§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It would be convenient to consider, at the same time, the following Amendment, also standing in the name of the hon. Lady, in line 28, 1031 leave out from "if" to end of line 29 and insert:at the end thereof there were inserted the words 'and to promote research'".and Amendments Nos. 41 and 42, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), in line 28, leave out "teaching" and insert "University".
and in line 29, leave out "word 'research'" and insert:words 'and to promote research'".
§ Mrs. Hart
An Amendment to this effect was accepted in Committee in principle, subject to drafting adjustments. We felt that the words "regulate and superintend", inherited from the 1889 Act, were out of keeping with the word "research", which we desire to have in the Bill because research is now so much a function of universities.
We sought to find a precise word best suited to the circumstances. I was not sure that there was no better word lurking about than "promote", but I failed to find one and I am certain that "promote" will cover the point. It is satisfactory. I am here talking about Amendments No. 41 and No. 42, because the Amendment by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) is the same as mine on the substantial point. On the consequential point, we feel that these are the right words to use to make the consequential amendment to the 1889 Act. I think that this would probably be satisfactory to the hon. Gentleman, too.
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ Mr. MacArthur
It would be churlish not to thank the hon. Lady for meeting the point, which we raised in Committee. As she says, there were some doubts about the use of the word "promote" at that time. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) and I have been thinking hard since the Committee stage to find a better word. We thought that "encourage" would illustrate the thought in our minds. However, it happened that the hon. Lady, and my hon. and learned Friend and I, put down precisely the same Amendment on the same day. I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for accepting the point we made in Committee.
1032 On the consequential point, as she says, her Amendment and ours seek the same end. Whether hers is better than ours is, I suppose, a point which might be debated, but I do not propose to do so now.
§ Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 28, leave out from "if" to end of line 29 and insert:
at the end thereof there were inserted the words 'and to promote research'".—[Mrs. Hart.]
§ Sir John Gilmour (Fife, East)
I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 5, line 34, at the end to insert:Provided that any committee set up by the Senatus Academicus to consider matters directly affecting students shall include at least one member of the Students' Representative Council.My purpose is to try to keep the spirit of bringing the students into consultation in all those parts of the university in which it is right and just they should be consulted. While the rector and the rector's assessor may in certain circumstances be looking after the students' interests, they may not be available to do so in sub-committees of the Senate and the Court. It seems to me that there might be a time when it would be right that they should be represented. On the other hand, I have been advised that the words I am using,matters directly affecting students",could refer also to examinations, which emphatically affect students, and so by my Amendment a senate sub-committee would have to admit a representative of the students even when the sub-committee would be considering the students' examinations. I can see that that would not be right. What I seek to do is to say that when the committees and sub-committees are dealing with things which definitely affect the welfare of the students, then it is right that the students should be represented on the committees and subcommittees.
§ Mr. Speaker
We can also talk now about Amendment No. 55 in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), in page 12, line 24, at end insert:Provided that any committee set up by the Court to consider matters directly affecting the students shall include at least one member of the Students' Representative Council.
§ Mr. David Steel
The laudable aim which the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) seeks is, as far as I know, already carried out at all the universities. Where matters affect students directly—I think of an occasion when we had a joint committee for the planning of new halls of residence—such joint committees are set up. At Edinburgh, at least, and, I think, in the other universities there is a standing S.R.C.—Senatus liaison committee. While the Amendment is superficially attractive, as the hon. Member has pointed out it is impossible to put into effect. I only wish that his enthusiasm had been demonstrated in the Lobby with us earlier tonight.
§ Mrs. Hart
I am glad to find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). The difficulty, as I pointed out on an earlier Amendment, is that while it is desired to make sure that the students, are brought in at every possible point, it is nevertheless extremely difficult so to draft Amendments that they provide precisely what one wants in these matters. Where a matter arises which directly concerns the students, a university will, no doubt, think it proper that a member of the students' representative council should be brought on to the appropriate committee or, on other matters, that the S.R.C. should be directly consulted by the university.
There is such a diversity of matters with which a university is concerned that there will be some instances when a university does everything in its power to bring the students into the centre of the picture and others when the university feels—on matters of the kind I specified earlier, affecting new degrees and new chairs, for example—that it would not be right to do so. On this understanding, I think that the hon. Member will appreciate that I could not accept his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. Hannan
I beg to move Amendment No. 57, in page 5, line 34, at the end, to insert:(3) It shall be the duty of the Senatus Academicus to prescribe the extent and procedure of their disciplinary powers, a copy 1034 of which shall be laid before the Secretary of State for Scotland.
§ Mr. Speaker
With this Amendment it is suggested that we take also Amendment No. 58, in Schedule 2, page 11, line 14, at end insert:7. On the recommendation of the Senatus Academicus, to prescribe to extent of, and the procedure by which the disciplinary powers of the Senatus Academicus shall be exercised.and Amendment No. 60, in line 31, at end insert:4. On the recommendation of the Senatus Academicus, to prescribe the procedure to be followed in the case of alleged breaches of discipline within the University where the alleged breach is one which might be punishable by expulsion or rustication.
§ Mr. Hannan
It will, I think, be agreed that this is one of the most important Amendments. I am pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has put down an Amendment on similar lines. Because of the announced change of business at the end of last week, there was a little confusion concerning the appearance of Amendments on the Notice Paper and I put down mine on Thursday in case nothing else appeared. Since then, my hon. Friend had the courtesy to inform me that an Amendment would be put down in her name. My two Amendments were to Clause 8, dealing with the powers of the Senate, and to Schedule 2.
These Amendments have come as the result of a great turmoil in the recent case in Glasgow. Having said that, I do not propose to follow in great detail much of what is bound to be known to hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies. Suffice it to say that sufficient emanated from that case to cause great anxiety not only to those immediately implicated, but to parents, relatives and friends of the students concerned, as well as to men inside the university who were worried about procedures.
As hon. Members know, on Second Reading and earlier I used fairly strong terms in describing some of the results, not of the mismanagement or the misguided individuals concerned, but of the terms of the old Acts, the lack of clarity of which led inevitably to mismanagement. I have called them archaic and medieval, and many of the facts are not known to this day by the principals and 1035 the senate who are responsible for administering discipline within the universities.
Many of my hon. Friends criticised me because it seemed that on occasions my language was incontinent and unjustified, but it took the language of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who used four words, to blow the top off it and get the services of the Press and of Parliament to inquire into all the circumstances. The facts of the case became known on 6th January of this year, when this Bill was half way through its Committee stage. Without the aid of my hon. Friend and of the Press the procedures which were followed in trying this case would not have come to light.
In Committee, I tried to get the Government to accept an Amendment which would allow universities to exercise their disciplinary powers in criminal or quasi-criminal cases only after the normal processes of the law courts had been followed. After a very good debate I was satisfied that the proposed wording did not precisely meet the peculiar circumstances, but I am pleased to see that in the proposed Government Amendment such a distinction is made because it proposesto prescribe the procedure to be followed in the case of alleged breaches of discipline within the University where the alleged breach is one which might be punishable by expulsion or rustication.To my lay mind those words are not very different from what I was attempting to say in my Amendment, but my hon. Friend advises me that they cover the point that I was trying to make.
I have no intention—and I am sure that my hon. Friends take the same view—of dividing the House on the precise wording of the Amendment. Its purpose is to establish the duty of the senate to lay down a code of discipline which will be recognised by those who may be implicated in the future, in the sense that they will know whether the procedures which have been laid down have been followed in all future cases of discipline, and particularly in cases of discipline where there may be criminal charges which could lead to expulsion.
This is a most important feature, because I hope that everyone now recognises 1036 that even on the university's own statement, grievous mistakes were made, and that the procedures adopted ignored the precepts of natural justice. Indeed, they cast serious doubts on the methods that were followed. The Glasgow Herald, which acted responsibly in this matter all the way through, said thatthe terms in which the reprimandto one of the accusedhave been announced were more openly generous, if not apologetic and less grudgingly legalistic.9.30 p.m.
I have read my hon. Friend's speech in reply to the Amendment on this point in Committee. She was not able to give us an assurance that she would look into the matter again before Report. But on being pressed further on the Question, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill", she generously undertook to see what could be done. She indicated that she could not believe that Glasgow University would be prepared to leave the position as it was.
Several questions are left unanswered in the aftermath of the Glasgow University case, and I would like to know what objections there are to placing this duty on the senate. What is the objection to making it a duty in matters which are of so profound an importance for the future of students and perhaps their future health if they are implicated in cases of a criminal or semi-criminal character, where it is vitally important that justice should be seen to be done?
There is a great deal of agreement about these Amendments. Whatever happens, we surely should provide that the procedural rules are prescribed by the universities themselves, but can they go far enough to distinguish between criminal cases and other cases? My hon. Friend touched on this question in Committee. She tended to think that what they should do was to provide procedural regulations. I accept that. But there are no express principles governing the sufficiency of the evidence required in such cases. The rôles of prosecutor and judge are not clearly defined. There is no necessity to notify accused persons of the offences with which they are charged, nor is there any obligation to hear the prosecution evidence and the reply of the defence.
1037 But the most serious defect is that there is no necessity for the Senate to publish the offences with which students are charged. It is possible for the Senate, through the principal and dean's committee, to declare certain conduct to be an academic offence, to charge a student with that offence, and then to adjudicate upon his guilt. This is a system of procedure and rules of evidence of its own devising. It means that the Senate is the legislator, prosecutor, and judge in its own case. The principal is the chairman of the Senate and dean's committee and he is also the chairman of the court to which appeals go.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assure us that directions will be afforded. I am sure that all hon. Members hope that, as a result, universities will try to forget what has happened and go on in the assurance that the House has tried to do something which they should have done long ago.
§ Sir M. Galpern
The House ought to be reminded that if the Amendment is accepted it will not be directed solely against Glasgow University. It will affect the four older Scottish Universities.
Throughout the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) we got the impression that the only body requiring such guidance and direction is the University of Glasgow, because of the recent happenings which have been highlighted in the Press. I wish to come to the defence of Glasgow University. I have already said, and I repeat, that I regard the most intemperate language used against the officers of the Senate and of the court as wholly unwarranted.
This Amendment or that proposed by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State might lead, at the end of the day, to the same disciplinary procedures followed in the recent unfortunate incident being adopted as the future disciplinary code for dealing with students who may be punished by expulsion or rustication. I have not yet heard a single criticism of the conduct of the officers of the University of Glasgow on the basis of the procedure which they adopted in the recent case. It all revolves round the fact that, for some reason best known to themselves, they regarded it as more appropriate and honourable not to come into public and engage in a struggle in the 1038 Press in order to vindicate the procedures used during this investigation.
I feel that the emotions aroused on behalf of the guilty in some hon. Members completely overlook the unfortunate victim, who has suffered so much during these proceedings. She seems to have been sunk without trace and one would think that there had been deliberate investigations by the university into something which did not occur. Yet every hon. Member, particularly those who have examined the Press on these matters, knows that the procedures laid down were not adopted because of the Press campaign, but had been carried out long before it ever became a matter of interest to the Press.
What had actually happened was that, because one committee which heard the appeal made a recommendation, which, in the judgment of the court itself, should be overturned—after all, it has the right to overturn even the finding of a subcommittee—because it made that one mistake—in the eyes of certain hon. Members—it was subjected to the most violent and virulent abuse which any officer of a university has ever suffered during the four or five hundred years of its institution. I wish to impress on hon. Members that all the procedures which were open to the people who were alleged to be guilty of grave misdemeanours, and who were found guilty of them, were not challenged by any hon. Member or by anyone else.
Of course, this was because the authorities employed them. They were not manufactured specially for this occasion. They were there, the university authorities were empowered to employ them and they did so. No one, I hope, can level the charge against the university authorities that they failed to conduct a reasonable and just inquiry. Their failure has been their reticence in this matter. I feel that, if any criticism is to be levelled against the university authorities, it is that they kept quiet for so long and made their belated statement so tardily.
They should have come into the open and let the people know precisely what had happened and what machinery of investigation they had employed. If this had been done, an entirely different interpretation and understanding of the situation would have been instilled into the minds of the public.
1039 Unfortunately, great damage has been done to our university institutions for no justifiable reason. If it could have been said that the universities had refused to give any reason for their action, or if they had refused to accept the right of appeal once appeals had been requested by the miscreants, then they would have deserved all the criticism which they would have received. But that is not the case. My hon. Friends know full well that these procedures were carried out.
I therefore hope that we shall accept Amendment No. 60, which will prescribe the procedure to be followed in the case of breaches of discipline. I hope that the student body will recognise that there must be a disciplinary body in a university and that we cannot permit students, who are there at the taxpayers' expense, to indulge in conduct which may not be criminal but which may be against the best interests of the university or their own future. In such circumstances, they ought to be brought under some form of discipline.
I welcome the Amendment because the procedure will be there for everyone to see. Everyone can read what are the various steps to be taken when an allegation of breach of discipline is made against a student of any of the four universities in Scotland.
I hope that with this Amendment the whole of this sorry incident will be closed for ever more. It has done great damage to great leaders of our university life, who have suffered a great deal because of the mud which has been thrown at them in a quite unwarranted manner.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor
I am a Glasgow Member and a graduate of the university and I have a great deal of sympathy for what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern). What he said should have been said a long time ago, and I am glad that it has been said now.
Because of the incidents which have taken place, it has been accepted that there is a need for something new in place of the present procedure. The Secretary of State has brought forward Amendment No. 60, which suggests some new arrangement. But even though the need for a change has been accepted, I suggest that there is an obligation on the Joint Under-Secretary 1040 of State to explain precisely how it will work.
One problem, in particular, comes to my mind. The new procedure in the case of an alleged breach of discipline is to be followed where the alleged breachis one which might be punishable by expulsion or rustication.It is the experience of most senates that disciplinary problems usually arise from some complaint about behaviour, perhaps when some small incident has taken place, and until a full investigation has been undertaken through the normal procedures of the university, it is difficult to know the kind of facts which may be brought out and whether the breach of discipline which emerges will be one which ispunishable by expulsion or rustication.If, therefore, we are to specify a distinction in university crimes between those to be considered by the normal procedure and those to be considered by this new procedure, we must go even further back and decide how we can make this distinction in the earlier stages. Is it not possible that students' evidence may produce facts in the preliminary investigation which lead them to feel that natural justice has been overturned in the way in which the matter has been handled?
The principal complaint which has been advanced in the past has been that university disciplinary procedures appear not to fit in with the normal judicial procedures. Surely it would be very dangerous if we tried to produce an inflexible and rigid system of carrying out discipline in the universities which conformed to what we might call the judicial procedure outside. The benefit which we have had from the normal university disciplinary procedure has arisen from its informal nature. It might be more wise, before proceeding with the Amendment, if there could be considerable and, perhaps, protracted discussions between the universities and the Home Office or any one else in a position to give good guidance.
At present we are considering an Amendment when, following the unfortunate case which took place in Glasgow, we have had no indication of the real university view on the subject. The impression seems to have got around that because certain facts and arguments have been advanced in one direction and 1041 because the university senate or the principal have not replied to them fully, there is only one side to the argument.
The university principal, being in the position he was, could not, as an individual, make a full senate statement. Until a substantial amount of discussion had taken place within the whole senate it would not have been possible for a senate view to be expressed on the matter. Thus, only one point of view has been put forward and I suggest that it would be dangerous to go forward with something as rigid as the Amendment.
We should bear in mind that the old procedures were responsible for handling a substantial number of disciplinary complaints over the years and that, until this time, there has been no major complaint. I draw the attention of the House to something that happened when I was at the university. We had an election of a rector. The students wisely decided to choose a gentleman who is now Lord Butler and who sits in another place. It was a good decision, but unfortunately when the time came for the formal installation there was a great deal of rioting, with flour bombs being thrown and so on. As a consequence, about 70 students were involved in disciplinary procedures. Fortunately, those proceedings were informal; no names were published and there were, as far as I know, no complaints from the students.
That is not an isolated example. It is one of many cases which have occurred over the years in which disciplinary matters have been handled in an informal way, in secret, with no complaints following them. That is why I say that it is dangerous, when we have had this history of justice being done in an informal way—a way that would seem appropriate to a university—that, because of the controversy which has arisen out of one case, we should now go forward with a suggestion which states that we should make a distinction between different grades of university crimes.
Apart from that, it would be even worse if we tried to bring in the distinction mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) on matters which might be regarded as criminal in the civic sphere and those which might be considered to be criminal only in the university context. I understand that cases have arisen in the past, 1042 certainly in the last few years where there might have been prosecutions in the civic sphere but where the procurator fiscal took the view that, for the sake of the university and its reputation, they could more appropriately be handled by the university itself.
It would be dangerous if we brought in new arrangements which prevented that sort of thing from happening. While it is generally accepted that there is need for a change, I am not entirely convinced that the change proposed in Amendment No. 60 is the right one. The Under-Secretary has an obligation to explain precisely how the suggestion of her hon. Friend would work and the extent to which the matter has been discussed informally or formally with the people most concerned.
§ 9.45 p.m.
§ Mrs. Hart
I am only too anxious to take the first opportunity I have to explain the purpose of the Amendment to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and to answer the questions he asked. It might be for the convenience of the House if, since we are discussing a series of Amendments, I first of all explained exactly what is the aim of Amendment No. 60.
I am rather sorry that the course of the discussion tonight has taken us back to the specific affair at Glasgow University. I had hoped that we might have left that behind us and have gone on to discuss this series of Amendments in relation to the Bill, without raking over so much of what has already been fully discussed both inside and outside the House; and I do not propose to add anything to what has been said earlier on this subject. It is not for the good of Glasgow University to do so now. I regret just as much the things that the hon. Member for Cathcart has said as anything that might have been said on this side of the Committee.
The effect of Amendment No. 60 is to require the court and the senate between them—and we must remember that under the 1889 Act the senate exercises the disciplinary powers and the court comes in only as an appeal body—to put down on paper what the procedure for discipline is and to publish it within the university. It is then open to any interested party, whether students, members of staff or the general council, to suggest 1043 improvements and to offer criticism which may be taken into account before the resolution is finally made. Then if, in the light of experience, it seems desirable to make changes, the university can make these changes relatively easily, proceeding again by publishing a draft and considering any comment and criticism.
I can assure the Committee that all four ancient universities will use this power and, indeed, will be glad to proceed in this way. Two of them—St. Andrews and Aberdeen—already have established procedures which have been working satisfactorily, and Edinburgh and Glasgow have already decided to revise their procedures. I should say, also, that all four principals have already been in correspondence with us on the subject, and have been most helpful.
I recognise the desirability of an Amendment taking the form that this one takes, and perhaps I can say something about what the procedures are likely to cover. Before doing that, I should like to put the whole matter in perspective. As has already been said, we should remember that the vast majority of the offences against good order in a university are quite minor. They are dealt with, as they should be dealt with, informally. For example, a responsible member of the staff interviews the student. If need be, he reprimands him. In practice, there is very seldom any dispute about the facts. This is a point made to me by one principal. He said that in all the cases where he or his university had had to exercise discipline he had never known of a case where guilt was in dispute. That was his experience, though not quite shared by the others. Nevertheless, there is seldom any dispute about the facts. It would be quite wrong in such cases to suggest that the student should automatically appear before the committee of the senate, and so on.
Again, we must remember that the need for suspension or rustication very often arises not because the student has offended against good order, but because he has failed to make good academic progress. There comes a point, as has been pointed out, in a comparatively few cases, where warnings have had no effect or where it is clear that the student has 1044 not the ability to make good, and may have to be sent down. This is serious for both the university and the student, and it must be dealt with seriously, but in terms of procedure it may require something quite different from what is required for an offence which has nothing to do with studies but is against good order. However that may be, the procedure should still be put on paper and made known. This is essentially the purpose of the Amendment.
Because of recent events which have aroused in people the recognition that some things were not written down on paper that should have been so written down, it is with the last type of offence, that against good order, that all of us on both sides have been properly concerned, and it is on these cases that we are anxious to see the universities lay down a satisfactory procedure. That procedure will not cover serious offences against the law, which must obviously be reported to the police and may well be the subject of prosecution in the ordinary courts. The procedure must, however, cover cases involving such matters as cheating, impersonation in examinations, and other conduct which is intolerable in the university, as in any other body, but which may well not be an offence against the law of the land.
Where the university authorities have any reason to suppose that a student has offended against good order in this way, the procedures which they will adopt should be made known to everyone in advance. It is for the universities themselves to frame their rules of procedure in the light of experience and on the ordinary principles of natural justice. I would expect, for example, the rules to provide that a student should be notified in advance what the charge against him was; that he would be entitled to be heard by whatever body is constituted to exercise discipline, to bring a friend to help and advise him and, if he wants, to lead evidence in his defence.
If he is punished he should be advised of his rights of appeal, and when the appeal is heard by the court, or a committee of the court, the appeal body should include no one who has been directly concerned in the early stages. It should come fresh to the case. I should not like to leave the House with the impression that in matters of discipline and 1045 the procedures established within the universities the ancient Scottish universities have not a very good record. It is significant that: although the student's statutory right of appeal to the court has existed for many years, it has very seldom had to be exercised. I am certain that all four universities are now anxious to review their procedures as a matter of urgency. My right hon. Friend and I feel that there would be advantage in having further discussion on the subject with the universities.
The House will recognise that there has been very little time to consider the precise terms of this Amendment before discussing the matter in the House tonight. We know that the principals are content with the form this proposal takes, but we should like further discussion with them. If following that it seems desirable to amend or extend the provision we are making in the Bill we should have the opportunity to put down any necessary Amendment in another place. We do not expect this to be the case, but it is only fair to say that I have not felt we have had as much time as I should have liked to have had before Report. We had the matter before us for three or four days and although we have had discussions and letters from the principals we should like the opportunity of further discussion.
It will be clearly understood that in all this matter the students' representative council would be regarded as a body with an interest in the terms of Clause 6 and its views will be taken into consideration. I make clear that it is right only to give a power to the universities rather than to impose on them a duty because of our knowledge of their intentions. I am certain it is right to leave them free to frame their procedures in accordance with natural justice and, having done that, to write them down and make certain that they are known in the universities. In doing that rather than taking action as a result of the recent case in Glasgow, they will see it as a means of protection for the future. I would rather look at this Amendment in terms of safeguarding the future than in any way as an inquest on the past.
§ Mr. Wylie
I wish to say briefly how much I and my hon. Friends agree with everything the hon. Lady has said. It is very wrong to try to write into public legislation of this nature a detailed code 1046 of procedure for disciplinary bodies of this kind. On the other hand, I think this a commendable attempt on the part of the hon. Lady to get something into the Bill dealing with these matters. I do not fully agree with the exact wording of the Amendment, but, as the hon. Lady said, it has been done quickly and will be subject to reconsideration. I think I can speak for my hon. Friends in saying that the proposal will receive our support.
As my hon. Friends will recognise, I have in some ways the most difficult task of all here and, as one most closely concerned, I should perhaps have had an opportunity—
§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member must not complain about the Chair's selection of those called to speak.
I am not complaining about the selection, but about the amount of time taken in which nothing was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), which is another matter. I therefore propose to ignore the contribution which was made in that particular connection.
Hon. Members will remember the attitude I took on this question before. It is therefore with great difficulty that I have to say that the situation has changed in a certain way. For this reason I regard the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) as unfortunate, and I think inaccurate. I think the kind of portmanteau support for the university's handling the evidence and rejection of the charges that have been made about the university's handling of it has done as much damage as some of the language to which he and I objected at the time, because we cannot rest content with the disciplinary methods which have applied.
For this reason, I ask the Minister to look again at the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan). The key differences are that it should be a duty and go before the Secretary of State, I have little confidence about the nature of the recommendations which may come forward—
§ It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
§ Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.