some reason that escapes me, was put in the hands of the chief of police of British Transport. I read that he asked for the same facility of having policemen travelling and was refused by the Home Office. If so, it is very much to be regretted. It was obviously a contributory factor in these disorders.
  Mr. David Evans: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the public perception is that hooliganism is football's responsibility? I do not say that it is; indeed, I believe that it is not. The public perception here and abroad is that we export trouble. Unfortunately for us, some who say they are football fans and who go abroad—at the moment we have no way of identifying whether they are football fans—misbehave and bring out the worst in German, Dutch and other European hooligans. It is then hung around the necks of our people.
  I believe that, until we can prove to the Europeans that we have put our house in order and are prepared to be determined, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) has suggested, and until we remove people's passports and make the punishment fit the crime, every time our people go on holiday and misbehave and bring out the worst in those who live in the countries in question, the blame will be hung around the necks of the British people, and our flag, as one of my hon. Friends said the other day, will be dragged through the gutters of Europe. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that public perception here and abroad is that we export trouble?
  Mr. Howell: I have to say very gently to the hon. Gentleman that his activities as chairman of Luton Town football club in assuming that every visiting supporter is going to cause trouble have not helped us to deal with this matter. The hon. Gentleman is quite honest. As the chairman of Luton Town football club he has said, "I will not have a single decent citizen, supporting any club in the land, come to my club, Luton." That is what he is saying and the logic of carrying that further is that no decent English football supporter should be allowed to support England abroad.
  250
  That approach runs away from the problem. It should be opposed on grounds of civil liberties. It is a monstrous attack on the 99 per cent. of decent football supporters in this country. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman went down that road, but I am glad that Luton Town football club is moving back to a more civilised position in believing that supporters of two clubs can come together to enjoy the game—I hesitate to say, "having a drink and then driving off," in view of the debate that we have just had. Nevertheless, they could enjoy a good social occasion——
  Mr. Favell rose——
  Mr. David Evans rose——
  Mr. Howell: I give way to the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), which is only fair because I am disagreeing with him.
  Mr. Evans: I advise the right hon. Gentleman that Luton Town football club allowed away fans for about 100 years, but in the last year that we had away fans we had 113 arrests and six stabbings. However, in the last two seasions, when it has been a members-only club, we have not had a single arrest or stabbing inside or outside the ground. I do not believe that people's liberty, privacy and right to carry on their ordinary business in and around a football ground on a Saturday afternoon should be restricted by the hooligan elements of any away supporters.
  Mr. Howell: I am glad to tell the House that Aston Villa football club in my constituency has not had any stabbings for several years and it allows visiting supporters. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's logic. I am sorry if there have been any such difficulties at Luton, but we do not solve the difficulties by trying to abolish people's right to attend a football match.
  I should like to return to the question of computers and those difficulties with which I have already dealt. I hope that the Minister will say that he at least does not object to that matter, because in previous debates in the House, Ministers have said that they find removing the passports of people who are convicted and who are known to have caused trouble objectionable in principle. There is no logic in that argument. The courts of this land remove passports from people every day of the week and do so before people have been found guilty of anything. Many such people have only been charged, but they are required to surrender their passports as a condition of bail. Therefore, there can be no objection in principle to taking away somebody's passport.
  One of the propaganda myths that was put out from No. 10 and by the Minister with responsibility for sport was that that cannot be done because we are now in the European Community and everybody has a right to travel within Europe. I am a president of the European Movement and am as strong a supporter of the Community as anyone in the House. I want to protect our European partners from the evildoers that we might be exporting to them. It is up to us to find a sensible way of doing that, and I suggest that one way would be the removal of passports.
  I should like to make another point in this short debate, which I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stockport for initiating. It has now been suggested that the Minister with responsibility for sport will present a Bill to the Cabinet.

  251
  We are told in the weekend press that he has been invited to attend the Cabinet meeting on Thursday to defend his proposals. One of his two proposals is that we should have compulsory membership cards and that nobody should be allowed to go to a football match in this land unless he is a registered member of a football club. The Minister even threatened to extend that to rugby and boxing. If it were extended to boxing, we would not have boxing matches such as that on Saturday at Luton Town football ground. I hope that it was profitable. I do not know——
  Mr. David Evans: Do not believe everything that appears in the press.
  Mr. Howell: I do know that if the Minister with responsibility for sport had his way and if one had to be registered in a membership scheme before attending a boxing match, whatever the attendance at the boxing match at Luton Town football ground on Saturday, it would have been halved.
  Membership schemes are nonsense. They are totally impractical, and I hope that Home Office Ministers realise that. It is impractical to say that people cannot attend football matches without being registered on a membership scheme. What could one do in a place such as Wembley where the cup final is held and where about 100,000 tickets are sold? How can it be right for a son to say to his father who comes to stay with him for Christmas, "I am sorry, Dad. I can't take you to the football match because I haven't registered you as a member of the local club."? If such schemes come about, there will be a tremendous amount of deception, and the effect on football as a whole will be serious.
  The idea is grossly offensive. When the Minister responsible for sport gives us the statistics—that is, unless a Home Office Minister can give them—we should ask how many thousands of matches were played in this country in the past year and at how many of those matches there were serious problems of any sort. The answer would be minuscule in terms of percentages. That being the case, it is quite wrong to impose a membership scheme. The best way forward is that suggested by the hon. Member for Stockport: to identify the culprits, stop them going to football matches and remove their passports.
  Mr. Ashton rose——
  Mr. Howell: I have another point to make, but I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Ashton: I should like to give my right hon. Friend the figures because he is making an excellent case. There were over 4,000 first-class professional games last season and at only eight was there any trouble inside the ground.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The debate is almost widening out into a general debate on football hooliganism. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) will now address himself to the narrower point with which the new clause deals.
  Mr. Howell: This is the Second Reading of the new clause and although I always bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it seems to me that on a Second Reading we can deal not only with what is in the new clause but what is left out of it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I advise the right hon. Gentleman and the House that there is a difference between a Second Reading debate and the Second Reading of a new clause. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will now address himself to the content of the new clause.
  Mr. Howell: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I always do, and am now coming to my last point. However, I am sorry if that is our procedure. If it is, I think that we should change it. It is clear to me that a new clause, which is being added to a Bill, should receive the same Second Reading treatment as is given to the Bill itself. I am sorry that I did not fully appreciate the position.
  I come now to my last point which is germane to this issue. The Home Secretary and the Minister responsible for sport are now threatening English football and saying that they will have to consider whether English teams should be allowed to play again in international competitions abroad. They are doing that because they do not have this new clause, or anything like it to deal with the offenders. You will see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this point is extremely pertinent to the proposal. It is monstrous to suggest that the English football team should be prevented from playing in international matches. That would totally destroy any international respect that we have. It would also destroy the standards of excellence that every sport must have if it is to inspire other people to attain such standards at all levels.
  In advance of the attendance of the Minister with responsibility for sport at the Cabinet meeting on Thursday, I should like to convey to him the thoughts of Opposition Members and, indeed, all involved in football. I suggest that if football is to be treated in that way, the Government should not do it by intimidating the football authorities. They will need to introduce a Bill. It is a monstrous proposal that any sport should be prevented by the Government from competing internationally. It would be monstrous in social terms and outrageous, as it would be an admission by the Government that they are unable to control the disease with which they have been dealing during their 10 years in office, apparently so unsuccessfully. I hope that we hear no more of that nonsense and that we return to the practical issue of identifying and dealing with offenders, taking out court orders to prevent them from going to football matches and removing passports or travel documents from those wanting to go abroad.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Lawrence: We all agree that football hooliganism is a disgrace to us here at home and a shame to Britain when it takes place abroad. I have received more letters and representations about it than I received about capital punishment.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) says that football hooliganism has nothing to do with football. It is a little difficult to accept that statement, as it clearly has a great deal to do with football. Football triggers off that violence. A great deal of violence might well happen elsewhere if there were not football matches, but a great deal of it would not happen but for football matches. It does not advance the matter further, therefore, to say consistently that it has absolutely nothing to do with football.
  Mr. Denis Howell: In that case, how does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that the rampaging Leicester city supporters in Warwick and Leamington last week could be said to have anything to do with football, when we are in the closed season?
  Mr. Lawrence: They were Leicester city supporters. It is difficult to think with what else they could have anything to do, if not a football club.
  We can deal with hooliganism here in Britain by banning drink from football grounds, by reducing the availability of alcohol outside football grounds on football days, by better policing and better control by means of video cameras and crowd separation—all of which we are now doing—and by membership-only admission. The right hon. Gentleman says that that is madness and that it cannot work, but we have living proof of the success of a membership scheme with an outstanding club. Clearly, that can be extended in the future.
  Mr. David Evans: My hon. and learned Friend may be interested to know that, since we had a membership scheme at Luton and crime at the ground disappeared, there has been no increase in crime in Hertfordshire or Bedfordshire on Saturday afternoons.
  Mr. Lawrence: That underlines my point, and shows that there is mileage in that membership scheme. It is of course true that it requires some deprivation of freedom, that it is infuriating, and that it might mean that some of our children cannot go to football matches. Unfortunately, that is the price that must be paid for football matches to which people can go without fear and trepidation.
  We also have the power of the courts in this country to award stiffer sentences for football hooliganism. We can deal with football hooliganism in Britain, but we cannot deal with it abroad. It is a great shame when people go abroad, say that they are the representatives of Britain and then smash their way around the towns and countryside of our friends and the countries with which we want to live in peace, contentment and happiness. That is the disgrace and shame, and we can do nothing about that.
  Most of us would like to see the offenders abroad arrested, imprisoned and the key thrown away, but that is not happening. The Germans do not appear keen to arrest, charge and imprison those offenders. Our shame is therefore heightened by the press publicity that those people court. We have seen the most atrocious, boasting representation of the British flag in all its offensive horror.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) has introduced his proposal in that context. If we could do something to stop the thugs travelling abroad and disgracing Britain by this measure, if it is practicable and enforceable, everyone would agree that it would be a sensible step forward. I appreciate that we can sometimes go to other European countries without a passport: that is a problem. There is no point in taking away someone's passport if he or she does not need it to go to a certain country.
  That is where the agreement with other countries comes in. There is no reason why those countries should not agree to require, if not a passport, a document, to be shown to them. If a person does not have that document or passport, he or she could be refused entry. That is the very measure proposed by my hon. Friend. It is not a deterrent
  254
  measure here, but it is a deterrent measure abroad, because people would not be so freely allowed to travel abroad to cause their mayhem.
  I recognise that that would represent a limitation of that individual's civil liberties. Such liberties are vital and could so easily be lost. We must defend them. However, in this case, we are dealing with people who have been convicted of violent crime and who would thereby forfeit their rights to full civil liberties. We are more entitled to make them forfeit their right to a passport or a travel document when they have been convicted than we are to make them forfeit their right to it while they are on bail and innocent until proved guilty.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath: there is no great principle here. Besides, those people have a choice not to do evil and to preserve their liberties, or to engage in deliberate thuggery and thereby forfeit the rights which they are entitled to enjoy only if they conduct themselves as decent, law-abiding representatives of Britain. I do not think that the civil liberties argument is all that convincing.
  My hon. Friend the Minister may say that we are not yet ready, that the technology is not yet good enough, that there are not sufficient data banks and that we have not yet produced the document that would allow that to be enforced. He may be right, hut that is no reason why we should not give the Secretary of State power, by regulation, to introduce that prohibition as soon as the technology catches up.
  If technology in that area is moving as fast as in every other area, we would probably implement such a power through regulation a great deal sooner than we have implemented other powers, not just in legislation generally, but particularly in Home Office legislation. I would be disappointed if my hon. Friend the Minister were so shy on this occasion as to say that we are not yet ready, and therefore that we should not do it.
  If we add the new clause, or something like it in the other place, to the Bill, the Government will be seen to be taking a step to deal with this sad and humiliating problem. It would certainly delight a number of my electors in Burton, which has a good football team—alas, it has not yet reached league status, although we are hopeful. It would certainly do more than any other measure to check the movement of football hooliganism from Britain abroad, which brings so much shame to this country.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) on giving us the opportunity to discuss ways in which we might deal with football hooliganism. I do not agree with his solution. I consider it to be impracticable. Also, it fails to address the meat or the nub of the problem.
  I was first taken to a football match when I was six years old. I watched the team in the town in which I was brought up, Burnley, beating the team of which the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Evans) is now chairman. That was in 1954. From about the age of eight onwards, I was allowed to go and watch football matches, walking to and from the ground on my own and watching the match on my own. No one had any fears that I might be molested or injured. That was at a time when the team which I followed, Burnley, was far and away the best team in the English league and was winning the first division.

  255
  Much has changed since those days. I took two of my daughters to watch, alas, a fourth division match between Burnley and Wigan Athletic a couple of years ago. Although the crowd was down from the 25,000 of the 1950s to about 2,000 in the 1980s, it was nothing like as pleasant a scene when it came to the behaviour of those in the ground.
  There is no doubt that great thuggery has come to, or at least near, our football grounds. It is thuggery equalled only by the thuggishness of the headline writers of some of the popular newspapers. Those hooligans who travel abroad and cause mayhem in the bars of Dusseldorf and other European cities take comfort whenever they see a headline in The Sun or the Star which extols their thuggishness. The headline writers should realise that, when they use intemperate language and give banner headlines to what has happened, it is in a perverted way encouraging the hooligans to indulge themselves in further hooliganism.
  I do not accept the thesis that football is responsible for football hooliganism. When I used to go as a young boy to Turf Moor to watch Burnley football club, hooligans had already been invented. In those days, though, they were tearing up the seats in the Odeon cinema when "Jailhouse Rock" was being shown, and later "Expresso Bongo". A few years after that, those with the same temperament had given up destroying cinema seats. They had not reached football grounds, but they were buying themselves secondhand Vespas and Lambrettas and fighting on the seafronts in the riots of mods and rockers. Hooliganism is not new. It happens, however, to be the misfortune of the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield and the rest of us who, in our smaller way, support football that hooliganism, for the time being, is attacking our enjoyment of the greatest national sport.
  Nor is hooliganism an especially British problem. We should not beat our breasts and say, "Alas, football hooliganism is a British disease." The Dutch have football hooligans, and seriously so. The Italians have football hooligans. Although there was disgraceful behaviour at the Heysel stadium by British football supporters, Italian supporters were committing crimes there as well. There are football hooligans in France. In the past two or three weeks, we have seen the hooligans of organised, peaceful and thorough Germany provoking British hooligans.
  This hooliganism does not have a great deal to do with football. At any time in society there are those who are bent towards violence, who will find violence wherever it can be obtained. We should be trying to solve the problem of how to deal with hooliganism in general. We should not be beating the football clubs for something for which they are not really to blame.
  If anyone goes to the Liverpool football ground or, as I did earlier in the past season, to a match at Goodison Park, the Everton football ground—I am talking about the larger grounds—he will find the best organisation that can possibly be arranged, and little hooliganism. Even grounds where visiting supporters are permitted to attend can be organised in a way that avoids hooliganism within them. We have already heard statistics that there is little hooliganism actually at football matches.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Boyes: As someone who watches football every week of his life, may I ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that the nasty trend in football is racism? At many football matches, a black player who is a member of the opposing team will be taunted mercilessly throughout the game. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's main thesis that a hooligan is a hooligan, and that we should not use the term "football hooligan". One of the problems, however, is that the National Front, with its vicious Right-wing attitudes, has latched on to many football clubs and stirred up trouble inside the ground and outside with the crowds. There are laws to deal with racists and other such people, and it would help if the police would deal with this problem urgently.
  Mr. Carlile: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will know that many of the finest footballers in Europe—England, France, Holland and many others—are black. Those of us who enjoy football go to watch them rather than many of the home-grown players. It is outrageous that there should be racism at football matches, and it should be dealt with urgently, but that is not quite the problem that I am seeking to address.
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is remarkable that, although the National Front and other Fascist groups have been organising on the football terraces for a long time, we never read any articles in the newspapers to the effect that "Fascist hooligans" have disgraced Britain? For some reason, the Fascists appear to be protected by the newspapers.
  It was only after the Heysel stadium incident, when the Belgian media talked about the British Fascists, and when in Germany these hooligans raised their arms in the Hitler salute, which is illegal in Germany, that mention was made of these activities in our press. After that mention, these matters were quickly covered up. The blame is not attached to the instigators of the violence, who are deliberately spreading it.
  Mr. Carlile rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will not allow himself to be diverted fron the new clause by the interventions which have been made.
  Mr. Carlile: I shall not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely express the hope that everyone in the House is opposed to racism at any sort of sports fixture. I hope also that the police, and the clubs, will take appropriate action.
  I was saying that the problem of hooliganism is not especially British and that it does not affect football alone.
  Mr. Favell: The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that I explained that the clause was directed to anyone who indulges in violence and not only to football hooliganism. It seeks to deal with anyone who besmirches our name abroad. Against that background, will he explain why he opposes the new clause?
  Mr. Carlile: I was trying to get to that, but I was diverted.
  I do not believe that forbidding the people to travel is the right solution. The way to prevent hooliganism is to show hooligans that the courts are both ready and able

  257
  realistically to deal with their hooliganism. It must be shown too that hooliganism can be detected effectively, and I applaud the measures that have been taken within football grounds.
  There is some evidence, unfortunately, that when football hooligans are caught as a result of video detection and taken before the local magistrates court, extremely paltry penalties are imposed upon them. There are still cases of hooligans being fined for offences of personal violence at football grounds. That seems entirely inappropriate when football is a sport which we hope that we can enjoy with our families.
  It is not only the British courts that have to deal with these offences. I urge the Minister to take every possible step to ensure that the courts in other countries with which we have frequent sporting relations, especially other EC countries, prosecute and sentence British hooligans. It should be permissible for the criminal record which a British subject has acquired in a foreign country to be included in his criminal record in the United Kingdom.
  That would mean that, when a British court came to deal with a hooligan, it would be able to take into account the entirety of his character and antecedents, including what has happened abroad. Sometimes, foreign convictions appear on an antecedent form, but there is no means of ensuring that that happens. British courts would be substantially strengthened in sentencing the British hooligans if they could refer expressly to the fact that the hooligans had been previously convicted in some other country, and thus could justify stiffer sentences.
  Forbidding travel will not have any real impact on the problem. There is a world of difference in terms of administrative problems between removing the passports of people on bail—a small numerical group—and dealing with the generality of the issue of passports. I have considerable doubts about whether the proposed system can be made to work so that it cannot be easily avoided by those bent on hooliganism.
  Football is blamed for what has been happening, but in the past weeks at the matches in the European championship in Germany, there was virtually no serious hooliganism within the grounds. There was much hooliganism outside the grounds—in the bars, pubs and clubs—but there was little evidence that the people involved had been to any matches. This reinforces my point that people will be hooligans wherever their hooliganism can be paraded. That is another reason why we should take a European view of the problem and try to ensure that we have as near as possible common standards of prosecution, conviction and sentencing.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) on this imaginative new clause to cure a vile social disease. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said, this problem causes our country great humiliation. Indeed, I think that he said that it was a humiliating problem. The new clause seeks to deal with vandals, hooligans, muggers and one of the lower forms of criminal pestilence which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport would not mind including in his description, the graffiti artist. My hon. Friend hopes to deal with such offences, whether at home or overseas.
  My hon. Friend suggested that the problem can be dealt with by the removal of passports for a period. He wants to do what many of us want to do—to punish people. He
  258
  wants to prevent offences from taking place and, at the same time, where possible, to keep people out of prison. Putting people in prison when that can be avoided is not only expensive but, much worse, extremely barbaric, and it leads people to a criminal career later. If we can prevent that, let us do so.
  It is suggested that we withdraw passports. We want to prevent people from travelling. We live in a modern and enlightened society, and I think I can say that there is no hon. Member more modern and enlightened than me. I suggest that this intention to prevent travel, if allied to a little humiliation, could have very much the effect that my hon. Friend wants. It might even be more effective than his suggestion.
  If we want to stop the wrong people from travelling to a major European fixture, to stop people from going to and disrupting the local derby and to stop people from upsetting and disturbing others and causing violence at a cup match, we should clap them in the stocks for two hours if they have committed offences before. We may take away their passports as well if we like, but if they are in the stocks every Saturday afternoon there is no way they can go to a football match.
  I do not want my remarks to be taken out of context. This is not a barbaric suggestion. We live in a modern and enlightened society and there are ways of devising a form of stocks. At the same time, we can prevent those so sentenced from being subjected to having wet objects hurled at them—[Interruption.] I am a great fan of my hon. Friend the Minister. He is not a wet object.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not be tempted by the Treasury Bench. I am sure that he realises that there is not a word about stocks in the new clause.
  Mr. Marlow: Quite right, Sir. I am always tempted by the Treasury Bench. I welcome the new clause. We must find a civilised way of dealing with the problem.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is perhaps a slight extension of the punishment in the community that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has in mind.
  I have considerable sympathy with the arguments deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell). In common with every hon. Member who has spoken, I recognise that the problems that we saw abroad recently are a cause for grave concern among us all. It is right that we should pay careful attention to any proposal that might be an appropriate response to this problem. For that reason, on 16 June, when replying to a private notice question, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport said that the Government would look carefully at the kind of proposal that is enshrined in the new clause, and we shall certainly do that.
  One theme running through the debate has been the need for those countries where the offences are committed to punish and sentence the offenders to a period of imprisonment there, if that is appropriate. My hon. Friend the Minister of State shares that view. Last week, when. in Lisbon attending a meeting of European Ministers of Justice, he took advantage of the opportunity to say to his colleagues that they had a duty to ensure that people who committed offences under foreign jurisdictions were dealt with under those jurisdictions and, where appropriate,

  259
  imprisoned in those countries. That is an effective response to the problem of hooligans committing hooligan offences overseas.
  Although I have considerable sympathy with the thinking behind the new clause, I could not recommend its incorporation into the Bill. There is a prerogative power to deny a passport, but it is used sparingly, and I think that the House would agree that it should be used sparingly. There is no doubt that the restriction on a person's ability to travel overseas is a curtailment of liberty. The House and the Government have not yet had an opportunity to reach a settled conclusion on this matter. At some stage we shall have to ask ourselves seriously whether this is a diminution of liberty that we favour. The argument is evenly balanced, and neither the Government nor the House has yet reached a final view. We must recognise that we are discussing a grave matter.
  There are two problems associated with the new clause so ably moved by my hon. Friend. First, some practical questions must be asked, because they are not resolved in the drafting of the clause. I say that, not in a spirit of criticism, but simply to draw to the attention of the House the fact that these problems exist. For example, should the period of disqualification be time-limited? Should there be a right for a person disqualified from having a passport to apply to the court on the grounds of compassionate need to go abroad? Should we create an offence of applying for a passport during the period of disqualification? Should we give the court the power to impose a period of disqualification on conviction abroad by a court with foreign jurisdiction? Those practical questions have to be examined and answered, and they are not addressed in the new clause. For those reasons alone, I cannot commend the new clause to the House.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) fully covered the matter of enforcement. At the moment about 2 million British passports are issued each year by about 1,500 post offices. In addition, ferry companies issue a document called a "no passport excursion card". Until we have an effective database, we cannot enforce a disqualification of the kind that we are discussing.
  The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) raised the matter of computerisation. I am glad to be able to tell him that we are soon to start a computerisation programme for the passport department and I hope that it will be completed by the end of 1989. When that happens we will be in a very much better position to enforce the sort of period disqualification that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport may have in mind.
  My hon. Friend's proposition requires serious consideration, but it also raises fundamental questions that we must consider before we can come to a conclusion on the new clause. It raises practical problems which it does not seek to resolve. At the moment there are insuperable problems of enforcement. For all those reasons, I cannot commend the new clause to the House.
  Mr. Favell: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. I urge the Government seriously to consider my suggestion. I accept that it would be a severe curtailment of liberty, but that is precisely what it is intended to be
  260
  —a novel form of punishment that may well suit the crime. I accept that there are difficulties about the drafting. We shall need to think carefully about that.
  I also accept that the Government are not yet ready to implement the proposals in the new clause because of the problems of computerisation. I was glad to hear that the Government expect to have the appropriate data base ready by the end of next year. Perhaps careful thought should be given to whether to introduce legislation of this kind so as to be ready for that data base. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

  SCOPE OF PART I
  Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 2, line 8, after 'procedures', insert—
  `under this Part of this Act'.
  8 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35.
  Mr. John Patten: These are drafting amendments aimed at futher clarifying the scope of part I of the Bill, and I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 33, in page 2, line 15, leave out from 'in' to end of line 16 and insert 'accordance with those procedures'.
  No. 34, in page 2, line 24, at end insert—
  `and relating to the operation of this Part of this Act'.
  No. 35, in page 2, line 27, leave out from 'arrangements' to 'with' in line 28 and insert—
  `relating to the operation of this Part of this Act in Particular cases (in this Part of this Act referred to as "special extradition arrangements") made'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 4

  EXTRADITION REQUEST AND AUTHORITY TO PROCEED
  Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 5, line 44, at end insert—
  `( ) The High Court of Justiciary may, by Act of Adjournal, make rules as to the procedure for service under subsection (2) above in Scotland.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 61, 62 and 63.
  Mr. John Patten: These amendments are essential to permit rules to be made for Scottish courts under Scottish law relating to the procedure for the service of documents and extension of the period between issue of a warrant and actual extradition. I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

  ARREST FOR PURPOSES OF COMMITTAL
  Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 188, in page 6, line 11, leave out
  'a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate or by'
  and insert—

  261

  '(i) the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate or metropolitan stipendiary magistrate designated for the purposes of this Part of this Act by the Lord Chancellor; or

  (ii)'

  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments Nos. 189, 190 and 191.
  Mr. Patten: The purpose of these amendments is to embody in law the present arrangement by which extradition cases in England and Wales are dealt with at Bow street by specialist magistrates. The present references in clauses 5 and 6 to "a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate" goes wider than this. It is right for the House to recognise that Bow street magistrates court will quite rightly remain the centre for extradition committals. I know that all practitioners in extradition, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), will continue to expect extradition cases to be dealt with as at present by the chief metropolitan magistrate, Sir David Hopkin, and his magisterial colleagues and for advice to continue to be given by the learned clerk at Bow street, Mrs. Ferley. For this reason the amendments replace the term "a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate" with references to
  "the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate or metropolitan stipendiary magistrate designated for the purposes of this Part of this Act by the Lord Chancellor".
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

  PROCEEDINGS FOR COMMITTAL
  Amendment made: No. 189, in page 6, line 43, leave out `a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate' and insert
  `the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate or a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate designated as mentioned in section 5(1) (a) above'—[Mr. John Patten.]
  Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 253, in page 7, line 42, leave out from 'court' to `unless' in line 44.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government Amendments Nos. 254, to 259, 275, 260 to 264, 276, 265 to 271 and 277.
  Mr. Patten: These amendments cover quite a lot of paper but they make only technical, albeit essential, changes to the committal and appeals provisions of the Bill. I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 254, in page 7, line 49, at end insert—
  `(8A) if the court commits a person under subsection (8) above, it shall issue a certificate of the offence against the law of the United Kingdom which would be constituted by his conduct.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 7

  STATEMENT OF CASE BY COURT
  Amendments made: No. 255, in page 8, line 17, at end insert—
  `(1A) If the state seeking his surrender immediately informs the court of committal that it intends to make such an application, the court shall make an order providing for his detention, or direction that he shall not be released except on bail.
  (1B) Rules of Court may specify—
  262

  (a) a period within which a state must make
  such an application unless the Court grants a longer period; and

  (b) a period within which the court of committal must comply with such an application.'.

  No. 256, in page 8, line 18, leave out
  `refuses to state a case'
  and insert
  `of committal fails to comply with an application under subsection (1) above within the period specified in Rules of Court'.
  No. 257, in page 8, line 30, at end insert—
  '(4A) An order made by a metropolitan magistrate under subsection (IA) above shall cease to have effect if

  (a) the court dismisses the appeal in respect of the offence or all the offences to which it relates; and

  (b) the state seeking surrender does not immediately

  (i) apply for leave to appeal to the House of Lords; or

  (ii) inform the court that it intends to apply for leave.

  (4B) An order made by the sheriff of Lothian and Borders under subsection (1A) above shall cease to have effect if the court dismisses the appeal in respect of the offence or all the offences to which it relates.'.
  No. 258, in page 8, line 31, leave out subsection (5).
  No. 259, in page 8, line 39, at end insert—
  '(6A) The House of Lords may exercise any powers of the High Court under subsection (3) above and subsection (4) above shall apply to them as it applies to that Court.
  (6B) Subject to subsections (4A) and (4B) above, an order under subsection (IA) above shall have effect so long as the case is pending.
  (6C) For the purposes of this section cases pending (unless proceedings are discontinued) until (disregarding any power of a court to grant leave to take any step out of time) there is no step that the foreign state can take.'.
  No. 275, in page 8, leave out line 40 and insert—
  `(7) In the application to Scotland of this section, subsections (6) and (6A) shall be omitted and, in'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 9

  ORDER FOR RETURN TO REQUESTING STATE
  Amendments made; No. 61, in page 10, line 14, after `as', insert—
  `(a) in England and Wales,'.
  No. 62, in page 10, line 15, after '1981', insert
  `or
  (b) in Scotland, the High Court of Justiciary by Act of Adjournal'.—[Mr. John Patten.]
  Mr. Worthington: I beg to move amendment No. 203, in page 11, line 1, leave out `may decide not to' and insert `shall not'.
  The intention of the amendment is to withdraw from the Home Secretary the discretion whether someone should be extradited to a country where the death penalty is still in force. We seek to say that, instead of the Home Secretary having a discretion to decide not to extradite to a country where the death penalty is still in force, he shall not extradite to such a country.
  Since dealing with this issue in Committee we have had a further debate on capital punishment in the House. The views of the House on capital punishment have become even firmer and go further along the line of saying that there will not be capital punishment in Britain again. That is a statement of morality, and it seems that that theme has evoked a Pavlovian response from Conservative Members, with which we have become familiar. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady has a contribution to make, I hope that she will stand up and make it.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I point out that whenever a survey is done, the British people show that they infinitely prefer the restoration of capital punishment for their own safety. The death penalty is never abolished. One takes it out of the calm consideration of the courthouse and puts it in the hands of the police, who must go armed because criminals go armed. No criminal went armed 20 years ago. Today, arms are a standard item of criminal equipment.
  Mr. Worthington: I shall not be enticed into restaging the capital punishment debate. I seek to reflect the firm view of the House that there should not be capital punishment in this country. The arguments that have convinced the House should also apply in considering whether it is appropriate to extradite somebody to a country where capital punishment is practised. The House has decided that there is a uniqueness and repulsiveness about the death penalty and that we do not wish to see it in a civilised country.
  We recognise that mistakes can be made, even in a country with good standards of justice. It is even more perilous to extradite people to countries which do not have the same standards of justice. We must not take a Pontius Pilate attitude to that and say that it is not for us to decide whether someone should receive the death penalty in another country. We have to take the stance that it is not acceptable for a citizen of our country to be extradited to another that maintains the death penalty.
  Article 11 of the European convention on extradition is quite interesting in this respect. It states:
  "If the offence for which extradition is requested is punishable by death … and if in respect of such offence the death penalty is not provided for by the law of the requested Party … extradition may be refused unless the requesting Party gives such assurance as the requested Party considers sufficient that the death penalty will not be carried out."
  Certainly, it is within our power to make that statement, and countries such as Austria assert that they will not extradite to countries where the death penalty is carried out, so there is no difficulty about that.
  When extradition has been debated in Committee and in the other place, the issue that has constantly come up has been the problem of the United States of America. Justice in the United States is carried out by the state authorities, whereas decisions about extradition are made by sovereign bodies—the Government of the United Kingdom and the Federal Government of the United States. That is the difficulty about the arrangement. Those hon. Members who were on the Committee had hoped that by this stage the Minister would have tabled a Government amendment to confirm that those difficulties —if they are real difficulties—no longer exist.
  I should like to quote the view on that issue of Professor Henkin of Columbia university in the city of New York. He makes it clear that there is no real problem. He states that article 4 of the extradition treaty of 1972 between the United States and the United Kingdom provides:
  "If the offence for which extradition is requested is punishable by death under the relevant law of the requesting Party, but the relevant law of the requested Party does not provide for the death penalty in a similar case, extradition may be refused unless the requesting Party gives assurances satisfactory to the requested Party that the death penalty will not be carried out."
  Professor Henkin believes that a treaty of the United States is the supreme law of the land and is binding on the states. If a death penalty were imposed on the extradited
  264
  person by a state court and not commuted by the governor of the state, the execution would be enjoined by the Federal Government on the ground that the execution would violate a treaty of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land. That is the view of Professor Henkin. It seems that the problems concerning the federal nature of the United States could be overcome. I hope that the Minister will indicate that he will accept our amendment in view of the problems which have been raised at various stages.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, although I do not share his view on capital punishment.
  Will he explain the dilemma that might occur if the amendment were passed? It could result in fugitives from justice from other states—who had committed a murder, for example—going scot-free in this country if they were not sent back to the country that had jurisdiction for them.
  Mr. Worthington: I am sure that a form of words could be arrived at, such as an undertaking by that state that the death penalty would not be carried out on that citizen. We are not making it a condition that all countries should adapt their law so that it is identical to ours. We are saying simply that no citizen should be extradited to a country where he is in danger of losing his life through judicial execution. Until now, the Government have not been willing to accept that condition, although they have much sympathy for our position. It is beyond our comprehension why the Government cannot come forward and state that the gist of what we are saying can be dealt with either through the European convention on extradition or by arriving at suitable treaty arrangements with particular states. We do not think that it is a difficult issue and we hope that the Government will confirm how easy it is.
  Mr. John Patten: There is an awkwardness to the issue because of the federal nature of the United States. I have listened carefully to the views of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). I was also interested to learn of the views of Professor Henkin from Columbia university in New York, in his legal opinion, which I have not seen before.
  In the United States murder is a state offence, not a federal offence, and is punishable in some states by death, but not in other states. That is the dilemma with different punishments in different states. The United States has a federal system and there can be collisions between the federal Government and state Governments. It has been possible for the United States to undertake that if a fugitive should be convicted representations will be made in the name of the United Kingdom, to the judge at the time of sentencing, that it is the wish of the United Kingdom that the death penalty should not be imposed or carried out.
  I must tell the House that in all cases under our existing treaty with the United States, when people have been accused of an offence that attracts the death penalty and have been extradited to the United States, the wishes of the United Kingdom have been respected. There have been four occasions when that procedure has been followed.
  Mr. Peter Archer: I apologise for the fact that I was not here when my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) moved the amendment.
  What is the problem about a federation? A federal Government and a state Government are perfectly capable of speaking to each other. There is no difficulty about a state Government authorising a federal Government to give an undertaking.
  Mr. Patten: I shall come to that point. I am extremely glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is here. We have missed him thus far.
  The present practice has always had the desired outcome, and we welcome that. However, I understand the views and concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. We have discussed with the United States Government—the discussions have been going on until recently—what more could be done on a bilateral basis within the framework of the existing treaties.
  The United States Government have confirmed that when extradition is sought for a capital offence against the laws of one state, only the state authority can decide whether assurances about the death penalty can be given. I hope that that answers the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer).
  I cannot debate that point because I am not learned in the laws of the United States, but that is what we are informed. I know that it runs counter to the opinion of Professor Henkin of Columbia university, to whom the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie referred. Through the usual channels, I am advised by the Justice Department that, under United States federal law, the federal Government have no power to require any state to give an assurance or itself to give a binding assurance on behalf of the state without that state's consent. That answers the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question.
  Mr. Archer: At the risk of being tiresome, that is the very point that I was making. It is in no way counter to what Professor Henkin said. It is exactly what he said. That being so, what is the problem? If a state can give authority to the federal Government to give such an undertaking, what is the difficulty?
  Mr. Patten: An individual governor of an individual state, for reasons of the independence of that state, sitting in the governor's mansion, whatever state it is, may choose to say, "No. We reserve unto ourselves this state power that it is in our hands—within our state Government's competence—to preserve." That is the reality of the situation. It may not look logical from this side of the Atlantic, but that is the nature of the federal relationship in the United States.
  I should like the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to consider the fact that the United States Government have assured us that if a state gives an assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or carried out, the federal Government can and will give the United Kingdom a formal and binding undertaking to that effect. This is the first time that we have had such an undertaking from the United States Government. It is an advance. That does not cover all the points raised by the hon. Member for
  266
  Clydebank and Milngavie, but, if such assurances are not given, we could not say that extradition could never be justified in such circumstances.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) put his finger on the point when he intervened during the speech of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. He said that, in certain circumstances—they would be rare; probably as rare as the number of extraditions that we have thus far had to the United States—an otherwise convicted criminal could go free in this country. I do not believe that the people of the United Kingdom would wish that to be the case. The public would find it difficult to understand if a dangerous offender were given refuge here.
  I hope that, with the Bill, we are putting in place legislation that will survive the test of time. I hope also that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West and the hon. Members for Clydebank and Milngavie and For Dewsbury will accept that, throughout, we have used our best endeavours with the United States Government to reach a satisfactory accommodation. We have produced one step forward. I am not attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie—I would not dare to try to do such a thing. It does not cover all his points, but we have made a substantial advance. Thus far, the treaty has worked extremely well. I cannot commend amendment No. 203 to my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Archer: I shall have one more go at the Minister on this matter—not in respect of his merits, but of his logic. All through the debates here and in another place it has been suggested that the problem lies in the federal nature of the United States constitution. It does no such thing. It is true that individual states must decide whether they have the death penalty and whether they can give an undertaking, but that has nothing to do with the federal nature of the United States constitution. As the Minister properly said, the federal Government can give any undertaking that lies within the power of a state Government, if that state Government authorises them to give that undertaking. If the state Government do not wish to authorise it, that is a different matter. That is precisely the same as if we were dealing with—[Interruption]. Perhaps the Minister could be allowed to concentrate. I know that he is trying to concentrate on the debate.
  It is exactly the same as if we were dealing with any other Government, federal or otherwise. If the French Government, the West German Government, or any other Government hon. Members care to name decide to execute some people for whom extradition were requested and they would not give an undertaking not do so so, we would be in exactly the same position. If we were to make an exception for the United States, that exception could not be based on the federal nature of the United States constitution.
  Surely, we either have a general rule that we do not extradite to any state where someone is liable to the death penalty, or we extradite to any state. To argue that, somehow or other, the federal constitution of the United States has something to do with it is simply to cast a smokescreen. If we were dealing with a state of the American union that was not prepared to give that undertaking, I should wish to deal with the matter as if we were dealing with any country that was not prepared to give such an undertaking. That is the way in which we have

  267
  traditionally dealt with the matter, and it is the way in which this country has earned its reputation as a haven for people who are in danger of suffering the death penalty. We simply say, "If we do not get the undertaking, we do not carry out the extradition."
  Mr. Worthington: Opposition Members are not happy about the matter. We are still puzzled about why the Government cannot go the extra yard. We are simply asking for the Bill to be changed from "may" to "shall not". We do not see a problem about people going free. I am certain that if there is no problem about extradition in such cases——
  Mr. Patten: There has not been a problem.
  Mr. Worthington: The Minister says, "There has not been a problem." Then the receiving state—the country that wants to deal with an alleged offender—will soon give the undertaking that we seek.
  Professor Henkin's view, which was not lightly given to Amnesty International, was that of an authority on United States constitutional law. He seems to be quite clearly of the view that there is no problem. According to our present treaty with the United States, extradition may be refused unless the requesting party gives satisfactory assurances to the requested party that the death penalty will not be carried out. That is a safeguard. Again, according to Professor Henkin, a treaty between this country and the United States is the supreme law, and a state cannot go against that law, or the federal agency would have to take account of it.
  With considerable regret, and because we want to make progress on the Bill, but regard it as an important statement of this country's stance on execution policy, Opposition Members must divide the House. We regret that the Government did not deal with the matter more satisfactorily.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made.
  The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 256.

  Division No. 387]

  [8.28 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Allen, Graham

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Cryer, Bob

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ashton, Joe

  Dalyell, Tam

  Beckett, Margaret

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Bell, Stuart

  Dixon, Don

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

  Doran, Frank

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Douglas, Dick

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Blunkett, David

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Boateng, Paul

  Eastham, Ken

  Boyes, Roland

  Fatchett, Derek

  Bradley, Keith

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

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Flannery, Martin

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Foster, Derek

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Foulkes, George

  Buchan, Norman

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caborn, Richard

  Galloway, George

  Callaghan, Jim

  George, Bruce

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Graham, Thomas

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  268

  Grocott, Bruce

  Nellist, Dave

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Henderson, Doug

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Pike, Peter L.

  Hood, Jimmy

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Randall, Stuart

  Howells, Geraint

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Richardson, Jo

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Rogers, Allan

  John, Brynmor

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Short, Clare

  Leighton, Ron

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

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

  Loyden, Eddie

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

  McAllion, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McFall, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McKelvey, William

  Turner, Dennis

  McLeish, Henry

  Vaz, Keith

  McTaggart, Bob

  Wall, Pat

  McWilliam, John

  Wallace, James

  Madden, Max

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Meale, Alan

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Michael, Alun

  Wilson, Brian

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Winnick, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Worthington, Tony

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wray, Jimmy

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Morley, Elliott

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mullin, Chris

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Murphy, Paul

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Carttiss, Michael

  Allason, Rupert

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

  Amess, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Conway, Derek

  Ashby, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Couchman, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Cran, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Critchley, Julian

  Beggs, Roy

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bendall, Vivian

  Curry, David

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Day, Stephen

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Devlin, Tim

  Boswell, Tim

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Dover, Den

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bowis, John

  Durant, Tony

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Dykes, Hugh

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Evennett, David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fallon, Michael

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

  Favell, Tony

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Forth, Eric

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Franks, Cecil

  Burns, Simon

  Freeman, Roger

  Burt, Alistair

  French, Douglas

  Butcher, John

  Gardiner, George

  Butler, Chris

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Butterfill, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  269

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gow, Ian

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mills, Iain

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Moate, Roger

  Grist, Ian

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Ground, Patrick

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Grylls, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hannam, John

  Nelson, Anthony

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

  Neubert, Michael

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Harris, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hayward, Robert

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Page, Richard

  Heddle, John

  Paice, James

  Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Pawsey, James

  Holt, Richard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Price, Sir David

  Irvine, Michael

  Raffan, Keith

  Irving, Charles

  Redwood, John

  Jack, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Janman, Tim

  Riddick, Graham

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rowe, Andrew

  Key, Robert

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Kilfedder, James

  Ryder, Richard

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knapman, Roger

  Scott, Nicholas

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knowles, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Knox, David

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Colin (Heretord)

  Lang, Ian

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shersby, Michael

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Sims, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lightbown, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lilley. Peter

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Speller, Tony

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Squire, Robin

  McCrindle, Robert

  Stanley, Rt Hon John

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Steen, Anthony

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stern, Michael

  Maclean, David

  Stevens, Lewis

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Stokes, Sir John

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Madel, David

  Sumberg, David

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Summerson, Hugo

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Maples, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Marland, Paul

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Marlow, Tony

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Thorne, Neil

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Thurnham, Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  270

  Tracey, Richard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Walden, George

  Wilkinson, John

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Wilshire, David

  Waller, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Wood, Timothy

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Woodcock, Mike

  Warren, Kenneth

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Watts, John

  Wheeler, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whitney, Ray

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mr. Alan Howarth.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 18

  PERSONS SERVING SENTENCES OUTSIDE COUNTRY OF CONVICTION
  Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 14, line 23, after 'State' insert
  'in the case of which the Extradition Act 1870 applies or as between which and the United Kingdom extradition procedures under this Part of this Act are available'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 37 to 39.
  Mr. Patten: These drafting amendments are designed to ensure that repatriation cases are dealt with on the basis of the relevant treaty with the requesting state. The Bill failed to make that clear, but the amendments put it right and I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 37, in page 15, line 21, at end insert
  'as they apply in the case of that state'.
  No. 38, in page 15, line 21, at end insert—
  '(aa) if it is made by some person recognised as a diplomatic representative of a foreign state as between whom and the United Kingdom extradition procedures under this Part of this Act are available, the following provisions of this Act, as they apply in the case of that state—

  (i) section 1(1) to (8); and

  (ii) sections 2 to 17; and'.

  No. 39, in page 15, line 24, leave out from '1967' to end of line 25 and insert
  `as it applies in the case of that country or dependency'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 20
  APPLICATION TO COLONIES AND OTHER DEPENDENCIES
  Amendment made: No. 40, in page 15, line 34, leave out clause 20.—[Mr. John Patten.]
Clause 21

  SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM
  Amendment made: No. 12, in page 16, line 6, at end insert—
  `(2A) The following shall be inserted after paragraph 9—
  "9A. The offence of torture under section [Torture] of the Criminal Justice Act 1988."'.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 22

  FIRST-HAND HEARSAY
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 246, in page 16, line 38, leave out from beginning to 'or' in line 41.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 247.
  Mr. Hogg: The amendments are our response to the point made in Committee by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). He said—we agree—that lack of recollection is not a good ground for admitting evidence in historic documents of a private kind, but it is a good ground for admitting in evidence historic documents of a business kind. The amendments will achieve that aim.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23

  BUSINESS ETC. DOCUMENTS
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 17, line 34, leave out 'under section 28' and insert—'in accordance with section 28 below or an order under paragraph 6 of Schedule 13 to this Act or under section'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 72.
  Mr. Hogg: These are drafting and technical amendments consequential upon decisions made in Committee.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 247, in page 17, line 41, at end insert
  `or
  (iii) the person who made the statement cannot reasonably be expected (having regard to the time which has elapsed since he made the statement and to all the circumstances) to have any recollection of the matters dealt with in the statemene.—[Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 25

  STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS THAT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN PREPARED FOR PURPOSES OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OR INVESTIGATIONS
  Amendment made: No. 72, in page 18, line 28, leave out
  `under section 28' and insert
  `in accordance with section 28 below or an order under paragraph 6 of Schedule 13 to this Act or under section'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 30

  FORM OF EVIDENCE AND GLOSSARIES
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 248, in page 20, line 34, at end insert
  `in any case where the court gives leave for, or requires, evidence or a glossary to be so furnished'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 251.
  Mr. Hogg: The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that evidence can be admitted only with the leave of the judge. We believe that it is desirable that that provision should appear on the face of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31

  EVIDENCE THROUGH CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION LINKS
  Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 249, in page 20, line 36, leave out 'closed circuit'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 281, in page 20, line 36, after 'indictment'. insert
  ',any proceedings in a magistrates' court'.
  No. 213, in page 20, line 40, leave out '14' and insert `16'.
  No. 280, in page 22, line 30, leave out '14' and insert `16'.
  Government amendments Nos. 250 and 252.
  Mr. Patten: Amendment No. 249 and the related amendments make small but important technical changes to the clause and the schedule permitting television links to be used in some proceedings in crown courts and service orders.
  The Government amendments have been grouped with amendment No. 281, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and amendments Nos. 213 and 280, tabled by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon). Those amendments raise different aspects, and it may be convenient for me to comment upon them, with the leave of the House, at a later stage in the debate, after I have heard the arguments of those hon Members.
  I wish to do an unusual thing and pay public tribute to a Whip, in this case the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). The hon Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) did the House a considerable service by helpfully pointing out in Committee that the phrase, "closed television link" may not be entirely suitable for the sort of equipment that the courts may wish to use in the circumstances.
  Amendment No. 249 substitutes a simpler phrase, "live television link" and I believe that that conveys the right idea of a link between sound and moving pictures, which can be transmitted by cable or satellite from the next room or from overseas. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North and especially grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme for their contributions.
  Amendments Nos. 250 and 252 also follow up a point that emerged in Committee—this time with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler). My hon. Friend pointed out that subsection (5), as drafted, appeared to undermine the purpose of the clause in that it allowed court rules to be drawn up enabling the child to see all the participants in the trial. That would, of course, include the defendant, and I do not believe that any of us in this House would want that. We want to put that right; therefore, amendment No. 250 deletes subsection (5), and amendment No. 252 does the same to the schedule providing for the link in service courts.

  273
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South for drawing this matter to our attention. I look forward to hearing the arguments of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar and my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst on the other amendments.
  8.45 pm
  Ms. Gordon: Amendment No. 213 seeks to change from 14 to 16 the age under which a witness is permitted to give evidence through a television link. I do not wish to say much, because most of my remarks will be addressed to amendment No. 216, which comes later.
  The age of 14 as the age when childhood is considered to have ended harks back to 50 years ago, when children left school at the age of 14 and began to undertake paid work—at least among the poorer classes—and they matured earlier. The school-leaving age is now 16, as is the age of consent. What is more important is that the years 14 to 16 years are years of puberty, when young people are especially sensitive. I believe that it is particularly important for children up to the age of 16 to have the same right as a younger child to give their evidence through a television link, instead of having to face their attacker in court.
  Mr. Roger Sims: As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, clause 31 makes provision for a televison link to be used for witnesses under the age of 14 to enable them to give evidence in court. That is a most welcome provision, and I do not believe that I need elaborate the case for it.
  The clause as presently drafted reads:
  "A person other than the accused may give evidence through a live closed circuit television link on a trial on indictment or an appeal to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal"
  It therefore follows that proceedings in magistrates courts are excluded from that provision. I accept that most of the cases of the types specified in the clause are dealt with at the Crown court, but there are three considerations that I wish to put to the House.
  First, cases such as indecent assault can be tried by the magistrates court and a case of indecent exposure can only be tried at a magistrates court. In both instances, a child under the age of 14 may be involved, yet he or she would not have the advantage of the video link provided for in the clause.
  Secondly, all committal proceedings take place in the magistrates court. That may well involve a child giving evidence, but the child will be unable to use a video link as the clause presently stands. The child may well have to attend the court, a procedure that the child is likely to find unnerving, indeed intimidating, especially if he or she must face the person accused of the offence against them. I accept that the child's evidence may be given by deposition in committal proceedings, but that only applies if the defence agrees. There are still some cases in which the child must appear to give evidence in committal proceedings.
  The third argument in favour of extending the video-link provision to magistrates courts would be for its use in care proceedings. These must take place in magistrates courts, and in such cases a child may have to give evidence that may concern allegations against, for instance, the father. The difficulties that could be created by father and child appearing in the same court are
  274
  obvious. Again, the closed-circuit television would be invaluable, but its use would be precluded as the clause stands.
  I accept that the number of cases under all three headings that I have given is relatively small. I accept, too, that my hon. Friend the Minister may argue that the cost of providing a video link would be disproportionate; but, if anything, that is perhaps an argument for providing a link for the exceptional cases.
  My amendment is permissive. It does not state that all magistrates courts must be equipped with a video link. It would surely be sufficient for a few magistrates courts to be thus provided, so that appropriate cases could be transferred to the nearest magistrates court that had a closed-circuit television system. The inconvenience of travelling to such a court would be more than compensated for by the advantage of the link.
  As the Bill stands, a television link can be used for any proceedings in a Crown court, but it can never be used in a magistrates court. I invite my hon. Friend to remove that anomaly by accepting my amendment.
  Mr. John Patten: I shall deal first with the points raised by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon). Such relevant statutory precedents as there are tend to support 14 as the cut-off age in this context. The most important of those is the long-established dividing line which is well known to those involved in child care, and which is defined in the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 as being the line between a child and a young person. Most of us are conversant with the provisions of that Act, and I see no reason for the moment to move away from that definition. However, I understand that the hon. Lady is saving some of her arguments for a debate that may take place on amendment No. 216, so perhaps we can return to these issues later. I am not moved by the amendment.
  I turn now to amendment No. 281, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who is an acknowledged expert in this subject. The amendment would permit the use of a live television link, in child abuse cases and in cases in which a witness was overseas, in any proceedings in magistrates courts. The Bill, as my hon. Friend pointed out, provides for these facilities to be available only in Crown court trials, and nowhere else. We made the proposal about the Crown courts—it has been widely welcomed on both sides of the House—because there was a recognised problem. A number of documented cases, many of them brought to the attention of Ministers and others much written about in the national press and shown on national television, showed that there was a problem in the Crown courts that had to be solved, so it was incumbent upon us all to find a way of doing that.
  Is the problem really so great in magistrates courts? Does it exist at all? That is open to debate. The atmosphere, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chiselhurst will know all too well, is much less formal in a magistrates court than the rather frightening atmosphere of a Crown court—frightening not only for children but for adults. There are fewer people in the court, most of them wearing ordinary clothes. That is particularly true of the informal atmosphere of a juvenile court, in which magistrates who are specially selected and trained for work with juveniles are encouraged to hold criminal and care proceedings in as informal a way as possible. There is broad consent that that is the best way to proceed.

  275
  Secondly, the courtrooms are usually less daunting in appearance, although some magistrates courts can be rather awesome. I hold one of my regular advice centres in the back of Abingdon court house. That seems to induce a sense of awe in some of my constituents, which I find rather agreeable. I do not get it in other parts of my constituency.
  As far as we in the Home Office are aware, there has been no suggestion thus far—with detailed examples of cases—that children are experiencing the same problems when giving evidence in magistrates courts as they have undoubtedly suffered in Crown court trials. It is very much to the credit of the magistrates that that is so. This is not a bad dictum for a Minister to have written on his wall: "No problem, therefore take no action." I try to cleave to that from time to time.
  I know that the Magistrates Association is interested in the potential for using television links in magistrates courts. We have corresponded with the association. Its chairman, John Hosking, and others have taken a considerable interest in the subject. I have reflected carefully on the matter because of that interest and I have thought particularly about the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Chiselhurst. I am conscious that this is the second time on Report when it looks as though I shall have to disoblige my hon. Friend when he is concerned only with an enabling power. I am very sorry that that is so. I know that this will be a disappointment to him, but I hope that, on the basis of what I have said and of the fact that there have been no well documented examples of children suffering difficulties, he will be inclined not to press his amendment. We shall continue to monitor the position carefully in the Home Office.
  Mr. Sims: May I have my hon. Friend's assurance that, if experience in the Crown courts with the use of the link, and in the magistrates courts without it, suggests over a period of years that there would be an advantage in extending the provision to magistrates courts, the Home Office will be prepared to consider such an extension?
  Mr. John Patten: Yes, I must give that undertaking to my hon. Friend and to all Opposition Members who take an interest in these matters. Obviously, it would be of grave concern to the Home Office if things appeared to have been exacerbated by practice in the Crown courts and that there had been some effect on the magistrates courts. I am happy to give my hon. Friend the undertaking he seeks.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 250, in page 21, line 19, leave out subsection (5).— [Mr. John Patten.]

Clause 32

  EVIDENCE OF PERSONS UNDER I4 IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS
  Ms. Gordon: I beg to move amendment No. 216, in page 22, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (a).
  Clause 32 deals with assaults, sexual offences and offences against children. It relates to proceedings in the magistrates courts and the evidence of children in committal proceedings. It provides that any statement made by or taken from a child should be admissible in
  276
  testimony of any matter on which the child's oral evidence would be admissible. However, subsection (3)(a), which my amendment seeks to delete, would allow the defence to object to such an admission, in which case the child would have to come to court.
  Last week, the Home Secretary said that he would set up a committee to consider using video links to give evidence. That is to be welcomed, and I hope that the remit of the committee will be extended to look into other forms of giving evidence. We all want to make it easier for children who have been attacked to come forward and give evidence against their attackers. The scope of the problem is only beginning to be realised. The first reactions of horror, followed in many cases by denial and by a feeling of impotence—not knowing how to deal with the problem on such a massive scale—is fairly new and something with which we must come to terms.
  We all want to stop adults who repeatedly attack one child or many children but who are free to continue because no child can be found who could face a court appearance. Equally, we want a fair trial for defendants. But that does not mean that children and young people should be put through the trauma of facing their attackers. To a person who has never been in one, any court can be intimidating. That is even more true in the case of children.
  9 pm
  A child has no status in society. A child's word is often given far less weight than the word of the defendant, who may be a man of substance. The child or young person knows that and feels that he or she will not be believed —for very good reason. A defence lawyer who is doing his job on behalf of his client must try to discredit the child if that child is in court. Those are all good reasons why we should not allow the defence to force a child to come to court. Often when children come into court they whisper and cannot get the words out. For every child who whispers in a court there are dozens who never come forward. We must try to make it easier for children and young people under the age of 16 to come forward.
  In the north of England there is an organisation called Childwatch run by a woman who was herself assaulted as a child. She receives about 500 calls a week, and she says that she knows rapists who have attacked child after child. The police often know the identity of a man who has made repeated attacks, but because they cannot find a child who will stand up in court, or whose parents will allow their child to come to court, the police are powerless.
  Even when cases come to court, all is not plain sailing. Magistrates have been known to let out on bail rapists who have repeated their attacks. Judges have been known to talk of children's naughty habits. In 1982, a 17-year-old hitch-hiker—a very tender age, even if it is above the age of childhood—was told by a judge that she was guilty of contributory negligence, and the rapist, who was a business man, was not gaoled but fined £2,000.
  In my local paper this week there is a report of a girl aged eight who was terrorised into silence by a child molester who threatened to kill her mother and sister. But after months of being subjected to sex attacks, the youngster plucked up the courage to tell. If children know that they will not have to face their attacker across a court room, more will have the courage to come forward and abuse will be prevented.
  Mothers often face a dilemma. Their natural feeling is that their child's well-being comes first and that the child

  277
  has been through enough already, but that leads to offenders remaining on the loose and repeat offences are high. Only a tiny percentage of offenders are apprehended, let alone brought to court.
  An independent survey was carried out by Women Against Rape in 1985, to which 1,236 women responded, with 62 per cent. of 2,000 questionnaires being returned. The women were asked about their childhood. One in five had been raped or had suffered some sexual assault as a child or teenager. Some had told an adult, only to be told that they were imagining things or that they should not talk dirty. Less than one third of those who had been raped or sexually assaulted before they had reached the age of 11 had told anybody about it at the time of the attack. Some had never told anybody before replying to the survey.
  To appreciate the difficulties that children face when going to court, we must consider who the defendants are likely to be. Many people assume that the defendant will be a stranger, but three quarters of rapists are known to their victims.
  The Women Against Rape survey showed that one in five of all children or teenagers had been raped or sexually assaulted, and that one out of five of them—one in 25 of all children—had been assaulted by a member of their own family. To make the position more graphic, we should think of a typical classroom in which six of the children have been or soon will be assaulted and, in some cases, have been repeatedly assaulted over a period of years. This often happens as a result of the abuse of power by an adult who has control over a child or young person.
  Mr. John Patten: The hon. Lady's speech is extremely interesting, but I am finding it hard to relate her remarks to committal proceedings, with which amendment No. 216 is concerned.
  Ms. Gordon: I am speaking about a child having to go to court. During the committal proceedings the defence can demand that a child comes into court. The purpose of my argument, which I thought was clear, was to show that if a child knows that he will have to go to court he will be afraid to speak up, or the parent will not allow the child to go to court. Thus, attackers go unpunished and are free to continue attacks. That is the purpose of my argument, and I should like to continue it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am bound to say that I share the Minister's confusion. Perhaps the hon. Lady has misdirected her amendment or perhaps she does not appreciate that the argument that she is addressing does not clearly relate to the matter before the House.
  Ms. Gordon: I thought that it did. I did not think that it was out of order to argue against children having to go to court but in favour of them being able to give evidence in other ways. I am seeking to delete a provision that says that the defence can demand that a child comes to court, which would lead to the child being face to face with the defendant.
  The defendant is often a person who is known to or has control over the child, such as the head of a children's home or a stepfather. We should imagine the fear of a 15-year-old facing a stepfather in court, who is often aware that the family is financially dependent on him or is afraid of him.
  In other European countries evidence can be taken without a child coming into court. In some states in the
  278
  United States video recordings are used, as has been suggested here. In West Germany, judges usually question children alone in a private room. In Belgium, the judge questions children with two lawyers present, one for the prosecution and one for the defence. In Holland, children are questioned by a woman police officer on a written statement to the judge.
  I hope that the committee that is to be set up will consider all those examples for magistrates and Crown courts here, and that the statements of several children can be taken together where the written evidence of one child is not enough to commit a defendant for trial if he has attacked several children. I hope that evidence can be taken in that way.
  The state has an absolute responsibility to make it possible for children to speak out at all stages of proceedings but without wrongfully convicting anybody. The younger the child, the harder it is to say anything. The only way that we can reduce the terrible suffering of children who have to withstand sexual assaults is by investigating and introducing ways of making it possible for them to speak out without having to face their attackers.
  Mr. John Patten: I have listened with care to the points made by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon)—both her general points, which, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not address, and the specific point about committal. Removing the right of the defence to object to the use of an earlier statement would, as a matter of principle, be a major step.
  I can appreciate the hon. Lady's concern. The future of committal proceedings, including the place of oral evidence at the committal stage, is in the melting pot. The Home Office hopes shortly to publish a consultation document inviting public and professional comments on the possible shape of reform for committal proceedings overall.
  I do not find the argument of principle overwhelming, but it would be a mistake to make a significant procedural change affecting committal proceedings, which is what the hon. Lady is suggesting in amendment No. 216, with all the implications for the defence, before we are clear about the future of committal proceedings.
  I hope that the hon. Lady will take some encouragement from what I have said tonight. We shall not lose sight of the clear points that she has made about committal. I am grateful to her for raising them in the spirit in which she has, but I cannot advise the House to accept amendment No. 216 in advance of the much wider review of committal proceedings which many recognise is much needed.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 34

  SCOPE OF PART IV
  Amendments made: No. 73, in page 22, line 47, leave out 'section' and insert 'Part of this Act'.
  No. 76, in page 22, line 48, at end insert—
  '(1A) Subject to Rules of Court, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal under section 35 below shall be exercised by the criminal division of the Court, and references to the Court of Appeal in this part of this Act shall be construed as references to that division.'
  No. 74, in page 23, line 1, leave out 'section' and insert 'part of this Act'.
  No. 75, in page 23, line 7, leave out 'section' and insert 'Part of this Act'.
  No. 77, in page 23, line 18, leave out '(7)' and insert '(6A)'.
  No. 78, in page 23, line 18, at end insert—
  '(6A) Subsection (1A) shall be omitted.'— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 40

    POWER OF CROWN COURT TO DEAL WITH SUMMARY OFFENCE WHERE PERSON COMMITTED FOR EITHER WAY OFFENCE
    Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 27, line 15, at end insert
    'except as provided by subsection (8A) below.
    (8A) If the prosecution inform the court that they would not desire to submit evidence on the charge relating to the summary offence, the Court shall dimiss it.'.
    This is a technical amendment. Clause 48(8) provides that where a person committed to the Crown court under the new procedure pleads not guilty to the summary offence, the powers of the Crown court shall cease in respect of that offence. On reflection, I think that the words go further than we intended in one respect in that they appear to preclude the Crown court from hearing a prosecution submission of no evidence on the summary offence. If the prosecution does not wish to offer evidence, it is clearly desirable that the matter should be disposed of there and then. Amendment No. 86 ensures that the Crown court can do so.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 43

    FIREARMS OFFENCES
    Amendment made: No. 87, in page 28, line 32, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
    '(2) For the third and fourth columns of the entries relating to an offence under section 2(1) (possessing, etc. shotgun without shotgun certificate) there shall be substituted—

    "(a) Summary

    6 months or the statutory maximum or both.

    (b) On indictment

    3 years or a fine; or both.".'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 50

    STATUTORY MAXIMUM AS PENALTY ON SUMMARY CONVICTION FOR OFFENCES TRIABLE EITHER WAY UNDER SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION
    Amendment made: No. 88, in page 31, line 39, leave out 'Part of this Act' and insert
    'section and sections 51, 52, 54, 56 and 58 below'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 55
    FINES UNDER SECONDARY SUBORDINATE INSTRUMENTS: SCOTLAND
    Amendment made: No. 56, in page 34, line 30, after '1', insert 'on the standard scale'.— [Mr. John Patten.]
  Clause 68

    FORFEITURE-GENERAL
    9.15 pm
    Mr. Alex Carlile: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 42, line 40, at end insert
    'and without regard to any restrictions of forfeiture in an enactment contained in an Act passed before the Criminal Justice Act 1988'.
    I apologise for the fact that I shall be moving this amendment at not very considerable length. I thank the Minister of State and his advisers for considerable assistance in dealing with this amendment, not least in drafting it.
    Clause 68 expands the forfeiture powers of the court. There are other statutory powers of forfeiture, some of which contain restrictions. It would be illogical if clause 68, which is intended to bring forfeiture powers up to date, were fettered by such restrictions. It is on those grounds that I move the amendment.
    Mr. John Patten: The hon. and learned Gentleman's logic is overwhelming. Any opposition I might have had is totally crushed, and the Government accept the amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made:No. 242, in page 42, line 46, at end insert—
    '(2) At the end of section 12(4) of that Act (which authorises a court, on making a probation order in respect of an offender or discharging an offender, absolutely or conditionally, to order him to pay costs or compensation) there shall be added the words "or to make an order under section 43 below".'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 74

    APPLICATION OF PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCING FINES
    Amendment made: No. 90, in page 49. line 3, leave out from 'imprisonment' to 'which' in line 4 and insert
    'or detention in a young offender institution'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 75

    CASES IN WHICH RESTRAINT ORDERS AND CHARGING ORDERS MAY BE MADE
    Amendment made: No. 92, in page 49, line 40, after 'that', insert
    'there are reasonable grounds for thinking that'— [Mr. John Pattern.]

  Clause 76

    RESTRAINT ORDERS
    Amendment made: No. 93, in page 50, line 21, at end insert—
    '(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, a restraint order may make such provision as the court thinks fit for living expenses and legal expenses.'

  Clause 88

    COMPENSATION
    Amendments made: No. 94, in page 61, line 40, leave out from beginning to 'or' in line 41.
    No. 95, in page 61, line 43, at end insert 'or convictions concerned'.
    No. 96, in page 61, line 46, at end insert
    'if, having regard to all the circumstances, it considers it appropriate to make such an order'.
    No. 97, in page 62, line 6, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 7.
    No. 98, in page 62, line 8, leave out 'substantial'.
    No. 99, in page 62, line 10, at end insert—
    '(2A) The Court shall not order compensation to be paid in any case where it appears to the Court that the proceedings would have been instituted or continued even if the serious default had not occurred.'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 94

    ENFORCEMENT OF OTHER EXTERNAL ORDERS
    Amendments made: No. 100, in page 66, line 4, leave out 'and which are retained there shall nevertheless' and insert 'shall'.
    No. 101. in page 66, line 19, at end insert—
    '(3A) The power to make an Order in Council under this section includes power to modify this Part of this Act in such a way as to confer power on a person to exercise a discretion.'. — [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 96

    DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION SUBJECT TO CONTRACTUAL RESTRICTION UPON DISCLOSURE.
    Amendment made: No. 239, in page 67, line 4, at end insert—
    '(2) In subsection (1) above "constable" includes a police officer engaged on central service (as defined in section 43(5) of the Police Act 1964).'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 98

    POWER TO INSPECT LAND REGISTER, ETC
    Amendment made: No. 102, in page 68, line 48, at end insert—
    '(7) This section shall cease to have effect on the day appointed under section 3(2) of the Land Registration Act 1988 for the coming into force of that Act.'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 107

    CRIMINAL INJURIES
    Amendments made: No. 107, in page 75, line 3, leave out
    'in Scotland, the offence of'
    No. 108, in page 75, line 14, leave out
    'in Scotland, the offence of'
    No. 109, in page 75, line 15, leave out
    'or false imprisonment or, in Scotland, abduction' and insert—
    '(ja) false imprisonment;
    (jb) abduction;'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 108

    QUALIFYING INJURIES
    Amendment made: No. 110, in page 75, line 36, after 'the', insert
    law of England and Wales or'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 109

    AWARDS OF COMPENSATION
    Amendments made: No. 111, in page 77, line 13, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
    282
    '(1A) The heads of compensation are those specified in subsections (1B) to (1E) below.
    (1B) An award may be made under subsection (1)(a) above—

    (a) for the injury; and

    (b) for any loss of or damage to property of the claimant which occurred in the course of his sustaining the injury,

    but compensation shall only he payable under paragraph (b) above if he relied on the property as a physical aid and for damage only if the damage impaired the utility of the property as a physical aid and shall only be for the cost of replacing it with other property of equal utility as a physical aid or carrying our repairs to restore its utility as a physical aid.
    (1C) If a person dies as a result of a qualifying injury—

    (a) an award of compensation for funeral expenses may be made to any person other than a public authority but shall not exceed a reasonable amount;

    (b) where a claim falls to be determined in accordance with the rules of the law of England and Wales, an award of compensation for bereavement may he made to any person falling within section 1A(2) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976;

    (c) where a claim falls to be determined in accordance with the rules of the law of Scotland, an award of compensation for loss of society may be made to any person who is a member of the deceased's immediate family within the meaning of section 10(2) of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976; and

    (d) an award may be made to a dependant of the deceased (whether or not an award is made to him or to any other person under paragraph (a), (b) or (c) above) in respect of any loss of support suffered by the dependant.

    (1D) Subject to subsection (1G) below, if a person who has sustained a qualifying injury dies otherwise than as a result of it, the Board may award compensation to a dependant of his in respect of any loss which he has suffered by reason—

    (a) of any reduction in earnings (not being prospective earnings) by the deceased; and

    (b) of any expenses and liabilities incurred by the deceased as a result of the injury.

    (1E) If—

    (a) a woman is awarded compensation for rape; and

    (b) she has given birth to a child conceived as a result of the rape; and

    (c) at the time of the award she intends to keep the child,

    the Board shall award her the additional statutory sum in respect of each child so conceived that she then intends to keep.
    (1F) The Board may make an interim award, but without prejudice to their powers on a final determination.
    (1G) If a person who has sustained a qualifying injury dies otherwise than as a result of it, the Board may not award compensation to a dependant of his if before he died he became entitled, otherwise than on an interim award, to a payment of compensation in respect of it.
    (1H) If—

    (a) a deceased person was entitled to payment of conpensation for an injury; and

    (b) a claim for compensation for the same injury is made by one of his dependants,

    any compensation awarded to the dependant shall be reduced by the amount of the compensation to payment of which the deceased was entitled; and proportionate reductions shall be made on awards to two or more dependants.'.
    No. 112, in page 77, line 38 leave out from 'Act' to end of line 42 and insert—
    '"the additional statutory sum" means £5,000 or such other sum as may for the time being be specified by virtue of an order under subsection (8) below; and
    "dependant"—

    (a) where the appropriate law for the determination of a claim is the law of England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the Fatal Accidents Act 1976; and

    283

    (b) where it is the law of Scotland, means a relative within the meaning of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976.

    (8) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument substitute a different sum for the sum specified in subsection (7) above.
    (9) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (8) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 110

    POWERS TO WITHHOLD AND REDUCE COMPENSATION
    Amendments made: No. 113, in page 77, line 47 leave out 'his' and insert 'the'
    No. 114, in page 78, line 5, leave out 'his' and insert 'the'.— [Mr. John Patten.]
    Mr. Worthington: I beg to move amendment No. 208, in page 78, line 14, leave out—
    '(1) Criminal convictions or unlawful conduct of the claimant'.
    After that performance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether it is in order to suggest that we should lie down in a darkened room to recover.
    The Bill proposes that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board may, if it thinks fit, refuse an award or award less than it would otherwise have awarded, either because of the criminal convictions of, or unlawful conduct by, the claimant, or because of conduct on his part that is connected with the injury. We do not have any quarrel with the part dealing with conduct of the claimant that led to the injury—clearly one should not benefit from the consequences of illegal actions—but we have considerable reservations about the fact that an award may be reduced or not made at all if the person making the claim has criminal convictions or, even worse, in that strange phrase, has been involved "at any time" in unspecified, unlimited unlawful conduct.
    If the proposal becomes law it will mean that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board must take note of such conduct and that that must be brought to the board's attention by those servicing it. That is almost saying, "Look, when you make an award, you should take into account the behaviour of this person." I find that objectionable. Criminal injuries are events on their own. The proposal has elements of the 19th century poor law, with its definitions of the deserving poor and the undeserving poor.
    In our view, there should be a sense of equality before the law. I know that we are not dealing with a court, but if one has suffered because of the criminal actions of another person or persons, that fact should be considered on its own. We should certainly not have the notion that a board, which is not a court of law, and which, in a sense, operates informally—I am not quarrelling with that in general terms—and from which there is no right of appeal at the moment, should, in closed session, be able to take into account and make judgments about a person's behaviour.
    It is always difficult to imagine how a board might react to, or judge, a particular situation. Let us consider prostitution as an example. If someone has been convicted of soliciting for prostitution, I would be unhappy if, although that person might have been injured by the criminal acts of others, that person's previous behaviour were taken into account because that would be a blanket
    284
    power and a vague rule. That fact should be taken into account in the Government's proposals for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. That proposal seems unnecessary, because it does have a validity of its own.
    I should like to give in evidence the fact that the Scottish Association of Victims' Support Schemes has recently appointed a working party to look into the issue. Its work has been funded by the social work services group, which is a section of the Scottish Office. Therefore, it is a body of considerable standing and has representatives from the sheriffs' and procurator fiscals' departments. It has legal representatives and representatives from citizens advice bureaux, social work departments and the police. They are looking at the whole question of compensation for victims of crime in a Scottish context. The inquiry is not just about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, because there is also the issue of the compensation that might be awarded by a court. I do not quote from the publication produced by that body because throughout its extensive inquiries the point that I am raising was not raised by anybody in that forum. I repeat that it is a body with some official standing, looking at the way in which compensation is dealt with in a Scottish context.
    As far as I am aware, no one thought to raise as a valid issue whether to take into account the claimant's previous criminal convictions or, even worse, the unlawful conduct of the person who had suffered when deciding whether compensation should be paid in a particular case. If someone has suffered, that should be considered on its own account as a separate issue. A measure of moral worthiness should not be brought into the matter because of previous acts that might have been committed recently or a long time ago.
    We hope that the Government will accept this minor amendment to delete the requirement of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to take into account previous convictions or unlawful conduct, because it simply does not seem fair.
    Mr. John Patten: There is quite a gap between the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) and me on this issue. Amendment No. 208 would remove the board's discretion to take account of an applicant's criminal history or previous unlawful behaviour. That would be a significant departure from the terms of the present extra-statutory scheme that we are now putting into statutory form with the passage of the Bill through the House and the other place. For many years, that has allowed the board to reduce or withhold compensation from someone with a recent criminal history. Amendments to the earlier Bill, which fell at the election, amended the board's discretion by removing references to character and way of life, which are part of the present scheme. That, of course, is maintained in the Bill.
    However, I do not believe that it would be right to further limit the board's discretion, so that it cannot take account of past criminal activities, for the following reasons. First, we should remember that the board disburses large amounts of taxpayers' money. Secondly, I do not believe that our constituents would take it kindly if we paid compensation from public funds to, for example, an habitually violent gang leader who is attacked by someone who had been injured by his gang or attacked by

    285
    a member of a rival gang. To use the terms of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, that example has a validity of its own for maintaining the scheme.
    The board takes seriously the responsibility of using its discretion to reduce or withhold awards only when there is justification. The grounds upon which it exercises its discretion are clearly set out in its statement issued to all applicants and to the advisers of all applicants. To my mind, the existing wording of the measure provides the board with a valuable safeguard against having to compensate those applicants whose record renders them, in the board's view, simply undeserving of full compensation from public funds. That is a valuable safeguard, and we should retain it.
    Mr. Archer: I shall surprise the Minister by agreeing with him. I cannot wholly agree with my hon. Friends and support the amendment in its present form. The Minister is correct to say that the board should have the right to take into account such matters as previous convictions and unlawful conduct, but perhaps he can understand the anxieties expressed by Opposition Members.
    The Bill states that the board may take into account any previous convictions or unlawful conduct, whether or not connected with the incident or injuries, whether or not in any way contributing to the injury, or even if it takes place after the injury has been sustained. I am sure that that cannot be what the Government intend to happen and, as the Minister will understand, that is not what happens at present.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does my right hon. and learned Friend consider that subsection (2)(b), which talks of
    "conduct on his part connected with the injury",
    might be sufficient to cover those circumstances in which a person's conduct has led him to be involved in the gangland situation described by the Minister? Surely paragraph (a) is far too wide and does not go to the relevance of the claim whereas paragraph (b), which is acceptable to us all, provides that any conduct on the part of the person connected with the injury should rule that person out for an award or lead to a lesser award. Does not that cover all the circumstances that might be relevant?
    9.30 pm
    Mr. Archer: As always, I find my hon. Friend's logic compelling. I would have been happy with only paragraph (b). but I have an uneasy feeling that, if paragraph (a) were deleted—as the Minister has said, it is part of the non-statutory scheme—that might give rise to misunderstandings.
    I would have hoped to produce a halfway house. I do not know whether it is too late in the progress of the Bill to do that procedurally. I am sure that such a move would not defeat us. After all, the Bill will have to return to another place. Perhaps "relevant and lawful conduct" and "relevant previous convictions" would make us all happy.
    The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has a great deal of force. We do not wish to distinguish between the good guys and dolls and the bad guys and dolls, the deserving and the undeserving. We want to distinguish between conduct that has contributed to the injury and conduct that has not.
    Mr. Worthington: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for his
    286
    valuable contribution. I hope that the Minister will take some note of it. The Minister's defence of the clause was particularly unconvincing when he came heavily to depend on precedent. It is not relevant or useful to say that, because a provision has been in previous legislation, it should continue to appear in future legislation, unless the Minister is prepared to refer to the work of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and to say that the provision has proved to be necessary or useful. To say that it has been in legislation and that it must stay in it is a denial of the Minister's previous academic background of high distinction. In that respect, his reply was disappointing.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West dealt extremely well with the Minister's example, which turned on subsection (2)(b), which refers to
    "conduct on his part connected with the injury."
    The Minister placed before us the outlandish example of a gangland leader applying to the board for compensation. Surely that would be swept up by the clause. It is an endearing thought that the modern equivalent of one of the K ray twins should approach the board. A Minister who is on the ropes always goes for the worst case possible.
    We did not have in mind that which the Minister put before the House. We were thinking of much humbler figures who at some stage in their past were involved in unlawful conduct. I note that the Minister did not pick that up. I am not clear what "unlawful conduct" would be picked up by the clause that would be distinct from criminal convictions. We were thinking of someone who might in the past have had some brush with the law and who found—there is no right of appeal in this instance —that in some unexplained way a secret body had had his award reduced or set aside entirely. How is that to be explained to that person? I assume that there is no explanation. That is unsatisfactory.
    A person may have suffered criminal damage, having been hurt by the act of a criminal. The only relevant issue is whether he suffered in that instance. That is the matter to be judged. An impersonal body should not be allowed to make character judgments about such people in an unspecified way. For that reason, we are unhappy with the Minister's response.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 255.

    Division No. 388]

    [9.35 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Allen, Graham

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Ashton, Joe

    Clay, Bob

    Battle, John

    Clelland, David

    Beckett, Margaret

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Bell, Stuart

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

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

    Corbett, Robin

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cryer, Bob

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Blunkett, David

    Dalyell, Tam

    Boateng, Paul

    Dewar, Donald

    Boyes, Roland

    Dixon, Don

    Bradley, Keith

    Doran, Frank

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Eastham, Ken

    Buchan, Norman

    Fatchett, Derek

    Callaghan, Jim

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

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Flannery, Martin

    287

    Foster, Derek

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Foulkes, George

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Fyfe, Maria

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Galloway, George

    Morley, Elliott

    George, Bruce

    Mullin, Chris

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Murphy, Paul

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Nellist, Dave

    Gordon, Mildred

    O'Neill, Martin

    Graham, Thomas

    Prescott, John

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Grocott, Bruce

    Randall, Stuart

    Henderson, Doug

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Hinchliffe, David

    Richardson, Jo

    Holland, Stuart

    Rogers, Allan

    Hood, Jimmy

    Rooker, Jeff

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Howells, Geraint

    Short, Clare

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

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

    John, Brynmor

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

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Leighton, Ron

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Livsey, Richard

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Turner, Dennis

    Loyden, Eddie

    Vaz, Keith

    McAllion, John

    Wall, Pat

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Wallace, James

    McCartney, Ian

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Wigley, Dafydd

    McFall, John

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    McKelvey, William

    Wilson, Brian

    McLeish, Henry

    Winnick, David

    McWilliam, John

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Madden, Max

    Worthington, Tony

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Wray, Jimmy

    Meale, Alan

    Michael, Alun

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Mr. Frank Cook.

    NOES

    Alexander, Richard

    Butterfill, John

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Allason, Rupert

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Amess, David

    Carrington, Matthew

    Arbuthnot, James

    Carttiss, Michael

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Ashby, David

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Colvin, Michael

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Conway, Derek

    Baldry, Tony

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Beggs, Roy

    Couchman, James

    Bendall, Vivian

    Cran, James

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Benyon, W.

    Curry, David

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

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

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Day, Stephen

    Boswell, Tim

    Devlin, Tim

    Bottomley, Peter

    Dicks, Terry

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bowis, John

    Dover, Den

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Dunn, Bob

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Dykes, Hugh

    Brazier, Julian

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Evennett, David

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Fallon, Michael

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

    Favell, Tony

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Burns, Simon

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Burt, Alistair

    Forth, Eric

    Butcher, John

    Franks, Cecil

    Butler, Chris

    Freeman, Roger

    288

    French, Douglas

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Gardiner, George

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Gill, Christopher

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Gow, Ian

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mills, Iain

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Gregory, Conal

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Moate, Roger

    Grist, Ian

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Ground, Patrick

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Moore, Rt Hon John

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Neale, Gerrard

    Hannam, John

    Nelson, Anthony

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

    Neubert, Michael

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Harris, David

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hayes, Jerry

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Hayward, Robert

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Page, Richard

    Heddle, John

    Paice, James

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Pawsey, James

    Holt, Richard

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

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

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Portillo, Michael

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Price, Sir David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Raffan, Keith

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Redwood, John

    Irvine, Michael

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Irving, Charles

    Riddick, Graham

    Jack, Michael

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Janman, Tim

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Key, Robert

    Ryder, Richard

    Kilfedder, James

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Scott, Nicholas

    Knapman, Roger

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Knowles, Michael

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Knox, David

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Shersby, Michael

    Lang, Ian

    Sims, Roger

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Lightbown, David

    Speller, Tony

    Lilley, Peter

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Squire, Robin

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    McCrindle, Robert

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Stern, Michael

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Maclean, David

    Stokes, Sir John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Sumberg, David

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Madel, David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Mans, Keith

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Maples, John

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    Marland, Paul

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Marlow, Tony

    Thorne, Neil

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Thornton, Malcolm

    289

    Thurnham, Peter

    Whitney, Ray

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Tracey, Richard

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Viggers, Peter

    Wilkinson, John

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Wilshire, David

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Walden, George

    Wolfson, Mark

    Waller, Gary

    Wood, Timothy

    Walters, Sir Dennis

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Warren, Kenneth

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and

    Watts, John

    Mr. Tony Durant.

    Wheeler, John

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Amendment made: No. 115, in page 78, line 19, leave out from 'where' to 'shall' in line 21 and insert
    'the person who sustained the injury is dead, the references to the claimant in subsections (1)(a) and (b) and (2) above'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 111

    RIGHT OF APPEAL
    Amendments made: No. 116, in page 78, line 32, at beginning insert
    'If the Board have determined a claim after a hearing'.
    No. 117, in page 78, line 34, leave out
    'from a decision of the Board'
    and insert 'if they determined it'.
    No. 118, page 78, line 36, leave 'from a decision' and insert 'if they determined it'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 113

    REIMBURSEMENT AND RECOVERY
    Amendments made: No. 119, in page 79, line 15, leave out from 'Board' to end of line 16 and insert
    'in a county court for an order for the repayment by the offender to the Board of the whole of the award or such part of it as the court thinks fit.'
    No. 120, in page 79, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3).— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 114
    REIMBURSEMENT AND RECOVERY IN SCOTLAND
    Amendment made: No. 121, in page 80, line 6, leave out subsection (2).— [Mr. John Patten.]
  Clause 116

    ABOLITION OF PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
    9.45 pm
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 148, in page 80, line 33, at end insert—
    '(2) In addition and without prejudice to any powers which the Crown Court may possess to order the exclusion of the public from any proceedings a judge of the Crown Court may order that the hearing of a challenge for cause shall be in camera or in the chambers.'.
    This meets a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Cathie). It enables judges to hear jury challenges for cause in private.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 122
    DETENTION OF YOUNG OFFENDERS IN SCOTLAND
    Amendment made:No. 149, in page 84, line 45, leave out subsection (3).— [Mr. John Patten.]
  Clause 132

    OFFENCE OF HAVING ARTICLE WITH BLADE OR POINT IN PUBLIC PLACE
    Amendments made: No. 160, in page 87, line 23, leave out 'subsection (4)' and insert 'subsections (4) and (4A)'.
    No. 161, in page 87, line 32, leave out from 'place' to end of line 34 and insert—
    '(4A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him—'— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 134

    OFFENSIVE WEAPONS
    Amendment made: No. 162, in page 89, line 12, at end insert—
    '(7A) It shall be a defence for any person charged in respect of any conduct of his relating to a weapon to which this section applies—

    (a) with an offence under subsection (1) above: or

    (b) with an offence under section 50(2) or (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979,

    to prove that the conduct in question was only for the purposes of making the weapon available to a museum or gallery to which this subsection applies.
    (7B) If a person acting on behalf of a museum or gallery to which subsection (7A) above applies is charged with hiring or lending a weapon to which this section applies, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he had reasonable grounds far believing that the person to whom he lent or hired it would use it only for cultural, artistic or educational purposes.
    (7C) Subsection (7A) above applies to a museum or gallery only if it does not distribute profits.
    (7D) In this section "museum or gallery" includes any institution which has as its purpose, or one of its purposes, the preservation, display and interpretation of material of historical, artistic or scientific interest and gives the public access to it.'— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 137

    TRANSFERRED CHARGES
    Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 226, in page 90, line 12, leave out from '5' to end of line 14 and insert
    '(notices of transfer-procedure)—

    (a) in subsection (4), for the words "without the person charged" there shall be substituted the words "in relation to a person charged without his";

    (b) in subsection (5)(a), for the word "charged" there shall be substituted the words "in question";

    (c) in subsection (6)—

    (i) for the words "the person charged" there shall be substituted the words "a person to whom it relates"; and

    (ii) for the words "examining justices" there shall be substituted the words "a magistrates' court";

    (d) in subsection (7)—

    (i) for the word "charged" there shall be substituted the words "to whom the notice of transfer relates", and

    (ii) for the words "examining justices" there shall be substituted the words "a magistrates' court";

    291

    (e) in subsection (8)(b), for the words "whose written statement is tendered in evidence for the purposes of the notice of transfer" there shall be substituted the words "indicated in the notice of transfer as a proposed witness"; and

    (f) in subsection (9)(a)—

    (i) in sub-paragraph (i), for the words "the person charged" there shall be substituted the words "any person to whom the notice of transfer relates"; and

    (ii) in sub-paragraph (ii), after the word "the", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "place specified by the notice of transfer as the".'

    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 227 to 236, 273, 237, 272, and 238.
    Mr. Patten: These are drafting amendments. I am sure that one or two hon. Members have specific points to make, so perhaps I may listen to what they have to say before taking the House through the amendments.
    Mr. Archer: That is a very handsome offer and it would be churlish of us not to take advantage of it. My simple mind finds it difficult to take in the amendments. It is virtually impossible to follow them without a visual aid. The Criminal Justice Bill that reached the statute book as recently as last year set out a new code of procedures for fraud trials based on the careful and thoughtful report of Lord Roskill's committee. Whether or not we agree with all its recommendations, no one can dispute the thought and expertise that went into the report.
    The Government had second thoughts. With this Bill, they are already seeking to make changes to the procedures in the 1987 Act. To understand such changes, we need to refer to a copy of the 1987 Act and, alongside it, a copy of clause 137 of the Bill. The Government have now had third thoughts. They are making changes not only to the Act but to the changes. We need a wider table. We need the 1987 Act, clause 137 of the Bill, and the three amendments. Perhaps the Minister had the material in his mind, but some of us need to do it like that. I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as possible.
    What are the relevant provisions of the 1987 Act? It states that the prosecuting authorities or the Secretary of State may decide that a fraud case shall proceed to the Crown court, without the necessity for committal proceedings by the magistrates court. The prosecution can unilaterally dispose of the committal stage. A few years ago, that proposition would have appeared to be startling, but that provision is already on the statute book. It is in the 1987 Act. I apprehend that it would be out of order to discuss its merits today.
    Then the 1987 Act provides further that, if that is done, a defendant who has been bailed to appear before a magistrates court does not have to appear, which is not surprising, because that court is no longer dealing with the matter. But section 5(6) of the 1987 Act adds the words:
    "unless the notice states that it"—
    it being the requirement to attend before the magistrates court—
    "is to continue."
    There is no explanation of why, having ordained that a case is to leapfrog the magistrates court, a prosecuting authority should want to provide in the notice that,
    292
    nevertheless, the defendant must attend before the magistrates court. But again, that is already on the statute book. It is in the 1987 Act.
    Clause 137 provides that if the prosecuting authority states that a case must go to the Crown court without the necessity for committal by the magistrates, but that, nevertheless, the defendant must attend before the magistrates court, the magistrate shall have power to deal with bail. We have no complaints about that. Clause 137 passed through all stages of the Bill without having previously been mentioned because we thought that the Government got it right.
    Amendments Nos. 226 and 227 exhibit all the symptoms of drafting amendments, and there Is nothing that I wish to say about them.
    But amendment No. 228 is not an amendment to clause 137. It deals with quite a different matter. To understand it, we must again refer to the 1987 Act. If the prosecuting authority airlifts a case from the magistrates court and announces that the defendant shall go, if not directly to jail, at least directly to the Crown court, shall not pass Go and shall not collect £200, clearly there should be some judicial authority with power to examine the matter and decide whether there is enough evidence to warrant a trial at all. Section 6 of the 1987 Act so provides. A defendant may go to a judge of the Crown court and ask him to dismiss the case because there is not enough evidence properly to place him on trial. Amendment No. 228 seems to make some changes to that, although it does not actually change the provision.
    Mr. John Patten indicated assent.
    Mr. Archer: I see from the Minister that, so far, even with all the visual aids that I must use, I have understood it.
    The changes are largely procedural. But having drawn our attention to the matter and, particularly, having made his generous invitation. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I ask a few further questions.
    The 1987 Act does not state what evidence or statements are to accompany the notice of transfer. Section 5(9) simply states that the Attorney-General
    "shall by regulations make provision requiring … a statement of the evidence."
    Presumably, that statement will be in the form of what we normally know as witness statements, made by witnesses to the police.
    Mr. John Patten indicated assent.
    Mr. Archer: Again I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that that is right.
    Section 6 of the 1987 Act provides that an application to dismiss the charge may be made and the judge may order the person who has given a written statement to supplement it by oral evidence. If that person does not comply with the order, it will not be admissible unless the judge gives leave. That, standing alone, is a little sharp. The judge may take the evidence from the prosecution although it has disregarded his order to have the witness in court to give oral evidence and, therefore, be available for cross-examination. That is a long way from the former position, when not only could a full committal be insisted upon, but the defence could insist that a witness be in court for cross-examination. However, at least under the 1987 Act that evidence would be disregarded unless a judge specifically gave leave to admit it.

    293
    Amendment No. 228 appears to reverse that position. The proposed new section 6 provides that if a judge orders a person to give oral evidence and he fails to do so—the prosecution fails to have him there—the judge "may disregard", not "shall disregard", it; not even that it "shall be disregarded" unless the judge positively orders otherwise, but simply that he "may disregard" it.
    That raises a succession of questions that I wish to put to the Minister. First, why should the defence not have the right to require, in the magistrates court or elsewhere, that oral evidence be given? Secondly—even if that is left to the discretion of the judge—if he orders that oral evidence should be given, why should that not be enforced? Thirdly, if it is not enforced, why should the statement not automatically be disregarded? Fourthly—this relates speciifically to the amendment—even if it is not automatically disregarded, why should it not be disregarded unless the judge positively orders otherwise? Those four questions each logically follow the one before, and I should be grateful it' the Minister would answer them.
    Mr. John Patten: That was a tour de force. I am becoming slightly nervous of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for the first time during the passage of the Bill. During our recent debate he said that he would surprise me, and perhaps the House, by agreeing with me. A few phrases later, he began, ever so gently, to kneecap me with his arguments. He certainly did not agree with me at the end of that debate. He has now suggested that I have made a very generous offer. He has performed in such a way tonight that he could offer the Criminal Justice Bill 1988 as his subject on "Mastermind", should he ever appear on that programme. He had it absolutely right; there was no need for the visual aids and all the rest of it. He simply compared the 1987 Act with the Bill.
    Amendment No. 228 replaces section 6 of the 1987 Act with a revised version that covers the same ground, but in clearer terms. It is important that the terms are as clear as possible. The proposed new section provides that, where an application to dismiss a transfer charge is to be made orally, written notice should first of all be given, which is important. That is to prevent the disruption of court listing schedules. There is also an explicit power to make court rules to cover such matters as the form of notices and other documents, time limits and the procedures to be followed. Finally, the proposed new section, which covers the same ground but in clearer language, improves the description of the documents that will accompany the notice of transfer.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked why we are changing the provisions under which a person charged with fraud—this is an important issue—whose case in transferred to the Crown court may apply orally or in writing to a judge for the charges to be dismissed. Amendment No. 228 does not effect the defendant's right to make such an application, orally or in writing. In drafting the rules, we realised that it would be sensible when the defendant decides to exercise his right to make an oral application that he should give notice in advance of his intention to do so. Amendment No. 228 simply allows the rules to include such a requirement.
    Mr. Archer: The Minister, with his characteristic kindness, said how clearly I put the case—
    It being Ten o'clock,. further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
    That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice Dill [Lords]may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr. Maclean.]
    Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
    Mr. Archer: The Minister, with characteristic kindness, complimented me on how I had put the case, and then proceeded to demonstrate how I had totally failed to make clear to him the point I was seeking to make.
    I accept that, in most respects, amendment No. 228 is a restatement of section 6, but it does not restate it on one vital issue. Section 6 states that, if a judge makes an order that a witness shall attend to give oral evidence and he does not do so, the statement shall be disregarded unless the judge orders otherwise. Amendment No. 228 says that, if the judge makes that order and the witness does not attend, the judge may regard or disregard the statement. In a matter of evidence, what would be onus of proof is here onus of demonstration—if I may coin a phrase—and it has now been changed. That was the point I was trying to make.
    Mr. John Patten: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I should appear on "Mastermind" together on this interesting issue.
    In response to the right hon. and hon. Gentleman's question, the change that the amendments make is to give the judge discretion to disregard a written statement. I believe that it is right to give the judge such a discretion to make it clear that he is within his rights to disregard the evidence, but that he is not required to do so by the amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 227, in page 90, line 17, leave out 'the person charged' and insert
    'a person to whom the notice relates'.
    No. 228, in page 90, line 25, at end insert—
    '(5) The following section shall he substituted for section 6—
    "Applications for dismissal.
    6.—(1) Where notice of transfer has been given, any person to whom the notice relates, at any time before he is arraigned (and whether or not an indictment has been preferred against him), may apply orally or in writing to the Crown Court sitting at the place specified by the notice of transfer as the proposed place of trial for the charge, or any of the charges, in the case to be dismissed; and the judge shall dismiss a charge (and accordingly quash a count relating to it in any indictment preferred against the applicant) if it appear; to him that the evidence against the applicant would not be sufficient for a jury properly to convict him.
    (2) No oral application may be made under subsection (1) above unless the applicant has given the Crown Court sitting at the place specified by the notice of transfer as the proposed place of trial written notice of his intention to make the application.
    (3) Oral evidence may be given on such art application only with the leave of the judge or by his order, and the judge shall give leave or make an order only if it appears to him, having regard to any matters stated in the application for leave, that the interests of justice require him to do so.
    (4) If the judge gives leave permitting, or makes an order requiring, a person to give oral evidence, but he does not do so, the judge may disregard any document indicating the evidence that he might have given
    (5) Dismissal of the charge, or all the charges, against the applicant shall have the same effect as a refusal by examining magistrates to commit for trial,

    295
    except that no further proceedings may be brought on a dismissed charge except by means of the preferment of a voluntary bill of indictment.
    (6) Crown Court Rules may make provision for the purposes of this section and, without prejudice to the generality of this subsection—

    (a) as to the time or stage in the proceedigs at which anything required to be done is to be done (unless the court grants leave to do it at some other time or stage);

    (b) as to the contents and form of notices or other documents;

    (c) as to the manner in which evidence is to be submitted; and

    (d) as to persons to be served with notices or other material.".'— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 141

    COMPUTER DATA ABOUT FINGERPRINTS
    Amendment made: No. 163, in page 91, line 28, after 'him' insert
    ', not later than the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which he asks for it,'— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 146

    DECISIONS WHERE BAIL REFUSED ON PREVIOUS HEARING
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 278, in page 93, line 31, leave out 'but' and insert
    'at the first hearing after that at which the court decided not to grant the defendant bail he may support an application for bail with any argument as to fact or law that he desires (whether or not he has advanced that argument previously). At subsequent hearings'.
    This is a replacement amendment to an earlier attempt by the Opposition to tackle the same problem. I hope that the amendment will not detain the House too long because, although it is important, I believe that it is one on which we are about to make progress.
    I am sure that the House will agree that there should be no doubt that any individual's liberty is a fundamental right and one that is greatly cherished in this country. I am sure that the House will agree that only in the most serious cases should a person be deprived of their liberty. For that reason, when a person has been charged with an offence, it is his right, under the Bail Act 1976, to be awarded bail unless he comes within the listed exceptions. We are talking, of course, about people who are not convicted.
    Since the implementation of the divisional court's decision, which has come to be known as the Nottingham justices' decision, many difficulties have arisen for those applying for bail. It has often become difficult for people to retain their liberty. The court's ruling that only in circumstances in which new information was available should it consider reversing the decision of a previous court, has acted as an effective block to many people being awarded bail. A study carried out by two American lawyers, Brink and Stone, for the Vera institute, as part of their work on bail for the Home Office, found that some courts have adopted a rigid view of that decision. In many cases, if a defendent's request for bail at the first hearing was denied, he was never permitted a second opportunity to re-present the facts.
    The practical impact of this has been twofold. First, defendents have not applied for bail at initial hearings, so
    296
    as not to risk losing their only chance of success. The Brink and Stone study found that, in many areas, more than half the defendants remanded in custody on their first appearance had not asked for bail. Secondly, bail has been refused in cases in which it would have been appropriate to grant it because the lawyers have not had enough time to gather all the relevant facts. There can be no doubt that there have been cases in which defendents have been denied bail in one court when another magistrate would have granted it to them.
    The sum total of all this has been to help to swell the number of prisoners on remand, and the impact of that on our prisons and on pressure on police cells has been evident recently.
    We raised that issue in Committee. When we tried to persuade the Minister to reverse the Nottingham justices' decision, his attitude was that the Government did not think it right to allow individuals to shop around for a more sympathetic bench. That is to deny the nature of bail decisions, which are essentially subjective.
    The Government attempted partly to deal with this problem by restating in clause 146 the courts' obligation to consider bail on every occasion, but we believe that that fails because it also restates that courts need not hear arguments of fact and of law that they have previously considered. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said in Committee, it is difficult for the court or for lawyers to establish exactly what facts have already been presented to the court. The records of the court do not include notes of the facts that were relied on when a previous request for bail was made—and those involved in the process may be completely different. The magistrate, the clerk and even the defendant's lawyer may have changed.
    Our amendment is an attempt at least to improve the present position. It proposes to oblige the courts to consider fact and law on the first two applications for bail. That would allow a solicitor to ask for bail on the first application without the fear that the client might lose any chance of bail should he not succeed, even if he had not had the opportunity to gather together all the facts. I understand that some courts—Newcastle-upon-Tyne is a case in point—already operate this procedure. It was the practice of the Nottingham magistrates at the time of the Nottingham justices' decision. Lord Justice Donaldson, as he then was, acknowledged that there were often further matters to be considered at a second hearing which had not been available at the first.
    Not only will our amendent go some way to improving matters but it will bring practice into line with the original intention. I understand from our discussions with the Minister that we may be pushing against an open door tonight; he has said that he has reconsidered the matter since Committee, and we are grateful to his officials for their help with the technical wording of the amendment. Perhaps the Government do listen on occasion, and if the Minister accepts the amendment we shall welcome that.
    Mr. John Patten: We had some lengthy and interesting debates in Committee. I have carefully considered the points made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and her hon. Friends and I am persuaded by them. So, with arms suitably folded on this occasion, I shall say that I accept the amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 147

    REMANDS IN CUSTODY FOR MORE THAN EIGHT DAYS
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I beg to move amendment No. 202, in page 94, line 12, after 'of, insert 'up to'.
    The amendment deals with time limits on remand hearings. The matter was canvassed at some length in Committee when we considered the principle and content of the Government's proposals. In general, the Opposition parties do not accept a move which means that prisoners can be remanded for 28 days after the initial remand hearing. We had an insight into the Government's thinking on the issue when the Minister responded to the debate in Committee. He sought to argue that it was not the best use of prison officers' time to turn up every eight days to attend remand hearings, and that they could be employed usefully in other prison duties. In fairness to the Minister, he also claimed that it would encourage the courts to take a more active role in case management.
    This is the classic confrontation between, on the one hand, civil liberties and the interests of prisoners and their families, which we often forget on these occasions, and administrative convenience, on the other.
    That is not to say that Opposition Members do not recognise the problems of the present system. As we have heard in Committee and on Report, there are far too many prisoners on remand. Cases take too long to come to trial or to he disposed of by pleas of guilty. Valuable court time is taken up by the weekly ritual of remand hearings, but I do not understand why individual prisoners should have to pay the price in the curtailment of basic civil liberties.
    The present position on remand hearings is set out in section 128 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Under its provisions, an accused may be remanded by way of detention at a police station for up to three days, or up to eight days if in custody either in prison or in a remand centre. However, there are provisions for the period to be extended if the accused consents and is represented by a solicitor or counsel and the provisions are fully explained to him.
    Many prisoners opt for the eight-day remand rather than for a longer period because it is easier for solicitors to obtain instructions from their clients if they attend court every eight days, and arrangements can be made for prisoners to see their families. The point about obtaining instructions is important and it is one on which I sought to convince the Minister in Committee. I think that, in part, he conceded the point. Many remand centres are some distance from local courts. From my area it takes about two and a half or three hours by car to visit the local remand centre. The legal aid authorities do not allow travelling time for solicitors or counsel to see their clients in remand centres, so they are obliged to instruct agents. But that is always second best, because the accused wants to see his lawyer, and agents do not always take as detailed instructions as they should.
    The principle of access to justice is at stake. If 28-day remands become the norm—that will undoubtedly happen—after the first hearing solicitors and clients will encounter difficulties in taking full and detailed instructions, especially in rural areas, because they will be unable to make arrangements to see their clients who are on remand. Therefore, access to justice will be denied.
    10.15 pm
    Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his remarks have greater force when one considers that many prisoners from London are being held on remand in police cells in places such as Cornwall, Durham, and all over the country, to which their solicitors cannot possibly travel to take instructions
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for making that point. It advances our argument and shows why we are concerned about this problem.
    Mr. David Ashby: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the disgraceful conditions in Lincoln prison for those who wish to take instructions from their clients? Prison officers breathe over one's shoulder, listen to every word and do not give anyone a chance to take proper instructions.
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point so well. On many occasions, my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has made clear to Home Office Ministers the problems that solicitors and their clients encounter at Risley remand centre.
    There are problems with solicitors and clients meeting to take full instructions, but, given the distances involved, families also find it difficult to visit their relatives who are on remand. When prisoners are taken to court every eight days, their families can visit them.
    The issue of bail applications was canvassed at length in Committee. Clause 147 makes it clear that the accused's right to apply for bail at any time will not be affected. The Minister made that point clear in Committee. What does that mean in practice? Practitioners know that there will be practical problems in making bail applications in cases where there has been a 28-day remand. Difficulties are encountered in some parts of the country in bringing prisoners to court. We fully understand and appreciate prison officers' problems, but facilities should be available to enable prisoners to attend court. If the clause is passed unamended, we can foresee further problems arising.
    How does a prisoner give instructions to his legal advisers if he has been on remand for 28 days but wishes to make a bail application because of changed circumstances from the previous bail application or the first remand hearing? His legal adviser will not be at the end of a telephone or easily available for consultation. Those problems were canvassed in Committee, but the answers that we received were not convincing. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
    In Committee we were prepared to make a number of constructive proposals about how the Government could overcome the difficulties facing the prison service and the courts. It is clear that the prison authorities must be given greater resources and better remand facilities. The Government could introduce legislation to ensure that cases are heard in magistrates courts by a certain date. A time limit should be set from the time that a person is charged to the disposal of the case. That would concentrate minds wonderfully and the current backlog of cases would be cleared. We have not only the problem of the number of prisoners on remand but the delay in the number of cases coming to court for disposal. That

    299
    increases the applications that legal advisers have to make. Remand hearings are held needlessly because of delays in bringing forward cases for trial or disposal.
    My fear, which was expressed in Committee, is that 28-day remands will increase those delays. At least now the prisoner can make weekly complaints about delays, and during those applications magistrates can put pressure on the Crown prosecution service. We fully appreciate the problems that that service has had in recent months, but the Minister tells us that the situation is improving so cases should be brought on much quicker. However, if 28-day remands become the norm, it will remove those opportunities for pressure to be put on the service and the court can effectively put aside a case for a month at a time.
    There is general agreement about the problem of the number of prisoners on remand awaiting trial, but we disagree fundamentally with the Government on the solution. An amendment in Committee sought for the first remand application to be followed by a second application in eight days, moving on to 28-day remands, but the Government refused to accept that amendment.
    Amendment No. 202 is different because it gives magistrates discretion whether to go on to 28-day remands. In other words, it gives the courts an opportunity to set remand hearings during a period of up to 28 days. Therefore, as I have said, it would give magistrates discretion whether to remand for the full period or for a lesser period. If the magistrates felt that 28 days was too long, they could set the remand at a lesser period.
    That is a fair compromise. We have made it clear that we do not like the principle, but we believe that it is better to amend the Bill at this stage and for the Government to accept a compromise amendment, and I urge the Minister to do so.
    Mr. John Patten: I have listened with great care to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). I know how concerned he is about equal access to justice, the geography of justice and the problems of rural areas. However, I would seek to persuade him and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) not to divide the House on this issue. Perhaps to roll the pitch, in the previous debate on amendment No. 278, I showed the Government's willingness to listen by accepting an amendment tabled by the official Opposition. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady will consider what I have to say in the light of that.
    Clause 147 already achieves what the hon. Gentleman has sought to emphasise in his amendment. Let me rapidly explain why I think that the amendment might confuse the courts by the following example. A defendant, perhaps from Ynys Môn, is before the court. He or she has been remanded in custody on at least one previous occasion. The court hears any representations from the prosecution or the defence in the normal way. Having done that, the court then goes on to ask itself when it should be possible for the next stage in the proceedings to begin.
    Let us say that no further progress would be possible for six or eight weeks, for various reasons. There is no point in bringing the defendant back to court, unless his circumstances have changed in the meantime, within the maximum period of 28 days. After the maximum period of 28 days, the court considers the total period that the defendant will have spent in custody, and it is important
    300
    that the court does that. If, having done so, it still thinks that a custodial remand is the right course, it can remand the defendant for 28 days. The defendant can apply for bail if his circumstances change at any time.
    But let us suppose that his circumstances do not change, or for some reason he does not come to the court within the 28 days, and simply returns to the court at the end of the allotted time. Only two weeks now remain in my six-week example before the next stage in the proceedings can be expected, the six weeks then being up. If the parties agree that matters can be taken earlier, all well and good. If one asks for more time, the court will want to inquire closely into the reasons for the delay.
    But suppose, happily enough, the preparations for the progress of the trial are exactly on course and the case will be ready for hearing in exactly two weeks' time. Then the court will remand the defendant for that two-week period. I can assure the House that clause 147 expressly forbids the court to remand for any longer period in those circumstances. What is crucial here is the requirement on the court to set a date by which it expects to make progress, a date when the proceedings will next move on. The court is required to take positive control over the progress of the case, and I know that that is welcomed by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn.
    I want to say three things to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady that I hope will help to reassure them.
    We intend to test these new arrangements by way of experiment in a number of selected areas. If the prophets of doom, those who say that things will go badly wrong, prove right, the Government will not wish to extend the experiments any further. The Government would be totally wrong to do so, because the whole point is to make things better for the defendant and to save wasted appearances and productions in court.
    Perhaps most tellingly, I remind the House that the clause 147 arrangements which are before the House can be brought into force only by order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That means that that procedure will have to go through another place and through this House to see whether experiments take place and whether any subsequent extension on a regional or national basis should occur.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: I am most grateful to the Minister. Would he also add that steps will be taken to ensure that a complete change is made in the arrangements for instructions being taken by lawyers from their clients in prison? As we have heard from the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who has considerable experience of these things, and from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), and as many other hon. Members know, it is virtually impossible to hold proper conferences in some prisons and other custodial establishments because of the staffing and time constraints placed upon solicitors and counsel.
    It sounds to me as though the hon. Gentleman is not aware that, for example, one is not allowed to hold more than, say, five hours maximum of conference on any one day with an individual client in a remand centre such as Risley because of the timetabling of the establishment's meals, and so on. In a complicated case, that means that there have to be repeated visits by solicitors and counsel, which are extremely expensive for the public purse and extremely disturbing and delaying for the prisoner.
    Mr. Patten: Of course I understand the points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, which were also made very forcibly by my hon Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashley) when he intervened to discuss the position in one particular prison in Lincoln. Of course we will look seriously at the problems raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend and I shall draw them to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who is responsible for prison matters. I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government will have further proposals about these matters in the not-too-distant future.
    On the basis of what I have said and the undertakings that I have given, particularly about procedures that will have to be followed, I hope that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
    10.30 pm
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: I appreciate that the Minister is trying to be as helpful as he can in these circumstances, but there is an underlying principle here. We are establishing a system in clause 147 that means effectively that, on the second remand, magistrates would have no option—if, as in his example, a case would take six weeks to come to the next stage—but to remand for 28 days.
    Let us take the Minister's example. In effect, the court would be saying that, in view of the constraints for solicitors and for counsel and of the distances involved, 28 days would pass before the solicitor could take adequate instructions from his client or counsel in an appropriate case. That principle is wrong. The amendment simply seeks to state that, in appropriate cases, the magistrates may decide not to remand for the full 28 days. They may decide to remand for 15 days or 21 days, but there will always be an opportunity for solicitors to make representations for it to be less than 28 days.
    We understand that the Minister is attempting to be helpful, but this is an important principle of access to justice and, for that reason, we believe that we should press the amendment to a Division.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 253.

    Division No. 389]

    [10.30 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Allen, Graham

    Clay, Bob

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Clelland, David

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Ashton, Joe

    Corbett, Robin

    Battle, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Beckett, Margaret

    Cryer, Bob

    Beggs, Roy

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Bell, Stuart

    Dalyell, Tam

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

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Dewar, Donald

    Blunkett, Oavid

    Dixon, Don

    Boateng, Paul

    Doran, Frank

    Boyes, Roland

    Dunnachie, Jimmy

    Bradley, Keith

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

    Eastham, Ken

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Fearn, Ronald

    Buchan, Norman

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Caborn, Richard

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

    Callaghan, Jim

    Flannery, Martin

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Foster, Derek

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Foulkes, George

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Fyfe, Maria

    302

    Galloway, George

    Morley, Elliott

    George, Bruce

    Mullin, Chris

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Murphy, Paul

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Nellist, Dave

    Gordon, Mildred

    O'Neill, Martin

    Graham, Thomas

    Pendry, Tom

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Pike, Peter L.

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Prescott, John

    Grocott, Bruce

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Henderson, Doug

    Randall, Stuart

    Hinchliffe, David

    Richardson, Jo

    Holland, Stuart

    Robertson, George

    Hood, Jimmy

    Rogers, Allan

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Howells, Geraint

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Salmond, Alex

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Short, Clare

    John, Brynmor

    Skinner, Dennis

    Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

    Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

    Leadbitter, Ted

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

    Leighton, Ron

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

    Livsey, Richard

    Spearing, Nigel

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Loyden, Eddie

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    McAllion, John

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Turner, Dennis

    McCartney, Ian

    Vaz, Keith

    Macdonald, Calum A.

    Wall, Pat

    McFall, John

    Wallace, James

    McKelvey, William

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    McLeish, Henry

    Wareing, Robert N.

    McWilliam, John

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Madden, Max

    Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Winnick, David

    Meale, Alan

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Michael, Alun

    Worthington, Tony

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Mr. Frank Haynes and

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Mr. Frank Cook.

    Morgan, Rhodri

    NOES

    Alexander, Richard

    Burt, Alistair

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Butcher, John

    Allason, Rupert

    Butler, Chris

    Amos, Alan

    Butterfill, John

    Arbuthnot, James

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Ashby, David

    Carttiss, Michael

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Cash, William

    Atkins, Robert

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Colvin, Michael

    Baldry, Tony

    Conway, Derek

    Batiste, Spencer

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Bendall, Vivian

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Couchman, James

    Benyon, W.

    Cran, James

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Curry, David

    Boswell, Tim

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

    Bottomley, Peter

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Day, Stephen

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Devlin, Tim

    Bowis, John

    Dickens, Geoffrey

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Dicks, Terry

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Brazier, Julian

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Dover, Den

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Dunn, Bob

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

    Durant, Tony

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

    Burns, Simon

    Evennett, David

    303

    Fallon, Michael

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Favell, Tony

    McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Madel, David

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Forman, Nigel

    Malins, Humfrey

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Mans, Keith

    Forth, Eric

    Maples, John

    Franks, Cecil

    Marland, Paul

    Freeman, Roger

    Marlow, Tony

    French, Douglas

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Gardiner, George

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Gill, Christopher

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Gow, Ian

    Mellor, David

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Gregory, Conal

    Mills, Iain

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

    Grist, Ian

    Moate, Roger

    Ground, Patrick

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Neale, Gerrard

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Nelson, Anthony

    Hannam, John

    Neubert, Michael

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

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Harris, David

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Hawkins, Christopher

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hayes, Jerry

    Page, Richard

    Hayward, Robert

    Paice, James

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Patnick, Irvine

    Heddle, John

    Patten, John (Oxford W)

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Pawsey, James

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Hind, Kenneth

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Portillo, Michael

    Holt, Richard

    Powell, William (Corby)

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

    Price, Sir David

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Redwood, John

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Riddick, Graham

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Irvine, Michael

    Ryder, Richard

    Irving, Charles

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Jack, Michael

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Jackson, Robert

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Janman, Tim

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

    Key, Robert

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Kilfedder, James

    Shersby, Michael

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Sims, Roger

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Knapman, Roger

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Speller, Tony

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

    Knowles, Michael

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Knox, David

    Squire, Robin

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Lang, Ian

    Stanley, Rt Hon John

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Steen, Anthony

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Stern, Michael

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Stevens, Lewis

    Lightbown, David

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Lilley, Peter

    Sumberg, David

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Luce, Rt Hon Richard

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    McCrindle, Robert

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Maclean, David

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

    304

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Wheeler, John

    Thorne, Neil

    Whitney, Ray

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Thurnham, Peter

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Wilkinson, John

    Tracey, Richard

    Wilshire, David

    Trippier, David

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Wolfson, Mark

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Wood, Timothy

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Woodcock, Mike

    Walden, George

    Waller, Gary

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Mr. Robert Boscawen and

    Warren, Kenneth

    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    Watts, John

    Question accordingly negatived.

  Clause 151
    JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ORDERS UNDER SS.4 AND II OF CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT I98I RELATING TO TRIALS ON INDICTMENT
    Amendment made: No. 9, in page 96, line 8, leave out clause 151.— [Mr. John Patten]
  Clause 152

    SUMMARY OFFENCE OF POSSESSION OF INDECENT PHOTOGRAPH OF A CHILD
    Mr. Bermingham: I beg to move amendment No. 195, in page 96, line 14, after 'any', insert 'grossly'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 199, in page 96, line 24, at end insert—
    '(3) A photograph of a child shall be deemed to be grossly indecent for the purposes of this Act where its production appears to the court to have involved the exploitation for sexual purposes of a child.'.
    No. 200, in clause 153, page 96, line 33, at end insert 'grossly'.
    No. 201, in clause 153, page 97, line 1, at end insert—
    '(3) A photograph of a child shall be deemed to be grossly indecent for the purposes of this Act where its production appears to the court to have involved the exploitation for sexual purposes of a child.'.
    Mr. Bermingham: Clause 152 refers to indecency. If those who possess indecent photographs— [Interruption.] I hope that one or two Conservative Members will listen——
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would help the House and the hon. Member if the conversations on both sides of the House took place outside the Chamber.
    Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the issue is important. It affects young children and, in turn, the way in which we conduct business in our courts. In the 1970s, indecency was discussed in the English courts, especially in regard to obscenity. A circus developed. Experts said that something was, or was not, indecent. Eventually, the Court of Appeal said that that sort of caper had to stop. We are afraid that, because of the way in which clause 152 is drafted, that circus will develop again.
    The word "indecency" is loose. The amendments merely insert the word "grossly". We must remember that

    305
    for a photograph to be taken of a child in indecent positions—these are indelicate matters about which to talk —there must be a victim. These photographs are not constructed. [Interruption.] It is lamentable that, when discussing a subject such as this, I see that the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) finds it more convenient to have a conversation than to listen to the debate. Perhaps I can attract his attention.
    This is a grave matter. We must not permit loose wording in statutes which would allow people to seek to avoid that which we seek to legislate against—the exploitation of children. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment and the consequent amendments which merely seek to insert the word "grossly". That word would tighten the definition and make clear to the courts that which we seek to ban or to legislate against.
    10.45 pm
    Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I shall be brief. At one time a man could have a house full of dreadful child pornography, which children have to be procured to produce and which can corrupt and entice others, and the defence was always that he had it for his own use. The Bill removes that defence and makes it a criminal offence to possess child pornography. That will protect children from being procured to produce the material, and will prevent adults from being enticed and corrupted to think about children in a sexual way. We applaud that.
    The word "grossly" does not need to be added, because most courts are sensible enough to know when dealing with child pornography that such cases are indecent. Parents and courts are sick and tired of merchants peddling such stuff, to the disadvantage of Britain's children. We can rely on the good sense of our courts and public opinion.
    Mr. John Patten: I know how much the Opposition support the general thrust of clauses 152 and 153, and we welcome that support. I also know of the Opposition's continuing anxiety about the interpretation of the words used in the drafting of the clauses, and I know how strongly the whole House feels about the exploitation of children.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) summed up the feeling of the House when he spoke about his contempt for pornography. I agree with my hon. Friend that the word "grossly" may he otiose or unnecessary. I shall explain to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) why that is so, because I know that he wishes to improve matters for children and to provide better justice for them.
    Over many years our courts have become used to interpreting the words "obscene" and "indecent". The hon. Gentleman reminded us of the distasteful circus that used to exist in some judicial circles. Experts, literary critics and others used to be called to say whether this or that was indecent or obscene. That was an industry not just in the 1970s but in the 1960s. One of my distinguished constituents, lamentably deceased, was Sir Basil Blackwell. He was the only man ever to stand up in a court and say that he had been corrupted by something that he had read. It was brave of him to do that.
    The introduction into law of the word "gross" or grossly" to qualify indecent would lead to the reinvention of the circus that we have talked about, because it is a new
    306
    concept. For a decade we have had a law dealing with indecent photographs, films and videos, and there is no evidence that it has caused the courts any problems. We have searched through the cases to establish whether there has ever been discussion in court of difficulties of interpretation of the word "indecent". There has certainly never been any suggestion that an individual member of a family has ever been prosecuted or persecuted in any way for taking innocent snapshots of his children.
    Mr. Norman Buchan: In that case, why did the Government support the private Members' Bill dealing with indecency, which used the word "grossly" to define the word offensive?
    Mr. Patten: The Government believe that, for the purposes of the Bill, the tests of indecency and obscenity, which are well known to the courts with reference to pornography, are the right tests to apply.
    I believe that the Bill substantially advances the cause of children's justice by making the simple possession of indecent photographs a criminal offence and by placing on the accused the burden of proof of showing why he is in possession of photographs that are judged by the courts to be indecent. I entirely appreciate what the hon. Member for St. Helen's, South has said and the spirit in which he made his remarks, but I do not think that his amendment would improve matters, given that the courts have great experience of the interpretation of the word "indecent". On those grounds, I would ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.
    Mr. Bermingham: I have listened to the Minister's remarks with care, because I think that he and I are ad idem in what we seek to do. The difference between us is that I am perhaps more cautious than he is. My caution is based on the experience of the courtroom and the arguments that apply there, and I find that clause 152 lacks clarity in part.
    I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division. I shall merely put down a marker. I greatly fear that with the passage of time, and given the lamentable views of certain persons in this country, we may find that the word "indecency" is not enough to protect children from exploitation by those who seek to make a commercial profit from despicable merchandise. That is why I sought to tighten the law and make it more difficult for those who seek to defend the possession of nauseating material. The Government are not with me on this issue; so be it. The warning shot has been fired, and we may have to return to the matter at a later date.
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: No. 164, in page 96, line 15, after 'child' insert
    '(meaning in this section a person under the age of 16)'—[Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 153
    POSSESSION OF INDECENT PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHILDREN: SCOTLAND
    Amendments made: No. 57, in page 96, line 34, after 'child', insert '(meaning in this section a person under the age of 16)'.— [Mr. John Patten.]
  Clause 160

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    Amendments made: No. 79, in page 101, line 7, leave out '(including Schedule 2)'.
    No. 229, in page 101, line 11, leave out '(2) and (4)'. — [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 163

    COMMENCEMENT
    Mr. John Patten: I beg to move amendment No. 165, in page 102, line 5, leave out from 'relates' to end of line 7 and insert—

    '(a) to the addition of two subsections at the end of section 8 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986;

    (b) to the insertion of a new subsection in section 24 of that Act; and

    (c) to the substitution of two new sections for section 26 of that Act;'

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 166, 66, 67 and 169 to 172.
    Mr. Patten: The amendments cover a lot of paper, but in substance they are drafting amendments.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 68, in page 102, line 12, at end insert—
    'section [Body samples-Northern Ireland];'
    No. 230, page 102, line 12, at end insert—
    'section 136; section 137;'.
    No. 231, in page 102, line 17, at end insert—
    'section 112A(1) of the Land Registration Act 1925;'.
    No. 166, in page 102, line 22, at end insert—
    'section 67(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967;'.
    No. 66, in page 102, line 24, at end insert
    'sections 171 and 368 of and Schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975;'.
    No. 67, in page 102, line 26, at end insert
    'section 52(7) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982;'.
    No. 169, page 102, line 26, at end insert
    'the Criminal Justice Act 1982;'
    No. 232, in page 102, line 28, after '1985' insert—
    'the Criminal Justice Act 1987;the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987;'.
    No. 233, in page 102, line 31, at end insert—
    'the Criminal Justice Act 1987;'.
    No. 13, in page 102, line 42, at end insert—
    'section [Torture];

    section [Prosecution for torture];

    section [Extradition under 1870 Act];

    section [Extradition under Part )];

    section [Application to Channel Islands, Isle of Man and colonies];'.

    No. 170, in page 102, line 42, at end insert—'section 68;'.
    No. 171, in page 103, line 7, at end insert
    'Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1967;'.
    No. 172, in page 103, line 15, at end insert—
    '(7) Section 154 above shall come into force—

    (a) on the day appointed under section 23(2) of the Video Recording Act 1984 for the coming into force of the provisions of that Act not in force at the passing of this Act; or

    (b) on the passing of this Act,

    whichever is the later.'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Clause 164

    EXTENT
    Amendments made: No. 41, in page 103, line 17, leave out 'and 20' and insert,
    '[Application of general extradition arrangements to Colonies] and [Special extradition arrangements-Colonies] '.
    No. 80, in page 103, line 19, leave out '(including Schedule 1)'.
    No. 54, in page 103, line 28, at end insert 'section 93;'
    No. 176, in page 103, line 31, after 'to' insert '113 and'.
    No. 14, in page 103, line 32, at end insert—
    'section [Torture];
    section [Extradition under 1870 Act];
    section [Extradition under Part I];'.
    No. 59, in page 103, line 36, at end insert, 'section 162'.
    No. 81, in page 103, line 42, leave out '(including Schedule 3)'.
    No. 15, in page 104, line 1, at end insert—
    'section [Torture];
    section [Prosecution for torture];
    section [Extradition under 1870 Act];
    section [Extradition under Part I] ;'.
    No. 10, in page 104, line 6, at end insert—
    'section [Crown Court proceedings-orders restricting or preventing reports or restricting public access];'
    No. 175, in page 104, line 8, at end insert, 'section 162;'
    No. 82, in page 104, line 15, leave out
    '(including Part II of Schedule 5]'.
    No. 55 in page 104, line 19, at end insert—
    '((4A) Section [Enforcement of Northern Ireland orders in Scotland] above extends only to Scotland and Northern
    Ireland.'.
    No. 69, in page 104, line 20, after '138 (c)', insert
    '[Body samples—Northern Ireland]'.
    No. 83, in page 104, line 26, leave out
    ',including Schedule 13 to this Act'.— [Mr. John Patten.]
    Amendment made: No. 196—New schedule—

  'BODY SAMPLES-NORTHERN IRELAND

    Scope of Schedule
    1. This Schedule applies—

    (a) to an offence (whether at common law or under any enactment) specified in paragraph 2 below;

    (b) to an offence specified in paragraph 3 below;

    (c) to an offence not mentioned in either of those paragraphs—

    (i) for which a person of 21 years of age or over and of full capacity (not previously convicted) may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years; and

    (ii) which is serious for the purposes of this Schedule.

    2. The offences mentioned in paragraph 1(a) above are-

    (a) treason;

    (b) murder;

    (c) manslaughter;

    (d) rape;

    (e) kidnapping;

    (f) incest with girl under the age of 14;

    (g) buggery with—

    (i) a boy under the age of 16; or

    (ii) a person who has not consented; and

    (h) indecent assault which constitutes an act of gross indecency.

    3. The offences mentioned in paragraph 1(b) above are—

    (a) causing an explosion likely to endanger life or property contrary to section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act 1883;

    (b) intercourse with a girl under the age of 14 contrary to section 4 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885;

    (c) causing death by reckless driving contrary to Article 139 (1) of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981;

    309

    (d) the following offences against the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981—

    (i) possession of firearm with intent to injure contrary to Article 17;

    (ii) use of firearm or imitation firearm to resist arrest contrary to Article 18(1); and

    (iii) carrying firearm with criminal intent contrary to Article 19;

    (e) hostage-taking contrary to section 1 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982;

    (f) hi-jacking contrary to section 1 of the Aviation Security Act 1982; and

    (g) torture contrary to section [Torture] above.

    4.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, an offence not mentioned in paragraph 2 or 3 above is serious for the purposes of this Schedule only if its commission—

    (a) has led to any of the consequences mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) below; or

    (b) is intended or is likely to lead to any of those consequences.

    (2) An offence which consists of making a threat is serious for the purposes of this Schedule if carrying out the threat would be likely to lead to any of the consequences specified in sub-paragraph (3) below.
    (3) The consequences mentioned in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above are—

    (a) serious harm to the security of the State or to public order;

    (b) serious interference with the administration of justice or with the investigation of offences or of a particular offence;

    (c) the death of any person;

    (d) serious injury to any person;

    (e) substantial financial gain to any person; and

    (f) serious financial loss to any person.

    (4) Loss is serious for the purposes of this Schedule if, having regard to all the circumstances, it is serious for the person who suffers it.
    (5) In this paragraph "injury" includes any disease and any impairment of a person's physical or mental condition.
    5. A person arrested under section 12(1)(b) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 is to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as having been arrested on suspicion of involvement in an offence to which this Schedule applies and any reference in the following provisions of this Schedule to such an offence includes a reference to being or having been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which Part IV of that Act applies.

    Interpretation
    6.—(1) In this Schedule—

    "appropriate consent" means—

    (a) in relation to a person who has attained the age of 17 years, the consent of that person;

    (b) in relation to a person who has not attained that age but has attained the age of 14 years, the consent of that person and his parent or guardian; and

    (c) in relation to a person who has not attained the age of 14 years, the consent of his parent or guardian;

    "intimate sample" means a sample of blood, semen or any other tissue fluid, urine or pubic hair, or a swab taken from any of a person's body orifices except his mouth;

    "non-intimate sample" means—

    (a) a sample of hair other than pubic hair;

    (b) a sample taken from a nail or from under a nail;

    (c) a sample of saliva;

    (d) a swab taken from a person's mouth;

    (e) a swab taken from any other part of a person's body except a body orifice other than his mouth;

    (f) a footprint or a similar impression of any part of a person's body other than a part of his hand;

    310

    "parent or guardian" means in the case of a child or young person in the care of the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland or a Health and Social Services Board, that Department or Board; and

    "the terrorism provisions" means—

    (a) section 12(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984; and

    (b) any provision conferring a power of arrest or detention and contained in an order under section 13 of that Act.

    (2) A person is in police detention for the purposes of this Schedule if—

    (a) he has been taken to a police station after being arrested for an offence; or

    (b) he is arrested at a police station after attending voluntarily at the station or accompanying a constable to it,

    and is detained there or is detained elsewhere in the charge of a constable, except that a person who is at a court after being charged is not in police detention for those purposes.

    Intimate samples
    7.—(1) An intimate sample may be taken from a person in police detention only—

    (a) if a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent authorises it to be taken; and

    (b) if the appropriate consent is given.

    (2) An officer may only give an authorisation if he has reasonable grounds—

    (a) for suspecting the involvement of the person from whom the sample is to be taken in an offence to which this Schedule applies; and

    (b) for believing that the sample will tend to confirm or disprove his involvement.

    (3) An officer may give an authorisation under sub-paragraph (1) above orally or in writing but, if he gives it orally, he shall confirm it in writing as soon as is practicable.
    (4) The appropriate consent must be given in writing.
    (5) Where—

    (a) an authorisation has been given; and

    (b) it is proposed that an intimate sample shall be taken in pursuance of the authorisation,

    an officer shall inform the person from whom the sample is to be taken—

    (i) of the giving of the authorisation; and

    (ii) of the grounds for giving it.

    (6) The duty imposed by sub-paragraph (5)(ii) above includes a duty to state the nature of the offence in which it is suspected that the person from whom the sample is to be taken has been involved.
    (7) If an intimate sample is taken from a person—

    (a) the authorisation by virtue of which it was taken;

    (b) the grounds for giving the authorisation; and

    (c) the fact that the appropriate consent was given,

    shall be recorded in writing as soon as is practicable after the sample is taken.
    (8) An intimate sample, other than a sample of urine, may only be taken from a person by a registered medical practitioner.
    (9) Where the appropriate consent to the taking of an intimate sample from a person was refused without good cause, in any proceedings against that person for an offence—

    (a) the court, in determining—

    (i) whether to commit that person for trial; or

    (ii) whether there is a case to answer; and

    (b) the court or jury, in determining whether that person is guilty of the offence charged,

    may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper; and the refusal may, on the basis of such inferences, be treated as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any evidence against the person in relation to which the refusal is material.
    (10) Nothing in this paragraph affects Articles 141 to 152 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.

    Other Samples
    8.—(1) Except as provided by this paragraph, a non-intimate sample may not be taken from a person without the appropriate consent.
    (2) Consent to the taking of a non-intimate sample must be given in writing.
    (3) A non-intimate sample may be taken from a person without the appropriate consent if—

    (a) he is in police detention or is being held in custody by the police on the authority of a court; and

    (b) an officer of at least the rank of superintendent authorises it to be taken without the appropriate consent.

    (4) An officer may only give an authorisation under sub-paragraph (3) above if he has reasonable grounds—

    (a) for suspecting the involvement of the person from whom the sample is to be taken in an offence to which this Schedule applies; and

    (b) for believing that the sample will tend to confirm or disapprove his involvement.

    (5) An officer may give an authorisation under sub-paragraph (3) above orally or in writing but, if he gives it orally, he shall confirm it in writing as soon as is practicable.
    (6) Where—

    (a) an authorisation has been given; and

    (b) it is proposed that a non-intimate sample shall be taken in pursuance of the authorisation,

    an officer shall inform the person from whom the sample is to be taken—

    (i) of the giving of the authorisation; and

    (ii) of the grounds for giving it.

    (7) The duty imposed by sub-paragraph (6)(ii) above includes a duty to state the nature of the offence in which it is suspected that the person from whom the sample is to be taken has been involved.
    (8) If a non-intimate sample is taken from a person by virtue of subsection (3) above—

    (a) the authorisation by virtue of which it was taken; and

    (b) the grounds for giving the authorisation,

    shall be recorded in writing as soon as is practicable after the sample is taken.

    Destruction of samples
    9.—(l) If—

    (a) a sample is taken from a person in connection with the investigation of an offence; and

    (b) he is cleared of that offence.

    it must be destroyed as soon as is practicable after the conclusion of the proceedings.
    (2) If—

    (a) a sample is taken from a person in connection with such an investigation; and

    (b) it is decided that he shall not be prosecuted for the offence and he has not admitted it and been dealt with by way of being cautioned by a constable,

    it must be destroyed as soon as is practicable after that decision is taken.
    (3) If—

    (a) a sample is taken from a person in connection with the investigation of an offence; and

    (b) that person is not suspected of having committed the offence,

    it must be destroyed as soon as it has fulfilled the purpose for which it was taken.
    (4) Proceedings which are discontinued are to be treated as concluded for the purposes of this paragraph.
    (5) Nothing in this paragraph—

    (a) affects any power conferred by paragraph 18(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971; or

    (b) applies to a person arrested or detained under the terrorism provisions.— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Schedule 1

    AMENDMENTS OF EXTRADITION ACT I87O, BACKING OF WARRANTS (REPUBLIC OF IRELAND) ACT I965 AND FUGITIVE OFFENDERS ACT I967
    Amendments made: No. 190, in page 106, line 30, at end insert—
    '(2A) In section 26, in the definition of "police magistrate", for the words from "a" to the end there shall be substituted the words "the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate or a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate
    312
    designated by the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of this Act and the Acts that may be cited together with it as the Extradition Acts 1870 to 1935".'
    No. 260, in line 47, at end insert—
    '(1A) If the chief officer or chief constable immediately informs the court that he intends to make such an application, the court shall make an order providing for the detention of the person in question, or directing that he shall not be released except on bail.
    (1B) Rules of Court may specify—

    (a) a period within which the chief officer or chief constable must make such an application unless the Court grants a longer period; and

    (b) a period within which the court must comply with such an application.'.

    No. 261, in line 48, leave out
    'refuses to state a case'
    and insert
    'fails to comply with an application under subsection (1) above within the period specified in Rules of Court'.
    No. 262, in page 107, leave out lines 6 to 14 and insert—
    '(4) An order made by a court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland under subsection (1A) above shall cease to have effect if

    (a) the High Court dismisses the appeal; and

    (b) the chief officer or chief constable does not immediately—

    (i) apply for leave to appeal to the House of Lords; or

    (ii) inform the court that he intends to apply for leave.

    (5) An order made by a court in Scotland under subsection (1A) above shall cease to have effect if the court dismisses the appeal.'
    No. 263, in line 20, at end insert—
    '(6A) The House of Lords may exercise any powers of the High Court under subsection (3) above and subsection (4) above shall apply to them as it applies to that Court.
    (6B) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) above, an order under subsection (1A) above shall have effect so long as the case is pending.
    (6C) For the purposes of this section a case is pending (unless proceedings are discontinued) until (disregarding any power of a court to grant leave to take any step out of time) there is no step that the chief officer or chief constable can take.'
    No. 264, in line 26, after 'Court', insert
    ', other than the reference in subsection (6A) above,'.
    No. 276, leave out line 29 and insert—
    '(e) subsections (6) and (6A) shall be omitted; and, in'.
    No. 63, in page 109, line 27, at end insert
    '(2B) The High Court of Justiciary may, by Act of Adjournal, make rules as to the procedure for service under subsection (2) above in Scotland.'.
    No. 191, in line 32, leave out
    'In subsection (5) of section 7 (proceedings for committal) for the words'
    and insert
    'In subsection (1)(a) of section 6 (arrest for purposes of committal) for the words "a metropolitan stipendary magistrate or by" there shall be substituted the words—

    "(i) the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate or a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate designated for the purposes of this Act by the Lord Chancellor; or

    (ii)".

    8A.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 7 (proceedings for committal) for the words "a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate" there shall be substituted the words "the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate or a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate designated as mentioned in section 6(1)(a) above".
    (2) For the words in subsection (5) of that section'.
    No. 265, in line 33, leave out from second 'court' to 'unless' in line 35.
    No. 266, in line 41, at end insert—

    313
    '(5A) If the court commits a person under subsection (5) above, it shall issue a certificate of the offence against the law of the United Kingdom which would be constituted by his conduct.'.
    No. 267, in page 110, line 11, at end insert—
    '(1A) If the country seeking his return immediately informs the court of committal that it intends to make such an application, the court shall make an order providing for his detention, or directing that he shall not be released except on bail.
    (1B) Rules of Court may specify—

    (a) a period within which a country must make such an application unless the Court grants a longer period; and

    (b) a period within which the Court of committal must comply with such an application.'.

    No. 268, in line 12, leave out
    'refuses to state a case'
    and insert
    'of committal fails to comply with an application under subsection (1) above within the period specified in Rules of Court'.
    No. 269, in line 26, at end insert—
    '(4A) An order made by a metropolitan magistrate under subsection (1A) above shall cease to have effect if—

    (a) the court dismisses the appeal in respect of the offence or all the offences to which it relates; and

    (b) the country seeking return does not immediately—

    (i) apply for leave to appeal to the House of Lords; or

    (ii) inform the court that it intends to apply for leave.

    (4B) An order made by the sheriff of Lothian and Borders under subsection (1A) above shall cease to have effect if the court dismisses the appeal in respect of the offence or all of the offences to which it relates.'.
    No. 270, leave out lines 27 to 32.
    No. 271, in line 37, at end insert—
    '(6A) The House of Lords may exercise any powers of the High Court under subsection (3) above and subsection (4) above shall apply to them as it applies to that Court.
    (6B) Subject to subsections (4A) and (4B) above, an order under subsection (IA) above shall have effect so long as the case is pending.
    (6C) For the purposes of this section a case is pending (unless proceedings are discontinued) until (disregarding any power of a court to grant leave to take any step out of time) there is no step that the Commonwealth country can take.'.
    No. 277, in line 38, leave out from beginning to 'but' in line 39 and insert—
    '(7) In the application to Scotland of this section, subsections (6) and (6A) shall be omitted, and,'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Schedule 3

    QUESTIONS AS TO SENTENCING—SUPPLEMENTARY
    Amendments made: No. 84, in page 112, line 36, leave out paragraph 1.
    No. 85, in page 114, line 2, leave out sub-paragraph (a). — [Mr. John Patten.]

  Schedule 5

    DRUG TRAFFICKING AMENDMENTS
    Amendments made: No. 103A, in page 118, line 21, at end insert—
    '11A. In section 19 (Compensation)—

    (a) in paragraph (b)(i) of subsection (1), the words "(and no conviction for any drug trafficking offence is substituted)" shall cease to have effect;

    (b) at the end of that subsection there shall be added the words "if, having regard to all the circumstances, it considers it appropriate to make such an order";

    314

    (c) in subsection (2)—

    (i) the words "and that, but for that default, the proceedings would not have been instituted or continued,"; and

    (ii) in paragraph (b), the word "substantial", shall cease to have effect; and

    (d) the following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection—

    "(2A) The Court shall not order compensation to be paid in any case where it appears to the Court that the proceedings would have been instituted or continued even if the serious default had not occurred.".'.
    No. 240, in line 21, at end insert—
    '11A. The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (5) of section 24 (assisting another to retain the benefit of drug trafficking)—
    "(5A) In this section 'constable' includes a police officer engaged on central service (as defined in section 43(5) of the Police Act 1964).".'.
    No. 104, in line 54, leave out
    'and which are retained there shall nevertheless'
    and insert 'shall'.
    No. 105, in page 119, line 12, at end insert—
    '(3A) The power to make an Order in Council under this section includes power to modify this Act in such a way as to confer power on a person to exercise a discretion.'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Schedule 6

    THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD
    Amendments made: No. 123, in page 120, line 36, leave out from 'Scotland' to end of line 37 and insert
    'a Solicitor practising in England and Wales or Scotland or a person who holds or has held judicial office in England and Wales or Scotland.'
    No. 124, in page 121, line 12, after 'practices' insert 'or has practised'.
    No. 125, in line 13, after 'Wales' insert
    'or who holds or has held judicial office there'.
    No. 126, in line 14, after 'practises' insert 'or has practised'.
    No. 127, in line 15, after 'Scotland' and insert
    'or who holds or has held judicial office there'.
    No. 128, in line 44, leave out paragraph 8.
    No. 129, in page 122, line 34, after 'financial' insert 'and'— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Schedule 7

    COMPENSATION
    Amendments made: No. 130, in page 122, line 44, leave out paragraphs 2 and 3 and insert—
    '2. Unless the circumstances appear to them to be exceptional—

    (a) in a case where the Board have not previously awarded compensation in respect of an injury they shall not determine a claim in respect of it which is made after the end of three years from the date of the incident giving rise to the injury; and

    (b) in a case where they have previously awarded compensation in respect of an injury, they shall not determine any further claim in respect of it which is made after the end of three years beginning with the date of the notice under paragraph 5B(2) below relating to the award, or latest award, of compensation in respect of the injury.'

    No. 131, in page 123, line 5, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'.
    No. 132, in line 9, leave out 'the claim is' and insert 'a claim is made'.
    No. 133, in line 10, leave out 'it may be entertained' and insert

    315
    'the Board shall determine the claim'.
    No. 134, in line 11, leave out from beginning to 'Where' in line 13 and insert—

    'Procedure
    5.—(1) The Secretary of State shall make rules of procedure in relation to claims for compensation.
    (2) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (1) above rules under this paragraph may in particular—

    (a) specify matters which may be dealt with or which must be dealt with—

    (i) by members of the Board's staff; or

    (ii) by a member or members of the Board;

    (b) make provision—

    (i) for the determination of a claim without a hearing;

    (ii) for the reconsideration without a hearing of a previous determination without a hearing; and

    (iii) for the extent to which a previous determination may be altered on such a reconsideration:

    (c) make provision as to circumstances in which a claim is to be or may be determined by a decision at a hearing on specified issues and as to the procedure for settling the issues which are to be considered;

    (d) make provision about the conduct of hearings and in particular about the calling of witnesses, the admissibility of, and weight to be given to, hearsay and opinion evidence and the order of proceedings;

    (e) make provision as to the confidentiality of information disclosed in connection with a claim; and

    (f) make such incidental or supplementary provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.

    (3) Rules under this paragraph may make different provision for different descriptions of cases.
    (4) Rules under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument.
    (5) A statutory instrument containing any such rules shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

    Applications for Reconsideration of Claims
    5A.—(1)'
    No. 135, in line 29, after 'determined', insert 'without a hearing'.
    No. 136, in line 33, after 'determined', insert 'without a hearing'.
    No. 137, in line 35, at end insert—

    'Payment of compensation
    5B.—(1) Except in prescribed cases, compensation, whether on an interim or a final award, shall be paid in a lump sum.
    (2) It shall be the duty of the board to give a claimant written notice of the amount of an award.
    (3) A claimant shall not be entitled to a payment unless the board have received from him written notice to the effect that he has received a notice under sub-paragraph (2) above and accepts the amount of compensation specified in the notice as the proper amount.'.
    No. 283, in line 47, leave out '1977' and insert '1988'.
    No. 138, in page 124, line 5, leave out paragraph 7 and insert—
    '7. Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, a claim for compensation under any of the heads specified in section 109 above is to be determined, and the amount of any compensation which falls to be assessed under any of those heads is to be assessed, in accordance with the rules of the law of England and Wales or the law of Scotland (including rules contained in Acts of Parliament but not including rules allowing a plaintiff or pursuer aggravated damages or interest) in accordance with which a claim in tort or delict arising out of the same facts for damages under a corresponding head would fall to be determined.'.
    No. 139, in line 7, leave out from beginning to 'no' in line 28 and insert—

    'Private medical treatment
    8. In assessing compensation'.
    No. 140, in line 34, leave out from beginning to end of page 125, line 25.
    No. 284, in page 125, line 42, leave out
    'compensation for rape under paragraph 9 above or'.
    No. 285, in page 126, line 5, leave out '1977' and insert '1988'.
    No. 268, in line 34, leave out
    'compensation for rape under paragraph 9 above or'.
    No. 141, in page 127, leave out lines 25 to 40.
    No. 142, leave out lines 41 to 45 and insert—

    'Miscellaneous rules
    19.—(1) The Secretary of State may by rules—'.
    No. 143, in line 46, leave out from 'forms' to end of line 48.
    No. 144, in page 128, line 3, leave out paragraphs (c) to (e).
    No. 145, in line 17, leave out paragraphs (g) and (h).
    No. 146, in line 20, at end insert—
    '(ga) specify cases in which compensation is not to be paid as a lump sum and how it is to be paid in any such case;'.
    No. 147, in line 24, at end insert
    'and

    (j) make such incidental or supplementary provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.

    (1A) Rules under this paragraph may make different provision for different descriptions of cases.'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Schedule 8

    HOUSING ACTION TRUSTS: LAND
    Amendments made: No. 150, in page 128, line 33, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 37 and insert—
    '1. In any enactment for a reference to a detention centre or to a youth custody centre or to both there shall be substituted a reference to a young offender institution.
    1A. In any enactment except—

    (a) section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968;

    (b) Schedule 1 to the Juries Act 1974;

    (c) section 5 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974; and

    (d) section 17(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982,'.

    No. 151, in line 40, leave out paragraphs 2 and 3.— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Schedule 10

    REGISTRATION OF TITLE AND RELATED MATTERS
    Amendments made: No. 152, in page 133, line 37, leave out
    'but without prejudice to section 12B(1) below,'.
    No. 153, in line 53, at end insert—
    '(3A) Any power to include a requirement in a supervision order which is exercisable in relation to a person by virtue of this section or the following provisions of this Act may be exercised in relation to him whether or not any other such power is exercised.'.
    No. 154, in page 135, line 29, leave out
    'but without prejudice to section 12B(1) of this Act'.—[Mr. John Patten.]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 155, in page 135, line 36, at end insert—
    '(1a) The Court shall not include such a requirement in a supervision order unless it has consulted the local education authority with regard to its proposal to include the requirement and is satisfied that in the view of the local education authority arrangements exist for the child or young person to whom the supervision order will relate to receive efficient full-time education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational need he may have.'

    317
    This amendment arises from an undertaking that was given by my hon. Friend in Committee. The Bill restores magistrates' power to include in a supervision order imposed on a juvenile offender a requirement to attend school regularly. The amendment requires the court, before exercising the power to consult the local education authority, to be satisfied that, in the authority's view, suitable arrangements exist for the child's education.
    Mrs. Llin Golding: I congratulate the Minister on conceding the arguments put forward by myself and my hon. Friends in Committee on the Government's proposal to make school attendance part of a supervision order. As the Minister rightly said, the Government have conceded that, before that is done, the court should consult the local education authority about the order. They also conceded that the court should be satisfied that arrangements exist for an efficient full-time education suitable to the supervised person's
    "age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational need he may have."
    Having won that small victory, we now ask that the Government also concede that, before a young person is put under such an order, it is reasonable that evidence of truancy be produced. It is surely not unreasonable that a written record of school attendance be supplied to the court. Does the Minister agree that if the offence took place when the supervised person should have been at school, a written record should be required before the supervision order is made, as there are many reasons for truancy? In fact, in Committee the Minister said that the relationship between poor school attendance and offending among young juveniles was not straightforward. Therefore, would it not be more appropriate for powers to be taken under the Education Act 1944 to enforce school attendance requirements when the truancy is not related to the offence? Would it not be advisable for an expert report to be given to the court stating that the measures that the supervised person was required to comply with were appropriate?
    As the Minister conceded in Committee that juveniles were not straightforward and that the wrong supervision order could exacerbate rather than ease the position, I hope that he will accept the amendment and again concede that my hon. Friends are correct.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Lady knows that I always like to meet her suggestions, which I have done on many occasions—but, sadly, not on this occasion. She is seeking to confine the effect of the amendment and, indeed, the clause to those cases where the relevant offence was committed during school time. I cannot accept that there is any justification for such a restrictive approach and I cannot commend it to the House.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 12

    ASSESSORS OF COMPENSATION FOR MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE
    Amendments made: No. 156, in page 140, line 18, after 'practises' insert 'or has practised'.
    No. 157, in line 19, after after 'Ireland' insert
    'or who holds or has held judicial office in any of those parts of the United Kingdom'.
    No. 158, in line 21, after 'practises' insert 'or has practised'.
    No. 159, in line 22, after 'Scotland' insert
    'or who holds or has held judicial office there'.— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Schedule 13

    EVIDENCE BEFORE COURTS-MARTIAL ETC.
    Amendments made: No. 251, in page 142, line 9. at end insert
    'in any case where the court gives leave for, or requires, evidence or a glossary to be so furnished'.
    No. 252, in line 42, leave out sub-paragraph (6). — [Mr. John Patten.]

  Schedule 14

    MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Amendments made: No. 234, in page 143, line 26, at end insert—
    'This paragraph shall cease to have effect on the day appointed under section 3(2) of the Land Registration Act 1988 for the coming into force of that Act.'.
    Manuscript amendment No. 235, in page 143, line 33, at end insert—

    'Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (c. 36.)
    9A. The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (iA) of the proviso to subsection (2) of section 2 of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933 (procedures for indictment of offenders)—
    "(iA) in a case which paragraph (aa) above applies, the bill of indictment may include, either in substitution for or in addition to any count charging an offence specified in the notice of transfer, any counts founded on material that accompanied the copy of that notice which, in pursuance of regulations under section 5(9) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987, was given to the person charged, being counts which may lawfully be joined in the same indictment;".'
    No. 16, in page 144, line 23, at end insert—
    '13A. In paragraphs 1(a) and 2(a) of the Schedule, after the word 'rape,' there shall be inserted the word torture'.'
    No. 181, in line 27, leave out from '5" to "local' and insert "1" to "central'.
    No. 244, in page 146, line 29, leave out paragraphs 27 and insert—
    '27. The following shall be substituted for the words in section 31 from the beginning of subsection (1) to "powers" in subsection (2)—
    "(1) There may be exercised by a single judge in the same manner as by the Court of Appeal and subject to the same provisions—

    (a) the powers of the Court of Appeal under this Part of this Act specified in subsection (2) below;

    (b) the power to give directions under section 4(4) of the Sexual Offences (Amendments) Act 1976; and

    (c) the powers to make orders for the payment of costs under sections 16 to 18 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 in proceedings under this Part of this Act.

    (2) The powers mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above".'. No. 274, in line 33, at end insert—
    '27A. The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (2A) of that section—
    "(2B) The power of the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal under section [Crown Court proceedings—orders restricting or preventing reports or restricting public access] of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 may be exercised by a single judge in the same manner as it may be exercised by the Court.".'.
    No. 245, in line 34, leave out paragraph 28 and insert—
    '28. The following shall be substituted in the first subsection of section 44 for the words from the beginning to "judge", in the first place where it occurs—
    "(1) There may be exercised by a single judge—

    319

    (a) the powers of the Court of Appeal under this Part of this Act—

    (i) to extend the time for making an application for leave to appeal;

    (ii) to make an order for or in relation to bail; and

    (iii) to give leave for a person to be present at the hearing of any proceedings preliminary or incidental to an appeal; and

    (b) their powers to make orders for the payment of costs under sections 16 and 17 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 in proceedings under this Part of this Act.".'.

    No. 185, in page 147, leave out line 44.
    No. 241, in line 47, leave out 'shall also' and insert 'also to'.
    No. 236, in page 148, line 13, at end insert—

    'Legal Aid Act 1974 (c. 4)
    39A. In section 28(7A) of the Legal Aid Act 1974 for the words "the person charged" there shall be substituted "a person to whom the notice relates".'.
    No. 42, in page 149, line 18, at end insert—

    'Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 (c.17)
    49A. The following sections shall be substituted for section 3 of the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978—

    Extradition under 1870 Act.
    3.—(1) An offence under section 1(3)(a) of this Act shall be deemed to be included in the list of extradition crimes in Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1870.
    (2) For the purposes of that Act any act, wherever committed, which is any of the following offences—

    (a) an offence mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 1 of this Act which is committed against a protected person within the meaning of that section;

    (b) an offence mentioned in paragraph (b) of that subsection which is committed in connection with such an attack as is so mentioned;

    (c) an attempt to commit an offence mentioned in the preceding paragraphs; or

    (d) an offence under section 1(3) of this Act,

    and an offence against the law of any State in the case of which the Extradition Act 1870 is applied by an Order in Council under section 2 of that Act shall be deemed to be an offence committed within the jurisdiction of that State.

    Extradition under Part I of Criminal Justice Act 1988
    3A.—(1) Where—

    (a) no such arrangement as is mentioned in section 2 of the Extradition Act 1870 has been made with a State which is a party to the Convention mentioned in the title to this Act; and

    (b) general extradition arrangements have not been made with that State under Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988

    Her Majesty may by Order in council direct that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 specified in subsection (2) below shall apply as between the United Kingdom and that State, subject to the limitations, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the Order, as if the Convention constituted general extradition arrangements made with that State under Part I of that Act, but only in respect of the following offences—

    (i) an offence mentioned in section 3(2)(a) of (b) above;

    (ii) an attempt to commit such an offence;

    (iii) counselling, procuring, commanding, aiding or abetting such an offence;

    (iv) being accessory before or after the fact to such an offence; and

    (v) an offence under section 1(3) of this Act.

    (2) The provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 mentioned in subsection (1) above are—

    (a) section 1(1) to (8);

    (b) sections 3 to 10; and

    (c) sections 12 to 18.

    (3) An Order in Council under this section may not provide that a court determining whether a person arrested for an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above shall not be
    320
    under a duty to determine whether the evidence would be sufficient to warrant his trial if the offence had taken place within the jurisdiction of the court.
    (4) For the purposes of the provisions of that Act specified in subsection (2) above, in their application by virtue of an Order in Council under this section as between the United Kingdom and any other State, any act or omission, wherever it takes place, which is

    (a) an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above; and

    (b) an offence against the law of that State,

    shall be deemed to be an offence committed within the territory of that State."
    49B. The following subsections shall be substituted for section 4(1) of that Act—
    "(1) Sections 17 and 22 of the Extradition Act 1870 shall extend to section 3 above.
    (1A) Sections 19, (Application of general extradition arrangements to colonies) and (Special extradition arrangements—colonies) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall extend to section 3A above.".'.
    No. 243, in page 152, line 25, at end insert—
    '71A. The following subsection shall be inserted after section 45(3)—
    "(3A) The power of the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal under section [Crown Court proceedings—orders restricting or preventing reports or restricting public access] of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 may be exercised by a single judge in the same manner as it may be exercised by the Court.".'.
    No. 43, in line 35, at end insert—

    'CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1982 (c. 16)
    73A. The following sections shall be inserted after section 93 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982—

    Extradition under Part I of Criminal Justice Act 1988
    93A.—(1) Where—

    (a) no such arrangement as is mentioned in section 2 of the Extradition Act 1870 has been made with a Convention country; and

    (b) general extradition arrangements have not been made with that country under Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

    Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 specified in subsection (2) below shall apply as between the United Kingdom and that country, subject to the limitations, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the Order, as if the Convention constituted general extradition arrangements made with that country under Part I of that Act, but only in respect of the following offences—

    (i) an offence committed on board an aircraft inflight registered in that country;

    (ii) an attempt to commit such an offence;

    (iii) counselling, procuring, commanding, aiding or abetting such an offence; and

    (iv) being accessory before or after the fact to such an offence.

    (2) The provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 mentioned in subsection (1) above are—

    (a) section 1(1) to (8);

    (b) sections 3 to 10; and

    (c) sections 12 to 18.

    (3) An Order in Council under this section may not provide that a court determining whether a person arrested for an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above shall not be under a duty to determine whether the evidence would be sufficient to warrant his trial if the offence had taken place within the jurisdiction of the court.
    (4) Subsections (4) and (5) of section 92 above shall apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that section.
    93B.—(1) Sections 17 and 22 of the Extradition Act 1870 shall extend to section 93 above.
    (2) Sections 19. (Application of general extradition arrangements to Colonies) and (Special extradition arrangements—Colonies) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall extend to section 93A above and to section 92(4) and (5) above as they apply for the purposes of section 93A above.".'.
    No. 44, in line 42, at end insert—

    'TAKING OF HOSTAGES ACT I982 (C.28)
    74A, The following section shall be inserted after section 3 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982—

    Extradition under Part I of Criminal Justice Act 1988
    3A.—(1) Where—

    (a) No such arrangements as is mentioned in section 2 of the Extradition Act 1870 has been made with a State which is a party to the Convention; and

    (b) general extradition arrangements have not been made with that State under Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

    Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 specified in subsection (2) below shall apply as between the United Kingdom and that State, subject to the limitations, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the Order, as if the Convention constituted general extradition arrangements made with that State under Part I of that Act, but only in respect of the following offences—

    (i) an offence under this Act;

    (ii) an attempt to commit such an offence;

    (iii) counselling, procuring, commanding, aiding or abetting such an offence; and

    (iv) being accessory before or after the fact to such an offence.

    (2) The provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 mentioned in subsection (1) above are—

    (a) section 1(1) to (8);

    (b) sections 3 to 10; and

    (c) sections 12 to 18.

    (3) An Order in council under this section may not provide that a court determining whether a person arrested for an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above shall not he under a duty to determine whether the evidence would be sufficient to warrant his trial if the offence had taken place within the jurisdiction of the court.
    (4) For the purposes of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 specified in subsection (2) above, in their application by virtue of an Order in Council under this section as between the United Kingdom and any other State, any act or omission, wherever it takes place, which is—

    (a) an offence mentioned in subsection (a) above; and

    (b) an offence against the law of that State,

    shall be deemed to be an offence committed within the territory of that State.
    (5) In this section 'the Convention' means the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages opened for signature at New York on 18 December 1979."
    74B. The following subsections shall be substituted for section 5(1) of that Act—
    "(1) Sections 17 and 22 of the Extradition Act 1870 shall extend to section 3(1) and (4) above.
    (1A) Sections 19 (Application of general extradition arrangements to Colonies) and (Special extradition arrangements—Colonies) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall extend to section 3A above."

    Aviation Security Act 1982 (c.36)
    74C. The Aviation Security Act 1982 shall be amended as follows.
    75D. In subsection (3) of section 9, after the word "above" there shall he inserted the words "and of section 9A below".
    74E. The following section shall be inserted after that section—

    Extradition under Part I of Criminal Justice Act 1968.
    9A.—(1) Where—

    (a) no such arrangement as is mentioned in section 2 of the Extradition Act 1870 has been made with a State which is a party to a relevant Convention; and

    (b) general extradition arrangements have not been made with that State under Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988,

    Her majesty may by Order in council direct that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 specified in subsection (2) below shall apply as between the United Kingdom and that State, subject to the limitations, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the Order, as if the relevant Convention
    322
    constituted general extradition arrangements made with that State under Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but only in respect of the following offences—

    (i) offences which are offences in pursuance of that Convention;

    (ii) an attempt to commit such an offence;

    (iii) counselling, procuring, commanding, aiding or abetting such an offence; and

    (iv) being accessory before or after the fact to such an offence.

    (2) The provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 mentioned in subsection (1) above are—

    (a) section 1(1) to (8);

    (b) sections 3 to 10; and

    (c) sections 12 to 18.

    (3) An Order in Council under this section may not provide that a court dealing with a person arrested for an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above shall not be under a duty to determine whether the evidence would be sufficient to warrant his trial if the offence had taken place within the jurisdiction of the court.
    (4) For the purposes of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 specified in subsection (2) above, in their application by virtue of an Order in council under this section as between the United Kingdom and any other State any Act or omission, wherever it takes place, which falls within section 9(4) of this Act shall be deemed to be an offence committed within the territory of that State.".
    74F. The following subsections shall be substituted for section 39(1) of that Act—
    "(1) Sections 17 and 22 of the Extradition Act 1870 shall extend to section 9 above.
    (1A) Sections 19 (Application of general extradition arrangements to Colonies) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall extend to section 9A above and to section 9 above as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1988.".'
    No. 17, in page 153, line 5, at end insert—
    '76A. At the end of part II of Schedule 1 to that Act there shall be added—

    Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c. )
    26. Section [Torture] (torture)."'.
    No. 45, in line 23, at end insert—

  'NUCLEAR MATERIAL (OFFENCES) ACT I983 (C. I8)
  79.—(1)
  the following section shall be inserted after section 5 of the Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983 (extradition)—

  Extradition under Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
  5A.—(1) Where—

  (a) no such arrangement as is mentioned in section 2 of the Extradition Act 1870 has been made with a State which is a party to the Convention; and

  (b) general extradition arrangements have not been made with that State under Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988,

  Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 specified in subsection (2) below shall apply as between the United Kingdom and that State, subject to the limitations, restrictions, exceptions and qualifications, if any, contained in the Order, as if the Convention constituted general extradition arrangements made with that State under Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but only in respect of the following offences—

  (i) an offence mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (1) of section 1 of this Act which is committed by doing an act in relation to or by means of nuclear material;

  (ii) an offence under section 2 of this Act;

  (iii) an attempt to commit an offence mentioned in paragraph (i) or (ii) above;

  (iv) counselling, procuring, commanding, aiding or abetting such an offence; and

  (v) being accessory before or after the fact to such an offence.

  (2) The provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1986 mentioned in subsection (1) above are—

  (a) section 1(1) to (8);

  (b) sections 3 to 10; and

  323

  (c) sections 12 to 18.

  (3) An Order in council under this section may not provide that a court determining whether a person arrested for an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above shall not be under a duty to determine whether the evidence would be sufficient to warrant his trial if the offence had taken place within the jurisdiction of the court.
  (4) For the purposes of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 specified in subsection (2) above, in their application by virtue of an Order in council under this section as between the United Kingdom and any other State, any act wherever committed, which is—

  (a) an offence mentioned in subsection (1) above; and

  (b) an offence against the law of that State,

  shall be deemed to be an offence committed within the territory of that State.
  (5) In this section and in section 6 below "the Convention" means the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material opened the signature at Vienna and New York on 3 March 1980.".
  79B. The following subsections shall be substituted for section 7(1) of that Act—
  "(1) Sections 17 and 22 of the Extradition Act 1870 shall extend to section 5 above.
  (1A) Sections 19 (Application of general extradition arrangements to Colonies) and (Special Extradition arrangements—Colonies) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall extend to section 5A above.".'
  No. 177, in line 25, leave out from beginning to '(intimate' and insert—
  '79A. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 shall be amended as follows.
  79B. At the end of subsection (3)(b) of section 24 (arrest) there shall be added the words "other than an offence under section 12(1) of the Theft Act 1968".
  79C. In section 55(1)'.
  No. 212, in line 27, at end insert—
  '80A. In section 65, in the definition of "intimate samples", for the word "orifice" there shall be substituted the word "orifices".'
  No. 178, in line 28, leave out 'of that Act'.
  No. 18, in line 29, at end insert—
  '81A. At the end of Schedule 5 to that Act there shall be added—

  Criminal Justice Act 1988 (c.)
  9. Section [Torture] (Torture)."'.
  No. 273, in page 155, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
  '(3) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (2)—
  "(2) An order that subsection (1) above shall not apply to reports—

  (a) of an application under section 6(1) above;

  (b) of a preparatory hearing;

  (c) of an appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 9(11) above; or

  (d) of an application for leave to appeal under that subsection may be made—

  (i) in a case falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (d) above, by the judge dealing with the matter; and

  (ii) in a case falling within paragraph (c) above, by the Court of Appeal.".'.

  No. 237, in line 9, leave out from beginning to first 'the' in line 13.
  No. 272, in line 15, at end insert—
  '93A. In section 13(1), for the words "operates only so as to make for Northern Ireland provision corresponding to" there shall be substituted the words "is made only for purposes corresponding to those of".'.
  No. 64, in line 18, leave out 'In subsection (5) of'.
  No. 65, in page 155, line 19, leave out '(restriciton on use of a statement required under that section)' and insert '(Powers of investigation in relation to serious or complex fraud) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1) for the words from "attend" to the end there shall be substituted the words "answer questions or
  324
  otherwise furnish information with respect to any matter relevant to the investigation at a specified place and either at a specified time or forthwith.".
  (3) In subsection (2)—

  (a) for the words "a specified time and place" there shall be substituted the words "such place as may be specified in the notice and either forthwith or at such time as may be so specified,"; and

  (b) for the word "class" there shall be substituted the word "description".

  (4) In subsection (5)'. — [Mr. John Patten.]

Schedule 15

  REPEALS
  Amendments made: No. 46, in page 157, line 28, at end insert—

  '1969 c.12.

  Genocide Act 1969.

  Section 2(1)(b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.

  In section 3(1), the words "and sections 16 and 17 of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967".'.

  No. 47, in line 34, column 3, at end insert—

  'In section 60, subsection (1)(b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it, and in subsection (2), the words "or section16(2) or 17 of the said Act of 1967".'.

  No. 186, in line 34, column 3, at end insert—

  'Section 34(1)(f).'

  No. 179, in line 38, at end insert—

  '1972 c.20.

  Road Traffic Act 1972.

  In section 100, the words "or attempting to drive".'.

  No. 182, in line 42, at end insert—

  '1973 c.14.

  Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1973.

  In Schedule 1, paragraph 3.'

  No. 184, in plage 158, line 15, column 3, at end insert—

  'In section 5(6), the words from the beginning to "and", in the second place where it occurs.'

  No. 48, in line 38, at end insert—

  '1978 c.26.

  Suppression Terrorism Act 1978.

  of Section 3(2)

  1978 c.31.

  Theft Act 1978.

  In section 5(3) the words from "and" to the end.'.

  No. 49, in line 39, column 3, at beginning insert—

  325

  'In section 1(6), paragraph (b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it and the words "and sections 16 and 17 of the 1967 Act".'.

  No. 50, in page 159, line 3, at end insert—

  '1982 c. 16

  Civil Aviation Act 1982.

  Section 93(3).

  1982 c. 28.

  Taking of Hostages Act 1982.

  In section 3, subsection(1)(b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it and subsections (3) and (5).

  1982 c. 36.

  Aviation Security Act 1982.

  In section 9, subsection(1)(b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it, and subsections (2) and (3).'.

  No. 51, in line 18, at end insert—

  '1983 c. 18.

  Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983.

  In section 5, subsection(1)(b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it, and subsections (2) and (4).'.

  No. 52, in line 31, at end insert—

  '1985 c. 37.

  Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985.

  Section 3(1)(b) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.'.

  No. 91, in line 38, after 'it', insert
  'in subsection (3), the words "or 9".'.
  No. 106A, line 43, column 3, at end insert—

  'In section 19, in subsection (1) (b) (i), the words "(and no conviction for any drug trafficking offence is substituted)" and in subsection (2), in paragraph (a), the words "and that, but for that default, the proceedings would not have been instituted or continued," and in paragraph (b), the word "substantial".'.

  No. 238, in page 160, line 24, column 3, at end insert—

  'In Schedule 2, paragraph 1(2).'.

  No. 187, in line 27, at end insert—

  '1988 c.

  Coroners Act 1988.

  In Schedule 3, paragraph 14.'

  No. 180, in line 30, at end insert—
  '1A. The repeal in the Road Traffic Act 1972 does not extend to Scotland.'— [Mr. John Patten.]

  Title
  Amendments made: No. 11, in line 11, after 'indictment' insert
  'orders restricting the access of the public to the whole or any part of a trial on indictment or to any proceedings ancillary
  326
  to such a trial and orders restricting the publication of any report of the whole or any part of a trial on indictment or any such ancillary proceedings.'.
  No. 19, in line 17, at end insert
  'torture and an offence of'.
  No. 70, in line 23, after 'detention', insert
  'to make provision in relation to the taking of body samples by the police in Northern Ireland'.— [Mr. John Patten]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  11.5 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I have no intention of interrupting the breakneck speed of this legislative process, which I hope will be widely imitated in future. I wish to clarify one point that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) mentioned earlier. She said that an article in the New Scientist suggested that mouth swabs would not yield material suitable for DNA profiling. I am advised that mouth swabs can produce useful evidence. We do not accept the contention in the article that another test should be used in conjunction with it. I understand that the ICI cellmark diagnostics people say that the article does not accurately represent their views and that they accept that DNA profiles can be obtained from mouth swabs, provided that sufficient cells are available in the sample.
  It has been a long journey for the Bill. I spent more time with it on the first leg of its journey during the last Parliament than I have on this part. It is therefore easier for me to say that we owe a debt of gratitude to the Standing Committee. That is partly the result of the way in which the Opposition handled the measure, and I pay tribute to the skill with which the hon. Member for Dewsbury grasped and ran with the subject.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their contributions and support. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State bore most of the burden in Committee and I congratulate him on the way that he did so —not least because he surmounted a hurdle that I did not always manage to surmount. Whenever I appeared in Committee—or, indeed, in the Committee on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill—the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) greeted me with a glare because I was not a lawyer and I was contributing to discussions that he thought should take place within a slightly closed circle. Clearly, my hon. Friend managed to overcome that obstacle and showed that one does not have to be a lawyer to legislate on these matters. I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has given much help during the Report stage, and who admirably restrained his natural belligerence on such occasions.
  When the Bill first appeared, it was criticised as something of a ragbag, but that criticism has died away. On important subject after important subject—extradition, peremptory challenge, lenient sentences, video links, criminal injuries compensation, to give but a sample —the Bill represents the satisfactory end to a long argument both inside and outside the House. As the Bill has progressed, we have inserted provisions of substantial value, such as that on knives.
  The other day, one of the wisest of my predecessors advised me that, whatever we did, we should not have another Criminal Justice Bill, because so many people thought it necessary or desirable to include matters that were not originally intended. I have no intention of peering

  327
  into the future. I just believe that the House can, with confidence, give a Third Reading to a thoroughly sensible and effective piece of legislation.
  11.9 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for clarifying the point that we raised earlier about DNA profiling. I hope that the information that he has given will prove accurate in practice.
  I do not wish to follow the Home Secretary completely down the road of mutual congratulation, but I agree that the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill has been something of an epic—more so for some people than others. I must extend my sympathy to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) who has acted as Whip on this Bill twice round. To have spent one year on the Bill is punishment enough, but to have spent two years on it—my hon. Friend has spent nearly all of her time in the House on it—is a feat in itself.
  The House has spent a considerable amount of time discussing this Bill and, even on Report, we have had more than 200 Government amendments. The Home Secretary has denied that the Bill is still a ragbag, but I would call it a hotch-potch of measures. It is a mark of our discussions that a bad Bill will always remain so, no matter how much debate takes place.
  On Second Reading, we ought to be positive; we welcomed those parts of the Bill that we considered constructive—the reduction in the length of prison sentences for unpaid fines, limiting custodial sentences in police cells, encouraging the use of bail hostels, creating a, single detention centre for young offenders and giving the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board a statutory basis. Unfortunately, after many hours in Committee and on Report, we have little to add to that list.
  Fortunately, at times, the Government displayed an unusual characteristic by listening to some of the debates and accepting some of our amendments. We welcome that, and pay tribute to Ministers for doing so. The Government accepted our proposal to ratify the United Nations convention on torture. We welcome the Minister's acceptance of our amendment this evening to lessen the worst effects of the Nottingham justices' decision. We were pleased that the Minister accepted Opposition arguments that it was inappropriate to make custody the sanction for a young person's failure to undergo psychiatric treatment. We are also pleased that education authorities should be consulted before school attendance becomes the requirement of a supervision order.
  Such concessions do not amount to much in a Bill that has been universally criticised as an attack on civil liberties and for its failure to deal with the problems of our criminal justice system. Serious disquiet has been expressed in this House and in another place about the removal of the prima facie rule in extradition, which forms a large part of the Bill. Likewise, the Bill retains the removal of the right to peremptory challenge. Jury trials will be removed from some driving and criminal damage cases. The Bill advocates the increased use of documentary evidence as opposed to oral evidence, and extends the time between bail hearings from eight to 28 days—we believe that that may become the norm in future.
  328
  The Government have moved in the right direction in their attempts to provide more for the victims of crime. but even in that they have failed. The Government are putting the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on a statutory footing but they are also setting off on a petty, penny-pinching exercise that will deny compensation for small items such as damaged clothing and deprive victims of crime of their supplementary benefit when they are awarded compensation. By those examples, which represent major parts of the Bill, the Government have shown their disregard for public and expert opinion.
  The Government have ignored the views of the people who know best and who are directly affected by the changes. The Law Society, the Association of Chief Probation Officers, the National Association of Probation Officers, the Police Federation, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and the National Council for Civil Liberties, to name but a few, have all opposed major parts to the Bill. In the face of such opposition, the Government have not moved an iota on the measures.
  Despite this major piece of legislation, our criminal justice system is likely to remain in crisis. The Government have done nothing to get to the source of the problems that we face. The Opposition maintain that a successful criminal justice system must begin with the premise that it seeks to provide equal rights under the law and equal access to it. At present, all that many people experience is alienation from a system that treats them inappropriately and often unfairly.
  In other measures that they are introducing, the Government are now seeking to offload their responsibility for the incidence of crime by telling us that we must take more care to lock up our property and take better control of our children. Of course we must do those things, but the Government cannot escape the fact that the environment that they have created has also created a divided community in which crime breeds. The Criminal Justice Bill is a mish-mash of measures. The Government want to be seen to be doing something to respond to a public who are increasingly worried by the failure of our criminal justice system to deal with rising crime rates.
  We are left with the immutable fact that the Bill will not deal with the main problems. Crime will continue to increase; prisons will continue to be overcrowded. The prison, probation and police services will find it increasingly difficult to do their jobs. Worst of all, the number of victims will continue to increase. Those are the issues the Government should be tackling, rather than eroding our civil liberties. That is why we shall vote against the Bill tonight.
  11.16 pm
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his ministerial team on a Bill which, although it cannot tackle all the problems listed by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), goes a long way to tackling some of them well.
  I have had the doubtful privilege of being involved in the Committee stages of the Criminal Justice Bill, and of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, in both Parliaments —and my right hon. Friend played a distinguished part. I also served on the Committees which considered the Drug

  329
  Trafficking Offences Bill, the Public Order Bill and the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, but not, I am thankful to say, on the Committee examining this Bill.
  The sheer volume and complexity of the legislation that my right hon. Friend has taken through the House constitutes a distinguished record. I heard what he said about the wise advice of a predecessor who suggested that, whatever else my right hon. Friend did, he should not introduce another Criminal Justice Bill; and I make a prediction. If my right hon. Friend remains, as I hope he will, in his office for another year or so, he or his successor will be almost bound to introduce yet another Criminal Justice Bill. Some things remain to be tackled, notably in the areas of the right to silence and of the video recordings that Mr. Justice Pigot is examining. I and the hon. Member for Dewsbury made common cause on that matter.
  Ultimately, we shall get on top of the crime problem not by means of legislation, but by personal responsibility and legislation. When the hon. Member for Dewsbury sought to place all the responsibility for crime and disorder in our midst on the Government, she let down herself and her party.
  Finally, most of us are in the fortunate position of being able to walk away from this Bill, although no doubt their Lordships will have to put a few finishing touches to it. The police service will have to carry it out. As I said at the end of the debates on all the Bills I have mentioned, we should have a care for the additional duties that we constantly lay on the police service, and should understand that the more complex the law, the more difficult is the task that the police must undertake on behalf of us all. I wish the Bill well and congratulate my right hon. Friend on it.
  11.19 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Although the Home Secretary believes that I glared at him during the proceedings on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, I assure him that during the Committee stage of this Bill I missed his jousting style, as I missed the fencing style of the former Minister of State, the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), on the Criminal Justice Bill mark I. The present Minister of State has more of a knife-thrower's style, attempting to surround us with knives so that we cannot move outside the ring that he has created. That was enjoyable, too.
  The Bill contained some things that were a great disappointment to me, especially—I say this as a practitioner—the incomprehensible reasons that were given for the removal of the right of peremptory challenge. Although a significant concession was made tonight on the procedure by which the courts will deal with challenges for cause, I still believe that there will be practical difficulties in dealing with jury challenges in the future. But I hope that I shall be proved wrong.
  The Bill also contains some useful changes relating to video recordings—I would like that provision to go much further—forfeiture, confiscation, indecency and offensive weapons. What it cannot claim to be, although it makes significant improvements to the law, is a strategy. I suspect that we shall hear it spoken of as part of a great master plan of law and order. Although the Minister of State issues more press releases than any Minister ever known to the House, and although the Home Secretary holds more
  330
  press conferences per week than any Cabinet Minister ever known to the House, I fear that their master plan has yet to be revealed. This is not it.
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Ashby: Earlier this week, the Home Office told us about the amnesty on knives. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has now told us what has happened to some of those knives—the Minister of State has been surrounding the hon. and learned Gentleman with them.
  I was not a member of the Committee that examined the Bill, but I followed the proceedings carefully night after night—sometimes burning the midnight oil later than those who served on the Committee. I thank Ministers and Home Office officials for their great assistance in helping me to follow the Bill.
  It would be wrong to say that the Bill is a hotch-potch. It is a portmanteau. A Bill that deals with so many matters cannot always be cohesive. I disagree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery in one sense: I believe that the Bill will be remembered, because it is the first step in the direction of radically changing the rules of evidence. Lawyers like to think that the rules of evidence are written in stone, have been devised over the centuries and must never be changed. That is not so. It is important that we should not be stuck with these tablets of stone for ever. We should examine our rules on the way in which evidence is given and be prepared to change.
  Substantial changes have been made in the Bill. including the fact that the unsworn testimony of a child will no longer require corroboration. The rules on first-hand testimony and documentary evidence have also been changed.
  I regret only one part of the Bill—that relating to jury challenges—but I am grateful that the Bill did not abolish juries in fraud trials. Perhaps that is the quid pro quo. As some of my hon. Friends have said, we shall see more challenging for cause. Jury trials will be extended as a result of getting rid of the peremptory challenge. Problems with juries will arise because jurors will not have been challenged, and that is the only aspect of the Bill that I regret. We will regret removing the right to jury challenge and have to introduce a measure to restore it or to formalise challenges for cause.
  11.26 pm
  Mr. Bermingham: Just as Mary had "Calais" engraved on her heart as a sign of shame, so those of us who have served on two Criminal Justice Bills in quick succession fear that we may have those engraved on our hearts also as a sign of shame.
  In two years of parliamentary time, a number of grave issues have been bypassed and a number of others have been pushed into law because it was expedient to do so. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) thought jury challenges were bad. Those hon. Members who were not in the previous Parliament will not appreciate the way in which such arguments prompted the Government to remove the peremptory challenge, a step that we shall learn to regret.
  I fear that many Conservative Members do not understand many of these issues. [Interruption.] They are chattering like children pecking on the walls of nowhere. For example, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr

  331
  Fallon), whose manners in this place are becoming increasingly bad, may live to regret the day when we set up the American system of challenging, which may be the price we pay for this measure.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) on mastering the technicalities of the Bill and leading for the Opposition in a way which does credit to the procedures of the House. I also pay credit to the Minister of State who, although not a lawyer, mastered the technicalities. He has often disgreed with me on some issues covered by the Bill. That matters not, for education is a wonderful thing and it comes with time. When we reach the third Criminal Justice Bill in the lifetime of two Parliaments, perhaps we shall be able to convert him, too.
  It sometimes happens— [Interruption.]—that hon. Members come into the Chamber late at night full of ale and chatter and do not understand what is going on. That tends to spoil our proceedings, because at the concluding stages of a Bill, when those who served on the Standing Committee are being serious, they should listen to us. We are saying, in effect, "The Bill will be passed, even though we shall vote against its Third Reading; we must look at the realities. We thank the Government for the concessions they have made. They have listened to our arguments, and perhaps next time they will listen harder." On rare occasions when members of the Opposition feel able to be nice to the Government, the least that Conservative Members should do is listen to us.
  This Bill now passes into history. It passes over to the practitioners, of whom I am one, and I declare that interest. Those of us who will have to deal with the practicalities of the measure fear that we shall be left with many problems. Many members of the community will have to pay the price for the inaccuracies the Bill contains, for they will lead to appeals, to delays and to suffering. For those and other reasons, I oppose the measure.
  11.29 pm
  Mr. Dickens: When I hear praise from lawyers and then a few squeals, and when I hear praise from those representing the police, and then a few squeals, I think that we may have got it right on behalf of parents in Britain.
  No Criminal Justice Bill has done more for parents and children than the one on which we shall be voting in a few minutes. Hon. Members will know that, together with them, I have fought and campaigned for about nine years for many of the things that are now in the Bill.
  What a terrible thing the rules of corroboration were for a child—to be encouraged to tell when someone had abused him and yet to find that no one would listen, and when they did, to find that the judge directed the jury that it would be unsafe and improper to convict on his uncorroborated evidence. When the Bill becomes an Act, children in Britain will at last be listened to in a proper way like an adult and be entitled to be believed as an adult.
  Then there is the video link which enables a child to give evidence in a comfortable room away from the court, where the child does not have to face the abuser or the accused across the court room, look at the judge and barristers in their wigs, or suffer the drama of the court that makes many of us turn to jelly. [Interruption.] Perhaps not me, but certainly many of those hon.
  332
  Members who did not vote for capital punishment would have turned to jelly. Those children can now be listened to in a more sensitive way.
  I hope and pray that the inquiry that the Government have promised us to look into the taking of evidence from a child in the early stages of an inquiry will decide in favour of that, because a child forgets many things by the time he gets to court.
  How many times have we criticised judges for living in a different world, for not reflecting public opinion, for giving too lenient a sentence? The prosecution can now seek leave to appeal against a too-lenient sentence. It is in the Bill. If I and many other hon. Members had not been right in criticising a few of our judges, our legislators and departmental people would not have included that in the Bill. But it is there, and it will be voted through tonight.
  Many hon. Members were not here a few minutes ago, but we were saying that horrible photographs or videos of children mean that a child has to be procured, sometimes snatched from the roadside. It could be the child of an hon. Member one day. Children have to be procured to produce such muck, and when they are, the material is used to corrupt other adults and to entice them to look towards a child in a sexual way.
  That will now come to an end, because previously when a man was found with a house full of child pornography, his defence was that it was for his own use, and he was free. Now, if any police officer goes to a house and finds anybody in possession of child pornography, in a briefcase or in the office, he will not be protected by the words, "It is for my own use." It will now be a criminal offence to be in possession of such material for one's own use.
  I have waited nine years for this. When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary goes to the next Conservative party conference, he will be able to hold his head high because at last he has struck a blow for the parents of Britain and for the victims. I congratulate him, his Ministers and his Department.
  11.35 pm
  Mr. Robert Hayward: I would like to follow on, not from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) but from a comment made by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). He said that Third Reading gave an opportunity for members of the Committee to raise certain items, but it also gives those who were not on the Committee an opportunity to raise one or two points. I particularly welcome clause 34 of the Bill, which gives the prosecution the right to appeal against lenient sentences.
  In my constituency, on 31 May last year, Mark Couzons was murdered in most tragic and violent circumstances. He was, by the admission of everybody who knew him, quite a lad. Some people thought badly of him; some did not. But nobody would have said that he warranted being murdered in such a way. When the case came to court in December, James Nelder was tried and found guilty of manslaughter, late on a Friday afternoon, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. That was the sentence of the judge.
  Up to now, that has been the final stage of the legal process. As a result of this Bill it will be possible for the prosecution to appeal, if it believes that it is appropriate.

  333
  There is no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my constituents that that sentence was far too lenient. It was not in the mind of the judge that it was too lenient.
  It is appropriate that in cases such as this, the prosecution should have the right to consider an appeal. If there is not, the impact that such a sentence may have on the morale of the police and the community is very substantial indeed. People will have confidence in sentences if they are subject to review in these or similar circumstances. If they are not, there is a danger that the law will be brought progressively into disrepute; people will believe that they have been treated unfairly in comparison with others whom they see as receiving more lenient sentences for more violent crimes.
  For that reason, and because of the experience of my constituents, I wholeheartedly endorse this Bill and welcome in particular clause 34.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 105.

  Division No. 390]

  [11.37 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Allason, Rupert

  Devlin, Tim

  Amess, David

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dicks, Terry

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Douglas-Hamillton, Lord James

  Ashby, David

  Dover, Den

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Dunn, Bob

  Atkins, Robert

  Durant, Tony

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

  Baldry, Tony

  Evennett, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fallon, Michael

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Favell, Tony

  Benyon, W.

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Forman, Nigel

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boswell, Tim

  Forth, Eric

  Bottomley, Peter

  Franks, Cecil

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Freeman, Roger

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  French, Douglas

  Bowis, John

  Gardiner, George

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Gill, Christopher

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

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

  Gow, Ian

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Gregory, Conal

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

  Burt, Alistair

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Butcher, John

  Grist, Ian

  Butler, Chris

  Ground, Patrick

  Butterfill, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Cash, William

  Hannam, John

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

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

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Harris, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Conway, Derek

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Hayward, Robert

  Couchman, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Cran, James

  Heddle, John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Curry, David

  Hind, Kenneth

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

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  334

  Holt, Richard

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

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

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Portillo, Michael

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Price, Sir David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Raffan, Keith

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Redwood, John

  Irvine, Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jack, Michael

  Riddick, Graham

  Janman, Tim

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Key, Robert

  Ryder, Richard

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Knowles, Michael

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Knox, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lang, Ian

  Shersby, Michael

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sims, Roger

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Speller, Tony

  Lightbown, David

  Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

  Lilley, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Squire, Robin

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  McCrindle, Robert

  Steen, Anthony

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Stern, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Maclean, David

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Summerson, Hugo

  McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Madel, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Marland, Paul

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich)

  Marlow, Tony

  Thorne, Neil

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Tracey, Richard

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Trippier, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Mills, Iain

  Walden, George

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Waller, Gary

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Moate, Roger

  Warren, Kenneth

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Watts, John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Wells, Bowen

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Wheeler, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Whitney, Ray

  Neale, Gerrard

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Nelson, Anthony

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Neubert, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Wood, Timothy

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Woodcock, Mike

  Page, Richard

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Paice, James

  Patnick, Irvine

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Pawsey, James

  NOES

  Allen, Graham

  Bell, Stuart

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Battle, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Beckett, Margaret

  Boyes, Roland

  335

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Caborn, Richard

  Leighton, Ron

  Callaghan, Jim

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Clay, Bob

  Loyden, Eddie

  Clelland, David

  McAllion, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McFall, John

  Cryer, Bob

  McKelvey, William

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McWilliam, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Madden, Max

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Dewar, Donald

  Meale, Alan

  Dixon, Don

  Michael, Alun

  Doran, Frank

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Eastham, Ken

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Morley, Elliott

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mullin, Chris

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

  Murphy, Paul

  Foster, Derek

  Nellist, Dave

  Foulkes, George

  O'Neill, Martin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Pendry, Tom

  Galloway, George

  Pike, Peter L.

  George, Bruce

  Prescott, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Gordon, Mildred

  Randall, Stuart

  Graham, Thomas

  Rogers, Allan

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Rowlands, Ted

  Henderson, Doug

  Salmond, Alex

  Hinchliffe, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Holland, Stuart

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Hood, Jimmy

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

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

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

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  336

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Turner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Vaz, Keith

  Wray, Jimmy

  Wall, Pat

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Mr. Frank Haynes and

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Mr. Frank Cook.

  Winnick, David

  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Ordered,
  That Sir Peter Emery be added to the Liaison Committee. — [Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

PETITION

  Health and Safety Executive Office, Dundee
  11.48 pm
  Mr. John McAllion: I beg leave of the House to present a petition on behalf of 700 of my constituents and constituents of other hon. Members in Scotland who are opposed to the proposed closure of the Health and Safety Executive office in Dundee. We believe that the closure will be detrimental to the interests of the people of Dundee and people outwith Dundee as well. We ask the House to impose its influence upon the Government and to convince them not to close the office. We would be grateful if the House would take note of the objection, which I present on behalf of the people of Dundee.
  To lie upon the Table.

  British Prisoners of War (Wormhoudt)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. John Carlisle.]
  11.49 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I make no apology for again raising the question of the murder of British prisoners of war in May 1940 at Wormhoudt in France. The debate is essentially for the benefit of the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, not for my benefit. I understand that he will be the first Defence Minister in 48 years to speak on this matter.
  The background to the massacre of the 80 or so British prisoners of war has been fairly well rehearsed in recent weeks, if not in recent years. Following my parliamentary question to the Home Secretary on 21 April, I briefly outlined certain of the circumstances on 25 May, as reported in columns 351 to 356 of Hansard. I need not repeat them, as I am well aware the Minister knows the background. I want to give him the opportunity to make a progress report to the House on what has been happening since the Home Secretary made his commitment on 21 April that the case would be re-examined. I hope that the Minister can answer some specific questions of which I gave him notice yesterday. I should be grateful if he would answer in detail, but if he cannot I presume that he will write to me. Because I have had no contact with the Ministry of Defence since that date, other than brief correspondence, the Minister should tell us what contact has been made with the West German authorities since April.
  We are entitled to know in what year the Government were aware that Wilhelm Mohnke had returned from his Russian imprisonment. According to documents produced by the War Crimes Interrogation Unit—based on the evidence of British prisoners and later, German prisoners—he is held to be responsible for giving the order that no prisoners be taken in the barn at Wormhoudt on 28 May 1940. Mohnke was imprisoned by the Russians when we and others were looking for him.
  We need to know whether the Government were at any time informed of, or involved in, any debriefing or questioning of Mohnke after his Russian imprisonment. I understand that he was debriefed by the Americans. We do not know whether they concerned themselves solely with his activities or imprisonment by the Russians several years after the end of the war, or whether they raised allegations about war crimes by Mohnke in 1940 and 1944.
  We need to have it put on the record whether the Government accept that there was a massacre at Wormhoudt in May 1944 by an SS unit. To the best of my knowledge, that has never been admitted in public. Have the Government ever been requested by the West German authorities to provide any information regarding allegations of war crimes and murder involving Mohnke and personnel under his command and, if so, when? It is a matter of public record that at least twice in the 1970s the German authorities looked at some of the allegations regarding Mohnke. It is inconceivable that they did not request assistance from the British authorities. I know for certain that they did not request any help from British survivors.
  We should know—I make no complaint; I have been moderate on this point—whether the Government have been asked at any time since the incident by any of the
  338
  British regiments concerned to follow up the case against Mohnke. From what I have read and heard, there appears to have been silence. The Government could have done that in the normal way, which is generally behind closed doors. The public have a right to know whether that point has ever been pursued.
  Another point of substance that must be raised is why the material about the Wormhoudt massacre—material that is in British hands—is still being kept secret. I shall expand briefly on this question. The Minister will forgive me for doing that, but it does not change the thrust of the question. I understand that, essentially, documents are closed for 75 years after the end of the war. That is longer than the normal 30-year rule and I have looked at some of the reasons for documents being closed for the longer period.
  I understand that documents are kept closed for more than 30 years if they contain information about individuals, the disclosure of which would cause distress or embarrassment to living persons or their immediate descendants. Since 1982, when the Government produced a White Paper, Cmnd. 8531, on modern public records, they have accepted that instead of distress or embarrassment the criterion should be distress or danger. Does that criterion apply to British citizens or foreign nationals?
  None of the five known survivors from the barn at Wormhoudt would be placed in any distress, danger or embarrassment by the files being made available. No descendant of any person killed at Wormhoudt, or who has now died, having been one of the few other survivors, has ever contacted me asking me to shut up and not to raise the matter. The opposite has been the case. I have been on the receiving end of requests and have quite specifically been asked by people who want to know how their father or grandfather died. Those people were not properly informed about that at the time. I accept that the people who were massacred were lost and that nobody knew about the massacre until at least late 1943.
  A couple of weeks ago I was asked by a lady who is in her 50s, and through her that lady's mother who is now in her 80s, to find out how her father died in the barn. I spoke to her on the phone because I did not want to send the information in a cold way. Her father was one of two people in the barn who made the supreme sacrifice by throwing himself on top of a live grenade in order to protect his comrades. The Minister will know that I have written separately about at least three acts of supreme bravery that day which led to three British soldiers giving up their lives to protect their comrades. I have asked whether that matter can be looked at further, because the evidence about those acts of bravery is not only contained in the documents held by the Government, but is known to the five surviving eye witnesses to those events.
  I stress that the release of the records would cause no danger, distress or embarrassment to any British citizen. It surely cannot be that the danger, distress and embarrassment that we are seeking to avoid is to Mr. Mohnke. The Minister must place that clearly on the record.
  My next question to the Minister is whether any consideration had been given to awarding posthumous awards for bravery.
  I, the House and the country would like to know whether the Government have ever acted for, or taken over, any other nation's investigation into alleged war crimes for which Mohnke is held responsible. I have seen

  339
  evidence from Canada that the Government took over the investigations into alleged war crimes in 1944 in which Mohnke was involved. As my hon. and learned Friends would say, today I took further and better legal advice and found that some years ago the House repatriated the Canadian constitution. Therefore, there is no conceivable way that that could still be operated by this House. The Government certainly conducted inquiries related to Mohnke on behalf of another country.
  Have the Government ever initiated contact with the West German authorities since the inception of the Federal Republic to inquire about the whereabouts and status of those men—they were all men—considered to be the perpetrators of the Wormhoudt massacre? There is abundant evidence in the British files that I have seen, and probably in the ones that are being kept closed, about the Germans concerned—some of whom were prisoners of war and others of whom were identified. It is fairly easy to check that. An enormous amount of record material from the war is still maintained, as I have discovered over the past few months.
  Have the Government ever requested help from the Russian authorities? Wilhelm Mohnke was held prisoner by the Russians for several years, having been taken prisoner of war by them at the fall of the bunker of whose administration he was in charge. It is inconceivable that, having been asked by the allied powers whether they knew about him the Russians did not interrogate him or ask about his war record—where he was every day and every week of the year. That was the normal procedure. Having read the War Crimes Interrogation Unit's reports Nos. 1500 and 1650, I know that almost every German prisoner had to give details about where he had served during the war so that a pattern could be established. I imagine that the Russian military investigators did the same thing.
  Have the Government ever requested help from the Russian authorities to establish whether Mohnke made any statements during his years of imprisonment in Russia about the allegations made against him in respect of war crimes such as the Wormhoudt massacre? In the late 1940s and early 1950s the British Government placed Mohnke's name on the United Nations war crimes list, so it is not as though we were not interested in the matter. The question naturally follows whether we asked the Russians about him.
  As I told the Minister earlier, I shall give him more than half the time in this Adjournment debate. I hope that he will be able to make a detailed progress report. No doubt this will not be an end to the matter, but my hon. Friends and I and those who read the reports of our proceedings will read with interest what the Minister has to say.
  12.1 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on his success in the ballot, which provides me with a timely opportunity to report to the House on the Wormhoudt massacre and the action that we have taken and will take in relation to the evidence.
  This matter was first brought to the attention of the House by the hon. Gentleman on 21 April. On that occasion my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in
  340
  reply that the relevant material was being rigorously re-examined in the Ministry of Defence to see whether it provided a basis for further action. I should like to take this opportunity to say that this is clearly a most serious matter and to stress that we fully appreciate and share the concern of all those involved. If it is possible to bring anyone to justice for this crime, we must all be anxious that this should be done.
  Perhaps it will help the House if I rehearse the events of 28 May 1940. There can be no doubt that on that day a considerable number of British soldiers were murdered near the small village of Wormhoudt in France. It has never been possible, despite all efforts, to discover the exact figure. That is partly due to the number of men missing from various units as a result of that day's fighting, and partly due to the removal of means of identification from the men when they were taken prisoner—they subsequently died—and the loss of many official records during the ensuing evacuation. It was not possible for us to make investigations at the spot until the area was again in allied hands in 1944.
  The men, estimated to number between 50 and 150—it was probably between 80 and 90—mainly belonged to the 2nd Battalion the Royal Warwickshire Regiment, but they also included men from the Cheshire Regiment and from the Royal Artillery. The soldiers were part of the defensive perimeter being held at all cost by the allied Armies round Dunkirk, to enable as many as possible from the British Expeditionary Force and their French comrades-in-arms to be evacuated from the beaches.
  In common with other actions on the Dunkirk perimeter, the fighting in and around Wormhoudt that day was very fierce and often confused. The German forces involved, though outnumbering the British, encountered stiff resistance and suffered many casualties, including the commander of the SS battalion trying to capture Wormhoudt. The accounts of those who survived that day vary in some details, but it is clear that eventually the defenders' gallant resistance was overcome and that several groups of men who had been taken prisoner and disarmed towards the end of the fighting around the village were collected together by the SS soldiers and marched off to a small barn some distance away.
  A number of other prisoners seem to have been brought to join that group near the barn, and at least one man who fell out on the way to the barn was bayoneted by the SS German escorts. At the barn the men were herded inside. Any thought that our men had that this was to shelter them from the heavy rain that was now falling was short-lived.
  The barn was too crowded for the wounded to lie down and the only British officer who appears to have been present was brusquely rebuffed when he protested about the lack of room in the barn. The SS troops who had taken the men to the barn then threw grenades in among them, causing many casualties. After that, some of the dazed prisoners were ordered out into the field in small groups and were then shot: the last act of some of those men was to turn and face their killers. The SS men then changed their tactics and, standing along the sides of the barn, which was of a fairly open construction, shot at those still in the building. The SS troops' final act was to enter the barn to kill any prisoners they thought were still alive. They then left the scene.
  During the attack, three men at least appear to have escaped from the barn—one to hide successfully, the other

  341
  two, including the officer, to be followed and shot. The officer died; the wounded man he had dragged with him survived, despite being further wounded.
  Despite the ferocity of the attack, a number of men survived. Most of them stayed near the barn for between two and four days, during which time further men died from their wounds. The men left near the barn, and eventually those who had moved away from it, were all found by other German soldiers who were not members of the SS. Those German soldiers took proper care of the men and they were thereafter given the necessary medical attention and correctly treated as prisoners of war. In all, it would appear that there 14 survivors of the massacre in the barn. The House will be aware that in these harrowing circumstances there many individual acts of bravery. Witnesses have particularly testified to the conduct of the officer and two senior NCOs involved in the shooting at the barn.
  The House will join me and the hon. Gentleman in paying respect to the courage and bearing of the men murdered and to the proud record of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment. The hon. Gentleman has written to me about posthumous awards for gallantry, and I shall reply to him separately and soon.
  The crime first came to light in this country in late 1943. That was when some of the survivors, wounded and prisoners of war, were repatriated, and they spoke of their ordeal. When their interviews were studied, it became evident that a serious crime had been committed, and investigations began. They continued from 1944 onwards.
  As soon as it was possible, inquiries were made at the scene and statements were taken from several local people, none of whom, however, was a witness to the crime. Eight British survivors were eventually found by the investigators and detailed statements were taken from them. More than 50 voluntary statements were taken from 38 former SS men who had been in the regiment concerned on 28 May 1940. Others were interrogated and reported on. Some key figures, however, were not interviewed. Some were known to have been killed later in the war. Others, like the former SS Captain, by then SS General, Mohnke, could not he traced or were known to be detained elsewhere and unavailable.
  The investigation had been taken over in late 1945 by the newly established War Crimes Interrogation Unit led by Lieutenant-Colonel Scotland. This unit took the information already collected and gathered much more, enabling an outline of events to be established and reports on the case to be made.
  I do not wish to prejudice the outcome of this matter, but I must tell the House that from all the information and statements collected during the investigation, it was then concluded that there was insufficient evidence of identification and testimony to bring to trial any of the German SS soldiers who were thought possibly to have committed the murders.
  However, Lieutenant-Colonel Scotland concluded that a German officer had been present and had been responsible for ordering the shooting of the prisoners of war. He identified this officer as the then Captain Mohnke. It is not clear from our review of the evidence on what grounds Lieutenant-Colonel Scotland was so definite in his accusation. I can say that three of the eight British survivors interviewed had mentioned the presence of a German officer. Only one gave a specific description, and he is now believed to be dead. The only evidence that
  342
  Mohnke had ordered the shooting came as hearsay from two Germans, both of whom said that others had told them that Mohnke gave such an order: neither had witnessed the order being given and those who were supposed to have told them of it either denied it or could not be found.
  Clearly the fact that Mohnke was not available for questioning hindered the investigation, but with no more evidence than was available in the late 1940s, the crime remained unresolved, there being insufficient evidence to bring the case to court.
  Before I deal with the action that we now propose, I would like to turn to a number of points of which the hon. Gentleman kindly gave me notice, and which he has just repeated.
  In 1948, the British Government of the day took the decision, after careful consideration, to cease war crimes trials. The War Crimes Interrogation Unit was wound up and responsibility for any further German war crimes trials was handed over to the German courts constituted under the authority of the allied occupying powers. The Canadian Government had ceased war crimes investigations in 1947 before the British decision, and had handed over material on unresolved cases to the British investigators. A number of Canadian cases were brought to trial by the British: those unresolved in 1948 remained so with the British decision to cease trials. However, we are now in touch with the Canadian authorities and will co-operate fully with their current renewed investigations.
  With the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany as a sovereign state, the responsibility for further prosecutions passed to the newly established sovereign German courts. That was the position when Mohnke was released by the Russians in 1955, and it remains the position today. There is, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained, no jurisdiction in this country in the present case and there is no possibility of extradition. The courts in the Federal Republic of Germany would of course have jurisdiction, and I understand that the public prosecutor in Lubeck has agreed to re-open the case and to take up the investigation.
  The hon. Member has raised a number of questions about the Government's knowledge and actions concerning this case over the years. When the public prosecutor in Lubeck investigated the case against Mohnke between 1973 and 1976, we understand that he concluded that he did not have enough evidence to mount a prosecution. We have been unable to find any evidence that the Government have ever been requested by the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany to provide information in connection with this case. Nor, so far as we are aware, have any of the regiments concerned ever officially pressed for the allegations against Mohnke to be followed up.
  Similarly, we are not aware whether the British Government specifically knew that Mohnke had returned to Germany, nor have we found any evidence of British involvement in or knowledge of his interrogation on his return.
  We have found no evidence that the Government have asked the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany since its inception about any of the men thought possibly to have been the perpetrators of the massacre; nor are we aware of any approach having been made to the Soviet authorities about Mohnke.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Was there any contact from the Nachrichtensdienst, the intelligence services, or the Verfussungschutz or the Bundeskriminalamt about the 1955 events? Was no initiative taken?
  Mr. Freeman: I have given the House and the hon. Gentleman the facts as available to me about contacts between the British Government and their agencies and those of the Federal Republic.
  The hon. Member for Perry Barr raised the question of the closed records. Public records relating to Wilhelm Mohnke and the Wormhoudt massacre are subject to the provisions of the Public Records Act 1958. The Act provides for certain records over 30 years old to be retained by Departments for administrative or other reasons, under section 3(4); or to be closed for extended periods within the public record office under section 5(1), in accordance with the criteria set out in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the White Paper "Modern Public Records".
  Those criteria are as set out in paragraph 26: exceptionally sensitive papers, the disclosure of which would be contrary to the public interest whether on security or other grounds; documents containing information supplied in confidence, the disclosure of which would or might constitute a breach of good faith; and documents containing information about individuals, the disclosure of which would cause distress or embarrassment to living persons or their immediate descendants. Paragraph 27 of the White Paper notes that sensitivity should not be deemed to cover party politial sensitivity and that distress and danger should be the criteria rather than distress and embarrassment.
  A file containing reports of the incident is available for public inspection in the Public Records Office, reference TS 26/206. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of that. I can inform the House that we have now collected and collated all the relevant material from our records, so that stage of our work is complete.
  I conclude by repeating that the Government take the matter very seriously and will now make all the evidence we have available to the relevant authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany, with whom we are in touch. Further, we will co-operate in every way to facilitate their inquiries. At the end of the day, no matter how horrendous the crime committed on 28 May 1940, and however serious our concern, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it must be a matter for the relevant authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany to consider the evidence and decide whether a case can be brought against any individuals who may have been involved.
  The Wormhoudt massacre was a sordid, brutal and dishonourable event in a bloody war, and the British Government will do their part to facilitate justice.
  12.17 am
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on his persistence in this matter. I supported him when the matter was first raised with the Home Secretary, so I have some locus and an increasing interest in it. I say a great "Thank you" to the Minister for his most serious reply. It was an example of how an Adjournment debate on such a difficult matter should be handled. I have no doubt of his sincerity.
  I return to the question of the mid-1950s because, as it happens, I was in the Rhine Army and all the Scots Greys were taken to the Hohne site—that is, the site of Belsen. It is firmly in my mind that undertakings were given—obviously, not to us as national service men—that everything would be done to ensure that those responsible for war crimes were brought to book.
  From my understanding of the 1950s—and I have made various inquiries—there was an obligation on the German authorities to bring to the notice of the British anyone suspected of war crimes who returned from eastern Europe. My hon. Friend has similar information, and it ties up with the Canadian example. I admit that it is difficult to go back 33, 34 or 35 years, but the Verfussungschutz—the society for the protection of the constitution—and the German Nachrichtensdienst have extremely efficient records. Equally, the Bundeskriminalamt, the German police, are as efficient as any in the world.
  What I find difficult to understand is why on earth those organisations were not asked those questions. Was there no contact? Had people simply washed their hands of it in the mid-1950s? As a young national service man in Germany at the time, I can tell the Minister that that was certainly not my impression. The undertaking was given that there would be an effort to get to the root of all these matters—not least from the French, the Americans, the British and—as it related to them—the Russians. I do not understand how a void developed in the 1950s about an agreement dating from 1947 for the Canadians and 1948 for the British.
  There are people to be questioned about the undertakings given. One of the people to question is my noble Friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, who knows a great deal about what happened in Germany immediately after the war. My concrete suggestion is that those around at the time should be questioned, so that—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half and hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the debate without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at nineteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Licensing Act 1964
  Licensing Act 1964
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Jurors
  Jurors
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Magistrates (Travelling Allowances)
  Magistrates (Travelling Allowances)
  Passports
  Passports
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Export Promotion
  Export Promotion
  Companies Registration Offices
  Companies Registration Offices
  Company Liquidations
  Company Liquidations
  Research Establishments
  Research Establishments
  Skin Lighteners
  Skin Lighteners
  Financial Services Act 1986
  Financial Services Act 1986
  Barlow Clowes
  Barlow Clowes
  Defence Goods (Exports)
  Defence Goods (Exports)
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Water Pollution
  Water Pollution
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE GCSE
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE GCSE
  Health Education Authority AIDS Pack
  Health Education Authority AIDS Pack
  City Technology Colleges
  City Technology Colleges
PRIME MINISTER
  Angola
  Angola
  Rover Group
  Rover Group
  Engagements
  Engagements
ENERGY
  Electricity Consumption
  Electricity Consumption
  CEGB
  CEGB
  Electricity Privatisation
  Electricity Privatisation
  Anti-radiation Tablets
  Anti-radiation Tablets
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Sizewell B
  Sizewell B
SCOTLAND
  Jurors (Vetting)
  Jurors (Vetting)
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Scottish Health Service Planning Council
  Scottish Health Service Planning Council
  Scottish Bus Group
  Scottish Bus Group
  Registered Establishments (Scotland) Act 1987
  Registered Establishments (Scotland) Act 1987
  Fish Farming
  Fish Farming
  Ministers (Substitutes)
  Ministers (Substitutes)
  Ministers (Engagements)
  Ministers (Engagements)
  Business Success Conference
  Business Success Conference
  Employment Training
  Employment Training
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Schools (Discipline)
  Schools (Discipline)
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Sheltered Homes
  Sheltered Homes
  Water Supplies (Radioactivity Monitoring)
  Water Supplies (Radioactivity Monitoring)
  East Kilbride Development Corporation
  East Kilbride Development Corporation
WALES
  Penfedw Farm Riding School, Swansea
  Penfedw Farm Riding School, Swansea
  Welsh Language
  Welsh Language
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Head Teachers (Vacancies)
  Head Teachers (Vacancies)
  Education Reform
  Education Reform
  Departmental Employees (Aberystwyth)
  Departmental Employees (Aberystwyth)
  Agricultural Department (Staff)
  Agricultural Department (Staff)
  Local Authority Capital Expenditure
  Local Authority Capital Expenditure
THE ARTS
  Equal Opportunities
  Equal Opportunities
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
NATIONAL FINANCE
  EC (Payments)
  EC (Payments)
  VAT (New Construction)
  VAT (New Construction)
  Civil Service Unions
  Civil Service Unions
  Charities (Payroll Deduction Scheme)
  Charities (Payroll Deduction Scheme)
  Profit-related Pay
  Profit-related Pay
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
EMPLOYMENT
  Workfare
  Workfare
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Unemployment Training
  Unemployment Training
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Elderly Unemployed People
  Elderly Unemployed People
  Construction Sites
  Construction Sites
  Small Firms
  Small Firms
  Travel Time Payments
  Travel Time Payments
  Mineworkers (Health)
  Mineworkers (Health)
  Mines and Quarries
  Mines and Quarries
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  EC Labour and Social Affairs Council
  EC Labour and Social Affairs Council
  Safety at Work
  Safety at Work
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Elderly People
  Elderly People
  NHS
  NHS
  Compensation Payments
  Compensation Payments
  Irish Language
  Irish Language
  Arthur Andersen and Co.
  Arthur Andersen and Co.
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  South Georgia
  South Georgia
  Foreign Ministers Council
  Foreign Ministers Council
  Human Rights (USSR)
  Human Rights (USSR)
  Romania
  Romania
  Sharpeville Six
  Sharpeville Six
  Mandela Concert
  Mandela Concert
  Iran
  Iran
  Anguilla (Wild Dogs)
  Anguilla (Wild Dogs)
  Western European Union
  Western European Union
  Disarmament
  Disarmament
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Equal Opportunities
  Equal Opportunities
  Waste Imports
  Waste Imports
  Minister for the Marine (Ireland)
  Minister for the Marine (Ireland)
  Fish (Chemicals)
  Fish (Chemicals)
  Water Pollution
  Water Pollution
  Milk and Dairies Regulations
  Milk and Dairies Regulations
  Cereal Seed
  Cereal Seed
  Rhizomania
  Rhizomania
TRANSPORT
  BREL (Pensions)
  BREL (Pensions)
  Office Equipment (Cars)
  Office Equipment (Cars)
  Road Schemes (Compulsory Purchases)
  Road Schemes (Compulsory Purchases)
  Seafreight Freeway
  Seafreight Freeway
  M20
  M20
  Transport and Road Research Laboratory
  Transport and Road Research Laboratory
  Orange Badge Scheme
  Orange Badge Scheme
  Plutonium
  Plutonium
  Motorways
  Motorways
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Rents (London)
  Rents (London)
  Twenty-one Hour Rule
  Twenty-one Hour Rule
  Terminal Care
  Terminal Care
  Family Credit
  Family Credit
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Midwifery (Camberwell)
  Midwifery (Camberwell)
  Grandparents
  Grandparents
  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Deaf People (Social Workers)
  Deaf People (Social Workers)
  Ethical Committees
  Ethical Committees
  Foetal Tissue
  Foetal Tissue
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Psychiatric Hospitals (West Midlands)
  Psychiatric Hospitals (West Midlands)
  Cosmetics
  Cosmetics
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Young People (Benefits)
  Young People (Benefits)
  Single Parents
  Single Parents
  Incomes
  Incomes
  SE Thames RHA (Empty Property)
  SE Thames RHA (Empty Property)
  Care for the Elderly Research (University of Wales)
  Care for the Elderly Research (University of Wales)
ENVIRONMENT
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Cemeteries (Sale)
  Cemeteries (Sale)
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Stockton-on-Tees
  Stockton-on-Tees
  USAF District Works Offices
  USAF District Works Offices
  Whitby Against Nuclear Dumping
  Whitby Against Nuclear Dumping
  Sport and Leisure Facilities
  Sport and Leisure Facilities
  National Rivers Authority
  National Rivers Authority
DEFENCE
  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Arms Trade
  Arms Trade
  Royal Dockyard, Devonport
  Royal Dockyard, Devonport
  Defence Policy
  Defence Policy
  Nuclear Missiles
  Nuclear Missiles
  Estimates
  Estimates
  Weapons Procurement
  Weapons Procurement
  Trident
  Trident
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Military Stores
  Military Stores
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
  Procurement Policy
  Procurement Policy
  Nuclear Weapons Testing (Compensation)
  Nuclear Weapons Testing (Compensation)
  AIDS
  AIDS
  NATO (Expenditure)
  NATO (Expenditure)
  British Army Equipment Exhibition
  British Army Equipment Exhibition
  Glenmoriston Estate, Inverness-shire
  Glenmoriston Estate, Inverness-shire
  Overseas Students (Military Training)
  Overseas Students (Military Training)
  Air Cadets (Motor Gliders)
  Air Cadets (Motor Gliders)
  Forces' Allowances
  Forces' Allowances
  SSN and SSBN
  SSN and SSBN
  NATO-Warsaw Pact
  NATO-Warsaw Pact
  Security Vehicle AMAC 1
  Security Vehicle AMAC 1
  Arms Export Industry (Employment)
  Arms Export Industry (Employment)
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  RAF Upper Heyford.
  RAF Upper Heyford.
  Air-Sea Rescue
  Air-Sea Rescue
  RAF Pilots
  RAF Pilots
  British Forces (Germany)
  British Forces (Germany)
  NATO (Strategy)
  NATO (Strategy)
  French Minister
  French Minister
  Tucano
  Tucano
  British Prisoners of War (Murder)
  British Prisoners of War (Murder)
  Nuclear Submarines (Sales)
  Nuclear Submarines (Sales)
  Sandhurst
  Sandhurst
  Type 23 Frigates
  Type 23 Frigates
  Low Flying
  Low Flying
  West German Minister
  West German Minister
  Merchant Ships
  Merchant Ships
  European Fighter Aircraft
  European Fighter Aircraft
  Ethnic Monitoring
  Ethnic Monitoring
  RAF Stations (Noise Insulation)
  RAF Stations (Noise Insulation)
  Chieftain Tank
  Chieftain Tank
  Westland
  Westland
  Removal Contracts
  Removal Contracts
  Arms Register
  Arms Register
  HMS Hermes
  HMS Hermes
  Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve
  Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve
  INF Treaty
  INF Treaty
  Contracts
  Contracts
  Irish Regiments
  Irish Regiments
  Royal Ordnance plc (Agreement)
  Royal Ordnance plc (Agreement)
  Naval Damage (Compensation)
  Naval Damage (Compensation)
  Nuclear Disarmament
  Nuclear Disarmament
  Ministerial Meetings
  Ministerial Meetings

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

Local Authority Housing Subventions
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total of their financial subvention to local authority housing in 1979, and what were the figures for each subsequent year.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness)My Lords, government subvention to local authority housing takes the form of housing subsidy. A different system operated prior to 1981–82, so I shall take that as my base year. In 1981–82 housing subsidy entitlements totalled £881 million. In successive years they have been £437 million, £347 million, £S345 million, £487 million, £476 million and (last year) £S464 million. In addition, many local authorities have received help via rate support grant for the rate fund contributions that they are assessed as making to their council housing.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the very detailed figures that he has given us. Is he aware that local authorities calculate that since 1979 in global terms they have lost £15 billion through government withdrawal and change of subsidy? Is he further aware that if that money had been left where it was and made available to them, that sum could have gone towards refurbishing to a much higher and more acceptable standard 80 percent. of the more than 100,000 council houses which the Minister keeps telling us are empty in the local authority sector? Is it not time that the Government stopped blaming local authorities for some of their own misdoings?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord touched on only part of the income that a local authority has in the housing field. There are rents net of rebate besides housing subsidy, rent rebate subsidy from the DHSS and rate fund contributions. If one looks at it in the whole, together with the capital sums that have been given, not only to local authorities but to other providers of housing, the picture is not quite as bleak as the noble Lord portrays.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is it not the case that many local authorities would do well to imitate those who have made partnership arrangements with private sector companies to achieve the refurbishment of which the noble Lord, Lord Dean, spoke, and that where that has been done it has not only provided a highly acceptable standard of housing but a very great improvement on anything that those local authorities were able to do before?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right, and he will be delighted to know that the gross provision in the last three successive years to help authorities deal with the backlog of renovation has meant increases in the sums available.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did the noble Earl see the programme on BBC "Panorama" last night which depicted the activities of a rapacious, vicious and criminal landlord against his tenants? Does he not think that there is some connection between that kind of behaviour and the massive cuts in finance that the Government have made to local government housing?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I did not see the programme. I was in the Chamber voting. I hope that the noble Lord was too.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister recall that it is his department's own figures that indicate that the greatest number of properties left empty are those that are owned and managed by the Government the themselves? What do the Government intend to do about that situation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting point. I think that it is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that I be allowed to smile at the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, as he was one of the culprits who indulged in that exercise of massive cuts in subsidies? In fact, cannot he be accused of behaving like the surgeon who kept his foot on the oxygen tube until the patient expired and then blamed the nursing staff for neglect?
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords, I think that that would be a wrong accusation to make against my noble friend.

Agricultural Research Funding
2.40 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much of the cost of agricultural research and development is to be met in future by funding from industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, this is an issue that we are currently considering in the context of the review of the agricultural department's R&D; programmes. I have recently begun a series of meetings with interested organisations sector by sector so that industry can consider the areas of near market R&D; that it would be prepared to fund. I really am sorry that at this stage 1 cannot give the noble Lord more information.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, I find it extremely disappointing and I think she will know why. Does she agree that

1289
since the internal review of agricultural research and development was completed some three months ago, there is no reason whatsoever for the Government not to make a statement regarding the amount of industry funding that they expect for agricultural research and development? Is she aware that morale in the R&D; sector is at an all-time low and that the agricultural and food industries have no idea of the Government's intentions in this field of policy and the amount of funding that they are expected to find?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the report was completed recently and it is now under consideration. It is too early to say what will be the detailed conclusions from the study. I have to say that press reports and union claims are simply speculation. With regard to the lack of confidence, or bad morale, to which the noble Lord referred, nobody likes to be in a state of worry, not knowing what is going on. I think that we all understand that. However, it was not possible to transfer responsibilities for applied work to industry in one go. The noble Lord will realise that priorities and frontiers change. There is a continuing need to ensure the best use of public resources.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, is not this Question somewhat ambiguous in the sense that it fails to identify what is meant by industry? Every farmer in the country is a member of the agricultural industry. How do they finance research? The agricultural machinery manufacturers could run their industrial research association. Is not this Question ambiguous? Will the noble Baroness agree that in the United States they have the United States Bureau of Agriculture, which does research for the industry? It is a proper province of government. One cannot expect farmers to do it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not think that I can answer for the questioner on whether this Question is ambiguous.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to answer the second part of the question. That seems to me to get to the heart of the matter. In an industry as fragmented but as important as agriculture, it is a proper function of government both to see that the research takes place and largely to finance it.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the major role for government lies in supporting the science base and providing platforms for future exploitation by industry. Government responsibility also lies in important areas of public concern such as health, safety, animal welfare and environmental protection.
Lord Walston: My Lords, will the Minister not agree that at the moment the agricultural industry is going through a worrying and relatively unprofitable period? Therefore the need for further research to enable it to adjust to the new circumstances is even greater than it has been in the past. The likelihood of funds being found directly from the industry itself is less than it was several years ago because of the lack of profitability.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in the context of the reviews that are going on across government, if industry does not value the work sufficiently to take on the financing then I fear that less research will he done.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness will agree that this is not by any means an ambiguous Question when one considers the supplementary questions that have been asked by those behind me. Is she aware that there has been a long delay? There have been rumours and counter-rumours about the coming report. That has created this situation. Farmers are worried because, as the noble Lord behind me said a few minutes ago, farming is an industry consisting of about 250,000 units. To try to levy that separately for different items of research would be ridiculous. I hope that the research committee will look into that very carefully before it reports.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I apologised at the beginning in my Answer to the original Question that I was not able to give more information. I also announced—I think this is the first time that it has been announced—that I am having these meetings sector by sector.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am surprised that she was not able to answer the question from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, because industry funding is the Government's own term? Will she agree that since she is holding these meetings sector by sector—I understand very detailed figures are being given of the minimum and maximum extent of so-called near market research—it is a pity that the information is given to outside organisations and not to Parliament?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have had only one of these meetings so far. Therefore it would be ambiguous to give figures for one section and not for the others. I remind the noble Lord that total R&D; spending by all agricultural departments is of the order of £130 million.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, was not my noble friend on the Cross-Benches, who is normally so accurate, rather oversimplifying by supposing that the agricultural industry is composed solely of farmers? Is there not a big fertiliser industry, a vast farm machinery industry and a great plant breeding industry, all of which are not necessarily composed of farmers?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. I might add horticulture as another very important part of agriculture.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, first, will the noble Baroness agree that government-funded R&D; applied to what is understood by everyone to be the agricultural industry, has created what is probably the most efficient agricultural industry in the world since the war? Secondly, will she tell the House, in relation to the review which she has now conducted, that if she and her right honourable friend discover at

1291
the end of it that the money will not be available from industry to provide adequate funds for R&D, the Government will make up the difference?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to answer the first part of the question of the noble Lord. Of course I think that our agricultural research and development is second to none. On the second part of his question, it gives me less pleasure to say that I cannot answer it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us when she expects to be able to make the announcements which will flow from her consultations?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, did not the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble and learned Lord who sits on my left hit the same nail on the head when the one said that the industry was fragmented into many parts and the other gave us illustration of those many parts?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, yes—or maybe no!

Nomura and Daiwa Companies
2.50 p.m
Lord Bruce-Gardyne Lord Bruce-Gardyne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make a further statement on the progress of the application by Daiwa and Nomura to act as gilt-edged market-makers.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to my noble friend on 25th May.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer although it does not carry the matter much further. Is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the applications from Daiwa and Nomura should be left pending unless and until additional seats are provided on the Tokyo Stock Exchange for British finance houses? If so, are we sure that the exclusion of such major Japanese players for an indeterminate length of time is compatible with our ambition to turn London into one of the three world pivotal financial markets? In other words, do we not need them rather more than they need us?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as my noble friend will know, the Japanese markets are a good deal more open to foreigners than they were. We greatly value our relationship with the Japanese, but we still look to them to eliminate sources of friction by offering the same access to their markets as we offer to ours. The matter is still under consideration, and I am afraid that there is little more that I can say to my noble friend.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not the case that the Treasury is insisting—many may think quite properly—on the validity of the doctrine of reciprocity? That being the case, will the noble Lord communicate these noble sentiments to his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry who do not appear to adopt the same principles when it comes to predators taking over British companies?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, will know that British financial markets thrive on the open door that we offer to all qualified foreign houses. As regards the noble Lord's comment about the policy of the Department of Trade and Industry, I point out that often there are factors which must be taken into account. I suspect that the noble Lord has in mind the Rowntree affair. In that instance the Swiss Government did not make any policy as regards closing their doors. Many companies in Switzerland have articles of association which prevent foreign take-overs, as do many British companies.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I should like to press my noble friend on one further aspect of reciprocity. How do we reconcile within the Treasury our insistence on reciprocity access as regards our London financial market while at the same time apparently objecting implacably to any suggestion of European Community rules on reciprocity of access to financial markets, and also saying that we believe in the development of a single European market?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the powers of reciprocity given to the Government under the Financial Services Act are reserve powers. They are quite unlike the powers which the Commission is recommending in the draft second banking co-ordination directive. The UK and other member states see no need for powers of that kind at Community level.

MAVIS Scheme
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Department of Transport's MAVIS scheme is receiving sufficient publicity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Department of Transport is currently sending a leaflet on the Mobility Advice and Vehicle Information Service with every vehicle excise duty renewal reminder to motorists. Since the beginning of April this has generated nearly 1,300 inquiries from disabled people. This campaign will in the course of a year reach more than 30 million people.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that excellent Answer. Does he agree that partially disabled people may benefit more from this scheme because possibly they may be nervous about driving, and, as I understand it, there is a choice of

1293
more than 18 different cars from which people can choose in deciding whether they can drive such vehicles?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is correct. My figures show that 15 different cars are available at the centre at Crowthorne for disabled or partially disabled people to try in order to decide whether they are able to make use of them.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does the scheme see itself as being complementary to the exceedingly valuable work done over the years by the Motability organisation, of which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has been chairman for many years, and which now proudly boasts that it is the biggest fleet owner of cars in the world because of the number of cars, adapted or not, which have been made available to disabled people?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, yes, my noble friend is right; the scheme is complementary to the Motability scheme. Our scheme will advise disabled or partially disabled people of the kinds of cars which can be driven and of the adaptations which need to be made to make that possible.
Lord underhill: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that we readily support the general publicity scheme that he outlined in his first supplementary answer? Has the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee raised any questions in respect of publicity, and is it thoroughly satisfied?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not aware that the committee has raised any questions about publicity. This is not the only means of publicity which takes place. Leaflets are available at the practices of GPs, rehabilitation centres, special schools, shows and exhibitions and so forth. The unit was represented at Belfast last week-end and at Huddersfield two weeks ago.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how much the MAVIS scheme is costing?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I can give only a rough figure. For the financial year 1987–88, the running costs and salaries of driving consultants amounted to just over £24,000. Other overheads and staff costs are absorbed separately by the department; but I do not have a figure for those.

Business
2.56 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Education Reform Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour, and that during the adjournment the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Amendment Order 1988, the Wolverhampton Urban Development Area Order
1294
1988, the Central Manchester Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1988, the Leeds Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1988 and the Sheffield Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1988 will be taken.

Education Reform Bill
2.57 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill he now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 103 [Charges and remissions policies]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 349A:
Page 104, line 25, after ("aptitude") insert ("geographical necessity or therapeutic requirements").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 349A I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 349B. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify a possible ambiguity in Clause 104(4) and to ensure that other factors beside educational provision are taken into account when deciding whether the parents of children with special educational needs should pay for hoard and lodging at a maintained boarding school. It is also intended to avoid a situation arising where pupils with special educational needs, which can be met only at a residential special school, are prevented from receiving that education because their parents cannot afford the fees for board and lodgings.
Many handicapped pupils must attend special schools for geographical reasons. On Second Reading I gave an example of the only boarding school for the visually handicapped in the ILEA area. There 75 per cent. of the children at the school are from non-ILEA boroughs and from the Home Counties. The fees at the school are approximately £1,000 per pupil.
Few parents of handicapped children want their children to attend boarding school. A handicapped child particularly needs the comfort and support of home surroundings. It is very hard for the child and the parents if the child has to go away to school for the special education which he or she requires.
I tabled the amendment so that the Minister can assure the House that when any child with a special educational need requires attendance at a boarding school for geographical or therapeutic reasons, in addition to the reasons set out in Clause 104(4), in no case will the parents have to meet the cost of such education or the board and lodging costs.
I cannot believe that the Government intend that the parents should have to pay. The possible ambiguity has been pointed out to me and I would welcome an assurance from the Minister on the lines that I have requested. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government sympathise with the intention behind these amendments: that is, to ensure that boarding education is provided free of charge, where this is necessary to meet the particular educational needs of an individual child. But this position is already secured in statute and by the provisions on the face of the Bill; these amendments are unnecessary and would, I fear, simply confuse rather than clarify matters.
Section 8 of the Education Act 1944 already requires LEAs to meet essential boarding need, where education suitable to a child's age, ability and aptitude, and to any special educational needs he may have, cannot be provided otherwise. The Bill repeats the provisions under Section 61 of the Education Act 1944 that. in these circumstances, no charge may be levied on parents.
The queston of "geographical necessity"—in other words whether a child needs to be boarded because of the distance which he or she would otherwise have to travel to school—would be absolutely crucial to an authority's consideration, under the existing provisions, of whether suitable education could otherwise be provided for that child. To single out this aspect of need on the face of the Bill is thus unnecessary and could indeed be taken as implying that other needs were seen as less important or even as excluded.
As I have already pointed out, where a child needs boarding education because of any special educational needs he may have, this must also be provided without charge. I recognise the concern that has been expressed about the need of some children for therapy services, and the difficulties experienced in some parts of the country in obtaining those services, or in obtaining enough of them to meet the children's needs.
In recognising that there are difficulties in the provision of certain forms of therapy in some parts of the country, we do not accept that the right course is to move a child away from his or her home and place him in a boarding school, solely with the aim of obtaining better access to health services. The choice of school for a pupil with special educational needs should be dictated first and foremost on educational grounds; the need for particular kinds of therapy is an additional consideration which must be taken into account. If there are difficulties in securing the provision of any particular type of therapy, the answer is not to move the child to another area, but to press the health authority to carry out its duty under the National Health Service Act.
To introduce the term "therapeutic" on the face of the Bill would thus be unnecessary and potentially confusing. The necessary duties and safeguards are already in place or included in this clause as drafted.
Amendment No. 349B seeks to introduce the word "reasonably" into this clause. If the noble Lord is seeking to strengthen parents' hands in situations where they may disagree with an authority's judgment on essential boarding need, this would not he the effect of the amendment as tabled, and such provision is in any case unnecessary, since parents will continue to have the right to appeal to my right
1296
honourable friend the Secretary of State where they consider that an authority is behaving unreasonably.
For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I welcome the assurance that the Minister has given. I am a little concerned about the point she made about therapy. She will be aware of the problems in some areas over speech therapy. However, in the light of the assurances which she gave, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 349B not moved.]
[Amendment No. 350 not moved.]
Clause 105 [Extension of powers as to trusts for religious education]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 351:
Page 106, line 10, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 352:
Page 106, line 14, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Bishop of London The Lord Bishop of London moved Amendment No. 352A:
After Clause 107, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Education ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953.
(" . The following shall be added to the end of section 2 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953: "Where the Secretary of State directs that a specified part only of so much of the cost incurred in the establishment of the school shall be defrayed by the Local Education Authority the provisions of !he first Schedule to the Education Act 1946 shall apply.".").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 352B. Amendment No. 352A is intended to cause the requirements of the first schedule of the Education Act 1946 to apply to the provision of new controlled schools which was permitted by Section 2 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953.
This means that in cases where a voluntary body wishes to contribute towards the costs of a new school, thereby enabling it to be a controlled school, the site of that school will have to vest in its trustees in the same way as would happen if the school was an existing school which was moving from one site to another.
There has been a disadvantage for many years in that the 1953 Act did not require local authorities to convey the school's site to the school's trustees and in consequence of charity law the trustees were in difficulties in putting any funds into the school which they did not actually own.
The object of Amendment No. 352B is simply to apply the same criteria in cases where an existing controlled school has a significant enlargement to it. The object of both amendments is to permit greater

1297
flexibility in arrangements between voluntary bodies and local education authorities. It may be that in order to achieve this greater flexibility regarding substituted schools and enlargements, some amendments will also be needed to the first schedule to the Education Act 1946. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I accept that there are anomalies in the present law relating to controlled schools which need attention. The Secretary of State has some sympathy with the intention of these amendments to enable the Church authorities to contribute towards the cost of providing a new controlled school or enlarging an existing one, with an appropriate assurance that their interests will be safeguarded if the school later closes.
However, this is a very complex area of law and I am advised that the right reverend Prelate's amendments are not satisfactory as they stand. Some careful thought needs to be given to appropriate changes to bring about the ends which we agree are desirable. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will be content to withdraw his amendment on my assurance that we will consider further what can be done and return to the issue at a future legislative opportunity.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her assurances, in the light of which I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 352B not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 352C:
After Clause 109 insert the following new clause:
(" Obligation to enter pupils for prescribed public examinations.
.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the governing body of every maintained school shall secure that each registered pupil at the school is entered, at such time as they consider appropriate, for each prescribed public examination for which he is being prepared at the school at the time in question in each syllabus for that examination for which he is being so prepared.
(2) Subsection (1) above shall not require a governing body to secure that a pupil is entered for any examination, or for any examination in any syllabus for that examination, if either—

(a) the governing body consider that there are educational reasons in the case of that particular pupil for not entering him for that examination or (as the case may be) for not entering him. for that examination in that syllabus; or

(b) the parent of the pupil requests in writing that the pupil should not be entered for that examination or (as the case may he) for that examination in that syllabus.

(3) Subsection ( 1 ) above shall not require a governing body to secure that a pupil is entered for any examination in any syllabus for that examination if the governing body have secured that pupil's entry for another prescribed public examination in a corresponding syllabus.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above, a syllabus for any such examination shall be regarded as corresponding to a syllabus for another such examination if the same course of study is provided at the school concerned in preparation for both syllabuses.
(5) As soon as practicable after determining whether or not to secure the entry of any pupil for a prescribed public examination in any syllabus for which he is being prepared at the school the governing body of a maintained school shall notify the parent of the pupil in writing of their determination in relation to each such syllabus.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this new clause simply requires a school to enter a pupil for every prescribed public examination for which he has been prepared, except where there are clear educational reasons for not doing so or where the parents request otherwise.
That is not a new concept. It has always been accepted that schools would enter pupils for examinations for which they had been studying. It is clearly right that the decision on whether or not to enter a pupil for a particular examination should be based on educational grounds rather than on financial or other considerations. Our new provisions on charges, which prohibit charging pupils for entry to prescribed public examinations for which they are studying at school, provide a good and timely opportunity to reflect this position in statute.
There is no question of this new clause requiring schools to enter pupils for unlimited numbers of examinations at the whim of parents. The requirement to enter relates only to prescribed public examinations—to be prescribed by regulations—but mainly public examinations such as A-levels and the GCSE. The requirement applies only where the school in question has actually been preparing the pupil for this particular examination entry. There is no obligation to enter pupils for examinations for which they have not been prepared by the school; for instance, where they have received private tuition, or where the pupil chooses to resit an examination with no further preparation by the school, simply to obtain a higher grade.
I commend this new clause to your Lordships as a further helpful clarification in statute of the proper responsibilities of schools. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, in general we welcome this clause, but I have two or three comments to make. First, it seems odd that the governing body and not the teachers is to decide whether on educational grounds a child should not be put forward. I trust that the Government will make it clear that this power can be delegated to the head teacher from the governing body and that, in any guidance the Government issue, that will be the normal practice.
Secondly, as we are to have some sort of competition between schools on, perhaps, examination results, it is important that schools do not enter for exams only children whom it is felt will be absolutely certain to pass. That will give children who have, or do not have, a chance of passing the examination an opportunity to enter for it. Moreover, there is no right of appeal by the pupils or the parents against the decision of the school. I suggest that it would be helpful to have a right of appeal.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. The governing body is the only authority mentioned in the amendment. I cannot understand how a governing body can know which children should be entered for which examination. Teachers, notably head teachers, are not mentioned in the amendment. What is the Government's thinking on these lines? I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it is unreasonable to think that a governing body would not consult the headmaster or teachers before reaching a decision. To give them the power in the commonsense knowledge that they would acquaint themselves with all the circumstances before reaching a decision seems very sensible indeed.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the new clause is intended to restore the implied obligation on schools in Section 61 of the 1944 Act. That is the reason the duty and responsibility remains on the governing body. In practice, of course, it is clear that the governing body would consult the teachers and the head teacher in particular. We will certainly make clear in guidance that powers can be delegated to the head teacher.
The clause is designed to ensure that it will not be just children likely to pass exams who will be entered for those examinations. In fact, it is the purpose of the clause to underline that that should not be the case. If it is of any additional comfort to the noble Lord, under subsection (5) the school is required to inform parents in writing of whether or not the child is to be entered for an examination. That is intended to ensure that parents are fully informed of the school's decision and are able to make any representations that they wish.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, it is all very well telling parents, but if they cannot do anything about the information given it is difficult for them. Does not the noble Baroness agree?
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 110 [Chapter V: general and supplementary provisions]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 352D:
Page 109, line 30, at end insert—
(" "equipment" does not include clothing;")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment intended to maintain the status quo under existing legislation with regard to responsibility for providing articles of clothing for pupils.
Our charges clauses prohibit pupils from being required to provide or pay for any equipment needed for educational purposes. This amendment excludes clothing from the definition of equipment in this context. Items such as aprons for cookery and football or hockey boots have traditionally usually been provided by parents. It would not be appropriate for schools now to be required to provide such articles free of charge.
Moreover, pupils are presently expected to come to school sufficiently and suitably clad. The LEA has the discretion to provide clothing for a pupil where it considers that he could not otherwise take full advantage of the education provided. It can then charge the parent according to ability to pay. The LEA's discretion in this respect is maintained by this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 352E and 352F:
Page 109, line 36, after ("school") insert—
("( ) references to a public examination (including a prescribed public examination) arc references to such an examination as it applies in relation to persons entered for any syllabus for that examination with a view to meeting the examination requirements for that syllabus so as to qualify for assessment for the purposes of determining their achievements in that examination on any particular occasion in any year when an assessment for the purposes of determining the achievements of persons entered for that examination takes place;
( ) references to an examination requirement for a syllabus for any such examination are references to any requirement a pupil must meet in order to qualify for assessment for the purposes of determining his achievements in that examination in that syllabus;").
Page 109, line 37. at end insert—
("(7A) For the purposes of subsection (7) above an assessment for the purposes of determining the achievements of persons entered for any examination is to be regarded as taking place on any occasion on which it is determined in relation to each person entered for any syllabus in that examination who has met the examination requirements for that syllabus whether that person has passed or failed and, if grades are assigned for the purposes of the examination, the grade to be assigned in his case.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 353:
After Clause 110, insert the following new clause:
(" .—(1) Each local education authority shall, so far as practicable exercise its power to make or terminate appointments to a governing body so as to ensure that the balance of parties for the time being prevailing in that authority is reflected in the persons who are for the time being members of the governing body and for whose appointment the authority is responsible.
(2) Subsection (1) above shall be interpreted, in particular, so as to ensure that the balance of parties for the time being prevailing in the authority is reflected in the persons who are for the time being members of every governing body for whose appointment the authority is responsible.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is in the names of my noble friends Lady Seear, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, Lord McNair and myself. It arises from a situation, referred to recently in the press, in the borough of Barnet where the Conservative Party used its control of the council to make sure that all the school governors appointed were Conservatives. Neither the Labour Party nor the Social and Liberal Democrats were allowed any seats on school governing bodies. The Tories nominated 230 positions on governing bodies at the borough's 64 schools. After September the opposition parties will not be represented on any of the bodies although they have 21 out of the 63 seats on the council.
The amendment is not necessarily directed at the Conservative Party but at any party which in the future might wish to totally control every governor on the board of every school. It seems to be a thoroughly undemocratic practice. Mrs. Dot Bentham, the education committee vice-chairman, said:
"We've got the best education system in the country in Barnet. We don't see why we should have school governors who don't represent our point of view".
That seems to be a spectacular statement. It is in the light of that situation that this amendment has been tabled.
I hope that the Government, even if they do not accept the wording of this amendment, will be prepared to come up with a measure to ensure that the democratic process is protected and that governors are representative not just of one party but of the broad spectrum of political opinion within boroughs. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I support this amendment. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that we do not want school governing bodies to be politicised. We have heard criticism of politicisation by Labour boroughs in the past. We object to that equally, whether it is a Labour or a Conservative controlled borough or in the event of its being a Social and Liberal Democrat borough. The only way to ensure that that does not happen is to have a balance among the people appointed to these bodies.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I hope that the House will not agree to this amendment. I remember that the whole idea of the 1986 Act, in which I was somewhat involved was to get away from political organisations on governing bodies anywhere and I am horrified to hear what happened in Barnet. The whole idea of the 1986 Act was to get parents and other such people involved. It is embarrassing on the governing body on which I sit because we have no idea which political party people, belong to. When I asked 1 was surprised at the results. I feel that the amendment is one way in which we will politicise the situation.
Incidentally, I have heard that the SDLP is busy organising parents to stand as parent governors on political lines. That is largely sponsored by the SDLP. I hope there is no truth in that report. That sounds just as bad to me as the situation in the London borough of Barnet. The amendment would be a retrograde step in encouraging politicisation and not opposing it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, what are we going to do about Barnet?
Earl Russell: My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, but 1 cannot answer for what is being done in the SDLP because that is happening on the other side of the Irish Sea and I am not an expert in that respect.
On the question of politicisation in general, I can understand what the noble Earl is getting at. It is not our intention that this should be a party political problem. If the noble Earl wishes to suggest an alternative way of dealing with the matter I am sure we would be very ready to listen. The object is not to ensure that every party is represented in strict numerical order but to ensure that no one party shall dominate to the exclusion of others. Living, as I do, in the London borough of Brent I should like to second what was said by my noble friend Lord Tordoff that this amendment is not aimed exclusively at one party.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if one wanted to politicise governing bodies, adopting this amendment would be the way to do it because it suggests that, in considering who should be
1302
appointed to the responsible office of governor, those appointing should take into account the appointee's political views. I hope and believe that in many cases when school governors are appointed the appointing body has not the faintest idea what are, or what should be, the political views of the governor concerned. The appointing governors should be concerned to discover whether the governor has an interest in the school, whether he or she is a parent and of sound character for educating people.
Moreover, when political control of a local authority changes, as your Lordships know it does from time to time, the suggestion contained in this amendment is that one should alter the composition of the governing bodies in order to keep them in line with the political context of the local authority. Therefore, one would have to remove a perfectly good governor in order to put in someone with another political view, apparently irrespective of his qualifications as a governor. Of all the amendments that we discussed during the eight days this Bill was in Committee, I do not believe that I have heard before one so positively harmful as this.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord can have spent many years teaching in a school. When I did, our general view in the common room was that the governing body was an infernal nuisance.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps we should have an amendment covering that particular point.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, that is another issue.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we are certainly sympathetic to the spirit of this amendment. Even though one or two interventions were critical of the details of it, on reflection those critics would probably also favour the spirit; that is, that one would like the governing body to represent in some broad sense the community which the school is serving. It may be that the precise wording of this amendment does not achieve that. I know nothing of the case of the London borough of Barnet, but I find what it is doing most unattractive.
With reference to the political point, it may be that other noble Lords can find other parties which have done equally monstrous things in other boroughs. The important point is that this kind of incident should not happen. It seems that this is a case where, given the views of the Government as regards governors, they have some responsibility if they do not like this particular amendment. I take the logical point that specifying political parties leads to politics. However, I do not believe that is what the amendment is trying to achieve. It is trying to reflect the wishes of the community.
I think this is a case where the drafting abilities of the Government probably far exceed those of the rest of us. The noble Baroness replying for the Government should be able to take the spirit of this amendment on board and look to see whether the Government can find the kind of amendment that would achieve what noble Lords on those Benches have put forward. In particular, and to avoid the

1303
Barnet case and to reassure noble Lords opposite, perhaps I may repeat my point; namely, that what Barnet is capable of doing as Conservatives I am certain that a Labour borough would be equally capable of doing somewhere else and at some time. Therefore, the issue is not that political; the issue is one of the community and I believe that the Government should take that extremely seriously.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, if one had read what my committee recommended some time ago, this situation would never have occurred. My recommendations to the Government of that day were that each body should have a quarter comprised of teachers, a quarter comprised of LEA representatives, a quarter parents and a quarter community. Unfortunately, the Government did not accept that recommendation but they went a long way towards it. I give them full credit for that. As the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said, the Education Act 1986 went a good deal towards it.
I deplore the attitude of both the Conservative and the Labour Parties. The Labour Party is doing exactly the same thing in other places as Barnet is doing. I understand that in certain authorities where the Liberal Party is gaining control it intends to do the same. That is not what we intended. What the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said was absolutely correct. We wanted a governing body that was completely divorced from politics and which included people who were interested in the children of the school; people who were interested in the community and who were not concerned at all about the political side. I feel that the amendment does not do what is intended, but I do not know how one overcomes that, except by going back to the original concept that we brought forward some 10 years ago.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, if the view expressed is that the Government should find some way of meeting the spirit of this amendment, and if it is meant that this should be done by way of statute, I am certain that is wrong. This is not a matter that can be dealt with by statute, but by educating the general public particularly people who sit on local authorities. They should be encouraged not to show partiality because it is not in the interests of the education service. People with merit and knowledge are required to do what is necessary, but to try to find words to put in a statute would be inadequate. It would also be setting an example.
I remember the occasions when the magistrates used to meet at quarter sessions with the judge and have lunch. On one occasion I remember sitting next to a magistrate who was a colleague when we had to decide whether we would appoint a new chairman for either the probation or the police committee. I was appalled when the colleague said, "Your side have had that chairmanship for so many years, it is time that our side had it." The idea is wrong of people sitting as impartial magistrates having to do a job and people viewing it not from the point of view of carrying out their tasks impartially and properly but in accordance with the diktat of one side or another. In the case of the magistrate nor in this case would it be justifiable to try to cover it by way of statute. It is
1304
necessary to educate people to meet the point made by my noble friend, but to try to include it in a statute would be setting an example which I believe would be dangerous as well as wrong.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I understand why the proposers of this amendment seek to ensure that school governing bodies should not have an inbuilt political bias as a result of the way the local authority makes its appointments. But I do not believe that this amendment would have that effect. Indeed, I believe that it could be counter-productive, and I shall try to explain why.
The new school governing bodies which will be introduced from this autumn as a result of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 to which my noble friend Lord Swinton referred, will be much better balanced than their predecessors. They will contain equal numbers of local education authority-appointed governors and elected parent governors. These governors, along with the elected representatives of teachers in the school and, usually, the head, will then co-opt representatives of the local community. The co-optees will form the largest single group, but no group will be large enough to dominate the governing body. It will, in consequence, be much less likely that one particular party or faction will dominate a governing body than has been the case until now.
It was for those reasons that we introduced the Act in the first place and it received a very wide welcome. We hope and believe that in general the result will be that those who appoint to governing bodies will give much more thought to the qualities and experience which their appointees can bring to the governing body, and the contribution they can make to the effective and successful running of the school, than to the much less relevant consideration of their political affiliations. Equally, we hope that in making co-options, governing bodies will seek out commitment to the achievement of higher education standards rather than the representation of a particular point of view.
I believe that this amendment would take governing bodies back to exactly the situation from which the 1986 Act rescued them. The criterion for appointment would no longer be, "Has this person got something that this school needs?" It would become a simple matter of making up the numbers never mind the quality. I say "a simple matter", but in fact I fear it would not even be that. If one has to appoint three governors, and there are four political parties on the local council in the ratio 7–6; 4–1, I defy even the ablest mathematician to accomplish what this amendment requires.
For those reasons, I believe the amendment to be unworkable and misguided, although I realise that there are genuine fears about the so-called packing of governing bodies. We share the hopes of those who put forward the amendment that local authorities in making appointments and governing bodies in making co-options will adopt as a guiding principle the need to ensure that governing bodies consist of people whose principal qualification for membership is that they have the best interests of their school very much at heart. I trust that the proposers will feel able to withdraw the amendment
3.30 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it is precisely in those terms that we address the problem. It is quite clear that in certain boroughs that is not the spirit in which this is being approached. One fundamental point which people have missed is that in the final line of subsection (1) of the amendment we refer only to those governors for the appointment of whom the authority is responsible. In other words, we are talking only about the local authority governors. There is no attempt to politicise the non-local authority governors. That is not what the clause addresses. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, may pull a face but that is not what the amendment addresses.
Noble Lords on both sides of the House have expressed the view that they do not want this to happen. The Government hope that it will not happen. We are trying to ensure that it will not happen. Now is the opportunity to write onto the face of the Bill something which will stop it happening. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, talks about educating members of the public and of local authorities. Is he saying that the Conservative Members of Barnet Borough Council are uneducated? I would not expect to hear such a view coming from the Government Back-Benches, although it may be true. The danger is that this will happen in one authority and then the opposing party in another authority will do the same thing. We must try to stop it happening.
I had hoped that the Government would at least say that they would take the amendment away and see whether they could come up with a formulation to stop the local authority nominees being packed by the dominant party for the time being on that local council. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred to the danger of people being taken off and put on councils. That is precisely what happened in Barnet. All the minority party local authority nominees have been swept off the governing bodies at all the schools in the borough. That cannot be democratic. Clearly the amendment is flawed, and it would be foolish in those circumstances to press it to a Division. However, I hope that the Government will think about it further and perhaps come back with something at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 111[Interpretation of Part I]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 354:
Page 109, line 46, at end insert—
("(2) References in this Part, in relation to proposals under section 23, 45(4), 81 or 84 of this Act, to the date of publication of the proposals are references—

(a) to the date on which the requirements of this Act, or of regulations under this Act, with respect to the publication of the proposals (or of any notice relating to the proposals) are satisfied; or

(b) where different requirements such as are mentioned in paragraph (a) above are satisfied on different dates, to the last of those dates;

and references to the time at which such proposals are published shall be construed accordingly.
(3) Where any such requirement imposes a continuing obligation with respect to the publication of any proposals, the
1306
requirement shall for the purposes of subsection (2) above be taken to be satisfied on the first date in respect of which it is satisfied." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 112 [Functions of local education authorities with respect to higher and further education]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 355:
Page 110. line 14, at end insert ("and adult education").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 361. The amendment seeks to secure the inclusion of adult education in the provisions to be made by the local education authority. As the House will be aware, there is at present no statutory obligation on local authorities to provide adult education. I urge the House to recognise that there never was a time when the provision of adult education was more important than it is today. People are facing rapid changes in occupations, with large numbers of people out of work, although the numbers are falling.
There is no doubt that the provision of adult education is of the greatest importance. Yet because there is no statutory obligation at present, boroughs hard-pressed for money and with important statutory obligations to fulfil in relation to their schools will obviously be tempted to cut back on the provision of adult education. We want this included in the legislation so that adult education has a fair deal in the allocation of resources by local authorities along with all the other education responsibilities that they have to meet. We very much hope that the House will recognise this point and will agree to the amendment which is of the greatest importance at the present time. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like strongly to support the amendment. We have long wanted the provision of adult education to be a duty of the local authority and now is the opportunity to have it so made. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the second part of Amendment No. 361, which states:
"A local education authority … shall have regard to the expediency of co-operation with any voluntary bodies or associations which include within their objects the provision of facilities or the organisation of activities of a similar character".
A great many voluntary bodies make use of adult education premises belonging to local authorities. This co-operation is extremely valuable and I hope that it can continue. Local authorities will need the finance and good will to do this. I should like to give the House some examples. The North Kensington Unemployed Centre which is run by the Venture Community Association relies on the Hammersmith and North Kensington Adult Education Institute. Age Concern, greater London, uses premises in Hackney, and the English as a second language organiser at Fulham and Chelsea Adult Education Institute arranges English classes on adult education institute premises.
I hope that the Government will look kindly on these amendments. It is the opportunity at long last to have adult education written into the Bill. I hope that the Government will accept the amendments.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister how much support the Government are thinking of giving to adult education. The worst mistake I made during my long stint at the ministry was my failure to give adult education the support it ought to have had. If we could start the education system again—with the £10 billion, £11 billion or whatever the figure may be—and lay it all out, from nursery schools right through to courses for senior citizens, and then allocate the money according to the importance of the stages in that long journey from birth to death, I am quite certain that we should find that adult education is the least well served over the whole of life.
The French have a very good phrase for it. They call it éducation permanente. That is what education has to be nowadays. It was important 20 years ago but it is more important now. The world is changing faster and adults need to learn things now which they did not need to learn at school. In my father's time boys and girls were thought to learn enough at school to last them through their lives. That is not true now. Furthermore, it becomes less true every five years or so, especially with British people travelling abroad and with what is going on in Europe. People need to have these facilities offered to them. Will the Minister be kind enough to say how much attention is being given in this great reform to the progress of adult education?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, 1 should also like to support the amendments. We spent a good deal of time yesterday talking about truancy. Many young people at the ages of 14, 15 and 16 are not especially committed to education and find it rather hard to attend school every day. That is regrettable but it is a fact. When they reach their twenties and thirties some of those young people will regret the fact that they did not go to school every day when they should have been going. It is especially that group that I think could benefit enormously by the provision of adult education on a wide basis.
The second group that I think could benefit enormously—and, indeed, already do benefit and ought to benefit in even larger numbers—are women.
Some 70 per cent. of those attending adult education courses are women. As we all know, in the past women have often missed out on the opportunities of post-school education, especially at the higher education level. They again, when their children are old enough, come back and attend adult education courses.
The third reason I think it is extremely important that we should put more effort and resources into adult education has already been put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles; namely, that we need a concept of life-long learning of éducation permanente. I shall be putting forward an amendment later in relation to continuing education at the higher education level. However, if we are to make something of that, we need an intermediate stage which is more local authority provision of adult education to allow those people who left school early, who perhaps do not have the confidence or qualifications to go straight into higher education as mature students, to start off on adult education
1308
courses. I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept these amendments.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I should like briefly to add my support for the amendments. I consider that adult education can be a life-saving service for people who are elderly, for people who have missed out on their schooling—as mentioned by
the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—and indeed
for the lonely. I have had heart-rendering cris de Coeur from elderly people who say, "Please see to it that our opportunity to go to an art class, or some sort of class, during the week is preserved". For lonely people it is often the only time that they can get out and meet anyone else. Therefore I think it is of the utmost importance.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I think the Government will agree that this Bill has provoked a good deal of controversy. However, they now have an opportunity of putting something in the Bill which will be universally acclaimed and which may prove, with the passage of time, to be the thing for which this Bill is chiefly remembered. It is indeed remarkable that adult education should have remained a purely permissive concept for so long in our educational history. I should just like to add the following arguments to the many which have already been advanced in this connection.
First, we now have a larger proportion of our population who are not as familiar with the English language as they are with their mother tongue and who are therefore hampered in many ways by an incomplete command of the subject. The night school, as it used to be called, is one of the ways in which they can remedy that problem. There are also, unhappily, areas in this country where unemployment is still very heavy and where the opportunity to learn possibly a new skill or merely to keep freshness of mind and an interest in life is a matter of great importance.
I remember once attending a conference on educational matters at which there was a discussion about the extent to which girls ought to be taught domestic science in education. An American lady there said, "I don't send my daughter to school to learn to wash dishes; I want her to learn something interesting so that she will have something to think about while she is washing the darned dishes". That seems to me to lay a finger on a very important point of education: it is not merely teaching one how to run one's house or how to earn one's living; it teaches one how to enjoy life. Therefore, if we add such considerations, and many of those mentioned by other speakers, I think that we are bound to conclude that adult education ought by now to be promoted from a voluntary to a statutory and regular part of our education system.
It is true to say that under this Government we pass education Acts at what I consider to be a rather regrettable frequency. In my view fewer Acts, with more thought given to each, would be an improvement. However, while we are engaged in discussions on one of the Bills, we might take the opportunity—we do not know when the next one will occur—to give adult education the status that it

1309
ought to have. I hope that the Government will seize this opportunity.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the speeches we have heard so far are most familiar and I go along with them in that adult education is very important and is becoming increasingly important in our society. However, the issue is what the amendment is seeking to add to the Bill which is not already there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, talked about people who had left school and later regretted that they had not been there as much as they should have been and therefore wanted to catch up on their education. We all know of people like that. In the Bill, further education is defined in Clause 112(2)(a) as:
"full-time and part-time education and training for persons over compulsory school age, other than higher education".
Therefore many of the people mentioned by the noble Baroness are covered by the provisions of the Bill in any event.
However, the question is whether it should be mandatory upon a local authority to provide the facilities for the other kinds of adult education which are not defined in the Bill. That is what we are talking about. Indeed, there is a certain vagueness in what has been said about the subject. I think that we should probably wait to hear the Government's arguments, which are somewhat similar to the ones that they used in the discussion about youth work. It is just a question of whether it is possible, sensible or productive—rather than counter-productive—to define precisely what the mandatory responsibilities of local authorities are in this respect.
There is much excellent adult education going on all over the country; there is no question about that. The people who are professionally engaged in the work would like it to be a mandatory responsibility on local authorities. However, I am not sure that it would improve the situation; just as I am not so sure that it would do so as regards youth work. The teachers want it desperately and they push for it all the time. Nevertheless, I am not sure that the public does. Therefore I shall not be surprised if the Minister does not accept the amendment; nor shall I be upset because I think that very important work is going on and it will grow under the present arrangements. However, we shall see what my noble friend says.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said that many of the arguments were familiar. Perhaps I may beg leave to offer her one which she may find a little less familiar. I wish to express my support for the amendment on the grounds of cost-effectiveness. When I taught at adult education classes, a high proportion of the people who attended belonged to one of two categories; namely, either married women whose children had grown up and left home, or people of either sex who had gone into retirement—which very often was premature retirement. Those are large categories. They are also categories in which I think we shall find a large amount of stress-related illness.
1310
Stress-related illness is something which I think is, as yet, imperfectly understood. However, I think that it is generally accepted that the sense of having something interesting and useful to do may be a great asset in avoiding the condition. I also think that the treatment of cancer or depression may cost a great deal more in terms of public money than adult education. I understand the desire of the Government to save public money but I would recommend to them the healthy maxim that a stitch in time saves nine.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, there have been many attractive and appealing speeches made on this subject and one's immediate emotion would be very much on the side of what the speeches were asking for. However, if we are going to be responsible parliamentarians, I do not think that we ought to ask for such words to be put into the statute without knowing the cost involved. Indeed, we ought to know what it will cost to place such a duty on the Government.
What would the words be? if the amendment were accepted the wording in the legislation would be:
"It shall be the duty of every local authority to secure the provision for their area of adequate facilities for further education and adult education".
That duty will cost a great deal of money. It may be worth it, I do not know; but before we think of writing that provision into the legislation we are now about to pass, we should have some idea of what the cost will be.
I was impressed by the intervention of my noble friend Lord Eccles. He did not ask for the provision to be included. He asked the Government to give some indication of how they would meet that need in the future. I too should like to know that. At this stage to write into the Bill a duty which would be as far reaching as this, without having some indication of the cost, would be irresponsible. We should not pursue the matter.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the spirit of the amendment. I shall be brief. With the greatest of respect to my noble friend, this is not a question of definition. It is not to the point that the existing provision may be satisfactory. Surely the point is what is to be the statutory status of the Bill as regards this most important aspect of education? All that I would ask is that my noble friend the Minister examines the position. With respect to my noble friend, I do not go along wholly with him on the question of cost, but it is a relevant consideration. All I hope is that my noble friend the Minister will not reject the matter out of hand.
Lord Parry: My Lords, there is one simple point that has not been made since I have been in the Chamber. If it was made during my absence, I apologise to the House. The whole basis of the Education Reform Bill and the emphasis of the national debate that led to it, the opposition to it and the support for it, have been engendered by the criticism that this country's education system has been failing and falling behind what the country has been expecting of it over the past 10 or 15 years. If that is true, it means that there is a young adult

1311
population that has been ill-served by its education programme during its daytime schooling. If that is so, it is necessary to build into any Education Reform Act facilities to bring back into full education those people who have been ill-served up to the age of 15. I make that point because I think that it is essential that that should be understood when the amendment is considered.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly on the subject. I was concerned by the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I should normally have expected her to be enthusiastically in favour of the proposal. I was somewhat taken aback by her negativism. In particular, I hope that I do not have to remind her or other noble Lords of the distinction between further education and adult education. The two are not the same, and have never been recognised as the same within statute or the education service.
The Bill defines further education, which is normally education connected with qualifications within a formal set of institutional arrangements. Adult education is normally much more informal and not necessarily related to a qualification, but that does not make it any the less educative. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, put his finger on a point which has often troubled many of us within education; that is, the fact we have been content to look at it within its more conventional five to 21 frame. He is right. If we were starting with a blank sheet we would not write any kind of education structure in that form. It would make no sense. It would also be inequitable.
Those of us who are aware of the difference between the boy or girl, man or woman, who has the least spent on them—the five to 16 year-olds—right through to the Ph.D. students who have the most spent on them, would feel that some presumption was created that for those five to 16 year-olds who later wanted something more, something more would be made available. The Government do that anyway. Various training and other schemes enable people to come back into the system. The amendment is designed merely to recognise one particular aspect of the position. I would emphasise the bit that most noble Lords have stressed, which is that they are people who choose education. I should have thought that within the world of education not to respond to those who freely choose to be educated would be rather silly. That is why the point is important.
On the question of cost, I stand second to no one in always wanting to know what things cost. I wish that I knew more about the costs involved in the Bill. I shall not make tart remarks about comparing £200 million for CTCs while begrudging money for adult education. I am not in that mood at the moment. Nonetheless, if we are looking at cost, there are two matters to be considered. First, there is money available. Some of us argue that we would rather it was spent on adult education than elsewhere. Our real concern is the point made at the beginning by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear; that is, with the pressures that will appear in education, the danger is that adult education will be the easiest area to cut.
1312
Adding to the point made by my noble friend Lord Stewart, we are in a sense recognising and formalising one of our best developments. It is typical of our country that something grows and we do not want to recognise it. Adult education is one of our great achievements. The case for writing it into the Bill is overwhelming. I am not one of those who say "Take the matter away and bring it back". The case for at long last putting adult education formally into an education Bill is so strong that it is surprising that the Government, with all the other reforms that they have been introducing, have not taken the lead but rather have relied on us to do the job. I believe that I am speaking for many noble Lords, quite independent of party, when I say that I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government do not accept the amendments. That is not because we do not value adult education. Quite the contrary. I am happy to take this opportunity to emphasise that the Government fully recognise the importance of adult education. It provides a great many people with a great deal of benefit and pleasure. Our further education service, indeed our national life, would be poorer without it.
"Further education" is deliberately defined very broadly in Clause 112. Adult education is a part, of further education, not—I dispute the suggestion—something separate from it; and yet the amendment would have the effect of dividing adult education off as something different. Moreover, there are real difficulties about defining adult education. Does it include vocational work? Who are to count as adults? If we specify adult education in the way the amendment proposes, we risk setting up unnecessary divisions within the seamless robe of further education. The duty on LEAs to secure adequate further education already includes an implicit duty to secure adequate education for adults. So nothing would be gained by the amendment.
On Amendment No. 361, since as I said the duty to secure the provision of adequate further education includes the duty to secure adult education, LEAs should think about how best to secure such provision and the scope for co-operation with voluntary bodies. The amendment could impose an inflexible straitjacket. We seek to encourage support for éducation permanente from the institutions that provide adult education and the students whom we hope more and more to encourage to attend.
Adult education is a diverse service, which can be provided in a variety of ways depending on local circumstances. The Government believe that we ought to leave it up to LEAs to decide what will best suit local needs, and not try to specify a particular approach in the way the amendment suggests.
I have listened to the many contributions and in whatever steps we consider I shall keep in mind the suggestions that have been made. We recognise the importance of adult education, but we do not feel that the amendments present the unanswerable case that was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I therefore hope that the proposers will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am of course very disappointed at the reply of the noble Baroness. She may believe that adult education is a part of further education; I can only say that in the past this has not been understood. If the noble Baroness were prepared to add to her definition of "further education" that the phrase includes "adult education", as normally understood, or an appropriate form of words which I shall not try to produce now, that would be altogether a different matter. However, she has not answered the point, which is of the greatest urgency and importance, that everybody has accepted that there has been no statutory obligation to provide adult education as it has normally been understood. If that is not the intention of the noble Baroness, then it would be extremely helpful if this were made clear on the face of the Bill.
One reason why I am most anxious to get it onto the face of the Bill is that on previous stages I have asked again and again what will happen to the poorer boroughs in London when the cross-financing from the wealthier boroughs to the poorer boroughs is withdrawn. I received a most helpful letter from the noble Baroness, for which I am very grateful, in which she said that the grants from central government would provide adequately for the needs of the poorer boroughs. This is a very important statement and I am extremely glad to have it. However, it all depends on how "need" is to be defined. If the phrase "adult education" could be included after "further education" in brackets or in whatever way necessary and if the provision for adult education is included when the Government are thinking about the need for the grants for adult education from central government, this would meet our point.
However, I assure the noble Baroness that, at present it would not be understood in that way. Up and down the country people do not understand "adult education" as being a part of further education. Because of that and because we have not had a reply that this change in the government thinking—if that is what it is—as the noble Baroness has put it, will not be put on the face of the Bill, I fear that I must test the opinion of the House.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and if the noble Baroness will permit me, does she not realise that outside this House and outside the department, most people think that "adult education" is quite different from "further education"? Experience shows that unless the words "adult education" are in the Bill, the Treasury will not give people any money.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must re-emphasise that we feel that Clause 112, since it is so very broadly drawn, includes and embraces "adult education". The fact that in the past this has not been so or has not been recognised in that way is something with which we shall have to cope in helping people to understand the meaning that we give it in the Bill.
4.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 355) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 125; Not-Contents, 135.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Adrian, L.

Listowel, E.

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Blaekstone, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Blease, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bottomley, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Bramall, L.

Mulley, L.

Briginshaw. L.

Nicol, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Northfield, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Carmichacl of Kelvingrove, L.

Oram, L.

Carter, L.

Parry, L.

Chitnis. L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Chorley, L.

Peston, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbredc, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

[Teller.]

Dainton, L.

Porritt, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Prys-Davies, L.

David, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Reilly, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Eccles, V.

Russell, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Faithfull, B.

Scanlon, L.

Falkland, V.

Seear, B.

Flowers, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Shepherd, L.

Glenamara, L.

Sherfield, L.

Goodman, L.

Somers, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stallard, L.

Greenhill of Harrow. L.

Stedman, B.

Grey, E.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grimond, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Halsbury, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn. L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hayter, L.

Tordoff, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Vernon, L.

Hunt, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Walston, L.

Ilchester, E.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jacques, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jay, L.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Kinnaird, L.

Winstanley, L.

Lawrence, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Auckland, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Allerton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Arran, E.

Bellwin, L.

1315

Beloff, L.

Layton, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Bessborough, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blatch, B.

McFadzean, L.

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brookes, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Manton, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Marley, L.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caccia, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Middleton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Morris, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cowley, E.

Munster, E.

Cox, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Napier of Magdâla, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

De Freyne, L.

Norfolk, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dormer, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Dundee, E.

Onslow, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orkney, E.

Effingham, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pender, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Portland, D.

Foley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Fortescue, E.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rochdale, V.

Gainford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. Davids, V.

Gormanston, V.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Grantchesler, L.

Salisbury, M.

Granville of Eye, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Greenway, L.

Sandford, L.

Gridley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Shannon, E.

Sharples, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Strange, B.

Harvington, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Havers, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Henley, L.

Hesketh, L.

Swinton, E.

Hives, L.

Teviot, L.

Hood, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hooper, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Trafford, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Trumpington, B.

Jessel, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Wolfson, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Kimball, L.

Young, B.

Kimberley, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 356:
Page 110, line 14, at end insert ("This shall include an appropriate range of education and training opportunities for persons over compulsory school age who have special educational needs").
The noble Baroness saids: My Lords, Amendment No. 356 deals with post-school education and training for students with special educational needs. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I do not intend to
1316
move this amendment or Amendments Nos. 369 and 415 in view of the Government's Amendment No. 360A. We are very grateful to Her Majesty's Government for this amendment. We are also very grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 356 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 356A and 356B:
Page 110, line 15, leave out ("subsection (3) below") and insert ("the following provisions of this section").
Page 110, line 17, leave out from ("education") to ("and") in line 19 and insert ("for persons over compulsory school age (including vocational, social, physical and recreational training);").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 356A and 356B en bloc. These government amendments are designed to clarify the drafting of Clause 112. The amendments do not change the substance of the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 357 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 357A:
Page 110, leave out line 22 and insert—
("(2A) In this Act "further education" does not include higher education.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 358:
Page 110, line 22, at end insert—
("(2A) In the course of providing further education within the meaning of subsection (2) above, a local education authority shall have regard to the need to foster and develop the active participation of students, staff and the wider community, and to facilitate such participation through schemes for the proper representation of those groups on the governing bodies of institutions providing further education.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 374 and 417. Amendment No. 358 is a paving amendment. It is about representation on various governing bodies. The representation is outlined in Amendment No. 374 for higher education corporations and in Amendment No. 417 for further education establishments.
The purpose of the amendments is to widen representation on governing bodies. The present clauses in respect of the governing bodies of both PCFC institutions and maintained further education colleges will significantly narrow the representative base of these bodies. This is all the more serious in view of the new responsibilities given to the two sets of institutions through free standing corporate status in the case of the PCFC institutions and through devolution from the LEAs in the case of maintained further education institutions.
The Bill fails to acknowledge the important contribution to college government that a range of community interests and institutional representation can make, but it also does not take account of the valuable experience built up by governing bodies since their establishment in their present form by the 1986 Education (No. 2) Act. Governing bodies set up

1317
by the Education Reform Bill must be seen to be at least as accountable as their predecessors, if the credibility of the newly independent and semi-independent institutions is to be assured.
These amendments recognise the need for the interests of groups such as students, staff and the wider community to be represented on governing bodies. The authority has responsibility to specify the bodies, nominating representatives from business, industry, the professions or other relevant fields of employment, although these bodies have to be approved by the Secretary of State. The amendment provides that authorities should give consideration to the need for representation of the community as a whole. We attach great importance to that. So, for example, in an area where the population had a higher percentage of ethnic minority groups, the amendment would enable the authority to stipulate bodies to represent the interests of those minority groups within the community.
In each case, for HE in Amendment No. 374 and FE in Amendment No. 417, the local authority will draw up a scheme which will be submitted to the Secretary of State for his approval, setting out the composition of the governing bodies of each institution which it maintains. I shall not read out the provisions in each amendment as that would take up too much time. They are there for noble Lords to study if they wish. I ask noble Lords to look at the representation provisions, but I am quite sure that they will be accepted as sensible, reasonable and a broadening of what is at present proposed. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, although the Government cannot accept these amendments we accept that it is important that staff, students and the community in general should be able to participate in further education. We believe that further education is very much a local service, provided for the local community, and it is right that we should enable all those involved to play an active part. But I submit that that general principle does not require legislation.
I am very happy to endorse the view that local authorities should consider how they can best secure participation by staff, students and the community, but it should be a matter for their discretion and not something imposed from the centre. Amendment No. 358 also relates to governing bodies. Technically its effect would, 1 suspect, be very limited, as such a general statement would not override the specific provisions in Clause 141 on the composition of college governing bodies. In any case it is unnecessary. The Government have made clear their view that college governing bodies should normally include governors drawn from the staff and the students. This is stated in the draft circular of guidance on governing bodies which we issued on 5th May.
It may be that some would prefer a higher proportion of staff, student and community governors than the Government propose, but our view is that in future the prime consideration must be to ensure that governing bodies are efficient decision-
1318
making bodies, able to exercise effectively the important responsibilities that would be delegated to them. Their size and composition must reflect that. Governing bodies will still have a representational function, but that function cannot override the need for effectiveness in decision-making. There are, after all, plenty of other ways of securing the participation of staff, students and the community in further education besides representation on governing bodies. For these reasons we cannot accept these amendments.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will she say whether she agrees with the final part of Amendment No. 374? That states:
"(c) that none of the categories of representatives set out in (a) or
(b) above shall number less than two persons".
We think it is important that there should be two members of staff and two students at the institutions on the governing bodies.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe that I have explained on previous occasions the need for keeping those bodies to a reasonable size in order that they may be at their most effective. Again, while there is nothing to prevent representatives of more than one of the categories suggested being on a governing body, we should not wish to impose that as a requirement.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am disappointed with that answer. I believe that the breadth which is suggested in the amendments and the representation which would be assured by having at least two respresentatives of each of the categories would be a great addition. However, I shall not press the amendment. 1 beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 359:
Page 110, line 26, leave out from ("which") to end of line 28 and insert ("is designated as a school").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 359, which is a paving amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 364 to 368. Amendment No. 359 deals with sixth form colleges and tertiary colleges. By repealing Section 42 of the 1944 Act, the Bill will remove the present basis for determining what an FE institution is, as opposed to a school. At present, an FE institution is one which is established in accordance with the scheme of further education under Section 4 of the 1944 Act. It is necessary to be able to distinguish between a school and an FE institution in order to establish how the institution is governed, the conditions of service for staff, the financial rules and the kinds of provision the institution can offer. Where post-16 provision is separated from other provision that may be made in a school—that is, a sixth form college—or in an FE institution—that is, a tertiary college— provision in the school is meant to be full-time for pupils within the appropriate age range.
The Bill recognises implicitly that a school—that
is, a sixth form college—might admit some part-time students or some adults in that only a significant proportion of such students would determine that the

1319
school should become an FE institution. However, it also follows from the Bill that a sixth form college established as a school could not legally admit a significant number of such students were the need or demand to arise. If an LEA wished an existing sixth form college to be able to submit significant numbers of part-time and adult students or wished to set up a new post-16 institution that was able to do so, as well as going through the statutory procedures involving change in school provision, it would have to be able to demonstrate that there would be significant part-time and adult enrolment from the outset, following approval of the change. In this context, "significant" probably means around 10 per cent. of enrolment.
The provisions of the Bill are therefore fairly inflexible. We wish to change that. Existing or new institutions will be trapped on one side or the other of the divide. Therefore, the amendments seek to introduce greater flexibility in the arrangements for determining whether an establishment is a school or an FE institution.
Amendments Nos. 364 to 367 seek to change the basis of the determination from the actual provision made to the provision that is offered. The emphasis is thus shifted from a proportion of enrolments in given categories to the opportunities which the institution offers to potential students of any age. Amendment No. 368 does not go that far in that it simply allows time for part-time and adult enrolments to be built up in the case of a new tertiary college, rather than relying on a proportion of such work at the outset. It thus introduces a measure of flexibility and also a more practical approach.
Any proposal to establish a new tertiary college or to convert a sixth form college into a tertiary college will require statutory procedures to be followed since it will involve the removal of sixth forms from existing schools or the closure of an existing school. Where the institution does not from the outset take over all or part of the existing FE provision, it may not be possible to demonstrate that there will be a significant proportion of part-time and adult work from the outset. Building work may be necessary to provide specialist facilities. The market for courses may have to be developed.
It is therefore more helpful to be able to refer to forecast enrolment numbers some three years ahead rather than the numbers that there will be from the outset. That avoids the sort of trap whereby an existing sixth form college could not legally develop a significant proportion of other FE provision but, because it would not have a significant proportion, cannot become a tertiary college.
Where FE provision is added to traditional sixth form provision it will take time for FE numbers to build up and for there to be enrolments in the second and third year of FE courses. Where specialist provision is required, there may be building programme delays and so on. However, if accepted by the Government on those grounds, the provision would also have the additional benefit of giving some flexibility to LEAs in their planning as a by-product.
In effect, Amendments Nos. 364 to 367 are designed to create much more local flexibility in
1320
determining whether an establishment is to be a sixth form college or a tertiary college. They seek to reinstate th [e flexibility that has, in practice, previously existed. Amendment No. 368 represents a practical fall-back position which gives some room for manoeuvre and also deals more realistically with possible future situations.
We want to see flexibility and we want sixth form colleges to be able to change fairly easily into tertiary colleges. In cases where that has happened, the change has usually been successful. Tertiary colleges give tremendous opportunities to a local population for part-time study and also for adult enrolments. I hope that the Government can accept these simple amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I strongly support the amendments. It is very important that nothing should be done to stop or to make more difficult the development of tertiary colleges. The amendments are not in any way an attack on sixth form colleges. However, they express our belief that tertiary colleges have a great deal to offer a great many people. Youngsters leaving school at the age of 16 often feel they wish to mix in the more adult world of the tertiary college. Those of us who are in contact with them will know that they very often say that the mixture of people on part-time courses, studying all manner of things which youngsters may not be aware of when they leave school, can be revealing and stimulating.
It may well be that many sixth form colleges will stay just as they are. However, it would be a great pity to impede in any way the development of tertiary colleges or the ability of a sixth form college, where it believes on the basis of its own experience that the wider opportunities of a tertiary college and the greater degree of part-time study, together with the mixture of many people of different age groups, would be beneficial to provide those great educational benefits. We do not wish to see any obstacles put in the way of colleges which wish to do that. I hope that the Government will accept the amendments.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we discussed at some length at Committee stage the boundary between the secondary and further education sectors. After that debate, I wrote to the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Seear, explaining the Government's position in more detail. I shall therefore try to be brief in speaking to the amendments.
The Government's view is that it is importantt to have a clear boundary between the two sectors. The whole of education law is predicated on the assumption that schools and FE colleges are different things, and that for each given institution it is possible to tell whether it is a school or a college. If we leave the boundary hazy we shall cause ourselves all sorts of problems.
Yet that is what this group of amendments seeks to do. Amendment No. 359 speaks of institutions being "designated" as schools. But there is no mechanism for designating schools. And the Government deliberately decided against creating such a mechanism, because we believe that it is better that

1321
the criteria for determining on which side of the boundary a given institution falls should be as clear and objective as possible, and that we should not leave the matter to the discretion of the Secretary of State or anyone else.
Amendment No. 368 would give newly-established colleges three years to attain the pattern of provision which Clause 112 now requires for colleges. Again, the Government do not believe this makes sense. Schools and colleges are different things. Even sixth forms and tertiary colleges are different things. They are designed to cater for different types of students, and they are subject to different legal requirements. An LEA ought to decide at the outset what sort of institution is needed in its area, and make sure that the pattern of provisions made in the institution matches that conception.
I should draw attention to the fact that Clause 112 already allows some latitude to take account of what a new college is intended to provide as well as what it actually provides on day one. Wherever a question arises about whether a college is making significant part-time or 19-plus provision it falls to be determined by the Secretary of State. In making that determination, it would be reasonable to have some regard to the sort of provision which the institution is designed to offer. But the amendment goes too far in allowing a period of three years during which the Secretary of State would have to give an institution the benefit of the doubt.
In general, the Government do not believe that this group of amendments is necessary. Things might be different if' large numbers of institutions were going to have to reshape themselves to come into line with the requirements of the clause; but they are not. We know of only one FE college which does not already meet the criteria of classification as a college. We have discussed with the relevant local education authority what should be done and have explained that all that is needed is that the college should make itself look more like a college by providing for more part-timers and adults.
I should like to take this opportunity to respond to the further concern that has been expressed that Clause 112 as now drafted would prevent the establishment of any more tertiary colleges. That is not the intention of the clause; nor its effect. The Government recognise that many tertiary colleges do a valuable job and that the tertiary college approach is appropriate in certain circumstances. As now, if a local education authority wants to propose a reorganisation that replaces schools' sixth forms with a tertiary college, it will be free to do so. As now, my right honourable friend will consider each such case on its merits. All that the clause prevents is the transformation of a sixth form college into a tertiary college with no statutory process of consultation and approval by the Secretary of State.
The Government believe these amendments are really not necessary and that they would replace what is now a reasonably clear and objective boundary between the sectors with an indistinct and confusing one. I therefore hope the amendments will be withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am disappointed with the answer. One cannot help feeling that somehow there is a certain hostility towards tertiary colleges, as the Government are so unwilling to be flexible on this. It really should be an easy transition. In fact, of course, I think it is a terrible pity that further education regulations and school regulations cannot be gathered together, but I understand that is very difficult in view of the conditions of service of the teachers, and so on. However, I consider the Government are being inflexible and I shall test the opinion of the House.
4.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 359) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 138.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Ardwick, L.

Longford, E.

Aylcstone, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Burnett, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Birk, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mulley, L.

Blease, L.

Nicol, B.

Bottomley, L.

Northfield, L.

Briginshaw, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Oram, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Parry, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Carter, L.

Peston, L.

Chitnis, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

David, B.

Porritt, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Reilly, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Roskill, L.

Ezra, L.

Russell, E.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Flowers, L.

Scanlon, L.

Foot, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Galpern, L.

Serota, B.

Glenamara, L.

Stallard, L.

Goodman, L.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grey, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Grimond, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Halsbury, E.

Swann, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tonypandy, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Vernon, L.

Hughes, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Walston, L.

Jay, L.

Warnock, B.

Jeger, B

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Lawrence, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Listowel, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Winstanley, L,

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

1323

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Allerton, L.

Kimball, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kimberley, E.

Arran, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Auckland, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Layton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

McFadzean, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blyth, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Borthwick, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Manton, L.

Brookes, L.

Marley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Merrivale, L.

Broxboume, L.

Mersey, V.

Butterworth, L.

Middleton, L.

Caithness, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Nelson, E.

Cowley, E.

Newcastle, Bp.

Cox, B.

Norfolk, D.

Craigavon, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

De Freyne, L.

Onslow, E.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Orkney, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dormer, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Dundee, E.

Pender, L.

Eccles, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Portland, D.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Pym, L.

Faithful, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Rochdale, V.

Foley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Fortescue, E.

St. Davids, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gainford, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sandford, L.

Gormanston, V.

Selkirk, E.

Grantchester, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Greenway, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Haig, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinton, E.

Teviot, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Harvington, L.

Trafford, L.

Havers, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hesketh, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Hives, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hood, V.

Wise, L.

Hooper, B.

Wolfson, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Young, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Young of Graffham, L.

Ironside, L.

Resolved in the neg disagreed to accordingly.
4.40 p.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 359A, 359B and 359C:
Page 110, line 31, leave out ("ortraining").
Page 110, line 34, leave out ("or training").
Page 110, line 36, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) The duty of a local education authority under subsection (1) above extends, in the case of further education of a vocational kind, to the provision of facilities for continuing education for persons already in employment or already engaged in a vocation as well as to the provision of facilities for education with a view to entry into any employment or vocation.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 360 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 360A:
Page 111, line 15, 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.
(8A) 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.

(8C) 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.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee the Government undertook to give further consideration to a group of amendments, some of which had reference to special educational needs in further and higher education. The Bill already places upon local education authorities a duty to secure the provision of adequate facilities for further education. Inherent in this is a responsibility to have regard to the generality of need in the authority's area. There is no implication that special educational needs are or may be excluded from consideration. Moreover, the Bill places beyond all doubt the duty on local education authorities to provide full-time education for all under 19-year-olds who seek it, subject only to the right of an LEA to choose whether to do so in school or in further education.
Nevertheless, the Government are conscious that a number of your Lordships and other parties are firmly of the opinion that it would be well to make specific mention of special educational needs on the face of the law relative to further education. This would meet two concerns. It would make clear the responsibility of local education authorities to have concern for special educational needs and it would recognise formally the entitlement to consideration of those with special educational needs. The Government are ready to accommodate these concerns. The amendment will have this effect. As will be observed, it does not specify how LEAs are to discharge the duty or to what level they are to consider making provision for those with special needs. It does not infringe the discretion of LEAs, but it makes clear the compass within which that discretion operates.
I recognise that the amendment does not go as far as Amendments Nos. 356 and 369. The first of these would point to a particular level of provision by local authorities for persons with special educational needs. The second, not on its own but with detailed extensions, would cause the assessment and

1325
statementing procedures applied under the 1981 Act to pupils in schools to be applied to students in further education. The Government considered these matters, but do not believe that it would be right to reduce local discretion in this field. We trust that, with the addition of the amendment that I now move, your Lordships will feel happy that we have gone some way to meet the arguments put forward. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the amendment is to be welcomed as far as it goes. However, as my noble friend hinted a moment ago, it does not go all the way. It is welcome particularly having regard to the definition of learning difficulty in such a way as to include speech therapy in an appropriate case and to appeal by statute the erroneous decision in the Oxfordshire case, to which I referred in Committee at cols. 435 and 436, when supporting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. My noble friend, speaking on Amendment No. 274A, then said that she would consider the position.
Why does it not go far enough? First, there is now the requirement that the local education authority
"shall …have regard to the requirements of (such) persons".
However, there is no duty to make due provision. A duty to have regard to the requirements of persons is not a duty to provide speech therapy. The test is this. lf, for example, under subsection (8B)(a) there is a significantly greater difficulty, and if under subsection (8B)(b) the child is hindered or prevented from making use of the general facility unless to an appropriate degree, say, speech therapy is provided, where is the duty to provide?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. I believe that he is speaking to Amendment No. 424, which appears later on the Marshalled List in relation to speech therapists. The amendment that I have moved deals with a different and wider point.
Lord Cambell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. I am aware of Amendment No. 424. I am merely testing by an example the incidence of the clause because one cannot take all the examples; one can take only one. Taking this example, if my analysis is correct, my main point is correct that there is no duty to provide.
I have been contending, and I still contend, that there should be a duty to provide. Somerset, for example, operates its affairs on the basis that there is a duty to provide. Other LEAs do not. Where one has "shall have regard to", how is that to be enforced? It is virtually unenforceable by judicial review. It is surely right therefore, if we are to have a national curriculum, that there should be appropriate provision for special educational needs or it is not worthy of the name of the concept. That must be common ground.
What is not common ground is what is appropriate. The point between us is this. I
1326
respectfully suggest that "shall … have regard to"—be it unenforceable by judicial review to all intents and purposes unless there is a totally absurd, ridiculous or biased decision, but in the ordinary way totally unenforceable—is not appropriate provision.
Although I welcome the amendment, I ask my noble friend to consider whether in this regard there should not also be a subsection (8D) added between now and Third Reading so that the duty is not merely to "have regard to" but to "have regard to and provide".
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, welcomed the amendment in advance, but I thank my noble friend the Minister very much for it.
Baroness David: My Lords, we are thankful for small mercies, too. When the Government give something it is indeed agreeable. I too am sorry that in a way it is a rather weak amendment. The phrase, "shall also have regard" is not very strong.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will remember when the 1981 Act was going through this House how hard many of us tried to have something put into the Bill at least for the 16 to 19 year-olds so that there should be some statutory obligation to provide for them. If one has been a governor of a school for either the physically or mentally handicapped, one is all too aware that a terrible situation very often arises when those young people reach the age of 16. They may be kept on for a short time, but eventually they have to be pushed out of the school and very often there is nothing but an adult training centre to which they can go. I am very sorry that there is not an absolute duty to provide something; but, as I say, we are thankful for small mercies, and this at least is a nod in the right direction.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I intervene to say that I am grateful to see this advance on the 1981 Act. It is a very real measure of the influence of your Lordships' House on the legislative process. I am very glad indeed to hear that it has been welcomed both by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). I too welcome it very much.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the intention behind this amendment is to make explicit that the duty inherent in subsection (1) of this clause has reference to students with special educational needs as well as to other students. I feel that the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway to add to that would build on the original clause in a way that was not intended by the movers of amendments at a different stage. I must say that I am very glad to note the welcome that has been given to this amendment. I commend it to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 361 and 362 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 363:
Page 111, line 32, after ("sector") insert ("or within the sector of any body which replaces the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, or is merged with it)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 363 is coupled with Amendments Nos. 406, 411 and 412 and is by way of being a paving amendment to those later ones, all of them being probing amendments which seek to clarify certain aspects of this part of the Bill, although not all aspects of the Bill are of equal importance of course. In introducing the amendments perhaps I may remind the House of the achievements of the polytechnics and the higher education colleges in the provision of higher education. I should also like noble Lords to bear in mind that they were and are for the moment still local authority institutions and show what our local authorities can achieve.
I should also like to pay tribute, as I have done before in your Lordships' House, to the Council for National Academic Awards which has been unique as a validating body in education. It has helped to raise and maintain—and obviously more appropriately to validate—standards in the polytechnics and colleges. Nonetheless, there are questions that must be asked about this whole sector. There are questions about which those in the universities in particular are rather uneasy. I suppose that they stem from what is now the acknowledged fact that the cost of a graduate in a polytechnic is distinctly lower than the cost of a graduate in a university. That is so, having made full allowance—indeed more than full allowance—for all the other research and scholarship activities undertaken in the universities. The universities are dearer institutions compared with the polytechnics. People in my profession especially find that a problem which, to say the least, needs further analysis.
A related question concerns the reason why up to now the methods of financing the two sectors have also been so different. If one looks at the UGC and the corresponding NAB body, their documentation, approach, and so on, have been entirely different. It seems to me therefore that we have already had before us an agenda for action, an agenda for analysis and an agenda for policy making; but that when we move on to the Bill with its PCFC and UFC then that agenda is brought even more clearly into focus.
The purpose of my amendments is to make us think about these matters. I hasten to add that not for one moment am I suggesting that we are ready to have a single system of higher education. I am certainly not of the opinion that all higher educational institutions should be the same—clones of each other, as it were. I do not think that we are yet ready for a common institution which would be a funding council for all those bodies.
The reason for these amendments is twofold. I suppose that the standard question is: why is there still a difference? More to the point is the question: when will the time come when we ought to have a unified system? By "unified" I do not mean a system in which everybody is the same; but, if I may refer specifically to Amendment No. 411, a system in which for similar courses there are: "common principles of funding". The important word to note is "principles". Those are my questions, and I believe that they are extremely important ones.
One way of avoiding the question is that which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, would probably take if he were now in his seat (and I hope that I am not being improper by mentioning it, because he has spoken and written on this subject many times); namely, to argue that standards are not equal and that some degrees are better than others. I do not accept that view for one moment. I believe that a degree of a given standard is of the same worth and that in particular the CNAA has been successful in validating standards.
Many years ago I wrote a number of articles pointing out that I had learned through my membership of the CNAA and from my knowledge of what happened in polytechnics that, if anything, the worry was that some polytechnic degrees were of a higher academic standard than was being met in certain universities. However, I do not press that point. The key point is that broadly speaking they are much the same. So far as I am concerned, we cannot find a way out of the differences of funding and of provision via the route of standards.
Those are the questions that I put. Essentially, the point of my amendments is to show that we have to face those questions, and in due course start to consider the possibility of having a single funding council. In the meantime, at the very least there are two matters that we need to consider. One concerns the notion of common principles and the understanding that the two bodies—the UFC and the PCFC—so far as possible ought to work together co-operatively and should try to evolve common principles. The principles are not there for financing anyway. In my view, there has been far too much ad hoc financing of higher education. The other consideration may be that one may say, "Well, any sensible Secretary of State would do that anyway". As you know, I always operate on the assumpti'm that we do not have a sensible Secretary of State and that is why we need legislation; because one does not have a sensible anything is the reason why one needs legislation. Be that as it may, my Amendment No. 406 proposes that we ought to review the operations of the PCFC some three to five years from now. I should like to take that point further and do that with the UFC as well.
If the noble Baroness or the noble Lord will rise and say, "Well, a sensible Secretary of State would do that"—I beg your pardon, I believe that it is the noble
and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who intends to
do that—that will satisfy me and I shall accept that it
will be done on the basis of sense. But my real point is that we must monitor our actions with a view to moving forward. Those are the kinds of remarks that I wish to make.
I hope that I do not have to say that these are genuinely probing amendments. I have no intention of dividing the House on them and it may well be that I must accept that some of them are unanswerable at this time and must wait for an answer; but I believe that this is an extremely important topic that is worthy of the consideration of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I begin by accepting that the matters that

1329
the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has raised are extremely important, and that the two particular questions that he has posed certainly require consideration. However, we have to consider our progress.
At the present moment there is no statutory provision in relation to the funding of universities. Some people have raised a question about whether it is necessary to make even that progress. We have therefore sought in this Bill to put the universities' funding on a proper statutory basis with legislative provisions applying to them which we hope are reasonably plain. We have sought to treat the polytechnics in a similar way, recognising, as the noble Lord has done in his approach to this, the tremendous contribution that the polytechnics have made and do make in our education system.
It would certainly have been an option to set up a body which tried to fund the whole lot. However, the history of the matter—the present distinctions between the two types of institution and so on—has to be recognised. Therefore the Secretary of State and the Government have proposed in this legislation the two distinct funding councils. It is clear that there will be much co-operation between them but they are distinct because the universities and the polytechnics are different historically, have different requirements, and —as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, mentioned—historically have had rather distinct levels of funding.
A detailed discussion of the precise reasons for that would not be appropriate here. I agree with the noble Lord that even after one makes fair allowance for research and the like it is not altogether easy to see exactly where the differences lie. However, it is reasonably recognised that there are differences.
The various amendments that are referred to in this grouping envisage the possibility of these two funding councils either becoming one, in the fullness of time, or having some common principles of funding. The Government do not rule out the possibility of development but at the present stage we have a very big Bill which has attempted a great deal. Some may be inclined to think that the Bill is perhaps too big, attempting too much at once. However, the future must be left for development.
We believe that it is right to provide a distinct structure for funding the two branches of this important part of our education system. As the statutory bodies develop, the matter is one for Parliament to consider. If that is right, then the correct approach is that these funding councils will remain distinct, each co-operating with the other and considering what the other does, under the ultimate responsibility of the Secretary of State to Parliament. One then sees how matters develop. We do not have a crystal ball. It is very hard to see precisely what the future may be. In due time Parliament may think it right to make an alteration. However, at the moment we feel that this is the right approach. Therefore we feel that none of these amendments should at present be accepted. We understand fully the important questions that they raise but we feel that the time is not ripe for them.
Perhaps the amendment on the common principles of funding calls for the closest consideration. To impose that structure on the two councils at this stage would, in the Government's view, be premature.
1330
Unless these were fairly closely defined it would be quite hard to see how they applied. For the reasons that I have given, our judgment is that this is a rather delicate, historical development. It has not yet been fully analysed because the statutory basis for analysis is not yet in the statute book. As we now hope to take important steps in that direction, we hope that the future may well yield some interesting ground for further development. I am sure that Parliament has not finished with universities or with polytechnics when this Bill receives Royal Assent. We must leave some work for another day.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor able to comment a little more on the desirability of some kind of independent review which might monitor the work of the funding councils? One of the characteristics of this Bill is that it sets up much new machinery with new functions and new roles. I believe it is commonly understood that it is a very good practice in government to build in some kind of mechanism for reviewing new organisations to see whether they have fulfilled their objectives, or whether there is need for some adjustment or change.
I am very sympathetic with all that the noble and learned Lord has said about the relationship between what has in the past been called the public sector institutions and the universities. It is a sensitive relationship. At the same time, it is true that the institutions have become rather more similar. The distinctions that existed some 15 or 20 years ago are much less clear than they were.
In the light of those factors, it seems to me highly desirable that we should at least think about reviewing the work of the funding councils in, say, five years.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, after some interval it may be appropriate to have such a review. However, the initiative for that must be generated by the way that the developments proceed. It is very hard to say at the moment exactly what period of time would make such a review right. Certainly the Government are by no means ruling out the possibility of a review. There will be a certain amount of monitoring available from the accounts of the funding councils. One would be able to see how things are developing to some extent.
While we do not rule out the possibility of review in perhaps five years or longer, we do not think it appropriate at this stage to try to fix now—as we would be required to do by putting it into the statutory provision—any particular time. This is a natural growth. It would be natural to effect a review of the situation at some period yet to be determined in the light of growth.
In the light of these responses, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will feel that the points he has made are matters to which the Government have given very close consideration, and will continue to do so.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply. It seems to be constructive and encouraging. I am

1331
certain that the Secretary of State will have listened to what we had to say and will at least prod the relevant bodies in the right direction in due course.
The noble and learned Lord is quite right. One or two of us may return to this theme in the course of the years to see whether what we said today is remembered. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 364 to 369 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 370:
After Clause 112 insert the following new clause:
("Purpose of and duty to provide, higher education.
—(1) The statutory system of public education shall be organised in four progressive stages to be known as primary education, secondary education, further education and higher education.
(2) Accordingly the following section (which—

(a) re-states the duty of local education authorities in relation to the first three stages;

(b) separates that re-statement from the other parts of the section; and

(c) provides for the duty of the Secretary of State in relation to the fourth stage);

shall be substituted for section 7 of the 1944 Act—
"Stages and purposes of statutory system of education.
7.—(1) The statutory system of public
education shall he organised in four progressive stages to be known as primary education, secondary education, futher education, and higher education.
(2) It shall be the duty of the local education authority for every area, so far as their powers extend, to contribute towards the spiritual, moral, mental and physical development of the community by securing that efficient education throughout the first three stages shall be available to meet the needs of the population of their area.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, so far as his powers extend, to contribute towards the spiritual, moral, mental and physical development of society by securing that efficient higher education shall be available to meet the needs of the people of England and Wales.
(4) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, discharged by him through the Funding Councils estabished by this Act, to secure adequate facilities for higher education, that is to say, education provided by means of a course of any description mentioned in Schedule 4 to this Act, or by means of any other activity funded in accordance with this Act by the Funding Councils, which—

(a) provides instruction in skills;

(b) promotes the general powers of the mind;

(c) advances knowledge and learning;

(d) facilitates adjustment to technological, economic and social change;

(e) meets individual needs for personal development;

(f) assists in the transmission and maintenance of standards of citizenship;

(5) The higher education referred to in subsection (3) above includes in particular any of the following—

(a) full-time and part-time academic and vocational educational or training; and

(b) full-time and part-time social and physical
and recreational education or training;

(including, in the case of vocational education or training, continuing education or training for persons already in employment or already engaged in a vocation as well as education or training for entry into any employment or vocation)".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I can deal with this very briefly. As noble Lords are aware, we have raised this matter before. I wish to place on record one or two disagreements with the Government on the matter.
It seemed to me, on reflection, that the amendment had more to offer than the Government were willing to recognise. This is a major Bill. Many of us may dislike parts of it, but as a Bill it will undoubtedly represent a great achievement within education. It seems a pity therefore that the Government have not taken the opportunity, 44 years on from the great 1944 Act, to provide within it the missing parts of the 1944 Act which are essentially to do with the definition of, and the obligation to provide, higher education. I say that with regret and with sadness. The amendment offered a positive and broadly correct statement of higher education and its definition. It does not seem to me that the 1944 Act does that. I believe everybody recognised that.
It does not seem to me that the workaday statements in the Bill are satisfactory for the job in hand. Having said that as a generalised moan, I leave it there and will not pursue the matter further.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I take it that the amendment is not moved.
[Amendment No. 370 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [The higher education corporations]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 371:
Page 201, line 42, leave out ("twenty-four") and insert ("twenty-five").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to speak to Amendments Nos. 375 to 379 inclusive with this amendment. These amendments deal with the concern about the composition of the bodies that we all recognise will play a very important part in the future life of higher education in this country. I refer to the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. Other noble Lords have already sought to suggest to the Government that perhaps we can move the deckchairs around on the deck; not necessarily changing the numbers substantially but making suggestions for changes in the composition of the various bodies.
On this matter I have been advised by the Association of Polytechnic Teachers. It is concerned that the representation of the academic staff is wholly inadequate to allow a proper input and flow of information concerning the academic function. Some care has been taken with the initial composition of these bodies to present as faithfully as possible the constituent parts of the life that will be affected. Nevertheless the burden of the amendments is to increase the number of academic nominees who will serve on the bodies.
In the schedule on page 202 we have in lines 29 and 30 the definition of "academic nominee" as,
"a teacher at the institution nominated by the academic board".
I am asking the Governnment to look kindly upon the anxiety of those who consider that they have a

1333
claim to better representation so that they can fulfil the Government's wishes in the early life of these new boards. 1 beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the boards of governors will he responsible for the overall strategy of the institutions. They will need to be small and cohesive enough to take key decisions. They have to include a strong voice for lay members, to ensure that the institutions are responsive to the wider world, and particularly to the needs of employers. I believe that we all agree with that.
Equally, there is a long and respected tradition that academic institutions include a representative element in their governing bodies. The Government's proposals in Schedule 5 try to balance these objectives.
As the House will know, it has been argued that our proposals to limit the size of the boards do not go far enough. Some have suggested, indeed an amendment was put down at Committee on the point, and others have argued, that our plans went too far and that the boards should be as representative of staff, students and other bodies as many governing bodies are at present. It is clear that no solution to this problem is perfect. If I have understood the amendments correctly, the noble Lord has sought to offset the effect of his proposal to increase the number of academic board nominees by removing one of the local authority nominees. That at first sight would not be particularly attractive to the local authority interests.
The Bill allows a minimum of 12 appointed members and specifies a maximum of 25. We decided that 25 was the maximum consistent with the need for an effective decision-making body. As there is to be an independent majority, this puts a limit on the number of nominated members.
Similar arguments to those made for this amendment could be adduced in aid of other interests. The proposal for four mandatory academic board nominees will effectively mean that boards of governors can be no smaller than 18 members, appreciably more than the minimum allowed in the Bill. This would severely reduce the flexibility deliberately provided in the schedule.
Institutions will need to maintain good communications with their academic staff both on academic matters—through the academic board—and on staff matters. But this does not require a strong phalanx of staff members on the board of governors, as the amendments provide. Other communication and liaison channels are also important. As part of this, the Government amended the Bill in the Commons to make it clear that each institution is to have an academic board.
The amendments upset the balance and flexibility of the Government's proposals. While I understand that the interests that this amendment seeks to serve would like to have more representation, I believe that what they are asking for can be as effectively obtained by other methods. I therefore feel unable to support this amendment and the others to which the noble
1334
Lord has spoken. I hope that he may find it convenient to accept this conclusion.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for taking time and care in explaining the raison d'être for the current composition of the boards. As he fairly points out, no matter how one juggles to give someone an advantage, if one keeps to the numbers someone will be disadvantaged. It it not an easy job. I simply warmed to the suggestion that was made to me that bodies of this kind ought to have a greater representation of those who actually teach in the institutions without remotely, by one wit, denigrating the value of the contribution that can he made by the various other bodies.
As the noble and learned Lord will appreciate, there are those outside the House who have anxieties in these matters. They have been expressed. The Government's case has been made. It will be considered and perhaps at a later stage I may need to come back. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 372:
Page 201, line 43, after ("Schedule") insert ("including not less than two and not more than four members appointed by the governing body to respresent the local community").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment that the boards of higher education of institutions should include not less than two and not more than four members appointed to represent the local community, we return to a debate which we had in Committee on 16th May at cols. 102 to 106 in the Official Report.
A higher education institution of this kind, a corporation, is very important to the local community. I trust that no one in this House will consider that the local community is not interested in having such an institution and in supporting it. The constitution of the board provides that:
"up to thirteen … shall be persons appearing …to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industrial, commercial or employment matters or the practice of any profession.".
Considering that the maximum number of people on the board is to be 24, the Government's intention is that there should be a majority of such persons. They are not necessarily representative of all strands of the local community. One can see that much of the community is left out. I move the amendment in order to ensure that the community is represented.
In replying at the Committee stage, the noble and learned Lord said that the community was not a very specific concept. I find that statement from the noble and learned Lord very surprising. I believe that both he and I will recognise that in various parts of Scotland the community is a well-known and well-recognised concept. I should be surprised if that were not also true of England and Wales. Perhaps it is a reflection of the idea which sometimes seems to permeate some people's thought—that there is no such thing as a community, only individuals. I believe that that also is demonstrably false.
The noble and learned Lord also said that the inclusion in the independent category of community representatives who do not have strong links in business would detract from the fact that at least half the membership had to be drawn from business and commerce. It does not appear to me that, if the minority must include representatives of the local community, it detracts in any way from the majority. If those experienced in business and commerce are to be so frightened of the local community I do not believe that they will be effective representatives of business and commerce.
I suggest to the House that this amendment has merit and I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I replied to a similar amendment moved by the noble Lord in Committee. He has quoted somewhat extensively from the reasons that I gave on that occasion. No doubt I could improve on them even more if I took up the time of your Lordships' House.
He said that I might possibly be under the impression that there is no such thing as a community but only individuals. As it happens, I am not under such a misapprehension. I am very much of the view that there are individual responsibilities and that those individuals may make up one or more communities. The point that I was seeking to make in the passage to which he has referred was that it is not easy to identify the community which should be associated with a particular institution.
The noble Lord took the Scottish position and, although it is not of particular relevance here, for the purpose of illustration it may suffice. For example, if one has an institution in Aberdeen, what is the local community? Does it include the whole of the Highlands up to Caithness and Sutherland? For some purposes it would. I believe that the community which has an interest in one major institution in Aberdeen would go as far north as that and probably a good deal further, to Orkney and Shetland. On the other hand, it could well be that the local community in Aberdeen would be regarded as a much smaller unit. That is the point that I was making. It was not that there is no such thing as "the community" but that the noble Lord's amendment does not seek to define it. It makes no provision for defining it by reference to particular people.
As I said in Committee, and 1 could repeat it if necessary, the provisions in the Bill give considerable scope for representation of local interests. I do not believe that the amendment in this form will advance the matter any further. Assured that I believe in the community, as well as in the individual, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, before the noble Lord decides what he will do with the amendment, I should like to say with great diffidence and humility that I found the noble and learned Lord's difficulty about the community to be somewhat exaggerated. After all, nearly all universities and other institutions of higher education recruit their students from practically the whole of Britain. Nevertheless, they
1336
have on their governing bodies representatives of the local community.
I should like to quote that notorious and amiable example, the University of Kent. To our immense advantage, we have all the MPs who represent the county of Kent. By a curious mistake they are all Tories but we regard Kent as part of our community. I fully appreciate what the noble and learned Lord has said about being precise but I do not believe it to be so difficult. Most people will be content to have local people and I go so far as to say that any members of the community are better than none.
I do not find the concept of "community" much more difficult than the concept of "business". I do not understand how one defines businessmen and I believe that their position is exaggerated in the Bill. However, I do not object to their being appointed to such bodies. I believe that the thought behind the amendment is most worthy of consideration. While it may not be a matter to be pressed at the moment, I personally hope that the Government will give more thought to it.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I was glad to hear the noble and learned Lord's statement that he believes that there is such a thing as the community. I believe that it is fairly obvious that the particular community of the various types of institution will differ. If one were dealing with an institution in Aberdeen covering agricultural research it would have a wider community than that of Robert Gordon's Institute. However, either organisation would be perfectly willing and able to recognise its own community. That is the point that the amendment sought to make, and therefore there could not be a definition of "community".
I am disappointed in the noble and learned Lord's reply but I do not think that it is worth testing the opinion of the House on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Lady Kinloss Lady Kinloss moved Amendment No. 373:
Page 201, line 45, at end insert ("; and
(c) one shall have special knowledge of and concern for provision for people with special educational needs, and regard shall be had to the desirability of that member being a person with a disability.").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 373 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 389 and 403 and to No. 418, which was included in an earlier grouping but the others were withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
It is important to focus attention on the needs of those with disabilities in the new higher education corporations. These are largely made up of the former polytechnics. Access is of course of paramount importance. I note that the Government have, in moving Amendment No. 310, listened to the need to take account of access in relation to grant-maintained schools. It is particularly important, with the expanded opportunities for higher education opened up by the new corporations, that no opportunity to develop courses and facilities that are suitable for the many types of special need should be lost. New corporations will be very much run by their governing bodies.
In Amendments Nos. 389 and 403 there is a need for a member of both those councils who can represent the views of disabled people. Appropriate methods of adapting provisions are developed when people are sensitive to and knowledgeable about the needs and aspirations of disabled people. Under Clause 123, if the Universities Funding Council has a member who explicitly represents the views of disabled university candidates, past experience with other similar councils shows that their needs are more likely to be considered. That applies also to Clause 124, which covers the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.
In Amendment No. 418 the concept of the representation of the needs and interests of people with disabilities on various committees was enshrined in the law by the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Its importance lies both in the widespread lack of knowledge on the subject of the needs of people with disabilities and the ease with which their particular needs can be overlooked, not deliberately but accidentally.
Clause 141 as it stands accepts the need for representation on college governing bodies of commercial, business and professional interests relevant to the activities of the institution. This amendment seeks to extend the principle to cover the interests of people with special educational needs.
The draft circular of 21st April from the DES entitled Local Management of Further Education Colleges: Delegation Schemes and Articles of Government offers guidance to LEAs and colleges to help them prepare for the introduction of planning, budget setting and delegation procedures. A governing body is likely to be at a considerable disadvantage if it does not have represented special expertise.
There is a recently issued DES guidance on the reform of governing bodies. Paragraph 14 of the draft circular states:
"Where colleges cater for significant numbers of students with special educational needs, the Secretary of State asks that particular considerations should be given to the desirability of specifying that the one coopted governor should have experience relevant to the needs of such students".
This amendment seeks to put into the Bill the principle of representation for special needs which the Secretary of State seems almost to have accepted in his draft circular. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, perhaps I may add a few brief but very warm words of support for my noble friend. She has explained very fully why representation on these councils and bodies is necessary. I warmly support her.
Lord Carter: My Lords, from these Benches, I am very pleased to support these amendments which all have the same purpose; namely to seek to ensure that there is proper representation on the various bodies mentioned for disability interests and to ensure that special educational needs are given proper attention.
1338
As a result of this amendment, those needs will he recognised and met.
On many of the amendments dealing with special educational needs, the point has been made that in many cases these needs are not being met. We feel that by appointing people with appropriate experience—and perhaps their experience has been gained as consumers of special education—those needs will be met. There is a widespread lack of knowledge about the problems of disability, and there is a general conditioning of society in its attitude towards disability. That conditioning starts in the education system which is where the specialist representation is required. Therefore, from these Benches, I am pleased to support this group of amendments.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I should also like very strongly to support this amendment. Special education has been mentioned in the Bill; but no particular emphasis has been laid upon it. One must remember that for those who need it special education is essential. Without it, they would have to go without education altogether. That is something which we do not want to see. I believe that this is a very necessary amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, of course the Government sympathise with the reason which prompts the amendment. The question is whether the aim is best achieved by an amendment of this sort or whether that is achieved in other ways.
It has been suggested to me that this amendment as drafted restricts the power of the Secretary of State to nominate people with special knowledge because it says "one". Whether that is a good point or a legalistic point, perhaps I may leave to one side.
The question is more profound. In connection with the powers which the Secretary of State has for appointments, he is required to ensure that the body as a whole is a proper body to achieve the purpose. Special educational needs are a very important matter. However, in relation to the higher education corporation the important matters for special educational needs are matters that centre on physical access—that sort of problem—communication aids and additional maintenance grants; for example, if an additional expense is involved. It is in that area that particular knowledge is required because it is that sort of special provision which is needed in that situation. It is not that there should be a special course for the particular person. It is that the particular difficulties which the person has in attending and benefiting from the course should be dealt with. Access, communication aids and the additional grant which is available to enable the additional expense involved in transport and that sort of matter would be covered.
Therefore, that is the approach that the Government have to this particular provision. The real emphasis is that people with disabilities would be given the necessary means, particularly under the headings that I have mentioned, to undertake the higher education. However, relating courses to their needs does not so much arise.

1339
The Bill certainly leaves open, and the guidance which has been mentioned shows, that the Secretary of State has very much in mind the knowledge of special educational needs as an aspect of what would be required as the expertise in governing bodies of this kind. However, it seems inappropriate to single out special knowledge of and concern for people with special educational needs as a particular qualification on one governor or one member of the funding council.
We would hope that those who are appointed would, among them, have knowledge of and concern for people with special disabilities and the like. What is required is a cohesive team to make necessary decisions and not to have particular persons representative of a particular interest or disability. Therefore, as I say, in making appointments the Secretary of State has very much in mind that type of problem and the expertise which requires to be covered. However, he considers and the Government consider that with regard to special educational needs and special provision needing to be made for them, it is best made under the various headings of means which I have mentioned.
I hope that the noble Lady will feel, in the light of that explanation, that she may be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his very detailed reply. I wonder whether I dare hope that he may come back with an amendment at Third Reading, particularly on Amendment No. 418. Secretaries of State come and go, and the next Secretary of State might not agree with this one. Therefore, I believe that it should be written into the Bill. I shall read what he has said in Hansard and perhaps come back at Third Reading. Meanwhile, 1 beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 374 to 379 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 380:
Page 202, line 16, leave out ("one") and insert ("two").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I refer also to Amendment No. 381. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will remember the debate we had in Committee on this subject when I moved the same pair of amendments. The purpose is to increase the number of student nominees on higher education corporations from one to two. There was support from every part of the Committee. At the end of the debate the noble and learned Lord said that he was willing to reconsider the matter. I do not know whether he has thought about it, but the interval has not produced anything on the Marshalled List. We are very disappointed about that.
A number of reasons were given for having two students rather than one on governing bodies. One reason was that two students would give moral support the one for the other when among a number of perhaps older people with more experience in education than they themselves have. There was also the point made that one student would be able to gain experience and then pass on that experience to another. Presuming one student was a second or third
1340
year student and the other a first year student, one could guide the other so that the younger student could take on the more senior responsibility in a later year.
The noble and learned Lord seemed to think—in fact hesaid—that it was unnecessary to provide a student with a second student for moral support since moral support could come better from mature people on the governing body. I cannot say that any of us were convinced by that argument. The noble and learned Lord acknowledged that communication with students was important but he considered:
"Having a student on the governing body is one part, but only one part, of that system. Other liaison communication channels are also important. To have a good system of communication it does not appear to me to be necessary to have more than one student."—[Official Report, 16/5/88; col. 110.]
Many of us begged to differ. I can only say that I am extremely disappointed that we have not had a response from the noble and learned Lord. I hope that I shall have the same support from the House that I had in Committee.
All noble Lords who spoke in Committee have had experience of serving on governing bodies where there were two students, and they have found it extremely satisfactory. The students make a real contribution and the governing bodies learnt a great deal from their attitudes to the governing bodies themselves, the institutions and what goes on in them. Therefore, I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord has had second thoughts and is willing to accept this amendment this time round. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I undertook to do I have, with my colleagues, reconsidered this matter. The situation is that I am not able to accept this amendment. However, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has tabled Amendment No. 381ZA which deals with the possibility of part-time students being independent or additional nominee members, and I am prepared to accept that amendment in principle. There is perhaps a small technical difficulty but, as I said, I accept it in principle and will produce an appropriate amendment at Third Reading to give effect to it.
As regards the other amendments which seek to increase the number of students from one to two, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said yesterday in referring to this in passing, we had too long an argument on this issue in Committee so I shall try not to be too long on this occasion. The Government's position is that the boards will have to be small and cohesive enough to take effective decisions. They will have to include a strong voice for lay members to ensure that the institutions are responsive to the wider world and, as I said before, particularly the needs of employers. Indeed, we have been urged by some to confine membership of boards of governors to lay members, excluding representative members altogether. But we also want to maintain the long and respected tradition that academic institutions include a representative element in their governing bodies.
This does not leave many options. We decided to give one place each to the teaching staff at large, to the non-teaching staff and to the students. I think

1341
these three representative interests have to be seen alongside each other as a group. The same arguments that might be used to support an extra place for the students—isolation, diversity of views, reporting back to their colleagues—apply also to the governors nominated by the teaching and non-teaching staff. There is not enough room on the boards to give all three interests an extra place. Therefore, the Government believe that we should stay where we are.
As I said in Committee, and the noble Baroness kindly referred to this, I accept that institutions will need to maintain good communications with their students; but they would have to do that not only with the people on the governing body, and the student on the governing body, but with students generally and also with the staff. Having student representation on the governing body is one, but only one, part of this. Other communication and liaison channels are also extremely important. The students, and the staff, will also be able to use these channels to make their contribution to responsible decision-making.
The Government are willing that the boards of governors should, as I said, be opened up to part-time students. For that reason we shall accept in principle Amendment No. 381ZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. However, I regret to say that reconsideration of the matter leads us to the view that the opinion which I expressed in Committee remains correct and therefore I am not in a position to accept Amendments Nos. 380 and 381.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, I am sure that I voice the opinion of many in this House who spoke in Committee, and possibly some colleagues who did not but have experience of these matters. We are deeply disappointed in the reply given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I find it completely unconvincing. I am not asking— and I am sure that my colleagues are not, either— for a greatly enlarged governing body. We understand that it should be, as the noble and learned Lord rightly said, a fairly close and cohesive body. That is perfectly justifiable. However, without rehearsing all the arguments that were made in all parts of the Committee, those of us who have had experience know how important it is, if one has a student representative, that he or she should be in a position of confidence; the kind of confidence which is required to face what is, after all, an inexperienced student body to whom he or she has to report. One needs to have some experience of the psychology of student bodies to recognise that it is very difficult indeed, unless one has an exceptionally capable and confident student representative, to ensure that the decisions reached by the governing body are adequately and persuasively communicated to the student organisations.
I have the warmest personal regard for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but I have to say that my opinion of him plummetted with the reply that he gave in Committee. It showed all too clearly
1342
that he could not have had experience of dealing with student bodies at university or higher education level in the sense of being, as I and other noble Lords have been, chairman of council, president, and so on, of these governing bodies. I am deeply disappointed at his unrealistic attitude.
I ask one specific question. What provision is being made for alternatives? Are they to be permitted on governing bodies if they are representative of the teachers' organisations, other staff organisations or the students? Has nobody thought of that? If there is an important meeting of a governing body and there is no provision for alternatives, who is to report to the student body? I would be obliged if the noble and learned Lord could let us know what thought has been given to that aspect and whether or not it is legitimate. I hope that between now and Third Reading there will be further thoughts on the question of student representation, on which there was unanimous opinion from all quarters when this was debated in Committee.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I am very much a layman—
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Baroness David: My Lords, it is in order. If the noble Lord chose to speak early on in the debate, as he did, others may speak afterwards. I believe that to be correct according to Standing Orders and the Clerk at the Table agrees that I am correct. In that circumstance I believe it is in order for other noble Lords to speak.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I shall be very persistent. I am very much ignorant of these matters. There is one point I have not heard mentioned in favour of having two student nominees. Normally, a student nominee is there for only one year and therefore has very little opportunity of gaining real experience. Then a new nominee comes along a little later to replace him. The other nominees will be there for very much longer and they will become experienced members of the body and able to contribute. If there were two student nominees it would be possible to have one senior and one from a junior year who was therefore able to stay for two years and be of very much more value in contributing to the decisions made by the body.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, that was a point mentioned at the Committee stage, that students tend to be present for a shorter time than the staff and are therefore perhaps more inexperienced. That was one of the reasons for suggesting that there should be two nominees rather than one. These points arising from the Committee stage have been considered by my colleagues and myself. As regards alternates I believe I am right in saying that Clause 117 of the Bill provides for proxies for the governing bodies if the articles of government so provide. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady White, that provision would certainly be possible.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am no more satisfied with that answer than I was with the answer given last time. As the noble and learned Lord is not willing to change his mind, I must test the opinion of the House.
5.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 380) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 107; Not-Contents, 134.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jay, L.

Adrian, L.

Jeger, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Amherst, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ardwick, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kennet, L.

Barnett, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Birk, B.

Kilmarnock, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blease, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Blyth, L.

Listowel, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Longford, E.

Butterworth, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Chorley, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Nicol, B, [Teller.]

Cobbold, L.

Northfield, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Oram, L.

Dainton, L.

Parry, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L,

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Russell, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seear, B.

Ezra, L.

Seebohm, L.

Falkender, B.

Serota, B.

Flowers, L.

Stedman, B.

Foot, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Galpern, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Grey, E.

Tordoff, L.

Grimond, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Halsbury, E.

Underhill, L.

Hampton, L.

Vernon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Walston, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Warnock, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

White, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Hughes, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hunt, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Jacques, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Auckland, L.

Aldington, L.

Barber, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Allerton, L.

Beloff, L.

Ampthill, L.

Belstead, L.

Arran, E.

Bessborough, E.

1344

Birdwood, L.

Killearn, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Borthwick, L.

Kimberley, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Layton, L.

Brookes, L.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Caithness, E.

McFadzean, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Camoys, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mancroft, L.

Carnock, L.

Marley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cowley, E.

Mersey, V.

Cox, B.

Middleton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Monson, L.

Crathorne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cross, V.

Mottistone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Deedes, L.

Munster, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Derwent, L.

Nelson, E.

Dilhorne, V.

Norfolk, D.

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Eccles, V.

Onslow, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orkney, E.

Elles, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elton, L.

Pender, L.

Faithfull, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Ferrier, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Foley, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Renton, L.

Gainford, L.

Renwick, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rochdale, V.

Gormanston, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Grantchester, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Salisbury, M.

Greenway, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gridley, L.

Sandford, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Haig, E.

Somers, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Strange, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Swinton, E.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Teviot, L.

Harvington, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Havers, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Henley, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trafford, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hood, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Hooper, B.

Windlesham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wise, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Wolfson, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Young, B.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.2 p.m.
[Amendment No. 381 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved, as a manuscript amendment, Amendment No. 381ZA:
Page 202, line 39, after ("a") insert ("full-time").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House for the manuscript amendment, which has added to the confusion. I shall explain the purpose of the amendment.
Schedule 5(4)(4) says:
"a person who is—
(b) a student at the institution…is not eligible for appointment as an independent member",
of the governing body. My amendment changes that to:
"a person who is …
(b) a full-time student at the institution…is not eligible".
That means that a part-time student is eligible. If that is clear I do not wish to say much more because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he would accept the amendment in principle. I look forward to hearing in a moment what "in principle" means.
It may help noble Lords to know why I wish to insert the word "full-time". I can best illustrate that by giving the example I have in mind. I am thinking of someone who is on the governing body of such an institution who then decides to attend a part-time course at that institution; for example, a course in computer technology. He would then be registered as a student—albeit part-time—for this course. As the Bill stands, that person would immediately have to resign as a governor. I felt that the Government could not possibly want that to be a consequence of the Bill.
It seemed to me that whatever the Government had in mind about not allowing students to be independent governors, they could not mean what I have just outlined to be a consequence of the Bill. Therefore I felt that if I inserted, "full-time" to allow the part-time case to be eligible, that might meet what any reasonable person would want the schedule to say. I apologise again for this being a manuscript amendment. I look forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord's acceptance of it and also the explanation of "in principle".
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we are prepared to accept the amendment so that part-time students would be allowed on the governing bodies. I cannot accept it as it is without further amendment because it would require a definition of "full-time" to apply to the schedule. The noble Lord has used the words "full-time" in the amendment. I think I am right in saying that there are definitions of "full-time" in other parts of the Bill and we require to apply an appropriate definition of "full-time" to this schedule so that the noble Lord's amendment would have its full effect. If, with this explanation, the noble Lord is willing to withdraw the amendment, I undertake to bring back at Third Reading an amendment which is in the same terms on this matter but tries to deal with the definition point which I have mentioned.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord. I accept with alacrity. I think it is the first amendment I have ever had accepted in any form at all, and I sit down hurriedly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 381A:
Page 203, leave out lines 33 to 35.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 381B and 381C. This amendment seeks to deal with a matter which was raised in the other place. The Bill currently provides that the independent members of a higher education corporation only shall appoint their successors. In other words, the independents would appoint the independents. In another place a mechanism was suggested to allow the full corporation to make the appointment but only where this had the support of a majority of the independent members. The Government agreed to consider this.
These amendments are based on that idea and are somewhat complicated. The legislation must ensure that there is no risk of deadlock. Assuming that no appointment was made, there must be a provision in the Bill to avoid deadlock. The amendments are based on the principle that the full governing body, with the consent of the majority of independent members, should have an opportunity to make independent appointments.
The amendments achieve the avoidance of deadlock by giving the full corporation a definite period—three months—to make the appointment, with the approval of the current independent members. If the corporation does not make an appointment in this period, or cannot secure the agreement of the independent members, the right of appointment reverts to the independent members. It gives effect to the principle with a fall-back position for the independent members in case the opportunity is not taken. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 381B and 381C:
Page 203, line 36, leave out ("those purposes") and insert ("the purposes of this Schedule").
Page 203, line 38, at end insert—
("(4) Where an appointment of an additional independent member of the corporation falls to be made in consequence of a determination under paragraph 6 above, the appointing authority for the purposes of this Schedule in relation to the appointment—

(a) shall be the corporation if the appointment is made within the period of three months beginning with the date of the determination; or

(b) if the appointment is not made within that period, shall be the current independent members of the corporation.

(4A) Where a vacancy in the office of an independent member ceasing to hold office on the expiry of his term of office—

(a) his successor shall not be appointed more than six months before the expiry of that term; and

(b) the appointing authority for the purposes of this Schedule in relation to the appointment of his successor—

(i) shall be the corporation if the appointment is made not less than three months before the expiry of that term; or

(ii) if the appointment is not so made, shall be the current independent members of the corporation.

(4B) Where a vacancy in the office of an independent member of the corporation arises on the death of any such member or on any such member ceasing to hold office under paragraph 8(2) or 10 below, the appointing authority for the purposes of this Schedule in relation to the appointment of his successor—
(a) shall be the corporation if the appointment is made within the period of three months beginning with the date of death or the date of the notice under paragraph 8(2) or 10 below (as the case may be); or

1347
(a) if the appointment is not made within that period, shall be the current independent members of the corporation.
(4C) No appointment of an independent member of the corporation by the corporation under subsection (4)(a), (4A)(a) or (48)(a) above shall be made unless the appointment has been approved by the current independent members of the corporation.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 116 [Powers of a higher education corporation]:
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 382:
Page 114, line 28, at end insert ("In exercising powers under this subsection the higher education corporation shall have due regard for meeting the needs of disabled students with special educational needs.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is identical to one that I moved in Committee to ensure that the higher education corporations should have due regard to meeting the needs of students with special educational needs. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor felt it was unnecessary. He said that the problems for disabled students in higher education mainly related to access. At col. 118 of the Official Report for 16th May, the noble and learned Lord said that Section 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 applied to all institutions in the PCFC sector. I withdrew the amendment and said that I would go away and think about it. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his letter, but he still says he feels that the amendment is unnecessary. So, having consulted the National Bureau for Handicapped Students, I hope to persuade him that this most moderate amendment is indeed necessary.
Section 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 covers new buildings only, and not existing ones. Further, the National Bureau for Handicapped Students says that those with physical handicaps are in the minority among handicapped students in higher education. The percentage of those who have problems of access is perhaps fewer than 25 per cent.
What then are the problems, if they are not of access? The National Bureau for Handicapped Students gives many reasons. Probably the most important factor of all is that colleges, and so on, prefer candidates to have conventional qualifications. Many disabled young people have had difficult or interrupted school careers and therefore do not fit into the conventional pattern. Then there is the lack of support services, both in further and higher education; for example, interpreters for the deaf and care assistants for the physically handicapped. There is also the problem of lack of counselling and careers guidance services.
I was horrified to find in Holland—well, I was in fact delighted to find this in Holland; but what comes later is what horrified me—that the Government provide a grant to a voluntary organisation called Handicap and Studie. The organisation has a trained counsellor in every university town. The equivalent organisation in this country is the National Bureau for Handicapped Students, which can afford only one
1348
information officer who has to cover the whole of higher and further education throughout the United Kingdom.
The national bureau also mentions difficulties in obtaining extra financial support; sometimes outright discrimination; absence of appropriate care to meet the personal care needs of severely disabled people; and underestimation of disabled students' abilities, which discourages them from applying for higher education courses. Some or all of those factors combine to make up this rather discouraging list.
Many noble Lords will have read in the Sunday Times 10 days ago about Professor Stephen Hawking, who is the greatest world expert on black holes. He is totally paralysed and is only able to speak with the aid of a voice synthesiser. Perhaps it is just as well that he was already a postgraduate student at Cambridge before motor neurone disease struck him; otherwise we might have been deprived of the fruits of one of the finest brains of our age.
There are, however, some chinks of light in this gloomy picture. Individual institutions have tried to increase the numbers of disabled students by positive policies and by being especially welcoming to them. Indeed, three such institutions provide specialist accommodation; for example, Lancashire Polytechnic has appointed a member of staff to take on special responsibility for disabled students. It has been instrumental in getting together representatives of higher education in the North-West to seek to bring about improvements.
It is important to note that the Open University—which has from the beginning welcomed disabled applicants—has almost 3,000 disabled students. Some of them prefer distance learning for obvious reasons, but many have simply given up hope of trying to gain admission to conventional universities. Over 80 per cent. of disabled students who have enrolled with the Open University have achieved a degree, which is a far higher percentage than that which applies to the general average Open University student population.
Therefore disabled students are keen and successful; but they are not as numerous as they should be. The amendment would ensure that meeting the needs of such students would be part of the brief of the higher education corporations. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that an almost identical amendment on training had been tabled to the Employment Bill. I think that the amendment stemmed originally from the noble Lord, Lord Basnett, and was subsequently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. The Government took the amendment away and came back with one of their own at the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. I very much hope that the Government can be persuaded to do the same for higher education corporations. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment. It has been so ably put by my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) that I think it needs no further expansion. However, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that if

1349
we do not make special arrangements for some disabled students with special educational needs, we are losing much in our society. I remind the House of Peter Utley, who died recently. He was partially sighted from the age of nine. He took several journalistic jobs on various newspapers and finally worked for The Times. Further, I know that people from Oxford will remember the late Professor Cross, who was a legal luminary and who was totally blind. I think we should bear in mind the outstanding people we may lose if we do not make special arrangements for them.
I should mention that many universities, to their credit, have opened hostels for the disabled with the provision of special care. The amendment does not order people to do things; but it does ask that they should take into account the needs of students in higher education with special educational needs.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that my noble and learned friend, who I believe will reply to the amendment, will regard it sympathetically. Of course we know that there are famous cases, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, where people with great handicaps have been most successful academically. I happen to have been taught by a blind tutor at Oxford. He had great difficulty in achieving what he did and it was only because his elder sister was able to make up for his lack of sight that he managed to get a first and subsequently became of a fellow of Balliol.
However, that was an exceptional case. There may well have been other people who could have performed great service if only their needs had been specially considered by those in authority in universities and now in technical colleges, and so on. So I consider that a very strong case has been made out. As the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), said, it is a modest amendment. It does not impose—so far as one can tell—much cost or great obligation upon higher education; but it is something which, in these enlightened days when we are trying to help people at all levels of handicap, we should not ignore.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like briefly to add my support to the amendment. One of the things I noticed while teaching in the United States of America was that a great deal more has been done in that country than has ever yet been done in this country, especially in the way of securing easier access to university buildings. The only word of caution I shall say on the matter is that such things cost money.
As regards English university buildings—some of which are not the newest—the amount of money involved may perhaps be more than it would be for a newer American building. We are most willing to spend this money, but it is something on which we shall need a certain amount of help.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will react sympathetically to the amendment. It may well
1350
be argued that it is not strictly necessary and that in some other ways the Bill takes care of such cases. However, I think it is of some importance and some value that this historic Bill—which will be the legal foundation of our educational system for perhaps the next half century or so—should spell out Parliament's concern for this category of students. One does not need to enlarge on the issue.
I am sure that all Members of this House have the greatest admiration for those people who, despite serious handicaps, nonetheless pursue advanced courses of study and, as has already been said, sometimes make considerable contributions to our country and to the advancement of learning, knowledge and science. I hope I may express the view that we shall not take (dare I say this in the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor?) too legalistic a view of the amendment, which may give some real importance to the psychological aspects and to the great encouragement which Parliament, by enacting this, will give to a most deserving section of the community.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I should like to support everything that my noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, have said. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept the amendment.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, after the powerful advocacy of the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton, it is hardly necessary for me to add my voice to their pleas asking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to be sympathetic in his reception of the amendment so comprehensively and ably moved by the noble Baroness.
Unfortunately, I could not be here during the Committee stage but I read the whole of the Committee proceedings on this amendment. The amount of support which the noble Baroness received from all parts of the House on that occasion, as on this, was most impressive, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord will remember.
I should like to take up only one point made by the noble Baroness; that is, that the Department of Employment seems to have the edge on the Department of Education and Science in its sympathetic regard for the people we are discussing. In its training schemes, as I have said before, it has made most imaginative and sympathetic provision. I ask that the Department of Education and Science be as receptive to the pleas as the Department of Employment has been.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment from these Benches. It is obviously receiving support from all parts of the House. In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness mentioned that 0·15 per cent. of the student population in further education is disabled. That compares with the 6 per cent. of the population as a whole who are disabled. Disabled students are obviously under-represented in further education.
Besides the problems the noble Baroness mentioned which are experienced by students, such as

1351
the interruption in their pattern of education and a lack of support services and counselling, they have a need for extra financial help. Regrettably, there is often discrimination against such students in certain universities. It is accidental rather than intended. Disabled students all experience the insensitivity and indifference which, unfortunately, is the daily lot of most of them. It is decided on their behalf that they will be unable to cope with the university, polytechnic or whatever it may be. Above all, there is an underestimation of the abilities of handicapped students. Throughout society and institutions of further education there is a low level of expectation of the potential of disabled people.
The amendment is intended to go some way towards overcoming the problems of the handicapped which have been mentioned. I hope that the Government will feel able to accept it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, no one who listened to the noble Baroness who moved the amendment, speaking either now or in Committee, could fail to appreciate the power of her eloquence or the case she was making. The question is whether it is appropriate to make the amendment part of the Bill. The purpose of Clause 116(1) is to confer on the higher education corporations broad powers to provide further and higher education. Special courses for the disabled are usually the province of the schools and further education colleges.
Where it is a question of training, with which the Department of Employment is concerned, and the provisions which have been referred to, special training may well be required. However, disabled students in higher education usually study alongside their peers who do not suffer similarly. The courses are the same. In making provision the higher education corporations will need to have regard to a wide variety of considerations, including what special facilities are required to make their provision accessible to disabled students. That point has been focused on and was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It is distinct from the education provision that is required. The house may wish to reflect on the wisdom of singling out one consideration among many for expression in a statutory duty.
The real requirements of the disabled in relation to higher education are not so much in special provision for, or special regard to, what they require in a course, because what they wish to learn and what they are taught is the same. In some cases, as we have heard, disabled people have made tremendous use of such courses, putting to shame their fellow students who have their sight and all their other faculties. A number of institutions have made great efforts to give the necessary support to enable students with disabilities to enter higher education. There are examples of good practice, including microelectronic aids, personal support, special facilities and accommodation. Such initiatives are already taking place without the institutions being placed under any statutory duty to make such provision. We should expect the corporations, as responsible and independent bodies, to continue and build on present good practice in that connection.
1352
The Government believe that it is appropriate for the voluntary sector—the noble Baroness referred to this point—to continue to play a co-ordinating role and to work with the institutions to provide personal support for students with special needs. The National Bureau for Handicapped Students, which is supported by government, is a major source of support and help to students with special educational needs. I appreciate that the noble Baroness pointed out that they could all use more support. Its governing body includes a range of higher education representatives and is advised by a working party on higher education with membership drawn from higher education and institutions that supply students for higher education.
A network of lecturer support groups operates regionally to support students and staff in higher education. Legislation should complement, not duplicate, the provision of such support.
The Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations authorise local education authorities to supplement the maintenance grants of disabled students to enable them to attend higher education courses. I have already mentioned that point. It is in the additional provision to reach such courses that the emphasis lies. A major issue for disabled students in higher education, as I have already said, is access to buildings and facilities. Paragraph 63 of Schedule 10 applies Section 8 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to all PCFC institutions. That, of course, has the effect to which the noble Baroness referred.
The Government feel that the deserving case of disabled students in higher education is catered for by concentrating upon additional support to enable the student to obtain a course of higher education. That meets the case. It is not a question of supplying special education which seems to be the emphasis of the amendment. The noble Baroness kindly referred to the letter I wrote to her which sets out our point of view on this matter.
She mentioned a topic which I think had not been drawn to my attention anyway up until now. It may be that the noble Baroness wishes to elaborate on it. As I understand the position, the Government are basing their view on the fact that as regards higher education, the disabled student wants from the system the same as the person who has no disability. The additions for the disabled person are in the nature of support. If there is an additional point in relation to the qualifications with which the disabled person should be able to get into the course, which is the point I understood the noble Baroness to make, speaking for myself I have not had an opportunity of considering it. I am not sure to what extent she bases her argument on that aspect of the matter.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, perhaps I should speak now. I simply wished to say that the National Bureau of Handicapped Students says that one of the chief obstacles to getting into higher education is that many children or students who have been disabled or who have had a learning difficulty through their childhood, have a complicated pattern

1353
of education, and do not go through the usual forms up to A-level. They have had interrupted school careers and therefore there has to be a little flexibility in the admissions policy.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said, that is an aspect of the matter which, so far as I know, has not been brought to my attention before. It is obviously a matter of great importance to the House, and if the noble Baroness is willing to withdraw the amendment I shall certainly undertake to bring this aspect of the matter to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, so that he can consider it.
I do not feel that it is right to take up a final position on this amendment in the light of that new factor which I have not yet had a proper chance to consider. I do not know whether my right honourable friend has. Certainly I know of nothing to suggest that that particular point has so far been put before him.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for that little hit of give. I was getting very depressed at getting what was a much more considered and lengthy reply than I received at Committee stage but one which was much the same. 1 had rather hoped that in view of the amazing and most impressive support I have had from all sides of the House the noble and learned Lord would have the ability to change his mind between writing this letter to me and replying now. I thank him very much indeed for that chink of light.
However, the admissions policy is only a part of the whole package of providing help. I am not asking for special courses—we are not talking about that—but for help in following those courses, as well as for understanding on the admissions courses. It is all part of the same package.This amendment is very mild, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, and I think it would be immensely useful. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will talk to the Secretary of State. I am most grateful and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 117 [Articles of government]:
[Amendment No. 383 not moved.]
Clause 118 [Transfer of property, etc. to higher education corporations]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 383A:
Page 116, line 44, leave out ("or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 383A I should like to take a rather large number of other amendments: Amendments Nos. 383B, 385A-385C, 403A, 403B, 406A, 413A, 424A, 433A, 433B, 433D-433J.
The purpose of the new clause in Amendment No. 406A, after Clause 124, is to empower the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council to reimburse local education authorities and governing bodies for certain liabilities to former and serving
1354
staff of polytechnics and colleges. These liabilities, which will be defined in regulations, are for the most part statutory. They cover such things as premature retirement compensation, pensions increase payments and salary safeguarding payments. The local authority associations have been consulted about these prospective arrangements and are content. There are consequential amendments to Clauses 118, 122 and 124.
The other change effected by this group is to make provision for any existing local education authority loan liabilities on behalf of assisted institutions transferring to the polytechnics sector. Amendments Nos. 385A-385C in Clause 122 ensure that the local education authorities will be compensated for these liabilities on the same basis as for loan liabilities for maintained institutions transferring to the sector. The new clause after Clause 178, Amendment No. 424A, and the amendments to Schedule 8, are consequential. They simply draw together various provisions relating to the treatment of such loan liabilities.
Finally, the amendments to Clause 203 apply the loan liability provisions, should the Welsh Secretary of State ever exercise the powers in this clause to transfer Welsh higher education institutions to central government funding.
I commend these amendments to your Lordships and particularly the one which I have just moved, Amendment No. 383A.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, on this group of 18 amendments to which the noble and learned Lord has spoken there are a number of questions on which I should like some assistance. The first is why, when the liability to contribute to outstanding loan charges is being transferred, has the compensation for former employees to remain the responsibility of the local education authority? It would seem just as logical to transfer the responsibility over to the higher education college.
Secondly, it appears that Amendment No. 406A, the new clause, allows the PCFC to develop the funding of courses by means of contracts. That seems to be a new concept and one not previously provided for in legislation. Is this of any significance, or why is that being done?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, would the noble Lord repeat the reference which he has just given?
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, Amendment No. 406A. That amendment also includes the phrase at the end that the local education authority and the governing body of the designated institution:
"shall give the Council such information as the Council may require".
It seems to me a very wide-ranging power. It could be interpreted as the PCFC demanding details of private funding which, as the noble and learned Lord will recollect from the Committee stage, was an issue which came up in connection with university funding. It seems possible that it is being raised at this point also.
The next question is: was there consultation with the governing bodies as to the loan liability

1355
provisions which I think are in Amendment No. 424A? Is it not possible that under these provisions, outstanding loan debt will affect different institutions in significantly different ways?
Apart from those fairly minor points, I have no objection to the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as regards the point about the requirement to provide information, I think it is fairly plain that the information to be supplied is for the purposes of the subject matter of the provision. Therefore I do not think that it could be objectionable, for the reason which is mentioned.
As regards loan charges, the idea is that loan liabilities will amend the property transfer provisions to put the provisions for debt liabilities on all fours with those for the maintained transferring institutions. The reason why this was not done before was because we had understood that local education authorities did not hold debts on behalf of institutions in this sector. Therefore, it was just a question of dealing with the matter in the way that was appropriate once it was discovered that there were such responsibilities.
As regards premature retirement, the amendments give local authorities payment from the governing bodies of the institutions in respect of staff at existing or former higher education institutions. These provisions are, of course, all concerned with past liabilities—not new liabilities. They concern liabilities which existed at the date of transfer. I understand that consultation took place with all local education authorities. It is the education authorities which are concerned in this matter because these liabilities are local education authority liabilities. As I understand it, they are content with the way in which we are proposing to deal with these liabilities which seems, even on an overhead view, to be a reasonable way forward.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 383B:
Page 116, line 46, at end insert ("; or
(c) any liability of any such authority in respect of compensation for premature retirement of any person formerly employed by them. ).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 119 [Transfer of staff to higher education corporations]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 384:
Page 117, line 26, leave out from ("conditions") to end of line 28.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to take out two lines on page 117 of the Bill. Clause 119(4) states:
"Subsections (2) and (3) above are without prejudice to any right of an employee to terminate his contract of employment if a substantial change is made to his detriment in his working conditions".
This whole clause relates to the transfer from a local education authority to a higher education corporation. However, the words in the clause which I wish to take out are:
"but no such right shall arise by reason only of the change in employer effected by this section."
I consider that those words are unnecessary and confuse the issue. Subsection (2) of this clause already provides that if all that happens is that the person transfers from the local education authority to the higher education corporation:
"The contract of employment between a person to whom this section applies and the transferor authority shall have effect from the transfer date as if originally made between him and the corporation."
Therefore, the mere fact of the changeover from one body to the other does not affect an employee's employment rights. It may be that the transfer makes a radical change in a job description. Administrative staff and non-teaching staff may well have to take on many new burdens that were previously carried out by the local education authority and other staff. If a member of staff attempts to claim constructive dismissal before an industrial tribunal, he will have to show that the dismissal had nothing to do with his change of employment because, I would suggest, of subsection (2) of this clause.,
In Committee, where I raised much the same argument, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that:
"The purpose of the words sought to be deleted is to make it plain that the mere change of employer would not in any way detrimentally affect the right conferred by this subsection."—[Official Report,16/5/88; col. 122.]
The noble and learned Lord added later:
"The employee will have a right against a new employer as if the new employer was the old employer."—[Official Report, 16/5/88; col. 123.]
However, it does not appear to me that the inclusion of the words I wish to remove does anything but add to possible confusion. If the words are left out, it is still clear that the rights are the same as they were under the previous employer. To add these, in my view, unnecessary words, adds to possible confusion, if not also to the length of the Bill. However, that is a fairly academic matter. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, far from the words which the noble Lord wishes to delete having no effect, I think it is vital that they should be left in. It is the general practice in industry that a change in ownership of an enterprise to a new employer means that the conditions and the terms are exactly as they were before. The employees are not entitled to redundancy or other concessions that normally would be the case. I think that that is right.
To leave out the words that the noble Lord seeks to delete would place this particular matter in a different category altogether. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said that a change of employer may alter the conditions and the terms under which an employee was working. The noble Lord said that the employee may be asked to undertake tasks which he had not been expected to take on before. If that is the case, it is under those conditions that the

1357
employee would make his application as regards any of the advantages that the noble Lord thinks are being lost. The words that the noble Lord wishes to delete make the position very clear. They state:
"but no such right shall arise by reason only of the change in employer".
Therefore, if the only change that has occurred involves the employer and everything else remains the same, it is vital to maintain the same conditions in this case as in every other area of employer/employee relations. It is vital that these words should remain to show that there is no difference in those relations in this situation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls is, in my view, absolutely correct. One needs to look at this matter a little more thoroughly. Where a person is employed by a and a decides to give up his business and hand it over to h, the employee is not obliged to go to b. A by giving up will breach his contract with the employee in the normal course.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said, Clause 119(2) states:
"The contract of employment between a person to whom this section applies and the transferor authority shall have effect from the transfer date as if originally made between him and the corporation."
But subsection (2) is subject to subsection (4). Therefore, one must deal with the question of a mere change of employer. Subsection (4) in effect says that if a change of employer is accompanied by a substantial change to the detriment of the employee, it will constitute a dismissal. But if it is not, if nothing happens but a mere change of employer, then the employee will not have a right on the basis that he has been dismissed. He will not have a right to terminate his contract.
To miss out that provision in the structure that is used here, would be to introduce a grave doubt on the rights of the employee in the event not of any detriment but only as regards a mere change of employer. From what I have been told by the officials of the department, I understand that the view of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, is not completely shared by those who work in this particular sector. They have the feeling that the local authority may be a different employer in some respects from the new authority which will be in charge of a particular polytechnic. A big local authority may have different attitudes to a smaller employer. It is necessary that that point is made clear. Therefore, my views and those of the noble Lord are identical as regards what should be effected. He says that the provision is unnecessary. However, he has not pointed to any harm and even on his own argument the matter should be left as it is. I hope that the noble Lord will, on reflection, agree with that point of view.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I shall not take up the time of the House in arguing the point further. I shall merely keep to my own view, as I trust I am entitled to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 384A:
After Clause 119, insert the following new Clause:
("Restrictions on appointment of staff, etc.
.—(1) After the relevant date a local education authority shall not—

(a) in the case of an institution falling within section 113(2) of this Act; or

(b) in the case of an institution with respect to which an order under section 114 of this Act has been made;

take any action to which this section applies without the consent of the principal of the institution or, where that office is vacant, any person acting as the principal of the institution.
(2) In subsection (1) above the "relevant date" is—

(a) in the case of an institution falling within section 113(2), the date on which this Act is passed; and

(b) in the case of an institution with respect to which an order under section 114 has been made, the date on which the order is made.

(3) This section applies to the following actions—

(a) the employment of any person to work at the institution (whether solely or partly);

(b) the dismissal of any person who is so employed; and

(c) the withdrawal of any person who is so employed from work at the institution (otherwise than by dismissing him).")

The noble and learned Lord: My Lords, Amendment No. 384A is one of the amendments which was referred to yesterday. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said at that time, the Government are extremely grateful for the way in which noble Lords on all sides of the House have responded to the heavy burden of business which has been put on them in the last few weeks.
In recognition of that and to assist the House, the Government propose not to move five of the dozen substantive amendments tabled at the end of last week. In respect of one of them, Amendment No. 433K— an incidental and consequential provision—we shall return with a less wide-ranging amendment at Third Reading. However, the others, beginning with the present amendment, will not be pressed further. The amendment is therefore not moved.
[Amendment No. 384A not moved.]
Clause 120 [Dissolution of higher education corporations]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 385:
Page 117, line 40, at end insert ("the local education authority from which they were transferred, with its consent, or otherwise to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke yesterday to a number of amendments involving the same problem; namely, the fact that the Bill seems to take real assets from local authorities and therefore from taxpayers while leaving them with real liabilities. That is a matter about which I expressed concern. I have argued the general case before. However, the particular case that is involved here seems to me to be so serious that I feel I must mention it once more.
Essentially, the setting up of a higher education corporation involves the transfer of assets away from an LEA for which, 1 understand, it gets no compensation. Be that as it may, I am concerned about Clause 120 which considers the hypothetical case—we hope it is extremely hypothetical—in which

1359
a higher education corporation is dissolved. If we look to see what then happens, we find a list of bodies to which property may be transferred. The LEA, from which the real resources were taken, is conspicuous by its absence.
To my naive view, that is wholly wrong. I do not go so far as to say that it is obvious that the real resources should go back to the LEA from whence they came, even though they were the property of the taxpayers. I accept the view that there may be some possibility that they should be used for other educational purposes. However, that the resources should not go back under any circumstances, as the Bill seems to say, is quite amazing. My first question is why the government do not consider that the LEA should have some claim to its former assets; and, secondly, why it does not have a first claim to those former assets. I shall be interested to hear the answers to those questions.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment seeks to add a new category to the transferees to whom assets may be transferred on the dissolution of a higher education corporation. I emphasise the word "may". The position is that the Bill lists a number of possible beneficiaries for such a transfer. The Bill proceeds in the order:
"(i) any person appearing to the Secretary of State to be wholly or mainly engaged in the provision of educational facilities or services of any description;
(ii) any body corporate established for purposes which include the provision of such facilities or services".
Accordingly, subparagraph (ii) includes local education authorities since they are bodies corporate established for purposes which include the provision of educational facilities or services. Therefore, the body which the noble Lord seeks to add to the list is already included. I believe that the amendment adds nothing to the provision in the Bill. It simply expresses in a slightly different form one of the beneficiaries already included.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who of course understands such matters better than I, has said that in his view an LEA is included. I accept that view. However, it does not explain why an LEA should not have first claim since the assets belonged to it in the first place. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will answer that question before I withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may answer. I believe that the idea is to provide for the situation which would arise in the rather sad event which might trigger the provision. The idea is to give the Secretary of State the power to make the best use of the property as the circumstances of that time may dictate. I suspect that the reason that the list contains two categories rather than one is simply the drafting reason that the body corporate should come after the natural person. The natural person should come first and the body corporate should come second. The description of educational services or facilities has been used in subsection (1)(b) and should not be repeated. In practical terms, the order is not important because there is a discretion to choose. I suspect that the order has been dictated by drafting considerations.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that answer. I believe that that takes us along some of the lines that we wish to see followed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 122 [Transfer of property to certain designated institutions.]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 385A, 385B and 385C:
Page 119, line 32, leave out ("transferor") and insert ("former assisting").
Page 119, line 33, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Subject to subsection (2B) below and section 178 of this Act, on the designation date in relation to any institution to which this section applies the property, rights and liabilities mentioned in subsection (2A) below shall be transferred to, and by virtue of this Act vest in, the appropriate transferee.
(2A) The property, rights and liabilities referred to in subsection (2) above are—

(a) all land or other property which, immediately before that date, was property of the former assisting authority used or held for the purposes of that institution; and

(b) all rights and liabilities of that authority subsisting immediately before that date which were acquired or incurred for those purposes.

(2B) Subsection (2) above shall not apply to—

(a) any liability of the former assisting authority in respect of the principal of, any interest on, any loan: or

(b) any liability of that authority in respect of compensation for premature retirement of any person formerly employed by them.").

Page 119, line 46, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) Where any persons so specified are the appropriate transferee for the purposes of subsection (2) above—

(a) any land or other property or rights transferred to them under this section shall be held by them on the trusts applicable under any trust deed relating to or regulating that institution; and

(b) they shall incur no personal liability by virtue of any liability so transferred, but may apply any property held by them on trust for the purposes of the institution in meeting any such liability.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
7 p.m.
Clause 123 [Universities Funding Council]:
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 386:
Page 120, line 5, leave out from ("established") to end of line 6 and insert ("bodies corporate to be known as the Universities Funding Council for England and Wales and the Universities Funding Council for Scotland").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to consider the position of Scottish universities. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and I feel that that position should be recognised in the Bill. We admit that could be done in various ways, and certain ways were suggested at the Committee stage. I do not intend to repeat all the arguments that were used then. Your Lordships will find the general argument very well set out at col. 138 of Hansard for 17th May, in a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Morton.
As regards the general proposition that the Scottish universities are quite different from the English universities and deserve to be so recognised in the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Morton, quoted Lord Croham, who is certainly a man who has examined this position. At Second Reading we were

1361
supported in general by the noble Lords, Lord Howie and Lord Swann, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Therefore, there is a recognition in the House that these universities are quite different from the English universities and deserve to be dealt with rather differently when we come to the Universities Funding Council. This is to be a powerful body. I personally rather regret that it has been set up at all because I think the UGC probably would do the job as well; but this is to be an important and powerful body which will have very considerable influence over the development of universities and therefore it is essential to ensure that it will recognise the special position of the Scottish universities.
This amendment suggests that there should be two funding councils: one for Scotland and one for the rest of Britain. It is possible—and this is an alternative which we have put forward—that the position might be met by other means. However, let me just repeat why it is necessary in some ways to differentiate, within the functions of the funding council, between Scotland and England. I must say again, as I have said many times in this House, that the Scots are a nation. That is extremely important. Although most people would pay lip service to it, the actions of the Government recently have shown that this is not really the view of the Government. They do not regard the Scots as a nation.
It has been said that there are great differences between the universities in Enlgand and that of course the funding council will take note of the Scottish position. I would just ask your Lordships to consider what would happen if, in examining the relationship of Germany with France, it was said, "We are appointing a council which is going to be a German council, and of course it will take notice of France. Germany is an excellent country with a fine academic tradition: why do you want any special treatment for France?" Of course, people would then say at once that the French are a separate nation, and they have their own history and their own type of education. So it is with the Scots.
The first thing about the Scots that is particularly important, as I have also said often before, is that they have no parliament. Therefore their institutions are extremely important in keeping alive their traditions and their civilisation in general. I would emphasise again that the history of the Scottish universities is quite different from that of any of the universities of England. It is not the same as that of Oxford or Cambridge; nor is it the same as that of the great provincial universities.
Secondly, the educational system in Scotland is quite different and of course the universities are the peak of that system. Thirdly, the position of the universities within the community is also quite different: they are much more integrated. For instance, in England, at any rate when I went to the English Bar, law was taught by the Inns of Court. My law in fact was taught by correspondence by a firm called Gibson and Weldon. In Scotland, such a thing would have been intolerable. In Scotland, so far as I know, you have to have a law degree, and law was
1362
intimately connected with the universities. That was not so in England.
Again, in the Church, the Church colleges—I stand to be corrected, but believe I am right—are an important, if not an integral, part of the English universities. If we take the position in Edinburgh, the botanic gardens in Edinburgh are run by the Professor of Botany. The whole of Scottish academic life and the institutions which in England are very often separate from the universities is centred upon the Scottish universities. It is absolutely vital that when this powerful funding council takes over the position in Scotland is safeguarded.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in answer to a previous debate that of course the Secretary of State would keep Scotland in mind when he appointed members of the council. But will he? It is not so apparent to me, from various reactions there have been from some parts of this House, that the position in Scotland is fully recognised. The difference between the old Scottish universities and the English ones is not merely the difference between, say, Birmingham and Cambridge: they are deeply different in all the ways that I have outlined. Further, I would say that we do not know who will appoint the members of this council. We might have very great faith in the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but he will not make the appointments.
Finally, as is often said, and rightly said, what we are told in the Houses of Parliament is of no importance compared with what is written in the statutes. It is the statutes which count. If your Lordships feel, as I do, that it is essential that in this very important Bill the position of further and higher education in Scotland is to be recognised, something should be written on the face of the Bill to show that that is so. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I do not want to repeat what I said at Committee stage or at earlier stages, but it seems to me that in addition to the notable speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, one has to consider the fact that the Department of Education and Science is responsible for all education in England and Wales, including universities and polytechnics: it covers the whole thing. That is a vast responsibility. Then there are the eight Scottish universities. The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for all education in Scotland except the Scottish universities— those universities which the Act of Union said were to be kept separate and protected.
Scotland has a very different history in its universities and it has a very different history in its education. It also has a very different approach to education, which, from our discussion on the curriculum, seems to be getting wider and wider apart as the English system gets more and more rigid. We have a different degree system. It is normal for an honours degree to take four years in a Scottish university. There is a different emphasis in the universities regarding the numbers of students in different faculties. For example, Scotland has a tradition of producing doctors, which is reflected in the fact that the medical faculties in the Scottish universities occupy a far higher proportion of those

1363
universities' expenditure than is the case in any English or Welsh university. In Aberdeen in particular this is largely the cause of that institution's difficulties.
If Scottish education is to go forward in the way the English are wanting to go forward in this Bill, with the whole of education being run as one unit, one would have thought that the Government would have accepted the report of a committee set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland and called The Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council on the Future Strategy of Higher Education. The report recommended that there should be academic planning and co-ordination by one body of provision across the university and non-university sectors of further education. That cannot happen when one has the university funding council running the eight universities in Scotland and the Secretary of State from Edinburgh running all the other polytechnics and further education colleges.
As described in The Times Educational Supplement, this seems to be a straitjacket that the universities in Scotland have run into, cut to an English specification. There is published in the press today a report on education by the Scottish Conservative Party, not all of which I would be expected to agree with. With one part I totally agree. The report expresses serious concern about cuts in funding for central institutions. Of course the universities are central institutions in an education sense. The report says:
"The committee, while supporting effective economic management, believes that more money should be spent on education in order to bring Scotland up to the same level as many of our traditional industrial competitors".
We on this side of the House would totally agree with that.
The University Grants Committee recently has cut and cut again, particularly in regard to the Scottish universities. The Scottish universities consider that they are not getting a fair deal from the University Grants Committee, and do not consider that they would have a fair deal from the Universities Funding Council unless it was separate. In my view this is an urgent necessity for the planning of education in Scotland and for other reasons.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I hope that in opposing this amendment I shall not be thought unsympathetic to the idea of Scotland as a nation. If the noble Lord were to bring forward a Bill to repeal the Act of Union or to rebuild Hadrian's wall, he would find no greater supporter than me. However, we are dealing with something quite specific and concrete, namely, the application of this principle of Scotland being a nation to the present system of universities and their funding.
On the basis of past experience, it seems to me that there are obvious reasons—and the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has given them—for Scotland to worry as, indeed, other parts of the United Kingdom may have cause to worry, that their universities are inadequately funded. I do not think that the noble Lord can quote the report with which he finished his speech with quite the confidence that he did because of course central institutions are not universities in
1364
Scotland, I understand, but correspond to what in England are called polytechnics.
Be that as it may, the question is: would a separate funding council meet the needs of Scottish universities or would it be regarded—because presumably its funding would still come from the national exchequer—as simply a sign that the Scottish universities wish to preserve diversity or indeed perhaps even to increase it? It is possible to say that there is a degree of diversity. Some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, are correct. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is, I fear, half a century out of date. Anyone now wishing to enter the legal profession in England has also to be a university graduate.
Much the most important thing—and this is where I find myself at odds with the proposers of the amendment —is that hitherto, from the point of view of career structure, both in teaching and in research, we have regarded universities of the United Kingdom as equally accessible to all. My own brother, who is a graduate at Birkbeck College—I give the present of him to the noble Baroness Lady David—passed his teaching career partly in Belfast and partly in Edinburgh. I should think that that is a desirable situation.
I am not clear whether the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, regards that kind of thing as desirable or as the importation of unnecessary aliens into the Scottish university structure. We have notable examples in England also of eminent Scottish learned men and scientists who have adorned our universities— indeed, in the case of Balliol College, even contributing to setting them up.
I think that the matter is not the simple one of whether or not we accept that Scotland is a nation; it is whether or not the creation of' an independent council would benefit Scottish universities. On that, it seems to me that the opinions to be taken are those of the universities. I have yet to be convinced that that is their wish.
7.15 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, would he correct his references to Scotland as a nation by remembering that it is a kingdom? That is why all of us in this House are citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am not very moved whether Scotland is a kingdom or a nation, but 1 like it. I know that many Scots, including the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, think that it is a nation, and that really matters.
I am not quite sure how to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, but I would say this. I have lived in England for some 35 years, although I was not actually born there, and I like living in England. It is a civilised, agreeable and gentle place in which to live. I am also the pro-chancellor of an English university and I greatly admire—although it is a humble one, I have to admit—the City University. It is not one of the great universities of state, but I admire it, and I admire the English system of education.
Although I have lived in England for so long, I do not think that England is the same as Scotland,

1365
whether it is a nation or a kingdom. I know that it is different. Although I admire the English university system and support it as a pro-chancellor of City University, I do not imagine that it is the same as the Scottish one. I do not make a qualitative judgment here about whether it is better or worse. That is not the point of the debate. The point is that it is different. There is no reason why that difference should be set aside merely for the convenience of an Act of Parliament, which is what we seem to be doing here.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna were hesitant about repeating the arguments that had been used at an earlier stage of the Bill; but I am not, I shall repeat them briefly because I think that they have not sunk into English heads, although English heads are capable of absorbing argument just as well as any other heads.
The point is that the Scottish universities are essentially European in their structure and their tradition, whereas the English universities are not. England is a very insular country, not to be disregarded for that reason, but it must realise that it is not always a case of everybody being out of step except England. The Scottish university system is in the European tradition. For that reason it has the differences that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna have outlined. It has a different length of degree—four years as against the English three years. It is a different structure. The students in some of the Scottish universities at least, if not all, elect a lord rector to represent them, something that would be inconceivable in the English system. The entry qualifications are entirely different. The Scottish universities require a broader range of learning among their young students than the English A-levels present.
Those are simple arguments which are irrefutable. The Government know them extremely well, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knows them better than anybody else. The differences arc real. Whether they are differences between nations or kingdoms does not matter, but they are differences which have existed for many years. There is no reason lightly to throw them aside.
For those reasons I think that the amendment of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, ought to be accepted, not merely grudgingly but with acclaim.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I go along with all that has been said except the last remarks. A little preprandial discussion on Scotland does no harm at all. However, the truth of the matter is that there have always been two ways of funding the universities in Scotland. They could be funded separately or together as a whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Morton, has said, STEAC (the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council) recommended that the funding should be separate. They did not in fact recommend the proposal in the amendment, but stated that the funding of the Scottish universities should be channelled through the Scottish Office.
1366
As I understood it, the Government consulted the universities and the universities disagreed. They were split on that issue. Some wanted it done one way and some the other. After due consideration the Government decided that unless the universities were wholly in favour of something like that, it should not be done. The majority of the universities did not want to be shunted off into separate funding from the whole university system. As I understand it, that is why we have the recommendation as it stands.
I respect that. I know that there are many people in all the universities who feel strongly either one way or the other. This is the closest to the status quo, and if there is not a majority which wants to change, one is better with staying nearer the status quo.
On the other hand, the Universities Funding Council must take account of everything that noble Lords have mentioned. Of course, the universities are different, of course there are different considerations in funding, and of course the funding of the universities, the central institutions (which the noble Lord now appreciates, I am sure, are not universities) and the rest of education all need to be dovetailed together. The proposal is that there will be a Scottish sub-committee of the Universities Funding Council which will keep the funding council right about Scottish funding, just as the Scottish Commitee of the Manpower Services Commission keeps the Manpower Services Commission right about its relationships with Scottish local authorities. It seems to me that in that situation one can compare, and the system works.
I should not have come down one way or the other, but that is the situation. It seems to me that noble Lords should accept it and that we Scots should not keep other noble Lords too long from a little refreshment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I should like to ask whether she agrees that, if our amendment were to be accepted, it would be the Secretary of State for Scotland who would be appointing the Universities Funding Council for Scotland.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I do not know, but presumably the funding council would be on a level with the English funding council and it would not be done through the Scottish education system. However, I do not know. If it is against what half the universities want, I should have thought that that was an argument very much against the amendment.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I have been trying during this debate to recognise the homogeneous English universities which have been lumped together. As the person who had some responsibility for the founding of the universities of Nottingham, Leicester and Southampton and who spent a little time in the universities of Birmingham and Liverpool, I wonder what are the similarities and not the proud differences that they have with Oxford and Cambridge and not St. Andrews—which certainly believes, rightly or wrongly, that although it may have a Scottish flavour and a French connection,

1367
it also has very strong links with Oxford and Cambridge.
With respect to those who said it, I think that much of what has been said about the Scottish universities and their homogeneous nature is no longer true. It may have been true when there was a University of Glasgow and a University of Aberdeen. But then of course Edinburgh broke away. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knows very well, Edinburgh is a town university formed and governed by an entirely different method originally from the other Scottish universities. For myself, I do not really believe that the case for a Scottish council has been made, although I accept that there are very important connections that have to be built with the other higher education institutions in Scotland.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I should like to speak on this subject. Having heard so much eloquence expressed in the delightful Scottish accent and having heard other eloquent words expressed in an equally delightful English accent and phraseology, perhaps I may speak as a Yorkshireman who has an alliance with neither of the other two. I wish to speak as one who served for five years as chairman of the University Grants Committee and for whom this particular problem is very familiar. It is territory that has been gone over before.
Arising from what the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, has just said, I am bound to say that having considered the whole scene in the United Kingdom —and I think not only of Wales and Scotland, but also of Northern Ireland and all universities in England—the question that I put to myself is: are the differences between any of those four parts as great as or less than the differences between the types of universities in each of those sectors? I have to tell your Lordships that on grounds of the kind of work that they do in teaching, research and learning, the methods which they employ, the kind of way in which the students are assessed and even the way in which they are admitted and in terms of the general ethos of those who teach in them, the differences are far greater between, for example, a new university such as the University of Essex and a technological university such as Bradford, or a big civic university like those of Manchester or Sheffield and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge or the federal University of London, than ever exist between the universities as a whole of England and Wales on the one hand and Scotland on the other.
Indeed, the same diversity can be found in Scotland with its technological universities of Strathclyde and Heriot-Watt, its quite different kind of university, the new University of Stirling, and its ancient universities of St. Andrews, Aberdeen and Glasgow. But as the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, has pointed out, Edinburgh is really the first of the great civic universities of the United Kingdom and bears more relationship to the universities in those cities in the great mercantile and manufacturing centres of England than it does to its fellow Scottish universities.
I believe that to go down that particular road of trying to make a distinction of this kind is to emphasise a distinction where there is no real
1368
difference and I hope that your Lordships will not pursue that line, the outcome of which can only be divisive. There is no reason why particular Scottish traditions should not be reinforced within the present system. I can tell noble Lords in fairness, that it was so during my time at the University Grants Committee and during the time of my predecessors, one of whom was a very distinguished Scotsman, Lord Murray of Newhaven, and another the chairman of the proto-UGC before that body was formed, of course, Lord Haldane— and who could have a better chairman than he! His father advised him to study philosophy at GɆttingen rather than to go to Oxford where he would acquire the idle habits of the Oxonian.
In all ways I think that it would be a great pity if there were any division within the United Kingdom at this level of education, which is fundamentally an activity carried out at a standard which is not national in any sense, but international.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may ask him whether he would accept that there is one substantial difference, apart from the ones raised earlier; that is, that the Scottish universities, with the possible exception of St. Andrews, are rather more regional than are the English ones, and that the great majority of students from Glasgow will come from within hailing distance of that city.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, Glasgow is unique in that respect only. It is the one university in the United Kingdom to which, if I remember the figures correctly, about 85 per cent. to 87 per cent. of students come from within about 30 miles of Glasgow. However, that is not true, for example, of Edinburgh which has many English students. Nor is it true of St. Andrews, nor indeed of the Highland and Islands university of Aberdeen with its many students. I would say that Glasgow is unique not just in Scotland but in the United Kingdom.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I agree very much with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy on this issue. I well recall, as she does, the argument a year or two ago about whether the Scottish universities should go it alone or whether they should have a sub-committee of the University Grants Committee. In the end the decision was that universities should remain as part of the overall set-up. However, my memory also tells me it was understood that there should be a Scottish sub-committee of the University Grants Committee.
There is a successor now. We have the Universities Funding Council. Before I come to any conclusion on this amendment I would ask the Government what view they take on Amendment No. 388. That is the critical amendment. If we do not agree Amendment No. 386, that would be understandable if we could be assured that Amendment No. 388 were acceptable.
In that event, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that we are not trying to be independent. We wish to be part of the overall system. However, accepting that Scottish education is in many respects different and that the control of it lies with the

1369
Secretary of State for Scotland, we wish to be sure that that difference will be observed in one way or another. That is what is provided for in the amendment; namely, a sub-committee of the council.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not wish to extend this debate further. It seems to me that whoever will be properly appointed, a member of the Universities Funding Council will be able to appreciate that not all universities are the same and will take account of the differences in carrying out his or her function. I am the first to accept that there are differences between universities in Scotland and those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As has already been pointed out by people with more experience of university administration than I have—although I have some experience of being a beneficiary of it—there are many differences between universities in Scotland, England and so on. This funding council will have to cope with differences between universities and try to deal fairly with them all, taking account of these differences.
As my noble friend Lady Carnegy said, the views of the universities themselves are important in this connection. Those who have experience of universities will know that unanimity is not perhaps the most common quality of decisions in universities. There are varieties of views among the universities of Scotland and within particular universities. For my part, I believe that the future of the universities of Scotland lies in the universities of the United Kingdom as a whole. In my view they are a very important, significant part of that unity. The treaty of union preserves the older universities that existed then. They are still functioning, and functioning extremely well. However, I believe that they are recognised internationally as part of the universities of the United Kingdom, and that they should remain.
So far as concerns a Scottish committee, it is plain that it might be appropriate for the funding council to establish a Scottish committee. Precisely how that would be arranged, and precisely what function it should have, would be a matter of experience and not necessarily set in concrete. Experience often shows that one's first proposal may require modification in order to function properly. There are many other committees that the UFC will require to set up. It seems right to give the UFC the freedom to set up its own structure including the way in which it might deal with the universities of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland, as well as its relationships with other aspects of the education system such as the central institutions in Scotland or the polytechnics in England and Wales.
While I can well envisage, with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that a Scottish committee would be appropriate, I do not see that it is wise or necessary to set it up as a statutory sub-committee. I believe that it would be right to leave these arrangements to the good sense of the Universities Funding Council. I hope that in the light of all these considerations the noble Lord who proposed this amendment so eloquently will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and
1370
other very distinguished people for taking part in this debate.
Perhaps I may briefly answer three points. I have never wholly understood the attitude of those who oppose any form of devolution for Scotland. It is apparent that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, wants to rebuild Hadrian's Wall. That is a perfectly reasonable ambition. I have often thought that if I were English I should be a passionate Scottish nationalist because at one blow the Conservative Party would get rid of a very important part of the Opposition. Part of the reason why the Conservatives do so badly in Scotland is not that we do not understand what they are about, but that they do not understand what we are about. They constantly treat us as though we were delinquent English people. I am wholly on the side of the noble Lord. If he wishes to do so, let him do it by all means.
Perhaps I may also say that we were delighted to see a Beloff at Edinburgh University. No doubt many American universities are delighted to see people from this country. But it does not mean that we should amalgamate the American and British university systems. What is the difference between them? The difference is the system of education. The early part of the Bill that we are discussing applies to England only. It is a wholly separate system. The Scottish universities are the apex of the system in Scotland. That alone puts them in a different position.
It was also suggested that there is no more difference between the Scottish universities than between the universities of Edinburgh and Birmingham. I am far from claiming any special knowledge of universities. But it so happens that I have been Rector of Edinburgh University and, owing to the wonderful insight of the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, I was appointed to a committee to examine the University of Birmingham. I am eternally grateful to the noble Lord. I spent many of the happiest days of my life looking into the virtues of that university.
Both universities have very great virtues. However, they are quite different. To mingle and move about the University of Birmingham is quite different from mingling and moving about the University of Edinburgh. The great difference in education is that the Scottish are devoted to a broad education—a four-year course—of what has been called the democratic intellect. That is very valuable and should be preserved. It has been proposed to write into the Bill many provisions—quite rightly in my view—for the disabled. Yet it is considered that we cannot write in what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor admits is necessary: that there should be provisions in the funding council for Scotland.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that he clearly will not get any change out of the later amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and I put down three different alternatives for the Government to accept on this matter. They have turned them all down. If there were any indication that the later amendment, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, were going to be accepted, I would willingly withdraw this

1371
amendment. However, I am not prepared to do so. It is seen in Scotland as most extraordinary that no one in your Lordships' House, in a major education Bill, is prepared to stand up and say that the Scottish position should be written into the Bill. I beg to move.
7.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 386) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 122.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Listowel, E.

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Alport, L.

Longford, E.

Ardwick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Birk, B.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Bottomley, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mishcon, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

David, B.

Perth, E.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ezra, L.

Russell, E.

Falkender, B.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Galpern, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Grimond, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Vernon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hughes, L.

White, B.

Jay, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kilbracken, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Aldington, L.

Cowley, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cox, B.

Annan, L.

Craigavon, V.

Arran, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Crathorne, L.

Beloff, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Belstead, L.

Dainton, L.

Blatch, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Borthwick, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dormer, L.

Brookes, L.

Dundee, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eccles, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Butterworth, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Caithness, E.

Faithfull, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Ferrers, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ferrier, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Flowers, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Forester, L.

Carnock, L.

Fortescue, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Gainford, L.

Coleraine, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Greenway, L.

1372

Gridley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Haig, E.

Halsbury, E.

Pym, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Raglan, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Renton, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Rochdale, V.

Harvington, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Havers, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Henley, L.

Seebohm, L.

Hesketh, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hives, L.

Sharples, B.

Hooper, B.

Stedman, B.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strange, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Swinton, E.

Kimball, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Teviot, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Layton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Long, V.

Trafford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

McFadzean, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vinson, L.

Mersey, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Middleton, L.

Walston, L.

Mottistone, L.

Warnock, B.

Munster, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Windlesham, L.

Newcastle, Bp.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Onslow, E.

Young, B.

Orkney, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, may I suggest that this is a suitable moment to break for dinner, and that we return at 8.45. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Royal Assent
7.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Dartford- Thurrock Crossing Act,

Consumer Arbitration Agreements Act,

Scotch Whisky Act,

Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Rear Seat Belts by Children) Act,

Dartmouth-Kingswear Floating Bridge Act,

Brighton and Preston Cemetery Act,

Associated British Ports (Barrow) Act.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Amendment Order 1988
7.46 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 1st June be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships

1373
will know that on 13th August, 1986 the Government announced the introduction of a scheme of mark and release for sheep irradiated from the Chernobyl fallout. This allowed sheep which failed a monitoring test for radioactivity to be moved from a restricted area but not slaughtered. Their heads were painted with a distinctive paint mark to show that they came from a restricted area and to sigify that they could not he slaughtered until they had passed a further monitoring test, when they would be ear-tagged to show that they had passed.
The colours of green, blue and apricot are used in rotation for this marking. There periodic changes in colour enable central control over the slaughter and movement of sheep from the restricted areas to be continued. They also provide a mechanism for releasing for slaughter sheep at first unacceptably highly contaminated, but now with decreased and acceptable levels of radioactivity. These measures—which enjoy the co-operation of the farmers in the restricted areas and the National Farmers' Union and which are supplemented by our slaughterhouse monitoring programme—have been designed to protect the food chain and to disrupt normal business as little as possible.
Comprehensive monitoring of sheep marked with blue paint has now shown that the radioactivity in sheep marked with that colour has decreased to a level at which their consumption would not threaten health and the order lifts, from 1st June 1988, the slaughter controls on blue marked sheep which were originally marked in the post-Chernobyl restricted areas.
The colour to denote sheep from a restricted area which may have unacceptably high levels of radioactivity in their bodies is now apricot. At present, no sheep marked with apricot dye on or after 11th January 1988 may be slaughtered unless they successfully pass a re-monitoring test for radioactivty and are identified as having passed such a test with a special ear-tag.
I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 1st June be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order. He may remember that on the last occasion I spoke in praise of bureaucracy, saying that everyone criticises bureaucracy. I still believe that the bureaucrat did a good job in devising the scheme.
I am slightly disturbed to note that the Minister said that the sheep painted with the blue dye are now deemed to be safe. Reports I have received indicate that the blue dye tended to disappear or wash off and that it was not reliable. That would reduce the safety aspect that was meant to be given to the public if it happened to any great extent.
Can the Minister say whether he knows of any lambs which entered the food chain between the time of the Chernobyl disaster and six weeks afterwards when the marking began? There is belief that during that period there were considerable sales of sheep
1374
from the North, Southern Scotland, and the Lake District down to central England.
The issue that worries many people who have become involved is the fact that there appears to have been no contingency planning. I do not blame the bureaucrats and the people who ultimately devised the scheme. There should have been a political will because, although it is a horrible thought, the chances of another Chernobyl disaster are bound to exist. I believe that there are 15 nuclear stations just across the Channel. Nuclear fall-out from the Chernobyl accident travelled 1,200 miles. The statistical chances of another accident must exist, although it is a horrifying thought that somewhere in the world there could be another accident. I hope that as a result of that accident we have learnt that we must be better prepared.
From all the sources I have been able to contact, it appears that during the period after the Chernobyl accident information was very difficult to obtain. There was no authoritative and readily-available information for the farming organisations, local authorities, the media and the police. No one appeared to know what to do or from where to obtain instructions. No one wants to pick political nits over a disaster such as Chernobyl but it is important that we learn lessons from it. I hope that there has been contingency planning not only as regards the occurrence of such an accident but in order to keep informed the public and those involved with the farming organisations, the media and the police. I hope that the Minister and the Government will take the accident to heart and will ensure that if it happens again—and God forbid that it does!— we are better prepared in every way.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, 1 thank the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for his comments. He began by referring to the three dye marks which have been made in the rotation system. He asked for a reassurance that the marks last and do not wash off, thus contradicting the efficacy of the system. I may be able to reassure the noble Lord, that, in spite of those allegations, we have experienced no difficulties on that account and have no evidence that marked sheep have improperly entered the food chain because of inadequate marking.
The noble Lord also asked for a reassurance that nothing above the 1,000 Bq/Kg limit has entered the food chain from the first moment. It is not possible to give a 100 per cent. categorical assurance but our monitoring was based on sampling to a high confidence limit and it was designed to minimise the chances of anything getting through. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that 1,000 Bq/Kg was a conservative limit. Also, experience has shown that sheep, once moved off contaminated pasture, lose radioactivity very quickly. Scottish hill sheep are normally sold store, which means of course they go to low ground before fattening before slaughter. Our programme of slaughterhouse monitoring continues and it has been in place since the Chernobyl accident. It has shown only one example of an animal over 1,000 Bq/Kg. That led to the immediate imposition of restrictions on the Uists in 1986.

1375
The noble Lord also referred to our level of preparedness to deal with the Chernobyl accident. The Government are satisfied that they responded to the incident quickly. The monitoring of radioactivity levels in milk and other products was started as soon as it became clear that the Chernobyl cloud would appear over the United Kingdom. Meetings between the various interests in the Scottish Office took place immediately and liaison with the Whitehall departments was maintained. As it became clear that the main risk to the public was through the food chain, the co-ordinating responsibility for monitoring devolved on the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. It still chairs a monitoring committee which keeps the situation under review.
Monitoring results are published regularly and regular contact is maintained with the NFU for Scotland and with The Scottish Landowners' Federation. These organisations are informed in advance of measures which will affect farmers. Arrangements exist for the direct supply of information to farmers in restricted areas. Publicity is given to changes in order to inform areas where there are no restrictions of what is going on.
Quite rightly, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, also referred to the awareness that we may now have, and to corresponding measures which we may propose to introduce, in responding to another national emergency as and when it may occur—although it is hoped that it never will. The framework for a new national response plan specifically designed to enable government to respond to any future accidents outwith the country is now in place. It was announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 30th June, 1987. Departments and organisations which will be concerned with implementing it are currently developing their own complementary contingency plans. The various aspects which will be included are monitoring and data assessment, central government arrangements, public information and public protection.
I thank the noble Lord for his interest, his comments and his welcome for the measure. Once again I commend its substance to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wolverhampton Urban Development Area Order 1988
8 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 30th March be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. It may be for the convenience of the House if at the same time I speak to the second, third and fourth Motions in my name on the Order Paper.
All four orders are made under the provisions of Part XVI of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980. They designate urban development areas in Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Wolverhampton. Three of the orders also set up
1376
urban development corporations or UDCs for the particular area with the statutory objective of securing its regeneration. The Wolverhampton order gives the responsibility for the area's regeneration to the Black Country Development Corporation, which was set up last year.
These orders were judged to be hybrid, but I am glad to say no petitions were received. One other order, to set up a UDC in Bristol, was petitioned against. The case for it will therefore have to be heard before a Select Committee of your Lordship's House before it can be debated in this forum.
As your Lordships will know, UDCs assemble, reclaim and service land, provide infrastructure and facilitate development. They bring a single minded and public sector-backed approach to the task of regenerating their areas. UDCs have a range of general powers, including those to acquire, manage and dispose of land and other property and to carry out building and related operations. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has the power to confer various functions on a UDC by statutory instrument. He intends to follow the pattern established for other corporations and make orders giving the UDCs development control functions in their designated areas. He may vest certain publicly owned land in the UDCs, but the need for this will only become clear as the corporations develop their strategies. He does not see the need at present to give the UDCs powers over building control, housing and public health.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State drew on the findings of consultants when he put forward boundary proposals. These proposals were circulated to the local authorities affected for comment before final decisions were taken and the orders laid. In three cases the consultants were appointed specifically by the department and copies of their reports have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. In Sheffield, consultants appointed jointly by the city council, the department and the private sector had already reported on ways of regenerating the Lower Don valley. It will be for the corporations to decide on the strategies they should adopt, but the studies indicate what the corporations might achieve.
I shall now say something about each of the areas. The proposed Wolverhampton urban development area consists of three separate areas to the east of the town centre totalling about 250 hectares. In common with the other orders, detailed maps have been laid before the House, and a sketch map is provided at the back of the order. The largest area is about a mile from the town centre in the Neachells district. It is predominantly industrial in character, about a third is vacant or derelict sites, and much of the remainder is in need of environmental upgrading and improved infrastructure. The second area is immediately to the east of the town centre ring road. It is known locally as the Heritage Area and contains the former low level railway station, a listed building. The area could offer tourism potential. The third area, the Lunt, consists of vacant and derelict land on the eastern boundary of the borough and adjoining the Black Country Development Corporation's existing area.
The proposed Central Manchester Development Corporation has an area of about 180 hectares immediately to the south and east of Manchester city centre. The area has many listed buildings but much of the area consists of underused or vacant sites and buildings. The signs are that the market is ready to engage in office, residential and leisure developments if there is a concerted effort to remove the legacy of outworn buildings and derelict sites. I would expect the UDC to stimulate a range of developments which will complement and extend the existing range of city centre functions. The foundation is there to be built on in the shape of the work of the city council in Castlefield, of the public/private partnership which has brought forward the excellent refurbishment of the great Manchester exhibition centre and the Midland Hotel and of the work of the Manchester Phoenix.
The proposed Sheffield Development Corporation covers about 900 hectares in the Lower Don valley to the north-east of the city centre. The decline of the steel industry has left large areas of derelict and vacant land and an unattractive environment which have combined to discourage private sector investment. There is considerable economic potential within the valley due to its good motorway connections and its proximity to the existing city centre which is reflected in the increasing interest shown by developers in the area.
The Leeds Development Corporation consists of two areas totalling about 540 hectares. One is to the south of the city centre. It contains a mix of industrial and commercial uses and a number of derelict, disused and vacant sites. Although it has excellent motorway access, the local network is poor. The other is part of the Kirkstall valley. It is dominated by the vacant site of a former CEGB power station and is constrained by poor communications and difficult ground conditions.
The Black Country Development Corporation already has a chairman and board, although further appointments will be made. The other boards will be appointed over the next few days. In each case individual local authority members will be invited to serve and, in accordance with the consultation requirements of Schedule 26 of the 1980 Act, the local authorities concerned have already been approached. Other members will be chosen for their business or professional experience. They will all have connections with the particular area.
I hope the experience of this third generation of UDCs will be similar to that of the second generation which were established last year. In each of those four areas relations between the corporations and the local authorities are good. More will be achieved by the UDCs if they can work with local agencies and carry the local community with them. The UDCs' task, the regeneration of their areas, is one that I hope all of us can support.
The next step in extending the benefits of this approach to the rundown parts of Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield and Wolverhampton is for these orders to be approved by Parliament. These orders were debated in Committee in another place this morning. If this House approves them this
1378
evening the orders will come into effect in the next few days. Then the corporations can get to work. I commend each of these orders to the House.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 30th March be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I rise not to oppose the setting up of these UDCs but to point out that when the Government set up the original two UDCs, at some time or other—and more than once—responsible government Ministers said that they would look at the experience of the UDCs which existed before going any further. The London and the Merseyside dockland corporations were to be the pilot schemes; that was understood by everybody.
I did not oppose the setting up of the Merseyside Development Corporation. In fact, before this Government came into office I was responsible, along with six leaders of the major parties in Merseyside, for submitting a proposal to the previous Labour Government that we should set up this sort of development corporation to handle the catastrophe that affected Merseyside; namely, the running down of the docks. That was done with this proviso: that the representations from the local authorities would be more than this Government allowed when they set up the corporation. One of the major problems in Merseyside was that that was not done.
I rise because I am very disturbed by some of the remarks made in this report by the National Audit Office on the existing dockland development corporation. If the Government wanted to learn any lessons from the establishment of the earlier UDCs then surely they must have known that this report was being prepared. They would only have had to wait a couple of months and they could perhaps have learnt some of the lessons. We now find that the National Audit Office is seriously suggesting to the Government that they should consider one of two alternatives in respect of Merseyside: winding up Merseyside Dockland Development Corporation or drastically altering its approach.
I do not blame anybody on the development corporation, because they did their best. However, the Government would not listen. They do not seem to be able to grasp the fact that there are forces more powerful than bodies set up by government. There are forces so powerful that they can determine the future of any particular area. They are the economic forces that this Government let loose on this country.
No one who reads this report deeply and objectively has any doubt that the difference between the London Dockland Development Corporation and the Merseyside Development Corporation is highlighted when the report states that the success of London partly reflects its proximity to London and the deregulation of the City. The report also goes on to suggest that before any other urban development corporations are set up the Government should look at the economic potential of certain areas. We know what some of them are. We have had a bitter lesson to learn in the past eight or nine years. They are not very great in Merseyside.
Are the Government sure that the setting up of three urban development corporations, all within the

1379
economic field of Merseyside, will help Merseyside? To put it a little better than that: will it prevent the decline of Merseyside? If it does not, then the purpose of a UDC on Merseyside has gone completely.
I illustrate what I mean by the economic forces. If a government set up a place in Merseyside, with all its attendant problems of unemployment and deprivation, and then set up another in London, with all its advantages, no one would dream in their wildest moments or have the wildest fantasy that at some time in the development of those two urban development corporations the Department of the Environment would coolly transfer £13 million that was allocated for Merseyside and allow it to be spent in London. But that is the situation we have. It shows that if the DoE does not look at the matter from the national point of view at least it looks at it from the point of view of spending its budget.
However, there are more important matters than spending the budget of the DoE. There is the important aspect that urban development corporations should be looked at within the national framework. We should not just say, "Put a UDC here, a UDC there and another over there" and not examine the relationship between the three. That is no way to plan the affairs of a nation; yet the Government have seen fit to do that.
The Government must have been made aware of some of the fears that were being expressed by the National Audit Office—and if they were not, it was extremely negligent. What is the point of the National Audit Office if the Government were not made aware? We have been told over and over again of the success of the Merseyside Development Corporation and how well it has done in renovating the housing stock and regenerating the area. However, the facts are—and again I repeat that I do not blame anyone in the development corporation because they have done their level best—that fewer jobs have been created than were created by local authorities in the same period. With all the criticism levelled against the Liverpool local authorities, in the same number of years those local authorities created nine times as many new jobs as did the urban development corporation. So what went wrong?
In London, of course, there is no problem, as I pointed out when we were debating the Canary Wharf development. There were 10,000 new jobs and as much money as was required for the London Docklands. Satellite receiving stations were set up which could well have been sited in Merseyside because it does not matter where they are sited. The Government are not looking at the problem from the national point of view.
I put this question to the Minister. Let us assume that the trend in Merseyside which the National Audit Office reveals continues in the way that it appears to be doing. Let us also assume that the Manchester Development Corporation (which I am glad to see because it is nearer the centre of economic activity and nearer the centre of the market) goes on like a house on fire—almost as good as the London Docklands. What effect will that have on Merseyside? If it has a retrograde effect and the problems of
1380
Merseyside get worse, what are the Government going to do if that scenario becomes obvious? The Government have had eight or nine years to answer that question. I believe that there is a great possibility of that happening.
I recommend that the Minister should read page 5 of the report. The DoE did not analyse the achievements of either of the development corporations. The Government have thrown money at them, but this is the Government who say that throwing money at a problem never solves it. You must know what you are doing with money, but here the report says that the Government did not bother to analyse the problems or what was happening inside the urban development corporations. Some of the reading in the reports dealing with Merseyside gives grave cause for concern. Equally, it can be said that because of the economic activity in London one has grave cause for concern over the way it was handled there.
I do not want to take up much more time, but I put forward one point. Again, I make no apologies for repeating this, even if it is to an empty House. If the Government want a solution to the problem of deprived areas they must get off their backsides and visit the regions. They must look at the regions from the point of view of the nation as a whole. We now hear Mr. Heseltine, the convert. It was not on the road to Damascus that he was converted; it must have been in Runcorn because that is where I met him. He completely turned down, with all his officers, the suggestion that I made that the only way to solve the problems of Merseyside is to create a new reason for its existence and move some government departments away from the South-East.
Well, he has come home. I do not know whether he is looking for the leadership of the Tory Party but he certainly seems to be trying to impress people in the South-East that he is worth voting for. He is worried about the overdevelopment in the South-East, but he makes sure that he does not touch the really important problem from the point of view of the Government. Here we are, yelling at the private sector of our economy to up stakes and move to the regions in order to assist and regenerate the country. All I say is: why do not the Government do it themselves? They have one of the biggest generators of employment sitting here like a cuckoo in the nest and paid for by the rest of the regions. Over and over again from the Government Benches we have heard that the Government are anxious to look at the regional problem, that they want a decentralisation policy for the nation, that they are anxious to consider the problem of moving government departments out of London and relieving the congestion that exists there. However, all we get is words.
I conclude by saying that if the Government continue doing this and continue to believe that urban development corporations, on their own, with only money thrown at them by the Government will solve the problem, then they will fail. The position is the same as for enterprise zones, which we hear nothing about nowadays. Enterprise zones are merely damaging the areas that surround them. Perhaps one day the Government will instigate a

1381
study on the effect of enterprise zones on the areas that surround them. We may then get to know the real story. In the meantime, I hope and pray that we do not have to wait for the National Audit Office report, which the Government may or may not ignore. Perhaps the Government will give their conclusions on what they intend to do if things go wrong.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend. I shall pick up one of his themes a little later. I begin by declaring a very indirect interest in this matter as chairman of a consortium of the major house-building companies which, individually, play a significant role in the areas of the existing urban development corporations. We shall probably be performing that role in the new corporations that we are speaking about tonight. I also speak as the chairman for 12 years of the Telford New Town Development Corporation. As I have said in this House before, Telford is not simply a new town. Telford was a vast reclamation and revival project covering about 20 square miles. Its centre was a former coalfield—spoiled land—and some 3,000 acres of it needed years of reclamation before the new town could receive new infrastructure, new industry, new confidence and a new heart.
Today, thanks to the overall plan of total revival, Telford is a resounding success, with hundreds of new firms having moved in, modern facilities and near-boom conditions in a delightful, green environment, totally recreated. With that experience of urban regeneration I look at the UDCs that we are talking about tonight. First, are the areas of these bodies really large enough? Surely, the aim must be in some cases—I take as an example the Black Country plus Wolverhampton or Sheffield—to use the urban development corporation to act as a catalyst stimulating, as in Telford, total revival of a much larger area.
To recreate confidence on the scale that is needed and to provoke full regeneration over a wide area needs a comprehensive plan which excites investors and gives them confidence about the future and which brings in house-builders, manufacturing industry and commerce and persuades them to share the load in conjunction with the pump-priming money of the Government's development corporation. I wonder if the areas are large enough.
My noble friend mentioned the experience of the Merseyside Development Corporation, which was relatively disappointing, as he said. I suspect that it shows what happens when the development corporation area is too small. By confining the corporation to a small area mainly of disused docks, no wider planning has been possible. The garden festival site has not been taken up by private enterprise for imaginative development. As my noble friend also pointed out, the development corporation has been unable to spend all the money allocated to it and £13 million was diverted to Docklands.
In the end and this is most significant—the DoE has had after seven years to expand the development corporation's original 865 acres in Merseyside by adding another 800. I presume that this has been
1382
done in the hope that there will be a wide enough plan to secure that catalytic effect that will regenerate a larger area, bringing confidence and starting real growth again. The LDDC area (the London Docklands area) is easier to stimulate because, as my noble friend said, of its proximity to the area of the thriving City of London. Significantly, it covers 5,000 acres, which is a big enough area in which to do the job.
With those kinds of figures in mind and with the background of what has happened in Merseyside, I look at the proposals before us. Manchester has 400 acres, Bristol, 800 acres, Sheffield is a little larger with 1,800 acres; Leeds has 1,100 acres. The first question I put to the Minister is, are the areas really big enough to be the catalyst for wider revival in those cities? Will they really start arousing confidence? The crucial point is rising land values in a wide area, which, as in Docklands and in Telford and in all these really successful areas, finally produce real self-generating growth that carries on when the development corporation has gone. That is a test. Does the UDC start something wider that persists or does it simply clean up a few black spots? Cleaning up black spots is not good enough.
The second question I put to the noble Lord is to ask him whether, after the experience of this last decade and of the new towns, the Government can expand on something which was said from the Dispatch Box this evening? Can they encourage the urban development corporations quite deliberately to forge with the local authorities in their areas a total partnership based upon acceptance and goodwill? Too often there is at least the danger of hostility and no attempt to put the UDC planning into the wider framework of a revival of adjoining areas controlled by the local authority. Sometimes those adjoining areas are nearly as bad as regards the quality of life and the environment as the UDC areas themselves. They need to be planned for revival together. In my view it is up to the development corporations to approach local authorities openly with that objective in mind.
This approach is particularly needed in the Black Country. In my view, planning takes in revival and refurbishment of the areas between the pockets that have now been designated as urban development corporation areas. Local authorities are now more receptive. They see the success in regeneration of Telford and Docklands. I believe that imaginative leadership on both sides, in both UDCs and local authorities, can achieve much more spectacular rescue of these areas that in many cases have been so badly blighted by our past industrial history and by a good deal of unsuccessful public sector housing.
My final point is to touch upon what my noble friend said about a national approach to this problem. About eight years ago I presented to a specialist Select Committee of your Lordships' House proposals for an urban development corporation for England. Your Lordships' committee approved of that proposal and put it in its report on unemployment. I did not press and the committee did not press that this should be an active agency trying to do all the jobs of revival in the inner cities by itself. It was to be a body rather like the

1383
Development Commission, which, in the rural areas, energises projects and makes sure that local initiatives are taken. It would draw together the lessons of those experiences and help with the organisation of local effort in an ad hoc way to tackle individual cities, areas and problems. It would not be a do-all agency, but a helping one as the Development Commission is in the rural areas.
This body could have begun, with the receptive local authorities, to try to build a partnership in order to make sure that the idea spread. The Government turned down the idea. I notice that Mr. Heseltine has taken it up and now makes it a cornerstone of his policy. My noble friend is right. The inner city initiative of the Government is failing; it is halting, lame and insufficient. Something much bigger is needed if the inner city people are really to believe that revival is on the way. Therefore, it is with a slightly jaundiced view that I look at these proposals tonight. I hope the noble Lord on the Front Bench will try to answer at least some of the questions I have asked.
8.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friends Lord Sefton and Lord Northfield, who have special expertise in this area and who have spoken on the orders with passion and understanding. I repeat what both of them have said and what my right honourable and honourable friends have said in another place. We are not opposed to the orders and we shall not seek to have them negatived. However, we have great doubts about the policy context in which the Government are putting them forward.
We have grave doubts, which my noble friend Lord Northfield has just expressed very clearly, about the adequacy of the Government's total effort in the regeneration of our urban areas. As my noble friend Lord Sefton said, we fear that unless adequate powers, adequate areas and adequate instructions to co-operate fully with local authorities are given, some urban development corporations—not all, but possibly some—will fall into the trap of being what the enterprise zones eventually became, no more than policy gestures designed to cover up a lack of real policy and real commitment to the urban areas of this country.
It is significant that these orders come in the middle of the consideration by the House of the Local Government Finance Bill. The Bill reduces local authorities' control of their income to only one-quarter instead of a half, puts on the head of the Secretary of State regulation-making powers which interfere more and more in the detailed conduct of local authority affairs, gives no adequate assurance that the Section 137 powers which have been used so effectively, in particular by urban local authorities, for economic regeneration and job creation in the community, will continue—I hope that the noble Lord will take up this point, not only tonight but as we proceed with the Report stage of the Local Government Finance Bill—and generally carries on the distrust and dislike which virtually throughout their life the Government have shown of local
1384
authorities. This distrust and dislike have been evidenced by increasing attempts to control local authorities, increasing attempts to take away their powers and responsibilities and, in the end, to discourage progressive and enterprising people from taking part in the work of local authorities.
My noble friend Lord Sefton referred quite properly to the report of the National Audit Office. I remind the House that the National Audit Office expressed in a gentlemanly way polite surprise that, during the six years of the first two urban development corporations, the Government should have undertaken no systematic analysis of the work of those development corporations, and should still have pressed ahead with further urban development corporations without analysing the achievements and difficulties of the first two.
The Government consistently claim success for the London Docklands Development Corporation. I do not deny that. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, I shall not go into any more detail about that because I know that he would intervene if he were here. It is certainly true that the London Docklands Development Corporation has had some magnificent successes due, the National Audit Office says, largely to its proximity to the commercial centre of London and Britain. I need not comment on the experience in Merseyside. It has been commented on in detail by my noble friend Lord Sefton. From those two examples there is no assurance that the Government have the mixture right, either in terms of the size of the areas or of the powers to be given to the urban development corporations.
As my noble friend said, on Merseyside, the National Audit Office went so far as to conclude that either the existing constraints should be removed or consideration should be given to winding up the urban development corporation. We are now faced with four urban development corporations, which will be as small as or smaller than Merseyside, with no additional powers and no relaxation of the existing constraints.
In putting forward these new urban development corporations, what answer are the Government prepared to give to the criticisms levelled by the National Audit Office at the Department of the Environment in its thinking about the existing corporations? It says that there is no adequate definition of what is meant by "regeneration". It says that the Department of the Environment will have a difficult task of maintaining, monitoring and evaluating—not day-to-day supervision—unless there is a definition of what is meant. It says that the new corporations should look for the best economic potential and use of land. It says, as my noble friend, Lord Northfield, says, that this means that the area should be large enough. Is that the case? Are we all convinced that that is the case?
The National Audit Office says that the urban development corporations should have a long-term stategy. Do we have that long-term strategy? Are we convinced that they have that strategy adequately agreed with the local authorities in the area, or, even more importantly, that they have the regional and national strategy to which my noble friends have

1385
referred? It says above all—and I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Hesketh, said this in his introduction of the orders—that one of the keys is successful co-ordination with local authorities.
These are severe criticisms. They raise severe doubts about the quality of the thinking in government and in the Department of the Environment about the urban development corporations. I recognise that the orders have been agreed with the local authorities concerned and that they are Labour local authorities. I shall certainly not go against those agreements. However, the Government have an obligation to improve the quality of their monitoring, to improve the explanation and understanding of the objectives they put forward, and they have a duty to come clean with the public about the success of urban development corporations. We wish them luck. We hope that they will succeed. We are convinced that the local authorities concerned will do their utmost to make sure that they succeed. The omens in every case are not entirely encouraging.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate which may have gone slightly beyond the four orders before the House. Perhaps I may deal first with the report of the National Audit Office, which was mentioned by all noble Lords. It is not for the Government to respond to an NAO report. The Public Accounts Committee, after due deliberation, will issue a report and the Government will respond to that. As noble Lords will expect, while the Government have no quarrel with the facts presented in the report, it might be expected that they would come to rather different judgments on some of the issues. I must point out that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has kept the UDCs continuously under review and has drawn on those experiences in designating further UDCs, the orders for four of which are before your Lordships tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, drew attention to the greater number of jobs that had been created on Merseyside by the local authority compared with the UDC. However, it is important to remember that in the first stage of this major operation a huge amount of the Merseyside Urban Development Corporation's money has been used to reclaim heavily polluted land and silted up docks. These projects were necessary and very expensive and had to take place before jobs could be created. The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, drew attention to his meeting in Runcorn with a right honourable gentleman in another place. He said that there should be new reasons for the existence of Merseyside. I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that under the Channel a substantial engineering project is taking place which could lead in the years after 1992 to Merseyside becoming once again a gateway port for the Atlantic, with direct rail access to the middle of Europe.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, will the Minister tell me how on earth the benefits of the Channel Tunnel will be shared on Merseyside if there is no link through London? If the Minister says that
1386
there is a link, will he say what British Rail will spend on upgrading the line through London?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if we went into the finer points of infrastructure we might be here for a considerable time. I ask the noble Lord's indulgence so that we might be able to discuss that at a later date.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, brought to your Lordships' attention his view that the areas involved in these urban development corporations were too small. The areas were chosen following studies by consultants and several of them are quite small, but the areas of dereliction in those places were also relatively small and they have still proved to be intractable. The surrounding areas are reasonably prosperous and there will be no basis for designating them as areas of dereliction. While they may be small areas, it does not seem to me to be a good idea that we should avoid trying to attend to the duty, if we can, of renewing them.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Northfield and Lord McIntosh, referred to the relationship between UDCs and the local authority. The Government certainly want to see the UDCs co-operating with their local authorities and with other local agencies. I should remind noble Lords of my opening remarks, that the record of the second generation of UDCs has been a very good one. I hope that the third generation will also prove to be as successful with the relationships that they have with their local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton, made remarks with regard to the Government's "throwing money at the problem". Perhaps I may just give him one example. The investment that the Government have made in docklands is some £400 million and that has resulted in about £4,000 million of private investment. I should have thought that everyone can look upon that as a successful investment. We have an opportunity tonight to take a significant step in reinvigorating four of our famous urban areas. I commend the orders to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Central Manchester Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1988
8.42 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 17th May be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Leeds Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1988
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 17th May be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committe]—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sheffield Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1988
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 17th May be approved [27th Report from the Joint Commmittee].—(Lord Hesketh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.45 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.42 to 8.45 p.m.]

Education Reform Bill
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 123.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 387:
Page 120, line 9, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Not less than four and not more than six of the members shall be academics currently employed in the UFC funded sector; not less than a further four and not more than a further six shall be persons appearing to the Secretary of State to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in higher education; and in appointing the remaining members the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of including persons who appear to him to have experience of, and to have shown capacity in industrial, commercial or financial matters or the practice of any profession.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and a later one are akin to ones that I moved earlier to which a satisfactory reply was given. In those circumstances, therefore, I do not intend to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 387 not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 388:
Page 120, line 17, at end insert—
("(3A) The Council shall appoint a sub-committee to undertake its functions in relation to Scottish universities, and the members of the sub-committee shall all have either experience in a Scottish university or be relevant in and have had experience of working in Scotland.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was discussed to a certain extent before we adjourned. The amendment is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, and myself. It suggests that the Universities Funding Council shall appoint a sub-committee. We understood from what the noble and learned Lord said earlier that this does not meet with the approval of the Government.
The Croham Report suggested, on the assumption that a separate Scottish planning and funding body was not established as recommended by the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council, that at the very least the University Grants Committee should have a Scottish committee. That is merely what we are asking for on the face of the Bill. The Government seem to have something against having anything like this on the face of the Bill. It may well be that the wording of the amendment does not meet with the approval of the Government. However, if
1388
they regard the Croham Report as in any way helpful on the distinctive nature of the Scottish universities—I remind the House that the Croham Committee said that, more than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the Scottish universities operate in a distinctive environment and serve Scottish needs, and that this means explicit recognition—and if they will accept that there should be a Scottish committee to look at Scottish universities and they wish to put in their own wording (if the wording of the amendment is wrong), then I would be most happy to withdraw the amendment on that assurance. But I gather from what the noble and learned Lord said that this was all unnecessary and that Scottish universities would of course have a separate sub-committee, just as apparently anything else might have a special subcommittee. I am not sure whether it was suggested that questions of the teaching of Icelandic might have a similar sub-committee to the Scottish universities, or even the teaching of Mongolian, or something like that.
To my mind it illustrates what is almost regarded in Scotland as the contempt of the English governmental bodies for anything that is significantly Scottish; and secondly, the contempt of the Government for any suggestion that the Bill can in any way be improved.
We have discussed the issue of separate Scottish representation and the need for the Scottish universities to be treated distinctively. I do not believe that I can add much to what I said earlier, and therefore I do not intend to delay the House. I beg to move.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House because I have already made two speeches on this subject: one in Committee and one today. I wholly support what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said. However, this is the third option which he and I have proposed to allow Scotland some recognition in the Bill. I thought that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor showed sympathy when he said that no doubt such a committee would be appointed. I urge him to go a little further and put something into the Bill, because he well knows that it is what is in the Bill that counts. As has been said, several committees have recommended that a statutory committee for Scotland of this kind should be set up.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Grimond. We are asking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to help us. When we discussed an earlier amendment, we said that he saw that it would be appropriate for the UFC to appoint a sub-committee. Will he say that he will be happy to see the word "Scotland" included on Third Reading and for the Bill merely to say something such as, "The UFC will appoint a Scottish sub-committee" without defining any of its powers? Then I for one would be entirely happy.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, this is an entirely Scottish campaign; but perhaps I may say that I support the amendment, not least because in the House and elsewhere we English spend a great deal too much time on Scottish affairs.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised that I cannot support the observations on that point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The discussion of Scottish affairs here is good and welcome. The reason that the Government consider it inappropriate to put a reference to Scotland on the face of the Bill is that if it is to do the job properly it must define "Scottish sub-committee" in detail, with its functions, and so on. There is a great deal to be learned from experience in these matters. The UFC will have sub-committees as the UGC has. The UGC operated without any statutory provisions. We do not want to have too many statutory provisions applied to the new UFC. Its members will be people of stature who will know what to do.
They will know what is required with regard to Scotland. I am happy that the Scottish universities should be under their tender care. I am sure that they will nurture them to the best of their ability. If they think it appropriate to have a sub-committee, I have no doubt they will appoint the necessary subcommittee with the necessary membership and powers to review such matters from time to time in a way that would not be possible if the matters were all set out in the Bill. 1 doubt whether approving the amendment would relieve the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, from considering Scottish affairs to any extent.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, the one point upon which I would agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is in my disagreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It seems to me, as a mere Scot, that we have spent far too much time in the House discussing purely English matters and not nearly enough time discussing Scottish and United Kingdom matters. There is a tendency for Scottish matters to come on during the dinner adjournment. I have never noticed matters dealing purely with London being dealt with only during the dinner adjournment.
Leaving aside that issue, I am disappointed by the Government's attitude. It is another illustration of their attitude throughout the Bill. They say that the Bill is a framework Bill. It sets up a framework; but whenever anything is suggested by the Opposition, they say that it is impossible to accept it because the detail is needed on the face of the Bill; in other words, the Government can have their scaffolding and their framework, but if anything else is suggested, every detail down to the last polish of the window is required from the Opposition before it can even be considered. As I do not wish to detain the House, I shall, with regret, withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 389 and 390 not moved.]
Lord Flowers Lord Flowers moved Amendment No. 390A:
Page 120, line 23, after ("research") insert ("both full-time and part-time").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I propose to return to United Kingdom affairs and, in particular, to move Amendment No. 390A with which I beg leave to group Amendments Nos. 390B, 403C and 403D.
The first pair of amendments refers to the responsibilities of the UFC, and the second pair to the PCFC. The intention of both pairs of amendments is the same. It is to draw the attention of the councils to the fact that they are responsible for the funding of continuing education provided part-time as well as the more usual full-time education, and that continuing education in that context includes research pursued part-time. For example, Clause 123(4) and (5) would after amendment, read—if I may paraphrase—that the council shall be responsible for the provision of education and the undertaking of research both full-time and part-time by universities. It would apply similarly in the other establishments.
It seems strange that continuing education receives so little mention in the Bill, because for many years it has been a central theme of government policy that a greater volume of higher education should be provided part-time to mature students. For example, in 1984 the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education and the UGC issued a joint statement in which they said:
"both effective economic performance and harmonious social relationships depend on our ability to deal successfully with the changes and uncertainties which are now ever present in our personal working life. That is the primary role which we see for continuing education".
The joint report went on to discuss how more emphasis could be given to various forms of continuing education. It all sounded good, and it encouraged us to develop special courses and arrangements of all kinds to increase the proportion of our work devoted to various forms of continuing education. Of course, some of us have been doing it already.
Unfortunately, when it came to money, the UGC did little to help. 1 am not sure that the NAB did much better. The UGC, in particular, laid s, much stress upon the research activities of universities that even our ordinary undergraduate teaching was bound to be seen as of secondary importance in comparison. Continuing education was seen to come very much third in the financial stakes.
That unsatisfactory state of affairs will undoubtedly continue unless the new funding councils are given explicit responsibilities for the development of continuing education of all appropriate kinds. That is most easily done in the Bill, it seems to me, by introducing the words "both full-time and part-time" at the appropriate places.
There are other amendments before us today which draw our attention to continuing education. I believe that the amendments in my name are the simplest in order to have the desired effect. But, in any case, 1 do not think that they are inconsistent with any other amendments and so can properly be considered separately. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the House will not be surprised to hear that I very warmly support these amendments. In doing so, perhaps I should declare an interest as the head of the only institution in the university sector that is wholly dedicated to part-time education.

1391
As the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, has already said, some people have been at this for a long time. Birkbeck has been at it since 1823 when it was set up as the Mechanics Institute for men who work by day and study by night. It is very important that we have on the face of the Bill some words which commit both the funding councils to continuing education for a variety of reasons.
First, I should like to point to the demographic factors which make this very important. We are going to see an enormous decline in the 18 to 21 year-old group. It will go down by about 30 per cent. This means that if we are to maintain the levels of qualified manpower needed in this country, we shall have to rely rather more on bringing back mature students to do short courses of various kinds. Many of them, for one reason or another, will want to study part-time rather than full-time. There are various different modes by which they may do this—not just short courses but also degree courses in the evening, through block release, by day release or through various combinations of these facilities. That is the first reason why it is important.
The second reason relates back to an earlier debate today about adult education. It is of course the case that technical and technological change is proceeding as fast as ever and that if people are to keep up with their subjects and maintain their professional skills and competence, it is very important that they come back for post-experience education and training of various kinds.
It is also important that we give a second chance to those people who missed out the first time round. I think that both the polytechnics and the universities, perhaps to differing degrees, have already shown some commitment to the provision of part-time facilities for both education and research. The polytechnics have perhaps been rather better at this than the universities, but I believe that the climate of opinion is changing in many of our universities. They would like to do more of it. This means that the funding councils themselves have to be committed and willing to provide the resources to make it possible for part-time courses to be expanded. Since the Government are extremely aware of the need to broaden access and to make sure that people have the opportunity to get further education and training later in life, I should have thought that they would have very little difficulty in accepting what are extremely simple amendments which I strongly support.
Lord Briggs: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. The Open University has developed, with the full support of the Government, a quite incredibly large continuing education programme which has been financed mainly from private money. That programme is of very great national importance. I believe that if one is going to develop continuing education satisfactorily, the experience of the people who are involved in it has quite significant research value.
There is a tendency to regard continuing education as simply another form of teaching. However, one of the great merits of continuing education is that one
1392
draws upon the experience of people who have been involved in various walks of life. In particular as regards industrial continuing education, it would be very sad indeed if we did not recognise the great importance of part-time research as well as full-time research. I believe that this is a most important amendment.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the general tenor of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, in proposing the amendment. If I have any question, it is simply to ask whether it is wise that what one might call fairly detailed instructions should be set in statute stone. It seems to me that some of the arguments put forward—for example, that the recent allocation of UGC funds was based on a research-related review—are perfectly accurate. Of course teaching came down the line, one reason being that it was difficult to reach any form of agreement on how such an assessment could actually be made.
When we come to writing into a statute the question of full-time or part-time, nobody doubts the value of continuing education, about which we have heard much. Nor would one doubt the value of mature education, of the necessity to attract mature students, and so on. I am quite certain that any university that ignores the requirement in coming years will be very unwise.
The only reservation I have is that we might limit the capacity for change. By setting matters in this statute form, we might make it more difficult to make the requisite adjustments as time goes by or even the allocation between one and another. So it is not a question of any disregard of the arguments on continuing or mature education, full-time or part-time research. I would agree with the comments made on that. It is merely a slight reservation with regard to the possible rigidity of the system and writing it in this way in this form of amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, for drawing attention to the importance for our higher education system of part-time as well as full-time provision. I think it is already widely recognised, and about 40 per cent. of the students in higher education are part-time. I can assure the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who supported him that the word "education" in Clauses 123 and 124 of the Bill covers all types of education, and that the word "research" covers all types of research, both full-time and part-time. It is not necessary to explain that on the face of the Bill. The more detail of that kind one puts in, the more questions one raises about other words and whether they also have to be, as it were, expanded.
It is not necessary to explain on the face of the Bill that full-time and part-time education are included. If that distinction were made, why not make others such as between the arts and the sciences? Why not state, for example, research in the arts and research in sciences? Perhaps slightly more seriously, to qualify the words "education" and "research" here must imply something different about the words in the many places they appear elsewhere in education Acts.

1393
As I understand the position, the word "research" as used in the Bill already covers full-time and part-time research and nothing is gained by adding that. The only thing that might be gained is a question about whether other references to education or research, or any other matter, include full-time as well as part-time provision. That could have the very opposite effect to that which those who supported the amendment wished to achieve.
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I shall comment very briefly on what the noble Lord, Lord Trafford, said. I cannot see that the phrase "full-time and part-time education and research" sets anything very much in concrete. After all, it is not making a choice between two things. It merely makes the provisions which the funding council has to provide all-inclusive. That is not setting anything in concrete, I respectfully suggest.
The noble and learned Lord has said that the Bill already implies, in using the words "education" and "research", part-time as well as full-time provision. I of course shall accept the noble and learned Lord's word for that. But I can respectfully tell him that I shall be very much happier about the position when I see the financial memoranda under which the councils will operate and see the words "part-time" in those memoranda. It is important to instruct those councils that they are to be responsible for the funding of part-time education as well as full-time education.
One could have said that the UGC is responsible for the funding of part-time education. Indeed it is; it is just that it does not fund it very much. I thank the noble and learned Lord for pointing out that the Bill covers part-time education and research. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 390B and 391 not moved.]
Lord Swann Lord Swann moved Amendment No 391A:
Page 120, line 29, leave out ("payments, subject to such terms and conditions") and insert ("grants, specifying such particular obligations, and subject to such general guidance").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at an earlier stage of this Bill the Chamber carried an amendment on academic freedom moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. The present amendment also relates to academic freedom, but in a collective rather than an individual way. The amendment looks very short and simple. It is short, but it is in reality not very simple. Nevertheless, I shall try to be as quick as I can in explaining what the problem is.
Clause 123, to which this amendment refers, gives power to the Universities Funding Council to make payments to the universities,
"subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit".
But—and this is a very important "but"—there is no indication whatsoever in the Bill what that actually means in practice. For many years past the funding of universities has been by means of grant; hence the title, University Grants Committee. The meaning of the word "grant" can be argued by lawyers, but in practice it has meant what are called block grants, where the university in question has a
1394
substantial measure of freedom to spend the money on teaching and research as it thinks best, subject only to general guidance and advice. Attached to this have been various obligations, mainly what are known as earmarked grants: namely, money to be spent only on particular purposes. It will be evident to your Lordships that the emphasis has been on freedom coupled with responsibility.
A review committee set up by the Government under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Croham, which reported early last year, recommended a variety of tidying up measures, but emphasised that block grant funding on the present lines should continue, as it put it, for sound practical reasons, as should earmarked grants.
Within only a few weeks of the Croham Committee's report, the Government announced in a White Paper that those arrangements were to be scrapped and legal contract funding put in their place. Within a few more weeks the Department of Education and Science produced a paper on what that would mean. It is a most extraordinary, ultra-bureaucratic document that has been widely and forcefully criticised not only by the academic world but by many of your Lordships on Second Reading, in Committee, from the Opposition Benches, from the Cross-Benches and indeed from the government Benches. One might have expected to hear at least some approval of the actual concept from the government Benches—but no, not a whisper, even from Ministers in this House. I conclude that even they must have serious doubts about it, as well they may.
The reason for so much criticism and, so far as I can see, no approval, is obvious enough. All too many academics know what government research contracts look like. Earlier in the passage of this Bill I did my best to describe in some detail to your Lordships how increasingly elaborate, illiberal, bureaucratic and exasperating those have become in recent years. I shall recall only two of them. The first is the Ministry of Agriculture, whose forms for research workers receiving contract funding are so involved and complicated that the ministry has had to lay on training courses for research workers in how to fill out the forms.
I recently came across a document within the domain of the Department of Education and Science by means of which academics can get long-term contract funding. The document has innumerable pages. There is one page which I like particularly. You have to fill in, for the third, fourth and fifth year of your grant, what will be your quarterly expenditure under 12 different heads, and 217 little boxes must be filled out.
In short, the Government intend to abandon the type of funding that has led to British universities being so highly esteemed throughout the world precisely because they have been trusted to do the best they can with only general guidance and a minimum of compulsion from government. In place of that, the Government propose an elaborate and bureaucratic system that hardly trusts anyone to do anything.
Looking back on what the Government have said in defence of contract funding, the Secretary of State

1395
said last October that contract funding was not intended to be excessively bureaucratic and inflexible; that it must not jeopardise the pursuit of research and scholarship; and that it must take into account the distinctive nature of higher education. Despite the good intentions of the Secretary of State, one can have only the gravest reservations about a system operated by officials in the DES and UFC that by its very nature must be bureaucratic, must be inflexible, is bound to jeopardise the freedom of research and scholarship and, by setting detailed plans if not in concrete at least in glue or treacle, cannot take account of the distinctive nature of universities.
It is true that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said at Committee stage that contract funding would tend toward Option A in the Department of Education and Science paper to which I have referred. There are three options in that paper—A, B and C. Option A is the least bureaucratic. However, in the tone of the whole paper it can only be described as the least awful of an awful bunch.
Those would-be reassurances fail to reassure for two simple reasons. In the first place, if the Government do not want to put an altogether tighter rein on universities, why do they wish to introduce legal contract funding? In the second place, the two Ministers involved speak with quite different voices. The Secretary of State is genial and makes light of the impact of the proposed new regime. The junior Minister, Mr. Robert Jackson, plays the opposite role, holding up contract funding as the essential mechanism for forcing change on a reluctant and incompetent university system.
Perhaps I may briefly quote from The Times Higher Educational Supplement the extraordinary remarks which the junior Minister made at a recent conference. He said:
"Academics should stop cowering in the secret garden of knowledge and get to grips with the real world, since knowledge for its own sake is no longer the prime concern".
I find it incredible that a Minister responsible for universities in a democratic society can say such things. Where is his sense of history? Does he really not know that knowledge for its own sake makes the root from which all the successes of industry and the new technologies have stemmed? Should he not be reminded that were it not for a great many people over many years who valued knowledge for its own sake he would be lucky, even at his relatively young age, still to be alive?
It can be argued that the amendment will not make much difference. In one sense, that could prove to be true. But in another and profounder sense, I think that it is wholly untrue. Grants can be given the force of law, just as contracts can. Obligations can be made to mean legal obligations. But in everyday parlance, grants imply a measure of freedom, and have long done so in the context of university funding. Likewise, obligations in everyday speech mean moral obligations. In short the amendment aims to establish a style of funding that relies on a sense of responsibility on the part of universities and a sense of trust on the part of the Government while leaving the ultimate power where it has to belong, with the Government.
I do not believe that any amendment could for certain shield the universities from undue interference. The Government, after all, pay the bills and in the last resort can do what they like. However. the amendment does indicate a style of behaviour which has long existed to great effect, where the Government keep a reasonable distance and where universities are left free to give of their best. Academics are not in it for the money but because they believe profoundly that the extension and dissemination of knowledge are and always have been essential elements in a civilised society.
Freedom to give of one's best in such a difficult area of human endeavour is not just self-indulgence, as Mr. Jackson seems to think, but, on the contrary, a noble concept. I believe that tying universities up in legal red tape would be a profound mistake which would haunt the Government for many years ahead. I hope your Lordships may agree, and I beg to move.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, in rising to support the noble Lord, Lord Swann, in this amendment, to which my name also is attached, I would say that I agree wholeheartedly with everything he has said, and I do not propose to repeat it. But we still need to find out what are the Government's plans in terms of contract funding between the universities and the UFC.
The noble Lord, Lord Swann, and I were most grateful to the Secretary of State for agreeing to see us and to talk to us about this issue. At that meeting the Secretary of State said that his thinking was still developing upon these matters. Can we know where his thinking stands at this 11th hour, before we accept this clause as it stands?
I believe this amendment attempts to express what the Secretary of State implied in that meeting and it would very greatly reassure us if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could accept the amendment. If he cannot, we hope to learn more than we know at the moment when he tells us why he cannot do so, as I regret to say I fairly confidently expect him to do.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I was not going to enter this debate until I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Swann, because on the face of it, the amendment does not seem to do a great deal and in practice, whether we pass it or not, the Government's reaction will be cursory, I would suggest. However, it is very interesting to think we are talking about a subject where local initiative, control, influence and decision-making are being taken away by the Government. It is curious to think that we are discussing this subject on the day in which Comrade Gorbachev is actually asking the Soviet people to relieve the local institutions in the Soviet Union of the dead hand of the party and the bureaucracy. Here we are, speaking about an amendment which asks the Government not to impose the dead hand of bureaucracy and the party—and in this case it is the Tory Party—on academic institutions. It is interesting to draw the parallels. In this country we are going in one direction; in the Soviet Union they are going in the other direction. I wished to make that observation in support of the amendment.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment, if only to make it clear that support for the movers is not confined to the Cross-Benches and the other side of the House.
Those of us in the party now in government who have been in touch with the gestation and progress of the Bill must confess themselves very disappointed at this late hour that an important feature of government thinking has to be teased out of the noble and learned Lord on the last day of Report. It has been made clear to the Secretary of State by many of us that this notion of contract funding, unless limited to getting from universities particular services that the state might require for some reason, is not in keeping with the notion of a university because one of the ideas in university government is that it must from time to time itself decide on the disposal of the funds made available to it. Without that, there cannot be the spontaneity and development that are held to characterise universities among other forms of education, higher or whatever.
It is extraordinary because, as the noble Lord, Lord Swann, said, there have been repeated comments by the Secretary of State—contradicted to an extent sometimes by his junior Minister, but we must take the Secretary of State as being in control of his department. He has told us that of course the traditional autonomy of the universities is not meant to be affected by any of these changes, and that contract funding, as I said, is to be limited to very specified areas. If a certain number of teachers are required in some rare subject, it would not be unreasonable to contract with the university, or for that matter with the polytechnic, to provide them, and that could be very straightforward with none of the bureaucratic entanglements to which the noble Lord, Lord Swann, referred.
I speak, if I may, as a member of my party. I am very worried about the inability of Her Majesty's Government to heal the breach that has developed between them and the universities. This seems to me more important even than the bureacratic nonsense that it is intended to impose upon heads of departments, researchers and so on. It is a psychological matter; it is a matter of recreating confidence.
I appeal to the noble and learned Lord when he replies not to dash the hopes of government supporters again by failing to appreciate that what is being asked for is not some extravagance—it is not, as Mr. Jackson appears to think, the right to live in ivory towers; it is to enable universities to perform the function that, even at a time of limited resources, it is generally recognised they have performed to the nation's benefit. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give some indication that he has appreciated this point.
Lord Briggs: My Lords, after the great eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Swann, and the deep feeling of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, it is difficult to say much more.
I think that it is essential to go back to a fundamental point that has nothing to do with words. Universities have developed in society as centres of initiative. If they had developed entirely on the basis of contract at different periods in their
1398
evolution, there would not have occurred the same developments in society as a whole, starting with medicine, scientists and moving right across. It would have been impossible to have developed university systems on the basis of contract.
I believe therefore that this is not just a question of whether or not there is bureaucracy, though I am horrified to see the nature of many of the forms which at the moment come in from research councils and other bodies and which seem to me to make a mockery of the process of encounter between university people and people dealing with the funding.
I am sure that there would be a great deal of desire on the part of many of the people involved in any new funding system to make it work fairly and without too much bureaucracy, but I have no doubt that bureaucracy would creep in. More fundamental than that is the question of whether one can conceive of a university system moving into an unknown future which is tied on the bais of contracts with people who know far less about the matters relating to the contracts than those who are involved in the signing of them.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I hesitate to rise after the case has been put so ably by others who are far more experienced and learned than I am, but when I was discussing this issue with the noble Lord, Lord Swann, he showed me one of the contract forms and my imagination could not conceive it possible that anybody could work out such a form. I have made no judgment about the outcome of tonight's debate but I ask the noble Lord, Lord Swann, whether he will consider putting that particular form into the Library for other noble Lords to see. I assure your Lordships that everyone who sees it will be on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Swann, and those who are supporting this amendment.
Baroness White: My Lords, I hesitate to speak after such convincing speeches from such distinguished academic figures as are in your Lordships' House. But perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words arising from my very recent experience. I am president and chairman of the council of the University of Wales' Institute of Science and Technology, which is part of the federal university of the Principality. As some of your Lordships will know—anyone who reads The Times Higher Education Supplement certainly knows—there have been certain difficulties in the academic world in Cardiff as a result of which we have undertaken an exercise of merging our institution with our neighbour in the city which, for one reason or another not germane to my remarks this evening, has got itself into grave financial difficulties. They are indeed extremely serious. We have every reason to suppose that by 1st August next our two institutions will have become a new unitary institution and we shall have fashioned an administration which will secure both academic standards and good financial administration.
All I can say is that had we been constrained by the kind of contract system that is contemplated for the

1399
future, I do not believe that we could possibly have reached a satisfactory conclusion and brought about what I have every reason to think will be a new academic institution with excellent prospects for the future and which is run responsibly in its administration and finances. We should have been hemmed in at every turn had we had to follow the kind of pattern that is suggested.
So it is from practical experience that I support wholeheartedly the amendment that is put before the House by the noble Lords, Lord Swann and Lord Adrian, and supported by the other very distinguished speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, with whom I do not always agree. Tonight, however, I agree with every word that he spoke.
I hope that the Government will take this matter seriously because the kind of constraints that could be the result of contract funding in the spirit in which it might be administered and which is certainly advocated by Mr. Jackson would be detrimental to the development and to the necessary restructuring of our universities in certain situations.
Lord Dainton: My Lords, I had not intended to rise again. I shall be brief because the hour is late. I must be the only person in this House who has been in the position earlier in my life of having been tempted by the devil to apply the method of contract funding to the universities. I always resisted it for two very simple reasons. The first is this. All my experience throughout four universities as a teacher and researcher has taught me one thing. It is that the human mind unconstrained by narrow concepts, narrowly drawn and specified in contracts, is the most secure defence we have for freedom, on the one hand, and the permitting of the full flowering of the human mind. If, on the other hand, one tells people who have high skills and high intelligence to do something within a narrow framework, one will not liberate their intellectual energies and inventiveness; one will constrain them.
The second reason is very simple. From time to time in the University Grants Committee we had to enter into discussions with the universities about the closure of particular departments because the need for them no longer existed. That is a perfectly legitimate discussion. It led to conclusions which satisfied the state requirement that its money was expended for the purposes for which it was intended and was not wasted. However, we also gave money to universities in block grants simply because we wanted to retain this freedom to liberate their own energies and initiative.
We knew from experience—and this is the important point—that decisions taken at the centre, remote from the laboratory bench, the lecture theatre, or from the tutorial group, were generally ill-informed, and that to give universities a degree of freedom was to give them a degree of freedom which might prove us at the centre sometimes to be wrong. As I said on an earlier occasion, that was not only good for our humility—something for which we must all be grateful—but it was also a lesson which points
1400
to the same conclusion; namely, that in dealing with universities one should be dealing with independent corporations.
The aim is not to antagonise them—which the Government's attitude at the present time seems to have done—but to draw them into co-operation, and to give them that degree of freedom which will enable them to do what they most wish to do above all: to make the best possible contribution that they can to the educational welfare of the young people in this country and to its research base. I therefore have great pleasure in supporting the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, and the noble Lord, Lord Adrian.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, I rise not only to support the case most powerfully put by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, but also to make an appeal to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor before his winding up speech. Like many other noble Lords, I have a great regard for the legal authority and Scottish integrity of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. However, on the occasion of the amendment in my name which was carried at Committee stage, to which the noble Lord, Lord Swann, referred, I was deeply disappointed by the speech of the noble and learned Lord. It was one factor which determined me to ask the Committee to divide on that issue. I am very glad that I did so.
I was deeply disappointed because I thought on that occasion that he showed no appreciation that academic freedom was a wider issue than a dismissal procedure for an assistant lecturer in Cardiff—the noble Baroness, Lady White, has referred to problems at Cardiff—or other universities and was a
question of a climate of opinion within which advances of knowledge could be made. I appeal to him this evening—if he has any wish to heal that
breach between the Government and universities to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred so powerfully—to show an appreciation that he
understands that there is here a major issue and that this amendment goes very close to the root of it.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, it is extremely difficult not to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Swann, on his description of contracts and contracting. In one sense he is referring to only part of the problem, because the examples of contracts that he gave referred to departments not UGCs and universities, not UFCs-to-be and universities but to departments and research groups. Those who recall his speech at Committee stage will remember this. He also referred to research councils, and to any department dealing with the professions. I drew his attention to some contracts drawn up by the DHSS which were as bad or nearly as bad, though I have not seen the argicultural examples to which he referred.
I accept all that. I accept also that it is, and would be, an error to introduce in any great detail or measure such bureaucratic legalism into the conduct of affairs between government or their agencies and the universities. Equally, I accept the arguments put forward by most noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and my noble friend Lord Beloff, that there is a breach of

1401
trust or confidence between the universities and government. This I personally regret. Nonetheless I am not certain that the terms of the amendment address the problem. If the amendment is intended to be used as a vehicle by which, in some curious way, my noble and learned friend is shortly to be tested in his faith in universities, his trust in academic freedom or other matters that have been referred to, it does not seem to me that this is an appropriate amendment on payments, or types of payment (grant versus contract) upon which to base it.
Had a slightly different amendment been introduced that covered these points then—as I expect is behind the feelings expressed eloquently by my noble friend Lord Beloff—indeed that would have been most appropriate. But on this matter the contract question is much wider and, I would accept, getting worse. I hope that it does not become a standard pattern in any sense, except in the most minor and specific details as far as the future UFCs and the universities are concerned.
I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, on this question. But I suggest to your Lordships that this is not the amendment to which we have mostly been speaking. The amendment to which we have been speaking, concerning questions of grant and payments, does not cover many of the points that have been made. It is for this reason that I doubt that it is the best vehicle to express the views that have been put forward. I appeal to my noble and learned friend to make some points which would tend to heal the breach that was referred to between the universities and government. But whatever he does with the amendment, I cannot see that it will make much difference to that specific question.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, as I was approaching manhood an uncle gave me this bit of advice—never do business with a man you do not trust. That is a principle I have tried to follow during the subsequent years. The Government are by statute forcing the universities to do business with a party they distrust, to whit the bureaucracy that serves Her Majesty's Government. I appeal to the noble and learned Lord to listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has said and to make some gesture of reconciliation. This is a modest amendment. It may not be the ideal amendment that has just been referred to, but it is modest, and if the noble and learned Lord could see his way to concede the matter, that would go some way to heal the breach.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I say just a few words from these Benches in support of the amendment. However, in doing so I emphasise that I do not regard this a political matter, although we support the amendment. In echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has said, I believe that, quite independent of party, there is a kind of bureaucratic mind on the Left or the Right which cannot wait to carry out such contract funding and interference and which does not have the faintest appreciation of the issues that we have been talking about. I regard the matter as essentially non-political.
1402
My second remark is much more prosaic. It echoes what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, in quoting from the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Croham. It is that we should regard some of this matter in a practical way. As an economist my view is that the method of funding—the broad principles which we used to have— maximise the efficiency of the system in the sense of getting as much out of it as possible relative to the inputs. My judgment of the kind of contract funding which people have in mind will do exactly the reverse. It will minimise the efficiency of the system and give us the least output for the input.
If one wishes to set aside principles, which we certainly do not, and go in for the normal economist's approach to such matters, I believe that in following their views the Government should accept the amendment. Alternatively, if they do not like the detail, they should produce their own amendment purely on practical and efficient grounds. It is a much better way of running the system. We strongly support the amendment and I hope to hear positive comments from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, while I have the greatest sympathy with the amendment and would be inclined to vote for it, I should like to point out that there is another side to this issue. When I was Minister for Education I went around all the universities and asked whether they would help me in researching how to teach mathematics, for instance, and other subjects connected with children. I received no response whatsoever except from Professor Thwaites at the University of Southampton. He was the only person who helped me.
I went to my own university, Oxford, and asked whether it would create a Chair of Education because we needed its help. It would do nothing. I went to Cambridge University, which stated that it had a Chair of Education but that it did not want to study the issues about which I wanted to know. Therefore there is another side to the issue.
The taxpayer pays such a large part of the universities' income and therefore we should be able to say to them from time to time, "Will you please study this particular subject because it is in the national interest that you should?" On the other hand, anyone more keen on academic freedom than I cannot be found.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I understand it, this is a debate in connection with a particular amendment. I should be interested in knowing how the objectives that have been spoken of are particularly advanced by the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, has referred to the matter of academic freedom and the previous debate. I should like to point out that at that stage we were discussing the question of academic freedom in relation to the procedures for dismissal. The amendment which he moved into the Bill with the approval of your Lordships was concerned with that matter, and it was into that part of the Bill that the particular amendment was included as an aspect of academic freedom.

1403
I have been sufficiently long in connection with universities and other institutions to know that freedom has many aspects to it and I appreciate that fully. Freedom from dismissal is by no means the only aspect, although it may be an important one in some circumstances. I do not wish to re-open the argument now; I may have something to say about that at a later stage.
I value the concept of freedom to research and freedom to pursue knowledge as highly as any other noble Lord in this House. I believe that it has served us very well over many years. I started off life devoted to pure mathematics. One cannot imagine an area in which more freedom is required to make progress than that.
The question is: what does this amendment do? The noble Lord, Lord Swann, referred at Second Reading, in Committee and again this evening, to forms of contract in connection with particular pieces of research. I have had some little experience as the person who sought the information of trying to obtain help from universities on matters on which information was required by government departments. I have had some experience of the fact that it is not always the easiest thing in the world to get exactly what one wants on those particular matters. Sometimes it is possible to obtain the information; sometimes it is not very easy. My noble friend Lord Eccles referred to that.
We are not here concerned with the question of contract funding for particular pieces of research. To devote attention to that as if it was what was presently proposed for the main core funding of universities themselves is to distract attention from the reality. This Government and the Secretary of State who speaks for policy on this matter have made it perfectly plain that the Government very much esteem the concept of academic freedom and are fully devoted to it. I have no intention of doing anything to impinge in any way on the proper appreciation of that concept. The noble Lord has referred to some observations by my honourable friend Mr. Jackson, the Under-Secretary of State and a distinguished member of the University of Oxford. I have no doubt that he was speaking in a context which we have not fully examined. The Secretary of State and the Government have made perfectly plain their devotion to the concept of academic freedom.
There is nothing in the amendment which adds to the academic freedom which will be provided under this Bill. The amendments moved on Report in another place have made it plain that the Government will not interfere between the Universities Funding Council and particular universities except in extreme cases where further approval is required; namely, to assist in very difficult and special situations such as those to which the noble Baroness, Lady White, referred. As regards the rest, that is a matter between the Universities Funding Council and the particular university.
To suggest that the funding arrangements which are proposed should imperil the traditional mission of our higher education institutions is not something which commands our support. Our conviction is that the public funding of higher education must be
1404
granted on the principle that money will be handed out on an understanding as to how it is to be used.
The amount of detail to be gone into is a matter of degree. I can see nothing in this amendment which in any way modifies that. The amendment refers to,
"specifying such particular obligations".
I have no doubt that that sort of power could be applied to give exactly the sort of contract arrangements to which the noble Lord, Lord Swann, referred. If I had to draft a contract using these powers and if I set my mind to it, I believe that I could produce one at least as detailed as is suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Swann—possibly even more so. Therefore, this great amendment heralded as the great triumph of academic freedom and the great flagship which is to secure academic freedom into the future, does not appear to me to have any such effect. I believe that it must be very questionable whether the great sentiments which have been expressed in
support of academic freedom—
Lord Annan: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give way. Does he not agree, as the lawyers say, that there is a distinction between the word "grant" and the word "payment"?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I would be extremely interested to know what that distinction is in the context of this amendment. Does the noble Lord wish to add to what he said?
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord makes a point that one can understand. However, if there is so little difference in the meaning, and since everyone who has knowledge of university affairs suggests that this would be a way to make a new start and to heal the breach, would it not be wise to consider accepting the amendment?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that strikes me as a very helpful but remarkable suggestion because it means that these great sentiments are so easily satisfied by using words which do not mean anything different from the words in the Bill and that all these great difficulties can be resolved. That shows something about the nature of the difficulties. If the problem is as easily resolved as that, it cannot be much of a problem.
The noble Lord asked about the difference between a grant and a payment. No doubt the noble Lord who moved the amendment will be able to explain because he wants the word "payment" removed and the word "grant" substituted. The amendment continues: "specifying such particular obligations" as the Universities Funding Council may require. The noble Lord says these are to be moral obligations. We are not amending a code of ethics. We are dealing with a Bill which it is intended will have the force of law. If we talk about "such particular obligations" we are specifying such legal obligations as may be required. That is why I say that this amendment does nothing to advance the cause which is so dear to so many noble Lords and which has been so eloquently addressed.
I am as fervent as any of your Lordships in support of the principle of academic freedom. I would heartily

1405
defend it in all its aspects and in all circumstances, but I would be misleading your Lordships if I suggested that accepting this amendment adds one iota in advancing the cause of academic freedom in our universities. The phrase in the Bill is perfectly suitable for the purpose of providing a basis for the funding of universities under statute.
I agree wholeheartedly that what matters is the way in which these powers are used. Of course, it may be possible—it has not been done yet—to give some specification which advances this point; but this attempt does not advance the cause of academic freedom one iota. The Secretary of State has made clear how he intends that the Universities Funding Council will use these powers. After all, the Universities Funding Council is to be a body which I should reckon to have the sort of status that the University Grants Committee has had; that is the level of body that we are looking for here. That body will he in charge of this administration, not the Government directly. As I said, the Government have indicated that they will not interfere between particular universities and the Universities Funding Council except in the most extreme circumstances which have been explained in detail and which I need not rehearse.
As I said, the Government are firmly committed to the cause of academic freedom. I certainly have no limited or half view of academic freedom. The way in which the Government intend that these powers should be exercised will be in accordance with the principles of academic freedom. In particular, as regards this aspect, the powers will ensure that the Government do not interfere between the Universities Funding Council and the university funded by it. As regards assuring universities, seeking to heal the breach and seeking to assure universities that I and my colleagues in government appreciate academic freedom, I give that assurance wholeheartedly and I cannot do more. But I cannot agree at all that this amendment advances that cause one whit.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, may I take the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor back to a point he made earlier in his speech?
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Jerkins of Hillhead: My Lords, may I not ask the noble and learned Lord a question relating to his speech?
Noble Lords: No.
A noble Lord: My Lords, of course he may.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, surely I may ask the noble and learned Lord a question on his speech. The noble Lord, Lord Swann, made what to my mind was a devastating quotation from Mr. Robert Jackson implying that the days of inquiry for the sake of the pursuit of knowledge were over. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to that and said in an intriguing phrase that that was
1406
made in a context that we have not yet considered. Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord, what is the context and when are we to consider it?
10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord Lord Swann, made a quotation which is not one with which I am familiar. I certainly do not know the full context. I certainly do not regard it as the final statement of government policy on this matter. In answering this amendent before your Lordships I have sought to state what is the policy of the Government. I said also that the Secretary of State is responsible for this matter and he has made his attitude abundantly plain.
I certainly do not agree with the view, whoever may have expressed it, that we are finished with the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. I started life in a discipline which would not have got very far if it had accepted that particular principle. I am still very much in love with that discipline though I do not have as much opportunity to follow it as I used to. I believe that there is a great deal to he done in seeking knowledge for its own sake. I am now responding rather fully to a question rather than speaking again. That is the situation as I see it.
This is the fundamental point: I do not believe that this amendment is the most cogent way in which to enshrine the principle of academic freedom. It has not advanced the argument in the slightest. As regards the principle, I do not believe that there is anything between us. I do not believe that the Universities Funding Council will have the 127 little boxes, or whatever the figure was, about which the noble Lord, Lord Swann, spoke and which are so difficult for the academic researchers to fill in that the researchers need to be trained for it. I do not believe that the universities will be asked to fill in 127 boxes of that kind. They may well be asked a number of questions, because a limited amount of money has to be shared among the most deserving institutions. Therefore, it is necessary for full examination to be made of the various cases put forward and for them to be fairly considered.
The word "bureaucratic" is of uncertain content and it is not exactly a word of approbation. However, that kind of idea relates to the way in which the procedure is carried out and the attitude with which it is executed. So far as I am concerned, there is no question of that attitude being pursued as regards the basic funding of the universities. However, as regards getting specific pieces of work done, some detail about the work which is to be carried out may he required. Sometimes it is not all that easy to get academic researchers, accustomed to pursuing knowledge for its own sake, to answer the questions that Government need to have answered in order to respond to questions or debates in this House or in the other place.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question. Let us suppose that the Universities Funding Council of its motion decides to fund universities by block grant in the main, as opposed to

1407
some subsidiary earmarked grant. Does the noble and learned Lord believe that the Secretary of State will regard that as perfectly permissible within the terms of the Act? Would it be consonant with what he believes to be the present view of the Secretary of State?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that the view of the Secretary of State is that the Universities Funding Council, in giving out money to universities, may regard it as important to make certain conditions as to the application of the money. In general, I would not expect those conditions to be particularly detailed. I would expect them to be on the same lines as those which are presently followed by the University Grants Committee. Then I would expect that the university obtaining the money would be bound to observe those conditions. If the university received money on the basis that it has courses in Sanskrit, Arabic and pure mathematics, I hope it would be understood that it would provide those courses and that it would not give the money to philosophy, politics or something else. General conditions of that kind appear to be perfectly appropriate. We are talking about an amendment. We are not conducting a Second Reading debate, although perhaps some of my observations may sound like that. The amendment which the noble Lord has proposed, with all his skill and experience in Edinburgh and elsewhere, does not advance the cause which he so eloquently described in his general observations. In my submission, it should not be approved because it does not do anything to advance the basic position.
Lord Swann: My Lords, I see the noble Lord, Lord Denham, looking a little uneasy. I did not mean to provoke 54 minutes of discussion. I thank those noble Lords who have supported our amendment. I should also like to thank my noble friend from Edinburgh days. He was a noble friend because he used to advise me in those days. Sometimes I took his advice and sometimes I did not. This time I genuinely thank him of the points he has raised. One needs much more time to discuss those issues. I did say that I did not think any amendment could guard against undue bureaucratic interference. I doubt whether such interference is legally definable. To that extent, the amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, and myself is intended as a marker. It could be said that it does not advance the cause one iota; but does it follow from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that the phrase in Clause 1 of the Bill which lays down that the national curriculum should promote,
"the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils",
has a legal definition? Does it advance the matter? I think it is a marker.
In any event, I should like to test the opinion of the House. I do not wish to withdraw my amendment.
10.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 391A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 69.

DIVISION NO. 5

CONTENTS

Adrian, L. [Teller.]

Kirkwood, L.

Airedale, L.

McCarthy, L.

Alport, L.

McNair, L.

Annan, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Ardwick, L.

Monkswell, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Beloff, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Blackstone, B.

Nicol, B.

Blease, L.

Parry, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Bramall, L.

Perth, E.

Briggs, L.

Peston, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Carter, L.

Raglan, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Combermere, V.

Rochester, L.

Dainton, L.

Russell, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Seear, B.

David, B.

Serota, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Swann, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Flowers, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Thurlow, L.

Goodman, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Grey, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grimond, L.

Underhill, L.

Halsbury, E.

Warnock, B.

Hampton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

White, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jay, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Arran, E.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Auckland, L.

Greenway, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gridley, L.

Belstead, L.

Hanson, L.

Blatch, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harvington, L.

Butterworth, L.

Henley, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Hives, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hood, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hooper, B.

Carnock, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Coleraine, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cowley, E.

Long, V.

Cox, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Craigavon, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Craigmyle, L.

Mersey, V.

Crathorne, L.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dundee, E.

Eccles, V.

Renton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Rochdale, V.

Ferrers, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Forester, L.

Sandford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

1409

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Trafford, L.

Strange, B.

Trumpington, B.

Swinfen, L.

Ullswater, V.

Swinton, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Torrington, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond moved Amendment No. 392:
Page 120, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) Within two years of its establishment, the Council shall report to the Secretary of State upon new methods of funding, in particular—

(a)the endowment from the Exchequer of universities and colleges with capital sums; and

(b)an increase in grants to students to enable them to meet a higher proportion of the expenses of their education from fees.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to increase the freedom of the universities. That may not seem to be its purpose, but it is. Anyone who has listened to our debates this evening must have gathered that there is considerable anxiety not only about the amount of funding that universities now receive, but about the method of funding. There is also anxiety that as the Government control the purse strings, they may simply bring pressure to bear, either directly or through the UFC.
All I am suggesting is that as we are setting up the UFC, whatever one may think of it, we might ask it to look at new methods, if not of wholly financing universities, at least of contributing to them. I am not asking the Government to put forward any particular idea at the moment. The matter is obviously of concern. No doubt as the UFC will acquire considerable knowledge, it might be asked to report on new methods of financing. I mention two methods. One is that endowments should be given to the universities. There is no doubt that colleges which have endowments are in a much stronger position than the universities and colleges that do not have them. I shall quote in support a paragraph from Diamonds into Glass by Professor Kedourie, a man I am afraid who I do not know. I quote that because it is published by the Centre for Policy Studies. Although it must not be taken necessarily to agree with everything that he says, presumably his views are not wholly incompatible with the Government's. He states:
"It is obvious that to function properly, to keep up and improve their fabric and facilities universities need more than current income to cover current expenditure. Universities need a capital endowment".
He goes on to speak of the discounted value of, let us say, 10 to 15 years of subventions.
I thought that it would be wise to use some of the oil revenues to endow universities and colleges of education generally. I emphasise that I do not suggest that that should be their sole source of income. It would give them a cushion and some latitude which would greatly add to their independence.
My second suggestion is that fees should contribute a greater part of a university's income. I wish to cover myself against any misunderstanding. I am not suggesting that students' parents should be forced to contribute further, but that the Government should make it possible by subventions to students for them to pay a greater part of the cost of their education. This has been constantly suggested, and the Robbins Committee regretted that such a small part of the income of the universities came from fees. Again, I do not suggest for one
1412
moment that that covers even a major part of their expenditure; but it might be worth looking at.
Perhaps I may finish by saying that I propose all this against the background of my deep belief not only in the first-rate teaching and research ability of the universities, but in their ability to run their own affairs. I see no reason to suppose that they are incapable of running their own financial affairs. If one contrasts them with, say, the Ministry of Defence, one must be thankful that universities are far more capable of handling finance than some parts of the Government. I think that if they were given more control over their own sources of finance, it would be of benefit not only to education but to efficiency. Therefore, while I do not say that the suggestions put forward here are necessarily the right ones or the only ones, it might be possible to look at these and ask the Universities Funding Council also to do so. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Grimond. There are questions here which will need a good deal of serious thought. I do not know at the moment whether I am entirely persuaded by the case for going over to fees. I am certain that it needs investigation. I also think that if universities are to be asked to cut their costs, they need more control over the arrangement of their own costs than they can have at present, with the reservation that no system of re-organisation can make two plus two equal five.
However, I have learnt in the case of my own college, University College London, that the amount of control we have over our own budget is extremely limited. In these circumstances, the cutting of costs can be extremely difficult. One can imagine the situation of a business which is facing a deficit. It can neither increase its sales nor increase its prices. In those circumstances, it is not quite clear what it should do. That analogy is exact as far as such an analogy could be.
I look at what an American university does when it faces a deficit. It immediately thinks of adjusting its student intake. Either it takes more students so that it increases its income and can cover what it sees as necessary costs, or it reduces its intake, thereby reducing the area of its operations and bringing costs down to a level which it can then afford to meet.
Because our student intake is fixed, not only in gross numbers but also in terms of how many we shall take in each department, down to the nearest person, we cannot do this. Reductions in staffing inevitably have to be limited because the area over which we can teach is limited. Our knowledge is not infinite. There are many more points which I could make, but the general theme seems to me to emerge very clearly. It is very difficult to put your own house in order if you are not allowed to send for the builder.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the purpose of the Universities Funding Council is to seek fairly to fund the universities. This amendment would appear to put upon that council a distracting obligation to

1413
consider new methods of funding. It may be that the Universities Funding Council will wish to suggest changes in the methods of funding, but it does not seem appropriate to require them to do so, let alone require them to do so in relation to particular methods of funding within a particular time, as this amendment proposes.
There is always room for theoretical debate about different flows of money in support of higher education provision. I know that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has set up a working party to consider these issues. No doubt that would be a very appropriate body to look at them. But to impose on the statutory framework for funding universities this kind of obligation would, in my submission to your Lordships, be inappropriate. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, on consideration, may feel able not to press this amendment.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Far be it from me to impose any extra burdens on any part of the academic world which already groans under conditions of every kind. It seems to me that the Universities Funding Council will have learnt a lot about this question of funding universities and is bound to have come to some views on the matter.
However, on the undertaking that this matter is being considered and that it will be in the mind of the Government to look very carefully at whatever the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals puts forward, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Adrian Lord Adrian moved Amendment No. 392A:
Page 120, line 32, at end insert—
("(6A) In exercising their functions in relation to the provision of financial support for activities eligible for funding under this section the Council shall have regard to the desirability of not discouraging any university in respect of which payments are made under subsection (6) above from maintaining or developing its funding from other sources.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 404D. In Committee I moved an amendment which aimed to prevent the Universities Funding Council removing funding from a university on the grounds that that university had raised funds from private sources. I attempted then to express, on the face of the Bill, the stated intention in this matter of the Secretary of State.
I used two arguments. The first was that to do so
would discourage universities from trying to raise those funds from private sources, and, secondly, that those private sources would likewise be discouraged from providing funds. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor produced reasons why the amendment, as I moved it, was inadequate. However, I was extremely grateful for the support that the intention of my amendment attracted from all sides of the Chamber. I am indeed very grateful for the agreement reached in correspondence with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and with the
1414
noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on the wording of the present amendment and for their encouragement to move it on Report.
I believe that these two amendments achieve the result which I had hoped to achieve with my original amendment in Committee. At the suggestion of the Government, I shall also move an equivalent amendment for the polytechnics—Amendment No. 404D. I am extremely glad to do that. After the support which I received in Committee from all sides of the Chamber, for which, as I have said, I am most grateful, I believe that I need not say more at this stage, but I hope that these two amendments will commend themselves both to the Government and to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: My Lords, in Committee I supported an amendment designed to achieve the same result as the present amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has moved and the amendment that he has coupled with it which applies to polytechnics. I was not absolutely clear why my noble and learned friend was unable to accept in principle these amendments and, if necessary, bring back a government amendment to meet these points.
It seems to me that it is the intention of the Government and of universities—indeed, I know it is— and of polytechnics to raise large sums of money on their own account. For precisely the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, gave, it is very important to have an amendment such as this on the face of the Bill. I hope very much, from what the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has said, that in correspondence the Government have indicated that they would support amendments such as this one. They are very important for carrying out the policies that we all wish to see.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too wish to support this amendment. I did not speak on the matter in Committee. I concede that there is something a little unusual in that we very rarely legislate in such a way as to say that something shall not be discouraged. But in the circumstances of this case I think that it is the right phraseology, strange as it may seem. We know that our universities have been built up since the earliest times through the generosity either of individuals or, as is more likely these days, of companies and various institutions. It would be a great tragedy to do anything which would prevent that money from coming forward.
Perhaps one of the most recent and famous examples is the establishment of Robinson College, Cambridge, which was achieved entirely by private funding. I hope that my noble and learned friend will bear in mind that there is near unanimity about the principle of the amendment. I hope that he will be sympathetic towards it.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I also support the amendment. It is in line with the Government's general philosophy of trying to assist in the creation of independent sources of power which will be able to criticise the Government and to be sceptical about their policies. The amendment has been put in extremely modest terms, as my noble

1415
friend Lord Renton has said. The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, raised the matter on a previous occasion. I believe that the House will be in sympathy with the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, moved an amendment in Committee which was designed to effect the same purpose as the present amendment, I indicated that the Government agreed with the principle. However, there were difficulties with the way the objective was to be achieved. The present method has resolved the difficulties and I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Adrian and Lord Swann, for taking the trouble to change the line of the amendment, as it were, to achieve the same results in a manner which is acceptable to the Government. I have great pleasure in commending to the House Amendments Nos. 392A and 404D. Perhaps I may say, to show that I am generous in defeat as well as in victory, that it gives me particular pleasure that the amendment is associated with the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swann.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that very kind agreement to the amendment. I also thank all noble Lords who have supported it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 393 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 394:
Page 120, line 39, at end insert ("and to present to Parliament an annual survey of its own activities, and a triennial report on University development").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 394 gives effect to a proposal of the Croham Committee that the Universities Funding Council should make an annual report to Parliament and present a triennial review of university development. I hope that I shall hear, before I am urged (as I am almost sure I shall be) to withdraw my amendment, why the Government did not see fit to adopt that proposal.
When these issues were debated in Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the vice-chancellors had not asked for such provision and they were quite happy with the ability to give private advice. I accept that. However, I do not move the amendment for the benefit of the vice-chancellors; I move it for the benefit of Parliament. Parliaments wish to participate not only in the ouput but also in the input in the debate which helps to contribute to the formation of policy. There are some fairly large issues coming up as regards university funding over the next few years, to some of which my noble friend Lord Grimond has alluded briefly. I shall not detain the House by commenting on them at great length.
When I moved a similar amendment in Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated, at col. 159 of the Official Report of 16th May 1988:
"To require anything more than this"—
"this" being the presentation of the Universities Funding Council accounts—
1416
"seems at best superfluous and at worst the sort of time-wasting distraction that none of us would like to see".
That, as an attitude to Parliament, strikes me as the Executive voice par excellence. Indeed, they are words Charles I might have spoken. I know that in the heat of the night one sometimes says slightly more than one means. In fact I think on that night I did so myself, and I regret it. So I hope that now we might receive a slightly more sympathetic answer. I am particularly attracted by the proposal for a triennial review of university development, which will enable rather more discussion of the big issues than we have had so far.
This is a responsible House. We are a body of people mature enough to be trusted with this information. We have heard some strong expressions of feeling from the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, about the position of Parliament as it appears to be emerging. I happen to be slightly more optimistic than the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. If I may paraphrase Professor Parkinson, I think that at this moment it is just possible the British Parliament is still an important body.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in speaking briefly in support of this amendment, I am bound to say that I wish there was no need to have such an amendment. I find it almost inconceivable that this body would not produce an annual report on its activities. I should have thought any sensible body would do precisely what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has said. Indeed, as I go into the Printed Paper Office every day and see with despair the vast number of glossy annual reports from all sorts of bodies, I feel most of them are a complete waste of money—and frequently public money. I am certainly not someone who thinks that the more reports there are the better; but in this case I feel that everything the noble Earl has to say is eminently sensible. I remain quite mystified as to why the Government cannot say, "You do not need an amendment like this: it is perfectly obvious that this is what will happen. It is perfectly obvious that Parliament will wish to have such material in order from time to time to debate university developments". I dearly wish that we did not need even to consider such an amendment as this; however, I strongly support it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to make it clear at the outset that anything I said on a previous occasion was not intended in any way to be disrespectful to Parliament or to indicate a desire to follow Charles I. In the provision I concentrated on then (paragraph 16 of Schedule 6 to the Bill) there is a requirement on the Universities Funding Council to provide annual statements of account, and reports on them by the Comptroller and Auditor General are to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
I argued then that this fulfils more than adequately the legitimate desire of Parliament to be reassured that the funds voted to the council are used for the intended purposes. It is actually a funding council, and the accounts of what it funds will constitute the basic information about what it is doing. I continue to hold that belief, even at this hour. There will certainly be plenty of other opportunities as well for

1417
Parliament to be made aware of what the Universities Funding Council is doing. Many aspects of what the council does will be published and, in particular, its decisions on the funding of individual universities, which I expect to be announced in much the same way as those of the UGC are now, will be made known as they are announced. Individual Members of this Chamber will be able to ask questions of the Government, or to correspond directly with the council.
I know that several honourable Members of another place have been in recent touch with the chairman of the University Grants Committee on a variety of matters. I am sure that your Lordships also feel free to do that, if you have a point that you want to put to him. Moreover, the Chief Officer of the Universities Funding Council will be designated as accounting officer for the funds at the council's disposal, and can therefore be summoned to give evidence to the Public Accounts Committee of another place.
The advantage of these approaches, which present practice suggests will provide a mass of information, is that they get things into the public arena while they are still reasonably current. Looking at the annual reports presented by other bodies, one's experience is that, when the time comes to consider them, interest has perhaps waned. The reports will have been prepared some considerable time beforehand. We believe that the structure and mode of working of the Universities Funding council will produce plenty of material for consideration as its work is being done. The need for accuracy and completeness means that any annual report takes a little time to assemble.
As I made clear in Committee, the University Grants Committee survey for the academic year 1985–86 was published only towards the end of 1987. We all know how efficient and anxious to get on the UGC is. This was two years after some of the developments that the report described. There were no objections when I suggested that, while one or two noble Lords might have read it, the overwhelming majority perhaps had not read it completely in all its detail. The Government received no feedback from anyone on the report's publication. Neither I nor my right honourable friend the Secretary of State can recall ever receiving a parliamentary Question or a letter arising from such a report. The same point arises on the triennial idea. The general developments of the universities are very much in the public eye as they happen. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the Association of University Teachers are very vigorous bodies which are not slow to draw attention to particular issues when they think it necessary, as their activities in connection with this legislation have amply demonstrated. I have no doubt that they will continue to see that role for themselves; it will not stop when this Bill goes on to the statute book.
In sum, we think that enough has been done in the arrangements already made effectively to give Parliament all the information that it requires at a time that will be suitable for it. I hope that in the circumstances the noble Earl may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I confess that that answer gives me profound disappointment. In effect, it is the same answer that I received in Committee, which is an answer to something rather different from the amendment that I moved. I was not expecting that there would be any problem about the Universities Funding Council's annual accounts. I am aware that that is well taken care of.
I was concerned with the informing of Parliament on major issues of university policy. I am well aware that, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, outside bodies and outside individuals regularly make representations to this House. Those representations are of course ex parte. It has been known for noble Lords to place rather less value on them for that reason than perhaps they should.
There is some value in having reports from authoritative bodies that enable us to grasp and consider some of the real issues. There is in particular a profound difference of view between the Government and the universities about whether it is possible to have this many universities for this much money. That is a question on which I should have wished Parliament to be able to make up its own mind.
We have here, as has already been said tonight, a question of trust. Trust inevitably is approached in symbols. Like the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swann, this could have been the symbol which would have contributed to the restoration of trust. However, I recognise that trust cannot be won in the Division Lobbies. For that reason alone, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 395, 396 and 397 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 397A:
Leave out Clause 123.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have been asking questions about the purposes of Clause 123 since Second Reading. Before any other noble Lord raises the matter, I have been looking at the Standing Orders. I read there that it is not proper at this stage to move the deletion of a clause simply in order to initiate a general debate, and I am not doing so. I understand that it is proper to do so in order to pursue an undertaking in Committee or in a genuine desire to leave out the clause. Which of those alternatives is applicable I hope to discover.
In Committee the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave on the whole a very reassuring answer on this matter. I have read it a great many times. In effect he argued that we are dealing only with the need to set up a statutory body. I should like to know why that change was of such great importance. I should also like to know precisely from what disadvantages the Government were suffering by the lack of a statutory body, especially when I read that answer beside the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who on 21st June said in this House that,
"when it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change." [Official Report, 21/6/88; col. 617.]

1419
In the light of those words I believe the House is entitled to ask why it was quite so necessary to change to a new system of university funding.
In his reply the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor drew a great deal of attention to the large sums of public money disbursed annually to universities. Very shortly afterwards I read a letter in The Times from Sir Philip Goodhart who, I am happy to say, is not his brother's keeper. He suggested that certain appointments which cannot now be afforded could be afforded if there were a new system of funding. It seemed to me suspiciously like the belief that one has come across before: that a reorganisation is financially capable of making two and two make five.
I think there is a regular pattern in the administration of this Government. Many times I have looked at what is happening to the health service for guidance as to what we can expect next for the universities. We see first the belief that there is waste. Then, when there is a cry to cut the amount of money available, we see confusion and a declining service. Then comes the proposal for reorganisation and with that the belief that reorganisation is capable of making things cost less than they do. That is the belief that I should be glad to be assured is not the basis for setting up the Universities Funding Council. I should be glad to be told that this is not an attempt to reduce unit costs, and indeed that there is a recognition that unit costs cannot be cut any further.
I have been looking at the statement made to the AUT council in May 1986 by Mr. George Walden. If I am to agree to withdraw my Motion to leave out this clause, I should like to know that that statement remains government policy. Mr. Walden said:
"The Government is listening very carefully indeed to the growing chorus of voices that is telling us that enough is enough, and that the restrictions on public funding and pay that the universities have experienced in recent years cannot continue without damage—damage not only to the universities directly, but also to their capacity to produce the graduates and the research that the country needs and to continue to contribute to research and scholarship nationally and internationally in the humanities as well as in science and technology.
If that remains government policy and if the setting up of the Universities Funding Council is not intended to supersede it, I shall agree to withdraw this amendment which I now beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor:My Lords, the essential reason for Clause 123—the setting up of the Universities Funding Council—is to put the funding of universities on a satisfactory basis. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, in the Second Reading debate on this Bill said, at col. 1282 of Hansard on 8th April, that the provisions as they now stand constitute,
"a much needed reform of the very unsatisfactory arrangements under which both we"—
that is, the vice-chancellors—
"and the Government increasingly suffer at present."
The situation up until this time has been that very substantial government money—taxpayers' money —has been handed out to universities under
arrangements which have no statutory basis. It is highly important for the reasons that we have been
1420
discussing in the earlier amendments that these arrangements should be statutory and should be subject to parliamentary approval. They are now being submitted for parliamentary approval.
Arrangements which are carried out under statutory powers are affected—I use a neutral word—by the existence of these statutory powers and they must be used in accordance with them. That seems an eminently better situation than a position in which the Secretary of State exercises theoretically unlimited powers to dispose of very large sums of public money—the Public Accounts Committee of another place certainly deals with all matters of handing out public money—without approval by Parliament as a whole, including this House, of the arrangements under which it is disbursed.
It is in order to effect that improvement that Clause 123 has been put in. I hope that the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment on that assurance. The existence and preparation of Clause 123, and its passing into law, has no effect of itself on the sum available. The Bill now contains provisions making it clear that it is the Universities Funding Council that will be responsible for the distribution of the money between the various universities, subject to the very longstop provisions to which I referred earlier.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before I take any decision, perhaps 1 may ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he will reassure me, first, that it is not the objective of the Universities Funding Council further to reduce unit costs; and, secondly, whether he will tell me whether Mr. Walden's statement which I quoted still represents government policy. Within the meaning of Standing Orders it is a question asked for the purposes of elucidation.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I certainly do not think that there is anything in the proposal in Clause 123 which has the effect of changing any government policy. Government policy is determined from time to time in the light of circumstances. Clause 123 is proposed as part of a structure which we feel to be much more satisfactory as a permanent structure for the future.
I do not think that it would be right for me to give any commitment on government policy as it applies to the future. These funding decisions have to be taken from time to time, but Clause 123 as a structure certainly does not make any change.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor able to answer the question about Mr. Walden's statement?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have sought to do so.
Lord Swann: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a question? Is not the need for Clause 123 connected with the recent scandal of the University College of Cardiff where the principal refused to accept the advice of the UGC and therefore made his institution bankrupt?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is no question but that the existence of a structure such as Clause 123 would be of extreme value if a situation of that kind were to recur. But I should not like it to be thought that the sole motivation behind the production of Clause 123 was to assist the noble Baroness to deal with the difficulties that were faced in some parts of the Principality.
Earl Russell: My Lords, that was a very limited and guarded reassurance; but it is all I can expect to get. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 124 [Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council]:
[Amendments Nos. 398 and 399 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 400:
Page 121, line 15, after ("education") insert ("of whom one shall have experience of, and have shown capacity in, higher education in a non-designated PCFC institution").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Lockwood, who regretfully cannot be with us this evening. It concerns an important matter and it enables us to elucidate one or two sentences in Clause 124. I ask my elucidation question first. In subsection (3) between paragraphs (a) and (b) the word "and" appears. It occurred to me to ask whether that means that the people who are appointed have to meet both criteria, which the use of the word "and" would normally mean: that they should have experience etc. and he currently engaged in higher education. Intuitively I feel that the Government cannot mean that both criteria should hold and in logic it should read "or" rather than "and". I ask that question for elucidation.
I shall now emphasise the point of the amendment. I take it that a person with,
"experience of, and to have shown capacity in",
higher education in a non-designated PCFC institution is certainly eligible under these criteria. The point of the amendment is not merely to press the eligibility matter, but to single out an appointment of this kind precisely because of a desire to emphasise the need for the experience in the two types of institution—to have each, as it were, feeding the other. That is the purpose of the amendment and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, on the first question that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked, just reading the clause it seems to me that paragraphs (a) and (b) have to be satisfied in respect of the persons who are to be selected under the first branch. If that is not the intention, I shall certainly see whether we cannot do something about it. That is the way the clause appears to me.
As the noble Lord has explained, the amendment proposes that one of the academic members of the funding council should have experience in the local authority colleges. The council will be a small body and we are anxious to secure the strongest individuals
1422
to serve on it. To maintain this flexibility, we have deliberately avoided including in the Bill any representative places, and for this reason I do not feel able to accept the amendment.
But in any case, the amendment is not necessary to secure that these colleges have a voice. The Government have made it clear that the council will be required to establish a joint consultative committee with the local authority associations to consider issues of common interest, including provision in the local authority colleges. That will give the colleges a direct channel to the council.
The Government also want to appoint to the council someone from the local authorities who can play a leading part in co-ordination between the local education authority and funding council sectors. The intention is certainly that the persons for whom the noble Lord is concerned in the amendment will have a voice in these matters. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. On the elucidation point, I should be obliged if he would pursue the matter because I cannot believe that, for example, a retired person with experience under paragraph (a) would be disqualified under (b); so I really believe that the word "or" is what the Government have in mind. However, I fully accept what the noble and learned Lord has said.
I prefer my substantive amendment but the noble and learned Lord has made a number of reassuring comments which enable me not to proceed. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 401:
Page 121, line 15, after ("education") insert ("of whom at least one shall he nominated by organisations representing the employees at the institution").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, much as I think the amendment is of enormous importance the noble and learned Lord has already said, in arguing the previous amendment, why he will not accept it. I am not a complete idiot in the sense that I can generalise from one argument to another.
It is particularly regrettable that the Government have not seen fit to guarantee a place for the employees of the institution, albeit within the small body that we favour. I believe that in terms of management and morale it is an error. Perhaps I ought to proceed with the amendment in order to give the noble and learned Lord an opportunity to repeat his argument. However, I do not do so with any hope of success. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with his usual acumen the noble Lord has forecast what I had in mind to say. I should be wasting the time of the House if I tried to say in different words what I have said already in relation to other amendments. It is difficult to see why a particular group should be singled out. The idea is not so much to have

1423
particular representatives as a group which will work together. The question is to obtain the best people available with the relevant experience. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that is too brief an answer to this important question.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for the answer. It is not too brief because it fits with the logic of the Government's position, even though it clashes with the logic of my position. I believe that it is a serious error not to take the point that when we are coming to the governance of an institution of this kind there is a special role for the employees. However, I have made my point and the noble and learned Lord has made his. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Peston Lord Peston had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 402:
Page 121, line 15, after ("education") insert ("of whom two shall be appointed on a nomination of the local authority Associations").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I accept the full logic of what the noble and learned Lord has said. In order to save time I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 402 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 403 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 403A and 403B:
Page 121, line 24, at end insert ("; and
(b) making payments in accordance with section (Payments by
Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council in respect of certain expenses in connection with person employed in the provision of higher or further education) of this Act.").
Page 121, line 25, leave out ("Those activities") and insert ("The activities eligible for funding under this section").
The noble and learned Lord said: These amendments have been spoken to with Amendment No. 383A and I ask your Lordships' agreement to move them en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 403C and 403D not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 404:
Page 122, line 6, at end insert—
("(7A) In exercising their functions in relation to the provision of financial support for activities eligible for funding under this section the Council shall have regard (so far as they think it appropriate to do so in the light of any other relevant considerations) to the desirability of maintaining what appears to them to be for the time being an appropriate balance in their support of such activities as between institutions concerned in those activities which are of a denominational character and other institutions so concerned.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment responds to concern from the Churches and voluntary colleges that the Churches' stake in higher education should be recognised in legislation and afforded some measure of protection. The Churches have always pressed for, and governments have resisted, a commitment to funding the Churches' contribution to higher education on the basis of a historic share.
The Government wish to reassure the Churches that proper account will be taken of their interests under the polytechnic councils. It was originally
1424
thought that that could be achieved without the need for legislation. Ministers have already undertaken to see that the councils have a voluntary colleges consultation committee and promise that there will be a representative of the voluntary college interests on the councils. Those measures, however, have not proved sufficient to reassure the Churches and it has become clear that it is necessary for the Government to table an amendment.
I hope that the Government amendment has achieved what it set out to do and I beg to move.
Lord Swann Lord Swann moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 404, Amendment No. 404A:
Line 4, leave out ("(so far as they think it appropriate to do so in the light of any other relevant considerations)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the three amendments which are related to the government amendment is to try to put right a modest case of injustice, as I see it, which can be explained quite briefly. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already referred to the background.
When the Government decided to abolish the NAB, the National Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education, and replace it by the PCFC, the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, they necessarily also had to abolish the Voluntary Sector Consultative Council, a body originally established by the Secretary of State at the instigation of the Church colleges.
At an earlier stage my noble kinsman the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London wrote to the Prime Minister about the Church colleges and received a reply which she made public. That said, among other things:
"The Government attaches great value to the work of the voluntary colleges in teacher training. We have stated our firm commitment to the continuation of this work".
At a later stage the Secretary of State said in another place:
"I wish to reaffirm the Government's support for the Churches' continuing role in higher education through the voluntary colleges. I intend to ensure the PCFC establishes a committee to advise it on issues of direct concern to the voluntary colleges".
Naturally, the Churches welcomed that statement but were dismayed to find that there was no mention of any such matter in the Bill. When they approached the DES they were told that the department was framing its own amendment to meet the point. Your Lordships now have that amendment before you as Amendment No. 404.
As your Lordships will see, its phrasing is hedged about with qualifications and obfuscations and bears very little relation to the forthright statements from the Prime Minister and Secretary of State. Needless to say, the voluntary colleges feel decidedly let down. Having learned the whole story, I believe that they are right to hold that view.
The amendments to the amendment go some little way to dispelling their dismay. They remove the depressingly negative elements of the Government's wording while leaving the sense intact. I can see no possible reason for the Government not accepting them without further ado and thereby in a small way

1425
compensate the colleges for the loss of the BSCC and direct representation on the NAB. I beg to move.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, as I see it, the amendments are in no sense adversarial but rather protective with the object of tidying up the language of the Government's amendment, nor do they seek to introduce inflexibility in terms of that amendment. They explicitly state that the council should have regard to the duty of "maintaining". They impose no duty as such.
However, the amendments try to express the Government's intention in plain English. I believe that your Lordships will share my view that the phraseology of the Government's amendment lacks some of the clarity which Parliament has the right to expect.
Indeed, the amendments cut out phrases that so qualify the council's duty as to render it virtually the exercise of an arbitrary whim, which I am sure is not the intention of the Government, but in terms of the Bill will provide opportunities for future governments. Therefore, I hope that the Government may feel able to accept these amendments which are put forward, as I say, in a positive spirit.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I support this amendment. One cannot do other than describe Amendment No. 404 as a piece of verbose waffle. It does nothing to convey any sense. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, take out totally unnecessary words without changing the meaning. Therefore, I strongly support the amendments to the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the idea that the Government amendment is verbose waffle does not exactly fill me with pleasure. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that is not an accurate description of the amendment. The phrase in brackets in Amendment No. 404,
"so far as they think it appropriate to do so in the light of any other relevant considerations"
points to the need to take account not only of matters about the balance but also other matters that might be relevant to that balance. It is important in the light of practical experience to do that. It would unduly fetter the discretion not to give the right to consider other relevant matters apart from the balance itself in deciding what the balance should be.
I do not see any difficulty in that. It is not an unusual form of expression when one is considering a discretion that has to be exercised in regard to a particular balance or competition when one also wants to take account of matters other than the matters raised purely by the competition itself.
In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment to our amendment, which has been put forward in the light of representations and with some degree of consideration.
Lord Swann: My Lords, verbose waffle or depressing, as I called it, does not matter. I am sad
1426
that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor does not feel able to accept the amendment, but I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment to Amendment No. 404, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 404B and 404C not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 404 agreed to.
Lord Adrian Lord Adrian moved Amendment No. 404D:
Page 122, line 6, at end insert.—
("(7A) In exercising their functions in relation to the provision of financial support for activities eligible for funding under this section the Council shall have regard to the desirability of not discouraging any institution within the PCFC funding sector in respect of which payments are made under subsection (7) above from maintaining or developing its funding from other sources.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 405:
Page 122, line 26, at end insert—
("(9A) for the purposes of subsection (7A) above an institution is an institution of a denominational character if it appears to the Council that either—

(a) a majority of the members of the governing body of the institution are persons appointed to represent the interests of a particular religious denomination; or

(b)all or most of the property held for the purposes of the institution is held upon trusts which provide that, in the event of the discontinuance of the institution, the property concerned shall be held for, or sold and the proceeds of sale applied for, the benefit of a particular religious denomination.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is part of the group of amendments I introduced by Amendment No. 404. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 406 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 406A:
After Clause 124, insert the following new clause:
("Payments by Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council in respect
of certain expenses in connection with persons employed in the
provision of higher or further education.
.—(1) The Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council shall have power to make payments, subject to such terms and conditions as the Council think fit, to—

(a)any local education authority; and

(b)the governing body of any institution designated under section 121 of this Act;

in respect of relevant expenditure incurred or to be incurred by that authority or body of any class or description prescribed for the purposes of this section.
(2) In subsection (1) above "relevant expenditure" means—

(a)in relation to a local education authority, expenditure in making payments to or in respect of persons employed or formerly employed at an institution which provides or (in the case of an institution which has ceased to exist since the employment in question came to an end) formerly provided higher education or further education (or both); and

(b)in relation to the governing body of any institution so designated, expenditure in making payments to or in respect of persons employed or formerly employed at the institution.

The reference in subsection (2)(a) above to higher education or further education (or both) shall be read, in the case of an institution which ceased to exist before the date on which section 112 of this Act comes into force, as a reference to further education

1427
within the meaning of section 41 of the 1944 Act as that section had effect immediately before that date.
(3) Each of the following, that is to say—

(a)a local education authority; and

(b)the governing body of any institution so designated; shall give the Council such information as the Council may require for the purposes of the exercise of their power under subsection (1) above.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 383A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 125 [The Funding Councils: supplementary provisions]:
11.15 p.m.
[Amendment No. 407 not moved].
Lord Winstanley Lord Winstanley moved Amendment No. 408:
Page 123, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall give directions, not later than 1 January 1990, requiring the Funding Councils to support all courses leading to State Registration as a physiotherapist (under the Professions Supplementary to Medicines Act 1960).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Robson of Kiddington, who should in reality have done so, because she has a close association with physiotherapists. who are referred to in this amendment. She has been in close touch with the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy about the amendment. Regrettably she cannot be here, but I am delighted to move it on her behalf. Noble Lords may have noticed that this amendment was tabled at Committee but it was not pursued owing to the constraints of time. We are under no such constraints tonight, as there is plenty of time. Therefore, I have no hesitation in pursuing the matter as briefly as I possibly can.
It is the contention of those who attach their names to this amendment that physiotherapy is increasingly to be viewed as a graduate profession and should be treated as such by the new funding councils and not funded by the National Health Service as at present. I am sure that I do not need to tell noble Lords about the dramatic changes that have taken place in recent years in the profession of physiotherapy. It is no longer simply a matter of massage and heat treatment and a few graduated exercises. Physiotherapy is now a highly advanced technological profession using techniques which are far too complicated to explain at this time of night. I know that many noble Lords have benefited from the services of the profession and I am sure that they will recognise that these are qualities that deserve true professional status.
It seems odd that physiotherapy training should be wholly funded by the National Health Service, which at present bears virtually the whole cost of physiotherapy education. Even courses run by institutions of higher education are charged to the National Health Service on a repayment basis. As the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy points out, not all pysiotherapists practise with the National Health Service. The society's estimate is that between 10 per
1428
cent. and 20 per cent. of physiotherapy activity is outside the National Health Service.
It seems that we should recognise that and change the present situation. Why should this profession be treated differently from the way in which it is treated now? We should recognise that this profession involves about 800 new recruits every year, that the entrance requirements for training are A-levels and that they are not greatly different from those required for university entrance. The courses run for three years with a qualification which is not dissimilar to a degree. Often that qualification enables a student to move to postgraduate studies at university.
Furthermore, as many noble Lords will know, in Scotland and Manchester three-year degree courses are available. As I said, those are paid for indirectly by the National Health Service. One of the disadvantages of that system is the present situation within the National Health Service. There is competition for resources and, necessarily, resources are focused on patient care. I believe there is a tendency for matters such as this to suffer from that kind of battle for scarce funds. Naturally, people believe that resources should be directed towards patient care and therefore they are directed away from physiotherapy education. I believe that that could be harmful.
On a practical note, it is worth saying that there is an increasing involvement of physiotherapists in community care which is not based in hospitals at all, and there is an awareness of how to deal with worsening social problems and not just with the treatment of acute injuries. The transfer of physiotherapy from health to education and the change to looking at it as an educational study would not have any damaging effect upon the National Health Service. It is the view of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and of many in higher education that the future of physiotherapy should be in a multidisciplinary institution. It should be integrated into higher education and the system of funding should reflect that. The effect of the amendment would be that physiotherapy would be taught as a higher education course in higher education establishments. It would be financed just as any other course is financed. Normal academic processes would be employed to determine the award at the end of the course. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, seven professions come within the Professions Suplementary to Medicines Act 1960, of which physiotherapy is one. There are 32 courses in the United Kingdom leading to state registration as a physiotherapist. Of these, 21 are run within the National Health Service, one is provided by an independent establishment and 10 are provided by the education service.
The amendment would place on the funding councils responsibility for funding those courses which are presently within National Health Service institutions. The amendment is in line with a proposal by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, to which the noble Lord referred, that the NHS should relinquish responsibility for these courses and that this provision should be transferred to establishments of further and higher education. The

1429
amendment may presuppose that such a transfer has been agreed, or, at all events, seek to promote agreement to it, and will have taken effect by January 1990. In fact, the proposal is still under consideration and the Government are not ready to announce their decision.
Further, the amendment would place on the funding councils responsibility for funding at least one course provided in the local education authority sector. This would run counter to the policy of the Government, who have recently stated their intention that courses of a professional nature at local education authority institutions should be funded by the LEAs concerned and not by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.
It would normally be inappropriate to distinguish a single profession in primary legislation in the way that this amendment does when other professions are dealt with in the schedule to which I referred. For this and the two further reasons I have given, the Government are unable to support the amendment. As the fundamental matter is still under consideration I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for informing me and the House that this matter is still under consideration and also that the Government have not yet made up their mind. I should not like to do anything at all to force the Government to make up their mind here and now, perhaps in the wrong way. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 409:
After Clause 125, insert the following new clause:
("Inspection of accounts.
. The accounts of—

(a)any university;

(b) any higher education corporation; or

(c)any institution designated under section 121 of this Act as an institution eligible to receive support from funds administered by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council;

shall be open to the inspection of the Comptroller and Auditor General.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides for the Comptroller and Auditor General to have statutory right of access to the accounts of universities and higher education institutions in the PCFC funding sector. He already has access to university accounts under a non-statutory agreement reached in 1967. Like the overall funding arrangements for the universities, this is now placed on a proper footing. He needs a parallel right in relation to institutions on the PCFC funding sector in view of the direct flow to them of money voted by Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Adrian Lord Adrian moved, as a manuscript amendment to Amendment No. 409, Amendment No. 409ZA:
In paragraph (a), leave out ("university") and insert ("any institution receiving funding from the Universities Funding Council").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move this manuscript amendment I must apologise to the House. I move this manuscript amendment because I learnt only a day or two ago that the Third Reading of the Bill is to be on Tuesday and unfortunately I shall be unable to be here on that day. I therefore took the rather bold course of moving this manuscript amendment.
In the amendment I seek to express the intention that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have access to the accounts of institutions which receive money from the UFC. Perhaps I should have said that the amendment replaces the word "university" in paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 409 with the phrase,
"institution receiving funding from the Universities Funding Council".
The problem arises because paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 409 goes well beyond that. "Any university"—which is the phrase that is used—includes the University of Buckingham and the Open University, neither of which, I believe, receives funding from the Universities Funding Council or will do so when that funding is set up. Further, by the operation of Clause 208(1) the Bill includes the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, which receive no funding from the UGC at present—either directly or indirectly—and presumably, therefore, will receive none in the future from the Universities Funding Council. They are separately chartered and financially autonomous bodies within the universities of Oxford and Cambridge.
At this point, noble Lords will realise that I must declare an interest as a Master of a Cambridge college. That means that I am aware of how the colleges at Oxford and Cambridge are financed. A college at Cambridge does not receive money from the university, unlike university colleges and colleges in the federal University of London. However, it receives fees from local authorities—paid on behalf
of individual students—and room rents and also charges students for meals out of their maintenance grants. A college also has private endowments.
A college receives no money directly from the UGC or through the university, or directly from the DES. Under the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Acts dating from 1923, the college accounts are published but the books and the accounts—other than those published—are not at the moment inspected by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Our college affairs are not, therefore, subject to the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee. Amendment No. 409 as it stands would bring the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, as well as those of Buckingham and the Open University, within the view of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.
I am aware that it is the Government's intention to review the arrangements for funding colleges at Oxford and Cambridge and that after appropriate and full consultation, it may indeed be that the Universities Funding Council will be involved in their funding. If the Universities Funding Council were to become involved in funding colleges, the amendment tabled in my name, Amendment No. 409ZA, would

1431
automatically mean that the Comptroller and Auditor General would gain access to the accounts of a college—and, of course, appropriate scrutiny would then operate.
However, until such a review has taken place, I have heard no arguments for extending the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General into the affairs of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge. I believe that it would be arbitrary and potentially oppressive to make so sweeping a change in the last stages of the Bill, without consultation and without an opportunity for this House to discuss the arguments for or against it.
Therefore, if it is not the Government's intention that the Comptroller and Auditor General should inspect college accounts, I plead with them to accept the spirit of the amendment tabled in my name and to give some indication that they will come back on Third Reading with an amendment of their own. I am aware that the precise form of the amendment may not be faultless. In particular it may be that it should have said,
"receiving funding directly, or indirectly, from the Universities Funding Council",
to deal with the case of the federal University of London. I hope that that point can be dealt with by the Government if they bring the amendment back.
I am grateful to the Minister, with whom I have been in correspondence on this issue, as I believe that she intends to make a statement for the record that it is not the Government's intention that the Comptroller and Auditor General shall inspect the accounts of colleges at Oxford and Cambridge. That is a comfort. To have a clause which says what the Government mean would be much more of a comfort, because we all too often hear the argument that we should not mind giving sweeping powers to the Government as they will not use them. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that earlier this year I spent the best part of a month concerning the consideration of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill in which Trinity College, Cambridge, was acting as a major entrepreneur for that astonishing enterprise. It was acting as the main landlord and compensating for the use of land industrially by setting up nature reserves.
None of that has anything to do with the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is private enterprise by Trinity College. I enter a strong plea that the view of my noble friend Lord Adrian should receive a sympathetic hearing.
Lord Goodman: My Lords, I support the manuscript amendment, which I have not had the opportunity to see. It would be helpful if the Government could make a statement that it is not their intention that individual Oxford and Cambridge colleges should be subjected to this provision. The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, has had some indication to that effect, and if we could have a similar indication it would be useful.
1432
The provision is thoroughly undesirable for a number of reasons. I do not believe that it is understood that the Comptroller and Auditor General operates in a political sense. If he has to consider some sanction he has to bring it before the Public Accounts Committee which is a body the majority of whose members are furnished by the Government and the minority by the Opposition. It is therefore in a sense a political audit. For that reason also, I believe that the provision is thoroughly objectionable. It would be helpful if some statement could be made as to the Government's intention in relation to individual colleges. As the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, said, at this hour protracted discussion is a matter of difficulty. It is a sadness that because of the ludicrous timetable under which the Bill has been operating a provision of this significance and importance cannot be fully discussed. Having made that point, I should welcome some clarification from the Government as to their intentions.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word. The position of the University of Buckingham was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. It receives no money from central government, and indeed is pledged to central government never to ask for money. It seems to me that the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General is to follow the expenditure of money from public funds. That point would be met by the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian.
There are necessary anomalies. The Open University, which was mentioned, is not funded by the council but is of course funded directly by the Department of Education and Science. The same is true of that portion of the work of the Cranfield Institute of Technology which is also directly funded. However, not being styled a university, it appears somehow to escape. I think that as between Buckingham and Cranfield there seems to be a rather odd result from this phraseology which would be met by the manuscript amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I should like to take advantage of academic freedom, which is what most of today's debate has been about. As a fellow of an Oxford college, I disagree with almost everything that I have heard so far. I must accept what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, says. I am not sure that there is any sense in which the University of Buckingham receives public funds. Probably it does not. But it is the purest fallacy to suggest that the colleges of Oxford University, for example, do not receive public funds. The whole CUF lectureship scheme is a way in which the Government assist colleges.
I am very worried about the desire of the old universities to exclude themselves from a process which it appears is to be applied to all other universities. What are they afraid of? Why should they be so concerned at the idea that the Public Accounts Committee will investigate their financial affairs? Why should they come this late at night and want to make of themselves a special case? I find this very suspicious.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, as the Open University has been mentioned, I should make it perfectly plain that, although it does not receive money from the University Grants Committee, it is subject to the Comptroller and Auditor General's scrutiny. Its accounts are so subject, and they are answerable to the Public Accounts Committee.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I have got into the habit of supporting amendments. 1 wish, if 1 may, to achieve a hat trick by supporting all three amendments in this group: the Government Amendment No. 409, Amendment No. 409ZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, and Amendment No. 409A, which I understand is to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn.
The universities have no objection to the audit of their accounts. In fact, there is nothing they would like better than to have their financial position really and truly understood. There is one question to which I think a number of us would like an answer if possible. It is whether these powers apply to private money not derived from public funds. Our understanding, which has been strengthened by some things which have happened this evening, is that the powers do not apply to private money. But, since there is a small element of ambiguity on the point, I think it is in order to ask for a further assurance.
I support Amendment No. 409ZA. I accept that there is no intention at present to interfere with the internal affairs of Oxford and Cambridge colleges. I shall not join issue with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, although I could do so in detail, and doubtless will in the bar later in the night. It is possible that at some future date we might have a government possessed of the ideals once described by Mr. Robert Jackson in his younger days as "Wedgwood Bennthamism". In those circumstances, I think that having the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, on the statute book would be of very considerable use.
Finally, if I am in order in addressing Amendment No. 409A, which is grouped with this one, although it has not yet been moved, this is to direct, in words which I understand are derived from Mr. Crosland, the Secretary of State, that the Comptroller and Auditor General shall not interfere with academic objectives. This raises an issue which is general enough and has been underlying enough of our debates to be worth a minute, even at this time of night.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl will allow the amendment to be moved before he addresses himself to it. I know that his intentions are good, but I shall value his support afterwards.
Lord Annan: My Lords, perhaps I may add my voice to those who think it would not be entirely right for the Comptroller and Auditor General to look into the affairs of the Oxford and Cambridge colleges. It is for this reason. The Comptroller and Auditor General—I am sure I can speak on this with some years of experience—has been entirely just, sensible and judicious in his examination of the affairs of universities. There has never, in my memory, been a
1434
complaint that he has been interfering with academic freedom or doing anything more than seeing that public funds have been and are correctly used. But the criterion is surely, as the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, said, whether an institution receives public funds. If it does, it should be examined, and here is the statutory justification for that.
However, the Oxford and Cambridge colleges do not receive funds. Here the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, is not right. In Oxford it is perfectly true that fellows of colleges receive an additional payment for certain services which they render to the university, but the college does not receive that money.
The same thing applies in Cambridge, where the system is entirely different and the university employs university lecturers, professors and readers. They may be fellows of colleges, but the college does not receive their emoluments. The emoluments which fellows of colleges receive are those connected with teaching, which the college arranges and not the university. It is for those reasons that I very much hope we shall obtain the assurances which we have been promised.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as regards the manuscript amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, the Government accept that amendment in principle. That is to say, the idea is that Amendment No. 409 should apply only to institutions which receive money from the Universities Funding Council. That would of course equally exclude the University of Buckingham.
The wording may not be precisely right because it would be wise to extend the same kind of exclusion to the PCFC institutions too. If the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his manuscript amendment—No. 409ZA—I undertake to bring forward on Third Reading an amendment that we judge to be right, having the effect that he wishes to cover and having a similar effect as regards the PCFC sector.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether this provision applied to private money. The amendment applies to institutions. We have said that we are not really concerned in any way to reduce funding on account of private money, but we are concerned that the Comptroller and Auditor General shall have access to the accounts of institutions which receive funding from the Universities Funding Council. The institutions may also receive private money, but that does not make it inappropriate for the Comptroller and Auditor General to see their accounts. He would not be concerned so much with the application of the private money, but rather with what was done with the public money.
The point does not really arise in that form on this amendment, therefore. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, may feel able to withdraw his manuscript amendment.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, before I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I wish to respond to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and to say that, as regards the University of Cambridge, for which I think I may speak, although not so directly

1435
as a year ago, the university has no hesitation in accepting the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General shall have access to its accounts. The point is very specifically directed towards the colleges. There seemed to be an implication in what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said that it was the universities which were objecting. That is not the case at all.
However, having said that, perhaps I may say how grateful I am to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I welcome his acceptance of the spirit of my amendment. I am glad to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 409, Amendment No. 409A:
At end insert—
("(2) Where an institution or body falls by reason of this section within the scope of Part II of the National Audit Act 1983 (economy, efficiency and effectiveness examinations), the words "policy objectives", of which the merits may not be questioned under sections 6(2) and 7(2) of that Act, include academic objectives and decisions reached on academic grounds.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for my intervention earlier, but I wanted to keep this amendment separate from the former problem. It is not an amendment which in any way questions the propriety of the Comptroller and Auditor General examining the accounts of bodies in higher education in receipt, I should have thought, directly or indirectly, of public funds. On the contrary, it reasserts that view by referring to a matter which comes in, as I understand it, by a side wind, as a result of government Amendment No. 409. That side wind is Part II of the National Audit Act 1983. Under Sections 6 to 8 of that Act, the National Audit Office can carry out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the way that the body has used its resources in discharging its functions—the so-called value for money inquiries. Those sections also state that the National Audit Office is not entitled:
"to question the merits of the policy objectives of any … body in respect of which such an examination is carried out".
The purpose of my amendment is to clarify, in the context of the discussions which we have had on this Bill, the meaning of "policy objectives". It becomes important to do so when the Government have introduced a new clause which brings all the institutions within its purview within the scope of the National Audit Act.
The wording of the amendment is taken from a statement by the Secretary of State for Education on 26th July 1967 at col. 749 of the Official Report of the other place. The Secretary of State, Mr. Crosland, said:
"It is no part of the Comptroller and Auditor General's duty to question policy decisions or decisions reached on academic grounds. His function is to comment and advise on the propriety, regularity and efficiency with which moneys voted by Parliament are administered by those to whom they are entrusted".
The bi-partisan character of the policy which then became, as I understand it, that of successive Administrations was marked by the statements from the Opposition Benches. Sir Edward Boyle stated:
"We … wish to state categorically that the new arrangements"—
that is, the arrangements for audit—
"must not infringe academic freedom".
Mr. Pardoe, speaking for the Liberal Party, made a similar statement at col. 752 of the Official Report of the same date, as did several Back-Benchers, including Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, as he then was, who subscribed to the same formula as a member of the Public Accounts Committee.
It might be asked, if that is so, why we should bother to spell it out. There are two reasons. The first has been illustrated this evening by the worries and fears expressed about the new systems of contract funding. Contract funding could widen the area available for audits of efficiency and effectiveness in quite new ways. Indeed, in the consultative document on accounting issued by the Department of Education and Science in 1987 it was made clear that efficiency could be tested in new ways which might extend into what had previously been understood to be academic policy issues.
The second reason is the concrete case of the National Audit Office. I am not asking for any disavowal of anything which it has done. However, it is a fact that the documents which it produced which were available in 1987 and the audit which it seems to have embarked upon as regards some universities has given rise to considerable worry. The chancellor of Manchester University, Professor Griffith, writing in the admirable Cambridge Review for June, said that he believed that the new types of inquiries could be a direct challenge to the academic role of universities. He stated:
"enforcement of the directives from the DES and the University Funding Council will be more easily effected through accounting and auditing procedures than by any other method".
One does not have to go that far to note the fear which is being expressed. I put it in this way. Unless it is clear that what is being brought by this new clause within the compass of Part II of the 1983 Act—unless it is clear that the objectives which must "not be questioned" in subsections (2) of Sections 6 and 7, that "policy objectives" will include academic decisions, academic policies, decisions reached on academic grounds, to use the words that were agreed to by Mr. Crosland and everybody else in 1967—then there is a worry that the elegant prose added to Clause 182 at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, might be outflanked by the calculators of the accountants. I do not believe that is an excessive fear. I hope that the Government will regard this new subsection as a way of expressing their offer to university circles, whether or not they think the fears are excessive, to go this far and say, "Yes, the bipartisan tradition of value for money inquiries will be maintained". I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to offer my apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, for speaking prematurely to this amendment. It was a result of some misunderstood

1437
conversations in a very busy day. I should like also to apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the fact that I was in the middle of trying to clear up this muddle when he answered a question which I am grateful to him for answering. The answer was not altogether what I expected and I will talk with others before reflecting any further on it.
This amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, raises some issues of importance and some issues which I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been inviting us to address ever since the Second Reading. It raises the issue of the potential conflict between autonomy and accountability. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that surely it cannot seriously be urged that the Government, on the taxpayers' behalf, have no right to determine how those substantial sums are disbursed.
That is not at issue. The noble and learned Lord also said that there is an obvious tension between the public funding of higher education institutions and the need to preserve their essential autonomy. It is that obvious tension that 1 hope we may manage in due course to address in a slightly more constructive manner than between us we have managed to do so far.
First, I should say there is no question at all here about the right to audit public money. That is conceded. Where the question resides, I think, is in areas of academic objectives and about competence. There is an argument that academic judgment in some areas is to be treated like clinical judgment and therefore is only to a limited extent susceptible to useful outside scrutiny. That is why, under the past system to which we have been used, the task of scrutiny has to a large extent been delegated.
I think another, larger issue arises behind this. We have been told many times by the noble and learned Lord, among others, that we are to have a body which is to be concerned with the general principles of academic management. The words "general principles" raise questions about how far they are concerned with what I might describe as a planned economy of learning. This is the area in which I think a considerable number of academic misgivings are concentrated, for many of us think that within the area of academic judgment there is a great deal to be said for free enterprise. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, used to say when I was an undergraduate (I heard him say it many times):
"The gentleman in Whitehall does not always know best".
One often gets the most constructive and creative ideas not from people who are concerned with making plans—I may say that every forecast based on manpower planning that I can remember in my lifetime has been wrong—but from people right at the beginning of their careers, postgraduates, young people just starting off and perhaps being told, as I can remember being told, "You seem to be working on a very boring subject". That illustrates the kind of dangers that 1 see in a planned economy of learning. In asserting that auditors are not competent to question academic objectives, I am also asserting that
1438
within the realm of learning there is a great deal to be said for free enterprise.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the phrase "policy objectives" comes from the National Audit Act 1983, and is intended to apply across a wide range of institutions subject to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The phrase is one of general application. I should have thought that it was at least as precise and capable of application as the phrase proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, as a replacement for the purposes of this type of institution; namely,
"academic objectives and decisions reached on academic grounds".
I am not clear at present exactly what a decision reached on academic grounds is as distinct from a decision that is not reached on such grounds. I think that "academic objectives" may be within the field of "policy objectives", but I find the second phrase more difficult.
I commend to your Lordships the use of the general phrase that Parliament decided upon as a general phrase in the National Audit Act. It encompasses the idea that the Comptroller and Auditor General is not concerned with the policy of the matter; these matters have to be accounted for otherwise. What he has to do is to take these policy decisions as not to be questioned by him and see whether the money at which he is looking has been properly accounted for and spent, assuming that the decisions are correctly taken.
While I understand the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, has raised, I feel that we are on more solid and certain grounds if we continue to use the general phrase in the National Audit Act 1983, which automatically applies to the Comptroller and Auditor General's operations in this field if no amendment of the kind now proposed is passed.
As to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I entirely agree that free enterprise may work well in the universities. This group of amendments is concerned with making sure not only that free enterprise works well, but that public money given to such universities works well also and is properly accounted for. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at any rate for some of what he said. I shall not try to compete with him in terms of precision.
I appreciate that the words "policy objectives" would normally be enough. As to the new situation, it was one that all parties were careful to address before it arose: the party of the noble and learned Lord, my party and the Liberal Party; the three main parties at the time, although I am sure that had the others existed they too would have addressed it. They all said one must be very careful that there was no question of any trespass on academic freedom by way of national audit inquiries. If the noble and learned Lord would consider "academic objectives" as a proper phrase—I understood that he was advancing

1439
towards that notion—perhaps I may put to him very strongly that the Government should consider that as an inclusion in the phrase "policy objectives" before Third Reading. The reason is not merely that the matter which was considered and dealt with in 1967 on a bipartisan basis has been reopened by all the changes in this Bill, but by virtue of the fact that the National Audit Office—and I take it that the National Audit Office does not disagree—is
advancing on to new territory. When the National Audit Office (to read from one of its papers) advances on to "a main issue of inquiry whether the universities have aims or objectives that include developing links with industry", and then follow
some subheadings including "curriculum development for undergraduate teaching", then curriculum development for undergraduate teaching, to which a series of questions are addressed, is essentially, in my submission, an academic issue.
There may be particular questions that are correctly put within the auditing function; but this inquiry goes further than any has ever gone before. I cannot speak with their authority, but I believe that the Vice-Chancellors and Principals would not dissent wholly from that proposition. Certainly the Association of University Teachers would not.
So I say to the noble and learned Lord that there is a new situation and it is a graver threat in practice to relations between the Government and the university world than many of the issues that have been discussed tonight, because it will happen every year. Every time that there is an inquiry and an audit, this issue will fester away at the edges of what is and what is not proper for the National Audit Office to do, unless the Government deal with it in advance with the wisdom of a Mr. Crosland, Sir Edward Boyle, Mr. Pardoe and other predecessors.
I believe that this Government can be so wise. In begging leave to withdraw this amendment, I urge the noble and learned Lord to give it his personal attention and to consider it at third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 409 agreed to.
12 midnight
Lord Perry of Walton Lord Perry of Walton moved Amendment No. 410:
Insert the following new clause:
("Continuing Education Commission
.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that there is adequate provision throughout the nation of continuing education at the higher education level.
(2) The Secretary of State shall appoint a Continuing Education Commission consisting of not less than 13 and not more than 18 members plus a Chairman. Four members shall be nominated by the Universities Funding Council, four by the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council and two by the Open University, and one by the education departments of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. The Secretary of State may appoint up to five further members. The Chairman shall be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Chairman of the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.
(3) The Continuing Education Commission shall be responsible for analysing the needs and demands for continuing education at the higher education level, for drawing up plans for satisfying these
1440
needs and demands, and for recommending to the Secretary of State and to the Funding Councils how best these plans could be implemented.
(4) The Secretary of State shall provide adequate staffing and funding to enable the Continuing Education Commission to fulfil its responsibilities.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to a similar amendment at Committee stage and I shall try to be very brief. Earlier today the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, spoke about the importance of éducation permanente and I do not think that I have heard a single voice raised in this Chamber to challenge it. At all levels of education other than higher education, continuing education is covered in Clause 112 of this Act. I only wish to talk about continuing education at the higher education level, of which there is in fact no mention whatever in the Act. There were one or two amendments which tried to introduce it but they were either not moved or withdrawn.
Some years ago I was invited by the University Grants Committee and the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education to chair a joint committee to keep under review the provision in this country of continuing education at the higher education level. The committee tried very hard to do that. Over those years much has happened and in some universities, colleges and polytechnics there has been a great advance in the provision of continuing education at the higher education level.
The Government have moved in that direction and are sympathetic to it in that they have provided help through the pick-up schemes to both the universities and polytechnics. But the findings over these years have shown that the provision is patchy. It is well done in some institutions and not in others. It depends upon where one lives and on one's occupation whether or not one can obtain access to this kind of continuing education.
It is true that neither the UGC nor the national advisory body, both of which have been extremely busy trying to cope with the problems of initial education, have had the energy, time or money to devote to continuing education.
I do not believe that the position will be any better with the funding councils. Their problems with initial education will be every bit as bad as, if not worse than, the problems have been in the past. I believe that the future of this country industrially depends on the provision of continuing education at the higher education level for all the vocations and skills that the country needs so badly. I believe this to be absolutely vital to the future of the nation.
It is probably true to say that such a measure is even more vital than the provision of more initial education. I do not believe that the amendment I have put forward is a controversial one. It asks only that there should be an advisory commission to advise the Secretary of State and the funding councils as to what should happen. It would replace and make statutory the committee that I have had the privilege of chairing. I believe that it ought to be a statutory committee because unless there is such a statutory committee it is unlikely that the funding councils will have the time and the energy to devote to this problem. That, as I have tried to say, is quite vital.

1441
The amendment could not possibly do any harm. It might do a lot of good. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to add our strong support to this very positive suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Perry, about continuing education. Just as adult education has been neglected—and we spoke about that earlier this afternoon—so continuing education needs a boost. To have a positive statutory committee which was devoted to it would be an enormous help. We know how much the noble Lord, Lord Perry, has done for continuing education with the Open University. I think that it would be very helpful if the House tonight could give its support to this suggestion. I shall not take up the time of the House any longer, but I hope that we shall have strong support for this amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to support the spirit of the amendment. Continuing education is of extreme importance, not least at the higher education level. I am quite sure that the noble Lord is right to highlight the need for strategic thinking about it.
I am not sure that to set up a body in this context with the remit suggested in the amendment is the best way at the higher level. In effect, continuing education at the higher level comprises everything that is not initial education. It is bound to be increasingly a major concern of every higher education institution. It is also bound to be a major concern of both funding councils. Would it not be better if the thinking and the recommendations to the funding councils were through mechanisms set up by the higher education institutions themselves, by special continuing education committees of the funding councils, or a joint committee of both funding councils?
Another possibility might be to have a continuing education body which would have an overview to include further education, now that the definition of further education seems to have been widened by the Government to include adult and continuing education at the lower level. However, I would query the addition of an extra body to the funding councils and the combined thinking of the institutions. That is my only concern. Nevertheless, I am sure that it is absolutely right to highlight this particular need at the higher level in this context.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, when we discussed the matter in Committee, I sought to pay tribute to the noble Lord's strong commitment to continuing education as well as to his great services to it over many years. The Government share this commitment. Continuing education needs to be fostered for its essential role in promoting economic prosperity as well as for its contribution to personal development and social progress. The Government endorsed the importance of adult continuing education in the White Paper Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge,and have taken steps to promote in-career vocational education through the PICKUP programme, to which the noble Lord referred, and in other ways.
1442
The Government do not, however, believe—and this echoes the doubt raised by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour—that it is right either to give the Secretary of State a new duty in respect of continuing education or to establish a new body, such as is proposed in the amendment, for that purpose.
It would be a work of supererogation for the Secretary of State to take on himself an additional duty in respect of continuing education. The 1944 Act, which remains in force, already gives the holder of the office of Secretary of State the duty to promote the education of our people. As is clear from what has been said earlier today, that duty encompasses higher education as much as any other sector. It would be illogical to separate out continuing education, as subsection (1) of the new clause does. We all attach importance to post-graduate studies, medical education, applied research and many other subdivisions of the higher education enterprise. It would be unsuitable for the Secretary of State to have a whole list of specific duties. It would be most unlikely that anyone at the one moment would think of all the appropriate duties. What we have in the 1944 Act, and it has stood the test of time, is the general obligation on the Secretary of State in respect of education as a whole.
I believe that your Lordships will readily see that a provision such as that in subsection (1) would place on the Secretary of State a serious constraint in the exercise of one of his most difficult functions: the determination of priorities in the allocation of public funds. I believe that to make a very definite prescription of this kind in respect of one only of the branches of higher education or particular aspects of higher education, however worthy, would be wrong. Continuing education is and should be an integral part of higher education.
The matter could be looked at in some more detail. The provisions in respect of continuing education follow a wide range and, as I have said, the Government are certainly committed to these. Continuing education also has local connections to some extent; subsection (3) of the proposed new clause recognises that. The Government believe that in its very nature the interests of continuing education are best served by its present diversity and the capacity of institutions, national and local, individually or in combination, to respond to the variety of circumstances that we presently meet without central directive.
In the nature of things, a continuing education commission would either have to centralise—which, as I have argued, would be undesirable—or it would in practice have nothing very definite to do. While sharing strongly the commitment of the noble Lord to the principle of continuing education, the Government do not feel able to support the amendment; but in the light of the commitment which I have expressed, the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, I am glad to know that the Government share my commitment. It is perfectly true that it ought to be the case that continuing education should share a place equal to that of initial education. The hard facts are that,

1443
throughout all the previous years, it has not shared that kind of place. It has been like adult education was said to be earlier today, the poor relation. We as a nation cannot afford to leave it as a poor relation. I do not believe that it ought to be left as a single part of the duties. I believe that it ought to be a separate issue. I believe passionately in this, and I feel I ought to test the temper of the House.
12.15 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 410) shall be agreed to.
Their Lordships divided Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 59.

DIVISION NO. 6

CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Blackstone, B.

Nicol, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Parry, L.

Perry of Walton, L. [Teller.]

Carter L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Peston, L.

Combermere, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

David, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Raglan, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Rochester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Russell, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seear, B.

Flowers, L.

Serota, B.

Gallacher, L.

Sherfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

White, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McCarthy, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

McNair, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hood, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Beloff, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Blyth, L.

Limerick, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Middleton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Munster, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Pender, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Renton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Sandford, L.

Cowley, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cox, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Strange, B.

Crathorne, L.

Swinton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Dundee, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Trafford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trumpington, B.

Greenway, L.

Ullswater, V.

Halsbury, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Harvington, L.

Young, B.

Henley, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Hives, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.22 a.m.
[Amendments Nos. 411 and 412 not moved.]
Clause 127 [Control of disposals of land]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 412A to 412D:
Page 124, line 33, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (9) below,").
Page 124, line 43, leave out ("since") and insert ("after").
Page 125, line 14, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) A disposal shall not be invalid or, in the case of a disposal which consists of a contract, void by reason only that it has been made or entered into in contravention of this section; and (subject to the provisions of section 180 of this Act) a person acquiring land, or entering into a contract to acquire land, from a local education authority shall not be concerned to enquire whether any consent required by this section has been given or complied with.").
Page 125, line 21, at end insert—
("(9) This section does not apply to a disposal falling within subsection (8)(a) above if it is made in pursuance of a contract entered into, or an option granted, on or before 22nd July 1987.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 413 and 424B to 424F.
These, like a number of other amendments we have tabled on Report, are technical or drafting amendments to tidy up the provisions for wrongful disposal of assets which are to transfer from the local authorities under the Bill. These particular provisions apply to the polytechnics and colleges. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 128 [Construction of references to land held for the purposes of an institution]:
The Earl of Arran,The Earl of Arran, moved Amendment No. 413:
Page 125, line 23, at end insert ("of this Act").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 413A:
Page 125, line 25, leave out ("122(2)") and insert ("122(2A)(a)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 129 [Schemes for financing locally funded further and higher education]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 413B:
Page 127, line 5, leave out ("Chapter") and insert ("Part of this Act").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 418ZC, 418ZD and 418E. These government amendments make a minor technical change. Their purpose is to ensure that the interpretation of the term, "designated assisted institution dependent on assistance from an authority", applies not merely to Chapter III of this part of the Bill but to the whole of Part II. To achieve that, it is necessary to transfer the interpretation from Clause 143, where it is now, to Clause 148, and that is what these amendments do.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 130 [Initial preparation and imposition of further and higher education funding schemes]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 414:
Page 127, line 35, leave out ("full-time").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to Clause 130 on the initial preparation and imposition of further and higher education funding schemes. The purpose of the amendment is to probe the extent of the Government's proposals to introduce financial delegation to further education colleges.
Many LEAs have set up institutions that provide post-school education of a vocational, social, physical or recreational nature but they do not provide any full-time vocational education. Included in that description would be many adult education institutions and so on.
Removal of the words "full-time" from Clause 130(4) would require the LEAs to develop funding schemes for these institutions. The purpose of the amendment is to ascertain whether the Government intend to bring these institutions within the framework of financial delegation to further education colleges. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, by this amendment the local education authorities would be required to consult all maintained and substantially assisted institutions of further and higher education, including those adult education centres which provide only part-time education. The Government do not believe that that would be appropriate.
Clause 129 provides that schemes must cover those institutions of further and higher education which provide full-time education. Schemes are not required to cover adult education centres which provide only part-time education. It is therefore logical that the requirement to consult on schemes should be limited to those institutions which are required to be covered by the schemes.
This does not, of course, prevent local education authorities from consulting whoever else they may wish. Indeed, the Government expect, as the department's draft circular of guidance on schemes notes, that local education authorities will wish to consult a great deal more widely than Clause 130 requires and that that will often include adult education centres. But for the purposes of setting the minimum consultation requirement—which is what Clause 130 is designed to do—it is right to limit the requirement to those who are directly affected, leaving the question of wider consultations to the discretion of the local education authorities.
Baroness David: My Lords, as I said, this is a probing amendment and I have had a full explanation from the Minister. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 414A:
Page 128, line 9, leave out from ("in") to ("as") in line II and insert ("the case of that authority").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment ensures that schemes which have to be imposed by the Secretary of State may relate not only to the setting of budgets but to the full range of provisions required in schemes generally. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12.30 a.m.
Clause 132 [Delegation to governing body of management of institution's budget share]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 414B:
Page 129, line 32, leave out ("required to be covered by the scheme in") and insert ("in respect of which financial delegation is required for").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 414C. These amendments concern the arrangements for delegation to colleges which are not within the delegation requirement; that is, those colleges with fewer than 200 full-time equivalent students. As Clause 132 is drafted it requires that local education authorities may delegate to such colleges only those powers which are set out in the authorities' approved schemes. There are only 20 or so colleges which have fewer than 200 full-time equivalent students. The extent to which delegation is appropriate for them will vary from case to case. We believe that this is a matter which is more sensibly left to local education authorities and colleges to settle between them. Government Amendments Nos. 414B and 414C will give local education authorities greater flexibility in this area and I hope that the House will welcome them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 414C:
Page 129, line 38, leave out ("or permitted").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 133 [Further and higher education funding schemes: determination of budget share]:
[Amendment No. 415 not moved.]
Clause 134 [Further and higher education funding schemes: provision for financial delegation]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 415A:
Page 130, line 47, leave out from ("institution") to end of line 49 and insert ("is subject to section 135 of this Act in the case of any institution to which that section applies").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a group of government amendments (Nos. 415A to 415H) which concern the arrangements for the phasing-in of schemes. Though they look rather formidable, the amendments make only two rather technical changes of any substance; namely, that the planning and budget-setting provisions of schemes may be phased in over a period as well as the delegation procedures. Secondly, colleges which are set up while schemes are being phased-in can also receive financial delegation over a period and do not have to get it all at once. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 135 [Initial implementation of delegation requirements under further and higher education funding schemes]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 415B:
Page 131, line 44, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) The delegation requirement under a scheme shall not apply in relation to any institution which comes within the scheme in any financial year falling within the scheme's initial period until a date specified in the scheme.
(1A) A scheme may include provision—

(a) for modifying or excluding the application in relation to any such institution of any of its provisions other than the delegation requirement; and

(b) for modifying the delegation requirement as it applies in relation to any such institution from any date specified under subsection (1) above;

until a date specified in the scheme.
(1B) The provision authorised by subsection (1A)(b) above includes in particular provision limiting the delegation requirement to delegation for such purposes, and in relation to expenditure of such descriptions, as may be specified in the scheme.
(1C) For the purposes of this section, a scheme's initial period (subject to any order made under subsection (3) below) is the period of three years beginning with the date on which the scheme comes into force.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 415C:
Page 132, line 5, after ("(1)") insert ("or (1A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 415D:
Page 132, line 6, leave out ("different purposes and different descriptions of expenditure") and insert ("and different purposes of any modification or exclusion made under subsection (1A) above, and in relation to institutions coming within the scheme in different financial years or at different times within the same financial year;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 415E:
Page 132, line 10, leave out from first ("the") to end of line 12 and insert ("beginning of the financial year next following the end of the scheme's initial period").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 415F:
Page 132, line 15, after ("(1)") insert ("or (1A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 415G:
Page 132, line 17, leave out from ("extend") to ("until") in line 18 and insert ("any scheme's initial period").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 415H:
Page 132, line 19, at end insert—
("(3A) For the purposes of this section, an institution—

(a) comes within a scheme in any financial year if that financial year is the first financial year in which the institution is required to be covered by the scheme; and

(b) comes within the scheme at the beginning of that year if it is then an institution required to be so covered and otherwise at the time within that year when it first becomes such an institution.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 138 [Delegation of powers as to appointment and dismissal of staff]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 415J:
Page 133, line 37, at end insert ("or section (Costs of dismissal, premature retirement or voluntary severance) of this Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 415J to 415L and 416A and 416B concern the allocation of responsibility for determining and meeting any payments arising from the voluntary severance of staff. Parallel amendments were made to the clauses on delegation to schools. Although they are rather lengthy, the purpose of these amendments is quite straightforward, as was explained when the schools amendments were discussed. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, of this group of amendments perhaps the crucial one is Amendment No. 416A; the rest of them seem to pave the way for it. As the noble Baroness said, this is similar to the schools' amendment. She may perhaps remember that I raised questions about that, and the same questions arise here.
The governing bodies of the schools had to take the advice of the chief education officer. The governors do not have to take anybody's advice; they just do it. It seems extraordinary—more extraordinary when there is no advice—that the governing body can determine what payment is to be made by a local education authority and the amount of any such payment, and the local education authority then has to pay it. There is no input into the decision whether that payment should be made, whether it is right or wrong, contrary to law, fair, just or anything else. The authority has to pay it. That is entirely wrong and the local education authorities should have at least an input into whether the payment is right.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as with premature retirement and dismissal costs, the costs arising from voluntary severance would normally be met by the local education authority. However, the local education authority will be able to charge the whole or any part of such costs to the college's budget if it has good reason to do so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 415K and 415L:
Page 133, line 42, leave out from ("to") to first ("of") in line 43 and insert ("costs incurred by the local education authority in respect of the dismissal or premature retirement, or for the purpose of securing the resignation,").
Page 135, line 32, leave out subsection (10).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 416 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 416A:
After Clause 138, insert the following new clause:
("Costs of dismissal premature retirement or voluntary severance.
.—(1) Subject to any provision of the relevant scheme or the articles of government of the institution and subsection (2) below, it shall be for the governing body of any institution to which section 138 of this Act for the time being applies to determine—

(a) whether any payment should be made by the local education authority concerned in respect of the dismissal, or for the purpose of securing the resignation, of any member of the staff of the institution; and

(b) the amount of any such payment.

(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to any payment which the authority are required to make—

(a) by virtue of any contract other than one made in contemplation of the impending dismissal or resignation of the member of staff concerned; or

(b) under any statutory provision.

(3) The local education authority concerned—

(a) shall take such steps as may be required for giving effect to any determination of the governing body of any such institution under subsection (1) above; and

(b) shall not make, or agree to make, any payment to which that subsection applies in respect of the dismissal, or for the purpose of securing the resignation, of any member of the staff of any such institution otherwise than in accordance with any such determination.

(4) Subject to any provision of the relevant scheme or the articles of government of the institution, costs incurred by the local education authority concerned in respect of the dismissal or premature retirement, or for the purpose of securing the resignation, of any member of the staff of any such institution shall not be met from the institution's budget share for any financial year except in so far as the authority have good reason for deducting those costs, or any part of those costs, from that share.
(5) The fact that the authority have a policy precluding dismissal of their employees by reason of redundancy is not to be regarded as a good reason for the purposes of subsection (4) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 139 [Withdrawal of delegated powers for mismanagement, etc.]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 416B:
Page 136, line 48, at end insert ("or section (Costs of dismissal, premature retirement or voluntary severance) of this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 141 [Provision required in instrument and articles of government]:
[Amendments Nos. 417 and 418 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 418ZA:
Page 138, line 38, at end insert—
("(3A) The provision made by the instrument of government by virtue of subsection (3)(a) above shall not be such as to disqualify a member of the governing body for being such a member by reason only of the fact that he becomes, by virtue of that office, a member of a committee or sub-committee of a local authority or local education authority.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to allow those college governors who represent employment interests or who are co-optees to participate in joint local education authority college committees set up by the authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 418ZB:
After Clause 142. insert the following new clause:
("New further and higher education institutions.
.—(1) This section applies to any institution proposed to be established which in the financial year in which it is established will be required to be covered by a scheme.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a) with respect to the government of institutions to which this section applies including in particular provision—

(i) requiring the constitution of temporary governing bodies for such institutions pending the constitution of their governing bodies; and

(ii) with respect to the size and composition of such temporary governing bodies;

(b) applying any of the provisions of this Chapter (including any provision made under section 136) in relation to institutions to which this section applies which have temporary governing bodies constituted in pursuance of any provision made in the regulations by virtue of paragraph (a) above, subject to such modifications as the Secretary of State may think fit.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2)(b) above may in particular include provision—

(a) requiring schemes to cover institutions to which this section applies;

(b) requiring schemes to provide for the delegation to their respective temporary governing bodies of the management of the budget shares of any such institutions which by virtue of any regulations made under paragraph (a) above are required to be covered by the schemes;

(c) authorising the governing bodies of such institutions—

(i) to determine what staff (both full-time and part-time) are or will be required for the purposes of such institutions, and to select all such staff for appointment by the local education authority; and

(ii) to take such steps with respect to any other matters referred to in section 138 of this Act as may be appropriate in preparation for the conduct of such institutions following their establishment; and

(d) prohibiting local education authorities from taking any such steps as are referred to in paragraph (c)(i) or (ii) above which governing bodies are so authorised to take.

(4) Regulations under this section may provide that any scheme shall have effect with such modifications as appear to the Secretary of State to be approprioate in consequence of any provision made in those regulations by virtue of subsection (2) or (3) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 143 [Interpretation of Chapter III and supplementary provisions]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 418ZC and 418ZD:
Page 140, line 22, at end insert ("and").
Page 140, line 27, leave out from ("functions") to end of line 30.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 418ZE:
After Clause 146, insert the following new clause:
("information with respect to educational provision in institutions providing further or higher education.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring every local education authority to publish, in relation to each relevant institution maintained or assisted by the authority, such information with respect to the matters mentioned in subsection (3) below as may be prescribed.
(2) For the purposes of this section, an institution is a relevant institution in relation to a local education authority if it is either—

(a) an institsution providing full-time education which is maintained by that authority in exercise of their further or higher education functions; or

(b) a designated assisted institution providing full-time education which is dependent on assistance from that authority.

(3) The matters referred to in subsection (1) above are—

(a) the educational provision made by the institution for students at the institution; and

(b) the educational achievements of students at the institution (including the results of examinations, tests and other assessments of those students).

(4) The information shall be published in such form and manner and at such times as may be prescribed; and the regulations may provide for a local education authority to make arrangements with the governing body of any relevant institution for the publication by that governing body of the information required to be published in accordance with the regulations in the case of that institution.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this new clause empowers the Secretary of State to require the publication of information about college provision, and in particular, the examination results of students. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 147 [Adjustments of block grant in respect of expenditure on advanced and further education]:
[Amendment No. 418A not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 418AA:
Page 143, line 44, at end insert—
("(3A) Anything done by the Secretary of State before the passing of this Act for the purpose of making in the block grant payable to a local authority in England adjustments under paragraph 5 or 6 of that Schedule in respect of expenditure incurred in the years beginning 1985, 1986 and 1987 by local authorities in England in connection with further education of an advanced character (including the training of teachers) shall be deemed to have been done in accordance with that paragraph.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment 418B not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 418C:
Page 143, line 45, after ("section") insert ("—
"local authority" means a body which is a local authority for the purposes of Part VI of that Act; and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 418D:
Page 143, line 45, leave out ("Part VI of that Act") and insert ("that Part").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 148 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 418E:
Page 144, line 11, after ("education);") insert—
("(bb) references to a designated assisted institution dependent on assistance from a local education authority shall be read in accordance with section 129(7);").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 149 [Abolition of ILEA]:
Lord Alport Lord Alport moved Amendment No. 419:
Page 144, leave out line 27 and insert ("After 30th June 1992, the Secretary of State may by Order in Council, subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament, determine the date on which the following shall cease to exist—").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 420, 421, 422 and 423. The amendments are an attempt to strengthen what I believe to be the weakest part of the Bill, which may well bring discredit on the whole of the Government's plans for educational reform.
The three new clauses proposed in Amendments Nos. 421, 422 and 423 stand on their own and can, if necessary, be moved together later. The object of the amendments is to ensure that the future organisation of education in inner London has the maximum possible degree of acceptability to teachers, parents, school governors, the councils of inner London boroughs and public opinion generally.
It has already been made absolutely clear that before the introduction of Part III in Committee in another place, the Secretary of State and his department had no opportunity to prepare the ground for the revolutionary act of abolishing, after a century, the central education authority for inner London. There had been no consultation, no assessment of comparative costs and no chance to consider the problems posed by the fragmentation of
1452
the specialist and non-statutory services now provided by the ILEA. Further, what is most important, there had been no assessment of what might be the effect on the general standard of primary and secondary education in London as a whole.
The political correspondent of a leading newspaper suggested to me that the Secretary of State had been bounced into the decision by his colleagues in another place, presumably with the connivance of his superiors in the Cabinet. The Secretary of State is an extremely able Minister. He must know as well as we do that the abolition of the central authority for education in inner London—in the way it is now being done—is bound to end up with a host of anomalies, administrative confusion and widespread discontent among local authorities, parents, teachers and students. He must know that everything which goes wrong with London's education in the future will be blamed on his Ministry and on the Conservative Government—not on the incompetence of some borough education department. On the present basis, a great deal will go wrong during the next few years.
The Department of Education and Science had no opportunity to find out whether the abolition would save public funds. One estimate is that the cost of the Education Reform Bill overall will be about £600 million. What will be the cost to inner London? One of the principles of business management is that there are administrative economies in size. Will a dozen or so local education departments cost less than one central authority? What will be the overall consequences for the standards of primary and secondary education in London? We must remember that, simultaneously with their new responsibilities, hastily recruited borough education departments will have to give effect to the massive changes being introduced in the Bill.
The affluent boroughs such as the City of Westminster and a yuppie-based borough such as Wandsworth, helped by experienced officials purloined from the ILEA, may be able to provide a reasonable standard, but it is clear to anyone who has studied the Westminster City plan that it will have serious difficulties. For instance, that plan states:
"The ILEA currently provides a wide range of specialist and non-statutory services. The council recognises that there is a good deal of public concern over the future of these services. However, our intention is to assume responsibility for the education service as a going concern and to make appropriate arrangements for the continuation of all these services".
That may mean anything, and probably means nothing.
But what about the boroughs where the real education problems of London reside—Hackney,
Hammersmith and Islington, for instance? The Secretary of State had no opportunity to know the consequences to the educational standards generally in those boroughs before Part III was inserted into the Bill. He cannot know now, because most of the boroughs are awaiting the Royal Assent before formulating their plans.
The amendments are designed to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to do what he would have wished to before making the vitally important change of policy and what any experienced business man would have done before radically changing the structure of his company—that is, to make a careful

1453
assessment of the financial consequences of his plan and the effect on the quality of his product.
So far from being a wrecking amendment, this amendment, like those associated with it, provides a lifeboat for the Secretary of State. They do nothing to prevent the eventual abolition of the ILEA; they do nothing to frustrate the Government's policy; they give the Secretary of State the power to do what I am absolutely sure he would have wished to do if he had not been bounced into this hasty decision.
It was argued in Committee that delay would prolong the uncertainty now facing London education. The fact is, as anyone who has been in touch with head teachers and others in London knows, that extreme uncertainty now exists among teaching staff, parents, governors and local councils. That uncertainty will continue long after 1990, longer than the delay of a couple of years that these amendments would entail if a planned transfer of responsibility existed.
What I believe is constitutionally important is that, if the Secretary of State issues an order abolishing the ILEA after June 1992, as he will have power to do under the amendment, the new Government will have a new mandate consequent upon a general election. With that mandate, and as a result of full consultation, expert independent advice and a carefully thought-out plan, the Secretary of State will be able, if he wishes to do so, to abolish the central education authority for inner London with full confidence as to the integrity and acceptability of the consequences. What I suggest is most important is that he will have the power, under Amendment No. 423, to make any appropriate amendments or additions to the Bill by Order in Council.
I believe that these amendments are in the interests of any Secretary of State of any party which may have the responsibilities of government during the next 10 years and perhaps a good deal longer. But what 1 believe even more is that they will contribute to ensure that the 300,000 children in London, for whom state education is the gateway to their expectations in later years, and the many thousands of adult students, for whom further education provides the essential and sometimes the only chance of enriching their quality of life, all alike will benefit from these amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 419.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, in robustly resisting these amendments, perhaps I may briefly highlight three kinds of arguments which I think prove convincingly the case for the necessary and timely abolition of ILEA. In so doing I shall highlight some of the evidence which was not made available during Committee stage. The arguments relate to profligacy, inefficiency, and politicisation.
On profligacy, much play was made at Committee stage of the reason why ILEA needs such generous funding of 50 per cent. above the national average for pupils elsewhere in the country. No mention was made of frequent reports by Her Majesty's inspectorate over the years, who point to the very high levels of funding. In 1980, Her Majesty's inspectors said that funding was generous to a fault, with lavish over-provision and waste. There was expensive equipment unused for long periods and in
1454
1988 levels of staffing and resources were always generous, sometimes to excess.
However, perhaps one of the most telling examples of real profligacy refers to the current situation with regard to teachers above authorised numbers. These refer to the number of surplus teachers in secondary schools which are over and above the generous provision which has already been conceded. In last year's report, the figures for 1987–88 referred to 1,345 such surplus teachers, costing over £19 million; 80 per cent. of schools had such surplus teachers, one had 40, three had 30, five had 20. Even worse, these teachers often refused to cover for each other or to move to fill vacancies in other schools. The report points to 70 vacancies in shortage subject areas, important areas such as maths and science, craft design and technology; and 83 surplus teachers available and qualified in those subjects who would not move. How wasteful and inefficient can a system get?
Secondly, despite such generous resourcing, the results of secondary schools in ILEA are very disturbing at the school-leaving age. Whereas children arrive at secondary schools from primary schools performing at roughly the national average, by the time they leave secondary schools, their performance in terms of formal examinations is about 30 per cent. below the national average. In the discussion at Committee stage, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to results which had been adjusted to take account statistically of social factors. But even when we make allowance for those adjustments, ILEA does not perform as well as other major inner city areas such as Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. So despite the lavish funding, it does not produce good results for the pupils who are in many of its schools.
The third area, very briefly, is one which was not really touched on during Committee stage. That is the very serious one of politicisation, and particularly politicisation of the curriculum. Much of this developed, one might point out, while I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was deputy education officer at ILEA. During those years, ILEA's commitment to influence the entire curriculum to reflect its ideological position in areas such as anti-racism, anti-sexism and anti-classism manifested itself in developments such as anti-racist maths and chemistry.
However those rather more extreme versions were really just the tip of an iceberg of sustained pressures on schools and staff to adapt their teaching to accommodate ideological priorities. One father to whom I was speaking recently, who has a son in an ILEA comprehensive school, described how during one term recently there were just three subjects in history studied, all taken entirely out of context, but to illustrate the themes of classism, racism and sexism: the peasants' revolt, the burning of witches and slavery. Those subjects were taken quite out of context, but taught from an ideological point of view. It is not surprising that there is under-achievement in educational terms when ideology takes precedence over academic criteria. One of the most important aspects is the pressure that this ideological position has put on staff. Ken Brooker the general secretary of the inner London branch of the National Association of Head Teachers, has said:

1455
"There are a tremendous number of head teachers leaving the profession. The job has become almost impossible. Their powers of management have been eroded by County Hall. They are continually harassed by threats of tribunals over allegations of racism, sexism and so on".
I repeat that I did not say that. It was Ken Brooker the general secretary of the inner London branch of NAHT. I shall not prolong the discussion by cataloguing other indictments of ILEA. Much other evidence was given in Committee. Of course there are some good schools and I should be the first to recognise and commend those schools. But overall ILEA can no longer be justified. I hope that the amendments will be roundly defeated.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, not having been able to be present in Committee on the Bill, I wish to say that I still remain profoundly concerned about the proposals for, and the timing of, the abolition of ILEA. I fully accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has said. It is easy to make a great attack on ILEA. It is undoubtedly true that ILEA is far more expensive than many, or perhaps all other education authorities. I am sure it has rightly at times been accused of being a profligate authority.
I accept that the standards of results within the secondary schools can also in many areas be open to criticism. However, it is one thing to attack ILEA; it is another to decide whether abolishing ILEA by the beginning of 1990 and requiring the inner London boroughs to take over education in its place will in any way improve the standards which have been criticised. My concern is that the Government's change of heart—for that, clearly, is what it must
have been—during the course of this Bill was somewhat hasty and ill-thought out, as stated in Committee.
I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Alport is right in saying that there is any advantage to be gained in attributing blame. I am more attracted by the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, about joint schemes between the inner London councils. My concern is that I do not think the Government are necessarily giving adequate time or adequate thought to the ability of the smaller boroughs to become, in their own right, individual education authorities.
I have no doubt that some of the inner London boroughs will be able to achieve that end, but the Minister must remember that the department is responsible not only for the education of those who live within Wandsworth, but of those who live within the areas of the other inner London boroughs. I know that as a government we looked at this matter in 1980. I think I am right in saying it was looked at again by my noble friend Lord Joseph in 1983. On both occasions we were not persuaded that standards of education would necessarily be improved by turning education from a single-authority responsibility throughout London to one of separate responsibility for the individual boroughs. I remain concerned in that regard. While I appreciate the argument that delay can cause continuing uncertainty, I think that we are entitled to know from the Government what steps are being taken towards achieving what they believe can be achieved by the individual boroughs.
The House was told, in the reports that I have read of the Committee stage, that development plans were
1456
to be provided by the individual boroughs by February next year. How far advanced are the boroughs in providing the development plans? What power, if any, does the Secretary of State have if he is not satisfied as to the adequacy of the development plans? We must have more explanation from the Government as to how they will safeguard the educational opportunities of those who live in the poorer and smaller boroughs of London before we agree that the ILEA should be abolished at the speed which the Bill proposes.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on many important issues. However, when it comes to London, I feel that she speaks about a very different London from that which I know. I have had the privilege of working in Tower Hamlets since 1952. There is increasing dismay in that borough at the prospect of what the Government have in mind. There is special dismay among the members of the Bengali ethnic community, and among the Somali, Chinese and Vietnamese communities, all of which are well represented in the borough.
To look at the schools that such children attend in the borough and then to speak about a lavish waste of resources seems extraordinary. I do not believe that anyone could go to some of the schools in Tower Hamlets and say that there has been profligate expenditure; rather the opposite. There is a need for more expenditure in order to give anything like equality of opportunity to people whose home circumstances are extremely unfavourable to a decent education in many respects.
There are large numbers of people in Tower Hamlets who view the whole prospect of what is to come with dismay and feel that there has not been any adequate examination of what it will mean in that borough, which is one of the least favoured parts of London, if the Bill is enacted in its present form. Exactly the same considerations apply to many of the poorer boroughs. We have heard about Wandsworth and we know about Kensington and Westminster. The poorer boroughs are concerned that they will not receive even those resources which they have had up to now to spend on education.
It is not simply a question of what the poorer boroughs will receive in terms of money but also what they will receive by way of human resources in administration and teaching. They will lose the benefits of an administration which is, on the whole, skilled, and they will have to build from scratch an entirely or largely new administration which will be untested for many years to come. I am happy to support the amendment. I hope that, on what I believe will be a historic night, the House will see fit to support it.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, hitherto, for a number of reasons which noble Lords will appreciate, I have been most reluctant to get involved in our debates on the problems of education in inner London. However, I have been so depressed that what seems to me to be the almost irrefutable logic against rushing out of a long-established, in certain areas respected and in all areas tried (if not perfect) system into an unknown field, manifestly fraught with enormous problems as yet uncalculated and

1457
uncosted, apparently has not found great favour with your Lordships' House that I felt 1 must make a brief intervention in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and the other related amendments.
The fact that the deep concern, which I know is held by so many in this House, as to the way London education was going under the Bill, was not as fully reflected at the Committee stage as it might have been, was, I am convinced, in no small part due, if it does not sound presumptuous to say so, to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who, in a charming, delightfully unarrogant and reasonable speech, tried (as is so proper in this House) to win the intellectual argument. Indeed, he succeeded to the extent that he must have convinced many open-minded noble Lords that the Government were reasonable men and women who could be trusted in the intervening period to do the right thing and cobble together something which would eventually work.
However, I have to say that, to my mind at any rate, there was in all this more than a hint of a plaintive plea of, "Yes, we may in some areas and with some of London's children, be about to make a mess of things hut, for goodness' sake, let us get on with making a mess of it and—who knows?—before it all has to happen we may have been able to sort it all out, rather than having the thought and threat that we are about to make a mess of it hanging over everyone's head, with all the uncertainty that may bring"— or as the old drill sergeant from my previous incarnation, teaching young NCOs to command men, would have put it, "For Gawd's sake, say something, even if it's only 'Goodbye'."
Indeed, with the figures which seek to expose the incompetence and financially profligate nature of ILEA being highly questionable, to say the least, the removing of uncertainty has been the only solid argument that has not either insulted the intelligence or defied common sense, as opposed to pandering to political motives. This is why such an experienced and able advocate as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, sensibly concentrated at the Committee stage on this aspect, in order to appeal to your Lordships' intelligence.
All other arguments have cried out for deeper consultation—consultation which, I may say, will be quite impossible if, as I believe to be the case, boroughs are charged with having to submit their firm plans to the Department of Education by February or March next year. They have cried out for preserving on a London-wide basis those estimable services to youth, to adult and vocational further education and to children with special needs. In the research and statistical fields and, in general, they have cried out for planning in much slower time the whole outcome, whatever it may be but which may, if there is any justification at all for change, be actually seen to enhance the education of London's children.
This is why I would hope, even at this late hour—late in every sense of the word—that the Government would favourably respond to this clutch of amendments, which reflect these needs. If they cannot do so, I would beseech your Lordships to support one or other of these amendments, as appropriate, which, to a greater or lesser degree try to
1458
ensure that we will not do something now that later the country, and particularly London, may bitterly regret.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that all of us in the House are highly conscious that feelings run very deep on the subject of ILEA. We had this at Committee stage, and it has been repeated again this evening on Report. I am, however, hound to say to my noble friend Lord Alport that his amendment is in effect really one that is almost identical (except on the length of time) to that which was moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, which we discussed at very considerable length at the Committee stage. I do not say that it is identical: but it is very similar, and, in effect, it is a delaying amendment.
When we discussed this matter previously, delay was the real problem and difficulty. I think that I quote the noble Lord, Lord Alport, correctly when he said that a great deal would go wrong over the next few years, and it certainly would now if there were delay. It would cause planning blight and good staff would leave. There is no doubt that where boroughs are now taking positive steps, they would all come to a stop because there would he a delay. That would have a very serious effect. I am surprised that the noble Lord should raise this amendment, especially at this time of night, and at this stage of the Bill
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Carlisle, to whose remarks I listened with very great interest, that I think we are all aware that it is necessary to get the new arrangements right. I think that the carefully thought out and measured speech of my noble friend the Leader of the House, Lord Belstead, when he replied to the debate at Committee stage, set out in full the various steps that will be taken, the requirements for development plans, the money that the Government will produce to support the services and the arrangements that will be made for many of the joint services. To imagine that everyone is rushing into something without thinking seriously about it is not the case at all. One needs to look at the material published both by the Government and by those boroughs that have already produced some material. It was, I thought, a rather unfair and out of context quotation of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, about Westminster. I think that the very full publications produced by Wandsworth are very helpful indeed.
I hope very much that the Government will not accept these amendments. I think that once again we shall have delay on a very serious issue which I do not believe for one minute is in the interests of the children of London and future education in the boroughs.
1.15 a.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, it really is cool on the part of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to criticise the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for bringing up this matter at this time. Whose doing is it that the matter is being raised at this time? Who put this whole project into the Bill unexpectedly, breaking up the whole programme and timetable of the Bill, first in another place and then here?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Government!
Lord Stewart of Fulham: It is the Government that are responsible for this situation all the way.
Reference has been made to the fact that this matter of splitting up ILEA has been considered before and rejected. Perhaps I may add one other item to the list. The same thing happened in 1963 when it was the original intention of the Government to break up ILEA. They gave up the idea because of the massive rising of parents and teachers throughout inner London who objected to any such course. What is interesting is that at the present time the one body of people which emphatically has never given its support to breaking up ILEA is the parents—the community to which the Government were anxious to pay such reverence in their preparation of the Bill. Whatever may be said about the conduct of the poll of London parents, when one has made every possible allowance, beyond any doubt it is still perfectly clear that the overwhelming majority of parents with children being educated within ILEA is against the destruction of ILEA. It is being done completely in defiance of that wish.
Now, when we are told that Westminster and perhaps Wandsworth have plans prepared for the future, I ask, how can they have as things now stand? Consider some of the things they will plan for. Westminster by itself cannot arrange for the whole structure of adult education in inner London to be carried on; neither can Wandsworth. That can only be done by the combined operation of the London boroughs acting together, which is the very thing for which no opportunity has been given, for which there is no time and for which these amendments would provide time.
If we in this country felt that we had a bad government, we would consider that the right course to take would be to vote the other way at the next election—not to abolish Parliament. If the people of London think that they have bad government at County Hall, the thing to do is to replace it with someone else. That is what, time and again, they have refused to do. That is why we have this proposal for the abolition of ILEA. We all know that. I wonder why some noble Lords opposite are so mealy mouthed as to avoid this obvious conclusion.
I have received letters from people who are responsible for running schools for children with special needs, some of which are not within the geographical boundaries of ILEA but in Surrey and Sussex. They wish to know what will happen to them. Neither Westminster nor Wandsworth nor any other authority has so far agreed to undertake responsibility for those schools. Indeed, how could they do so? One cannot make arrangements for those schools again without bringing in all the London boroughs to consider the whole problem of education for children with special needs in the inner London area.
As to the complaints of profligacy, it has been pointed out before and it is perfectly clear that everything costs more in London; it always has done, whether one is talking about the police or ambulance service, education or whatever. If one digs out sufficient anecdotes, one can produce some that are to the discredit of ILEA. One can do that with any education authority in the country. One can even consider whether Westminster's handling of the problem of what to do with cemeteries is a
1460
testimonial to its fitness to be entrusted with London education. One can produce these anecdotes. However, one needs something more solid and more complete than that to reach a decision. That is exactly what one does not have. Faced with difficulties owing to the massive racial problem in London the provision of good education has become a gigantic task.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, seemed to object to the fact that one of the things that ILEA endeavoured to do was to combat racism. Does she not realise that in London—which has so many different races coming together, with all the possibilities of their getting on each other's nerves, to put it mildly—it is the obvious duty of any educational authority to make the combating of racism one of the most important parts of its work. That is a responsibility about which many education authorities in the country do not have to worry because they do not have the problem. London has the problem. It has endeavoured to solve it. It deserves better thanks than it receives from some noble Lords and some people elsewhere for what it is doing.
If we look back over the history of London, it has been a shoddy business of repeated attempts to tear the organisation of London education to bits for reasons of political malice. Some Members in another place said that the proof of whether we were anxious about ILEA was whether we would restore it if we came back to power at some future date. One marvels at the ignorant flippancy of that question. When one takes such action one upsets the lives of families of very large numbers of public servants who have to find new jobs. Whatever care is taken in an Act of Parliament to provide for them, there are still very serious personal problems that they have to face. One cannot say casually, "We shall put it all back again when we have the chance." Matters are not rearranged so easily as that. However, I must say that if I had the chance of putting anything back it would not be the old GLC—ILEA as it now is—but the London County Council, and an education authority as it ought to be; a committee of the local authority, not an ad hoc body.
It was a weakness of ILEA that it was an ad hoc body. I believe it makes it difficult for any group of people to handle their financial problems properly if they have to compete with the claims of other services on the public purse. It was not the members of ILEA who turned themselves into an ad hoc body. It was the Government looking for some further way to damage London education. That was what happened: the old LCC was destroyed and in its place grew the Greater London Council, a body at one and the same time too big geographically and too weak in its range of powers. In addition it was an ad hoc education authority, a bad principle, and one that London has had to struggle with ever since.
What will be the final end to this story of maladministration and gerrymandering we do not know. But at least the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is right in urging that there should be a chance to stop and look further before we leap into the abyss.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, may I just correct a misrepresentation, because I was very seriously misrepresented? The noble Lord suggested that I was against attempts to combat racism. I abhor racism

1461
and I should like the record put straight, please, that I was quoting someone else who was speaking on behalf of the National Association of Head Teachers about the pressures put on its members. It was not my own attitude about racism. I should like the record put straight.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, the noble Baroness was producing that quotation from somebody else with a great deal of relish, as all of us who heard her know very well.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. What we are really considering is not the goodness or otherwise of the ILEA; it is the goodness of the education provided for London's children. The importance of ILEA is the extent to which it contributes and can continue to contribute or not to the good quality of London education. That is what it is all about.
We have every reason to be indignant about the way in which this whole matter has been handled. The abolition of the ILEA was not in the manifesto. The ILEA was the creation of this Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has said. There was no question in the manifesto of getting rid of it. When it came to the drafting of the Bill there was no reference to the ILEA and we all know that the abolition of the ILEA was introduced in the House of Commons because two Members of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons decided to introduce this addition to the Bill. This in our view is a very improper way of bringing about so important a change in the educational provision for a very large number of children in London. That is what we are so deeply concerned about.
Of course one can criticise certain aspects of the ILEA, but I do not want at this time of night to get into an argument with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. However, she makes these sweeping assertions. There is one thing she said which I think she will wish on reflection she had not said. That was the not even veiled attack on the professional standard of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, when she was employed by the ILEA. Enough said about that, but I do not think that remark should pass without comment.
We want to see the best possible education in London. How can it make sense to bring about a reorganisation of this kind in such a short period of time? Of course the wealthy boroughs can reorganise their education, but what really will happen to the poorer boroughs which are already heavily in debt and where the schools are already in great difficulties and up against tremendous problems of ethnic minorities, single parent families and so on? if the changes are to take place in such a short period of time we all know what the parents think about it. I do not know what the evidence is against that parents' poll. I know of parents who mortgaged their own houses to pay for that ballot to be undertaken. That was a measure of the determination of some of those parents. Surely it is evidence of the fact that some of them did not believe that the ILEA was doing a bad job.
The noble Lord, Lord Alport, is not asking that the ILEA should be kept in perpetuity. He is asking that
1462
its abolition should be delayed so that a proper inquiry can be undertaken as to what should be done; also, that at another election the matter can properly come before the electorate. That will give time to collect data, to make plans if necessary and to reconsider the whole issue. Surely that is sensible and I hope that the House will support the noble Lord.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I was going to contribute to the debate even at the risk of repeating arguments which I advanced in Committee. Many noble Lords have spoken. Having listened to the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, in particular I should like to associate myself with everything that he has said and what has been said by other noble Lords in favour of these most sensible, unprovocative amendments.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I also do not wish to repeat everything that I said in Committee but I feel that I must respond to some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. That is so particularly because she at least implied that some of the aspects which she most dislikes about the inner London authority have something to do with me. I only wish that during the time when I was one of the deputy education officers and then clerk and director of education I had had as much influence as she implied.
When discussing an issue of this kind, about which people feel most strongly, it is terribly important to try to be dispassionate and to look at the evidence in the way that an objective social scientist would look at it. I found a little regrettable the fact that in her speech the noble Baroness used the evidence most selectively and put forward evidence which is no longer relevant to the issues. I should like to refer to that.
First, she made a good deal of the issue of profligacy. I believe that at a certain period during the ILEA's history it was probably spending rather more than it ought in some areas. I am happy to admit that because I believe that it is important to be objective in circumstances such as these. However, we must look at the present situation in trying to decide whether we need to have totally new policies and a totally new structure for education in inner London.
During this financial year the ILEA is cutting its budget by 12 per cent. Those cuts have been imposed by central government through rate-capping legislation. If the Government wish to continue to impose such cuts they can do so. They do not have to abolish the authority in order to deal with profligacy; they have already dealt with it. That is the first sense in which the evidence being brought to bear by the noble Baroness was not appropriate to the discussion tonight.
The second point she made was that ILEA's standards are far lower than those in other inner city areas. I believe that again that is a selective quotation of the evidence. The ILEA's standards are lower than those of some inner city areas but higher than those of others. That is a balanced expression of the position rather than what I believe was a biased and unbalanced expression as put forward by the noble Baroness.
She went on to say that she thought the ideological position adopted by the ILEA in various spheres was

1463
unacceptable. She mentioned in particular the initiatives which the authority developed over some years in the areas of anti-racism, anti-sexism and class. It is possible that the way in which the ILEA presented its initiatives was not terribly well thought through and not as careful as it should have been. Perhaps at times it put too much pressure on head teachers and expected more of them than they could deliver. I believe that we must take into account the fact that 40 per cent. of children in inner London schools come from the black and Asian community. We must take into account that racism is a fact in inner London and that something needed to be done.
I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, said. I believe that anybody who has spent any time in Tower Hamlets will realise to what extent the Asisan community needs support and protection.
The rather bitter backlash that the authority's policy seems to have evoked, at least in the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, suggests that there is something in what I have said; namely, that the authority did not present its policies in that area as well as it could have done. However, during the course of this Bill we have spent a lot of time talking about the needs of the least able and disadvantaged children. That is something on which the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, has concentrated. The motives of the ILEA in developing its policies were designed to help those children and to improve the standards of education in the inner city by doing so.
I believe that there is some evidence to suggest that standards have gone up. If one looks at trends and examination results within the authority over time, that is the sort of objective evidence about which we should think.
Perhaps I may make one further point. There was a quote from the National Association of Head Teachers which suggested deep resentment of the authority. Again, I believe that the objective evidence would be to look at the recent survey of the views of head teachers in inner London where an enormous majority came out strongly in support of the retention of the ILEA. To go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said, there is great uncertainty among head teachers. However, there is more than great uncertainty. There is deep-seated fear about what the Government have in mind for education in inner London.
1.30 a.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, there have been some very interesting speeches. Perhaps one of the most interesting was the very balanced speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, who has been through all this. He has had the experience of wondering what to do about ILEA and coming down on the side of retaining it. We have all been greatly moved by the letters we have received from parents and teachers in the inner London area. I believe that we are all very distressed about the education of children in inner London because of what is now happening.
I should like to give our full support to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Alport. It seems right that there should be an opportunity for an election and a mandate for the very drastic action
1464
being taken—and being taken in such a hurried manner. I do not want to say any more. It has all been said by my noble friend Lord Stewart. It is very difficult to improve on what he says. I believe that he put the matter extremely well. We strongly support the amendments of the noble Lord.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we spent a considerable time at an earlier stage debating the principle of the Government's proposals for education in inner London. I said at that stage that many of the amendments then before the House would inject delay and uncertainty into a situation which is actually best resolved by swift and determined action. Your Lordships agreed with that assessment, and, like the other place, resoundingly endorsed the Government's proposals. These amendments are very similar to those rejected by your Lordships six weeks ago.
I recognise that like the Government, the mover and supporters of this amendment see the need for and wish for improvements in the quality of education for those in inner London, above all for the children in the secondary schools. But I am rather surprised that they continue to believe that the best way to achieve those improvements is to leave ILEA's future uncertain for another four years, followed perhaps by a further two years during which the authority was being wound up.
Those who have spoken in favour—in particular, perhaps, my noble friend Lord Alport—are rather out of date. They fail to appreciate the determination of the inner London boroughs to make a success of their new education services. Of course they face problems in preparing for their new and important functions. Indeed, the difficulties endemic to education in inner London will not magically disappear on 1st April 1990. Nobody is suggesting that. But the boroughs are setting about their task with enormous seriousness and enthusiasm. These amendments seek to destroy that commitment which has already started.
The Government are enormously encouraged by the boroughs' attitude and we believe that there is every prospect that they are laying the foundations for a thriving and dynamic education service for our capital and, moreover, one which allows full scope for locally diverse approaches without losing the important strengths which have existed in some aspects of ILEA's provision.
The scene is changing rapidly. I should like to outline to your Lordships some of the developments that have taken place since we last debated this subject. I think it will give considerable reassurance. The first, and the most important. is the fact that all the inner London boroughs, and ILEA itself, have accepted your Lordships' decision and expressed their determination to work together in developing the new educational structures for inner London. The Government recognise that, particularly for ILEA, acceptance of the position has not been easy, but we are genuinely grateful for the attitude that is now being taken, and that is reflected in contacts between ILEA and the boroughs and with the DES.
The department's Inner London Unit, to which we referred in Committee, has of course been in discussion and consultation with a number of boroughs for several months now. The unit has now

1465
had preliminary discussions at senior officer level with all the inner London boroughs and these contacts are becoming closer. The unit has in addition begun to work closely with those in ILEA who are involved in planning the transfer of responsibilities, and discussions have been held on a number of important topics. The authority itself has brought the boroughs and the department together to reach decisions on the arrangements to be made over the next two years, and in particular on the priority areas for joint discussion. Therefore, far from not having time to do that, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, suggested, they are already doing it.
Beyond these contacts, which are essentially concerned with planning, I can assure your Lordships that development plans are on course for February of next year, even in the smaller or more reluctant boroughs, but certainly in those that have been referred to this evening—Westminster, Wandsworth and Kensington and Chelsea, which are well on their way.
I had intended to refer to a number of specific areas, including those to which I referred in some detail in Committee. However, a number are also the subject of later amendments. Suffice it to say, therefore, that on adult education, on museums (the Geffrye and Horniman) on music, the residential special schools, co-operation with voluntary bodies and on the careers service we are making considerable progress. I will be happy to give more details on those programmes should any noble Lord so wish.
Amendment No. 421 refers, of course, to consultation with other interests, including teachers, governors and parents. The department's draft guidance to boroughs on development plans makes it clear that in drawing up those plans we expect them to consult groups such as these with a direct interest. Local people, parents and teachers will, therefore, for the first time have an opportunity to influence and shape the structure of the education service in their area, including the provision to be made in most of the categories identified in the amendment.
The Government are committed to that process of consultation and that is why the development plan procedure is as it is. We have deliberately refrained from requiring development plans once published to he set in concrete. The boroughs will be expected to continue consultation on them and will, we expect, wish to modify them in the light of that continuing consultation. We believe that that is the really effective way to involve local people in decision-making about their own education service. I am happy to say that all the boroughs are also committed to that process of consultation.
There is one aspect as regards these amendments that I have not yet touched upon and it relates to the financing of the arrangements proposed. The first thing to emphasise is that in 1990–91 a safety net will operate which will help the boroughs to adjust both to the new system of local government finance and to becoming education authorities. Its effect will be that an inner London borough will be able to spend the same on education as ILEA could have been expected to spend in its area in that year, while raising broadly the same amount from their domestic ratepayers and
1466
community charge payers as they contributed to ILEA before abolition.
Preparatory work for the apportionment of ILEA's spending has begun in consultation with the authority. The calculations will need to take account not only of the attribution of institutions to individual boroughs but also of patterns of movement of pupils across borough boundaries. The safety net and GRE assessment will need to be based on the most accurate possible information about pupil and student numbers by area of residence.
The inner London boroughs will be notified of their GRE need assessments for 1990–91 in the normal way and in due course. The method of assessing GREs under the new system is currently being revised and will he discussed with the local authority associations later in the year. The purpose of the assessments will be to take account of differences in need to spend between authorities so that those with greater needs receive more government support. While the safety net is fully operative in 1990–91, community charge payers in inner London will be safeguarded from the full community charge implications of ILEA's high spending relative to GRE. As it is phased out, spending above or below assessed need will progressively feed through to the community charge payer, as it would have done had ILEA remained in existence.
When inner London boroughs have determined the provision they will take over from ILEA, and have information on the income they can expect from different sources, they will be able to take a view about an appropriate pattern of service. Initially, as the safety net arrangements will recognise, much provision will be inherited with particular ILEA costs and cost structures associated with it. But once boroughs have experience of running the service they will be in a position to judge how it might best be managed over the longer term to be more effective and efficient and to balance the level of service provided with the cost to their community charge payers.
This is an important consideration because 1LEA's spending has been profligate, especially in relation to the results and in comparison with other comparable inner city areas. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for having spoken at length in this way on these amendments. I believed it important to place on the record, as we begin the debate on Part III of the Bill, the fact that energetic progress is now being made. These amendments, I fear, take no account of that fact.
The decision taken by your Lordships on 17th May gave the green light for progress towards the ultimate objective of the improvement of education throughout inner London. I am in no doubt that approval of the present amendments would cause dismay, uncertainty and considerable confusion among those in the boroughs, and in schools and colleges, who are already planning ahead for the new structure from 1990. This would not be to the benefit of those for whom this Bill is intended, the real beneficiaries; namely, the schoolchildren of London.
If these amendments are pressed to a Division, I must once again urge your Lordships to reject them.
Lord Alport: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Young accused me of being responsible for our holding this important debate at this time of night. I shall turn the other cheek to her and say that I do not remember that, when she led the House, we had a similar episode to the one that we are having tonight.
Much as I should like to, I believe that it would be wrong of me to try to reply to all the points that were raised in criticism of these amendments, except to deal with one matter. This amendment is not the same as that of the right reverend Prelate at Committee stage, either in its form or in its purpose; it is entirely different. As I said earlier on, I believe it is one which it is entirely in the interests of the Government to accept.
I hope that your Lordships' House will accept it, in which case it will not be necessary for me to move other than formally the other amendments that are associated with this one. If it is not accepted, then I shall move Amendments Nos. 420 and 421 at a later stage. I think that we should now make a decision on the matter.
1.45 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 419) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 56.

DIVISION NO. 7

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Alport, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Blackstone, B.

Nicol, B.

Bramall, L.

Parry, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Peston, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Combermere, V.

Rochester, L,

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Russell, E.

David, B.

Seear, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Serota, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sherfield, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Flowers, L.

Tordoff, L.

Gallacher, L.

Warnock, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

White, B.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Young of Dartinglon, L.

NOT CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Dundee, E.

Arran, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Beloff, L.

Ferrers, E.

Belstead, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Benson, L.

Greenway, L.

Blatch, B.

Halsbury, E.

Blyth, L.

Harvington, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Henley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hives, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Hood, V.

Butterworth, L.

Hooper, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kimball, L.

Cowley, E.

Limerick, E.

Cox, B.

Long, V. [Teller]

Craigmyle, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Middleton, L.

1468

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Teviot, L.

Munster, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Pender, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Renton, L.

Trafford, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Sandford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Strange, B.

Young, B.

Swinton, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
1.53 a.m.
[Amendment No. 420 not moved.]
Lord Alport Lord Alport moved Amendment No. 421:
After Clause 149, insert the following new clause:
("Consultation on future provision for education etc. presently administered by ILEA.
The Secretary of State shall consult the local authorities, professional teaching organisations, and representatives of school governors and parent associations in the Inner London Education Area with regard to making provision for the future organisation of adult and further education, special schools, museums and cultural activities and the advisory, inspectorate and procurement services at present administered by the ILEA.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now move Amendment No. 421 in association with Amendments Nos. 422 and 423. During the discussion on the last amendment, I outlined my general arguments in favour of giving the Secretary of State time and opportunity to take advice with regard to the future organisation of London's education; and the power to amend and add to the provisions of the Bill by Order in Council if he felt it expedient to do so.
I believe that there would have been great advantages to the Government if the implementation of this part of the Bill had been delayed until 1992. But that is now not to be done. I still hope that advantage will be taken of these three amendments to ensure, first, that proper consultation is undertaken as provided for under Amendment No. 421; and, secondly, that there is independent financial assessment to compare the cost of 13 education departments, as against a single authority and the effect of the fragmented administration on the quality of provision of all forms of education in London, which is dealt with under Amendment No. 422.
With regard to cost, only today the ILEA financial director has warned the boroughs that he calculates that the cost of education will increase considerably after the abolition of the ILEA.
The third matter that I wish to draw to your Lordships' attention is that I believe that the Secretary of State urgently needs power, as is provided in Amendment No. 423, to make amendments or additions to the Bill by Order in Council subject to affirmative approval, when the inevitable anomalies and problems of London's education begin to surface during the following months and years. That that will happen is already blindingly obvious.
The Government have already had to table 43 amendments to Part III, including Amendment No. 423GB, which your Lordships may have noticed, and which, as I understand it, transfers responsibility for services now provided by the ILEA to the London Residuary Body, the administrative dustbin into

1469
which the remains of the GLC were dumped. That expedient is so extraordinary that it illustrates the ludicrous situation into which the Secretary of State has been placed, and the realisation at the 11th hour that some form of central administration is necessary for certain aspects of London's education administration.
It is inconceivable that important services now provided by the ILEA should become the responsibility of such a totally inexperienced, ill-equipped and unelected body as the London Residuary Body which, as I understand it, is likely to exist for only a comparatively short time. What is to happen after it ceases to exist? What will happen to the services it now administers?
If agreeable to your Lordships, the amendments give the Secretary of State a chance to take measures to avoid the serious consequences to the whole structure of inner London education which must flow from the implementation of this part of the Bill in its present form. Over the past 100 years all parties have contributed to the creation of our national education system, and that of London in particular; but during the past 44 years the Conservative Party has had and deserved great public credit as a result of the late Lord Butler's Act. That reputation will be damaged by the inadequacies of this part of the Bill, and I therefore urge my noble colleagues to think carefully before voting to reject the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have already spoken at length and fully answered the points that my noble friend has chosen to raise further. I said at the outset that to create uncertainty for another four years, followed by a further two years, would not help anyone and certainly not the people whom we aim to benefit. I also clearly demonstrated by what I said that thorough consultation is taking place and planning in considerable detail is going along.
The function of the London Residuary Body is to smooth through the transitional phase. I should have thought that my noble friend would have welcomed that because it gives the extra time that he seems so keen on in relation to the whole process of abolition.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, in attacking uncertainty does she contend that there is no uncertainty about the policy that the Government recommend?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have made the plans and consultation processes perfectly clear. I see no cause for anxiety about the way the development plans are going forward. A longer delay could only give rise to further uncertainty and confusion, and will impede the plans that are already going ahead so successfully.
Lord Alport: My Lords, the reply of the Minister on this occasion, as indeed on the last occasion, has been very far from my own knowledge of the situation with regard to the boroughs and the mood, atmosphere and morale of education in London at the present time. I therefore feel that it is only in order to try to emphasise to the Government the immense concern that is felt generally at what is happening here at present that I should divide the House once again, even at this late hour, on the amendment. I therefore propose to do so.
2 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 421) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43, Not-Contents, 53.

DIVISION NO. 8

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Alport, L. [Teller]

McNair, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Blackstone, B.

Nicol, B.

Bramall, L.

Parry, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Peston, L.

Carter, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Combermere, V.

Ritchie of Dundee. L.

Dainton, L.

Rochester, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Russell, E.

David, B.

Seear, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Serota, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Sherfield, L.

Flowers, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Tordoff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Warnock, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

White, B.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hood, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Beloff, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Benson, L.

Kimball, L.

Blatch, B.

Limerick, E.

Blyth, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Middleton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Butterworth, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Munster, E.

Pender, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Renton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Cowley, E.

Sandford, L.

Cox, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Strange, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Swinton, L.

Dundee, E.

Teviot, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trafford, L.

Greenway, L.

Trumpington, B.

Halsbury, E.

Ullswater, V.

Harvington, L.

Young, B.

Henley, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Hives, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
2.8 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 422 and 423 not moved.]
Clause 150 [New local education authorities fir areas in inner London]:
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 423ZA:
Page 144, line 33, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of section ("Organisation of further adult education") below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Amendment No. 423ZA, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 423AC,

1471
423DN and 423DQ. The purpose of these amendments, on the assumption that there will not be a London-wide ILEA, is to draw attention to the need for some London-wide provision for certain specific services which, in our view, cannot be adequately provided by the boroughs. This refers particularly to further education and adult education.
The colleges of further education, spread throughout the London boroughs, very rightly and sensibly specialise so that one college will have developed great expertise in Russian, say, another in advanced computer studies, and so on. It is highly desirable that this should be so. London being the kind of area it is, with relatively good internal transport, there is no problem about adults or post-compulsory school education pupils at any rate travelling around to the colleges at which the courses they wish to pursue are being run. That surely is as it should be. By definition further education and adult education are not appropriate services to be provided at the unit of the borough. Therefore we are asking for a London-wide body with responsibility for further and adult education.
Perhaps I may give an illustration on the adult education side. Morley College, of which I was the chairman for many years, is a London-wide college. People come to it from boroughs all over inner London and indeed from greater London. It is used by people who work in London but who do not live there. They come to the college at a quarter to six, have a cup of tea, do a course from six o'clock to eight o'clock and then go home on the train from Waterloo. The service which the college provides is valuable. It serves the boroughs of Southwark and Lambeth, in which it is situated. However, it is inappropriate for a single borough to operate a London-wide service. A London-wide organisation makes good sense, and I hope that the House will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Viscount Combermere: My Lords, I spoke to the amendment at Committee stage and I do not wish to add a great deal to what I said at that time. I support the noble Baroness in what she has said. I believe that there has been some improvement in the position of the Government, in that four institutes have been singled out for government support. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, is reported in Hansard as acknowledging that each of these colleges makes a vital contribution to education in London.
However, 1 was not happy at the suggestion that those colleges would be expected to raise money from other sources and that government funding would be dependant on evidence that that had been attempted. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on that. I am very concerned that the adult colleges and institutes outside the group of four will be financed by their respective boroughs, which may well have other education priorities. Not only can adult education not be considered to be one of those priorities but, following the abolition of ILEA, opportunities for strategic planning across London boroughs have already been jeopardised. For example, the Language and Literacy Unit and the Adult Education Training Unit, among others now
1472
organised by ILEA, will be impossible to organise on a borough basis.
I shall not elaborate on the importance of adult education or its excellence. Both have been emphasised in previous debates in this House and acknowledged by the Government. However, I should like to elaborate on one aspect of adult education which I referred to only briefly in Committee. That is university adult education. As a member of the staff of the extra-mural department of London University, I declare an interest.
The extra-mural department of London University makes a significant contribution to ILEA's provision, in that it is offering this year some 209 courses at adult institutes in inner London, of which 139 are held at the group of four institutes singled out for special government aid. That figure represents some 2 per cent. of ILEA's provision and 25 per cent. of the extra-mural department's provision. Approximately 46 per cent. of the students are on courses for certificates and diplomas of the university, which are held throughout the whole of the present ILEA area. That provides a network of courses offering wide choices of course options for our diplomas and certificates.
Many of the courses have a vocational value and offer access to higher education. If our current provision is to be maintained following the abolition of ILEA, there must be some mechanism for strategic planning and for co-ordination. It is in that context that I fully support the amendment for a London further education and adult education board.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as the case has been developed over a long time, I have not heard any criticism put forward of the further and adult education services which have been provided by the ILEA. Criticism has not concentrated in that area. That point is worth the attention of the House. The case for an overall London service is, in this area, quite peculiarly strong. London is a single social unit. Its transport makes it work as one—at least so far. If we have, say, 29 people in the whole of London who wish to study Chinese, it does not make much sense to break them up into 10 groups of two and three groups of three. You destroy your unit. This is a live thing here, and I hope the House will consider the amendment very seriously. It seems to be a practical attempt to resolve what looks to us like a very genuine problem.
2.15 a.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has proposed, I think, the very same amendment she put down at Committee stage. Perhaps I might be permitted to begin then by reminding her of the main reasons why we believe that a pan-London solution of the type she proposes could not work.
First, that solution would divide the responsibility for the education of 16 to 19-year-olds in London between the recognised local education authorities who would run the service in schools and this body which would provide for them in colleges. In addition, the boroughs would be responsible for running the youth service. Splitting responsibility in that way surely would guarantee at best an

1473
incoherent provision for London's 16 to 19-year-olds.
Secondly, the noble Baroness has put forward no mechanism for funding her body. As I hinted at Committee stage, the logic of this would be a high-cost provision funded by the boroughs: the body would decide the size and nature of the supply, and the bill would fall to the boroughs. In this way, power and responsibility would be divided. And we have all seen what that did to the cost of provision in the ILEA itself before the days of precept limitation. If, however, one accepts the argument that the boroughs should have some say in determining the size and nature of provision, then experience tells us that the different priorities of the boroughs would soon lead to divisiveness and a breakdown of the central body as an effective planning mechanism.
In short, the kind of solution put forward by the noble Baroness has not worked in the past. Therefore, I must repeat that it is the Government's firm view that responsibility for the provision and funding of the further and adult education services must be located at the borough level, as it is elsewhere throughout the country.
That is not to say that there is no scope for co-operative activity between boroughs. Forgive me if I repeat once again that we have been in discussion with the ILEA and the Labour boroughs for only some four weeks. The progress made in that time is impressive. On our experience with the other boroughs, that progress will, I am confident, accelerate as the boroughs prepare, publish and then refine their development plans. During that time they will need to consider how best to provide, for instance, specialist further education. It is very likely that the colleges in different boroughs will continue to specialise in their areas of expertise—and the existing automatic recoupment regime will reimburse those boroughs that are net exporters. In addition, I must repeat that, like other LEAs, the London boroughs will purchase some further education provision from those institutions which will be transferring to the PCFC sector.
Turning to adult education, we have already made clear our plans in respect of that part of the service provided by four major institutions. The noble Viscount, Lord Combermere, referred to this. Perhaps I should elaborate by saying that my honourable friend the Minister of State and I have met the principals of the assisted colleges to discuss the implications of the Government's proposals for funding, which it is proposed will initially be through the London Residuary Body. But discussions have also been initiated with the National Institute for Adult Continuing Education about its role in relation to the colleges once the LRB is wound up. Department officials have had a very useful discussion with the principal of the Central Institute, which includes the City Lit., about our proposals for the future support of the City Lit. ILEA was represented at those discussions which we hope can now be taken further with the boroughs concerned in the context of arrangements for the generality of adult education in inner London.
Apart from the progress made in relation to those four major institutions, the rest of the service is expected to be planned at a borough level. Existing institutes may need to be reorganised to some extent
1474
to fit in with the borough framework, but that need not create major difficulties. Beyond that, plainly I do not need to repeat that the Government accept that neighbouring boroughs may well wish to co-operate and that boroughs will certainly need to discuss appropriate fee structures and recruitment arrangements. We are happy to assist them in that discussion. With that explanation, I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I fear that the noble Baroness feels no such thing. The brief contained no answer to the points that I raised. I must therefore divide the House.
2.21 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 423ZA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 49.

DIVISION NO. 9

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

McNair, L. [Teller.]

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Blackstone, B.

Peston, L.

Carter, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Combermere, V. [Teller.]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Rochester, L.

David, B.

Russell, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Serota, B.

Flowers, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Tordoff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Warnock, B.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

White, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kirkwood, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Beloff, L.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L,

Limerick, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern. L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Middleton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Butterworth, L.

Munster, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Pender, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Renton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Cowley, E.

Sandford, L.

Cox, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Strange, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Swinton, E.

Dundee, E.

Teviot, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Elliot of Morpeth, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Greenway, L.

Trafford, L.

Halsbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Harvington, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Hives, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Hooper, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
2.28 a.m.
[Amendment No. 423ZB not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David Amendment No. 423A:
After Clause 150, insert the following new clause:
("Education services
. The Secretary of State, in pursuance of his duty under section I of the Education Act 1944, shall so exercise his functions under this or any other enactment as to promote and secure the maintenance and cost-effective provision by local education authorities of inter alia the following services for the benefit of inner London—

(i) specialist provision for those with special educational needs,

(ii) specialist further education and adult education provision,

(iii) specialist inspection of schools and colleges,

(iv) the provision of advice and information to pupils and students, and co-ordination between local education authorities and employers, in respect of careers and training.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment attempts to remind the Secretary of State of his functions under the Education Act 1944. They are:
"to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area".
We wish to draw his attention to services which we fear are vulnerable and most likely to fall through the net of individual borough provision after the transfer of functions. In particular, those with special educational needs would be seriously disadvantaged.
There are four areas of particular concern to us: first, specialist provision for those with special educational needs; secondly, specialist further education and adult education provision; thirdly, specialist inspection of schools and colleges, and, fourthly, the careers service.
ILEA's reputation in the field of educational provision for children with special needs is world renowned. At a time when the Secretary of State for Education is preparing for a visit to the Soviet Union and has recently visited the United States in search of examples of good educational practice, it is deeply ironic that he and his Government are proposing to dismantle and abolish local examples of good practice with a world-famous reputation. The threat to this good work must be taken seriously.
The Government, far from denying their intentions, have on the contrary made explicit in their guidance on development plans their proposal to cut spending on education in inner London by 40 per cent. over the next few years. There will be intense pressures on the boroughs to provide only that which can be defined, however inadequately, as cost effective educational provision and as provision which benefits local ratepayers.
With special education we are concerned first about ILEA's boarding schools. Because of its size and the needs of the population it serves, the Inner London Education Authority has been able to maintain a wide range of boarding special schools which is unique among LEAs. These schools include provision for children with very special disabilities, such as autistic children, children with both hearing impairment and other disabilities and a range of schools for children with behavioural and emotional difficulties which, because of their number, have been able to develop individual specialisms.
Secondly, we are concerned about ILEA's special day schools, all of which serve inner as well as outer London boroughs. There are those for the visually impaired, the delicate, the physically disabled and the hearing impaired. One such is the John Aird school in Hammersmith. Of all the visually impaired children that attend John Aird school only 13 are from the inner London area as a whole. Can Hammersmith alone be expected to sustain such a service? Everyone in local government expects severe restraints to be placed on local authorities. What then will happen to the children of John Aird school?
There is particular anxiety for the children of inner London's poorest boroughs. Only 37 children leave the City of Westminster to attend schools outside their borough and within ILEA's boundaries. In contrast, 170 children from Hackney and 153 from Lambeth cross the boundary to attend special schools outside their borough. Will their places be secured if boroughs are forced by budget constraints to raise fences around borough boundaries?
Thirdly, there are the peripatetic teachers. None of these peripatetic teachers is attached to particular schools and therefore assured of transfer to particular boroughs. The Secretary of State cannot wash his hands of them. He must take responsibility for securing the outstanding and valuable work that they do.
Fourthly, there is the team of 82 educational psychologists working in special and mainstream schools, including specialists in the different areas of disability and learning difficulty.
Fifthly, there is the centre for the deaf providing support for hearing impaired students attending further education college courses; and, sixthly, the centre for motor and associated communication handicaps which has a specialist base at Charlton Park school in Greenwich and a team of six teachers supporting children with communication difficulties resulting from physical impairments.
As a result of this work many severely disabled people, not just in ILEA but all over the country and around the world, are today able to talk using synthesised speech and to write and draw. It cannot be too much to ask the Secretary of State that he should exercise his functions under the 1944 Act to secure the future of these services.
Finally, there is the child guidance service providing, together with district health authorities, 15 centres for consultation and advice for children, their families and schools. Based at these centres are 41 psychiatric social workers, 14 teachers and 30 support staff.
Linked to this work is the specialist inspection of schools and colleges. Among the ILEA's inspectorate is a team of special education inspectors. Each member of the team takes responsibility for specialist advice in each area of disability or learning difficulty. There are inspectors for autism; for deaf-blind children; for those with severe learning difficulties; for the delicate; for inservice training of special education for teachers; and for language hearing and visual impairment. It is most unlikely that these inspectors can be found a home in any single borough. There is a very grave risk of their expertise and experience being lost not only to London but to the nation.
Just as disturbing is the threat to ILEA's inspectorate in mainstream schools. It is clear that boroughs will want to take on general inspectors for the primary and secondary levels. If the experience of the outer London boroughs is anything to go by very few will be able to afford to employ the wide range of specialist inspectors currently employed by the ILEA. However, not only does the ILEA provide a wide range of specialist inspectors; it also has inspectors with a depth of specialised knowledge not usually developed by other LEAs. For example, in maths there are inspectors for the lower years in primary schools and others who specialise in the upper years in primary schools. There arc English inspectors for the first two years in secondary schools, the middle years and the last two years. Those ranges of inspectorate provision and the depth of inspectorate knowledge and experience are at risk with the transfer of functions to the boroughs.
I shall leave the area of specialist provision in further and adult education to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who has added her name in support of the amendment and who has a long record of commitment to continuing education within inner London.
I turn finally to the careers service, the fourth area of educational provision of concern to us. The central London careers office staff are widely regarded as an unrivalled source of central London labour-market intelligence. Seminars are regularly run for careers officers from neighbouring LEAs. Because of their integral relationship with the ILEA central London careers office, staff are well placed to advise employers and managing agents on the FHE facilities that they can use. Conversely, because they are in touch with schools and colleges, they can talk knowledgeably to employers about potential recruits from the entire age and achievement range. They are in a unique position to help education respond to employers' needs across all sectors.
This amendment seeks an assurance from the Secretary of State that he will so exercise his functions as to ensure that these vital services are both promoted and secured after the transfer of education functions to the inner London boroughs. The Secretary of State takes on an enormous number of powers throughout the Bill. He does not take on any so much as in this part of the Bill which deals with the Inner London Education Authority. In the amendment we ask him to recognise his duty to keep the essential services in operation when the ILEA ceases to be, for the sake of all people, young and old, in inner London. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. Size has disadvantages; it also has advantages. One of the advantages of size in the Inner London Education Authority has been its ability to provide certain kinds of specialist provision in a way which would be exceedingly difficult for the boroughs. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State plays an important role in overseeing the maintenance of this specialist provision.
My noble friend Lady David has already given a number of examples of the way in which specialist provision has been provided in the ILEA. It has been
1478
provided in a manner acclaimed not only by pupils, students, parents and other professionals working in education in inner London, but also by Her Majesty's Inspectorate and in particular by the senior chief inspector in the DES. He has especially drawn attention to the very high quality of three services listed in this amendment: further education, adult education and the inspectorate.
My noble friend Lady David referred to the fact that the ILEA has been able to provide specialist inspectors in certain areas. Classics is an example which she mentioned, and I should like to mention another example which is particularly dear to my heart; namely, dance. The ILEA is the only local education authority in the country that has been able to appoint an inspector for dance education and he has done a great deal to promote improved teaching in that particular area.
On careers, one of the great advanatages of the ILEA career service has been that it has been able to provide information about jobs and vacancies all over the capital which has been extremely useful to employers and makes much more sense than doing that on a borough basis. Careers officers have also played a very important role in establishing links between employers and FE colleges right across London.
Perhaps I may turn to FE provision. What characterises further education facilities in London is that they take no account of borough boundaries, but they are provided across the whole city. Indeed, only 28 per cent. of students live in the same borough as the FE college which they attend. Many students are attending highly specialist courses and they cover a very wide range including subjects like dental technology, cabinet making, ophthalmics, and telecommunications. There are many more such examples.
I am sure that everyone in your Lordships' House will agree that those are very useful courses which, without the central co-ordinating functions of the ILEA, may well he threatened because the individual boroughs in many areas would find it extremely difficult to continue these courses. In many cases recoupment (which may well be put forward as the means of continuing them) simply will not cover the costs because they are rather more expensive than the average costs of FE courses on which recoupment finances are based.
Moreover, I believe it is highly likely that the boroughs would be unable to respond to new needs for different kinds of specialist courses and that they will tend to focus on providing general FE courses simply for their own area. For those reasons I support this amendment and I hope that the Minister will agree that it would be to the advantage of inner London if the Secretary of State played a role in ensuring that these provisions survive.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like briefly to support this amendment. I have already spoken ad nauseam and to absolutely no effect about the importance of further adult education, and I do not intend to elaborate on the matter again except to emphasise the specialist nature of many of the services offered which is why special assistance is needed and not merely borough-based assistance.

1479
I should like to add a further comment about the importance of the careers service and a career service on a wider than borough basis. Careers are much wider than boroughs and the expertise of the careers service is of the highest importance, especially at a time when job opportunities are changing as fast as they are and with so little real understanding in many schools about the opportunities offered by new training schemes. Unless a good careers service is available, a great deal of the Government's work in trying to promote training will not bear fruit because the message will not get through to the schools. It is very tough to get knowledge of the good training schemes through to children in schools. That depends on a good careers service. It is an essential adjunct to the training world. The ILEA has provided that, and unless it is provided on a wider basis, then that work will also decay. 1 hope that the noble Baroness will accept the amendment.
2.45 a.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, may I join in on this matter? I have not spoken ad nauseam. Indeed, I have not spoken for the past two hours. I have been getting back my strength.
I particularly wish to rebut what I regard as one of the more nonsensical aspects of the Government's arguments in this field—the uncertainty argument. Noble Lords were impressed by the uncertainty argument in ways that somewhat surprised me. The amendment brings out precisely what the Government are doing. Far from removing uncertainty in these key areas, and in many others, they are creating uncertainty. The future of every one of these activities is made uncertain by the Government's abolition of ILEA and they would not be uncertain if the ILEA were not to be abolished.
Therefore, I hope that we do not again hear from the noble Baroness an argument on uncertainty. It did not make sense when that argument was used earlier and it certainly makes no sense now. If one is concerned about uncertainty it is precisely in accepting a duty, and the Secretary of State accepting a duty, in this area that we might lower rather than raise it. I rose only to make that important point.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, this is an important subject and the Government recognise it as such. That will have been clear from some of what I have already said. It may, however, be of assistance to the House if I say a little more about the Government's view before explaining why I do not think that any of these amendments—and I believe we are speaking to Amendments Nos. 423ZB, 423AA and 423CB at this point—
Baroness David: My Lords, I spoke only to Amendment No. 423A.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in that case perhaps I may remind the House of the words contained in the draft guidance on development plans. It is the Government's firm view not only that the inner London councils are capable of becoming effective local education authorities responsible in their own right for the full range of services but, above all, that this restructuring will provide a stable framework within which to secure urgently needed improvements in the performance and accountability
1480
of the education service in inner London. That expresses the fundamental difficulty which the Government have with this amendment.
We start from the position that one of the reasons for the educational and financial problems faced by inner London is that the capital's education service has been run on too large a scale and we believe that with suitable help during the preparatory period the inner London boroughs are perfectly capable of becoming healthy and viable local education authorities; as are their neighbours in outer London and elsewhere in metropolitan areas. More than that, we believe that it is only by giving the education service in inner London the clear local focus which it has hitherto lacked that we will bring to bear on the evident problems of the service the urgent attention which is required.
I will not at this stage rehearse the Government's reasons for taking that view as they have already been fully exposed at earlier stages of the Bill's progress. As I said, co-operative arrangements are quite possible on a voluntary basis. I do not need to remind the House that when my right honourable friend believes that co-operative arrangements are necessary, and believes also that it would be beneficial for them to be established on a statutory footing, he has powers to do so by setting up a joint education committee under Part II of the first schedule to the 1944 Act. The noble Baroness, Lady David, reminded us of that.
Unless the boroughs request such action in relation to specific services, the Government would prefer to allow voluntary arrangements a chance to operate initially before deciding that this formal procedure is required. There is of course a wide range of cooperation arrangements which is in principle open to the inner London councils, ranging from agreements between two councils that one should act as the agent for the other in specific matters to joint arrangements between a handful of councils for the provision of specific services within an area of inner London.
In its discussions with ILEA, the boroughs and others, the department is alive to the possible desirability of arrangements of that kind and that is why we have proposed, for example, that a lead borough arrangement would be sensible in relation to instrumental tuition for the musically gifted, or perhaps in relation to certain aspects of the careers service. In relation to the careers service—since this has been raised by a number of your Lordships—the responsibility for this lies with the Department of Employment. I am pleased that together with the Department of Education, the department has been able to hold preliminary discussions with ILEA and others about the future organisation of the service.
The Government are clear that responsibility for the careers service as such will lie with the inner London councils. The duties of local education authorities in this respect are set out in the Employment and Training Act 1973, which could be supplemented by general guidance, and will apply to the new local education authorities in London as they do to existing authorities. This local responsibility—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness giving way. Is she not aware that for children of school age it is the LEA that provides the

1481
career service and it is only those of post-school age who are the responsibility of the Department of Employment? Therefore, the careers service is highly relevant in this connection.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes, and that is why I was talking about the careers service
Baroness Seear: My Lords, with the permission of the House, the noble Baroness said, with reference to the careers service, that it was the responsibility of the Department of Employment. For children of school age it is an LEA responsibility.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am coming on to how this ties in. This service is currently performed by the central London careers office and it is on this, aspect in particular that we have opened discussions. There are several possibilities, and one with some advantages would be for one organisation to provide a central service. As I said, we have had preliminary discussions and I know that, among others, the City of London and some employer forums are willing to explore these possibilities further with the help of ILEA. We recognise that the financial implications will need to he addressed and that some financial assistance from central government might be appropriate, at least in the initial years. We look forward to continued discussions with all concerned with a view to reaching firm decisions as soon as possible.
There were other specific points that were raised about residential special schools. On this subject I can tell the House that a meeting of the joint working party that has been set up was held last Friday. It was agreed that further meetings should be held upon the basis of information being put together by ILEA and the Department of Education.
A number of points were also made on the subject of adult education. We have already made clear our plans in respect of that part of the service provided by the four major institutions. The rest of the service will be planned at borough level. As I explained, we feel that that is most appropriate. This is an important topic and I believe that the Government are responding to the needs in this area and therefore that the proposals made under this amendment are not required.
Baroness Hart of South Lanark: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me, before she sits down, to ask a question. Did I understand her to say just now that it is the view of the Government that, apart from the four specialist colleges it should be the responsibility of the boroughs and only of the boroughs, to provide further and adult education?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords. The basic premise of our plans for ILEA is that all education functions devolve to the boroughs except in the exceptional cases where some other arrangement has proved necessary. That is certainly the thinking at this initial stage. As I said, we believe that there is plenty of scope for co-operation between the boroughs and we prefer that to happen on a truly voluntary basis and not to be imposed.
Baroness David: My Lords, I must confess that at the beginning of her remarks I was not at all sure that
1482
the noble Baroness was answering the right amendment. Her answer did not seem to be directed to the specialist provision in all these areas which I specially mentioned: the specialist provision for special education, the specialist further education and adult education provision, the specialist inspection and the specialist careers service. The answer was so unsatisfactory that I shall have to divide the House.
2.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 423A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-contents, 49.

DIVISION NO. 10

CONTENTS

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Carter L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Raglan, L.

Combermere, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Russell, E.

Flowers, L.

Seear, B.

Gallacher, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Warnock, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Kirkwood, L.

White, B.

McNair, L.

Winchelsea and Nottingham, E.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Beloff, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Kimball, L.

Benson, L.

Limerick, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V. [Teller]

Blyth, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Middleton, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Pender, L.

Coleraine, L.

Renton, L.

Cowley, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Cox, B.

Sandford, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Davidson, V.

Strange, B.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Swinton, E.

Dundee, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Trafford, L.

Greenway, L.

Trumpington, B.

Halsbury, E.

Ullswater, V.

Harvington, L.

Young, B.

Henley, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Hives, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.3 a.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 423AA:
After Clause 150, insert the following clause:
("Joint Schemes for inner London councils.
(1) A joint scheme may be made by the inner London councils for the exercise of their functions as local education authorities as the scheme may specify.
(2) The councils shall be required to contribute to any expenditure made under the joint scheme; and the amount of the

1483
contributions shall be determined so that the expenditure in respect of which they are payable is borne by the councils in proportion to the population of their respective areas.
(3) A joint scheme may in the absence of an agreement between all the councils be made by a majority of those councils so as to be binding on all of them.
(4) A joint scheme—

(a) shall include provision for decisions to be made by a majority of councils, which shall include decisions to alter the functions specified in the scheme; and

(b) may contain such supplementary provisions as the councils making the scheme may think necessary as expedient.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, following the abolition of ILEA, the inner London councils shall be able to set up joint schemes to cover any of their functions as local education authorities, and also to ensure that all the councils will be involved in such a scheme on the basis of a majority decision.
The amendment requiring a review of educational needs—upon which I shall be speaking in relation to Amendment No. 423B—leaves the method for implementing an inner London-wide action, arising from that review, to the discretion of the boroughs. The boroughs have indicated that they wish to make any cross inner London arrangements which they consider necessary on a voluntary basis.
Amendment No. 423CB, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—to which she will be speaking— is grouped with this amendment. It places a statutory duty on the boroughs to co-operate from the outset; whereas this amendment, to which I now speak, would place such a requirement on the boroughs only in the event of voluntary arrangements breaking down.
The amendment is of great importance because it is well known that arrangements made between London boroughs on a voluntary basis have in the past not always been successful. For example, some voluntary arrangements set up after the abolition of the GLC in 1986 have already run into difficulties.
The Inner London Consultative Employment Group is a case in point. It was set up after the abolition of the GLC to put a case to the European Social Fund for London to have special status. All the inner London boroughs, together with Haringey, joined. It was serviced by a officer in Camden. That voluntary arrangement has already broken down. I could instance other cases.
Voluntary organisations in London consider that a safeguard should be built into the legislation so that if voluntary arrangements between the boroughs were to fail a mechanism would already be in place to support the majority of boroughs that wish to work together in an area of education. This is the important part of the amendment.
I could say many other things in support of the amendment. I shall not do so because I think that I have explained its purpose. Noble Lords will remember that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, when speaking to an earlier amendment, favoured the plan contained in this amendment. I hope that it will find favour with the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, am I correct in thinking that we are speaking now to Amendments Nos. 423AA and 423AB?
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, we are speaking only to Amendment No. 423AA.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the amendment makes provision for joint schemes which would enable a simple majority of inner London councils— seven out of the 13—to impose their wishes in respect of co-operative arrangements on the remaining six. Taking the most extreme grouping, that would enable authorities with responsibility for 390 schools to impose their wishes on authorities responsible for 638 schools. That is a recipe for friction. I venture to say that it would lead to the reverse of co-operation.
I hope therefore that I have made it clear in speaking to previous amendments that the Government accept that co-operative arrangements have a part to play in inner London in the future, but our firm conviction is that co-operation must mean just that and must not be imposed. I am therefore unable to accept the amendment and ask the House to reject it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, the Minister missed the important point that I made, which was that the amendment would have placed a requirement on the boroughs only in the event that the voluntary arrangements broke down; it would be a safety net. The example she gave was not my point, which related to the breakdown of voluntary arrangements. I gave examples of where that happened following the abolition of the GLC. It would be something on which the boroughs could fall back. It is disappointing that the Minister has not taken seriously the amendment which, as I said, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said that he preferred. I find that disappointing. It is late, and we have had a great deal of exercise down to the Lobbies. Although dissatisfied, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 423AB:
After Clause 150, insert the following Clause:
("Educational review—inner London.
(1) Each inner London council shall conduct a review of the educational needs of its area ("the educational review") which shall be published not later than I November 1991.
(2) In each subsequent year, each council shall publish a report ("the annual education report") which shall consist of two parts as follows—

(a) Part I shall consist of an update of the educational review; and

(b) Part II shall specify the policies the council intends to pursue to address the educational needs identified by the educational review and, where relevant, previous annual educational reports.

(3) In preparing the educational review and each annual educational report, a council shall—

(a) consult the other inner London councils and such voluntary organisations and other persons as appear to the council to be concerned; and

(b) have regard to the educational needs of the whole of inner London, and in respect of Part 11 of the annual educational report, the effect of its policies on the educational needs of the whole of inner London.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to impose a duty on the inner London councils to carry out an ongoing review of education needs in inner London at borough level and across inner London, and to take account of that review in developing their education policies in consultation with the voluntary sector and other relevant bodies.
The voluntary organisations in London are extremely concerned about the resources position. They are concerned about the threat of non-statutory services, including pre-school education, youth service and adult education in particular. If these services are reduced, it will be those in inner London's communities who are most in need at present who will suffer. This will include people from black and other ethnic minorities, unemployed people and people with disabilities. They also fear that valuable services which have been built up by the voluntary sector and ILEA working in partnership will be put in jeopardy.
The effect of this amendment would not be to cause a delay but to ensure that boroughs take account of the special needs of inner London, both when they are drawing up their plans for education and as they monitor their education services in the future.
There is little doubt of the extent of social and economic deprivation in London which has substantially increased over the past 10 years. There has been a review by the London Research Centre which has quoted an analysis which shows that 15 London boroughs have high levels of deprivation compared with London and Wales as a whole. Ten of the 15 are inner London boroughs. Education is of course one of the most effective means of breaking the circle of this poverty and deprivation.
The boroughs will therefore need to look jointly at ways of ensuring that their educational services are accessible in the widest sense of the word to all sections of our local communities. For instance, there is homelessness. The question is: will the borough in which a homeless family lives in a bed-and-breakfast hotel ensure that all the members of that family have access to educational services? Or will it say that this is the responsibility of the borough from which they came? I think boroughs need to look at this together; it will be the only way to satisfy the need.
The voluntary sector has much to contribute to policy-making as well as service provision in education. This amendment places a duty on the boroughs to consult it about how best to make education provision for different sections of the community. I commend this amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have a certain amount of sympathy with some at least of the aims of this amendment. There might be some benefit if local education authorities generally carried out the sort of annual policy review envisaged. Indeed, many already do so.
But what would, I think, be a mistake would be to impose on the inner London local education authorities a requirement which is not imposed elsewhere. Like every other responsible local education authority in the country the inner London boroughs will have to decide for themselves how they review policy, the ways in which they consult others about that policy, and the ways in which they bring it to the attention of local people.
I fear in particular that the arrangements proposed in this amendment could result in a great deal of bureaucratic work, as, year by year, every one of the 13 inner London councils had to look at the plans
1486
produced by each other, whether or not they were likely to be of the slightest relevance. It is surely odd for Hackney, say, to have to consult Wandsworth—at the other side of London—about its policies, when it would be under no such duty in relation to Haringey, Waltham Forest or Newham, each of which is contiguous with Hackney.
In brief, I fear that the noble Baroness's amendment would undermine the position of the boroughs as fully-fledged local education authorities and would in any case make little practical sense. Boroughs themselves will see the need to consult where necessary on particular policies—for example, those I have already referred to relating to 16–19 year-old education—and I think it would be quite wrong for us to second-guess the judgments that they will make.
I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness started by saying that she had some sympathy for this amendment because that gave me some pleasure. But she said: Why should this be applied to inner London and not to other boroughs? The reason is that inner London is not the same as elsewhere. That is why we are trying to make special provisions for the vast mixed cultural community and mixed needs existing in London.
This amendment was proposed by the London voluntary organisations which have a huge amount of work to do among these communities. I know how disappointed they will be that the noble Baroness has found that she is unable to accept the amendment. It is very late and therefore, although I am not happy with the response of the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 423AC not moved.]
Clause 152 [Development plans for education]:
3.15 a.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423AD:
Page 145, line 29, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I announced in Committee that the Government proposed to introduce the provisions included in these amendments. It may be helpful to the House if I briefly describe how they will work. In moving Amendment No. 423AD, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 423ZBA, 423DR and 423DS.
Each borough will be required to include within its development plan a statement of its proposed management structure. That is not a term that can easily be defined in legislation, and the amendments are therefore drafted so as to enable the Secretary of State to include, in the guidance to be issued after Royal Assent, a clear statement of what it is we shall be looking for.
In brief, we would normally expect to see an organisational chart for the education department, identifying posts in at least the top three tiers of the structure and showing lines of responsibility. For a limited period—five years from 1st April 1990—these organisational arrangements will be subject to the

1487
Secretary of State's approval, and may not be varied without his further approval. Linked to this provision is one which would require appointments to the post of chief education officer to be made following consultation with the Secretary of State.
These arrangements would be operated in the same way as the similar provision which used to apply in the case of all LEAs—a short list would be submitted to the department, with brief biographical details of the candidates. The amendments also include provision for the Secretary of State to designate posts within the management structure for approval in the same way.
I should emphasise that these provisions are to remain in force for a limited period. Their purpose is to provide an assurance to all concerned with the future of education in inner London—parents and teachers above all.
Amendment No. 423DS in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, would I believe weaken that reassurance. If any person has reason to believe that the Secretary of State has acted unreasonably in prohibiting a particular appointment, he will of course have open to him the normal scope for redress under administrative law, including judicial review. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend would operate any such prohibition under equitable arrangements which were demonstrably fair to the individual concerned. Were that not so, of course, any such direction would be liable to be overturned under the procedures I have referred to.
I should, however, make it clear that we are dealing here simply with a particular discretionary power given to the Secretary of State. It would be odd to single out this particular power for potential reference to the High Court when other powers with similar effect, for example those in relation to the misconduct of teachers, are not so subject. Furthermore, with the greatest respect to the High Court I do not believe that it would be right to ask that court, as the amendment in the name of the noble Lord does, to make a judgment about whether or not a particular individual is a fit person to hold a particular professional appointment. That is a decision which it is proper for the Secretary of State to make, subject to the safeguard under administrative law that he has acted reasonably and fairly. I hope with that assurance the House will support the amendment in my name and that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, at times I am not sure whether at this late or early hour, whichever way one considers it, one is really in Britain or in some Kafka country, or in the world of George Orwell. The powers that the Secretary of State is taking for himself in Amendment No. 423DR are quite alarming. They are allowed for the initial period, which is five years. That is a fairly lengthy period in which to set up a borough as a new LEA.
The powers are those of approving the management structure and anybody within that structure. If one looks at Amendment No. 423DR, subsection (4) states:
1488
"Such a council shall not before the end of the initial period make an appointment to which this subsection applies except after consultation with the Secretary of State".
A large group of people will be involved in the management structure of the local education authority. For five years the Secretary of State will be able to choose who is to be appointed. That raises questions as to whether the powers are proper and whether that can be described as giving power to the people in the local area. It seems to me that it takes power from ILEA and gives it to the DES.
Noble Lords will remember that in the 1944 Act a local education authority was under a duty to provide the Minister with particulars of the main previous experience and qualifications of the people on the short list from whom the LEA wished to select a chief education officer. That was a power of approval which had no counterpart in previous legislation. A Conservative Government, in the Local Government Act 1972, took that power away. Perhaps that could be described as giving power back to local education authorities.
The present law provides simply and adequately that the LEA must appoint as a chief education officer a fit person. Presumably if the Secretary of State thought that anybody an LEA appointed as a chief education officer was not a fit person, the LEA could go to the court. It is not clear what matters will come into the Secretary of State's mind when judging the fitness of people on short lists. What guarantees will there be that a person who is critical of the policies of the Government will not be barred from appointment? Perhaps many educationists will be involved in discussing whether this Bill is correct or not. Will the Secretary of State say that such a person is one of us or not one of us?
On the other hand, if disqualification relates to academic background, teaching experience or managerial experience, surely criteria can be set out. If that is done, why should the LEA not make the choice within the critieria? I suggest that the fears expressed are not purely academic or unrealistic. The Independent, in an article published on 27th June 1988, named three people whose appointments to quangos had been vetoed. There were two distinguished academics and one very prominent, recently retired industrialist. The quangos were named as the National Curriculum Council and the Universities Funding Council. Any local education authority able to appoint any of these people to be its chief education officer would be very lucky; but would the Secretary of State be minded to veto the appointment and, if so, would that be because they had expressed opinions which did not fit those of the Department of Education and Science?
There is no obligation in Amendment No. 423DR for the Secretary of State to give reasons for his decisions; and those decisions could destroy the careers of individuals in local government. There is no right of appeal against the arbitrary decision. It may be that judicial review is open. It is interesting that in the classic case of judicial review, Wednesbury in 1947, the illustration given by the Master of the Rolls in that case related to a teacher who was turned down just because he was red-haired.
We are in the same sort of area here. There is nothing to show that this is not being done on a purely arbitrary or purely party political view, and it

1489
certainly seems to be a gross interference with any right of a local education authority to set up its management structure in a way of its own choice and not of the department's choice. 1 must say that although it is very late in this discussion, this is a very serious point. The amendment gives the individual the right of appeal to the court; and I think that everybody in this House is concerned that the individual should be protected by having a right of appeal to the court. Speaking as a lawyer, I would always want there to he a right of appeal to the court. Judicial review is not as adequate a right of appeal, because it only concerns the method of making a decision and not the decision itself. For those reasons, when we come to it I shall be moving Amendment No. 423DS.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I rise only to say that 1 think the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, of the Government's amendment is entirely justified and deserves some support from these Benches. It seems to me that here is yet another example of the Secretary of State taking to himself altogether excessive powers in this case in relation to the appointment of senior management.
It seems to me that the very least the Government should accept, when the noble Lord comes to move his own amendment, is some appeal mechanism to safeguard an aggrieved individual against the exercise of the powers the Secretary of State is here taking, in an unduly partisan or otherwise unreasonable way. It almost seems, from what the Government have in mind here, that the Secretary of State wants to run the whole show himself and that what should be an essential function of each inner London council is to be denied to that council. Imagine the board of a large company withholding from its constituent parts such powers. It would not work in industry for a moment and I do not think this move on the part of the Government should be allowed to pass without challenge in this House.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, it is easy to see the hook that the Government have got themselves on to in this matter.They are set on abolishing the ILEA for reasons which are educationally unsound, as some of us tried to make clear in Committee. Out of the window with ILEA will go a body of accumulated educational expertise. People are already worried about the educational and other competence of some of the successor authorities. This amendment is intended to reassure them. What is the thinking behind it? It is that "Mother knows best". Is this the 200th new power that the Secretary of State is taking to himself, or the 300th or 400th? I have lost count.
The approach is no more acceptable here than anywhere else. On practical grounds, let alone principle, how can Whitehall or the department have the kind of knowledge that would enable the Secretary of State to decide under subsection (8) on the merits of people whom its officials have never interviewed and of whom they have probably never heard? How long will the bureaucratic processes of subsection (7) take before a council is allowed to proceed or not with its appointment? On present form answers from the department do not exactly come at a gallop.
1490
I do not pretend to know the best answer to the boroughs' difficulties in establishing their new management structures. I am confident however that it is not this one. I hope that this impractical, centralising amendment will be rejected.
3.30 a.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is wrong to suggest that all posts in the management structure, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton, suggested, require the Secretary of State's approval. This amendment relates to the chief education officer and to others who may be designated. The designation of other posts will be restricted only to those cases which are clearly essential.
I should repeat that this provision is designed simply as a safeguard. The criteria under which the Secretary of State will operate will he set out in guidance on development plans. They will be straightforward commonsense criteria related to the experience of the candidates, as one would expect. After all, this provision is intended to operate for a limited period. We wish to ensure that the boroughs will start their lives as local education authorities with appropriate management arrangements and with a team of properly qualified staff in the education department.
These are not provisions which the Government take lightly, but I believe that they are ones that will be widely welcomed by those who have expressed concern as to whether all the boroughs will be effective local education authorities.
We do not expect that the operation of these provisions will in practice prove to be more onerous than was the case with a similar requirement under the 1944 Act for the approval of the chief education officer. Certainly if the boroughs fulfil the statements that they have made to date about their intentions, it is unlikely that the Secretary of State will need to invoke his powers of veto at all. What is important is that the reassurance is there.
Lord Peston: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down it would reassure noble Lords if she would give an absolute guarantee that one of the criteria that will not be applied will be the political views of the chief education officer or other designated officers. We require that kind of assurance even to consider this amendment.
Baroness Hooper: With the leave of the House perhaps I may say that I am not in a position to tell noble Lords exactly what will be the guidance. The intention is that the normal factors applying to appointments should be applied and I have no reason to believe therefore that the fear expressed by the noble Lord is in any way justified.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down again, this means of course the department and not the Secretary of State. Will she tell us why she thinks that the department is competent to make these decisions?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I have said, this is not an entirely new kind of provision. A similar provision existed under the 1944 Act. I believe therefore that the same considerations apply. It is something which has been experienced before in this country.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, did she say that my account was wrong in that I said that the 1944 Act on that point had been repealed by the 1972 Act passed by agovernment of the same party as she represents and that for the last 16 years there has been no such power?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, indeed. I did not wish to infer that the noble Lord had made a misrepresentation in any way. I was simply pointing out that the requirement that existed under the 1944 Act was in a similar vein.
3.35 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 423AD) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 27.

DIVISION NO. 11

CONTENTS

Arran, E

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Beloff, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Kimball, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom,

Middleton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Coleraine, L.

Munster, E.

Cowley, E.

Pender, L.

Cox, B.

Renton, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Sandford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Swinton, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Teviot, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Ferrers, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Greenway, L.

Trafford, L.

Halsbury, E.

Trumpington, B.

Harvington, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Hives, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Blackstone, B.

Peston, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

David, B.

Rochester, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Russell, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Seear, B.

Flowers, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Gallacher, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hart of South Lanark, B.

Warnock, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

White, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

McNair, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
3.42 a.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 423B:
Page 145, line 32, after ("ILEA") insert—
(", specifying in each case whether the council proposed to maintain that school, and in the case of any school which it does not propose to maintain, specifying the LEA which it is proposed should maintain such school.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment in my name, I also have to mention also Amendments Nos. 423C to 423CH, 423D, which is in my name, Nos. 423DA, 423DB, 423DD, 423DE, 423DG and 423DJ.
The Earl of Halsbury: How depressing, my Lords!
Lord Morton of Shuna: I agree, my Lords. Apart from the two in my name, the remainder are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper. We are concerned here with the development plans of local education authorities and the specification of schools.
At Committee stage I raised the problem of what happened if a school fell out of the net, so to speak, and was not designated as a school by any borough education authority in the ILEA area and therefore closed without going through the statutory procedure. Amendments Nos. 423B and 423D are designed to solve that problem by saying in Amendment No. 423B that the local authority shall specify whether the council proposes to maintain the school and, in the case of a school which it does not propose to maintain in its area, which local education authority it suggests should maintain that school. Under Amendment No. 423D, the Secretary of State shall so exercise his power of designation, which is under Clause 153, that no school is closed without the normal consultation procedures with parents being carried through. These are fairly simple measures. Since the Committee stage the Government have considered that the arguments that I put forward then had some merit because they have tabled a group of amendments.
Amendment No. 423CC is linked with a new proposal which apparently enables schools situated in the inner London area and maintained until now by the Inner London Education Authority to be designated, possibly against the will of the neighbouring council in whose area it is, and to be maintained by an outer London council or by a local education authority which, up until now, had no connection with the school. Therefore, it appears to me that the Government's amendments do not cover the issue. Having tabled only two amendments in the group, while the Government have tabled teens of amendments, I claim that I have managed to keep the issue more straightforward. I beg to move Amendment No. 423B.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said, I promised at Committee stage that the Government would be tabling amendments designed to ensure that the Secretary of State may designate former ILEA schools to be maintained by local education authorities other than those in inner London. There was never any doubt that it would be possible under the provisions of the Bill, as they then stood, to transfer responsibility in this way, perhaps for example in relation to some of the residential special schools located outside inner London. But it seemed preferable to put the process of designation for schools outside the ILEA area on all fours with the procedure applying inside inner London. This is one of the effects of the Government amendments included in the group we are now discussing.

1493
But the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, went on to point out in Committee, and has said today that there was no requirement on the Secretary of State to designate all ILEA schools to a successor authority, and that there might therefore be an element of doubt about whether every ILEA school would necessarily be designated in this way. We have made it clear that it was the Government's intention that all ILEA schools should be transferred to a successor authority, and that there is no question whatever of a school ceasing to exist simply as a consequence of the abolition of ILEA. We agree entirely with the noble Lord that no school should be closed without going through the formal processes under the education Acts. That, I think, is the purpose of his Amendment No. 423D, but it is also secured by the Government's Amendment No. 423CC, which will require my right honourable friend to designate every ILEA school either to an inner London council or to another local education authority.
The noble Lord's Amendment No. 423B is on a related, but slightly different point. He is suggesting that boroughs' development plans should state whether or not the authority intends to maintain the I LEA schools in its area, and if not, which other LEA the borough proposes should maintain the school. The provisions at present in the Bill (Clause I 52(2)(b)(i)) make clear the presumption that boroughs will inherit responsibility for all the I LEA-maintained schools in their area. If a borough does not, however, propose to inherit a particular school—and there may, in exceptional circumstances, be some reasons why this should be so—it would not, in the Government's view, be appropriate to require the non-inheriting borough to specify the authority which it wishes to maintain the school. It would of course he entirely in order for the borough to indicate where it had had discussions with another LEA for this purpose.
The point is that throughout the process of drawing up their development plans the boroughs will be in close discussion with the department's inner London unit, and we should therefore be well aware of boroughs' intentions even before the development plans are published. There should therefore be no uncertainty about the destination of individual schools. But in any event, as I have said, the Government's Amendment No. 423CC provides a guarantee that every ILEA school will continue to be maintained by a local education authority from 1st April, 1990.
I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, still has reservations about this matter, but I hope that he will feel that our amendments have responded fully to his concerns.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I still believe that my two amendments, which are much shorter, are therefore better.However, simplicity is not the guiding notion of this Bill—neither simplicity norclarity. I do not intend to press these amendments.
It worried me that it appears that the development plans will be, so to speak, censored by the DES before they are even published. Therefore, this again suggests that the department will control what happens to a very large extent, which I do not believe
1494
is delegating power down. However, 1 ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423ZBA:
Page 145, line 35, at end insert ("; and
(c) give particulars of the management structure (within the meaning of section (Approval of management structure and senior appointments in initial period) of this Act) which the council proposes to adopt for the purpose of the exercise of those functions.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hart of South Lanark Baroness Hart of South Lanark moved Amendment No. 423BA:
Page 145, line 35, at end insert ("and
(c) specify a lead borough which will take responsibility for the Child Guidance Service and lead boroughs for the specialist services currently provided by ILEA.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope not to keep the House for more than a very short time on this. I should not dream of doing so were it not for the fact that the matter of the child guidance service and what is to happen to it is out of very considerable importance which stretches beyond the education system itself.
I find it incredible that there is no safeguard written into the Bill on the future of the child guidance service. We rest on what the noble Earl, Lord Arran, said in Committee. He said:
"It will be for the boroughs themselves in preparing their development plans to put forward their proposals on how best to ensure that an effective child guidance service will be provided in each new LEA.
In preparing their proposals, the boroughs will need help".
He went on to say that he was happy to repeat the assurance that the Secretary of State had given in another place and that:
"he would wish to discuss the continuation of the child guidance service in inner London with the inner London councils, the ILEA, and the relevant district health authorities".
The noble Earl went on:
"The sooner these discussions can begin the better".—[Official Report, 17/5/88; cols. 311-312.)
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, when speaking on another matter earlier this evening, specified certain subjects on which there have been discussions with the boroughs. She did not mention the child guidance service. I noted that very carefully, knowing that I was to move this amendment. She did not include child guidance among the subjects on which discussions were proceeding with the boroughs. My own understanding, such as it is, is that there have not been such discussions. Therefore, we are still in the wilderness as regards what is to happen to child guidance.
Perhaps I may make the point—and I hope that at this late stage the Minister can take the matter seriously—is that, whatever noble Lords opposite may choose to think about the various aspects of ILEA, I do not believe there is one who could quarrel for a second with the proposition that the child guidance service of ILEA is second to none and is absolutely essential to the children of London.
The noble Baroness will say, "Ah, but the boroughs can do it. Let us have the matter on a voluntary basis. Let the boroughs prepare their plans

1495
and let the boroughs produce their own child guidance service." That will not do in this case. There are a number of other areas in which it will also not do, but it will not do here because one of the particular qualities of a child guidance service based on a large area like that of ILEA has been that it could collect together and share the available expertise and achieve something more than the sum of its parts at the end of the day. I have in mind the psychiatric social workers, educational psychologists, child therapists and remedial
teachers—plus, of course, the consultant psychiatrists who come in from the National Health Service. That is my first point. Boroughs cannot provide a child guidance service which will be as good as one which is run on an all-London basis; which could still be the case even though ILEA regretably is to be abolished.
My second essential point is this. In considering what they will do to establish a child guidance service, each borough will naturaly have to weigh competing claims on its expenditure. Sadly, although it ought not to be so, it is likely that child guidance will be regarded as somewhat marginal compared with the need to put children into rooms to he taught and have teachers to teach them. Inevitably, it will be regarded as marginal. Therefore, the quality of a child guidance service set up by an individual borough will not only be lower because it is no longer able to use the advantages of size and the concentration of expertise, but also because it would be marginal and the expenditure, pro rata, would be less.
I suggest also that this will affect the outer boroughs. There are a number of outer boroughs bordering on the inner boroughs where children from inner London are attending outer London schools; but on matters of child guidance those children are able to use the ILEA services. In other words, the outer boroughs will now have to take responsibility for some of the services provided by ILEA which they have been able to use.
Does it matter if child guidance is thrown into the wilderness and if it is not as effective as it has been? I suggest that it matters in a way that stretches beyond education. It ought to matter that disturbed children are, so to speak, picked up and given help at an early stage. It ought to matter to the schools where one disturbed child can disrupt a class. It ought to matter to the DHSS which will have to pay the hospital and health bills later on. It ought to matter to the Home Office. If I may be bold enough to say so, it ought to matter to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor because many disturbed children go on to crime unless they are assisted at the age when the disturbance expresses itself.
For all those reasons I hope that the noble Baroness can give an assurance. The amendment is modest. It is not asking for an ending of the voluntary principle which she proclaims. It is merely asking that rather than throw child guidance completely to the wilderness, she specifies a lead borough. One understands that there are one or two of the boroughs that might not be unwilling to take on that role of lead borough to make sure that the service is held together and that we maintain a child guidance service which meets the needs of children. I beg to move.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Baroness has the noble Earl replying again. The noble Baroness, Lady Hart of South Lanark, is concerned to protect ILEA's child guidance service and other linked parts of the ILEA health service. As I made clear in Committee, we sympathise with that concern. The ILEA child guidance service has a good reputation. Its 16 units are spread throughout the ILEA; but I accept that some boroughs have none and that there is a cross-borough flow of traffic.
That does not mean that a lead-borough approach, as put forward in Amendment No. 423BA, is necessarily the best solution. We continue to believe firmly that each borough must take on the responsibility for ensuring that an effective child guidance service continues in its area. It is plain, however, that neighbouring boroughs will need to consult each other in the preparation of their plans. There will also need to be careful consultation with the relevant health authorities. The DES has had a meeting with colleagues in the DHSS and copies of the draft guidance are being sent to the relevant regional and district health authorities, with a proposal that the DES and the DHSS are willing to assist in facilitating discussions between the health authorities, ILEA, and the London boroughs.
The second Amendment No. 423BB, refers to the joint consultative committees which act as a forum for the health and local authorities jointly to examine the related needs of each area. While it would not be appropriate formally for a part of the development plan to be submitted to the local JCC, since formal authority for the plan must remain with the borough, it might well be appropriate for the joint discussions on the child guidance and associated services that will be required in each borough to be taken forward within the local JCC.
With these assurances, the DES and DHSS are taking steps to bring together the district health authorities and the boroughs in order jointly to plan how best to ensure the provision of effective child guidance and related services in the areas to be served by each of the new LEAs. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
4 a.m.
Baroness Hart of South Lanark: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Earl said, though I wish he had gone a little further. However, he has given a certain amount of reassurance and we hope that it will he followed up by effective actions which ensure the future of the child guidance service. I believe that the noble Earl probably means that that should be the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee Lord Ritchie of Dundee moved Amendment No. 423ZBB:
Page 145, line 41, at end insert ("and any trust established under section 153(5A) of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to gallop through this at a supersonic speed, but it is very important and therefore I must spend a few minutes on it. With the leave of the House, I am speaking not only to Amendment No. 423ZBB, but to Amendments Nos. 423DC, 423DF, 423DH, 423DL and 423DP, all of which are closely connected. Here we are returning to an issue which was raised at the Committee stage but not moved.
It concerns the London boarding schools—that is to say, the schools which have been run by ILEA for children with special educational needs. The aim of the amendment is to ensure the continuation of these schools. At present there are about 30 of them and that number is shortly to be reduced to 27. They accommodate about 1,400 children, 1,300 of whom are from inner London boroughs. The schools are mostly situated outside the London area and only five are in the London area. The rest are in the Home Counties, in Kent, Sussex, Surrey and so on.
These schools cater for all manner of special education needs and most of them are for emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children. 1 regret to say that most of them are boys and there are 19 of them. There is a school for. childreno who are visually impaired in Wandsworth and one for the hearing impaired at Penn in Buckinghamshire. There is another school for autism at Merton and one for the physically handicapped at Staplefield; there are three for delicate children suffering from asthma, cystic fibrosis and epilepsy.
All these children need a boarding placement. This has been recommended by expert opinion. It is essential that they should remain part of a coherent and unified group of institutions. They are served by a range of professionals such as educational psychologists, social workers, psychotherapists, medical and paramedical services, specialist teachers and careers advisers. No individual borough could afford to run a service with that much expertise. I do not know how many times those words have been used in connection with this Bill, but it is certainly true of this case.
There are two even more serious problems which will complicate their dispersal. If the running of the schools passes to individual boroughs or county authorities, those authorities may well not want a school full of children with special educational needs from another borough. A school in East Sussex may well not want a school full of disturbed children from inner London. Most seriously, the properties involved, which are owned at the moment by ILEA, are very valuable. If they passed to other authorities, there would be a strong temptation for those authorities to want to take control of them and sell them to realise the assets.
When the county of Middlesex was dissolved 20 years ago there were 11 of these schools. They passed to the outer London boroughs. Not one of those 11 schools still exists. So we have an idea of what would happen if the schools, which are at present run by the ILEA, were to pass to different authorities.
How can they be preserved? A group of governors of the schools came together last autumn when they realised the way things were going to turn and discussed what they should do about it. Should they suggest that each London borough be allocated responsibility for a number of schools? Should some of the boroughs take responsibility for all the schools by means of a joint board or committee? The most favoured suggestion was that a trust should be set up to take on responsibility for the schools. This idea was favoured because it would interfere less with the new formed LEAs, with all their problems, and would also create parental involvement. All the assets of the schools--the land, the buildings and the equipment —would be transferred to the trust. The
1498
running expenses would be defrayed by the boroughs that were sending the children to the schools. The members of the trust could be appointed by the Minister; and the group of governors who have propounded the idea have indicated their willingness to serve.
This amendment, which suggests the setting up of the trust, or, rather, suggests that the Secretary of State may have the power to set up the trust, is purely permissive and enabling. He does not have to do it. But if that is the way decided on for the preservation of the schools the power is there. The amendment proposes that this should go into the Bill so that the power is ready to hand should the Secretary of State require it. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I do not wish to add to the arguments already deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, but when the Minister replies will she answer a question which has occurred to a number of us? If the Government decide not to accept the idea of a trust, and neither the boroughs nor the counties wish to take on the schools, what will happen to them?
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like most strongly to support the amendments. I have visited a couple of these schools for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties and I was impressed by the work they do. One of the schools at Iver Heath is the only primary boarding school for boys from the inner London area. If the school does not survive there will no longer be any such provision. Although it is sad that such provision is necessary, it plays a crucial role in the difficult lives of these children. I hope that the Minister will be able to say something kind about the amendment.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, of course we recognise the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, and the concern of others who have spoken, in tabling an amendment which seeks to secure the future of the residential special schools maintained by ILEA. Of course the Government recognise the important work they do and the contribution they have made over the years to the education of inner London children with special educational needs.
There are three residential special schools located in inner London boroughs and responsibility for them will fall to the relevant borough council. But the Government are well aware that responsibility for the other 27, lying outside the inner London area, cannot be allocated in a straightforward way. That is why the department's draft guidance on the future provision of education in inner London addresses that point specifically.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has established a working party to consider the matter. The ILEA, the outer and inner London borough councils and those county authorities where such schools are located, are represented on the working party.
The first meeting took place last Friday, 24th June, and we are pleased to say that it was well attended. It will look closely at the problem involved and in due course, on the basis of its considerations, advice will be given to my right honourable friend. The principle

1499
of transferring educational responsibilities to inner London councils means the development of local services by local boroughs. We are strongly committed to this.
The amendment provides for the establishment of a trust to run the schools, although it does not say how it would be financed. It would presumably need to employ its own administrative and professional staff, or to use consultants. It would mean that the schools would be taken out of the public domain. We know that representatives of the governors of these schools favour the idea and they will be invited by the working party to put forward and discuss this proposal.
I do not think that we should pre-empt the recommendation which will be made by the working party. I can assure the House that, whatever the eventual decision on this proposal may be, the amendment as drafted would not be necessary as powers already exist to transfer property to a trust via the London Residuary Body. In view of the reason and good sense of the Government's case, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the information which he has given to the House. I hoped that something of this nature might be in the wind. I am very pleased to hear that a working party has been set up to look into the matter and will listen to the views of all those involved, including the governors who thought up the idea of forming a trust. We must hope that the party will produce the right and the most sensible solution, whereby such schools can continue to exist and carry on with their most important work. In the circumstances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 423BB not moved.]
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 423BC:
Page 145, line 41, at end insert—
("(4) Guidance given by the Secretary of State for the purposes of subsection (3)(h) above shall identify policies for the meeting of special educational needs within special and ordinary schools and shall contain such advice as he deems appropriate for their implementation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 423CA which, however, makes a different and separate proposal. But, as the two amendments have a common bond, they might as well be discussed together in order to save time. The common bond is the need to ensure that the London boroughs organise their special schools as it is acknowledged that ILEA has done.
The amendments have been suggested by the Greater London Association for the Disabled, of which I have the honour to be a patron. There is a small correction to be made in Amendment No. 423BC in that the word "ordinary" should read "other". However, that can be corrected on Third Reading.
The amendment adds a new subsection (4) to Clause 152. Subsection (3)(b) of the clause provides for a development plan to be prepared by the council and to,
1500
"take into account any guidance given by the Secretary of State".
The amendment tabled in my name provides such guidance,
"shall identify policies for the meeting of special educational needs within special and other schools",
and shall contain the Secretary of State's advice for implementing it.
Surely the London boroughs can benefit from guidance on how to deal with such problems of children with special needs. They are different and more difficult problems from those which will arise in the London boroughs with regard to the education of other children. They are problems with which most people in the boroughs involved with education will be unfamiliar. They will therefore need such guidance.
I can deal with my other amendment even more briefly. It suggests that the London boroughs should form a joint committee so as to evolve a sound policy to deal with special education. The method is clear from the terms of the amendment, and there is no need for me to repeat them. I beg to move.
4.15 a.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I support the amendment. I know that the Minister and the Government Chief Whip are becoming increasingly impatient and so I shall be brief. The amendments are important. We are talking about the education of London's children. The Government's policy on special education is not clear. On a previous amendment, the Minister quoted from the Government's draft guidance to London boroughs as though that were enough. I have to remind the House that repeating an unverifiable assertion that the London boroughs are to take over the service does not constitute a policy. Having read three times the section of the draft guidance to which the Minister referred, I observed that all it really said was that the Government do not have a policy on this matter and would the boroughs tell them how to do it.
As with so many of the problems we have met in the Bill, it is clear that the Government gave no thought to special education when they spatchcocked the abolition of the ILEA into the Bill. There are many problems with special education. For example, what will happen to children with low-incidence handicaps? They will have to be drawn from a wide area to support a viable unit.
A survey was carried out in the ILEA area and the outer London boroughs by the National Deaf Children's Society. It showed that the movement of deaf children within the ILEA area was much greater than in the outer London area. That survey refers to one handicap only, but the situation it revealed could be multiplied across the whole range of handicaps. The amendments go some way towards dealing with the problems, and for that reason I hope that the House will support them.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support the amendments. The Chief Whip will be delighted to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said a good deal of what I was going to say and so I shall be brief. I like Amendment No. 423BC because it fits in with the general development plans. Amendment No. 423CA calls for co-operation and so I prefer that amendment. At one point, when in draft form,

1501
Amendment No. 423CA was distinctly more committed to integration within the framework of the 1981 Act. I should like it a good deal better if it retained that commitment.
I should like to finish by asking the Minister a question. Is there anything in the Bill to prevent boroughs co-operating formally or informally to provide education for those with special educational needs and, in particular, to continue the move towards integration? Will she also say whether there is any provision in the Bill to encourage them to come together?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hope I have already made clear that the Government recognise the importance of special education and of assisting the London councils to secure adequate and appropriate provision for children and young people with special educational needs within their area.
Amendment No. 423BC would require my right honourable friend, in his guidance on development plans, to specify policies for meeting special needs, and advice on their implementation. In the draft guidance we issued last month, we laid emphasis on the importance in development plans of boroughs identifying clear policies on special educational needs in all sectors of education. But those policies are for the boroughs, as potential LEAs, to determine, just as that responsibility falls to existing LEAs.
The department will of course provide advice about the requirements and implementation of the 1981 Act, guidance it has already given to existing LEAs. Where necessary, we will also offer specific advice and information. In the context of the working group on residential special schools, for example, to which I referred earlier, the department is preparing a detailed paper for the boroughs explaining the background to the present position on special education. ILEA has offered to provide for the boroughs, in this as in other areas, papers explaining not just the current provision, but the implications of the Fish Report and the way in which ILEA thinking has developed. Once armed—and I hope not overwhelmed—with all this information, each borough will be in a position to determine the details of its own policy. I hope that this reassures my noble friend that we are not leaving the boroughs to sink or swim in this important area, but will be providing the service and guidance they will need to reach informed and responsible decisions.
Turning to the noble Lord's Amendment No. 423CA, this would establish in perpetuity a joint advisory council on special needs. We have already recognised the need for co-ordination and joint working on certain special needs issues. The residential special schools working group has had its first meeting. That meeting identified the need for the additional information from both ILEA and the department to which I have just referred. Certain specialist support services for special schools may well need joint discussions and decisions. The inner London councils would, I am sure, be the first to accept that, like other education authorities, they will not each directly provide a complete range of special schools, but will look for local co-operation.
I am sure, however, given this background, that the councils must be allowed to decide themselves on the
1502
form taken by any joint arrangements for which they see a need. The regional conference on special education already provides a forum for the discussion of issues of London-wide concern and indeed brings in the outer London boroughs and the Home Counties. As they evolve their plans, the boroughs may agree the need for a specifically inner London group to consider local issues. My right honourable friend has made it clear that he will be ready to facilitate, where necessary, arrangements involving informal co-operation. This voluntary approach is, I am sure, the best way to secure a longterm basis for co-operation. I hope therefore that my noble friend will not press these amendments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, first perhaps I may say that I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) for their support of these amendments. I hope that they are as impressed as I am, with the answer which my noble friend gave from the Front Bench. I am completely reassured that the Government are seized of these important issues. I was interested by what the Minister told us of all that the Government have already done and are proposing shall he done. Convinced as I am, therefore, by the reply which we have had, 1 beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 423C, 423CA and 423CB not moved.]
Clause 153 [Responsibility for schools]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 423CC:
Page 146, line 14, at end insert—
("(1A) The Secretary of State may by an order or orders so made designate in relation to any local education authority specified in the order (other than an inner London council)—

(a) any ILEA maintained school which it is to be that authority's duty to maintain; or

(b) any ILEA grant-maintained school in respect of which functions exercisable by ILEA are to be exercisable instead by that authority;

and shall so designate any such school which is not designated by an order under subsection ( I ) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 423CD to 423CH:)
Page 146, line 15, leave out ("subsection (1) above") and insert ("this section").
Page 146, line 22, leave out ("whether it is inside or outside that council's area") and insert (";or
(b) in relation to a local education authority by an order under subsection (IA) above;
whether it is inside or outside the area of that council or authority.").)
Page 146, line 25, after ("council") insert ("and any other local education authority").
Page 146, line 27, after ("council") insert ("or authority").
Page 146, line 28, after ("(I )(a)") insert ("or (I A)(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to move Amendments Nos. 423CD to 423CH en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 423D not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423DA:
Page 146, line 30, after ("council") insert ("or authority").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423DB:)
Page 146, line 33, at end insert ("or the first-mentioned authority").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 423DC not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423DD:
Page 146, line 36, after ("council") insert ("or in relation to any other local education authority").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423DE:
Page 146, line 37, after ("(1)(b)") insert ("or (1A)(b)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 423DF not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423DG:
Page 146, line 38, at end insert ("or (as the case may be) by that authority.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 423DH not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423DJ:
Page 146, line 39, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line 32 and insert ("or (1A) above is made any school designated under paragraph (a) of either of those subsections becomes a grant-maintained school, it shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (6) above as having been designated under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) or (1A) (as the case may require).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I call Amendment No. 423DK. If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 423DL.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No.
423DK:
Page 146, line 44, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment simply extends those provisions discussed in Committee in connection with some amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Blackburn. The provisions in the Bill provide for the removal of ILEA appointed and co-opted school governors at abolition date. As I have said, this amendment simply extends those provisions logically, as it seems to the Government, to institutions other than schools—in other words, principally to further education or adult education colleges.
As in the case of the schools provision, the purpose is to ensure that those people appointed to governing bodies specifically to represent the interests of the maintaining LEA are in a position to do so, and that, as a consequence of any changes in such appointments from April 1990, the slightly reconstituted governing body may reconsider, if it wishes, the position of co-opted members. But there will be no requirement on governing bodies to do so. It is entirely possible for those affected by these provisions to be immediately reappointed if the new LEA and the governing body, in the case of the appointed or co-opted members respectively, so wish.
I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I wish to make a comment about these amendments because they will mean that there is considerable disruption in the middle of the academic year if the change occurs in April. It could interfere with the interviewing and selection of teachers and other work of that kind which is undertaken by governing bodies.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 423DL not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423 DM:
After Clause 153, insert the following new clause:
("Removal of certain governors.
.—(1) On the abolition date—

(a) any person appointed by ILEA as governor of any institution to which this subsection applies; and

(b) any person co-opted as governor of any such institution;

shall cease to hold office.
(2) Subsection (1) above applies to the following institutions—

(a) any school which immediately before the abolition date was maintained by ILEA; and

(b) any institution other than a school which immediately before that date was maintained or assisted by ILEA.

(3) On that date any person appointed by an inner London council as governor of a primary school by virtue of any provision included in the instrument of government of the school in accordance with section 7(1) of the 1986 Act (appointment of governor by minor authority) shall cease to hold office.
(4) On and after that date the instrument of government of any school to which that section applies shall have effect as if it made the provision that would have been required by section 3 of that Act if section 7(1) had not applied (and with the omission of any provision included by virtue of subsection (6)(a) of section 7).
(5) Neither subsection (1) nor subsection (3) above shall be taken as prejudicing any subsequent appointment or co-option as governor of the school or other institution concerned of a person who by virtue of that subsection ceases to hold office as governor of that school or institution.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 154 [Transfers of property, rights and liabilities]:
[Amendments Nos. 423DN to 423DQ not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423DR:
After Clause 154, insert the following new clause:
("Approval of management structure and senior appointments
in initial period.
.—(1) References in this section to the management structure of an inner London council for the purpose of the exercise of its LEA functions are references to any aspect of the council's organisation and its arrangements for managing its affairs in relation to the exercise of those functions which the Secretary of State determines ought to be subject to approval under this section with a view to securing the proper performance by the council of those functions during the initial period.
In this section "the initial period" means the period of five years beginning with the abolition date.
(2) The reference in subsection (1) above to a council's organisation and its arrangements for managing its affairs in relation to the exercise of its LEA functions includes in particular its staffing arrangements and the determination of the duties to be performed by jts employees concerned in the exercise of those functions.
(3) It shall be the duty of each inner London council to adopt and to maintain during the initial period a management structure for the purpose of the exercise of its LEA functions which is for the time being approved by the Secretary of State under this section.
(4) Such a council shall not before the end of the initial period make an appointment to which this subsection applies except after consultation with the Secretary of State.
(5) Subsection (4) above applies to the appointment of a person—

(a) to be the chief education officer of the council; or

(b) to any designated post forming part of the management structure of the council for the time being approved under this section.

(6) In subsection (5)(b) above "designated" means designated for the purposes of subsection (4) above by a direction given by the Secretary of State.
(7) For the purposes of the consultation required by subsection (4) above a council proposing to make an appointment to which that subsection applies shall send to the Secretary of State particulars showing the name, previous experience and qualifications of the persons from whom the council proposes to make a selection.
(8) If the Secretary of State is of opinion that any person whose name is submitted to him under subsection (7) above is not a fit person to hold the appointment in question, he may give a direction prohibiting that person's appointment.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 423DS, as an amendment to Amendment No. 423DR, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 423DR agreed to.
4.30 a.m.
Clause 155[Establishment and function of staff commission.]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 423E:
Page 147, line 40, after ("authorities") insert (", in particular ILEA,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it is interesting to note that there are 71 pages in the Marshalled List, and we are now more than half way through at page 36. The intention of the amendment is to strengthen the position of the staff commission suggested in Clause 155. Apparently that commission will be similar to that which was set up on the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan county councils. Although these is scope in subsection (2), if the Secretary of State so directs, for powers to protect the interests of staff. In a similar manner to the 1972 local government reorganisations, it is unlikely that such a direction will he given. The staff commission will therefore have to rely on encouragement rather than on any real power.
In those circumstances, I suggest that it will be impossible to offer employees the prospect of continued employment in advance of the successor authorities drawing up their own establishment schemes and making arrangements to fill the posts therein. For that reason the amendment is important because if the provision is not strengthened, ILEA, which must continue to provide a service until 1990, will have grave difficulty in retaining the staff necessary to provide the service, especially in specialised areas where they will leave to obtain more secure jobs. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House and beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government are well aware that some key members of ILEA's staff have already left and that many more may be thinking about doing so. We therefore sympathise with the concern behind the amendment. We need to strike a careful balance between encouraging the
1506
boroughs to take on the staff necessary to prepare for their responsibilities as LEAs, and ensuring that the ILEA can continue to run an effective education service between now and April 1990. We need also to do whatever we can to reassure members of ILEA's staff that they have a future in inner London's education service.
The motivating principle is that front-line delivery of service must not be disrupted when the transfer occurs; that is why we have insisted that all staff, both teaching and non-teaching, whether full-time or part-time, employed to work at individual schools and colleges, will transfer to the employment of the boroughs. We have also made it clear that, if the boroughs wish, other groups of staff might transfer in this way. I accept that the sooner an assurance can be given to groups of staff, the better. But the boroughs must be given time to take their own decisions.
There will be areas of the service for which the boroughs will wish to recruit staff directly. We have made it very clear that a major objective of the staff commission will be to ensure that the boroughs, when recruiting for posts in these areas, will give reasonable preference to ILEA employees. We shall seek to construct ring-fence arrangements for this purpose. These arrangements must he flexible; but the Government are equally determined that they should be applied fairly and will accordingly ensure that they are enforced in the interests of a smooth transition and of legitimate ILEA staff concerns.
Since our debate at Committee stage, a forum has been established for discussion of staffing matters. It is co-ordinated by the Greater London Employers' Secretariat and brings together the ILEA and the inner London boroughs, including the City. An early focus has been on the need to develop a system of dual appointments, so that designated ILEA officers can continue to serve the ILEA while also offering their expertise to the boroughs. My right honourable friend gives his full support to these discussions.
Turning to the staff commission, it has been suggested to the department in its discussions with ILEA and others that there are arguments in favour of setting up the commission later this year, to give it time to gain a mastery of the many issues involved before the boroughs publish their development plans, which they must do by the end of February 1989. The Government will accordingly consider having in post at least the chairman and a supporting secretariat before the end of this calendar year. With those assurances I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, it is encouraging at this time of the morning to think of a ring-fence that is flexible. The real problem, it appears to me, is to retain the staff needed for ILEA to continue its job until the boroughs take over. The Government's response indicates that they have not really thought this out because to imply that various key people in ILEA can also do the job in the borough at the same time seems to me a pious hope. However, I do not wish to divide the House and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 156 [Remuneration of employees]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 423EA:
Page 149, line 26, leave out ("(2) or (3)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a very minor technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 423F:
Leave out Clause 156.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is logically connected with the last but one amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Morton. As I understand it, the clause is intended to get in the way of the ILEA in its closing days, gratuitously one might say, granting pay increases, especially to employees who may be transferring to successor authorities. I gather this is not unique as a clause in a reorganisation Bill, and so the objection is not to the clause in principle but really along the lines of what the noble Lord, Lord Morton, was arguing; namely, that it gets in the way of the ILEA doing its job properly during the time it continues to exist. It also could potentially get in the way of the ILEA granting perfectly normal pay increases or allowing perfectly normal regrading.
In addition, it is the most extraordinarily convoluted clause and I would defy anybody to claim that they fully understand it. More generally, as a matter of fact, it does not look in the least likely that the ILEA, subject to its present financial constraints, will be in the business of granting excessive pay awards. If we are looking to see where excessive pay awards in this sector are coming from, we need only look at the successor authorities. For example, Kensington already appears to have offered an extraordinarily large salary to an education officer, far in excess of what might be warranted on any other grounds. We are therefore not in the least happy about this clause. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the removal of this clause would have the effect of removing from the Secretary of State the power to prevent the ILEA from granting unjustified increases in pay in the period up to abolition. That is not to say that we expect the ILEA to implement excessive pay increases for the whole of 1989–90, or even for most of it. The need to balance its budget will prevent that.
But as abolition approaches there must remain the faintest possibility—no more than that—that ILEA will be tempted to raise pay for even a few weeks. This clause provides a mechanism whereby inner London councils could object were that to happen. We must remember that it is those boroughs which would suffer if they had to honour abnormally high pay increases for transferred staff or indeed fund higher compensation payments through the London Residuary Body. If the boroughs do not object, the process will not be triggered.
The procedure in the clause has been described as convoluted by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We believe it is a necessary procedure if we are to ensure that both the ILEA and the boroughs have a chance to state their case, and that my right honourable friend has sufficient information on which to take a decision.
1508
I hope that this procedure will not need to be used, in which case it will be neither resource-consuming nor time-consuming. There is no good reason to suggest that it will prevent proper and reasonable pay increases being made to ILEA employees. That is certainly not its intention; nor will it be its effect. It is no more than a precautionary measure, but a necessary one. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I ask whether it is the intention of the Government to prevent excessive salaries being offered by the successor authorities? My noble friend Lord Peston mentioned the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which is a very small authority that will only have one county secondary school and which has offered a salary to its chief education officer that is far in excess of what other authorities of that size normally pay. Will the Government be doing anything about that? Will they at least be issuing some guidance to these successor authorities about the levels of salaries that they ought to be offering?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that I am not aware that the Government have any intention of dealing with the boroughs in the way suggested by the noble Baroness.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Baroness has indeed reassured me to a considerable degree and 1 thank her for that. I am concerned that the Government's interest in profligacy does not extend to dealing with the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea, but depite saying that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 158[Compensation for loss of office or diminution of' emoluments]:
[Amendment No. 423G not moved.]
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 423GA:
Page 150, line 45, at end insert ("or subsequently acquired by him by reason of a variation in his contract of employment which was intended solely to ensure that, in the event of loss of employment by reason of redundancy, he would be entitled to be compensated on a basis not less favourable than that applicable to other employees of I LEA.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 431A. Clause 158 and, in so far as it affects ILEA, Clause 198 of the Bill are designed to prevent ILEA from entering into contracts with its employees which would have the effect of enhancing their contractual rights to compensation in the event of redundancy. These amendments are similar to those I spoke to at some length in Committee. I am reintroducing them now because, as I said at the time, I was not altogether satisfied with the Government's earlier response. I shall not explain again in detail the background to the amendments because I do not wish to take up the time of the House unduly.
I have once more written to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, about them and I hope that in the light of the additional representations that I have made the Government will now feel able to accept them in full.

1509
Briefly, the amendments are not intended to undermine the main purpose of Clauses 158 and 198, but merely to secure limited exceptions which will enable ILEA to correct certain anomalies in the contractual rights of its employees so as to obtain equality of treatment among those in a particular group in the event of loss of employment through redundancy arising in consequence of the Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, acknowledged in Committee, there is a category of ex-GLC employees who, because they were recruited by ILEA under Section 52 of the Local Government Act 1985, have lost the more generous rights to redundancy compensation which they had as GLC employees. In that respect they are less well off than the majority of their ex-GLC colleagues who were transferred to the employment of ILEA and so retained the rights that they enjoyed as GLC employees.
The noble Lord accepted that ILEA had led some GLC employees recruited to its employment to believe that they would retain the more generous provisions that they had enjoyed as GLC employees and regretted that they were not treated accordingly. In his response to the problem the Minister drew a distinction between those ex-GLC employees who were engaged in the belief that their GLC terms would be protected and those recruited in the knowledge that their GLC terms would be replaced by what the noble Lord called ILEA's standard contractual terms. He said that the first group deserved the Government's sympathy but that the second group presented a rather less good case because they were no worse off than the bulk of I LEA employees.
I am advised that that reply was based on a misconception. The hulk of ILEA employees enjoy terms similar to those in the GLC. There is only a small minority of ILEA employees who lost their GLC terms on recruitment to ILEA and they are therefore worse off than the great majority of their colleagues. Moreover, it is my understanding that they too were recruited in the belief and expectation that GLC terms would apply to them. It was only when they received formal letters of appointment on the eve of the abolition of the GLC that they realised they were excluded from those terms. By then it was too late to reject the conditions offered to them since that would have disqualified them from obtaining any redundancy compensation on the ground that they had received an offer of suitable alternative employment.
I am further advised that it was always ILEA's intention to correct the resulting anomaly. That contention is supported by a memorandum dated 26th March 1986. I am reading, for the benefit of the House, in order to get through this amendment as quickly as possible. I have no intention of cutting short what I say. I shall take the time that I think the matter warrants. That contention is supported by a memorandum dated 26th March 1986, a copy of which I have sent to the noble Baroness. It was only delay, arising from legal difficulties since resolved, that prevented ILEA from acting to remove the anomaly before the Bill was published. All affected ILEA staff must therefore have expected that they would enjoy the same redundancy compensation terms.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that the London Residuary Body was to be given a discretionary power to reinstate the redundancy rights of the first group of' whom he spoke. I renew my thanks to the Government for that limited concession but submit that in the light of what I have now said what is needed is an entitlement under which all concerned will be treated alike.
In the next two years ILEA employees will have to make what for them are big decisions about their future career. They need to know now what compensation they will receive if they are made redundant. They cannot be expected to wait for up to two years to see whether the rights that they once had with the GLC will be restored to them.
Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, pointed out in Committee, uncertainty about their future may lead some ILEA staff who have occupied key positions to leave before the authority is wound down. It is bound to affect their morale and therefore the efficiency of the organisation.
Finally, a discretionary power would surely place the London Residuary Body in an invidious position because it would have to examine the precise circumstances surrounding the appointment of everyone recruited to ILEA in order to determine how the discretion should be exercised. This would place on the LRB an altogether disproportionate and even unfair burden and involve drawing fine distinctions based on subjective judgments as to the beliefs and expectations of individuals in 1986. Far better that the Government should now have the magnanimity to make the modest additional concessions that these amendments seek to achieve for a small group which, I understand, may eventually number no more than 20 or 30 people and accept that all those affected should be treated alike. I beg to move.
4.45 a.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I wish to support this amendment very strongly. The situation, as I understand it, is that at the time of the transfer from the GLC to ILEA both the employer and these employees—who 1 understand number about 20 or 30—intended that the GLC conditions would apply. That is the reason for the difficulty, because both the then employee and the then employer wanted this to be—I do not know whether the noble Lord the Chief Whip wishes to intervene.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am so terribly sorry. I did not mean to interrupt the noble Lord. I was having a brief discussion with my noble friend, which I know was out of order, but I shall not do so again.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I know that the Chief Whip is very anxious that we should get on, and so are we. However, the Chief Whip has more power to allow reasonable hours for these debates than I have. It is not on this side of the House that the delays on this Bill have taken place.
This is an important matter for a small group of people, but this House would never consider that, just because it was a small group of people, they should he ignored and justice not done to them. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have considered the arguments carefully. We accept that the confusion in the last few days of the life of the GLC was considerable and could have left uncertainty in the minds of many ILEA recruits. To the extent that some members of that group might have to face the possibility of redundancy for a second time as a result of government policy, they indeed deserve our sympathy. It appears that in practice there is only one category of ex-GLC employee who, if made redundant, would suffer significantly. This category comprises those members of staff under 50 years of age with 20 years' service, who would receive less generous compensation under the general terms to be set out in the regulations than they would have received if they had retained their GLC terms.
We are proposing to have further discussions with the ILEA and the LRB to establish the extent to which employees in this category may have been recruited by ILEA in the belief that their contractual rights to redundancy compensation would remain unchanged. In these discussions we shall explore whether without excessive administrative effort on the part of the LRB this group can be separately identified. If so, the compensation regulations which we intend to make under Section 24 of the Superannuation Act 1972 will be drafted in such a way as to ensure that the members of this group, if made redundant by either the ILEA or the LRB as a result of the abolition of the ILEA, will receive compensation on the same terms as their counterparts who transferred from the GLC to ILEA employment.
If these discussions make it clear that it would be a fruitless task to attempt to identify separately those employees who believe that their GLC rights have been retained, we are prepared to consider widening the scope of the regulations to encompass all the employees in this category. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am most grateful for the assurance that the noble Baroness has given that there are to be further discussions with the relevant bodies about this. From what she says it sounds as if there is every hope that the particular category about which I am concerned will be treated in the way that I had hoped. On that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423GB:
After Clause 160, insert the following new clause:
("Provision of services and facilities by the London Residuary Body
.—(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, the Secretary of State may at any time by a direction require the London Residuary Body to provide for the inner London councils and such other authorities or bodies or classes of authorities or bodies as may be specified in the direction, services or facilities of any description so specified.
(2)—Any such direction shall specify the date (which must be a date falling on or after the abolition date) as from which the services or facilities in question arc to be provided.
(3) The descriptions of services or facilities that may be so specified—

(a) must be services or facilities of a description provided by ILEA at the date of the direction or (where the direction is given on or after the abolition date) immediately before the abolition date; and

1512

(b) subject to paragraph (a) above, include services or facilities of any description involving the provision for any council, authority or body of supplies required by them for the purposes of or in connection with the exercise of any of their functions (whether or not relating to education).

(4) It shall be the duty of the London Residuary Body to provide any services or facilities to which a direction under subsection (1) above relates—

(a)as from the date specified in the direction under subsection (2) above; and

(b) on such terms (including terms requiring the making of payments to the London Residuary Body by any council, authority or body to whom such services or facilities are provided) as may be specified in the direction.

(5) Any such direction may require such services or facilities to be provided on different terms for—

(a) the inner London councils and any other authorities or bodies or classes of authorities or bodies specified in the direction; and

(b) different authorities or bodies or classes of authorities or bodies so specified.

(6) Subject to subsection (7) below, the London Residuary Body may by agreement with one or more inner London councils, and on such terms as to payment or otherwise as the parties consider appropriate, provide the council or councils concerned with services or facilities of any description it would be within the power of the council or councils concerned to provide themselves in the exercise of any of their functions (whether or not relating to education).
(7) Any such agreement shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 423GC and 423GE. The Government have made it clear from the outset that we expect inner London boroughs to take on responsibility for the full range of educational services from 1st April 1990. But we have always accepted that there may be certain areas where ILEA has run an organisation on a London-wide basis or certain support services where the boroughs have not finalised their own arrangements by 1990. The LRB can help in these circumstances to ensure continuity of provision and a smooth transfer of responsibility. Hence Amendment No. 423GB.
The other amendments are technical amendments. Amendment No. 423GE gives the London Residuary Body the power to make ex gratia payments in certain circumstances. I therefore beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, the amendment gives wide and sweeping powers to the London Residuary Body. Subsection (3)(b) reads:
"services or facilities of any description involving the provision for any council, authority or body of supplies required by them for purposes of or in connection with the exercise of any of their functions (whether or not relating to education)."
These are enormous powers that are being handed over.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 161[Repayment by London Residuary Body of loans to ILEA]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423GC:
Page 153, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) For the purposes of paragraph 8 of Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1972 (borrowing for purposes of repaying sums borrowed under paragraph 1(b) of that Schedule), as it applies in relation to the London Residuary Body by virtue of section 75 of the 1985 Act, the amount of any liabilities in respect of principal to which that Body is for the time being subject under subsection

1513
(1) above shall be treated as money borrowed by that Body under paragraph 1(b) of that Schedule.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 163 [Payment of pensions and pensions increase by the London Residuary Body]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 423GD:
Page 154, line 36, after ("8(1)(b)") insert ("or (c)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423GE:
After Clause 164, insert the following new clause:
("Power of London Residuary Body to pat' compensation.
.—(1) The London Residuary Body may pay compensation—

(a) to any former officer of ILEA who sustained an injury in the course of his employment with ILEA; or

(b) to the widow or widower or child of any former officer of ILEA who, in the course of his employment with ILEA, died or sustained an injury resulting in death.

(2) Subsection (1) above applies irrespective of whether the employment with ILEA of the officer in question came to an end on or before the abolition date.
(3) The London Residuary Body may pay compensation to any person in respect of loss suffered by him in consequence of any damage to property in respect of which it appears to them that a claim might have been brought against ILEA had ILEA not been abolished.
(4) Any compensation payable under this section may be paid either —

(a) by way of a lump sum; or

(b) by way of periodical payments of such amounts and payable at such times and for such periods as the London Residuary
Body may from time to time determine having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

(5) The payment of compensation under this section shall not affect any right or claim to damages or compensation which—

(a) any such officer as is mentioned in subsection (I )(a) or (b) above or his widow or widower or child; or

(b) any such person as is mentioned in subsection (3) above; may have against any person other than the London Residuary Body or, except so far as may be agreed when the compensation is granted, against the London Residuary Body by virtue of section 164 of this Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper> moved Amendment No. 423GF:
After Clause 166, insert the following new clause:
("Preparatory expenditure of inner London councils.
.—(1) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by section 137 of the Local Governtnent Act 1972 (which authorises a local authority to incur expenditure which it considers is in the interests of its area or inhabitants of its area), an inner London council may incur expenditure in making preparations for the exercise on and after the abolition date of its LEA functions.
(2) Where before the passing of this Act any such council has incurred such expenditure, that expenditure shall be treated after the passing of this Act as authorised by subsection (1) above.
(3) The Secretary of State may pay grants to an inner London council in respect of such expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the council in any financial year ending before the abolition date.
(4) The Secretary of State may make any payment in respect of such a grant subject to compliance by the council concerned with such conditions as he may determine.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I speak also to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, Amendment No. 423GFA. In the department's preliminary discussions, a number of councils asked that their ability to incur
1514
expenditure in respect of their preparations for the transfer of functions be put beyond doubt. Although they were advised that legally this was never in question, the Government agree that it is desirable to make it clear. Subsections (1) and (2) of our amendment therefore provide that the councils may incur expenditure for this purpose, both before and after Royal Assent.
Subsections (3) and (4) enable the Secretary of State to pay grants to the councils in respect of expenditure incurred by them in preparing for transfer and to specify the conditions that will apply. Noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend the Minister of State announced in another place in March the Government's intention to make available to the councils specific grant of up to £3 million in 1988–89 and £10 million in 1989–90 payable at a rate of 100 per cent. The grant will be towards all legitimate preparatory expenditure: examples might include the employment of educational advisers and other senior administrative staff, the establishment of information systems, and publicity. The draft guidance issued by the department set out the way in which the amount of grant available to each council will he determined and gave a broad indication of the conditions which will apply.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, would enable the Secretary of State to pay grant to the ILEA in respect of expenditure which it incurred in assisting the councils to prepare for the transfer of functions. The leader of the authority has already raised this point with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I shall explain the reasons that he has given as to why it should not be appropriate to make the grant available to the ILEA as well as to the councils.
As I have already noted, the ILEA has already made clear its intentions to he as helpful as possible during the period leading up to abolition and we welcome that. We recognise that the authority will need to undertake work during this time which it would not otherwise have had to do. However, the position of the councils is rather different from that of the ILEA. The councils start from the position of having no educational staff and will have to build up expertise very quickly to prepare and implement their development plans. The councils must obviously call upon the expertise of the ILEA's officers during that period, perhaps in some cases through dual appointments. Such appointments are likely to be financed through the specific grant which will thus provide the ILEA with resources to compensate for the loss of staff time arising as a consequence of these arrangements.
As we draw closer to the abolition date it may well be that the role of the ILEA in assisting the councils will increasingly come to be reflected in dual appointments. That will be particularly true when councils need to undertake work for themselves in areas such as preparation for school admissions after April 1990, application for capital expenditure allocations and the administration of student awards. At that time we would expect there to be some tapering off of the direct responsibility of the authority in these areas.
The Government acknowledge that the work of the ILEA in assisting in the preparation for transfer will not necessarily be matched precisely by the gradual

1515
decrease in its responsibilities as an LEA. We believe that there will be scope within the ILEA's large volume of overall resources for it to carry out its transfer-related functions without the provision of specific grant. However, my right honourable friend has acknowledged that if the authority is accepted for precept limitation in 1989–90 we shall, in setting the limit, take account of the full range of tasks to be performed by the ILEA during that year.
I therefore commend to the House Amendment No. 423GF. However, the Government do not believe that Amendment No. 423GFA is either necessary or appropriate. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw it.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 423GF, Amendment No. 423GFA:
At end insert—
("(5) The Secretary of State may pay grant to the ILEA in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by it before the abolition date for assisting inner London councils in making their preparations for the exercise on and after the abolition date of their LEA functions.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Baroness, and I am extremely unconvinced. Her argument leads to exactly the opposite conclusion that she has reached. The amendment is completely symmetric to the argument she put forward. I hate to be ratty at this time of day but here is an instance that appears to show exactly what is wrong with the Government's attitude to the Bill. They are wilfully refusing an amendment which makes perfectly good sense in its own terms. I believe that your Lordships deserve better treatment in terms of argument than we have had. We are not idiots. We can recognise a rational argument, and it is about time that we had one on this subject. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment to the amendment negatived.
On Question, Amendment No. 423GF agreed to.
Clause 167[Financial provisions]:
5 a.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 423GG to 423GM:
Page 157, line 32, leave out subsection (8).
Page 157, line 37, leave out from ("to") to ("as") in line 39 and insert ("capital money received by the London Residuary Body of any description specified for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State".
Page 157, line 48, after ("to") insert ("capital").
Page 157, line 48, at end insert—
("(10A) The Secretary of State may by order provide, in relation to capital money received by the London Residuary Body of any description not within subsection (9) above, for the application of that money, or of such part of that money as may be spe cified in the order, for such purposes connected with the abolition of ILEA as may be so specified.").
Page 157, line 50, at end insert (": and
(b) "capital money" has the same meaning as in section 77 of the 1985 Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 170 [Control of contracts]:]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 423H:
Page 159, line 3, leave out from ("£15,000") to end of line 4.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, this amendment is
1516
grouped with Amendments Nos. 423J and 423K in my name, Amendments Nos. 423KA and 423KC in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, Amendments Nos. 423L, 423M and 423N in my name, Amendments Nos. 423NA and 423N L in the name of the noble Baroness, and Amendments Nos. 423P and 423Q in my name. I hope I have the grouping right.
This group of amendments deals with Clauses 170, 171 and 172. The purpose of the amendments is to deal with the extraordinarily retrospective nature of this proposed legislation. If one looks at Clause 170, which the others follow, it applies to:
"any contract in respect of which the consideration exceeds £15,000 and which is entered into after 22nd July 1987".
I do not know why that date was chosen because that is months before anybody, even in the Government, considered putting the ILEA into this Bill.
If one looks at subsection (3), that states;
"Subject to section 173(3)(6) of this Act, if at any time after 22nd July 1987 and before the passing of this Act ILEA has entered into a contract which would have been in contravention of the provisions of subsection (2) above if they had then been in force, the same consequences shall follow as if those provisions had been contravened by ILEA".
In other words, if before anybody had thought of abolishing ILEA it had entered into a contract after 22nd July, that contract, if this Bill is passed with these clauses in, is retrospectively illegal with the consequences that it can be dealt with by the elected members or officers and will he liable to the surcharge for having done something illegal which, at the time it was done was not illegal and is only retrospectively made illegal.
That appears to be totally against the tradition of British law, both Scottish and English. I suggest that it is also contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. No doubt the noble Baroness will be able to explain why this is necessary and why the 22nd July was chosen. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is difficult to see what effect these amendments, Nos. 423H to 423P, will have at this stage. ILEA has been seeking consent to contracts and disposals since last July in the full knowledge that the Government intended to bring forward these provisions. The date of 22nd July was the date on which the Secretary of State announced in the other place that these provisions would apply; originally, of course, in relation to the ILEA provisions included in the Bill as then introduced.
Without these provisions, however, it would not he possible to guard against the possibility that something of importance to the councils might have slipped through the net before the Bill receives Royal Assent. These provisions cannot in any real sense be described as retrospective, so the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Morton, over European conventions, and other international conventions, are unjustified. The provisions were clearly signalled in advance and in fact ILEA has been operating them for nearly a year.
Amendment No. 423Q is intended to remove the penalties that may be imposed by order of the High Court upon any member of the authority who has authorised any contract or disposal in contravention of the provisions of Clauses 170 and 171. We welcome the authority's clear intention to act in a responsible way in the period up to the abolition but

1517
we should not disregard the possibility, however remote, of unforeseen and improper action, perhaps by an individual for personal reasons, that would be contrary to the interests of the councils. We believe, therefore, that Clause 173, which follows very much the provisions contained in the Local Government Act 1985, is a necessary protection against such action. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I presume the Bill will not be passed until some time later this year, 1988. 1 should have thought that is likely. If so, I should have thought that to go back to a date in 1987 in the normal sense of the word is retrospective. In any event, my recollection is that the abolition of the ILEA was not considered by the Government in the Bill in July because it only gave certain boroughs the opportunity to opt out. Therefore, the Minister's answer does not meet the point.
Knowing that the European Court of Human Rights exists, I do not intend to press the amendment and 1 beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 423J and 423K not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423KA:
Page 159, line 22, after ("and") insert ("(subject to section 172(2) of this Act)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423K B:
Page 159. line 28, after ("to") insert—
("(a) a contract to dispose of land or to grant or dispose of any interest in land; or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 171 [Control of disposals]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423KC.
Page 159, line 30. at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (9) below,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 423L, 423M and 423N not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 423NA to 423NL:
Page 160, line 6, leave Out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) A disposal shall not he invalid or, in the case of a disposal which consists of a contract, void by reason only that it has been made or entered into in contravention of this section; and (subject to the provisions of section 172 of this Act) a person acquiring land, or entering into a contract to acquire land, from ILEA shall not be concerned to enquire whether any consent required by this section has been given or complied with.")
Page 160, line 13, after ("acquire") insert ("any").
Page 160, line 13, at end insert—
("(9) this section does not apply to a disposal falling within subsection (8)(a) above if it is made in pursuance of a contract entered into, or an option granted, on or before 22nd July 1987.").
Clause 172, page 161, line I, after ("apply") insert ("in relation").
Page 161, line 2, after ("(above)") insert ("by an aggrieved body (other than the London Residuary Body)").
Page 161, line 3, leave out ("ILEA") and insert ("the London Residuary Body").
Page 161, line 4, after ("body") insert ("(other than the London Residuary Body").
Page 161, line 16, after ("to") insert (", or have vested in,").
Page 161, line 18, leave out from ("land") to end of line 19 and insert ("proposed to be disposed of, or in which an interest is proposed to be granted, has been so transferred or has so vested").
Page 161, line 21, leave out from ("if') to end of line 22 and insert
(", but for the disposal—

(i) the interest disposed of would have been so transferred or would have so vested;

(ii) where the disposal consists in the granting of an interest in land, the land in which the interest was granted would have been so transferred, or would have so vested, free of the interest.").

Clause 173, page, 161, line 31, leave out ("other").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord's good example, when he withdrew three amendments, and move these amendments enbloc).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 423P and 423Q not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423QA.
After Clause 173, insert the following new clause:
("Charities.
—(1) Where immediately before the abolition date—

(a) any property is held exclusively for charitable purposes by ILEA as sole trustee; and

(b) the charity is primarily for the benefit of the area of a single inner London council;

that property shall on that date vest for the like purposes in that council.
(2) Where immediately before that date any power with respect to any such charity as is mentioned in subsection (1)(h) above was under the trusts of the charity vested in, or in the holder of any office connected with, ILEA, that power shall on that date vest in, or in the holder of the corresponding office conneccted with, the inner London council concerned.
(3) Where in the case of any such power vested in the holder of any office connected with ILEA there is no corresponding office connected with the inner London council concerned, that power shall on that date vest in the holder of such other office connected with that council as the Charity Commissioners may before that date with the consent of that council and the office-holder concerned appoint.
(4) Where immediately before that date—

(a) any property is held exclusively for charitable purposes by ILEA as sole trustee; and

(b) subsection (1) above does not apply to that property; that property shall on that date vest for the like purposes in the London Residuary Body or in such other person as the Charity Commissioners may before that date appoint.

(5) Where immediately before that date any power with respect to any charity, other than any such charity as is mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above, was under the trusts of the charity vested in, or in the holder of any office connected with, ILEA, that power shall on that date vest in the London Residuary Body or in such other person as the Charity Commissioners may before that date appoint.
(6) References above in this section to a power with respect to a charity shall not include references to any power of any person by virtue of being a charity trustee of that charity; but where under the trusts of any charity the charity trustees immediately before the abolition date included ILEA or the holder of an office connected with ILEA then, as from that date, those trustees shall instead include such of the inner London councils, or the holder of such office connected with such of those councils, as the Charity Commissioners may before that date appoint.
(7) References in subsections (2), (5) and (6) above to a charity shall not include a charity which is a company within the meaning of the Companies Act 1985 or incorporated by charter.
(8) For the purposes of this section, a charity is a charity primarily for the benefit of the area of a single inner London council if the charity is established for purposes which are by their nature or by the trusts of the charity directed wholly or mainly to the benefit of an area which falls wholly or mainly within that council's area.
(9) Nothing in this section shall affect the power of Her Majesty, the court or any other person to alter the trusts of any charity.
(10) In this section "charity", "charitable purposes", "charity trustees", "court" and "trusts" have the same meanings as in the Charities Act 1960.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this proposed new clause reflects discussions between the department and the Charity Commissioners. Its purpose is to clarify the position of charities in respect of which ILEA either appoints the trustees or is itself a trustee. I referred to this in anticipation at a previous stage of the Bill and I hope that your Lordships will agree that these provisions are self-evidently necessary and sensible. I beg to move.
Baroness David Baroness David: My Lords, we support this amendment and wonder why it was not in before.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 423R:
Before Clause 174, insert the following new clause:
("Supply of educational materials.
.The Secretary of State shall promote and assist in the making of arrangements, whereby the supply of school materials and other educational goods of the inner London councils, other local authorities and public bodies may most efficiently and effectively be provided.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, though this amendment is not grouped with the next amendment, No. 423S, may I speak to both with the permission of your Lordships, because the point is essentially the same? There is a jointness of activity here which already exists within ILEA. In the first case it is in terms of the purchase and supply of school materials and other relevant education goods, and in the other with the provision of transport services.
The functions exist and the people are in post. It would be a great pity if any risks were taken of those two services disappearing. It could be argued—and no doubt will be—that we can rely on the inner
London councils themselves to guarantee that the problem that I envisage will not emerge. I feel that, since the Secretary of State is creating the problem in the first place, the least he can do is to accept responsibilities to promote and assist in the way stated in the two amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as in the case of a number of other services which we have been discussing, the Government's first priority is to discuss the future of the supplies organisation with its users and potential users: ILEA, the inner London boroughs, the outer London boroughs and others. Because the organisation has so many customers, we have not yet been able to open a full debate. But we have made it clear, in discussion with ILEA and the boroughs, that this is a service whose future, whether or not as an independent commercial enterprise, we shall wish to discuss.
The prime responsibility for ensuring the efficient and effective supply of educational goods must lie with the inner London councils, as it does in all other areas of their responsibilities. This amendment would place very wide, and continuing, new responsibilities on the Secretary of State, responsibilities which we believe should properly rest with the local authority. This does not represent any abdication of responsibility on our behalf. We firmly believe that the decisions are for the boroughs, and for this reason we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I believe that here we have another example of the Secretary of State creating the uncertainty and chaos that he claimed would exist if he did not abolish ILEA. The Government have made their position clear and there is no need for me to underline what they said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 423S not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 423T:
Before Clause 179, insert the following new clause:
("Funding for educational services in inner London.
. In discharging his functions under Part VI of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (revenue support grant) the Secretary of State shall take into account the need to provide for appropriate funding by the inner London councils after the abolition date of voluntary organisations providing educational services which were assisted before that date by the ILEA: and he shall make such adjustments and provision as is necessary or expedient for that purpose.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these two Amendments, Nos. 423T and 423U, are concerned with funding voluntary organisations. There is almost a complete absence of reference to the voluntary sector and to 1LEA's partnership with it in the education Bill. Therefore, these two amendments seek to secure additional finance for borough councils to enable them to take on ILEA support of local voluntary organizations—that is Amendment No. 423T—and specific provision within the existing London boroughs grant scheme to secure the future of those voluntary education services which work across inner London.
I have a long brief which explains exactly the work that ILEA does for the voluntary sector, but I will spare the House that at this time of the morning. I wish to conclude by saying that inner London has a unique community make-up. One in seven of all ILEA pupils is not fluent in English. It is essential that the work of the community in harnessing resources to meet areas of disadvantage and special education needs should not be lost. The measures proposed in this amendment are no more than the arrangements made by the Government on the abolition of the GLC, and it is most earnestly hoped that community education work in inner London can be similarly protected. I beg to move.
5.15 a.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we recognise the importance of the link and co-operation with the voluntary organisations. Most of the help that ILEA gives to voluntary organisations is through voluntary youth organisations. Discussions are going on and we have emphasised that in their draft guidance the boroughs must focus on this area. However, the Government see no advantage in their conducting the type of review envisaged by the amendment. It will be for the boroughs themselves to assess the needs of their local communities after 1990. One of the major advantages of our proposals is that the boroughs will be able to make an appropriate and flexible response to local needs in co-operation with voluntary organisations. I trust therefore, as I too have a number of longer notes which I could have used to develop the theme, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I cannot say that I am altogether satisfied with the answer, but at this time of the morning I shall make do with it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 432U and 432UA not moved.]
Clause 174 [Information and access to documents]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 423UB:
Page 162, line 13, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Any body mentioned in subsection (2) below, and the Secretary of State, may for the purpose of discharging any function conferred upon it by or under this Part, request ILEA to provide such information relating to ILEA or its functions as that body or the Secretary of State may reasonably require, and the ILEA shall provide such information.
(1A) The ILEA—

(i) shall not he required under subsection (1) above to provide information in breach of any existing legal duty of confidentiality or of legal professional privilege;

(ii) shall, where it considers that to provide any information requested under subsection (1) above would be likely to constitute a disclosure of personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1984, refer the matter to the Data Protection Registrar.

(1B) Where upon such reference the Data Protection Registrar considers that the disclosure in question would involve a substantial contravention of the data protection principles, he shall give advice as to the conditions (if any) which should attach to the disclosure of information.
(1C) For the purpose of the consideration required to be given and steps taken by the ILEA under paragraph (ii) of subsection (1A) above, and by the Data Protection Registrar under subsection
(1B) above, the provisions of section 34(5)(a) of the Data Protection Act 1984 shall he deemed not to have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on several occasions during our discussions on Report the Minister has said how much ILEA has been cooperating and getting on with the work of communicating with the boroughs on the abolition of ILEA and the passing of education functions to the inner London boroughs. The Inner London Education Authority has made it clear on a number of occasions that it is willing to co-operate in seeking to ensure the smoothest possible transfer of functions to inner London councils and is doing so in the interests of the education of children, young people and adults in inner London.
A number of meetings have been held with chief executives and elected council members of all political persuasions and an information prospectus is due to be published quite soon for the boroughs and the City. They have seen, and been given the opportunity to comment on, a draft of it. Yet Clause 174 as drafted is a draconian measure with criminal penalties attached to it. An absurdly short time is given to respond to what may be complex requirements for information and absolutely no protection is given to the confidentiality of the material held, however sensitive it may be to ILEA.
No clause of the Bill gives officers of ILEA more concern than this one. Unless the clause is amended, ILEA will be faced with the legal duty to provide all the information requested of it; first, by the 13 inner London councils; secondly, by the London Residuary Body; thirdly, by any other local authority which has property transferred under Clause 154; fourthly, by the staff commission; and fifthly, by the
1522
Secretary of State. The Inner London Education Authority will be acting unlawfully if one single piece of information required by any one of the above bodies, however unreasonable the request, is not provided within as short a time as one month of that request. There is no let-out clause. If the only member of staff who happens to know about an issue is either sick or away on holiday, or if every other council has agreed to wait six weeks for a piece of information but one borough demands it in less time, there is nothing ILEA can do.
In addition to all this, the ILEA must let anyone who is authorised by the LRB—not just an officer of the LRB—at any reasonable time inspect and make copies of any document belonging to or under the control of the ILEA. Such a person can also require the ILEA to deliver copies of documents to him. In other words, the ILEA officers are being required to act as the dogsbodies of the London Residuary Body. These requirements apply without any express limitation to confidential files about pupils, to medical files, to legal documents prepared for litigation, and so on.
Moreover, if anyone obstructs a person authorised by the LRB without reasonable excuse or refuses or merely fails to comply with a requirement to provide copies to a person authorised by the LRB, he commits a criminal offence which is punishable by a fine of up to £40 a day, as a continuing offence.
Under subsection (7) the requirement extends to information not kept in legible form —in other words, information held on a computer— and there is a duty to produce information in legible form. The latter may involve very complex computer programs being developed which, however justified they might be in themselves, would make the one-month deadline really rather unreasonable. The present requirements are all imposed on the ILEA at its own expense, however large the volume of requirements placed upon it.
The amendments that we are putting forward here would remove all those problems. Therefore I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept them. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I should like to repeat what the noble Baroness has kindly reminded us of; namely, that ILEA has been most helpful and I have no reason to doubt that its co-operation will continue. However, having said that, there must always remain the faint possibility that this atmosphere of excellent co-operation might slip at some point between now and April 1990. Therefore, we believe it is important that the basic provisions of this section should remain in the Bill.
With that excellent co-operation very much in mind, and while resisting the contents of Amendments Nos. 423UB and 423UD, we should like to consider further how best to secure the content of Amendment No. 423UC, and the underlying intention of Amendment No. 423UE. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, which has given me some assurance. I very much hope that she will be able to take away these suggestions, consider them again and

1523
perhaps bring forward some further minor modifications on Third Reading, which I think would reassure those officers in ILEA who are working extremely hard already—as she has said—to try to facilitate the changes. Frankly I think that the clause as it stands makes it more difficult for them, rather than easier. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 423UC to 423UE not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 423UF:
After Clause 174 insert the following new clause:
("Concurrent employment.
.—(1) A person in the service of ILEA may enter into a contract of employment with a successor authority for the rendering of services by him to that authority concurrently with his service to ILEA.
(2) Subsection (1) above has effect notwithstanding anything in a person's contract of employment with ILEA and neither his entering into a contract of employment with a successor authority nor anything done by him in pursuance of such a contract shall he a ground for ILEA to terminate his employment.
(3) In this section "successor authority" means—

(a) an inner London council;

(b) the London Residuary Body; and

(c) any local authority other than an inner London council to
which functions or property of ILEA will be transferred by
order under section 154 of this Act.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the intention of this amendment is to underpin the suggestion that dual appointments should be used in the run-up to April 1990. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, this is a surprising amendment. It says that someone who is employed by the ILEA may enter into a contract of employment with a successor authority and that the ILEA can do nothing about it. Someone can work six hours a day for the successor authority and whatever time is left with the ILEA. It seems rather hard on the ILEA that it has no choice in the matter. It is not to be consulted. Will the Minister explain why the ILEA has to accept such a joint appointment instead of taking part in making a joint appointment, if it is suitable?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, during the debate I have tried to emphasise that a careful balance needs to be struck between ensuring that the ILEA can continue to provide an effective education service in the period to April 1990 and to assist the London boroughs individually to prepare to take on the full responsibilities of local education from that date. It is clear that many ILEA staff members will provide the key to that operation. They will be needed by both the ILEA and the boroughs, and so some system of dual appointments will be necessary to facilitate that process. The amendment supports that concept by removing any contractual obstacle to having two employers.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps she can explain how a joint appointment can be made by one person who employs someone who is employed by another person but who does not consult the other person; in other words, the ILEA; and the ILEA has to accept it. That is not a joint appointment; it is a person who is doing two jobs.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have no doubt that consultation will take place. As I have said, a forum for discussing staff matters involving all the parties concerned has been set up and no doubt it will be a proper forum for formulating such action.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 423V to 423Z had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Warnock Baroness Warnock moved Amendment No. 424:
Before Clause 177, insert the following new clause:
("Arrangement for non-educational provision.
. In section 7 of the 1981 Act (which imposes duties on local education authorities in relation to statements of special educational needs) there shall be inserted after subsection (2);
"(2A) Where a statement specifies non-educational provision it shall be the duty of the appropriate local authority or health authority specified in the statement to arrange that it is made for the child".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is similar to, but in some important ways different from, an amendment moved at an earlier stage of the Bill and withdrawn. It is not directly connected with the subject matter of the present Bill, but I move it now to seize the chance of legislation on education to attempt to remove an anomaly in the 1981 Act.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that where therapies are specified in a statement of special educational need there is a legal obligation on the appropriate authorities to provide those therapies. Obviously there are some objections to the amendment. I do not much like the distinction embodied in it between education provision and therapy.
I cannot understand why teaching a child the skill of the use of language is not a matter of education and why it should he described as therapy. However, at an earlier stage the Minister stated that there were good reasons for retaining that distinction although she did not then explain what those good reasons were. It therefore seems better for the moment to assume that the distinction between education provision and therapy should be retained. I move now that the 1981 Act be so amended as to place a duty on whichever other authority may be responsible for those services which are referred to in the statement.
It would be illogical if there were a legal obligation to provide only some of the things specified in a child's statement as essential to his educational development. To ensure that all the provision must be made by whatever relevant authority is the only way that the purpose of the statement can be fulfilled; namely, that a child's interests are protected and that his educational needs are satisfied.
As I have suggested, the distinction between speech therapy and language education is a totally artificial one, but the present amendment does not rely on this acknowledged fact of artificiality. Instead, it aims to ensure that whatever local authority is appropriate shall, as a matter of obligation, supply whatever is specified in a statement. A statement is a need for a child who is educationally disabled. The local authorities themselves are in consultation one with another in order to draw up a statement. Health authorities are concerned just as much as education

1525
authorities in the assessment of the child at the beginning.
Therefore the collaboration between the different authorities ought not to be impossible. I do not think unreasonable demands on resources will be made, because the assessment has been made together with the different authorities right from the start. The spirit of the 1981 Act demands that this amendment or one with the same effect should be incorporated in the Act. I therefore beg to move.
5.30 a.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I wish to support this amendment most warmly. I hope that we can resolve this problem because it is surely irrefutable that there should be a legal duty to ensure that any provision specified in a statement is carried out, whether it comes under a special educational provision or not. Otherwise, the statement will not afford genuine protection for the child with special needs.
It is very important to stress that it does not imply limitless resource obligations. It is the LEA that writes the statement after the full assessment of the child, and it is up to the LEA to decide what should be specified in the statement because Regulation 10 of the Special Educational Needs Regulations 1983 provides that a statement shall specify the special educational provision. Also, when it is specifying non-educational provision—this is the safeguard—it should only specify it if it is proposed to be made available by the education authority. The Statement should not specify it unless the LEA is satisfied that it will be made available by a district health authority, a social services authority or some other body. In other words, if the LEA does not think such provision can be met, it does not have to write it into the statement.
This may be anything but satisfactory from the point of view of the child concerned, but it certainly means that there are not huge resource implications. I think we should be very clear on that. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply and I hope that she will be able to say something positive about this amendment or that she will be able to bring back one of her own on Third Reading to ensure that whatever is specified in the statement, whether special educational or non-educational provision, will be provided. At the very least I hope that she will manage to find some way of ensuring the LEAs may buy in speech therapy if they wish to do so.
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I may say very briefly that as I intervened on a similar amendment at the Committee stage I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able if not to accept this amendment then to come forward even on Third Reading with something that meets what was clearly not the intention of Parliament originally.
This amendment arose from the Oxfordshire case. A statemented child was apparently unable to have speech therapy because it should be supplied by the health authority. My noble friend set out all this very clearly at Committee. The amendment is designed to put this right. If it is not correctly drafted, I hope that the Government can come forward with a correct draft in order to put right what seems to be an anomaly.
Baroness David: My Lords, briefly I very much wish to add my support to this amendment. It seems quite ridiculous that some way cannot he found to solve this problem, which is a very real one.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there is clearly concern in the area of non-educational provision, in particular over the provision of speech therapy services. I undertook to look at this point following the debate at Committee stage. We have considered this matter most carefully to see whether it is possible at least to go back to where we thought the law stood before the Oxfordshire judgment in 1986.
The present amendment goes well beyond that point. Local education authorities already have a duty under Section 7(2) of the Education Act 1981 to arrange for the special education provision specified in the statement. This amendment would impose duties on local authorities and health authorities to make appropriate non-educational provision. Noneducational provision covers a wide range of services which I enumerated in great detail in Committee.
Of course we should like health authorities to recruit more speech and other therapists. But this may not always be possible even though health authorities may be willing and have the resources to do so. The Government have given high priority to meeting these needs in recent years but demand continues to rise and health authorities have to balance priorities among the many calls within the health service against the resources available.
I assure noble Lords that the Government fully recognise the importance of non-educational provision but feel that the amendment would be inappropriate in attempting to secure appropriate provision for children with special educational needs. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I am not altogether satisfied with that reply. It seems to me that this is a very good chance for an amendment to be introduced to reduce the folly of that part of the 1981 Act which inhibits the education of a considerable number of children, particularly perhaps children who essentially need speech therapy and for whom language is inaccessible without it. If language is inaccessible, then communication is inaccessible and education is nothing and cannot start.
There are other therapies which may be just as important for a child's education. I am not satisfied that we should simply hear that this is an anomaly and that the Government should like to do something about it but not now. This is a chance, as legislation is going through, for this to be done to the great advantage of a large number of children who are suffering considerably from the present state of the law. But this is obviously not the time further to discuss this. However, I think that there should be another chance to produce an amendment that would be more satisfactory before the final stage of this Bill. I very much hope that that will be possible. However, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 424A to 424F:
After Clause 178, insert the following new clause:
("Loan liabilities excepted from transfer under Part II.
.—(1) The amount of any liability of a local education authority in respect of the principal of any loan which is an excepted liability in relation to an institution to which this section applies shall be treated on and after the operative date as having been borrowed from that authority by the default transferee on such terms as to repayment and the payment of interest as may be agreed between the Education Assets Board and the authority or determined by the Secretary of State under this section.
(2) This section applies to any institution conducted by a higher education corporation and any institution designated under section 121 of this Act; and in relation to any such institution—

(a) a liability is an excepted liability for the purposes of this section if it would have been transferred under section 118(3) but for subsection (5)(b) of that section or (as the case may be) under section 122(2) of this Act but for subsection (2B) of that section; and

(b) references, in relation to an excepted liability, to the default transferee and the operative date are references respectively to the body or persons to whom and the date on which that liability would have been so transferred.

(3) It shall be the duty of the authority and the Board, whether before or after the operative date, so far as practicable to arrive at such written agreements as may he necessary for determining the amount of any excepted liability and the terms to apply in relation to the liability imposed on the default transferee under this section by reference to that liability.
(4) Notwithstanding any terms agreed or determined as mentioned in subsection (1) above, any liability in respect of any sum treated by virtue of that subsection as having been borrowed from a local education authority may at any time be discharged by a single payment of a sum equal to the aggregate of—

(a) the amount of the principal of the loan outstanding at the time of the payment; and

(b) the amount of any interest accrued before that time.

(5) The Board shall notify the Secretary of State if it appears to them that it is unlikely in the case of any matter on which agreement is required to be reached under subsection (3) above that such an agreement will be reached.
(6) Where the Secretary of State has received a notification from the Board under subsection (5) above he may, whether before or after the operative date, give a direction determining the matter, and may include in the direction any provision which might have been included in an agreement under subsection (3) above.
(7) The Secretary of State shall consult the authority before giving a direction under this section.
(8) The Board shall give the Secretary of State such assistance and advice as he may require for the purpose of determining any matter under this section.
(9) The Board shall deliver any agreement made under subsection (3) above to the default transferee.
(10) Any such agreement shall be treated as made between the authority and the default transferee.").
Clause 180, page 166, line 29, leave out ("within the meaning of section 127 of this Act") and insert ("to which section 127 of this Act applies").
Page 167, line 7, after ("apply") insert ("in relation").
Page 167, line 8, at end insert ("as if references in sections 12 and 13 of that Act to every owner of the land included references to the local education authority concerned.").
Page 167, line 13, leave out ("in question") and insert ("disposed of, or the land in which the interest was granted,").
Page 167, line 19, leave out ("in question") and insert ("disposed of, or the land in which the interest was granted,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 424A to 424F en bloc
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am a little puzzled and I may have been asleep, but has Amendment No. 424A been spoken to at any point?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am under the strong impression that it has already been spoken to
1528
under the group of amendments which started with Amendment No. 383A.
On Question, amendments agreed to
Clause 182 [Duty of Commissioners]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 425:
Page 168, line 20, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I wish to repeat, with the change of one word, what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said some six hours ago. I make no apology for raising a major issue at this time of the morning. When I tabled this amendment I had no idea at what time it was going to come up. If for reasons which are not primarily my responsibility we find it comes up at this time of the morning, I take the chance to speak to it when it comes. I make no complaint at that, and I hope that no one else does either
Before my intervention creates any turbulence in the usual channels, I wish to say that in this matter I speak on my own. My noble friends are not to he held responsible for anything that I may say. I shall not repeat the academic freedom arguments in favour of tenure that I developed in Committee. I shall say only that I have not yet had any answer to those arguments. Before I am urged, as I am sure I will be, to withdraw the amendment, I should like to hear an answer to those arguments with which I may engage.
For the moment, I concentrate only on the economic arguments. The government argument for the abolition of tenure concentrated on changing economic conditions. It did not draw attention to the fact that they have themselves changed those conditions. It sounded a little like what J. S. Mill describes as the inability of the unanalytic mind to recognise its own handiwork. The argument has been put forward by the Secretary of State, among others, that no good academic will be a risk from the abolition of tenure. Without prejudging the business which we will, I hope, be debating in a few minutes, if the Government continue to argue that it should be possible to dismiss an expensive academic in order to replace him with a cheaper one, that assurance is, to put it no higher, of a somewhat limited value. We need to consider the famous Adam Smith principle that a deal should be to the advantage of both parties.
We need to consider whether it is in the interests of any academic to accept employment on the terms which are now proposed. It is not a profession which many of us go into for the money. A number of us go into it out of an intense and often passionate desire to do the work involved. However, to do the work involved, one needs time. Academic lines of inquiry tend to take a very long time. If they take less time, they tend to be rather less credible. I am myself only just beginning to understand the full implications of a line of inquiry which I entered on 28 years ago. It is just beginning to come out in the wash. To do something like that, you need to have a reasonable security that you can finish what you undertake.
I shall not develop here the argument which I developed in Committee about the difficulty when there are no suitable vacancies available of redeploying an academic who loses a position. But perhaps I may say a word about the degree of specialisation which is involved. That is something which is rather more necessary than is often

1529
appreciated. It is necessary not only to research but to teaching. one is to teach effectively, one needs to be aware that knowledge has frontiers. One needs to be aware that the frontiers are not static. One needs to be able to convey to the person whom one is teaching that those frontiers are moving and to get them to see the movement in progress. If one cannot do that, one has not prepared oneself for a world in which the frontiers of knowledge are undergoing constant change.
I shall mention only one further point. It is a profession in which entry to employment comes late—normally at or past the age of 30—and in which early entry is now increasingly frequently accompanied by early retirement at the age of 55 or thereabouts. It is not a very long working life. The House may be aware that I regard my profession with some pride. I regard the fact that I am not the first generation in it with some pride. But, should my son wish to enter the academic profession with this Bill on the statute book, I shall do my level best to discourage him. I beg to move.
5.45 a.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, Amendment No. 425CZA is grouped with the previous amendment, assuming I am still able to read at this hour, of which I am doubtful. Am I right in thinking that the two are grouped together?
Lord Morton of Shuna: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I must start by saying how bitterly I resent the fact that we are debating what I regard as a matter of absolutely fundamental importance to the future of academic life in this country at this hour, after such a long period of time. I wish to place on record that I do not believe your Lordships have served the country—or within it, more narrowly, the academic community—in allowing this debate to proceed in this way, forcing those of us who take this matter extremely seriously into this position. I may say that I personally am extremely exhausted. I want to place that on record, because our Hansard is a permanent record and I feel that people ought to know what has happened about a matter of this importance.
These amendments are not trivial: they are absolutely fundamental so far as the academic community is concerned. The amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is essentially one that omits the abolition of tenure. My amendment, coupled with the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, puts tenure back in in the event of its being taken out. But it puts it in in the most stringent form. It puts it in in a way which is often referred to as "American tenure". It reassures those people who feel—in my view erroneously, but we must take their fears into account—that somehow academics get a job for life too easily and then proceed to neglect their duties, having got that job for life. Many of us, as academics, regard that as insulting, and it is not in fact the case; but in order to appease such people one puts down the amendment in this extremely strict form.
I do not want to rehearse all the arguments about tenure. I would simply draw your Lordships' attention to a letter published recently in The Times
1530
and which may have appeared in other papers as well, and to certain other statements from American academics, who essentially believe, so far as this country is concerned, that we have taken leave of our senses and that we are wilfully damaging one of the few things that we do exceptionally well and in which, without any shadow of a doubt, we are world-class.
Those of us in the business of being academics—in my own case, a former academic—have a great sense of frustration, in that it seems to be impossible to persuade the Government to understand the damage they are doing. Not only does one get no response, but one has to read the most absurd arguments which are put forward. The case of the junior Minister that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swann, several hours ago is not unique in its vulgarity and its total inappreciation of what this is all about.
As I have said, I am myself now quite tired and I can do no more at this stage than draw to your Lordships' attention, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has done, the peril in which the academic community has been placed. For those of us who actually believe that academic activities are some of the things that are important in our country, then it is a damaging thing for our country in general. I will refrain from going on, because I am aware that I am not the only person who is tired; but I feel it vital that these remarks are placed on record, albeit at ten minutes to 6 in the morning.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I want to say only one sentence in support of both these amendments. If the Government pass this Bill so that it becomes an Act, we can all expect a brain drain of voluminous proportions from this country, involving our best academics, who will go to those countries where they can expect tenure—possibly with the provisions as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Peston, but where they can get tenure if they do their job according to academic standards. Do we wish to promote such a brain drain?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to answer briefly but still treat this matter and the arguments advanced as being of considerable importance. The fact is that tenure has not been universal in the institutions of higher education in this country. There are some which have had tenure and some which have not had it.
The principal reasons for seeking to abolish the strict form of academic tenure can be summarised, first, by saying that it is unfair to individuals. It is a privilege which some academics have by historical accident, and it can damage the interests of colleagues who do not have it. Some universities do, and some universities do not, have it. The reasons are very often matters of historical accident.
Secondly, we believe that there is at least the possibility that in such situations academic tenure serves to undermine academic standards and excellence. It prevents the university from following policies of protecting its strengths and concentrating any necessary reductions in areas of weakness. We believe that it also has a tendency to militate against innovation, and from the debates that we have had earlier in this session we know of the importance of innovation in universities.
It appears clear that there are difficulties of the kind that I mentioned as between universities

1531
and one member of staff and another that can be demonstrated. It is said that in some places—America, for example—there is tenure. I think that one has to look fairly closely at the arrangements made in some American universities which are described as tenure. In this Bill, as I sought to explain in Committee (and I do not mean to go over the ground again) we are proposing that the powers to dismiss academic staff who otherwise would have tenure in terms of the constitution of their universities will be very strict. It will at least come up to the due process that is the mark of tenure in many American universities. That is what I intended to say on the general matter.
I should like to say a few more words about the amendment referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which, as I understand it, provides for the possibility of tenure. The intention of the amendment is to give management greater flexibility in making appointments where a university wished, say, to attract a famous and distinguished scholar or to retain his services if he were known to be considering approaches from elsewhere. If your Lordships accept the amendment, it will offer him special terms; namely, a guarantee against redundancy before his age of retirement. I think that the same idea is contained in the amendment that bears the name of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury.
This option has been considered, but on balance we have come to the conclusion that it would present several serious disadvantages. Different universities might apply provisions of this kind in different ways. I do not believe that the commissioners would readily be able to devise criteria for what is ultimately a subjective judgment which could be applied consistently over time and as between different institutions. Over-ready use of such a provision could result in something approaching the general reintroduction of tenure. Very selective use could result in the creation of a new class of academics whose special privileges set them apart from their colleagues. I understand that the Association of University Teachers would regret such a development. Surely the right way to reward continued outstanding performance is through career advancement and greater pay flexibility—approaches specifically incorporated in last year's academic pay settlement.
I have heard it suggested that individual academics might be discouraged from accepting new appointments at United Kingdom universities on account of their alleged lack of job security. I believe that this is a misunderstanding. What we are suggesting in the Bill is the provision of a situation in which it would be quite impossible for the universities in which the tenure exists arbitrarily to dispense with the services of individual members of staff. Therefore, I do not see how this could lead to the kind of brain drain of voluminous proportions to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, drew attention.
I understand that these matters have been put forward seriously. I have endeavoured to deal with them fully. I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord one question. He began
1532
by saying that the Government propose to remove some forms of tenure. What forms of tenure will be left in the Bill if these amendments are not passed?
The Lord chancellor: My Lords, it is a form of tenure which prevents the university from dismissing someone except for redundancy or good cause.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, it includes redundancy?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a form of tenure.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the care he has given to that reply and for the courtesy with which it was put forward. I cannot say that I am convinced by it but I do not think that the noble and learned Lord honestly expected that I should be. I shall not follow him into the thickets of the Oxford, East argument. My reply to that argument is on record in Committee.
I refer very briefly to two other points that he made. Of course I share the concern for academic standards. There is no attempt whatever being made here to defend incompetent people or dead wood. The amendment is carefully drafted to leave intact all the provisions of the Bill giving grounds for dismissing people. It deletes only the provision for dismissal through redundancy.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor invited me to look carefully at American arrangements for tenure. Perhaps I may beg leave to remind him that I have done so. American tenure is not, in the best institutions—as it has been represented—something which allows dismissal for redundancy. I know that it exists in many second-rate American institutions. In the top-rate institutions it is not so; it is tenure, as we have hitherto recognised it.
I have learned slowly that government by consent is very difficult. I think that is why Parliament in its wisdom has provided a great many procedures which may be exhausted by those who find that consent very difficult to give. On that understanding, I fear that I must ask the House to divide.
5.58 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 425) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 39.

DIVISION NO. 12

CONTENTS

Adrian, L.

McNair, L.

Blackstone, B.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Peston, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dainton, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

David, B.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Tordoff, L.

Flowers, L.

Warnock, B.

Gallacher, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

White, B.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kirkwood, L.

1533

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Beloff, L.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L

Long, V.

Benson, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Middleton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Pender, L.

Cox, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Sandford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Swinton, E.

Dundee, E.

Teviot, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Elliott of Morpeth. L.

Trafford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trumpington, B.

Greenway, L.

Young, B.

Harvington, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Hooper, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.7 a.m.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 425AYA:
Page 168. line 21, after ("any") insert ("relevant").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, comes the dawn, as one can see through the windows, and with it the dawn chorus initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and then myself. After accompanying your Lordships across the "ILEAdeological" wasteland stretching from Clauses 149 to 180, I now lead the House to the oasis of higher education in whose waters I hope noble Lords will reflect themselves until we adjourn for lunch.
Amendments Nos. 425AYA and 425BYA tabled in my name, have already been commented on briefly by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. I should like to explain that of the amendments to which I put my name some stem from your Lordships' petitioners, some from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and some from a natural sympathy I have with the authors of the tabled amendments.
The two amendments which I now propose represent the views of your Lordships' petitioners, and I believe that they should be listened to. I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to give a more detailed argument as to why the Government cannot support them than the argument he gave in reply to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the most important point that I should like to make in respect of the amendment is that the special exclusion for staff on fixed-term contracts—to which this would amount—would place them in an anomalous position when redundancies were necessary. It is not always easy to look forward to a situation where redundancy may be required. If it could always be predicted it might be possible to ensure fairness between the different members of staff while conferring on some a fixed tenure of this kind. However, I believe that experience has shown that sometimes situations in which redundancy arises are created quite quickly. The result of that is that one may well find that while a term has been allowed
1534
which it was hoped would survive any redundancy situation, in fact a redundancy situation has occurred while the term is running.
I believe that that could create difficulties for university management in a redundancy situation, having difficulty in being fair in choosing between the various people to whom it should be applied and also unfairness with respect to other staff not on fixed term contracts. As I said, the university may have an urgent need to make people redundant and it would make it more difficult for them to make rational decisions about redundancy.
The general provisions that we have proposed in relation to dismissal, as I said, establish very considerable protection for the people who have been given appointments in the university. I believe that this point about unfairness as between one and another is a point of substance which arises at the present time, to some extent, as between those institutions in which tenure is available and those in which it is not.
The fact that short term appointments have been given in recent years has been the subject of a survey conducted by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals in respect of short term appointments of new staff in 1985-86. There was a striking difference between those universities with tenure and those without. In the case of non-clinical appointments, the tenure-giving universities made no fewer than 57 per cent. of their appointments on a short term basis. The universities without tenure made 43 per cent. of their appointments on that basis. The figures for clinical staff were equally striking. In tenured universities 76 per cent. of the appointments were on a short term basis and 55 per cent. in non-tenured universities.
It is entirely appropriate for a university to engage a proportion of its staff on a short term basis where that is appropriate to the post concerned and acceptable to both parties. However, it should not become disproportionate in the normal mode of university employment. Our proposals would help to prevent that sort of situation. However, to introduce selective tenure—and I take it from the approach of the noble Earl to the matter that he has a very selective type of tenure in mind —would create difficulties of this sort.
We agree that the matter is difficult and is a matter of judgment. However, having considered the matter, that is the way our judgment has come down.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his very considered reply. I expect that your Lordships' petitioners would be disappointed that the Government will not go further to meet their wishes, but I believe that it would be quite wrong to divide the House at this hour in the morning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 425BYA not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 425AZA:
Page 168, line 27, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(ba) provision establishing disciplinary procedures determined by the Commissioners for dealing with any complaints made against any member of the academic staff relating to his appointment or employment,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are intended to fulfil the undertakings which I gave in my Second Reading speech. I believe that they were foreshadowed in undertakings given by the Secretary of State on Report in another place.
They provide a grievance procedure; that is to say, to deal with grievances short of dismissal where a member of the university staff is affected by some action, short of action to dismiss him, to which he objects. There is a procedure for dealing with that. There is also a procedure for dealing with discipline which is short of dismissal.
I take the view, and the Government have always taken the view, that the real protection for academic freedom for individuals—that is, freedom for individuals against the academy in which they are operating—is in fair procedures of this sort. The Bill already provides for many procedures in connection with dismissal as well as other protections. The Government amendment seems to us to contain a reasonable set of criteria for procedures of this sort to be adjusted by the commissioners. I beg to move.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, my question to the noble and learned Lord concerns Amendment No. 425AZA, which is one of a pair which is somewhat unusual in, so to speak, industrial terms. It has been put to me by a number of people that the drafting goes wider than the phrase which I believe the noble and learned Lord used in his explanation. He said something like, "This deals with discipline short of dismissal."
In fact, the clause is to establish a procedure for dealing with any complaints made against any member of the academic staff. To be specific, one of the particular problems is whether it covers complaints made by other members of the staff, or only by the employing institutions. If the second is meant, would it perhaps be better to specify that?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Bill already has provisions for appeal against dismissal and the dismissal aspect has been dealt with. I agree that dismissal is perhaps the highest form of discipline, so in a sense the procedure for dismissal would be included in procedures for discipline. However, this amendment is intended by way of addition to provide for procedures that will lead to results short of dismissal.
I do not think that the amendment is restricted to complaints made by the institution against any member of the academic staff. It would include dealing with complaints made by one member of the academic staff against another, but the procedure for dealing with these may well involve the complaint being taken up by the institution before it can be proceded with.
I am sure the noble Lord is familiar with the sifting procedure that exists in, for example, the medical profession. If a member of the public makes a complaint against a doctor, the doctor is not automatically summoned before the professional conduct committee. There is a sifting mechanism by which it is first decided whether there is a prima facie case. I take it that it would be open to the commissioners, under this clause, to establish a procedure of that kind. Obviously if one member of the university has a complaint against another that he
1536
is infringing his academic freedom, or some other equally heinous offence, it is right that there should be some mechanism for resolving the dispute.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 425BZA:
Page 168, line 33, at end insert (";And
(d) provision establishing procedures determined by the Commissioners for affording to any member of the academic staff opportunities for seeking redress for any grievances relating to his appointment or employment").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already sought to explain this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 425CZA not moved.]
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 425ZA:
Page 168, line 37, after ("unless") insert ("the institution shows than")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that with this amendment it will be convenient to speak also to Amendment No. 425AE. Both of those amendments concern the addition that the Government put into the clause and which is now subsection (2); namely, the requirement that for the purposes of the power to dismiss for redundancy or good cause there should be a sufficient reason.
The first amendment on this matter raises the question of the burden of proof and the second raises the substantive content of what is meant by sufficient reason. On the burden of proof, that is a particular reason why something more should be said. Our amendment would put the burden of proof of sufficient reason firmly upon the employing institution. The employing institution has all the facts and if there is a difference in the knowledge of the staff member and the institution it will have its reasons.
It is normal in such a situation, with one exception, for the burden of proof to be upon such a party even though it will be the employee who brings the complaint. The exception is the one that causes the difficulty because the words used in the subsection to describe sufficient reason are words which say that it is a reason which may be reasonably treated in the circumstances,
"(including the size and administrative resources of the institution)…as a sufficient reason".
The words are borrowed directly—I make no complaint about that—from Section 57(3) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. It so happens that though until 1980 the burden was on the employer, the Government changed that in the Employment Act 1980. This is now history. They left the burden of proof neutral. For me, a burden of proof being neutral is a nonsense, but it is so in the industrial tribunals and the Government have said so.
The noble and learned Lord has made quite clear to us that if there is a legal challenge—and that is what this is about—it is more likely to be made on a judicial review in the High Court. In the High Court on a judicial review my submission would be that a neutral burden of proof is a nonsense and therefore the burden of proof must lie on one side or the other

1537
in those proceedings. It should not lie upon the staff member whether there is a sufficient reason in reasonable terms for the dismissal but it should lie upon the institution.
In view of the hour, I must pass to the second amendment. That deals with substance. What it says in effect is that for there to be a sufficient reason it must be shown that the employing body has adopted, first, a fair basis as to selection for redundancy, and, secondly, that it has done what is reasonable to take steps to avoid redundancy by redeployment in its own organisation. It so happens that those very words are from the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, which is why I adopted them, especially as it was a judgment in which the noble and learned Lord also gave a judgment. I am only sorry that I could not find words of his to adopt in the amendment, but I am sure that he will not mind that his noble and learned friend Lord Bridge has been adopted.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge, there pointed out, in dealing with the case of Polkey v. Dayton Ltd. in 1988 Industrial Cases Reports, at page 142, that,
"in the case of redundancy, the employer will normally not act reasonably unless he warns and consults any employees affected or their representative"—
we shall come to that later—and,
"adopts a fair basis on which to select for redundancy and takes such steps as may be reasonable to avoid or minimise redundancy by redeployment within his own organisation".
Those are the words of our amendment and this is the first time we have had a chance to come back to sufficient reason. We were able to discuss it before but it came in at the Committee stage; and in a sense this is a Committee plus Report point. We are saying that, having considered it, we think it is an excellent addition to a clause which we do not like but that it would be right and proper now to refine and hone it by dealing with the burden of proof, by putting that burden on the employing institution and by saying quite explicitly that there must be a fair basis for selection. One cannot assume that the judiciary will take the meaning from the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act and apply it here. There must be a fair basis for selection and there must be evidence of reasonable steps to avoid redeployment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the background to the amendments is the part of the Bill which deals with circumstances in which a member of the university staff who otherwise would be protected can be dismissed. There must be justification. If the official of the university is to be dismissed it must be as a result of the exercise of the powers which the Bill gives in this context. Accordingly, the power is conditioned on the circumstance that it is either by reason of redundancy or by reason of good cause. Unless the university has either redundancy as a reason sufficient in the circumstances, or good cause as a reason sufficient in the circumstances, the person will not be dismissed or the dismissal will not stand.
The first amendment is dealt with by the context in which it appears here. I accept that the history of the employment legislation to which the noble Lord has referred makes the burden of proof in terms neutral—no express burden in the statute any
1538
longer—but as a matter of practice the influence of that is really of no practical importance.
On the noble Lord's second amendment, I should have thought that the provisions which require that it he reasonable to treat the reason as sufficient in the circumstances is sufficient in the case of redundancy to require that the steps by which the redundancy had been reached were reasonable in the circumstances. That is a rather short paraphrase of the noble Lord's second amendment.
In the light of those explanations, I hope that the noble Lord may feel that we have in fact already adopted the spirit of both the amendments in the provisions of the Bill as they were amended in Committee.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question about the noble and learned Lord's terminology. When he speaks of redundancy, does he include as a reasonable reason for redundancy the dismissal of a senior member of staff and his replacement by a junior member of staff for the purpose of saving the difference in salary?
6.30 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for asking that question because it enables me to say in advance what we are proposing to do in relation to the later amendments which deal with this question. There is a famous set of eight words—they have become famous so far as I am concerned—in the provisions of the Bill. The phrase,
"or members of staff of a particular kind"
is the foundation for the kind of additional redundancy, to which the noble Lord has referred, that enables the university, as the Bill presently stands, to dismiss a member of staff at a senior level if a junior member of staff could do the same work. In other words, the job remains, but at a junior level. That is the situation as it is in the Bill which is arrived at by use of the phrase,
"or members of staff of a particular kind".
Having considered this matter carefully, in the light of all the representations that were made in Committee, the Government have decided that those eight words should be deleted. Therefore, I propose in due course to accept Amendments Nos. 425AB and 425AC which are tabled on the Marshalled List in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton and Lord Adrian; the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. So the answer to the noble Lord's question—I am sorry it is such a long one—is that once these amendments are given effect to, redundancy will not include that particular circumstance.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his response to the amendments. I especially appreciated the point with which he ended; namely that the spirit of these three amendments, with two points, is already in the Bill. The problem is that I must suggest that it might be worth spelling it out. The reason I say that is that these are words in another Act, manifestly borrowed, where the burden of proof and the substance would not be entirely the same as that which the noble and learned Lord suggested would be the spirit of the Bill.

1539
I agree that our disagreement puts me in the bizarre situation of suggesting that the Employment Act 1980 had some effect, when the noble and learned Lord is rather suggesting that it had no practical implications. At least, I think that that was what he said. But I am sure that that need be no obstacle to his looking at the matter further, so naturally I shall withdraw the amendment. However, in doing so, I ask him to look especially at the burden of proof point for Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 425A:
Page 169, line 10, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) For the purposes of this section redundancy shall have the same meaning as in section 81(2) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, if it is in order I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord very warmly indeed for what he said. In the circumstances, I do not wish to move this amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I must say that I am not sure whether it is in order. However I am grateful to the noble Earl and I shall take it that the amendment is not moved.
[Amendment No. 425A not moved.]
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff moved Amendment No. 425AA:
Page 169, line 11, after ("shall") insert ("except when the member of staff is replaced by another person to carry out the same work at less cost'').
The noble Lord said: My Lords, having sat in this House now for some nine hours in order to move this amendment, I am delighted to find that it is apparently unnecessary. However, I hope that before I withdraw it, the noble and learned Lord will assure me that the amendments which the Government are accepting—which follow mine—would have exactly the same effect as mine, since my amendment contained wording which was suggested to me by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and I think they would like that reassurance. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that the amendments which I propose to accept have the same effect as the one proposed by the noble Lord. I am clear that the right result is obtained by deleting these eight words, because they are the words which distinguish the redundancy provisions of this part of the Bill from the redundancy provisions of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. That is why I prefer to do it this way. To the best of my understanding of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, it would certainly have the same effect in practice. However, if any doubt is raised in the noble Lord's mind by subsequent consultations—before the Third Reading stage of the Bill, of course—I shall certainly desire to give effect to them.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 425AB:
Page 169, line 19, leave out ("or members of staff of a particular kind").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak briefly also to Amendment No. 425AC to put the matter on the record. Amendment No. 425AB relates to the eight words in the expanded definition of redundancy disliked in the university world because they would put university academic staff at a disadvantage in regard to their legal status faced by dismissal as against every other employee in the land. The Association of University Teachers and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals have now agreed that the words should go.
I do not wish to let the moment pass without saying that I do not pretend that my profession—it is a profession— is content to swap those eight words for tenure. I wish to make that point clear. As I understand it, the eight words which would have made possible the more extreme instances of easy dismissal in the university world are to go because the Government accept the amendment. I hope and believe that when the Government accept the amendment it will have the effect that the noble and learned Lord suggested in his earlier reply.
I should like to add the thanks which I am sure all of those within the House and the university world generally feel for what we know to be the noble and learned Lord's interest in the matter. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said. I accept the amendment on behalf of the Government for the reasons that I have given. I do not entirely accept all that the noble Lord said about the previous position. but we need not go into that now. I am grateful for what he said in thanking me. Let us try to end the matter on that note, unless someone else has something to say.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 425C:
Page 169, line 20, leave out ("or members of staff of a particular kind").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 425AD:
Page 169, line 34, at end insert—
("(6A) Where an institution proposes to dismiss one ormore members of staff by reason of redundancy within the meaning of this section. Part IV of the Employment Protection Act 1975, shall apply as it applies to employees dismissed as redundant under that Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment asks that there should be added to the Bill a statement that the same consultation obligations are owed by universities to their academic staff union representatives as to all other employees. It might have been that the noble and learned Lord's acceptance of the previous amendments could have dispensed with the need for this amendment. But that is not so. The definition of redundancy in the Bill will still differ from that in Section 81 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act, the word "business" being replaced by the word "activity".
Since there is still a different definition, I suggest that there is a need to establish the consultation obligation. One further reason for that is the consultation obligation that arises from the 1975 European Community directive. We should be in breach of our obligations if we did not clearly extend

1541
the same obligation to university institutions as a matter of law. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is perhaps still lurking behind the amendment some previous misunderstanding. The provisions in the Bill in relation to tenure or to conditions of employment— to use an alternative phrase—of academic staff are additional to their rights as employees under the ordinary law. There never was any intention to detract from the rights of the university staff as employees in terms of the ordinary rights that an employee has under the Employment Protection Act and other employment legislation. The result of that is that the Employment Protection Act applies to staff who are academic employees just as much as to any other kind of employee.
Therefore this amendment is quite unnecessary, but it is symptomatic of a kind of misunderstanding that we were trying to substitute the ordinary law in relation to redundancy, for example, in academic cases. We were not doing that; we were seeking to give academics additional protection to that which they would enjoy under the ordinary law. Of course we have done that even more fully than before.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord says, and I thank him for it. However, with great respect, although there is additional protection in the Bill, there is also an additional vulnerability. That would have been a wide vulnerability when we had the eight words in, but now that the eight words are not there it is scarcely of any importance except that there is a requirement that in any case where an employer can dismiss for redundancy, the consultation obligation should apply. That is in the directive.
There are two circles, and the normal circle, as the noble and learned Lord says, is where the redundancy is covered by the normal law. But outside that there is a slightly different circle, a very small one now, by reason of the different definition. It is necessary to cover that in community terms by simply adopting this in the schedule. That is probably its proper place. I shall leave it with the noble and learned Lord and his advisers, especially on community law. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 425AE not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 425B:
Page 169, line 50, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing contained in this Part of this Act shall prejudice the rights of the Church of Scotland as set out in the Universities (Scotland) Acts of 1932 and 1966, and it shall he the duty of the Commissioners to secure that the statutes of each qualifying institution shall include in relation to any ordinance which relates to the purposes mentioned in section 2 of the 1932 Act the same provisions for consultation and for consent, mutatis mutandis, as are set out in the Acts of 1932 and 1966.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved this amendment at Committee stage and in view of the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor I asked leave to withdraw it at that stage to find out the views of the Church of Scotland in regard to the attitude of the noble and learned Lord.
I now have to come hack with the amendment, which perhaps says something about the attitude of the General Assembly Board of Nomination to Church Chairs to the assurance. I wish to assure the House and in particular the noble and learned Lord that it shows no lack of trust in his assurance, but that his assurance is not binding on the commissioners who will have the duty of applying this section of the Bill.
The amendment is to add at the end that the rather complicated statutory provision that relates to the connection between the Church of Scotland and the four older universities in relation to the appointment of Church chairs shall continue to exist. At present they are controlled by Acts of Parliament of 1932 and 1966. The amendment says that they shall continue to be the controlling Acts which provide for consultation between the two bodies. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton, said, identical amendments to this one and to Amendment No. 429 were put down at Committee stage. As I indicated, I was sympathetic to the importance and the distinctive character of the institutions of both religion and law which characterise Scotland. I believe it is unthinkable, as I said then and will repeat, that the commissioners would ride roughshod over those institutions. I expect they would give sympathetic consideration to the constitution of the universities as they are related to the Church of Scotland.
Your Lordships have, I think, very little reason to suppose that the Scottish dimension will he overlooked. It gives me the greatest possible pleasure to announce to your Lordships that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, has accepted an invitation from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to serve as chairman of the commissioners, subject to parliamentary approval of the legislation.
The Government have already indicated that one of the other commissioners is likely to have special familiarity with the Scottish system. The Church of Scotland has every reason to suppose that the commissioners will he extremely well informed about the law of Scotland and the Church of Scotland in the matters which they are considering. I hope that in the light of that further assurance which I was not able to give in Committee, the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
6.45 a.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am totally delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, should have this appointment, subject to the approval of Parliament, which I have not the slightest doubt he will get. But the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has not explained why this amendment is wrong or should not be put in. There was not one word explaining what is wrong with the amendment.
The Bill is quite thick already. We have spent quite a lot of time trying to keep the Church of England happy—if I may so express it—so why not add seven lines to keep the Church of Scotland happy? I do not think we have received an answer to that.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thought it would be reasonably happy. But the point is that the Bill as

1543
it stands does not impinge on the rights of the Church of Scotland as those rights are given in statutory provisions. Accordingly, it is not appropriate to seek to re-enact, as it were, the statutory provisions which are in existence already. On the other hand, it may be that when the commissioners examine the situation in relation to these universities, they may find it necessary and desirable in the light of their work to make appropriate procedural arrangements, which they would have power to do, for the Chairs to which these particular provisions apply.
I can certainly assure the Church that its rights will be taken into account most thoroughly. It seems to me that the government Amendment No. 428B, which I hope to move in a reasonably short time, will make explicit on the face of the Bill that the commissioners will have the obligation to consult persons who would be affected by the modification. Therefore, the interests of the Church of Scotland would be before them. In a sense, if we have taken time pleasing the Church of England, we have also in Amendment No. 428B provided some degree of protection for the Church of Scotland, although, as I said at the beginning, I very much doubt whether any additional protection is necessary.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply, which, although delivered with his customary courtesy, if I may say so without intending in any way to be discourteous, did not seem to me to meet the point which was worrying me. But I do not wish to press this point any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 183 [Powers of Commissioners]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 426:
Page 170, line 9, leave out ("20th November 1987") and insert ("2nd October 1988").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the date at which the abolition of tenure comes into operation. It is at present, as in the Bill, 20th November 1987. The amendment proposes to move it to 2nd October 1988—in fact to bring it to the beginning of the new academic year. The point is of some importance. Academic procedures are careful. Appointments take long time going through the pipeline; promotions take even longer. It is, I think, on the whole a good thing that people entering such an obstacle race should come out with what they thought they were applying for in the first place. If the rules of the game change in midstream, that may not work out.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in Committee that people would know where they were. In relation to there not being tenure, yes they would. But I may say that we have, during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill, clarified the law on this matter very considerably. For that, I believe that we owe the noble and learned Lord a great deal of thanks. Therefore, the picture has changed.
Finally, I think that it might be argued that there was some fear of a rush to make appointments before the deadline. Had that matter been argued a little earlier in the academic year, there might possibly
1544
have been some (though not very much) substance in that point. At this stage of the academic year, if the Government were to accept the amendment and I wished to rush an appointment through, I could not do it. You cannot convene that many university committees in the middle of the long vacation. On that matter the Government can set their minds at rest. They can safely afford to accept a reasonable tidying-up amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it has been the Government's intention all along that staff who on or after 20th November 1987, the date of the introduction of the Bill, are appointed, or who enter into contracts of employment or who are promoted should lose tenure when the modifications to the statutes of their institutions are approved.
This amendment would delay the effective date from 20th November 1987 to 2nd October 1988. The Government's policy objectives in relation to tenure have been known for several years. The Government now wish to achieve their objectives as quickly as possible without actually removing tenure from those who continue in the posts that they have held on 19th November 1987.
Staff who accept or have accepted a new appointment or promotion on or after 20th November 1987 will do so or have done so in the knowledge that they will in due course lose any right they may have had not to be dismissed for redundancy as defined in the Bill. There is of course no possibility that they can be so dismissed, where they could not otherwise be, until the necessary changes made by the commissioners to the statutes become effective.
The amendment has the effect of delaying the provisions. Once the decision was taken and clearly intimated so that people felt that it was wise to act upon it, it would not be wise to change it. The only effect of the amendment is to delay the effectiveness of the Government's policy, without any advantage, except possibly a coincidental advantage to some who had thought that they would not have tenure and who would have it. It seems fair to stick to the date orginally fixed in the Bill when it was produced and widely publicised. I hope, in the light of that explanation, that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I must admit that that reply causes me a certain amount of disappointment. However, at this hour of the morning and after the major concession which we have just received and welcomed, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 427:
Page 170, line 9, leave out from ("1987") to end to line 26.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 427 is a proposal to delete a part of the Bill which deals with loss of tenure on promotion. The amendment attempts to clarify the meaning of the Bill which in this area remains in doubt. The basic principle that tenure should be lost on promotion is clear and understood. What is not altogether understood is what constitutes promotion.
The question on which many of my colleagues are in considerable doubt concerns the pay scale for

1545
lecturers. That is a single grade which has recently been divided into two pay scales. It seems likely that a large number of members of the profession will move from one to the other fairly early on. Does moving from lecturer scale A to scale B constitute a promotion within the meaning of the Bill? I look forward to a clear reply. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the general provision, so far as the Bill is concerned, is that the attaining of a new rate in a scale on which a person was operating would not amount to a promotion. Therefore, if scale A has rates in it which are attainable by people who are in class B, then it would not he a promotion. If, for example, scale A— the particular detail has not been given to me—is a scale with a higher set of limits on it than scale B, then the situation in which a lecturer moves from the scale he was on to a new scale at a higher level altogether and not attainable under his old scale, would be a promotion. That is a new condition of employment. If he is a lecturer, for example, who is entitled to gradations in a given scale—scale A, with grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3—to go up within the scale that is attainable by him would not be a promotion. I hope that is reasonably plain.
In a moment I am going to put forward amendments to deal with general pay improvement, because these points were raised last time and I want to clarify the position. It may be that this will help to give to the noble Earl the clarification for which he has asked me. I think the safe answer to the general question as he put it is that, going from scale B to a completely higher scale A would be a promotion.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I will study that reply with care when I have more leisure than I can give to it at this hour in the morning. However, I admit that I am somewhat disappointed. I hope I may say, without appearing ungracious, that it might have been better if this matter had been made clearer at an earlier stage of the Bill. Nevertheless, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 427ZA:
Page 170, line 10, at beginning insert ("he is promoted on or after that date.
(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above a person shall he taken to be promoted on or after 20th November 1987 if (and only in").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment I take along with Amendments Nos. 427DA, 427DB, 427DC, 427DD, 427DE, 427DF and 427EA. The most important amendment here is No. 427DB. That amendment seeks to make it clear that
"a person holding an office or position of any description shall not be taken to be promoted by reason only of any general variation of the terms of appointment or of contracts of employment of persons holding offices or persons of that description."
In other words, putting it shortly, if all the lecturers get a rise, that is not a promotion. That was a point of difficulty earlier.
The other amendment of substance among the ones I have listed is No. 427EA, which provides that a person who is promoted on a temporary basis for a particular purpose, in the expectation that he will
1546
resume his former post when that purpose is accomplished, will not lose tenure. In other words, for example, if a lecturer is appointed head of a department, acting temporarily he will not lose his tenure on that account, because it is assumed that he will resume the previous position.
These amendments are intended to clarify the position on matters that were doubtful before. This is part of the refining system that our procedures allow, and I am grateful to the noble Lords who drew our attention to these difficulties on the last occasion. I hope we have now satisfactorily dealt with them. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in welcoming this amendment, I have to declare an interest. It means I could accept the headship of my department without losing my tenure. Whether that interest makes me more or less grateful for the amendment is a matter about which I shall have to think. Nevertheless, this a good amendment and I am glad to see it.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I too should like to welcome these amendments which quite overtake the amendments that my noble friends had put on the Marshalled List. In particular I welcome the new subsection (3A) which deals with the new pay rise which has caused so much concern.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments' Nos. 427A to 427D not moved.]
7 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 427DA to 427DD:
Page 170, line 23, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("2A").
Page 170, line 26, at end insert—
("(3A) For the purposes of subsection (2) above a person holding an office or position of any description shall not he taken to he promoted by reason only of any general variation of the terms of appointment or of contracts of employment of persons holding offices or positions of that description.").
Page 170, line 30, leave out from ("that") to end of line.
Page 170, line 31, at beginning insert ("he is appointed to, or employed in,").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Halsbury The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 427DDA:
Page 170, line 31, leave out from ("institution") to ("or") in line 35.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another of the petitioner's amendments. The effect is to alter subsection (4) so that it reads:

"(a) a different office or position at the institution; or

(b) an additional office or position at the institution which carries no remuneration".

I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that this amendment proposes to do the same as the amendments with which we have just been dealing. It seeks to exclude from this provision those who are promoted on or after 20th November 1987. That is what Amendment No. 427 sought to do.
As I understand Amendment No. 427DDA, it is probably aimed at the same objective. The explanation which I gave earlier would also apply

1547
here. It is difficult to distinguish between promotion and a new appointment. It is rather unfair for two people in exactly the same position who reach that position after 20th November to be distinguished simply on the grounds of the route by which they reached it, one by promotion within the institution and another by appointment from without the institution.
I am also advised that there is something technically defective about Amendment No. 427DDA, but perhaps I may be allowed to deal with it in principle in the way that I have done.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, naturally I accept the assurance from the noble and learned Lord that this matter either has been or at some later stage will be dealt with. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 427DE and 427DF:
Page 170, line 35, leave out ("or").
Page 170, line 36, at beginning insert ("he is appointed to, or employed in,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments already. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 427E not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 427EA:
Page 170, line 37, at end insert ("or
(c) he is promoted or is appointed to, or employed in, a different office or position at the institution if he is so promoted, appointed or employed only on a temporary basis for a particular purpose with an expectation that the promotion will cease to have effect, or that he will resume his former office or position, when that purpose is accomplished.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 428:
Page 170, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) Modifications made for the purpose of securing that the Statutes of a qualifying institution comply with the requirements of section 182(1)(a) of this Act shall not apply to any person whose appointment shall be certified by the University Grants Committee or Universities Funding Council to be made for purposes of restructuring.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I hope that this amendment is in the interest of both the Government and the universities. If so, I hope that it may be widely welcomed.
I should explain to the House what is meant by restructuring. It happens in many places where there have been significant reductions in staff. Perhaps I may take an example. One has a lecturer in Italian in Southampton and two lecturers in Italian at University College London. Neither university has what constitutes a viable department; neither is able to accept student entrants; neither is able to teach over the range of a course. That is a collection of pieces of wreckage. However, if one can put all three lecturers in Italian in one place through the good offices of the university grants scheme, or, no doubt, its successor, one then creates a viable department.
1548
This is a process in which the Government have taken a great deal of interest and one which the universities are prepared to welcome and help. So it would seem a great pity if restructuring should come to a stop. However, it depends on moving people from place to place. That requires consent. And consent, if it involves losing your tenure in conditions of financial stringency, is something that a great many people are not prepared to give. We may perhaps be told that it is all in the future. That is not the case. The earth sciences review which is restructuring departments in geology and kindred subjects had a good many projects that meant moving people from one place to another. We are now told, through the review, that 30 per cent. of those involved indicated that they would not be prepared to move if it involved losing their tenure. For my part, I am interested that the figure is so low. I read it as showing that the Oxford, East effect is still continuing. It will no doubt wear off.
Similar things have happened in other subjects. There were arrangements for two lecturers in Russian to be moved to Manchester. Those arrangements were called off after the 20th November deadline was made known. It was decided, amid considerable confusion to appoint those people as visiting lecturers to Manchester. That is a long and cumbersome way round the problem, one which will not necessarily be available in all cases.
If the Government were prepared to accept this amendment they might save themselves a considerable amount of money. They might keep open a number of student places which will otherwise disappear. And they might enable a number of academics to continue to do a job that they are willing and eager to do. Those seem to me good and sufficient reasons for recommending this amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment, as the noble Earl has explained, will result in tenure being retained by staff on transfer to another institution where it is certified by the funding council or the UGC as being for the purposes of restructuring.
I can certainly see possible advantages. On the other hand, it seems to us, the disadvantage is the unfairness between one member of staff and another reaching the new institution by somewhat different routes. We feel that some kind of line has to be drawn and kept. We have sought to keep it by reference to new appointments and a restructuring, when it involves another appointment to another university, is a new appointment. Therefore, we feel that the line must be held as a matter of fairness. I hope that the noble Earl may feel able to withdraw the amendment in the light of that explanation.
Baroness White: My Lords, may I say a word before the noble Lord gives us the benefit of his decision? I am not advised upon this amendment, but it is very relevant indeed to the University of Wales. What I understood the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to say was that if there is a movement within the institutions of a federal university—which is the case in the University of Wales—then this difficulty would not arise because it would still be an appointment within the university.
We have a rationalisation committee. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos is not

1549
here, as pro-Chancellor of the university, but we have considerable restructuring taking place within the different institutions of the University—not only in Cardiff, but in some of the other constituent colleges: Swansea, Aberystwyth and Bangor in particular. I take it from what we have been told that they would not be affected, provided that they were already on the books as one of the constituent institutions.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in answer to that question by the noble Baroness, I was really dealing with a person moving from one institution to another. I said that where that happened the benefit of tenure would not be obtainable in the new appointment if it happened on or after 20th November 1987. I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of the situation facing the noble Baroness to know whether it could reasonably be said that all that is happening in her situation is that a person is being moved within the same appointment to a new place of work.
If something of that kind could be said then tenure might be obtained, but I do not know enough about it to give a very concluded view. It must depend on the circumstances. A person who has had an appointment as a lecturer in a university and is required to do different jobs under the same description would not, I believe, be subject to losing tenure. If what is happening in the restructuring in the universities that the noble Baroness is asking me about is something of that kind, then tenure might continue. If it is more than that, if there is an appointment from one body to another so that the employer is different, I should expect tenure to be lost on the transfer. I hope that answers the question.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the care of his reply. I appreciate the force of the point about unfairness, but it seems to me that there will be an unfairness if there is a cut-off point anyway. I cannot see why the unfairness is greater under the proposal that I was offering than it is at 20th November 1987. Nevertheless it seems to me that this is a proposal which cannot operate unless the Government wish it to operate.
I think we have here a case where the Government's principles conflict with each other. I wonder whether in not accepting the amendment the Government are perhaps cutting off their nose to spite their face. But in these circumstances—that the amendment could not work without Government good will—I can see no point whatever in pressing it to a Division and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 184 [Procedure for exercise of Commissioners' powers]:
7.15 a.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 428A:
Page 171, line 12, leave out ("and").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 428A and 426B are the amendments I referred to when answering the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and stem from a commitment I gave at the
1550
Committee stage in response to the Church of Scotland's concern that it should be consulted if modifications to statutes affecting its interests were to occur.
This amendment goes somewhat wider than that, but it includes the Church of Scotland and takes in all bodies affected by the Commissioners' modifications in that respect. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for putting forward these amendments. If my recollection of the Committee stage is correct, they were in answer to the amendment which is now Amendment No. 429 in the same group.
I am perfectly willing to undertake not to move Amendment No. 429 if I can have a satisfactory assurance from the noble and learned Lord that if someone in the position of the various institutions, such as the Church of Scotland, and who should be consulted were not consulted, by mistake or otherwise, they would have a remedy; or would the commissioners be able to say, "Well, we considered this but we did not consider that you were a person appropriate to consult"? That appears to me to be the difficulty. Someone who should be consulted has no way of saying, "You must have decided to consult me, otherwise you are in error". The commissioners can always say, "We considered the matter and we did not consider that you should have been consulted". What remedy have the institutions which are in the position that they are not consulted? It is on that question that I should like assurance from the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it appears to me that the situation that the noble Lord asks about would be this. The commissioners may consider the matter and have reasonable grounds for supposing that the body in question was not one whose interests were sufficiently affected to make it proper for them to intimate to them. If they could reasonably reach that decision they could take it and there would be no remedy for it.
On the other hand, the way in which the noble Lord opened the matter suggested that it was some kind of mistake. For example, if the commissioners, while intermitting with the chairs of the Church of Scotland, by mistake did not send a note to it at all but tried to say afterwards that there was a good reason for doing so which they did not have at the time, I think there may well be a remedy, although I should not think that appropriate for commissioners of this standing. If it were as plain as a pikestaff that the body in question had a very striking interest in the matter, and it was just a mistake that they were not consulted, I would expect them to have a very strong remedy.
The reason for choosing this form of phrase is, as your Lordships know, because the decision on who has an interest and who should be consulted on a matter which may be of wide-ranging public interest is a matter of judgment. That judgment must he taken by someone, and we thought it right to commit it to the commissioners. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to agree that they are valuable amendments.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say that I accept that. However, I am unclear of the remedy available to someone who feels that they should have been consulted but have not been. Is it a judicial review?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is not for me to advise the noble and learned Lord of the remedy he would have if giving a client advice. However, if I had to advise, I believe that judicial review is the most appropriate remedy. What is more, in the circumstances that he figured I should expect it to succeed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 428B:
Page 171, line 13, at end insert ("; and
(e) such other person appearing to the Commissioners to be concerned as they consider it would be appropriate to consult;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 185 [Exclusion of visitor's jurisdiction]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 428C and 428D:
Page 171, leave out lines 34 and 35.
Page 171, line 37, at end insert—
("(1A) Subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to any dispute which is referred to the visitor of a qualifying institution before—

(a) the relevant date; or

(b) the date on which this section comes into force;

whichever is the later.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are intended to deal with the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the visitor in respect of any dispute relating to a member of academic staff that arises on or after a relevant day. The purpose of the amendments is to define with precision the cut-off point, and the effect is to exclude the exclusive jurisdiction of the visitor from such disputes as are not referred to him prior to the relevant day. That gives a definite cut-off point and I believe that it is an advantage. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 428E, 428F and 428G:
Page 171, line 40, after ("appeals") insert ("or—
(b) from hearing or redressing grievances;").
Page 171, line 41, after ("(c)") insert ("and (d)").
Page 171, line 45, after ("(c)") insert ("and (d)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 428E I shall take Amendments Nos. 428F and 428G. The effect of Amendments Nos. 428E and 428F is to extend the provision to hearing or redressing grievances. Amendment No. 428G is purely consequential.
The provisions in their present form—that is, unamended—do not prevent the visitor from hearing or determining appeals against disciplinary action and dismissal in accordance with procedures established by the commissioners. This amendment would add to that so that the visitor would not be prevented from taking part in the grievance
1552
procedure which was the subject of a government amendment in Clause 182(1). I hope that your Lordships will feel that these amendments are advantageous. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the noble and learned Lord for his letter about the matter of visitors. I was one of those who spoke on the matter in Committee. I am grateful for the letter and I believe that this is a satisfactory outcome.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 186 [Power to make incidental, etc., provisions by Order in Council]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 428H and 428J:
Page 172, line 6, leave out ("(or").
Page 172, line 8, at end insert ("; or
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I speak also to Amendment No. 428J. Clause 186(1) as drafted permits Her Majesty by Order in Council to amend Acts and charters where that is necessary to enable the commissioners to exercise their powers. This amendment would enable Acts and charters to be amended in the same way as a consequence of the ending of the visitor's jurisdiction.
The commissioners have powers to make procedures and the view was taken that the present Bill might not give proper effect to the taking away of the visitors' exclusive jurisdiction and that the provisions should be extended to cover that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 429 not moved].
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 429A:
After Clause 189. insert the following new clause:
("Grants in respect of special provision for immigrants 1966 c.42.
The power conferred by section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 shall apply in relation to the payment of grants by the Secretary of State to —

(a) the governing body of a grant-maintained school;

(b) any person who in pursuance of undertakings under an agreement under section 98 of this Act maintains and carries on or provides for the carrying on of an independent school known as a city technology college; or

(c) the governing body of an institution within the PCFC funding sector;

who, in his opinion, make special provision in consequence of the presence within the locality of the school or the institution of substantial numbers of such immigrants as are described in section II of that Act as it applies in relation to the payments of grants to a local authority who in his opinion are required to make such provision in exercise of any of their functions in consequence of the presence within their area of substantial numbers of such immigrants.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this new clause empowers my right honourable friend to pay grant to the governing body of grant-maintained schools, to institutions within the new polytechnics and colleges sector and to city technology colleges. I believe that this amendment will be welcome to the House; it further strengthens the Government's intention that such schools should be firmly rooted in their local community, and should have the necessary

1553
funding to do their job effectively. The same holds for polytechnics and colleges, which, in addition to their important national functions, have a valuable local role to play in encouraging the widest possible access to higher education by students of Commonwealth origin. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blackstone, who had tabled Amendment No. 445, she has asked me to say that she is very grateful for this amendment. However, she wants an assurance that the discretion given to the Minister in the amendment would be used in such a way that there would be no diminution in the use of Section 11 funding to the new PCFC institutions as compared with current levels.
Perhaps I may also ask whether the Secretary of State mentioned in the new clause is the Home Secretary. I assume that that is so, but I should be grateful for clarification on those matters.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I can respond positively to both those points.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 191 [Grants: miscellaneous]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 430:
Page 174, line 18, at end insert ("provided that the activities of such a body do not include the encouragement of the development of grant maintained schools.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to restrict the new, wide grant-giving powers of the Secretary of State so that the powers cannot be used to encourage schools to opt out. The noble Baroness said in Committee that Clause 191,
"is a purely technical change to existing grant-making powers intended to put beyond doubt the power of the Secretary of State to give grants to such bodies as the Royal Society and the British Academy".
I had previously stated that,
"Subsection (3) amends [Section 100 of] the 1944 Act to allow the Secretary of State powers first to provide grants for expenditure connected with educational services and, secondly, grant for proposed educational provision. The power to provide grant for proposed educational services is no doubt necessary for the Government to assist the body they intend to set up to provide advice and so on for schools wishing to achieve grant-maintained status. This body was referred to in the consultation paper on grant-maintained schools issued in July 1987. Paragraph 7 states: 'The Government also intends to assist the creation of an association or trust [independent of] the DES to promote the development of grant-maintained schools"".—[Official Report, 19/5/88; col. 551.]
The noble Baroness did not respond to that point. Therefore, I ask the Minister whether the Secretary of State has the power to give grants to the proposed trust which will promote the development of grant-maintained schools under Section 100 of the 1944 Act. Will the Secretary of State use the powers in Clause 191 to be able to grant aid to such a body?
The proposed trust was recently announced. An article in the Times Educational Supplement of 10th June states that,
"the trust will be independent of the Department of Education and Science"
but that,
"Mr. Baker is expected to make a formal announcement of the formation of the trust next month".
1554
How independent of the Secretary of State and the DES will this trust be? Will it receive money from the Government?
In a Commons Written Answer on 13th June the Secretary of State for Education stated with respect to the proposed trust:
"If such a body were in due course to make an application to my Department for financial assistance towards specific activities intended to provide support or advice for schools which had acquired grant-maintained status, the Department would be prepared to consider it."—[Official Report, Commons, 13/6/88; col. 8.]
Will the trust be independent of the DES? I shall be pleased to hear the answer to that and to my other question. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I have to say that I find this amendment totally restrictive. The Government are aware of plans to establish an independent trust which has the aim of supporting the development of grant-maintained schools. We welcome that initiative. If the proposed trust or, indeed, any other body makes a case for financial support for a centre offering information and advice to grant-maintained schools the Government will consider that case on its merits.
I should add that the implications of this amendment, as drafted, would be far reaching. Any organisation which encouraged the development of grant-maintained schools would be ineligible to apply for grant under this clause, even if that application had nothing whatever to do with the grant-maintained schools and even if the organisation was also concerned with many other educational initiatives. I can therefore see nothing to commend this amendment and I urge the House to reject it.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she answer my question on whether the Secretary of State has the power to give grants to the proposed trust which will promote the development of grant-maintained schools under Section 100 of the 1944 Act?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe I said quite clearly that if a proposed trust or any other body makes a case for financial support the Government will consider it on its merits. That implies, I should have thought, that the Secretary of State has the power to do that if he considers that it fulfils the requirements.
Baroness David: My Lords, I do not find that answer at all satisfactory but I am certainly not going to divide the House at this hour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 a.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 430ZA:
After Clause 195, insert the following new clause:
("School and further and higher education regulations.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a) for requiring persons employed as teachers at schools, subject to such exceptions as may be provided for by or under the regulations, to be qualified teachers;

(b) for requiring persons employed as teachers at institutions falling within subsection (10) below to possess such qualifications as may be determined by or under the regulations;

1555

(c) for requiring persons employed as teachers at schools anti such institutions to serve probationary periods;

(d) with respect to the teaching staff to be provided in schools and such institutions;

(e) for requiring the approval of the Secretary of State to be obtained for the use in schools and such institutions of such materials or apparatus as may be specified in the regulations, being materials or apparatus which could or might involve a serious risk to health;

(f) with respect to the keeping, disclosure and transfer of educational records about pupils at schools and such institutions and the supply of copies of such records to such persons, and in such circumstances, as may he determined by or under the regulations;

(g) with respect to the duration of the school day and school year at, and the granting of leave of absence from, any schools.

(2) In subsection (1) above "qualified teacher" means a person who—

(a) is a qualified teacher in accordance with any provision made by or under the regulations; or

(b) is determined to be a qualified teacher by the Secretary of State in accordance with any provision so made;

and the regulations may provide for any determination by the Secretary of State under the regulations with respect to a person's status as a qualified teacher to be made so as to have effect, in such cases or circumstances as may be specified in the regulations, from a date earlier than the determination.
(3) The provision authorised by paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above with respect to exceptions from any requirement imposed by virtue of that paragraph includes in particular provision permitting the employment as here mentioned, in such cases or circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be specified in or determined under the regulations, or persons licensed to teach by the Secretary of State in accordance with any provision made by or under the regulations.
(4) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (1)(f) above may authorise persons who in pursuance of the regulations supply copies of any such records as are there mentioned to charge such fee as they think fit (not exceeding the cost of supply) in respect of each copy so supplied.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for imposing requirements as to the health and physical capacity of—

(a) teachers at schools and institutions falling within subsection (10) or (11) below;

(b) teachers employed by local education authorities otherwise than at schools or such institutions; and

(c) persons employed—

(i) by local education authorities; or

(ii) by the governing bodies of schools or such institutions;

in work otherwise than as teachers which brings them regularly into contact with persons who have not attained the age of nineteen years.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for prohibiting or restricting the employment or further employment of persons—

(a) as teachers at schools and institutions falling within subsection (10) or (11) below;

(b) by local education authorities as teachers otherwise than at schools or such institutions; or

(c) by local education authorities or by the governing bodies of schools or such institutions in such work as is mentioned in subsection (5)(c) above;

on medical grounds, in cases of misconduct and, as respects employment or further employment as a teacher, on educational grounds.
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring his approval to be obtained for the provision of new premises for, or the alteration of the premises of—

(a) any school or institution falling within subsection (10) below; or

(b) any boarding hostel provided by a local education authority for pupils attending any school or any such institution;

and for the inspection of any such hostel.
(8) In section 63(2) of the 1944 Act (exemption from building regulations, etc.) references to plans approved by the Secretary of State shall include references to any particulars submitted to and approved by him under regulations made by virtue of subsection (7) above.
(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—

(a) with respect to the fees to be charged for courses of further education at institutions falling within subsection (10) or (11) below;

(b) for requiring his approval to be obtained for the provision at such institutions of courses designated by or under the regulations as courses of initial teacher training;

(c) for enabling him to give directions for the discontinuance of any such course at such an institution or as to the number and categories of students to be admitted to such courses at such institutions; and

(d) with respect to institutions in Wales falling within subsection (10) below—

(i) for requiring his approval to be obtained for the provision at such institutions of courses of higher education; and

(ii) for enabling him to give directions for the discontinuance of any such course at such an institution or as to the number and categories of students to be admitted to such courses at such institutions.

(10) An institution falls within this subsection if it provides higher education or further education (or both) and either—

(a) it is maintained by a local education authority; or

(b) it is designated by or under the regulations as an institution substantially dependent for its maintenance on assistance from local education authorities or on grants under section 100(1)(b) of the 1944 Act.

(11) An institution falls within this subsection if it is an institution within the PCFC funding sector.
(12) In this section "school" means any school maintained by a local education authority, any special school not so maintained or any grant-maintained school.
(13) Section 27 of the 1980 Act (which is superseded by the preceding provisions of this section) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 430ZA, I speak also to a number of consequential amendments, Nos. 440A, 447AZA to 447CZA and 450B to 450D. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State published last month a consultation document which included proposals for the reform of the arrangements for granting qualified teacher status for teachers who have not been trained in England or Wales. At that time my right honourable friend gave notice that the Government would be tabling an appropriate amendment to the Education Reform Bill. The principal objective of the amendment now before your Lordships is to secure that appropriate statutory authority exists for the new qualified teacher status arrangements as these may be implemented in the light of the process of consultation which is currently taking place. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I understand that these regulations are proposed to take account of the Government's consultative document on qualified teacher status. I am not quite clear about what is to happen. It seems that the making of the regulations on the matters covered in the amendment do not create a new power. I ask why the matter is brought up now in this way and I ask the Minister for assurances that there will be the fullest consultations with all the relevant interests, including in particular the local authority associations representing the employers of teachers, on the new regulations, which certainly embody considerable changes to existing practice.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, in drawing up regulations to give effect to the new arrangements, we shall, having consulted very fully, consider carefully the responses to the consultation document including

1557
points made in your Lordships' House on various occasions as well as in the course of deliberations upon this Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 196 [Powers of Secretary of State in relation to certain education institutions]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved amendments Nos. 430A, 430B, 430C and 430D:
Page 178, line 34, after ("99") insert ("(1) and (2)").
Page 178, line 37, leave out from ("school") to end of line 39.
Page 178, line 41. leave out from ("school") to ("and") in line 42.
Page 179, line 3, after ("a") insert ("county or").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of government amendments Nos. 430A to 430D put right a minor technical error in Clause 196. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 431:
After Clause 196, insert the following new clause—
("Statutory Nursery Provision.
It shall he the duty of every local education authority to make provision for nursery education and pre-school facilities for those children under the statutory school age whose parents desire them to receive it, and to ensure that all those children who are admitted to primary school before the statutory school age benefit from appropriate facilities, space, equipment and staffing provision; and section 24 of the 1980 Act is repealed.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it seems an odd time to begin talking about nursery provisions, but I feel quite strongly about this. Nursery provision gets no say in the Bill at all and it is an extremely important matter. Very briefly, I feel that this new clause is self-explanatory, so I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Government recognise the benefits of school and other collective experience for children under five, but our view is that it would be totally misconceived to impose a general duty of this kind upon local education authorities. Publicly-funded education for the under-fives, important and desirable though it is, must compete with other education needs and sectors for the finite resources available.
My right honourable friend has powers to deal with certain space standards and other standards, which include specific teaching and recreation space standards on the basis of pupil age groups. Those are set out in the Education (Schools Premises) Regulations 1981. It is for local education authorities to ensure compliance. In the light of those observations, I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, while I do not agree with it I accept fully what the noble Baroness has just said about not having national provision for nursery education. Does she recall that in Committee I asked whether the Government had any plans either to extend schools and build new nursery class rooms, or indeed to build new nursery schools? That would not necessarily conflict with what she has just said. Can she answer that point now?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, so far as I am aware the Government have no
1558
plans to impose requirements of that kind, but there is nothing to prevent local education authorities, as they do now, pursuing further developments in this area.
Baroness David: My Lords, that was not an altogether unexpected reply, and I am disappointed with it. However, I shall not press the matter now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 198 [Avoidance of certain contractual terms]:
[Amendment No. 431A not moved.]
Clause 199 [Application of employment law during financial delegation]:
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington moved Amendment No. 431B:
Page 180, line 24, after ("expedient") insert ("so as to extend the operation of any such enactment to persons who have to any extent the powers, duties and responsibilities of employers").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment uses the words "extend the operation" in an attempt to avoid the difficulty of disputes identified by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he replied to the amendment which I moved at the Committee stage. At that time the clause in question was Clause 186. It is now Clause 199.
By extending the operation of any relevant enactment, it is only where that original enactment would have given rise to dispute that uncertainty will continue. The new wording will still allow the Secretary of State for Education and Science to transfer those duties and responsibilities contained in any such enactments, which currently fall on local authority employers, to school and college governors "as he considers necessary or expedient"—the words in Clause 199. It will, however, prevent any future Secretary of State for Education going that stage further and removing from school and college staffs the rights built up over more than 20 years of legislation.
It will not come as any surprise to noble Lords opposite that we on these Benches regard hard won trade union rights as one of our most valuable possessions. In the debate on Clause 186 on 19th May the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that he hoped that I would accept his assurance that there is no secret purpose behind the clause which would in any way affect the rights of employees. It may well be that this Government have no secret purpose; but it is worth repeating that at some time there will be different governments and different Secretaries of State.
The Government's assurances are welcome of course, but good intent does not provide the necessary lasting protection that can come only from words written on the face of the Bill. I can express the same reservations about the Government's amendment on consultation. We welcome the change. Statutory consultation is valuable but, without being too cynical, we all know that it can be only too easily ignored or reversed by those who later assume responsibility. This aspect assumes greater importance at present because relationships between the Government and various staffs in the education service are as bad as they have been for some time.
Cynicism and distrust are widespread among the teaching and non-teaching staffs, and the acceptance by the Government of a more explicit and tighter definition of what can be done through the clause would go a long way to improving that deteriorating relationship.
If the Minister has any idea about what is happening in schools he will know that this is no mere debating point; it is a matter of deep concern to teaching staff. If the amendment were accepted it would permit the Government's stated intention of protecting employees' rights to be plain for all to see. It would offer the necessary protection for the future which statements of intent, however well-meaning, simply cannot do.
It is inevitable that members of staff in the education service will have in the forefront of their minds, when examining this measure, the five trade union Acts put on the statute book by this Government. Many will accept that some improvements have emerged from that legislation; but underlying it all will be the thought—even the suspicion—that further restrictions are being placed on employees, whose desire is to play a full part in the education of our young people.
Those of us who have spent so much of our lives working in education—there are many in this House who have done so—cannot have failed to be impressed by the dedication, even devotion, to the work done by so many of our teachers and non-teaching staff. Theirs has always been more than a job to be done; they have gone the second mile.
If local management is to become a reality, the transfer of so much power, as envisaged in the Bill, must mean—as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said in the debate on Clause 186—that:
"power and responsibility for the governing body go hand in hand".
We are all aware that the form of delegation which is such an important part of the Bill is to a large extent unknown territory. That is not a criticism. But the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, when responding to the constant probing which has taken place on this aspect of the Bill, has merely repeated each time that the Government are confident that they will succeed. If we are to avoid unnecessary disputes, we need more than generalised statements of that kind when dealing with the rights of employees.
It is perhaps not too much to say that this clause is the most important part of the Bill. I say that because it affects virtually every other part of the measure. The human element is, almost by definition, the most important part of the education service. Therefore it is of crucial importance that legislative provision on the service given by teachers and non-teaching staffs be clear, unequivocal and in accordance with hard-won rights. There must be no going back on improvements made over the years. I believe that this amendment will achieve those goals and I therefore commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. This seems to be a case which arises from the ambiguity about who is the employer under local financial management—a subject upon which we have already touched. I appreciate that there was need for legal tidying-up to deal with that point. But it seems to me that this clause has been drafted in a way which is a good deal too sweeping and which
1560
would have the effect of depriving people of a great many legal rights of which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, told us the Government have no intention to deprive them.
Therefore there is a strong case for arguing that the clause could be quietly and quickly tidied up and, perhaps, was drafted in rather too great haste. There is a maxim which I commend to the noble Lord the Chief Whip: legislate in haste, repent at leisure.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I too shall not detain the House for long; but I must detain noble Lords for a moment. Clause 199 is one of the most worrying parts of the Bill, as well as one of the most important. It is of course a constitutional issue rather than an educational one. Indeed, I spoke about it under an earlier amendment so I shall simply repeat the principle I quoted then. I said that:
"No Minister, even if all-wise and all-good, is to be trusted with one ounce or one word more of statutory power than he can show he needs to discharge his duties".
As the wording stands, the holder of the office of Secretary of State can do virtually anything he likes with the Race Relations Act 1976, the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Employment Protection Act 1975, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and others.
Of course we accept the present Government's intentions, as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, said. But that is no basis upon which to proceed in such a far reaching and sensitive area. Our amendments in Committee were rejected for what seemed like legalistic reasons.
Amendment No. 431B takes account of those reasons and allows the Secretary of State to transfer the necessary duties and responsibilities from LEAs to governors, but is worded so as to prevent the diminution of employees' rights. Without some such wording there will be continued anxiety and suspicion throughout the teaching profession. With it, the Government will be no worse off than they were before.
I hope that the Minister, whose Amendment No. 431D we welcome (as far as it goes), will see the force of the constitutional argument even at this late hour, and will agree to what we are putting forward.
7.45 a.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the clause does not give the Secretary of State a free hand. He will have to demonstrate that it is reasonable to believe that a particular modification is necessary or expedient as a result of financial delegation.
We cannot at this stage foresee every eventuality. It may be necessary to modify employment law in ways which do not fit the definition set out in the noble Lord's amendment. We have given frequent assurances that there is no secret agenda or sinister purpose behind the clause. It is a technical provision designed to enable necessary detailed changes in the law in the light of financial delegation.
Amendment No. 431D will ensure that the process of making an order under Clause 199 is always entirely public. The Government always intended to consult carefully before making any order and the amendment will make it a statutory requirement to consult the associations and organisations listed in subsection (3). Those bodies include, as your

1561
Lordships can see, the local authority associations, the teacher unions and bodies representing governors of aided schools. The amendment is therefore an important safeguard, ensuring that no government can use the clause to make important changes to the law in a low-key way. It is an important provision which I commend to the House, together with the technical amendment, Amendment No. 431C.
I appreciate the concern which has led to the tabling of Amendment No. 431B, but we believe that that amendment would place too precise a constraint on the operation of the clause and is unnecessary in view of the restriction introduced by the government amendment and therefore built into the clause. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the interpretation which the Minister has put on Clause 199 is not that assumed by all my noble friends and myself. The Minister has moved since I spoke on this matter in Committee and we obviously welcome the arrangements that have been made for statutory consultation.
The Minister said that she was aware of the concern felt about the provisions of the clause. I doubt whether that is the case, although I hope that it is. From now on we can only hope for the sake of all education, not just teachers, that her views will prove to be correct. In view of the fact that there has been some movement, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 431C and 431D:
Page 180, line 27, leave out ("and Schedule 2") and insert (", section 42(1), (2) and (4), Schedule 2, paragraph 4 of Schedule (New schools) and section (New schools) so far as relating to that paragraph;").
Page 180, line 28, at end insert ("and subsections (1) and (3) of section (Costs of dismissal, premature retirement or voluntary severance).
(3) Before making any order under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) such associations of local authorities;

(b) such bodies representing the interests of governors of voluntary schools; and

(c) such organisations representing staff required to be covered by schemes under section 28 of this Act or institutions required to he covered by schemes under section 129 of this Act;

as appear to him to be concerned.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 432 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 432A:
After Clause 201. insert the following new clause:
("Recoupment as between local education authorities.
.—(1) Notwithstanding the repeal by the 1986 Act of section 31 of the 1980 Act and section 31(8) of the London Government Act 1963 (which relate to recoupment by local education authorities in respect of provision for education in respect of out of area pupils and were replaced by section 51 of the 1986 Act) those provisions shall (subject to subsection (2) below) have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, in relation to recoupment by local education authorities in respect of any provision for education made by them before 7th January 1987 (the coming into force of section 51) as if the 1986 Act had not been enacted.
(2) Where a local education authority makes such a claim as is mentioned in subsection (1) of (3) of section 31 of the 1980 Act (whether before or after the passing of this Act), in determining for
1562
the purposes of that subsection whether the claim has been made within the prescribed period no account shall be taken of the period beginning on 7th January 1987 and ending on the day on which this Act is passed.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 433:
After Clause 201. insert the following new clause:
("Assistance to education of children of British nationality residing for the time being outside the United Kingdom in another member
state of the European Community.
.—(1) For the purpose of facilitating the free movement of families to take advantage of employment opportunities within other member states of the European Community, the Secretary of State shall take action as specified in subsections (2) to (5) below to assist in maintaining and improving educational standards at British schools situated within other member states and to facilitate access to such schools by the children of British expatriates for the time being residing and working in those states.
(2) The Secretary of State shall establish a category of school situated in another member state of the European Community having such characteristics as are specified in subsection (3) below and in regulations which he may make.
(3) The characteristics mentioned above are that the school—

(a) provides education for pupils who have attained the age of five but not the age of nineteen years and are of British nationality but are residing in another member state of the European Community; and

(b) has a curriculum approved by the Secretary of State and which is broadly similar to the curriculum the pupil would follow if receiving an education in England and Wales.

(4) For the purpose of maintaining and improving the standard of education at such a school, the Secretary of State shall—

(a) make arrangements for the inspection of such a school at appropriate intervals by H.M. Inspector of Schools, with the school being responsible for the Inspectors' travel and local expenses;

(b) provide on a regular basis to such a school information on educational development in England and Wales and also facilities such as in-service training for teachers as he may consider necessary or desirable to enable the school to continue to offer an education broadly comparable to that available in England and Wales; and

(c) take such measures as he deems appropriate to facilitate the recruitment of British teachers by these schools and in due course their re-employment in the United Kingdom.

(5) The Secretary of State shall make an order to establish a Grant Scheme for the purpose of enabling children of parents of British nationality for the time being residing and working in another member state of the Euroepan community, who might otherwise not be able to do so, to benefit from an education at a school in the category described in subsection (2) above and so facilitate their return to a school or institute of higher education in the United Kingdom.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have retabled my amendment because I think this issue is very important. I should like to start by thanking all those noble Lords who have come and sat through the entire night waiting to reach this amendment. It covers a point which has not been touched on in any of the 16 hours of debate that we have had since we started early this afternoon—I beg your pardon, yesterday afternoon.
I shall not repeat the arguments that I made at the Committee stage. I think everyone is familiar with them. First of all, I wish to apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Limerick, who stayed in your Lordships' House until 6 o'clock this morning but had to leave as he had a board meeting at 9 o'clock. I also give apologies from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who is away on business in Greece.
The noble Earl, Lord Limerick, asked me to make the following points. First, the United Kingdom now sends over 50 per cent. of its exports into the

1563
European Community. We as a country want to increase this amount and believe that we shall do so, particularly after 1992. In the course of carrying on all this business we want exports not only from large firms but also from the medium and smaller firms and from the self-employed. In the course of this, many people will go to stay for long periods of time within the European Community.
The first question that anyone will ask when asked to go and live and work overseas will be, "What about the education of my children?" If the businessman or businesswoman wants a British-type education for his or her children it will be a very expensive business, varying from £3,000 to £5,000 a year. Some will be fortunate because the firm will pay for them. Some will be fortunate because they can pay themselves. Some will simply not be able to afford to pay such sums of money at all. My amendment is to meet that problem.
Our European community competitors spend considerable sums of money on the education of the children of their nationals when they are working abroad. It is estimated that France spends some £130 million, the Federal Republic of Germany some £19 million, Italy £12 to £13 million, the United Kingdom nothing.
We are putting our businessmen and businesswomen at a distinct disadvantage vis-àvis their European competitors. Yet this is not a problem that is new to us. If we look at what we do as a government with our own employees who, because of the nature of their work, are obliged to work abroad, we make provisions for the education of their children, whether it is by an allowance for members of the Diplomatic Service, or whatever. We look after the children of servicemen serving overseas, those of people working for the British Council and, I have no doubt, others. And quite rightly. We do so because people want the assurance that their children will enjoy continuity of education, which is very important in the world today.
We know perfectly well that it would be very difficult to get people to work abroad were such provisions not made for them. Yet this Government, a Government of which I am proud to say I was a member for eight years, have said time without number that we depend on the initiative, enterprise and hard work of our business people. We depend on their going into Europe and making a success of it. We depend on all of this for the economy. When it comes down to doing something which would help so many of the new, young enterprising firms, we decide at that critical moment that we are not going to do anything at all about the issue of education.
It seems to me to be quite inconsistent. In the interval between Committee and Report, I went to visit my noble friend Lord Young and he kindly gave me one of the pamphlets about the single market. I am sure that all your Lordships have seen it. One only has to see inside what the Department of Trade and Industry is saying:
"The Government have launched a major campaign so that business can compete effectively in the single market".
At the back of the booklet are printed the rather nice words:
"Think single, but act on the double".
That might apply to every Government department.
The Government should speak with one voice on this matter. That is what I am asking them to do. I have read very carefully the reply of my noble friend Lady Hooper of 19th May. I am of course very pleased with what she has said about the European schools. The latter part of her reply contained some misunderstandings which I have tried to unravel in a letter of some length which I have written to her.
But in order to clear up other misunderstandings I wish to make five points. First, this amendment applies only to people working in the countries of the European Community. It does not apply to countries in Western Europe which are not members of the European Community, nor does it apply to schools or people working anywhere else in the world where there may be British schools. Those are different problems, but my amendment is not concerned with that. Secondly, my amendment is concerned to help families; it is not a subsidy to schools.
Thirdly, the amendment does not represent an assisted places scheme. If it were to be expected, it would be very different in two important ways. It is not based on an academic test for children and it applies, or could apply, throughout the age range five-18.
Fourthly, I have been asked whether the European Community will do something about this situation. I have no doubt that the Department of Education and Science, and my noble friend in particular, are looking at the great problem of the equivalence of qualifications. I have not the slightest doubt that there is not one Member of your Lordships' House today who does not welcome those proposals and who does not believe that they are all very important and, naturally, need to be worked on. But, nevertheless, it will inevitably take some time before that should happen, and in the meantime parents still have the problem of the education of their children. Even if that were to come about, they may not be satisfied with the results. There may be all kinds of complications which we cannot foresee.
Fifthly, British schools in the European Community would clearly have to reach an appropriate standard. They are already inspected by an arrangement whereby they pay for the inspections. But I entirely accept that the schools would have to come up to a standard. What, then, is the problem? It is clearly not, I am sure, a disagreement with Government policy. This amendment is entirely in line with the Government policy of trying to promote British exports and business in the big single market coming in 1992. The difficulty, I think, is that there is of course a price tag on it. I want to be helpful upon this. The amendment does not require an immediate expenditure of money. It does not ask for the scheme to be brought in by the September term 1988.
I myself would be perfectly satisfied if my noble friend would say that she would take this away and bring forward a solution in the next year and well before 1992. In the first instance, whatever scheme was brought in would have to be limited by the number of places available in the British schools. So there is a second limitation on it. Already, and indeed in the future, a number of the places will be taken by firms who will pay for the children; others will be paid for by people who can afford to pay for themselves. It would only be the remaining places which could possibly be reserved for parents who could not afford the fees.
Perhaps I should say that I shall not speak further. This is a matter about which I feel very strongly. I hope very much that my noble friend who I know—having herself been a Euro Member—understands the position, will be able to meet my request that if the Government are unable to accept the amendment they will undertake to bring forward a solution to this problem. I beg to move.
8 a.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, since the amendment does not contain any names from these Benches, I wish to make it clear that it has our wholehearted support. Having had experience of colleagues working in a multinational organisation, many of whom worked in Europe, I realise that there are problems. Parents are faced with the choice of leaving their children behind in the UK or possibly allowing their children, during a few short years as they move into Europe and move out again, to get out of touch with the educational system in the UK. Those children may find it difficult to re-enter the system or to enter the next phase of education. This provision is essential in such cases. I hope that the Government have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I also support the amendment from the Back-Benches. This is the first time that I have intervened in this whole Bill, and it will be the last. The importance of the amendment is considerable. It has wide support from British industry, commerce and banking. As my noble friend Lady Young has pointed out, two of the noble Lords whose names are on the amendment represent industry and banking in no mean measure. I believe that they, if they had been present, would have spoken very widely about the importance of the measure to our nation.
The Department of Trade and Industry, as has been pointed out, is preparing the nation for 1992. If we are to go into Europe fully committed, we must go in on all fronts. Education must be part of the armoury. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that she has sufficient support from all sides of the House. In normal circumstances there would have been many more speakers in this debate. However, the hour is, to say the least, very late. I therefore hope that she will feel constrained to press the amendment vigorously. A great many people feel very strongly about the matter.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I supported the amendment moved by the noble Baroness at Committee stage. Throughout the course of our debates on this Bill the Government have stressed the importance of parental choice. Why, then, have they not given parents who work abroad more choice? My experience has been that the predominent worry of parents who work abroad, for whatever reason, is how they will educate their children. I was supported by the padding of the Diplomatic Service and therefore finances were available to send our children abroad. But more and more parents do not want to send their children abroad and they are educated in another language and probably suffer as a result.
We must remember that up to now service parents have had no choice. They have gone abroad and done
1566
what they could for their children. The new type of workers going abroad will have a choice and they may choose not to go because they will not be able to make suitable arrangements for their children. Therefore, as the noble Baroness has said, she is asking the Government to make only the most modest commitment at this stage. It is infinitely smaller than the commitment of so many other countries in the European Community. But at least it is a beginning. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer in a positive way, realising the importance of the question for the House.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I support the amendment and particularly the conviction with which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has spoken about it. I do not wish to weary the House at this time of day. However, I wish to point out that if Britain is to hold its position in the Community, more and more British citizens will have to move into the Community. They will need to be satisfied that their children can be properly educated so that they can take advantage of university and other forms of higher education when they return to this country.
It has been pointed out that other countries in the Community have met the situation and dealt with it. We alone have not done so. At the Committee stage, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, was sympathetic but not very constructive. I hope that, in the light of the very strong views that have been expressed from every quarter of this House, she will be able to satisfy the House that some positive and constructive steps are being taken to solve this problem.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, I should like strongly to support this amendment, for the reasons which have been so clearly stated by previous speakers.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to do the same. My name is attached to the amendment and I feel I should just say that I support it strongly. The noble Baroness moved it extremely ably, and I hope we shall have a warm response from the Minister.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing this amendment in her usual clear and helpful way. I should like to reiterate that we understand and welcome the efforts of the British schools in the European Community to provide a sound education for the children of British citizens working in Europe. It is because we do so that we have agreed already to provide help for them in a number of particular and practical ways, which I enumerated at the previous stage.
My noble friend and others have referred to the challenge of 1992 and to the need to make sure that we provide the proper conditions to allow British businessmen to play their full part in the new situation. It is a powerful point and one with which I certainly have every sympathy. The Government are anxious to ensure that education can make an effective contribution in this area and we are pursuing that with vigour.
The proposed new clause suggests that the Secretary of State should set up a grants scheme to assist British parents working abroad. That is of course an interesting proposal and it ought to be further examined. We are satisfied that support could

1567
not be offered through the existing assisted places scheme, which is limited to England and Wales. My noble friend has in fact acknowledged that; and before we could decide to introduce fresh legislation to provide for a new scheme we should need to consider whether we could overcome a range of practical difficulties which, on the face of it, look formidable but which nevertheless should not be insurmountable—for example, the establishment of suitable residence qualifications and questions of extra-territoriality of legislation, which are fraught with difficulties. We should have to consider whether a scheme could be designed in such a way as to encourage companies to continue their present levels of support, which are in many cases very generous, for the education of their employee's children.
Within the timescale of the Bill, we cannot hope to explore these problems fully, but we are very willing to consider what progress we can make outside the framework of the Bill. In this context we shall be looking at reciprocity of provision between member states and at other ways in which transferability will be eased. As a result of our national curriculum proposals, I may add, I firmly believe that we shall be going some way towards facilitiating this. I therefore hope that my noble friend will be willing to withdraw her amendment on that understanding.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who have supported this amendment. I think I can really say that it has had very strong support from all parts of the House, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on behalf of the Social and Liberal Democrats; to my noble friend Lord Montgomery, who I think made the important point that the amendment has wide support from British business, commerce and banking; to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, who supported the proposal so ably at the Committee stage and whose practical experience of the kind of problems faced by families who have to live abroad is very valuable; to the noble Lord, Lord Benson, who I believe made, as a businessman, the important point that if the United Kingdom is going to hold its own in the highly competitive post-1992 market we must not put our business people at a disadvantage; to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, who gave it his strong support—and after all he is someone who, both from his own experience and from professional life, knows the kinds of problems faced by people living abroad; and to the noble Baroness, Lady David.
I have of course listened very carefully to what my noble friend Lady Hooper said. I am glad that she understands and appreciates the great efforts made by the British schools in Europe. I am grateful for the help that the Department of Education and Science has provided, in particular over the question of school inspectors and in other ways into which I shall not go. I fully appreciate that the Government are anxious to ensure that education makes a positive contribution to 1992.
Before deciding what I shall do, I should like to ask my noble friend whether what she said about needing to overcome a range of practical difficulties means that the Government will come forward with a scheme, or whether she meant that they are simply looking at reciprocity of provision. If I may say so to
1568
my noble friend, I do not think that the latter answer will do. But if I can have an assurance that the Government will come forward with a solution to this scheme, I shall of course withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, with the leave of the House, what I can say is that we shall certainly look and seek to find a solution through a suitable scheme, and I very much hope that a suitable scheme can come out of that. But of course I cannot give any copper-bottomed guarantee at this point.
Baroness Young: My Lords, my noble friend places me in a considerable difficulty on this matter. I should very much like to be able to withdraw the amendment because I should like to work with the Government to find a scheme. I very much appreciate the difficulty in which my noble friend finds herself: in fact I have found myself in similar difficulties in the past. So it is a true feeling from the heart. I feel however that I should like to test the feeling of the House on the matter. It is too important to leave to something which, at the end of the day, may not be satisfactory. I think that this is very much in the interest of our effort in regard to 1992. However, I appreciate all that has been done and said on behalf of my proposal.
8.12 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 433) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 21.

DIVISION NO. 13

CONTENTS

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Pender, L.

Benson, L.

Peston, L.

Birdwood, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Blatch, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Sandford, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Seear, B.

David, B.

Teviot, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Tordoff, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

White, B.

Gallacher, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

McNair, L.

Young, B. [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V. [Teller]

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Munster, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Strange, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trafford. L.

Fortescue, E.

Trumpington, B.

Harvington, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 203 [Transfer of property to grant-aided institutions in Wales]:
8.19 a.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 433A and 433B:
Page 182, leave out lines 23 to 29.
Page 182, line 29, at end insert—
("(7A) Section (Loan liabilities excepted from transfer under Part II) of this Act shall apply to an institution designated under this section; and for the purposes of that section as it applies by virtue of this section subsection (2) of that section shall apply as if paragraph (a) defined an excepted liability as one which would have been transferred under subsection (3) of this section but for subsection (5) of this section.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 433C:
After Clause 203, insert the following new clause:
("Power to make different provision for Wales in regulations under the 1944 and 1967 Acts.
.—(1) After section 111 of the 1944 Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Regulations: different provision for Wales.
1l1A.—(1) Regulations under this Act may make in relation to Wales provision different from that made in relation to England.
(2) Subsection (1) above is without prejudice to any express or implied power to make different provision for different cases or circumstances."
(2) In section 4 of the Education Act 1967 (loans for capital expenditure for purposes of colleges of education), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3A) regulations under this section may make in relation to Wales provision different from that made in relation to England." ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this new clause would enable the Secretary of State for Wales to make different provisions in relation to Wales from those made in relation to England in regulations made under Sections 10, 70, 80 and 81 of the Education Act 1944, and under Section 4 of the Education Act 1967. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I was asked to say on behalf of my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies how pleased he is that this amendment has been made.
Baroness White: My Lords, I should like to express gratitude for the distinction between Wales and England. I hope that it will always be exercised to the advantage and not to the disadvantage of the Principality.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Supplementary provisions with respect to transfers]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 433D to 433J:
Page 211, line 22, leave out paragraph 1.
Page 212, line 25, leave out paragraph 3.
Page 213, line 26, leave out ("3(3) or").
Page 213, line 31, leave out ("3(3) or").
Page 216, line 7, leave out ("required agreements and instruments") and insert ("agreements and instruments required to be made or executed in pursuance of paragraph 4(1) above or in pursuance of a direction under paragraph 5 above").
Page 216, line 10, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
After Clause 204:
[Amendment No. 433K not moved.]
Clause 205 [Orders and regulations]:
[Amendment No. 434 not moved.]
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 434ZA:
Page 184, line 10, leave out ("or regulations under this Act") and insert ("under this Act, and regulations under any provision of this Act other than section (School and further and higher education regulations) ( 1 )(a),(b) or (c), (5) or (6),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 207 [Meaning of "assisted" for the purposes of the 1944 Act and Acts construed as one with it]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 434A and 434B:
Page 184, line 40, at end insert—
("(2A) In paragraph (b) of that subsection—

(a) for the words "training college or other institution which is not so maintained" there shall be substituted the words "institution other than a school"; and

(b) the word "college", in the second and third places where it occurs, shall be omitted.").

Page 184, line 42, after ("section)") insert ("—
(a) the word "college" shall be omitted; and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendments No. 434A and 434B; I also speak to Amendments Nos. 449A, 4491B and 449C. This group of amendments is designed to clarify the distinction between colleges which are maintained by local education authorities and colleges which are assisted by local education authorities. It is a tidying-up group of amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 208 [General interpretation]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 434C and 434D:
Page 185, line 18, at end insert—
(" "statutory provision" means a provision of an enactment or a statutory instrument;").
Page 186, line 13, at end insert—
("(4A) Any reference in section 67, 118, 122, or 203 of this Act to liabilities incurred by a local education authority shall not be read as including liabilities of such an authority to make payments to or in respect of any person in pursuance of any duty imposed on the authority under any statutory provision.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these are technical amendments to the interpretation clause of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 209 [Commencement]:
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 434DA to 436.
Page 186, leave out line 21 and insert—
("section 1;
section 2( I )(b) and (2);
sections 3 and 4;").
Page 186, line 26, leave out ("44") and insert ("42").
Page 186, line 26, leave out ("Schedule") and insert ("Schedules 2A and").
Page 186, line 28, at end insert—
("section 109").
Page 186, line 28, at end insert ("section 111;").
Page 186, leave out line 29.
Page 186, leave out lines 30 and 31 and insert—
("sections 127 to 140;
sections 142 to 146 and (Information with respect to educational provision in institutions providing further or higher education);").
Page 186, line 32, leave out ("149") and insert ("148").
Page 186, line 33, leave out first ("Schedule") and insert ("Schedules 7 and").
Page 186, line 38, leave out from ("198") to end of line 39 and insert ("to 201").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of government amendments, from Amendment No. 434DA to Amendment No. 436, concerns the commencement of various clauses in the Bill. They are minor technical amendments and I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 437 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 437A:
Page 186, line 39, at end insert—
("sections (Recoupment as between local education authorities) and 202(1);").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 437B to 437D:
Page 186, line 40, at end insert ("and Schedule 4").
Page 186, line 42, leave out ("paragraph 75(2)(d) and (3)") and insert ("paragraphs 55, 74A, 75 and 91A").
Page 187, line 14, leave out from ("Sections") to ("shall") in line 15 and insert ("2(1)(a) and (3). (Collective worship), (Religious education required in the basic curriculum: further provisions), (Exceptions, special arrangements and supplementary and consequential provisions), (Duties with respect to certain requirements) (1), 7 and 8 and Schedule A1").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 438 and 439:
Page 218, line 1, leave out paragraph 2.
Page 218, line 14, leave out ("instruction") and insert ("education").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 440:
Page 219, line 38, at end insert—
(" 17A. In paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act (transitional exemption orders for educational admissions) after the words "the Education Act 1980" there shall be inserted the words "or section 81 of the Education Reform Act 1988".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a minor technical amendment temporarily exempting grant-maintained schools in certain circumstances from the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 which we have otherwise extended to them. Similar exemption is already available to other maintained schools. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 440A:
Page 220, line 29, leave out paragraph 25 and insert—
("25. Section 27 of that Act shall apply to any grant-maintained school; and subsections (2)(c) and (3)(c) of that section shall apply in relation to persons employed, and the employment or further employment of persons, by the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools in such work as is mentioned in subsection (2)(c) of that section as they apply respectively in relation to persons employed, and the employment or further employment of persons, in such work by local education authorities,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 441 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendments Nos. 441A and 441B:
Page 223, line 18, at end insert—
(" The Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (c.78)
46A. In section 216(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (procedure in anticipation of planning permissions, etc.) for the words "a joint planning board or the Inner London Education Authority" there shall be substituted the words "or a joint planning board".
The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 ( c.65 )
46B. In section 72(1) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (expenditure which authorities may make) for the words "paragraphs (i) and (j)" there shall be substituted the words "paragraph (j)," and for the words "either of those paragraphs" there shall be substituted the words "that paragraph".
The Broadcasting Act 1981 ( c.68 )
46C. In section 4(6) of the Broadcasting Act 1981 (certain provisions of that Act not to apply to programmes broadcast by local authorities etc.) for the words from "the Common Council" to the end there shall be substituted the words "and the Common Council of the City of London".").
Page 223, line 24, at end insert—
("The Health Service Joint Consultative Committees (Access to
Information Act 1986 ( c.24)
49. In section 1(1) of the Health Service Joint Consultative Committees (Access to Information) Act 1986 (interpretation), in the definition of "local authority" for the words from "the Common Council" to the end there shall be substituted the words "or the Common Council of the City of London".
The Disabled Persons ( Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 (c.33)
50.—(1) Section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 (Persons discharged from hospital) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(c) for the words "or authority" there shall be substituted the words "of that local authority".
(3) In subsection (9) the following definition shall be substituted for the definition of "the appropriate officer or authority"—
" "the appropriate officer" of a local authority is such officer discharging functions of that authority in their capacity as a local education authority, or in Scotland an education authority, as may be appointed by the authority for the purposes of this section;".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving these amendments I also speak to Amendments Nos. 441B, 448B to 448P and 450A. The amendments are consequential on Part III of the Bill, the abolition of the ILEA. They remove references to the ILEA which become redundant when the authority is abolished. The amendments come into effect only upon the abolition of the ILEA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 442 and 443:
Page 224, line 15, leave out paragraph 54.
Page 224, line 29, leave out ("that Act") and insert ("the Education Act 1946").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London I beg to move Amendments Nos. 442 and 443 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
8.30 a.m.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 444:
Page 224, line 43, at end insert—
("57A. Each of the following bodies, that is to say—

(a) the National Curriculum Council;

(b) the Curriculum for Wales; and

(c) the School Examinations and Assessment Council;

shall be an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act 1960, and paragraph (e) of Schedule 2 to that Act (institutions

1573
connected with institutions which are exempt charities for the purposes of that Act by virtue of the preceding provisions of that Schedule) shall apply in relation to an institution administered by or on behalf of any of those bodies as it applies in relation to an institution included in that Schedule above that paragraph.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the effect of this amendment is simply to afford to the new councils being set up under the Bill the benefits of charitable status now enjoyed by the School Curriculum Development Committee and the Secondary Examinations Council whose work and property the new councils will take over. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 445 not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 446:
Page 226, line 36, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 38 and insert ("After that subsection there shall he inserted the following subsection—
"(1 A) Expressions used in subsection (1)(aa) and (b) above").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment corrects an erroneous reference in paragraph 64(4) of Schedule 10. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 446A and 446B not moved.]
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 447:
Page 227, line 44, at end insert—
("74A. In section 16 of the 1980 Act (provisions supplementary to sections 12 to 15 of that Act), the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
"(3A) For the purposes of section 12, 13 or 15 above proposals under that section shall be taken to have first been published—

(a) on the date on which the requirements of regulations under this Act with respect to the publication of the proposals are satisfied; or

(b) where different requirements such as are mentioned in paragraph (a) above are satisfied on different dates, on the last of those dates;
and references to the first publication of the proposals shall be construed accordingly.

(3B) Where any such requirement imposes a continuing obligation with respect to the publication of any proposals, the requirement shall for the purposes of subsection (3A) above be taken to be satisfied on the first date in respect of which it is satisfied." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 447AZA:
Page 228, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("there") in line 14 and insert ("At the end of paragraph (d) of subsection (1)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee we discussed this area. These amendments are consequential on the question of safeguards for parents in cases where a local education authority proposes to amend existing statements of children with special educational needs on account of the national curriculum. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (De Knayth): My Lords, I should like to welcome this amendment particularly warmly. In giving the parent the right to appeal against an amendment of statement under the 1981 Act as well as against modification or disapplication of the national curriculum, the Minister has gone beyond what she said she would try to do in Committee. That is very satisfactory as she is closing an acknowledged loophole in the 1981 Act.
1574
Perhaps I can ask the Minister two questions. First, why will one not be able to appeal against ceasing to maintain a statement? There is still a little loophole there. Secondly, and this is very important, are the Government planning to write into the 1981 Act that a parent shall be informed of his right to appeal? I cannot see that anywhere. I believe that it should probably be at the end of paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 1 to the 1981 Act. I believe that that is very important. I hope that the Minister will look at the matter if she is not already planning to write it in. I should like to thank her once again.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, on the latter point, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, that parents should be told of their right to appeal, not only against modification and disapplications of the national curriculum but also against any amendments to the statement made under the 1981 Act. I can undertake to ensure that that point will be covered by the guidance which we shall be issuing on the implementation of the provisions. I hope that that will help.
Baroness Darcy (De Knayth): My Lords, the 1981 Act says, on the face of it, that one can appeal against a new statement. Should one not put into the Act that one can also appeal against amending a statement? Perhaps the Minister will consider that matter.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 447BZA:
Page 228, line 16, leave out from ("regulations") to end of line 17.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 447CZA:
Page 228, line 23, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 on page 229.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 447ZA:
Page 228, line 27, at end insert—
("The Education Act 1981 (c. 60)
75A. 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." ").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 447A:
Page 229, line 27, at end insert—
("Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980(c. 65)
In section 54(4) of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted—
"(e) the increased expenditure of an authority responsible for

(i) the provision of a concessionary fares scheme pursuant to section 93 of the Transport Act 1985, or

(ii) the securing of the provision of public passenger transport services by means of service subsidies pursuant to section 9A of the Transport Act 1968 or section 63 of the Transport Act 1985,

1575
where such increased expenditure is attributable to the parent of a child exercising a preference as to the school at which he wishes education to be provided for his child.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, under the Bill parents will have a much greater freedom of choice about the schools to which they send their children. At present in many areas local education authorities have a policy of allocating children to the school nearest their homes. In this way transport costs are minimised. When parents exercise greater freedom of choice they will not always wish their children to attend the nearest school. Thus, pupils will be travelling further to and from school and school transport costs will increase as a result.
I understand, but would appreciate confirmation from my noble friend, that the law relating to the provision of school transport will not be changed by this Bill. In effect, this means that education authorities are only obliged to provide free school transport where the nearest school is more than the statutory walking distance (three miles in the case in question) from the pupil's home. That distance has applied for a long time. Thus, granting freedom of choice to parents will not necessarily increase education authorities' expenditure on school transport.
However, a major cost increase will fall on transport authorities, largely through concessionary fares schemes established under Section 93 of the Transport Act 1985. Many of these provide concessionary fares for children or, at the very least, for children travelling to and from school. The amount of travel under these schemes will increase as children begin to attend schools further from their homes. In addition, the proportion of children travelling by public transport will increase and the average distance they travel will also rise.
Because the cost of the concession depends on the two factors, an increase in expenditure is inevitable, even where the statutory distance is not exceeded. If the education authority can minimise its costs by basing school transport assistance on the distance to the nearest school rather than the school actually attended, the cost on concessionary fares schemes will be even greater.
As if that were not enough, school children making longer journeys to school will give rise to demand for more socially necessary bus services to be provided by the transport authorities under Sections 57 and 63 of the aforesaid Transport Act 1985.
To illustrate the scale of the problem to your Lordships, I have read with interest the study carried out for the Passenger Transport Executive Group. This compares school transport costs in two districts in Greater Manchester—Bolton and Bury. In Bolton, the education authority already allows freedom of choice of secondary school but in Bury it does not. From this comparison, which allows for other factors affecting expenditure, it has been estimated that the costs of education transport could increase by a factor of three with freedom of choice.
I would not wish the House to have the impression that this is purely an urban problem in the metropolitan counties. It will affect shire counties too. The impact of this additional expenditure may mean that other expenditures have to be sacrificed and the result may be that concessionary fares
1576
schemes for both children and the elderly have to be curtailed in scope.
Before concluding, perhaps I may alert the House to the magnitude of the cost involved. I estimate that the secondary school population in England and Wales alone is over 4 million. If 25 per cent., or 5 per cent., of these pupils travelled further at an extra cost of 20p per journey in concessionary support, the cost would be over £70 million or £14 million respectively. Even the latter figure is not a bagatelle.
My amendment therefore provides that the Secretary of State for the Environment must take this extra expenditure into account when setting rate support grant. I readily confess that I am not an expert in these matters. I am sure that there are many other ways in which the Government can ease the financial responsibility falling on local authorities as a result of the Bill. I am therefore most anxious to learn from my noble friend what the Government propose. I beg to move.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by thanking my noble friend for giving me notice of the points that he was proposing to make. He has raised a matter of some importance and I can confirm, in answer to his question, that the Bill does not change the law relating to school transport. That law applies principally to the functions of local education authorities. They will retain the flexibility to adopt school transport policies suited to local needs within the overall rules laid down in statute.
My noble friend's amendment addresses a rather different point; namely, the implications for school admissions of the Bill's provisions on transport authorities. My noble friend argued that these implications, in terms of expenditure, could be quite significant and that, accordingly, provision should be made for this factor in rate support grant settlements. I listened with particular interest to what he had to say about the comparison between the situation in Bolton and Bury.
However, I say to my noble friend that time alone will tell whether the provisions in this Bill will have the effect that he suggests. Indeed, I find it hard to see how a clear link of the kind envisaged by the amendment could be established between increased costs for a transport authority and the exercise of parental choice. We shall monitor the situation following the implementation of the school admission provisions in the Bill and I shall draw my noble friend's amendment to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I have no doubt that he would wish to consider carefully the implications of any effect such as that which my noble friend foresees.
I believe his amendment which, in any case, falls doubtfully within the scope of this Bill, would be premature. In view of the comments I have made, I hope that my noble friend will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I shall withdraw it. I find it rather difficult because we are at the happy hour when there is a good deal of noise outside and my noble friend answering me must have found it very difficult. I believe that this amendment is within the scope of the Bill. It follows quite a good deal of discussion on this matter and I believe it has

1577
produced an important issue. I am not quite sure whether I have got absolutely the right answer and I shall have to read it. I probably will not raise the subject again.
When one deals with a Bill of this magnitude, practically every kind of issue arises. My noble friend spoke about bringing in the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I should have thought it was the Secretary of State for Transport. However, without any further ado, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 448:
Page 232, line 47, at end insert—
("91A. In section 54 of that Act (change of status of controlled school to aided school), the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (12)—
"(13) For the purposes of this section proposals under this section shall be taken to have first been published—

(a) on the day on which the requirements of regulations under this section with respect to the publication of the proposals arc satisfied; or

(b) where different requirements such as arc mentioned in paragraph (a) above are satisfied on different days, on the last of those days.

(14) Where any such requirement imposes a continuing obligation with respect to the publication of any proposals, the requirement shall for the purposes of subsection (13) above be taken to be satisfied on the first day in respect of which it is satisfied." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment has been spoken to already and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hooper Baroness Hooper moved Amendment No. 448A:
Page 233, line 47. at end insert—
("The Local Government Act 1988 (c.9)
94. In paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Act 1988 (catering to which the competition provisions of that Act apply) for the words from -for which" to the end there shall be substituted the words "which is maintained by a local education authority and provides higher education or further education (or both)".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this minor amendment is consequental upon the new definitions of further and higher education contained in Clause 112 of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule II [Repeals]:
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 448B to 448P:
Page 234, line 5, at end insert—

("2 & 3 Eliz. 2. c.56.

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

In section 69(1), in the definition of "local authority", the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".

9 & 10 Eliz. 2 c.62.

The Trustee Investments Act 1961.

In section 11(4)(a) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".

In Schedule 1, in Part II, paragraph 9(h).

10 & 11 Eliz. 2 c.56.

The Local Government (Records) Act 1962.

In section 2(6) the words "to the Inner London Education Authority".

In section 8(1) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".").

Page 234, line 6, column 3, at beginning insert—

("In section 5(3) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".

Section 31(10).").

Page 234, line 6, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 75(4) the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".

Section 81(9)(a).

In section 83(2) the words "or by the Inner London Education Authority".

In section 89(1) the definitions of "Inner London Education Area" and "Inner London Education Authority".").

Page 234, line 7, at end insert—

("1966 c.42

The Local Government Act 1966.

In section 11(3) the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".

1967 c.88.

The Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

In section 28(5)(a) the words "the Inner London Education Authority"

In Schedule 4A, in paragraph 2(2)(b) the words "the Inner London Education Authority or".

1969 c.2

The Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969.

In section 1(2) the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".

1969 c.48.

The Post Office Act 1969.

In section 86(1), in the definition of "local authority", the words "the Inner London Education Authority".

1969 c.57.

The Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969.

In section 3(2) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".

1970 c.39.

The Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970.

In section 1(4), in the definition of "local authority", the words "the Inner London Education Authority".

1971 c.78.

The Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

In section 215(8) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".

In Schedule 20, in paragraph 1(3), the words "the Inner London Education Authority".").

Page 235, line 4, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 100J, paragraph (a) of subsection (1) and, in subsection (3), the reference to that paragraph.").

Page 235, line 7, at end insert—

("In section 142(1B) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".").

Page 236, line 18, at end insert—

("1973 c.35.

The Employment Agencies Act 1973.

In section 13(7)(Q the words "the Inner London Education Authority".

1974 c.7.

The Local Government Act 1974.

Section 25(1)(cb).

1579

1974 c.37.

The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

In section 28(6) the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".

1976 c.57

The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976

In section 19, subsection (4), in subsection (5) the words "or the Inner London Education Authority", the words "by a local authority for the purposes of, in the first place where they occur, and the words from "or as the case may be" to the end, and subsection (5A).

In section 44(1), in the definition of "local authority", the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".

1976 c.57.

The Race Relations Act 1976.

In section 71 the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".

1976 c.80

The Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976.

Section 5(3)(ba).

1977 c.42.

The Rent Act 1977.

Section 14(ca).

1977 c.49.

The National Health Service Act 1977.

In section 22(2), in the Table, the words "Also the Inner London Education Authority, if wholly or partly in the area or district of the Authority".

In Schedule 5, in paragraph 5(1)(a) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".

1979 c.55

The Justices of the Peace Act 1979.

In section 64(6) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".

1980 c.20.

The Education Act 1980.

In paragraph 10 of Schedule 3, the words from "and" to the end.

1980 c.65.

The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

Section 2(1)(1). In section 20(1), in the definition of "local authority", the words "the Inner London Education Authority".

Section 71(1)(i).

Section 99(4)(da).

In Schedule 16, paragraph 5A.

1981 c.67.

The Acquisition of Land Act 1981.

In section 17(4), in the definition of "local authority", the words "the Inner London Education Authority".

1982 c.30.

The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

In section 33(9), in paragraph (a) the words "the Inner London Education Authority" and in paragraph (b) the words "in relation to the Inner London Education Authority means the Inner London Education Area".

In section 41(13), in the definition of "local authority" paragraph (d) and the word "and" immediately following that paragraph.

In section 45(2)(aa) the words "or III".").

Page 236, line 19, column 3, at end insert—

("In section 19(7) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".

In section 20(1) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".").

Page 236, line 20, at end insert—

("1982 c.41.

The Stock Transfer Act 1982.

In Schedule 1, in paragraph 7(2)(a) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".").

Page 236, line 51, at end insert—

("1984 c.28.

The County Courts Act 1984.

In section 60(3), in the definition of "local authority", the words "the Inner London Education Authority".

1985 c.47.

The Further Education Act 1985.

In section 3(10), in the definition of "rate fund", paragraph (a) and the word "other" in paragraph (b).").

Page 237, line 4, at end insert—

("Section 84(2).").

Page 237, line 9, column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 14, paragraph 53(a).").

Page 237, line 9, at end insert—

("1985 c.68.

The Housing Act 1985

In section 4(e) the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".

1985 c.69.

The Housing Associations Act 1985.

In section 106(1), in the definition of "local authority", the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".

1985 c.70.

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

In section 38, in the definition of "local authority", the words "the Inner London Education Authority and".

1986 c. 10.

The Local Government Act 1985.

In section 6(2)(a) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".

In section 9(1)(a) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".

Section 11(5).

1987 c.31

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

In section 58(1)(a) the words "the Inner London Education Authority".

1988 c.9.

The Local Government Act 1988.

In section 1(1)(j) the words "and the Inner London Education Authority".

In Schedule 2 the words "and the Inner London Education Authority".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 448B to 448P en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
8.45 a.m.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 449:
Page 237, line 15, column 3, at end insert—
("Section 25.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 449A to 449C:
Page 238, line 12, column 3, after ("(1)") insert ("the word "college" in the definition of "assist" and").
Page 238. line 14, column 3, leave out ("and").
Page 238, line 18, column 3, at end insert ("and in subsection (2)(b) the word "college" in the second and third places where it occurs.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendment No. 450:
Page 238, line 21, column 3, at end insert—("Section 7.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Arran The Earl of Arran moved Amendments Nos. 450A to 451:
Page 238, line 22, at end insert—
("1963 c.33. The London Government Section 31(1) and (4)."). Act 1963.
Page 238, column 3, leave out lines 52 and 53 and insert ("Section 27").
Page 238, line 54, column 3, leave out ("35(3)") and insert ("35, in subsection (3)").
Page 238, line 56, column 3, at end insert ("and in subsection (5) the words "section 27(1)(a), (2) or (3) or").
Page 239, leave out line 28.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 211 [Citation, extent, etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 452 to 453 not moved.]

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

Adjournment
Lord Denham: My Lords, in moving that the House do now adjourn, I should like to thank noble Lords for their patience in staying until this late hour, and not only your Lordships but everyone else in the House; the Clerks, the staff of the Refreshment Department, the writers of the Official Report, the Doorkeepers, the custodians, the policemen and everyone else. I am sure that those words of thanks will be echoed by your Lordships. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, we echo very much and associate ourselves with all the words of the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip. I would simply add that when we come to the Bill which we have just read a first time I hope that we do not go through this again.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTS: POLICY
  NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTS: POLICY
  COMMUNITY CHARGE COSTS
  COMMUNITY CHARGE COSTS
  COMMUNITY CHARGE CONSULTANTS
  COMMUNITY CHARGE CONSULTANTS
  HOLLOWAY SANATORIUM, VIRGINIA WATER
  HOLLOWAY SANATORIUM, VIRGINIA WATER
  REFUSAL OF LISTED BUILDING CONSENT: APPEALS
  REFUSAL OF LISTED BUILDING CONSENT: APPEALS
  DETENTION AND YOUTH CUSTODY TRAINEES
  DETENTION AND YOUTH CUSTODY TRAINEES