Lords Sitting of 26 June 1962

Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsun Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester

SOUTH AFRICA AND COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE
2.36 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether an invitation will be extended to the Government of South Africa to send an Observer to the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers to be held on September 10 next.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): No, my Lords.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I thank the noble Duke for his reply. Am I right in assuming that the South African Government are conducting their own negotiations with the European Community and with the Six. If so, may I take it that the South African Government are keeping Her Majesty's Government informed, as I believe the South African Government will be kept informed by Her Majesty's Government, of their respective negotiations? May I also take it that the South African Government will be kept informed of the discussions with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, so that our mutual interests which remain will not be overlooked?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, as the noble Lord will probably be aware, the South African Minister for Economic Affairs has recently had very full discussions with members of Her Majesty's Government. As for the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, no doubt a full view
812
of South Africa's trade concerns which would be affected should we enter the European Community was considered in these talks. But I must remind the noble Lord that South Africa is no longer a member of the Commonwealth.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, with reference to the conversations which the South African Minister has recently had with Her Majesty's Government, may we take it that in future South Africa will be in no better position than any other foreign country?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Yes, my Lords.

UNITED NATIONS AND SOUTHERN RHODESIA
2.38 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether Article 2(7) of the Charter of the United Nations is still binding upon member States and, if so, what right have the General Assembly to debate the internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, Article 2(7) of the Charter is certainly still binding upon members of the United Nations. Only a fortnight ago, on June 12, our Permanent Representative in New York, Sir Patrick Dean, said:
"Members of the Assembly will be aware that my Government believes that a debate in the United Nations about Southern Rhodesia not only exceeds what is permissible under the Charter, but at the present stage particularly could do harm in that territory."
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, while thinking my noble friend for his very clear and firm reply, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that the Steering Committee have now violated the established rules of procedure of the United Nations in order to get this item down on the Agenda? Secondly, in all the circumstances, would it not be more dignified, as well as more in conformity with British interests, if our delegation were to withdraw altogether from these proceedings?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, on the procedural point, we were led to believe that, so far as the inscription of the Southern Rhodesian item on the Agenda was concerned, a two-thirds majority would prevail and that that would be the rule which would be applied to any discussion. Halfway through the discussion, the rule was changed. That is not the kind of thing that gives confidence in United Nations proceedings.
So far as withdrawing from the discussions on this or on any other colonial question is concerned, my feeling is that, although we have been very often unfairly attacked in these matters, nevertheless, Great Britain ought to make her case known in the United Nations wherever that is necessary, and, therefore, that we should not withdraw from the Committee of Information or from the Committee of Seventeen. That is my present feeling.

KATANGA AND THE UNITED NATIONS
2.41 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they received any report that the United Nations authorities in the Congo are again seeking to send forces to the towns of Jadotville and Kolwezi in Katanga.]
THE EARL OF HOME: No, my Lords.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, will my noble friend instruct our representatives at the United Nations to warn the authorities there of the danger of formulating any such demands as were formulated, as we know, in February? These demands, which, if pressed, would inevitably lead to further fighting, would also defeat the whole purpose of the presence of the United Nations in the Congo by making the Katanga a State which could not contribute in any way to the economy of the Congo.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not disagree with what my noble friend has said, but the Question I was asked was: Had I
814
"received any report that the United Nations authorities in the Congo are again seeking to send forces to the towns of Jadotville and Kolwezi in Katanga."
And my answer was, No. I have no such report and, indeed, I have no reason to think that this is proposed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend if he will make inquiries as to whether there is any substance in substantial rumours of which I have heard that such is the case.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I have never answered a question in your Lordships' House without first making inquiries.

SHELLFISHERMEN'S EARNINGS
2.44 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what a subsidy of one shilling per stone would amount to per annum on the individual landings of whelks, shrimps and crabs in Norfolk harbours on the basis of the landings of such shellfish in 1961.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, a subsidy at this rate on these landings would amount to £13,474 per annum.
LORD WISE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that information, which shows a very small percentage on the £5 million of subsidies which may have to be paid for the fishing fleets, may I ask him if he is still satisfied with the earnings of the shell-fishermen generally? In our debate a few weeks ago there seemed to be no information as to what the earnings were, and from the Government Benches it was almost suggested that this particular branch of fishing was prosperous. Since that time I have been able to obtain figures for eight fishing areas, covering 48 vessels and 106 men, and I find that the average earnings in 1961 were £471 a year; in 1959 they were £451—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD WISE: May I ask the noble Earl, in view of these figures, whether the Government are satisfied with the position in regard to subsidies?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the Government are satisfied that it would not be right to introduce a shellfish subsidy at this time.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, does the noble Earl realise that the gear used by shellfishermen is the most expensive to maintain and the most liable to loss by damage from storm?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I have no doubt that some of the gear used by shellfishermen is expensive to maintain. But this question hardly arises as a supplementary to the original Question, and I am satisfied, as I said on the Second Reading of the Bill, that a shellfish subsidy would not be justified.

DARTMOUTH CADET'S DEATH
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice: namely, to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement about the death of cadet Jones at Dartmouth?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, cadet Jones was drowned after the dinghy in which he was sailing cap-sized during a race at Dartmouth on Thursday, June 21. A Board of Inquiry has been convened, and its report will be considered by the Admiralty in due course. I should like to express my deep sympathy to cadet Jones's parents.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I hope that the report of this inquiry may be delivered fairly soon. I live in the district from which this cadet comes, and the Press reports have given people serious concern about what happened, as to the lack of equipment and so on. I hope that these things will be brought out and proved or disproved at the inquiry.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that is what the Board of Inquiry is
816
for. But I think I ought to say, in view of what the noble Viscount has said, that the reports on the accident which have reached the Admiralty do not show that there was anything wrong with the safety arrangements.

BRITISH PRISONERS IN LAOS
LORD HENDERSON.: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given them Private Notice: namely, whether they have any further news of the British prisoners in Laos?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I regret that we have no recent news of the two doctors who are prisoners in Laos, either as to their welfare or their whereabouts. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Vientiane has been in constant contact with Prince Souvanna Phouma, and also with Prince Souphanouvong and his military commanders, from whom the units holding the prisoners are understood to accept orders. He has also spoken to the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires and to the Polish Commissioner on the International Control Commission for Laos. Although the Ambassador has been assured that there is no cause for concern and that delays can be accounted for by difficulties of communication, it has been impossible to establish any direct contact with the prisoners or their captors. At my request the Ambassador has now delivered a personal message to the new Prime Minister of Laos, Prince Souvanna Phouma, in which I have requested him to give very urgent attention to the matter. He has promised me an early reply.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his reply, am I not right in saying that the doctors have been under arrest for at least four weeks, and the two diplomats for nearly three weeks? Are we not in friendly relations with the Laotian Government, and is it not time that they bestirred themselves and took urgent and immediate action to bring about the speedy release of these four British subjects?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has said. We

817
sent a member of the Embassy to find the doctors and to make contact with the commander of the particular unit, and the only result has been that the member of the Embassy also is now a prisoner. It is true that we are in friendly relations with Prince Souvanna Phouma. He has only lately taken over authority in Laos, as the noble Lord knows, and has lately become Prime Minister. But I must make it clear that I would expect from him a favourable reply about the release of these prisoners.
LORD REA: My Lords, is it possible for the noble Earl to say at what date his message was sent and at what date he hopes to receive a reply?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, my message was given at the end of last week. I cannot say when I hope to receive a reply, but I should hope that it will be very rapid, because I must emphasise that this is a matter of serious concern to Her Majesty's Government and to the relatives of the doctors and the member of the Embassy staff.

SHIP MORTGAGE FINANCE COMPANY BILL
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

CENTRAL TREATY ORGANISATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER, 1962
2.51 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, there are two humble Addresses which I have to move. As the Orders are both concerned with immunities and privileges, I think it might be for your Lordships' convenience if I said a brief word about both of them before moving the first. The first one is concerned with CENTO, and this is necessary in order to enable the
818
Government to ratify the Central Treaty Organisation Statutes Agreement which was signed in November, 1960. I think we are all inclined—certainly I am often inclined—to be a little critical, and perhaps even a little resentful sometimes, about the number of persons who are accorded diplomatic and fiscal privileges who are not actually connected with Embassies but are engaged on work with some international organisation in London. Of course, we get reciprocal privileges in other countries. But I would submit to your Lordships that both these Orders are fully justified.
So far as the first one is concerned, CENTO has its headquarters in Ankara. It is extremely unlikely that any branch will be established in London, or that any officials connected with CENTO will ever come here, unless there should happen to be a CENTO Conference temporarily convened in the United Kingdom. If that should happen, except for the Secretary-General and the Senior Deputy Secretary-General, both of whom possess normal diplomatic immunity under this Order, the officials of CENTO would be liable to legal proceedings in respect of all acts performed by them in their private capacities. They would be personally answerable in just the same way as any of us or any of your Lordships would be answerable at the present moment for all misdeeds, motoring offences or more serious crimes, which were committed outside the sphere of official duties.
Perhaps I might say a word about the other Order affecting the International Wheat Agreement and the International Wheat Council. I do not think it is necessary for me to mention the advantages of our belonging to the International Wheat Council. I know that most of us were concerned when the Government felt obliged to leave that Council in 1953, and I think most of us were glad when we rejoined it in 1959. These humble Addresses, and the Order which I am asking your Lordships to approve, do not affect individuals, because in 1954, although we were no longer members of the International Wheat Council, the headquarters of the Council continued to be in London, and a special clause was put into the Finance Bill, 1954, dealing with the position of officials of the Council who happened to be in London. We are not concerned

819
now with the Finance Act; we are concerned only with this Order which affects the Council in its corporate capacity.
What it does is to exempt the Council from payment of rates in so far as the Council are not benefiting by the services to which the rates apply. I think that is not a very large or unjustifiable privilege. I am not, as your Lordships know, anxious to extend these privileges unnecessarily. I would only remind your Lordships that the privileges which British subjects get on organisations like the Food and Agriculture Committee, in Rome, and elsewhere, are often more extensive than those which we give to foreigners residing here. I think that if we want to go on co-operating in military affairs, such as are concerned with CENTO, of economic affairs, and the very important question of putting, if we can, a floor into world commodity prices by such means as the International Wheat Council, we must give these small concessions to one or two people who are residing in London. I therefore beg to move the first humble Address which stands in my name.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Central Treaty Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1962, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on the 30th of May last.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it is certainly always necessary to do something about exemptions of this kind when you are getting completely reciprocal treatment—and I understand that in most of these matters, at any rate, that treatment is entirely reciprocal. On the other hand, we have had various comments in the last two or three Parliaments. I remember that my late friend Lord Jowitt, who used often to perform the duty the noble Earl is carrying out to-day, always spoke with some regret, and when he was in Opposition he sometimes stated a case against the extension. Could the noble Earl give me any idea of how many persons are likely to be involved in this general grant of immunity?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies I should like to interject one sentence. I was immensely
820
encouraged to hear the remark of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about the necessity for putting a floor under commodity prices for such commodities as wheat; in other words, for having world commodity price schemes for stabilising world commodity prices. I should like the noble Earl to say in his reply that Her Majesty's Government will continue relentlessly to pursue that aim.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, so far as the first of these two Orders is concerned, it would affect only two individuals, the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General of CENTO, on the rare occasions When they might happen to come to London if a CENTO Conference happened to be held here. In respect of the second Order, as I have explained to your Lordships, individuals are already dealt with by the Finance Act, 1954, passed when we were not a member of the International Wheat Council; and now that we have become a member again it is not necessary to do anything more except to continue the appropriate section of that Act. In reply to the "unscrupulous intervention" of my noble friend Lord Boothby, I do not in any way resent At, because I have often tried to represent to your Lordships that the world economy cannot be put on a right basis until there is a proper equilibrium between commodity prices and other prices. I am putting these Orders to your Lordships on the broader basis, because they will help to make it more possible to have a rational system of world prices.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl say that, where exemption is granted as regards payment of rent, the local authority in question will be reimbursed by the Government?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think that in these Orders there is any question of rental at all. It affects only rates. The noble Lord said "rent". That affects only the International Wheat Council as a corporate body; it does not affect individual members of the Council. I do not know whether the Government reimburses the local authority in these cases—I do not think it does—but the rebate of rates is given under this Order only when the local service on which the rates are spent

821
does not benefit the International Wheat Council. They will have to pay rates for services from Which they derive benefit.
LORD LATHAM: Will a general service derived from a local authority be regarded as not entitling the organisation to exemption?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: They are reimbursed in those cases where the rates are remitted, but they are not remitted in all cases. The organisation will have to pay rates When it is considered they will benefit. I do not think your Lordships Will want me to go into great detail, but they are required to pay rates for services from which, as a member body, they are benefiting but have exemption in respect of services which are nothing to do with them.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I take it that as the International Wheat Council will be responsible for its own buildings in which it works, and whether, if it pays the expenses of living accommodation for its members or servants, it will be granted any rebate of rates in respect of those places?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No; it will pay rates. It is the local authority who is reimbursed, not the International Wheat Council.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

INTERNATIONAL WHEAT COUNCIL (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER, 1962
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the International Wheat Council (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1962, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on the 30th of May last.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL
3.4 p.m.
Report of the Amendment received (according to Order).
Clause 3:
Extension of powers of White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board to make grants
3.—(1) The powers conferred on the White Fish Authority by section one of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act, 1953, and on the Herring Industry Board by section six of that Act (which sections respectively empower the Authority and the Board to make grants in respect of the acquisition of new fishing vessels and new engines for fishing vessels, but limited in each case to vessels not exceeding one hundred and forty feet in length) shall be extended and shall have effect in accordance with, and subject to, the following provisions of this section.
(2) The expenditure in respect of which grants may be made in pursuance of a scheme made after the commencement of this Act under either of the relevant sections shall be expenditure incurred in the acquisition of any vessel to which that section applies, or in the acquisition, installation, modification, renewal or replacement of any part of a vessel to which that section applies, or of an engine, or any part of an engine, of or for such a vessel, or of any relevant equipment required for, or installed or used on, such a vessel:
Provided that no grant shall be so made in respect of expenditure incurred in the acquisition of any secondhand vessel, engine, part, equipment or apparatus, or for the acquisition of a vessel, engine, part, equipment or apparatus built outside the Commonwealth.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM) moved, in the proviso to subsection (2), to leave out "or for the acquisition of a vessel, engine, part, equipment or apparatus built outside the Commonwealth". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, before I move the Amendment, may I say how glad we are on this side of the House to see the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, back in his place. It is certainly a great pleasure to us and I hope he is now fully restored to his customary vigour and health. The purpose of the Amendment which I now rise to move is to restore the Bill to the condition in which it was when your Lordships received it from another place and before the carrying in Committee, by one vote, on June 5, of the proviso to subsection (2) of Clause 3 of the Bill in the words:
"or for the acquisition of a vessel, engine, part, equipment or apparatus built outside the Commonwealth".
The effect of passing this Amendment is not merely that of restoring the Bill to the condition in which it was when we received it from another place but of restoring the same wording which every similar Act of Parliament from 1944 onwards has employed.
My Lords, I would not ask the House to reverse its previous decision without very careful consideration or without giving full and careful reasons for the course I propose. I do not, however, think it is altogether irrelevant to point out to your Lordships that the decision of which we now seek the reversal was arrived at by the comparatively modest majority of one in a House of 89 actually voting.
I do not rely on the fact—for which I can only apologise to your Lordships—that on the occasion in question I myself and my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire were both absent electioneering in West Derbyshire, and that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack was performing functions of great public value in Virginia. These are idle regrets, if indeed they be regrets, but they do add force to the proposition that the issue, warmly contested, could easily have been decided the other way. Therefore it is not inappropriate, I think, that the House should be given another opportunity of considering the matter.
I am fortified in this belief by the conviction I have that, quite apart from the merits of the case, which I will seek to discuss in detail, the House was, in two particulars, seriously misled—although of course entirely innocently and in the best of good faith—by two of the noble Lords who supported the Amendment, Lord Williams of Barn-burgh (whom we are all so delighted to see back in good health and taking such a vigorous part in our debates) and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, who supported him. Both noble Lords attempted to lead the House to believe, and, indeed, I am advised, with some success, that there was something sinister and improper—
LORD BOOTHBY: There was.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: —in the announcement by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in another place on May 18 of a change in the terms on
824
which grants, both under the previous Bill and under the present Bill, would be made available as soon as the new schemes were made under the present Bill—we hope in July of this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, spoke of a "constitutional irregularity or impropriety", of which he "did not recall anything quite like it". He spoke of a "conspiracy of silence" and "cool calculated deception". The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, used even more extravagant language. He said that the Government were guilty of "trickery", and that the Government were not "honest with Parliament" at any stage. I am bound to say that if I took them entirely seriously I should resent these attacks upon my colleagues and upon the honour of the Government; and, in any event, I consider that they ought not to have been made.
My Lords, I shall endeavour to show that these charges are without foundation of any kind and, indeed, that the smallest reflection would have persuaded both noble Lords that this was so. I can remember that when I was a very young man the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, obtained great fame and just popularity with his constituents by standing on a barrel of red herrings in Milan or Turin seeking to sell the products of his constituency to the descendants of Scipio Africanus and St. Ambrose. He never stood on a bigger barrel of red herrings than when he made these charges in your Lordships' House.
My Lords, the subsidies to which the section relates have been part of the law of the land since 1944 and have been enacted from time to time, the last time being, I think, in 1953. In each case the language of the Statute has been identical with the language proposed by the Government here; and, because it contains no words discriminatory against foreign vessels or engines, this form contains nothing in it which is contrary to our international obligations. The only relevant point at which the present Bill differs from previous Bills is in the size and type of the vessel attracting the grant. The most recent limitation of size written into the Bill was, I believe, one of 140 feet, written into a Bill in 1953. The purpose of the present Bill is simply to remove the

825
limit of size to enable grants to be given for processing and transport vessels, as well as catching vessels, and to extend the time for which grants are available. It also removes (although I think this is irrelevant) a distinction which has hitherto existed between a working and non-working owner. The Bill has never contained, nor has any of its predecessors, any mention of discrimination against foreign vessels.
The actual administration of the subsidies has been by delegated legislation or by administrative arrangements. The statutory schemes of grant under the 1953 Act, which this Bill amends, have to be passed by both Houses of Parliament by Affirmative Resolution. Therefore, no change can take place in these schemes by stealth or without the fullest discussion in both Houses of Parliament. That is the form which Parliament has decreed that the schemes should take, and though there are, of course, both advantages and disadvantages in delegated legislation, I am bound to say that I have not so far heard it suggested that this was an inappropriate use of it. In fact, the schemes so passed by Parliament have hitherto contained a prohibition against the use of grants for foreign vessels. No alteration in this provision can be made without bringing a new scheme to Parliament. The prohibition dates from 1944 and was based, so I am informed, on the conditions then ruling and subsequently on balance-of-payment considerations.
In 1947 we joined GATT, and the prohibition became technically contrary to our obligations under it. However, it seems to have attracted no protests at first, partly because only the smallest vessels were then included, and, of course, there is a high degree of built-in protection in the provision of these smaller types of vessel. At all events, the prohibition lingered on until March, 1960, when inquiries by the Swedish Government indicated that the prohibition might he open to challenge after our adhesion to EFTA, which has since taken place, since this Treaty also contains provisions against discrimination in addition to those of GATT. This challenge would be an unanswerable one, and would of course become serious when the grants become available, as they will under this Bill, without limit of size or type. Accordingly, it was
826
decided to remove the prohibition from the new schemes when they were announced in July of this year, and because a reasonable period of notice to the trade was thought necessary it was eventually decided to make our intention plain on May 18 this year.
It so happened that this was immediately after the Second Reading in this House, and in time to give an opportunity for debate in Committee. I offer no apology whatever for the first and I claim no virtue whatever for the second. From the point of view of the Bill the explanation of the announcement was unnecessary and it became necessary for the purely extraneous reasons which I have sought to explain, and this is the whole truth about this matter. The selection of a date might be criticised by one of our more censorious and enthusiastic supporters on the grounds that it afforded the supporters of what some of us think a wholly unmeritorious Amendment an adventitious and totally irrelevant support to bolster an otherwise unconvincing case. But it can hardly lie in the mouth of the Opposition to the Government to criticise us on this ground. The effect of our action has been to increase the opportunity of Parliamentary discussion beyond even that which Parliament has provided.
Though most noble Lords opposite—I think the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, was one—sought to discover a constitutional point behind what was done, I would have said, with respect to the noble Lord, who is a master of such subjects, that this point was even more empty. Parliament has decided that power to pay these grants should be available for a period of ten years, and that schemes under the Act embodying changes among other things covering this purpose can be made by means of Affirmative Resolution at any time during those ten years. Unless it is going to be argued seriously that when Parliament said this it meant the opposite, and that the financial provisions of the scheme could not be altered at any time after the Bill had passed the House of Commons, there can be neither rhyme nor reason in this so-called constitutional argument. It is a mere figment of the ingenuity of noble Lords opposite. The plain fact is that if we had wanted to withhold information of the change till the scheme was launched we should

827
have been fully within our rights, and that by announcing it in May before your Lordships' Committee stage we voluntarily provided the Opposition with an argument which they would not otherwise have had but which has no relevance to the merits of the Amendment they were seeking to support.
I now come to the policy of the noble Lords who criticised the Government themselves. Of course, the House will, as I have explained, have yet another opportunity of discussing the policy when the scheme comes before it by way of a Motion for Affirmative Resolution. But whatever the merits of the policy of discrimination against foreign vessels may be, it is surely unarguable, I would have said, that the House should seek to insert in an Act of Parliament a provision not merely permitting but requiring the Government to break our Treaty obligations. It is also to my mind clear—and I would submit it was clear enough—that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this regard is not merely the only policy which we can honourably defend as signatories of GATT and EFTA and prospective signatories of the Treaty of Rome, of which such an eloquent supporter last year was the noble Lord, Lord Boothby—
LORD BOOTHBY: Can the noble Viscount point to any provision in the Treaty of Rome which requires one participating country to subsidise the industries of another?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I can point to a provision of the Treaty of Rome preventing discrimination of the kind the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has been supporting in this case, and that must be well within the noble Lord's own knowledge. But it is not only on these Treaty grounds that I would support the course we are asking the House to follow; it is the only rational policy to pursue in the interests of this country.
We still give a number of subsidies in this country. We give subsidies to farmers for ploughing and for building and other capital improvements. We give subsidies to the cotton industry for re-equipment with new machinery. We give a somewhat involuntary subsidy to the railways and the mines for their capital investment. We do not say to the farmer, "You must not use foreign
828
steel in your grant-aided building. You must not have an American plough." We do not say to the cotton manufacturer, "You must not buy Swiss or Swedish machinery". And, in point of fact, they often do. We do not say to the railways or mines, "You are confined to British goods". I do not doubt it is true when the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, says, as he did, that the British yards (I think he mentioned the Scottish yards) are efficient. If so, they have nothing to fear. They have the in-built protection of neighbourliness, convenience, proximity and national sentiment, which certainly in Scotland is not lacking. I am informed that in the class of un-subsidised trawlers out of 70 orders only about 7 went abroad, and that largely owing to difficulties of delivery, which no longer exist. But when it is sought not merely to remove competition but to remove also the chance or any possibility of competition, I would say myself that restrictiveness has gone too far.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, did quite certainly go too far when he said in his speech, which I will quote [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 241 (No. 90), col. 493]:
"I have a certain experience, extending over quite a long period, of the fishermen of this country, and they are passionately opposed to it."
He certainly went too far then. His speech in your Lordships' House received an immediate and "dusty" answer from the fishermen of Buckie, who wrote the very next day in support of the Government's policy. The material part of their letter read as follows:
"The Government proposal is simply that fishermen should be allowed to go abroad to have their boats built. If the North-East Shipbuilders are competitive they would still get our orders; but, judging from the prices being charged today, many of us feel that it is about time that some outside competition was introduced. Why should Buckie fishermen have to shop in the dearest market?"
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, that was a disgraceful statement and one which could have come only from Buckie.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am afraid that I have two more "disgraceful" statements emphatically to read to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. Although in perhaps less rumbustious

829
language than the other fishermen they express exactly the same view. I now have a message from the Clyde fishermen, who have said:
"There has been a very definite feeling amongst our members, rightly or wrongly, that the prices quoted by British yards would have been a good deal cheaper had it not been for the grants and loans scheme."
Only to-day I was shown a letter from the Federation of English and Welsh Inshore Fishermen, who have a certain importance, as well as the Scots. The writer of this letter says:
"Having some knowledge of the proposed Common Market I feel that this Federation is not against the Government's proposals in their present form."
So much for Lord Boothby's accuracy, in his claims for the fishermen of the country who are passionately on his side!
I would say that subsidies nearly always need some justification. They are not always in the public interest. Where they are in the public interest it is surely when they promote efficiency and competitiveness. The supporters of the restriction appear to want subsidy irrespective of efficiency, and even where it would interfere with competitiveness. Of course the Government do not wish to encourage a perverse preference for foreign yards. Hence the provision which we have announced, which requires that British builders must be given an equal chance and also be invited to tender in cases where a tender from a foreign yard is sought; and hence, also, the statement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place with regard to subsidised yards. Since what he then said may go far to remove some of the anxieties of noble Lords opposite I shall quote it later.
It is said that between 1947 (when we became parties to GATT) and the present day, the schemes contained a prohibition against foreign yards. As a fact, as I have already explained, that is true, although the schemes were then confined to the smaller boats. If this were to be used as a criticism of the Government for having remained in technical breach of our treaty obligations for so long, I would understand its relevance. But what I do not, with respect, understand is the attempted use of the argument in favour of perpetuating the
830
breach after it has been drawn to our attention.
Noble Lords may be perfectly certain that, after the publicity which the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has attracted to this matter, eager eyes will be seeking to see what happens to this Amendment. I wish that noble Lords who support the Amendment would really apply their minds to the great damage to this country such an insistence on a continued breach could be, not merely as throwing doubt upon our willingness to keep our promises, but as cutting the ground from under our feet when we seek to enforce these promises against others. On balance, we suffer from discriminating practices more than most countries. How can we protect our own exports against foreign discrimination if, whenever a lobby can be found that thinks itself aggrieved, this House of Parliament is to be persuaded to insist on the Government breaking its obligations in order to gratify them? We are an exporting nation. Among other things we have exported, and wish to export, ships. Our interest is to end discrimination, and to build up a shipbuilding industry which can retain its rightful place in the international field. How can we do this if the policy which is being pressed upon us is followed?
There is another and more pressing argument. Obviously, where British builders are in the field and are competitive we want the work to go to them. But one of the main purposes of extending grants to ships of all sizes—that is, to distant-water trawlers—was expressed to be to help the owners of these fishing boats to break with tradition and to equip themselves with new types of vessels, such as freezer-trawlers which are larger and more expensive than the conventional distant-water trawler, and are not always available in British yards. Surely it is obvious that, while nobody wants these orders to go abroad, to restrict the use of subsidies or loans in the way proposed could have the effect of interfering with the very policy which the Bill is designed to encourage.
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, as I have said, made great play at the last debate of speaking on behalf of the fishermen. I have already adverted to the accuracy, or want of accuracy, in the first part of the statement. So far as the

831
boat builders for whom he also claimed to speak are concerned, I should prefer the views of one of a deputation which came to see my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport about this very matter—quoted in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: On what date?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: On June 5, 1962. It was a report appearing in the Scotsman. It says that a deputation of of the Shipbuilding Conference and the Ship and Boat Builders National Confederation called on the Minister of Transport to protest. Their comments afterwards ranged from "fairly satisfactory" to "a very good meeting indeed". There was the further comment which I should like to quote:
"As one member of the deputation put it later, All we want is a fair crack of the whip and not to be put at a disadvantage by foreigners' … lest there is any misunderstanding about consultation with the shipbuilding industry I want to make it quite clear that this matter was dealt with in the meeting with the Minister."
The fact is that those who support this prohibition are doing a poor service to British boat-builders by the suggestion implicit in their case that British builders will not be able to compete on equal terms for this business with foreign yards. As my right honourable friend pointed out in another place, orders from foreign yards by British shipowners have now dropped to a trickle. Nearly half the orders recently booked in British yards have been export orders. The smaller yards have, in addition, the immense advantage of local convenience and sentiment to which I have referred.
There is only one other point I would add. Fears have been expressed about unfair competition from foreign yards which have been subsidised. On this my right honourable friend gave an unequivocal assurance in another place on June 8 in these words:
"I can most certainly assure the House that we can and will ensure that our grants will not be used in such a way that the competitive position of British yards will be prejudiced by competition from yards abroad which can be shown to be in receipt of a material element of subsidy. I want the House to realise that this is an assurance which we can give quite deliberately and categorically, and I think it
832
should meet the fears expressed by my honourable friends who have dealt with this matter so cogently."
My Lords, I should have thought that this was an assurance which should set at rest many of the doubts which were sincerely expressed on the last occasion.
In those circumstances, I would beg the House to have second thoughts about this matter. I do so without doubt and for the following reasons. It is surely derogatory to the honour of this country to compel it by Act of Parliament to break its international obligations (in EFTA and GATT, and its prospective obligations under the Treaty of Rome). Surely the maintenance of these obligations is essential to the trading interests of the country as an exporting nation and not least to the shipbuilding industry itself. Surely adequate safeguards are given by the Government in the shape of assurances that British builders will be, to quote again the member of the deputation:
"given a fair crack of the whip and not to be put at a disadvantage by foreigners."
It is not, I believe, to the interests of British industry that it should be taught to rely on import restrictions and not on competitive efficiency for the sale of its products. It is to the interest of the fishing interests that they should use the financial advantages given by the Bill with due regard to national pride and patriotism but also in the purchase of equipment which will keep them in the forefront of efficiency against their own foreign competitors. My Lords, this is a relatively small matter. But small matters can often be of importance as testing our resolution to carry out a sane economic policy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 40, leave out from ("apparatus") to end of line 42.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
3.30 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: The noble Viscount was kind enough to let me know that he might deal rather critically with my speech of June 5. I have to thank him for his "soft glove" attitude towards anything I may have said. It could be an ordeal to follow the noble and learned Viscount, if he had not worn gloves, but to have a threat hanging over one's head for two or three weeks as to what may be coming is rather more than a very

833
nervous young politician can bear. He certainly has been very slightly critical, but much more of my noble friend Lord Boothby than of me. I thank him again. Of course, the noble Viscount, as is usual, has used all his undoubted talents to persuade the boys of his own brigade from joining the wrong department, but I think to-day he has failed to justify the case for which he stands. In my humble opinion he has failed completely to provide adequate answers to the many submissions made on June 5, submissions that were provoked through lack of information and far too much secrecy on the part of the Government. I cannot blame the noble Viscount for that for, as I understand it, he knew little or nothing about it. He knows a little more about it to-day because he has read the same speech that I read, made in the House of Commons on June 8. But what the noble Lord succeeded in doing in his speech was to compel us to re-emphasise what we felt on June 5—and that was to undo what his Ministerial colleagues had done, or the opposite way round. He could not possibly have justified their inept muddle-headedness in handling this particular problem.
To-day the noble and learned Viscount, in a very short speech for him, really made three speeches rolled into one. At one moment he was prosecuting counsel, with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, in the dock, and I beside him. At the next moment he was defending counsel, defending his colleagues; and, of course, he had to try to justify the Amendment. It is sometimes a very great pleasure to sit here and watch the noble Viscount enjoying "the exuberance of his own verbosity", and noble Lords opposite scarcely realise what they miss on odd occasions. We ought to pay for our seats here, since we get all the fun. To-day's performance was not quite the usual one, but was still worth seeing—a sort of mixture of self-inflicted physiotherapy and verbal jumping crackers. Quite obviously, the noble Viscount has decided to follow his own advice. If he cannot lead the Conservative Party from the front, well, he thinks it is better to whip them up from behind with all the Whips available. But it is a merciful blessing that not all noble Lords opposite are the patient
834
oxen that perhaps the noble Lord thinks they ought to be. In any case, with such special pleading as we have heard this afternoon, I think he failed to secure a conviction against those who voted for the Amendment on June 5.
I think he was unsuccessful also in defending the Government for their inexplicable fumbling with this minor problem, which could now be a major problem. Indeed, I fear that if the noble Viscount were paid on to-day's results he would be in debt. But if I exaggerated the force of what was expressed on June 5 (which I deny), or used intemperate language, it was entirely due to lack of information which only the Government could have supplied. But as they chose silence on this matter, they must accept responsibility for what happened on that occasion and for what I hope will be repeated here again this afternoon. I cannot accept the assumption of the noble Viscount that we were not entitled to reach conclusions and to express them, especially when they were based upon reasons which were fully and frankly explained to the House. Those conclusions may have been wrong, but they may have been right. At least we are entitled to express them as freely as the noble Viscount expresses his views on almost every occasion.
But let me restate the position as briefly as I can, as I see it. The noble and learned Viscount was, as your Lordships know, trained to see both sides of a case, and he can usually put both sides of a case, too, particularly the one that best suits him. But to listen to the noble Viscount on occasion one would imagine that my noble friends and some noble Lords opposite had been indulging in a conspiracy against the Government. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. What was the origin of the difficulty to the Government that occurred on June 5? Nothing for which my noble friends could be blamed, or, for that matter, any other Party. The Bill was welcomed in another place in November of last year; it received an unopposed Second and Third Reading on November 14 and on May 1 this year; on May 17 it received an unopposed Second Reading in this House. So far not a ripple on the waters: all were for the Bill, so far as they understood it, and there was no alteration.

835
After June 17 the chances were that the Bill would have been on the Statute Book to-day, but the Government had to intervene, and I will deal with that point in a moment.
To show the feeling of my noble friends and other noble Lords, I may point out that there are 38 clauses in this Bill and 12 closely printed pages of Schedules, yet only two Amendments were put on the Order Paper for discussion on June 5. This shows that Members in all parts of the House wanted the Bill; they welcomed it and promised to help it to the Statute Book as soon as possible. So there was no chicanery or conspiracy against the Government. But all this time, six months in all, members of all Parties were under the impression that grants and loans were for shipping vessels and engines built in the United Kingdom—merely an extension for ten years of what had been happening since 1944, except that, as the noble and learned Viscount said this afternoon, deep-sea trawlers exceeding 140 feet in length are now excluded.
Then, on May 18, the very day after the Bill received its Second Reading in your Lordships' House, the Government announced a new policy. And how did they announce that new policy? Not in the ordinary way, by recommitting the Bill to Committee so that a discussion could take place and an explanation be given, such as was supplied on June 8 in another place, and as we have had again this afternoon. Honourable Members of another place were not only astonished but utterly confused about the procedure that had been followed. The noble Viscount said this afternoon that it was the normal procedure. I am going to try to show that there was nothing normal in it at all.
During the six months that the Bill was passing through all its stages and securing its Third Reading in another place, and its Second Reading in your Lordships' House, not one word had been uttered about the new policy of providing grants and loans for ships and engines produced in foreign countries. Now the Bill had left another place and—this, my Lords, is very important—unless an Amendment was moved and carried in your Lordships' House, there could be no discussion in another place
836
on the new policy introduced by the Government. Whether the new policy was good, bad or indifferent is not in question at the moment. What I am concerned about is to show the procedure followed by the Government. The noble Viscount implied it was the right procedure, the proper procedure, the usual one, which I do not think is the case.
The Amendment was moved and carried, which made it possible to have a debate on the new policy in another place. Noble Lords are now invited this afternoon to pass an Amendment, which the noble Viscount moved, to prevent a discussion in another place on the new policy. That is what we object to. All we learned on that Friday when the announcement was made, after practically all Members had gone to their homes, arose from two Answers to Questions put in another place. One indicated that there had been no consultation with shipbuilding interests, because the Minister in answer said that there was no need for consultations. It is true, as the noble Viscount has said this afternoon, that there was a deputation to see the Minister of Transport, but only after the door to discussion had been closed in another place, when there was no possibility of receiving an explanation except on an Adjournment Motion, which took place on June 8 in another place. The second point was that the new policy was in the interests of our fishermen, and the observance of our international obligations. But there was no discussion, no explanation, and honourable Members in another place, as well as your Lordships, were in a state of confusion, because there had been no discussion at all.
I said in an earlier debate that the Government are quite entitled to amend any Bill in any way they like, so long as they secure a majority in favour of the Amendment. But what we deny is the right of the Government to withhold essential information from either House of Parliament, until it is too late to discuss it or amend it, should amendment be necessary. As I see it, it is a violation of normal Parliamentary practice. That is exactly what the Government did, and that is the real origin of this dispute. It was nothing that was done by my noble friends; only what

837
was not done by the Government itself—not providing facilities for discussion where the discussion should have taken place, and that is in another place. No discussion was possible at all.
If a change of policy was really necessary on economic grounds, or inevitable on international grounds, why did the Government not take Parliament into its confidence, explain the reason, rely upon the loyalty and good sense of Members, and recommit the parts of the Bill back to a Committee in another place? Why leave Members of both Houses of Parliament in ignorance of what the possible consequences of the new policy might be, either for good or ill? That is just what the Government did. They left Members of both Houses of Parliament in ignorance, no full statement having been made, until a Division had taken place in this House. What were the Government afraid of?
The noble Viscount passed by very gently the secrecy and the silence. I do not see why the Government should have been hesitant or afraid to tell the full story. After all, they have a majority of 100 in another place—and sometimes they have a majority in your Lordships' House. Were they therefore afraid of the Orpingtons, Middlesbroughs and lost deposits, and what might follow? It seems to me that the Government had everything to gain from telling both Houses of Parliament the full story, the story we have heard this afternoon, which was no more full than it really ought to have been. After all, to act in this manner is not government by the courageous and confident. It seems to me to be more government by the timid, doubtful and furtive, and the longer they linger in a state of dither the more West Lothians they are likely to get.
My Lords, I should like to say one word about the Amendment. If it is carried this afternoon there can be no realistic debate in another place. There can be no realistic debate in the sense that, following a discussion, there could be an Amendment. I repeat that if it is carried there can be no debate, and that was our charge on June 5 on the Committee stage, for that is what this Amendment this afternoon is designed to achieve: to prevent discussion in
838
another place. That is what noble Lords are invited to vote for, to create a gag in another place, which is supposed to be the place where the money is found. Despite what the noble Viscount said this afternoon, I still regard the procedure pursued by the Government as very doubtful Parliamentary practice, having regard to all the circumstances. As noble Lords are aware, an Affirmative Resolution must be passed by both Houses of Parliament, and there can be a debate. However, there can be no Amendments, whatever the House may feel about it; and to oppose the new policy would involve my noble friends, and perhaps many other noble Lords, in opposing something with which they agree up to 95 per cent.
I realise that this is supposed to be the normal practice, and that the words of this Bill are no different from the words of any other Bill of its kind. But this is not a normal case; I think it is abnormal in every sense of the word after what has happened over the last six months, when Members of another place have had no opportunity of discussing on Second Reading, Committee, Report or on Third Reading the new policy that was announced on May 18. To allow a precedent of this kind to be established could lead to every conceivable kind of political "jiggery" and "pokery", and the noble Viscount, whom I regard as a great Parliamentarian, is the last person in your Lordships' House whom I should expect to agree with this procedure. I remember an occasion many years ago, when the coal owners of Yorkshire and the miners were in conflict. The miners had the temerity to expect higher wages for abnormal work. Piece rates were always fixed for what was regarded as the normal coalface, but geological conditions can change rapidly. What to-day is normal can become abnormal to-morrow. In the High Courts in London, after a lot of legal argument backwards and forwards, the president of the Yorkshire Miners' Association was finally called into the witness box and was asked a very simple question: how would he interpret an abnormal place? The president of the Yorkshire Miners' Association said: "A place that is not normal"—and the case was over. The miners won their extra pay because it was abnormal, not

839
normal. This case is not normal, either. A Bill has been roaming around in another place for five and a half months, comes here and gets its Second Reading, and the door is closed to any discussion in another place. To that extent—whatever the words of the Bill may be—it is still an abnormal situation. I am afraid that if the noble Viscount had to justify his stand this afternoon in a court of law, he would be a failure. However, the noble Viscount seems to imagine that there is nothing abnormal in the procedure over the last six months. In my view, everything has been abnormal.
One final word about international obligations. I would ask of the noble Viscount the question that was put in another place: why change it at this particular moment? We have been in open breach of Article III of GATT for many years, presumably for balance-of-payments reasons. In another place the Secretary of State said on the 8th of this month [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 661 (No. 130), col. 851]:
"It is true that, as yet, there has been no formal complaint against us under either the G.A.T.T. or the E.F.T.A Convention in regard to this matter. Nevertheless, there have been inquiries …"
If the inquiries had gone further, could we not have applied for a waiver if it was felt necessary so to do? Or are we to take it that our balance-of-payments troubles are all at an end? And, if that is so, how does the noble Viscount still justify the pay pause and other painful restrictions, such as the 15 per cent. tax on toffee apples and ice cream? Surely the Government cannot expect to have it both ways.
The noble Viscount started this debate in a mood highly critical of some of the things that were said on June 5. He nearly bubbled over with righteous and unrighteous indignation; but I think he failed to sustain his attitude by logical and reasonable arguments for holding to the belief that there is nothing abnormal about the Parliamentary procedure adopted by the Government over the last few weeks. He failed, in my opinion, for one simple reason: because he had been given an impossible task. He was trying to cover up the inept, fumbling, dithering attitude of his colleagues. He was trying to defend a very dangerous Parliamentary precedent; and at the same time he was supporting a policy that
840
could be extremely damaging to some of our smaller shipbuilding yards. No, my Lords; I see no reason at all for retracting one word uttered on June 5, when the Government were defeated by that vast majority of one. To-day, I am more convinced than ever that we were perfectly right in our judgment on June 5, and we have no alternative but to proceed to the Division Lobby to register our protest here this afternoon.
3.54 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, at the outset of the few remarks I propose to make perhaps I might be allowed to add a word of very warm welcome from the Gross-Benches to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on his return to this House fully restored to health.
My Lords, one of the few pleasures left to me in life is to listen to my noble friend, the noble Viscount who leads this House, when he is in a mood of high moral indignation. Some time ago I listened, fascinated, to him when he made a call for stern personal self-sacrifice at a moment when the "television boys", whose good fortune I myself could only envy, were raking in millions on a scale which had not been known in this country since the South Sea Bubble. To-day he has brought us sternly back to the course of duty with a reminder that we must abide by our international obligations, which the Government that he adorns have been happily breaking for at least ten years. There has been no change at all in the policy of Her Majesty's Government—and, indeed, of the Government which was its predecessor—since the grant and loan scheme was originally introduced. We never heard anything about GATT obligations—and we have been a member of GATT for twenty years; we never heard anything about EFTA obligations. I do not believe there has been any complaint from the Common Market countries about anything that we are going to do, or that there would be. This is a sudden invention: suddenly we have to stand by our international obligations. Well, if these obligations exist—and the noble Viscount has not convinced me that they do—no doubt we may have to do so. But I would say only that this grant and loan scheme, with which I am very familiar, has continued unchanged since the war without

841
any regard for GATT or for EFTA, and I do not believe that, if the truth is known, any specific complaints have ever been made by either.
Now, my Lords, what has happened? This Bill was passed through all its stages in the House of Commons without a word being said about the change of policy on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Five months elapsed. It was then given a Second Reading in this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barmburgh, has pointed out, again without a word being said. I want to submit to the noble Viscount (who is, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, has said, a great Parliamentarian) that the House of Commons has been denied an opportunity to pronounce judgment upon this question. Now I want to tell my noble friend the Leader of the House what charge will have to be met by those Members of Parliament supporting the Government in the fishing constituencies. They will have to meet the charge that Her Majesty's Government, of their own free will, are using the taxpayers' money to subsidise foreign boatbuilding yards, particularly in Sweden, Holland and Germany, at a moment when our own—
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? Did he say that the Government would have to meet this charge from the fishermen? Surely it will be for the fishermen to decide whether the yards can produce what they want. There is no reason for them to go abroad.
LORD BOOTHBY: I was mentioning only the charge that Members of Parliament would have to meet from the fishing industry generally. The noble Lady knows as well as I do that at the moment there is great unemployment in the boat-building yards all around the coast, and particularly in Scotland—around the coast of Fife, right up to Aberdeenshire, and beyond. I could name fifteen to twenty places where the boat-building yards are empty now. They have not got anything; and they see these grants and loans made available for the construction of trawlers and of drifters in foreign yards.
It is a sharp change. If our own yards were bursting with activity and
842
prosperity and employment, I would say that it was not nearly so hard. But they are not. Our own boat-building yards are in a very bad way; and I repeat what I said on the last occasion: that it is not due to their alleged inefficiency. I do not think they are bad at all. They certainly view this proposition with very great concern and alarm; and it is certainly a question which these honourable Members in another place who represent, I will not say fishing constituencies, but constituencies on the coast, will have to face—and it will be a rough one to face. I can only submit to your Lordships, with unwonted humility, that this is a subject upon which the House of Commons should have the right to pronounce an opinion. They have not been given an opportunity to pronounce an opinion at all; they have been given no chance to face this charge.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was so persuasive that I will withdraw the charge of trickery against Her Majesty's Government, and I will substitute the words, "devious tactics". I think that is what they have used in order to get this Bill through Parliament, without proper consultation with the House of Commons. Because I would repeat to your Lordships that the other place has never had an apportunity to discuss or pronounce its verdict or opinion upon this matter—and it is basically a financial question which, in my submission, it is their constitutional right to discuss. I therefore venture to suggest to your Lordships (I am not going into the merits of the argument again, because they are well enough known) that it is the constitutional duty of this House to give the other place an opportunity to pronounce a verdict upon this matter; and I shall then not hesitate to suggest that we should abide by the verdict of the other place.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I say a few words in support of the last part of the noble Lord's speech? It seems to me that the debate this afternoon has very much divided itself into two. The merits and the demerits of the Amendment which was carried by the Opposition, in general, are quite apart from the merits that we are discussing to-day. Perhaps I should disclose some interest, in that I am a director of a shipyard on the East coast of Scotland, and

843
therefore my political and my financial interests are rather sorely divided. But I am concerned not with the merits of this matter as they appear in the Bill, but with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby; that this matter has not been decided, and should have been decided, by the other House.
The Amendment was put to this House, quite properly, in Committee, where the Government happened to be beaten by one vote. The noble Viscount who leads the House told us why he could not be present; why the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, could not be present, and why the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor could not be present; but he has not really explained why any of his 800 other colleagues could not be present. Therefore, this decision having been come to, quite properly, in Committee, it is really rather dangerous that this procedure should be followed; that, because a decision did not suit the Conservative Party, the matter should be brought up again and perhaps 800 Members brought down to deal again with the same question and reverse what this House has already decided.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I did not understand the noble Lord's argument. Is he suggesting that neither on this occasion nor on the last occasion should the merits of the case be considered?
LORD REA: I think the merits of the case are irrelevant to the constitutional point.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether the Liberal Party still believes in Free Trade?
LORD REA: My Lords, in a word of one syllable, Yes.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have not gone round to find out the opinions of the fishermen in my part of the world, but such notices as have reached me have assured me that the fishermen are whole heartedly behind Her Majesty's Government in this matter. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and also the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said about the constitutional issue, it seems to me that it is the duty of your Lordships, as a responsible House
844
of Parliament, to decide on the matters brought before it on their merits. It would be extremely undignified, and I think rather base, if your Lordships were to stultify yourselves in order to produce the effect asked for by noble Lords opposite. If the Government want to know, or other people want to know, what are the opinions of the Members representing fishing constituencies on this matter, surely they can arrange a debate on the subject in another place before the last stage of this Bill, or something like that.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me? Does he not think that the real basic issue here is that we want to know what is the opinion of the House of Commons on this matter?
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I realise that. In conclusion, I should like to say that I do not share the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, of the people of Buckie, or of any of the Banff or Aberdeenshire ports, among whom I have been brought up and with whom the best part of my work still lies.
4.4 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the situation is worse than the noble Lord Who has just sat down thinks. It has been established by my noble friend Lord Williams of Barnburgh, as it was, indeed, in the previous discussion, that the obvious inference is that it was not until after the Third Reading of the Bill in another place and not until after the Second Reading in this place that it was announced, not verbally, not orally, but in answer to a Question for Written Answer on a Friday, that the course would be taken which is the centre of this dispute. So, my Lords, every precaution has been taken by Her Majesty's Government to sidestep and to cheat Parliament of its rights, and especially to cheat another place of its financial rights. Every elaborate precaution has been taken in order that that should be done; and I hope another place is appreciative of the action taken by your Lordships' House on that Amendment, with its majority of one, in order that the question could be raised.
Now the Government propose to reverse that decision in order, again

845
deliberately, elaborately, and with malice aforethought, to prevent another place from exercising its rights to control public finances—its exclusive rights to control public finances. That has been done deliberately. Listening to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, to whom I always listen with interest if not always with agreement, I must say that he made an able and forceful speech. In fact, he nearly convinced me that he meant what he was saying, it was so well and so persuasively delivered. But this is the situation in which we find ourselves: that if your Lordships, unwisely, as I think, carry the Amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the House, then the subject-matter will not be in the Bill when it reaches another place, and the Members there will not be able to discuss it. I think that is really a terrible thing.
But there is a still clearer point. If this Amendment is carried, then the Bill will pass this House in all respects exactly as it left another place, for no other Amendment has been carried. Therefore there will not be any question before another place that "This House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment." If there had been, I have sufficient confidence in the capacity and resource of another place to believe that Members there would have found some means of discussing this matter. So this is another fraud, and this is known: that the Government do not want this Bill again to be seen at all in another place.
My Lords, I really think that this is a scandal, and I still say that it is a constitutional scandal. For it is constitutionally not playing the game to take these elaborate and malicious steps to prevent the House of Commons, as the guardian of public finances, from having any voice in the matter at all. And now the Whips Department have been elaborately whipping up noble Lords who were not here before to vote on something about which they—or many of them—have heard no previous discussion. I would invite those noble Lords to examine their consciences as to whether they ought to stay. They were not here during the previous discussion; why should they be dragged here, by their necks, or their hairs, whatever it is, to reverse a decision in which they took no part previously? This is one of the things which used to bring
846
the House of Lords into disrepute, and I think it is a very great pity.
This House was nearly deprived of its rights, and it would have been if it had not been for the initiative of noble Lords on this side of the House. The House of Commons has been, up till now, completely deprived of its rights on this financial matter. It is said by the Leader of the House that we gain from the consideration of being non-discriminatory in these matters. But it is a new aspect of non-discrimination that we have to pay a subsidy to foreign shipyards in order to make them more effective in competition with us. Because that is what is being done. It is one thing to be equalitarian and non-discriminatory in the matter—though that is arguable—but if, in addition to the so-called nondiscrimination, we have to pay money into the pockets of foreign shipbuilders, this is a new brand of patriotism to come from the Conservative Party. I wonder what the late Joseph Chamberlain would have thought about this. He wanted protective tariffs to keep out foreign goods. This Government want to give money to foreign producers to bring ships into this country. It is a funny Government. I think it is a suicide club. It is a most extraordinary institution. I must confess I do not understand it.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House said that this was reciprocal; that other countries had undertaken to be non-discriminatory as well. But have other countries agreed to pay subsidies to British shipbuilders to build ships in competition with their own production? Could somebody tell us that? I would give way, if anyone could give us an answer to that now. The noble Viscount does not answer. I do not blame him. There are some times when silence is golden.
This is more a straight-forward constitutional issue than it is a Party political issue. It is a question of the decent treatment of Parliament. It so happens that, in this instance, the House of Commons have a greater grievance than this House, because of their authority over public finances. I would appeal to noble Lords opposite to take the wider constitutional issue into account. This House has been getting on reasonably well with the House of Commons for

847
quite a few years and various noble Lords have the right to take credit for it. Surely, at this stage, we do not want to open up a constitutional issue of some significance, that is liable to cause trouble between this House and another place. For this Amendment must have the effect of preventing the House of Commons from having any voice on this financial matter. That is the purpose of the Amendment. I appeal to noble Lords opposite to think twice before they go into the Lobby in support of the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I even urge them, if possible, to come into the Lobby against this Amendment, in the interests of Parliamentary fairness and constitutional rectitude.
4.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I must join issue with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, in calling this a constitutional scandal. No such thing as a constitutional scandal is possible. One must change the Constitution, if one thinks it is behaving in a scandalous manner. It is perfectly constitutional. That does not mean that I necessarily like it. I know that the noble Lord is a great Parliamentarian. In the past, we have been together for many years. But a constitutional scandal is a novelty to me—and a scandalous novelty. The noble Lord must change the Constitution, that is all. I would have spoken earlier, but owing to noble Lords sitting in front of me I was partly obscured, and there was the noble Lord's loquacity. As for the Government's being a suicide club, I do not think that the noble Lord is the right person to complain. I am the sort of person who ought to complain, because I wish they would stop cutting their own (something) necks. I am going to back the Government on this issue. As I said on June 5, I do not like giving money to foreign shipyards. If Parliament agreed to subsidising the building of a new Cunarder in a foreign shipyard, there would be considerable feeling.
I should like to ask again what I asked on June 5, and I should be obliged if whoever replies for the Government could help to enlighten me. Clause 1 extends the white fish and herring subsidies to vessels engaged in processing
848
and transporting white fish. Salmon are not white fish. Therefore, is it right and proper that our own boats should receive subsidies in order to drift net for salmon, which is not the purpose of the Bill as explained in paragraph 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill.
4.16 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, when I spoke briefly on this matter on Committee stage, I confessed that I was not particularly knowledgeable on that aspect which relates to procedure. I cannot make the same claim to-day, after the noble Viscount has spent the first fifteen minutes of his speech defending the Government against the charge which the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has now reduced to one of "devious tactics". Though I ought to be more knowledgeable, I remain quite confused as to the merits the Government are claiming for their attitude. The noble Viscount said that he did not claim any merit for the fact that a statement was made in time to enable this House in Committee to discuss it. Perhaps it was just as well that he did not claim any merit, because he is objecting strenuously to the Committee's having exercised the right to debate it in the only way we could, by tabling an Amendment to alter the provisions of the Bill.
That the Government did not particularly anticipate that any discussion was to take place was obvious when the Amendment was discussed, because the Minister who then spoke for the Government was unable to give any information about whether representations had been made by any foreign Government against the procedure presently existing, or whether any representations had been made from fishermen anywhere in the country. The best he could do was to say that information would be available at the next stage of the proceedings in the House. It was obvious that the Government neither anticipated nor prepared for any discussion at that stage in your Lordships' House.
The noble Viscount said that it would be quite derogatory to the honour of this country deliberately to write into a Bill a provision requiring us to break our international obligations. Only two things can arise from that statement.

849
First, that from 1951 to 1960 the Government were breaking our international obligations because they were not aware of their existence. I cannot believe that a Government which includes so many distinguished Parliamentary figures are going to suggest seriously that from 1951 to 1960 they did not know what our obligations were. If they did not know, then the Government are laying themselves open to the second and. I think, the greater charge, that while it may be derogatory to the honour of this country deliberately to write into a Bill an intention to break an international obligation, there is nothing derogatory about doing it by stealth. In other words, the crime is not to do the thing; it is to be found out. Then, if I heard him properly, the noble Viscount said that the representation had been made by Sweden in 1960. I am not absolutely certain, but I think he said 1960. Am I right about that?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Yes.
LORD HUGHES: If that be the case, would it not have been more in keeping with the point of view expressed by so many Members of your Lordships' House, if the Government knew as far back as 1960 that they were, in fact, in breach of their obligations, and that representations had been made against them or questions had been submitted which were going to compel them to alter their policy, if they could have informed Parliament of their intention to make an alteration any time after 1960, and certainly not wait until May 18, 1962, to make the statement?
The noble Viscount spent a great deal of the second part of his speech in answering the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and he said that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, had received a very "dusty answer" from the fishermen of Buckie. That, I think, is perfectly true. But the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is not the only person who gets "dusty answers"; and some of us do not have to go to Buckie to get them; some of us get them here in your Lordships' House. In a debate on May 21, on a Scottish problem, when I raised the question of the unfair treatment which was being given to the North of Scotland in relation to transport matters, I received an answer from
850
the noble Lord, Lord Mills, which I would characterise as being a pretty "dusty answer". In fact, as we say in Scotland, I "got my nose cut" from the noble Lord, Lord Mills, when, in answer to my complaint about the treatment, he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 240 (No. 81) col. 822]:
"… I have become a little case-hardened over these unhappy pictures of Scotland. I meet them in so many connections. My own experience is that the Scots are very well able to look after themselves."
Later on in the debate I said that I thought the noble Lord, Lord Mills, had been a little unwise to admit to this feeling. Many of us had suspected that Members of the Government are case-hardened to Scottish problems but it was the first time that any of them had come out openly and said that that was how they felt. But he proved he was right when he said that the Scots were well able to look after themselves, because the very first opportunity the Scots got after that was the West Lothian by-election. And what did they do?—they fined the Government £150.
I was a Scot before I was a politician, and if I regarded it as being important to support my Party, rather than to support my country, I should be perfectly happy that the Government should go on doing things like this, because it would be the quickest way of getting them out. But, after all, it is obvious that the Government are not going to hold a General Election any earlier than they find it convenient to do so; and I do not think it is a fair price that I, as a Scot, should connive at the Government doing this sort of thing to the boat-building industry in Scotland and elsewhere just because it will get them out a bit faster. I would much rather have this matter put right at this stage.
I am still in the position that I am not so concerned about the procedure that is being adopted, although I have certainly had a lot of enlightenment about that in these two days. I am more concerned with the merits of the proposal, and I think the noble Viscount who leads the House is being less than fair to your Lordships when he says that the proper procedure is to deal with the matter when the order comes before Parliament, and reminds us that the order will be subject to an Affirmative Resolution. He might have gone a

851
little further and told us what is likely to happen if we seek to have the order altered at that stage. We should then be told—and we shall be told if we seek to do so: "You will lose the whole order. You must take it or leave it; and if you seek to have it altered you risk throwing out the whole question of grants to the fishing industry." Because, as I understand it, the order cannot be amended; it has to be taken or rejected in its entirety. So I do not think the noble Viscount is offering a fair alternative to discussion by either House of Parliament on this issue.
It seems to me that this country and the northern part of this country (if that is a way of putting it which commends itself to those of your Lordships who do not come from Scotland), have enough to contend with these days without the Government going out of their way to make things more difficult. At one stage the Government spokesman suggests that the shipyards have nothing to fear from fair competition from yards abroad, and then the noble Viscount quotes as justification for his answer the letter which came from the fishermen of Buckie suggesting that the boatyards of Scotland are getting the business by gross overcharging and the fishermen are not having a fair deal. You cannot have it both ways; they cannot be paragons of virtue and, at the same time, pirates.
If there is a real international difficulty, I am sure that there are other ways of getting round it, and of getting round it in a proper fashion. Surely the best opportunity of finding that out is to permit this Bill to go back in the state that it presently stands to another place, so that they, with the financial responsibility and financial power, can decide whether they wish, in the knowledge of all the facts as they are now available, to restore the Bill to the condition in which they sent it to your Lordships' House. If they decide to do that, then I am perfectly certain that none of us on these Benches will seek to overturn the decision of another place. If, on the contrary, they think, as so many Members of your Lordships' House think, that they would not have sent the Bill in this form if they had had all the information, then I feel they are entitled to have the opportunity of saying so.
852
Finally, I would say that I thought it a bit unfair of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, to twit the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for not giving an explanation of the absence of some 800 of his colleagues. After all, looking from here at the Benches opposite one must admit that either the noble Viscount or somebody else has done his best to remedy the situation this afternoon.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, speaks on the subject, I should like to say a word. I was one of those who was prevented from attending the House when the Amendment was carried against the Government, but I do not mind saying that I should have voted against the Government on that occasion. But before I go further, am I not right in saying that, if this Amendment today is not carried, the Bill will go back to another place, and that the provisions in it which affect salmon cannot then come into effect in September? Perhaps when the matter is further referred to I may be made clear on that point.
My own feeling is that a bit of political manœuvring is going on. I cannot believe that all these accusations of malice, and the like, can really hold water; that Members of another place have had the wool pulled over their eyes, and that sort of thing. I propose to vote for the Government to-day for the reason that, although I, like a great many other Members of your Lordships' House, do not like the idea of subsidies going to shipbuilders abroad, whatever ships they may be building, we must face the fact, as the noble Viscount the Leader of the House brought out, that subsidies in fact do place orders on the order books of foreign manufacturers in other industries. Although I do not like it, the fact remains that this is what happens. It has a good effect upon the efficiency of industry in this country, and also upon the design of machines in this country. I suggest that this is rather a storm in a teacup. If it is a constitutional problem, which I doubt, then I, for one, will vote with the Government if only for the reason that, by doing so and passing the Bill in the form in which they wish, it will enable the provisions controlling drift-netting to come into force at the earliest possible moment.
4.31 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, looking round the House, it does not seem likely that many more Peers want to speak, and perhaps we ought to bring this debate to a conclusion because other business is to follow. I have listened very carefully to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and I did not hear a single argument that I could honestly say would convince me of the Tightness of the position of the Government in this matter. I have been perhaps outspoken on a previous occasion. I do not make any apology for that, but I want to face up to one or two simple things.
The first is this. In my last intervention in the House on this matter I said that it was an insult to the shipbuilding industry of this country to pass such a measure and to send money outside to assist the building of ships in foreign countries. That remark was rather looked down upon; I seem to have hurt somebody's feelings in this House. But when I come to look at the debate in another place I find that on June 8 the Secretary of State for Scotland had to admit that, on the transport side of the matter at least, his right honourable friend—evidently meaning the Minister of Transport—had something of that kind in his mind. At the bottom of column 854 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for that date he said:
"It is true that at one time my right honourable friend was anxious about the ability of British builders to compete with certain foreign yards, but he has asked me to say that great change is taking place."
I think that shows that the transport side of the matter, and action in this matter, sprang from the Ministry of Transport and, as the Secretary of State for Scotland said on June 8 quite specifically to the House of Commons, the Government had not been approached by either EFTA, by the shipbuilding industry or by the fishing industry. It was an act of Government. Upon whose recommendation? From this statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I find that it came from the Ministry of Transport. But, after all, he would be acting upon Cabinet authority and under instruction.
As I read through the debate, the speeches of noble Lords seem to bring
854
in every now and again that what is really wanted is a competitive industry and, therefore, if we put these subsidies abroad as well as at home we are likely to make the British industry more competitive. I hope that that argument is not going to be maintained this afternoon. What sort of an answer is it to the trade union case in the conference sitting on the East coast this afternoon?—the enginering industry, plus all the shipbuilding industry employees? What sort of case is that? I hope the Government are going to think over that again.
It was argued by the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place that of course completely normal procedure had been followed; that there was nothing unconstitutional, because quite normal procedure had been followed. Let us look at that argument. Under the appropriate sections of the Act of 1953, as under the 1944 provisions, in actually moving to a decision on what policy should be, and how much should be given, and when, you proceeded by statutory order. Therefore, it was said, because that was the case also in this Bill it was not necessary to inform Parliament what the policy was going to be. I must say that I can find many Statutes in which there is general provision for a certain financial policy to be undertaken and expressed by statutory orders. But never have I heard of a clause like this being put in a Bill without an argument in favour of the financial policy arising out of it. That is what happened in both Houses.
I put this point especially to the Leader of the House of Lords. There was not the slightest word in the House of Commons at any stage that there was to be any variation from the financial administration that was followed under the appropriate section in the Act of 1953. If you look at Clause 3 of this Bill it is fairly clear to me at any rate. Clause 3 (1) says:
"… shall be extended and shall have effect in accordance with, and subject to, the following provisions of this section."
There is nothing in this clause which could have drawn the attention of any Member of the finance-controlling House to any change in financial policy, and there is nothing in any of the following subsections which would have justified that. Yet we are now told that a

855
statutory order is to be the process of doing it.
I wonder whether any learned former Member of the House of Commons in this House of Peers can remember a case in which grants, loans, financial gifts, call them what you like, have been administered by a Government on one of their own Bills passed into law, where what was proposed to be done was not given in detail to the appropriate House of Commons before any Statutory Order was issued. What are you going to do now? You will send this Bill back to the House of Commons, only to be ready for Royal Assent. There will be no Business done upon it. There will be no change to bring before the House of Commons. So it is a deliberate attempt, it seems to me, by going behind the decision of your Lordships' House itself to prevent any further discussion on the Bill arising in another place. I do not think that can be disputed. That is what arises out of any decision taken to-day to defeat the Amendment which was passed by your Lordships' House only two ox three weeks ago.
The third thing I want to say to your Lordships is this. I agree with my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth that of late years there has been a considerable improvement in what I call relationships between the two Houses of Parliament. I attribute a great deal of the changed attitude on a number of questions and matters which arose first during the wax, and afterwards during the reign of a Labour Government, to the very conciliatory attitude adopted on both sides of the House, both by my respected and noble friend Lord Addison, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. Undoubtedly, in the difficult circumstances of that time, if there had been any sort of attempt to rush things, one way ox the other, without the proper financial authority of the House of Commons, there would not have been the progress that has been made in the relationships between the two Houses of Parliament.
I beg this House of Peers not to give what I heard again from my colleagues in the House of Commons when I was discussing it with them; that is, the opportunity of being able to say: "What has happened means that there
856
is a great change in the administration of a financial policy in a particular industry upon which we were never consulted in the passage of the Bill—no influence given—and upon which you in the House of Lords deliberately prevented us from having an Amendment before us which would give us a proper opportunity of debating it and casting our decision." I believe that that will be fatal to the development of future decent relationships between the two Houses of Parliament, and I beg all those who supported us last time to do so again; not now solely upon the point of the provision of our Amendment but upon the point of maintaining good relationships with the representative House and ourselves and giving them an opportunity to debate the matter afresh.
4.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think it would be desirable for me to speak at any length in exercising what I believe is the right of reply, as I moved the Motion.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, would the noble and learned Viscount advise me from his better knowledge? As this is an Amendment, I do not know that the noble Viscount has the right to reply.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I moved a Motion, and everybody in this House has a right to reply to the Motion which he himself has moved. Of course, if the House did not wish me to reply I would not do so, even though I have the right. But I have the right, because I proposed the Motion, and therefore it is appropriate that I exercise the right of reply, unless the House does not wish me to do so.
I am fortified, I think, in a desire to be extremely brief, because no really serious attempt has been made to answer the case which I sought to make in opening. It was attempted to be said that there was either the desire or the effect behind this Amendment to deprive the House of Commons of the right to discuss the policy. My Lords, that is precisely the opposite of the truth. The fact of the matter is that Parliament has provided that the financial policy under this Bill should be dealt with by an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses, and the policy will in fact be discussed

857
again in this House, but presumably first in the House of Commons at the appropriate moment provided for by the Act of Parliament.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will excuse me, I really cannot allow this to go on. Anyone would think that nobody but the noble and learned Viscount had any brains. What he is overlooking is this: that when the statutory order comes up, all one can discuss is the Order itself, accept it or throw it out. Nothing else. You are depriving the other place, the finance controlling House, of an opportunity to be able to move this Amendment and to carry it in the finance controlling House, when this sort of policy is announced, and not be left to the single issue upon the statutory order. The noble and learned Viscount knows that quite well.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Viscount is getting very indignant; perhaps he will allow me to continue the argument at the point where I was expounding it. It is precisely contrary to the truth to say that debate in the House of Commons on the policy is being prevented by this Amendment. A debate is necessary in the House of Commons on the policy before it can become law, a debate in the form in which Parliament of both Houses has laid it down in successive Acts, going over a series of Governments. Of course it is true, as the noble Viscount has reminded us in his interjection, and as noble Lords have said in the course of the debate, that an Affirmative Resolution should not in fact be amendable. It so happens that Parliament in this case has laid down that as the appropriate procedure. Personally, I am always unimpressed by the point whenever it is made, because most of us who have experience of Parliament know quite well that if a particular alteration in an Affirmative Resolution is made or desired by a House of Parliament it is perfectly competent to that House to make it clear that the Affirmative Resolution in the form proposed is unacceptable and why it is unacceptable. This is a pure piece of pedantry and there is no substance in it at all, and I can only describe it as a wholly misguided and even irresponsible attempt to try to blow up a constitutional issue between the two
858
Houses on a point which is plain almost beyond argument.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount keeps trying to overlook what was the procedure in the House of Commons on this Bill. He says that this has been settled by this Bill and the previous Act. But the Government did not give information on their changed policy, although they could have done so easily when the Bill was in another place, where Members could have moved an Amendment to the Bill and had it discussed. That opportunity will never be given to the House of Commons now unless you oppose the Amendment to-day.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that I have overlooked nothing. He has now said three times that there was not the information available to the House of Commons and I have already explained three times that the reason for that is that this is dealt with by regulation and has been dealt with under successive Governments by Affirmative Resolutions when they are proposed.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount but I genuinely want to understand the point. I do not know the procedure under a statutory instrument in the House of Commons, but the noble Viscount told us in opening that the purpose of this Amendment was to avoid discrimination against foreign yards. I think that is quite good. Would the House of Commons be in a position to debate that issue of discrimination on a statutory instrument?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Most obviously that would be when an Order was before their House. I had hoped that I had dealt with that point. I must not overlook the extraordinary case of Liberal logic that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Rea. He is himself a free trader, because his Party is notoriously, and has been for generations, a free trade Party. It follows, of course, that nothing could be more abhorrent to him than the policy which is contained in the Bill if it is not amended back to the form in which we received it. However, I think it went to his heart—because, of course, he is a

859
free trader—to support a protectionist Bill. He says, "Although I hate the policy, I am going to vote for it in order to give the House of Commons an opportunity to discuss the matter, which it would have in future under the Affirmative Resolution".
LORD REA: My Lords, I am not quite sure what the noble and learned Viscount means by that. I explained my personal dilemma, Which is why I did not support the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If I misunderstood the noble Lord I can only apologise to him. I certainly understood from his speech this afternoon that he was proposing to vote against the Government on this Amendment.
The only other thing I want to say on the policy is that nobody has controverted the policy. Nobody has in fact suggested that this Amendment, if it were retained in the Bill, does not controvert our international obligations. It may be that we should be blamed for not putting the matter right before, but this can hardly be an argument against putting it right now. No one has really controverted the proposition that we are an exporting nation. Among other things, we wish to sell our ships abroad, and the effect of the policy of noble Lords opposite would be to make it impossible for us to prevent discrimination against ourselves. Nobody has really tried to controvert the argument
that I seriously presented, that it is a very poor service to British industry to try to make out that it can rely for the future not upon efficiency but upon artificial restrictions on foreign yards.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, will the noble Viscount tell us which foreign yards are to be subsidised?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord knows perfectly well that we are not subsidising foreign shipyards by this policy. On the contrary, we hope and believe that the immense majority of orders will come here and that they will deserve to come here. I cannot help reminding the noble Lord of the complaint by fishermen, for whom on a previous occasion he claimed to be the spokesman, that a number of builders in this country depend on using the subsidy not for the purpose for which we are urging the Amendment but for helping them to boost their prices under cover of an artificial protection. It is for that status quo that the noble Lord has devoted this afternoon his undoubted Parliamentary talents. I must confess, frankly, that I consider this as a straight issue of intellectual integrity. There are no arguments I have heard to controvert the case I put before the House earlier.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Ferrier, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Chesham, L.

Feversham, E.

Albemarle, E.

Coleraine, L.

Foley, L.

Aldington, L.

Colgrain, L.

Forester, L.

Allerton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Conesford, L.

Fortescue, E.

Ampthill, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Coutanche, L.

Freyberg, L.

Auckland, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Goschen, V.

Baillieu, L.

Craigton, L.

Gosford, E.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Crathorne, L.

Grenfell, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Davidson, V.

Guest, L.

Barnby, L.

Denham, L.

Hacking, L.

Bathurst, E.

Derwent, L.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Beauchamp, E.

Devonshire, D.

Hampton, L.

Blackford, L.

Dormer, L.

Harris, L.

Bossom, L.

Dudley, E.

Hastings, L. [Teller.]

Boston, L.

Dundee, E.

Hawke, L.

Brecon, L.

Dynevor, L.

Hereford, V.

Brentford, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Home, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Effingham, E.

Horsbrugh, B.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Exeter, M.

Howe, E.

Carrinigton, L.

Falmouth, V.

Hylton, L.

Cawley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Ironside, L.

Merrivale, L.

Saltoun, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Mersey, V.

Sandford, L.

Jessel, L.

Mills, L.

Sinclair, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Milverton, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Lambert, V.

Molson, L.

Somers, L.

Lloyd, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Soulbury, V.

Long, V.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Spens, L.

Lothian, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Luke, L.

Newton, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Swinton, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Reading, M.

Teynham, L.

Mancroft, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Waldegrave, E.

Margesson, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Waleran, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Salter, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Faringdon, L.

Shackleton, L.

Airedale, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Greenhill, L.

Sinha, L.

Amulree, L.

Henderson, L.

Stonham, L.

Amwell, L.

Hughes, L.

Summerskill, B.

Archibald, L.

Kenswood, L.

Swanborough, B.

Attlee, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor, L.

Boothby, L.

Latham, L.

Uvedale of North End, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Lawson, L.

Walston, L.

Carnock, L.

Lindgren, L.

Williams, L.

Champion, L.

Listowel, E.

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Chorley, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Citrine, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Colwyn, L.

Meston, L.

Windlesham, L.

Crook, L.

Morrison of Lambeth, L.

Wise, L.

Darwen, L.

Peddie, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

HEALTH VISITING AND SOCIAL WORK (TRAINING) BILL
5.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Newton.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Functions of Council for the Training of Health Visitors
2.—(1) The Council for the Training of Health Visitors—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved to add to subsection (1):
"( ) may make training grants or allowances to persons considered suitable for training".
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friends.
862
May I in the first place recall the Second Reading of the Bill and remind your Lordships—
LORD NEWTON: I wonder whether the noble Baroness would agree that it might be convenient to the Committee that with the Amendment she is now moving we should also discuss Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, which are also in her name?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Yes, certainly. The same principle is involved I would remind your Lordships that the function of these workers, the health visitor and the social, worker, is such that if we amend this Bill and in so doing increase their numbers and facilitate their entry into this service, we shall indeed be reinforcing the whole National Health Service. Time after time at this Box in dealing with health matters I have emphasised the point that the most important part of the National Health Service to-day is possibly the domiciliary service. Perhaps that is an overstatement, but at least I would say it is a most important part, for this reason. We are an aging population. Among us are many people with chronic ailments. These people do not necessarily need the advice and frequent

863
visiting of a doctor, but they do need a comprehensive domiciliary service which contains skilled, well-trained, efficient men and women of integrity. If your Lordships agree with that proposition, then surely you will agree that health visitors and social workers form a most important part of this service, and we should do everything in our power to recruit more.
I should say that I would never presume to try to influence the policy of any professional body, indeed of any body of workers, unless they themselves had asked me to move Amendments in a Bill of this character. These Amendments which I have put on the Order Paper are there because the social workers and the health visitors themselves would like to see the Bill amended in this way. These people are of great importance, and if we are to relieve the pressure on our hospitals we must increase their numbers. The whole purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that there shall be a grant available immediately for the women—these people are mostly women—who offer their services. At the moment the position is that they would have to apply to the local authority. The local authority might be a niggardly authority. The local authority might not attach so much importance to this as we do here, or indeed as the community does, and therefore these grants would not be forthcoming.
I would remind your Lordships that paragraph 743 of the Younghusband Report, dealing with training and the provision of adequate grants, suggested that this is the whole crux of the Bill, and on this will depend how we shall be able to retain suitable candidates once they have made application. I have not to remind your Lordships, I think, to-day what a demand there is for young, energetic, idealistic women of integrity in all fields. If these recruits offer their services and a local authority delays making a decision then they will go elsewhere; they will be snapped up in the many other places to which they will be able to go, in many other jobs. Therefore, I attach the greatest importance to a central grant. I realise that the terms of the financial resolution are drawn in such a way that in this House I cannot amend it—I certainly cannot
864
increase it; and for constitutional reasons, of course, one cannot demand that an Exchequer grant should be forthcoming. It therefore precludes one from asking for a direct Exchequer grant. But of course, if your Lordships think that further finance should be forthcoming, the Council could make a grant, and this could be reimbursed from the Exchequer.
I am not asking for anything unusual because these grants are made for the probation service and for the child care service, and I would remind your Lordships who come from Scotland that in Scotland direct Exchequer grants are made for trainees. Indeed all I am asking for this afternoon is precisely what Scotland has had for many, many years. How else shall we establish uniformity in this country, if we do not recognise that this work if of such a value that the Exchequer should come into the picture? How can we ensure that a local authority will be sufficiently generous? I would ask your Lordships to consider your own area, and to ask yourselves whether you are sure that if a number of young women apply for a grant from your local authority for this work it would immediately be granted, or whether there would be some delay while the whole matter was being discussed, and whether, during that very important period, these young women would go elsewhere.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I rise to support the noble Baroness on these two Amendments which we are discussing. She has enormous experience of the health visiting service while my experience has been more in the social work service, and I am certain that she is entirely right in what she has just said. If we want to deal as speedily as possible with the shortage of these people, if we want to get the best people we can, if we want to make it possible for local authorities to undertake their responsibilities, which are continually increasing in the world of health visitors and social workers, then we have to regard this as an urgent matter.
There is another Amendment on the paper concerning another form of finance which we can also discuss. But

865
the present Amendment is far and away the quickest and most direct way of helping to get these young women—and men, too—to train for these services. It seems to me very strange that the Minister of Education (who is a very forceful person, and who has speedily got together a group of people in the Youth Service to be youth leaders, whose training he has organised directly under the Ministry of Education, for which work he has secured direct grants because it is urgent and important in the service of youth) should now be saying that in the case of the social worker—who is just as urgently needed as the youth leader—this very much slower method, of operating it through local authorities, is adequate.
I am chairman of our local education committee at home, and only yesterday I was being very much put through the mill by the finance committee because I was asking for more money for certain aspects of education. I am quite sure that it would be extremely difficult to get the local education authorities, particularly those in the less well-off areas, such as the one I represent, to put aside money for this purpose. It would take a long time before anyone who wanted money from the local authority actually got it. As the noble Baroness has said, there are so many claims for the type of person who would train to make a really good social worker that, if they cannot get into that side of the profession, they will go into another in which they can get direct grant and start right away. I therefore beg the Minister, and the noble Lord who is going to reply, to see whether it is not possible to introduce this system of direct grant for those urgently needed women and men to train for these two branches of this vital service.
LORD AMULREE: When this Bill was discussed on Second Reading I said that there was a great deal about this Bill I did not like; and, indeed, that is still the case. I do see, however, that if the Bill is going to be passed and become law, which it obviously is, it must be made to work. I would therefore support the Amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, because, unless some kind of provision is made to provide grants for training people, the Bill will not work and the workers will not come forward. There are various
866
measures which have already been passed, such as the Mental Health Act, which I feel will be in serious jeopardy if we do not get the personnel to work them. I think we must attract these young women, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has said, the competition for their services is heavy. If we do not attract them they will not come forward and this Bill will become derelict or, what is worse, practically unworkable. Therefore, I support the Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: If this Bill is going to work, I agree that something like the Amendment that has been pressed by the noble Lady ought to be added to it. In regard to the constitutional position, if I may say so, I do not think we need worry about it too much. I think we do our work a great deal better if we are not always casting our eyes over our shoulders at the House of Commons. Probably the noble Lady does not know (though I expect the noble Lord does) that since the Parliament Act, 1911, was passed we have amended the Finance Bill; we have passed financial resolutions; we have done everything that is guarded against under that Bill. What happens then is that when the Bill goes downstairs it goes through the machinery, and anything unconstitutional is cut out. But, as a matter of fact, if the Government want to get a financial Amendment into a Finance Bill it can quite easily be put in in this House, so long as one can be certain the House of Commons will accept it at the other end. If the noble Baroness will accept my advice—which I very much doubt—I would tell her to go ahead on financial matters quite freely, without worrying about the House of Commons. It will take care of itself.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I never thought that I should come here and be turned into a revolutionary by the noble Lord opposite!
5.17 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that it is important that if this Bill is enacted it should then work; and I believe it will. I am also in entire agreement with both noble ladies who have spoken that it is important that suitable candidates for training as health visitors and social

867
workers should receive appropriate grants. But those of your Lordships who were present in this Chamber during the Second Reading debate, or who have read the Report of the proceedings in Hansard, will not be surprised when I tell your Lordships that I am unable to accept any of these three Amendments put down by the noble Baroness, for the reasons which I gave when replying to the Second Reading debate. I will rehearse them again, if I may.
First of all I will deal with the position of health visitors. I do not honestly think there is now any difficulty in this regard, or that there will be any difficulty in the future, because almost all health visitor students are either seconded or sponsored by local health authorities, and only a few receive the grant or local education authority award that is available to new recruits taking the new general training in social work. In other words, the vast majority of health visitor students either receive a salary from the local health authority while being trained, or receive a grant from the local health authority. The only difficulty now, as the noble Baroness knows, is the question of contracts of service. This question is being looked into, and my right honourable friend's Department is now about to seek the advice of interested bodies on what guidance he should give on this matter. I am quite sure that when this problem of contracts of service is straightened out there will be no real difficulty in the future about the method under which grants are made to the health visitor students.
On the general issue of principle, of whether or not a council should be in a position to make training grants, I would point out, first, that there is the objection that it would create a source of grants alongside that which already exists in the local education authorities, and would thus tempt local authorities not to face their responsibilities. It would probably result in the kind of unsatisfactory situation which exists now in the field of grants for almoner and psychiatric social work students. In this field, the Ministry of Health grant bursaries to students who have been unable to obtain a local education authority grant for the professional part of
868
their training, which follows the social science course. Here in this field experience has shown that some local authorities refuse no grants, precisely because the reserve power exists, while others refuse to give grants or give inadequate grants, on the ground that the present system penalises the more generous local authorities.
The reason for the existence of this reserve power in the case of almoner students and psychiatric social work students is that these students on their courses have generally already had a local education authority award for their social science studies which came first. Local education authorities have not always been willing to give grants for further training to students who have already had grants, in much the same way as local education authorities are sometimes unwilling to give grants to university students for more than one first degree course. But the point is that candidates for the new general training in social work will not normally have had a previous grant from a local education authority, and therefore this particular consideration will not apply in their case. As I told your Lordships in the Second Reading debate, there is, in the view of the Government, every prima facie reason why this form of further education should be treated in the same way as other branches of further education, and why local authorities should exercise their responsibility in respect of students on these courses and on other courses. That is the view of the Government.
If we were debating to-day the provision of training grants for, say, chemists or electrical engineers, and your Lordships said to me that their grants should be paid from some central source, although I might not agree with your Lordships I should see the argument—for this reason: that the local education authorities, or indeed the local authorities as a whole, who under the existing system provide grants for the students, might say to themselves: "We are not going to employ these people eventually, so of what particular interest are they to us?" But we are not debating grants for electrical engineers or chemists. At this moment, we are primarily debating grants for social workers who will be employed by the local authorities when

869
they have completed their training. So I should have thought there was every reason for saying that if the local education authorities are likely to be biased in favour of any particular type of students, it is precisely those whom we are discussing this afternoon.
I am convinced, and the Government are convinced, that the local authorities are alive to the need for developing the community care services with trained staff, and we believe it is right that the students should be financed in the way laid down in the Bill. Therefore, I would ask your Lordships—as I asked your Lordships on Second Reading—to remember that this position will be watched very closely, and that, if necessary, guidance will be given to local authorities by my right honourable friend the Minister of Education, who will be ready to help should any cases of difficulty arise. We should see how the scheme works, before trying to write into the Bill what really would be a case quite different from the normal ways in which students on further edu-
cation courses receive their grants. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her Amendment.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am very sorry, but I am afraid that the noble Lord has not convinced me. This is not a complicated matter. Everybody knows that there is great pressure on the services of these young people, and that, as I have said, they can get jobs elsewhere. It is an entirely wrong policy at this stage, to say that we will wait and see. That is what the noble Lord has told the House. He has said: "We will see how it works out." We all know precisely how it will work out. They will wait; they will not be given this grant, and then we shall lose them. In view of the urgency of the matter, I must ask noble Lords to support the Amendment in the Division Lobby.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 86.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Feversham, E.

Rea, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Saltoun, L.

Amulree, L.

Greenhill, L.

Shackleton, L.

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

Attlee, E.

Hughes, L.

Sinha, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Iddesleigh, E.

Stonham, L.

Carnock, L.

Kenswood, L.

Summerskill, B.

Chester, L. Bp.

Kilbracken, L.

Swanborough, B.

Chorley, L.

Latham, L.

Terrington, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lawson, L.

Walston, L.

Crook, L.

Lindgren, L.

Williams, L.

Darwen, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Williams of Barnburgh, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Peddie, L.

Williamson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hailsham, V. (L. President.)

Aldington, L.

Conesford, L.

Harris, L.

Allerton, L.

Coutanche, L.

Hastings, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Craigton, L.

Hawke, L.

Ampthill, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hereford, V.

Baillieu, L.

Davidson, V.

Home, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Denham, L.

Horsbrugh, B.

Barnby, L.

Devonshire, D.

Hylton, L.

Bathurst, E.

Dundee, E.

Ironside, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Dynevor, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Blackford, L.

Falmouth, V.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bossom, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lloyd, L.

Boston, L.

Ferrier, L.

Long, V.

Brecon, L.

Foley, L.

Lothian, M.

Brentford, V.

Forester, L.

Luke, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Fortescue, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Carrington, L.

Freyberg, L.

Mancroft, L.

Chesham, L.

Goschen, V.

Margesson, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Rathcavan, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Merrivale, L.

Reading, M.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Mills, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Swinton, E.

Milverton, L.

St. Oswald, L. [Teller.]

Teynham, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Salter, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Soulbury, V.

Waleran, L.

Newton, L.

Spens, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Functions of Council for Training in Social Work
3.—(1) The Council for Training in Social Work—

(a) shall promote training in such social work as is required in the health and welfare services by seeking to secure suitable facilities for training persons in such work, by approving courses as suitable to be attended by persons engaged or intending to engage in such work and by seeking to attract persons to such courses;

(b) if it appears to them that adequate provision is not being made for further training in such work, shall provide or secure the provision of courses for this purpose;

(c) may conduct or make arrangements for the conduct of examinations in connection with such courses as are mentioned in the preceding paragraphs; and

5.37 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH BARONESS SWANBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "persons", where that word first occurs, to insert:
"(including persons already engaged in and having considerable experience of the said services)".
The noble Baroness said: In moving the first Amendment standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and myself, I am very anxious to put before your Lordships a point which I think is very important indeed. It is an inclusion which would allow an individual, be it man or woman, who has worked systematically for a laid-down number of years in social service, whether in a paid or in a voluntary capacity, to sit as a late entrant for a test and to qualify alongside the person who starts his or her career by working for a diploma. I feel this should be an arrangement available at all times, and not a temporary arrangement just to accommodate those people who are working in social services at the present time and are already holding welfare posts. As we examine the training that
872
we want for people qualifying for social service posts, it seems to me that the training is in fact the offering to the student of the wealth of experience agglomerated by the teacher, and it is this experience that I am very anxious to see safeguarded.
I believe that the scheme for training as envisaged in the Bill is excellent, and I hope very much that more and more people will qualify and will be available to the country in order to serve in this manner. But there are problems which arise, and which I think we should look at ahead of time. One of the problems which arise in countries where a programme of social work training is very prevalent is that again and again, through lack of foresight, people who have experience are not allowed to work at the same level as those social workers who have a paper qualification, and the experienced volunteer is therefore lost in the effort which he might be able to make.
If my Amendment were agreed to, it would provide for people who had done a specific number of years in the work and had been trained by doing the work—who, indeed, in many cases, have evolved the system of working as it is to-day, since so many of our social services have started through the efforts of either experimental agencies or voluntary services. If we could agree that these people should be recognised, after test, alongside those who have not had as much practical experience, the qualification of the academic and the qualification of the experienced side by side will result in a large number of social workers of a high standard being available to the country. The trained social worker and the experienced volunteer working constantly side by side have each got a great deal to offer the other; and I should like to see this collaboration well preserved.
But even to-day voluntary work is not generally recognised as a qualification for the training and for the posts which are available. I should like to quote the

873
case of a girl who applied for a grant from a local authority for a social science diploma course, for which she had been accepted. One of the local authority conditions was that the applicant must have done social work for one year. This girl had done three months of her year as a full-time voluntary residential worker in a children's home run by one of the recognised voluntary societies. The local authority refused the grant because she had done three months in a voluntary, and not in a paid, capacity. These are the sort of anomalies that I feel we ought to watch ahead of time, rather than get into the difficulty which may come through our being unaware of them.
In another case, a member of my own Service who has had years of experience of administration—actually, I think, seventeen years—in a very responsible welfare job, applied for a post as an assistant home help organiser. She was told that if she got the job the starting salary would be £520, and found that another applicant in her early twenties would start at £950 because she had passed a local authority examination. The anomaly that arises through this sort of thing could be cleared up by an early envisagement of a late-entrants scheme, and I hope vary much that your Lordships will consider this.
I am not in this case arguing because of payment, but because of output. The person who is going to be looked after does not require merely a clinical diagnosis by a person who has had academic education; the particular person is in distress, and in nine times out of ten in extreme trouble, and therefore needs to have, in addition to the knowledge and the know-how of the social worker, understanding, compassion and sympathy, and also the authority of a human being who, through experience, has graduated in the field of life to reach a standard of understanding, as well as a poise in dealing with such matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and I have put forward this Amendment because of the experience we have both had, not only with voluntary workers but with those at the receiving end of the work of various social service workers. In this connection, I feel that it is of paramount importance that those who
874
have the extra qualification of experience should not, because they have not at the start of their working life undertaken the academic qualification, be precluded from taking part in the direction of such a service, as long as they can show—and I emphasise this particularly—that they have attained the requisite standard.
The persons at the receiving end—the mother of a family, the ageing man, the not-so-young—find themselves for the first time faced with a serious dilemma. They are not members of a body, professional or otherwise, which is organised and which can present their case. They are not in any way banded together so that they can approach a spokesman to put their views. It is on their behalf that I plead. I ask your Lordships to consider my Amendment because of the many social workers, paid and unpaid, who could, if this Amendment were considered, be admitted to the hierarchy envisaged by this Bill in order that the services to the consumer may be of the best possible order. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 31, after ("persons") insert ("(including persons already engaged in and having considerable experience of the said services)").—(Baroness Swanborough.)
5.45 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: Before I speak to this Amendment, may I, on behalf of the Bench on which I sit, convey to the noble Lords opposite our delight at having seen Lord Attlee back again in this House.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: We have watched his courageous fight for recovery with great sympathy, and we hope that he will have many years to enjoy the health that he has recovered.
I support this Amendment, because I believe it stands for something very important in the whole spirit of this measure and of the system which is being set up. Obviously, its success will depend, in the main, upon the highly-trained and qualified worker, who will be, so to speak, the foundation of all the work that is being done. Of that there is no question whatsoever. But there is also a very large pool of available experience which ought to be brought

875
into this system but which will be largely denied the opportunity if it is expected that those people should do a full two years' course. There are many people who have had experience of personal relationships in a wide variety of work and who may later on wish to come into this specific type of work, but for whom it would be unreasonable that they should be expected to do a full two-year course. Therefore, I hope that this Amendment will be carried in order to make those people available for this important work.
I know that there may be misgivings among some that this may lead to a dilution of the efficiency of the service, or indeed that it will give entrance to those well-meaning "do-gooders" who have nothing other than their good intentions to offer. But I do not see that this is a real danger to the system; and, indeed, in a comparable case which I would put before your Lordships, it has not proved to be so. The Church of England has had a very long experience in selecting and training mainly women in the work of moral welfare, and what used to be called the Board of Moral Welfare is now called the Council for Social Work. Great care is taken in the selection and training of full-time workers. Some do a three-year degree course; others go to Josephine Butler House in Liverpool for a two-year course, and they are doing splendid work in this particular department. But that Council has also found that it can make very great use of women who have had wide experience in comparable services, simply by giving them a specific short-time training whereby they can come into this particular work; and so those who are trained in the nursing services, those who have been trained as teachers, those who have worked in the Y.W.C.A., and so on, can all come in, and with a six months' course can become efficient and useful at an age when it would be totally unreasonable for them to have to undergo a two-year course.
Moreover, in much of this work it is surely going to be very valuable to have people who have in their own experience been able to run a successful home and know what that means; and, with the general trend of social custom, with earlier marriages, and with women at
876
the age of, say, 40 having completed their family responsibilities, there should be a great opening for those people who, as a result of a shortened training course, could bring so much to bear. So I hope that this Amendment will be carried, both because it will make available a large and important source of recruitment, and also for something else which it is so difficult adequately to express without giving misunderstanding. In all these things, surely in this country in particular we have a genius for combining the professional and the true and best amateur, and each reacts on the other to the benefit of both. In this service we shall want the true professional who brings all the expertise of his or her training, but we want to avoid what is known as professionalism, with the deleterious effect which that can so often have, especially in the realm of personal relationships. Again, we want the true amateur, with the dedication, the love, the care, while avoiding at the same time the dangers of amateurishness. I believe that if this Amendment, which has been moved so lucidly by the noble Barnoness, is carried, we shall bring back into the system something which is particularly of value in this country—both the fully-trained professional and the trained amateur—to the benefit of the whole system.
LORD SALTOUN: I support the noble Baroness wholeheartedly in her Amendment, but since what I should like to say about it, and other points, ranges rather widely, I will, with your Lordships' permission, say what I want to say on the Motion that the clause stand part.
LORD NEWTON: Under Clause 3 (1) (a) of the Bill, the Council for Training in Social Work are to promote training by seeking to secure suitable facilities for training persons in social work in the health and welfare services. The persons for whom training facilities are to be sought are not specified, but the noble Lady and the right reverend Prelate may be assured that it is the Government's intention—and it was clearly the intention of the Young-husband recommendations—that the Council shall, in fact, seek to secure facilities for training the kind of persons they have in mind, altogether irrespective of their age.

877
I am advised that, in the context of Clause 3 as it is at present drafted, the duty laid upon the Council in subsection (1) (a) to approve courses as suitable for persons engaged in such work makes it unnecessary for any words to be added in line 31 to give the clause the desired effect. Subsection (5) makes it clear that the duty of seeking to secure training facilities and provide courses applies as much to those engaged in similar services provided by voluntary organisations as it does to those engaged in the local authority services. We fully recognise that a comprehensive social service is made up of many elements, in which people with different experience, Whether statutory or voluntary, have important parts to play, and we cannot envisage a time when the contribution of the worker without formal qualifications, particularly in the voluntary field, will not be required. There is nothing to preclude the Council from promoting training facilities for those without formal qualifications who wish to secure some training at a later stage than the normal. We expect that training facilities will be available for suitable workers in voluntary organisations with the appropriate experience, in the same way as for local authority staff and new recruits, so that the Amendment, which the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, have put down, adds nothing to what is already in the Bill. On the other hand, under the Bill as it now stands it will be possible to do What they and the right reverend Prelate want. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lady will withdraw her Amendment.
5.55 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I do not know what view my noble friend will take of the reply that the Minister has given to the Amendment which we have jointly sponsored, but I find his answer both disappointing and unsatisfying. The noble Lord said that it was the Government's intention that the Council shall seek to secure training for people of all ages such as we have in mind. That is a comforting assurance, but it is by no means a reason why these words should not be added to the Bill. They would make our intention—and presumably the Government's intention—very plain indeed.
878
I do not think that the noble Lord has given sufficient consideration to the kind of circumstances which will arise unless special attention is drawn to this very point. No doubt he himself has experience as a member of a selection board or appointments committee and will know that often a committee have to work within certain limits, one of which is the nature of the qualifications of the applicant. Although members of the committee may be well aware of the great value of experience in social work, it may not be possible for them to make an appointment of a person without suitable academic qualifications. There may be the still greater difficulty, which my noble friend pointed out, of differences in salary, from a possible £500 a year offered to an experienced person to £920 offered to an inexperienced girl merely because she had satisfied a local authority examination. I should be the last person to scoff at training and qualifications, and I do not do so now. Obviously, it is desirable that everyone should be qualified. But anyone who has any experience in social work knows that the most vital qualities are those inherent in the person and the experience gathered in actual case work. These are irreplaceable. It may well be that in matters of this kind the £920-a-year girl of 20 may be an absolute "clot" (if I may use that expression) and may still be appointed because the selection committee could not do anything else about it. These are cogent reasons.
I do not think that the Government have given serious consideration to the great need for workers of this kind. At the present time, we have one health visitor for every 9,000 of the population; and of the health visitors—wonderful women, noble women—95 out of every 100 are the type of dedicated spinster, women who are fast disappearing in this country and who are almost irreplaceable. Women are getting married very much younger. They are not being brought up in the same tradition of service as those who are now occupying posts in the Health Service and similar services. The staffs we have will be ever more difficult to replace, unless we are absolutely determined to avail ourselves of every opportunity to secure the services of persons of experience with the necessary qualities—indeed, with the

879
necessary dedication. There is nothing new about suggesting that an unqualified person should be recognised as able to do qualified work. When the Dental Register was set up, a large number of dentists who had never passed an exmination were admitted to the register, and some of them are still practising, in the National Health Service and in private work, on terms of equality with their brethren who are qualified by having passed the most important examinations. And there are other precedents of this kind.
I submit that there is a clear case for the Government accepting this Amendment, so that when town clerks, medical officers of health and others who have a part in making appointments of this kind, pick up this Act and read the instructions, they will see clearly delineated the intentions of Parliament. I think the feeling and intentions of the Committee in the matter are perfectly clear, and they call for the inclusion of these words and the acceptance of the Amendment. I hope the noble Lord will have another look at it, because I do not think his answer was satisfactory.
LORD FERRIER: In the circumstances, I would urge the noble Lady and the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment, for the reason that, if it were to be tested at this moment, certainly from this side there are hidden reserves in dead ground which would settle the matter, and there the matter would end.
LORD STONHAM: Did the noble Lord say that there were hidden reserves in dead ground, or dead reserves in hidden ground?
LORD FERRIER: I said hidden reserves in dead ground. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has said that he will speak on the matter later. I do not propose to say more; in fact, there is little more to be added to what has been said by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lady, who have established in my mind, and no doubt in the minds of other noble Lords, that this is a suitable Amendment for the Government to consider carefully. I urge that the Amendment should be withdrawn now, in order that it might not be destroyed, and so that we may have the opportunity of debating it again at a later stage.
LORD NEWTON: I want to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, because I do not think there is really anything between us in what we want to achieve. I am afraid it must have been my fault, in that I did not explain the Government's position sufficiently clearly to the noble Lord. What I intended to say quite clearly, and reasonably shortly, was that the intentions of the Government are those of the noble Lady and the noble Lord who put down this Amendment. I have to speak to the Amendment as it is on the Marshalled List, and not to the words which the noble Lord utters when he addresses the Committee. I am advised—and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that I went into this most carefully—that these words in the Amendment add nothing to what is already in the Bill. In other words, as the Bill is drafted, it will be possible for the Training Council to do precisely what those who put down the Amendment want. The noble Lord says: why do I then not accept the Amendment? It is for this very good reason, which I think is known well to Parliamentarians: it is never wise to insert unnecessary words in a Bill, because there is always the risk of the effect that this could, by implication, have on other parts of the Bill, and in other parts of the Statute. I should have thought that I had given the noble Lady everything she wants by telling her that it is unnecessary to add anything more to achieve the purpose she has in mind.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: I am no Parliamentarian, but I would join issue with the noble Lord who talked about one of the greatest resources of the Restaurant Committee as a dead place, in saying that the hidden reserves of the Government were in a dead place. I thought the noble Lord who answered for the Government gave me a full assurance that my points were covered and, being no Parliamentarian, I not only accept what he said, but I also accept it in what I take to be the spirit in which the assurance was given. I feel strongly that the undertaking in this Ball is definitely one of good will and readiness to work one with the other, but I felt it necessary to put down the Amendment because of the tragedies I have seen in other countries, and the fact that unless one looks at this situation ahead

881
of time one might be precluded from having a late entrant accepted. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH BARONESS SWANBOROUGH moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "courses" to insert: "including, in appropriate cases, shortened courses". The noble Baroness said: In moving this Amendment I have in mind the same group of people who have had years of experience in social work and particularly in a voluntary capacity. The experienced voluntary worker of to-day has of necessity a wide knowledge of the social services, not only as they exist on paper, but also as they operate to help people in their locality. He or she as a voluntary worker knows only too well the snags, the problems and the overlappings, where to turn for the many different kinds of help, and, in addition, knows a great deal about the series of courses available to fit one to do the job. Such courses are nearly always dealt with by the organisation or the body to which the volunteer belongs. In order to train herself to translate this knowledge, acquired in various and often in hard ways, she needs to be, so to speak, "topped up" to stand up to an examination or to have a more national outlook. I feel that it would be very desirable for a short course to be available, so that such a person could qualify through attendance at a short course and be able to be graded according to test. I apologise for moving this Amendment now, because I think the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government has already answered the question in what he said previously, but not being good at procedure, I felt that I must move the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, after ("courses") insert the said words.—(Baroness Swanborough.)
LORD NEWTON: The Council's duty under Clause 3 (1) (b), to provide or secure the provision of courses and further training services if it appears to them that adequate provision is not being made, does not prevent them from providing shortened courses. Indeed, under the Bill as it is at present drafted, the Council are free to permit shortened courses leading to their certificate, since
882
the length of course is not specified. Your Lordships may recall that the Younghusband Report makes various recommendations for courses for older officers with various lengths of experience other than the two-year full-time training which is the main pattern of training recommended for new recruits, and the Council will no doubt have these recommendations in mind in considering what sort of facilities they will provide. Once again I am in the position of being able to assure the noble Lady that her Amendment is not necessary to achieve her purpose, and, being a charitable man, my pleasure is not dimmed by the mortifying recollection that, during the Second Reading debate, she indicated that I would be incapable of doing social work without first being given the full two-year treatment.
LORD STONHAM: Without having any desire to give the noble Lord the full treatment, I hope he will not say on this occasion that the inclusion of the words of the Amendment in the Bill would add nothing to the Bill, because they would at least make it clear that there is the intention that there should be shortened courses. I would agree with the noble Lord that in Clause 3 (1) (b) there is nothing to prevent the Council from providing shortened courses; if they have to provide adequate training courses for the persons concerned, then they can be long or short. But there is a great difference between nothing to prevent them doing a thing and an instruction that they shall do it. Although it may well be that they will provide courses of varying length and varying content, I really cannot see that there is any reason at all why this Amendment should not be accepted, because it does help to make the intentions that much clearer. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would deal with that point.
LORD NEWTON: I am afraid that I cannot even agree about that. I am advised that it would not make it any clearer, and that the necessary powers for the Council which the noble Lord and the noble Lady want are there. For the same reasons which I gave when we were discussing the earlier Amendment, I would advise your Lordships that it is never a wise thing to insert unnecessary words into a Bill. I feel certain that those lawyers who are

883
present will agree with me about that. I hope that once again the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw this Amendment.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SALTOUN: I shall trespass on your Lordships' time for only a brief moment. It is a long time since I had anything to do with this work, and if I am behind the times I hope your Lordships will forgive me. These clauses seem to me to set up a cumbrous machine, and probably a very expensive machine, to provide for the social services. I am inclined to agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, said on the Second Reading, that there are probably not enough people available to provide a sufficient number to carry out these services properly. I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, was very much of that opinion, and said that we are going to be very short of people to do this work. My own personal opinion is that people have to do both sides and fulfil both tasks. After all, that has been done in the past quite successfully, and, I think, without an enormous degree of preliminary training. I think it is desirable that that should be done, so far as possible, because your Lordships' experience will tell you that it is much easier for one visitor to obtain the confidence of a family than it is for more than one. It seems to me that the confidence of the patient is a very important matter.
This Bill sets up machinery for the education of people who undertake this work, and, of course, that includes registration. There must be a register of some kind of people who obtain these qualifications. It seems to me that the Government are a little premature in this, at least according to the ideas of the past. The Report from the Select Committee appointed in 1935 to consider the registration and regulation under the Osteopaths Bill laid down what was then the time-honoured rule in these matters. They said:
884
"In all comparable cases of vocations for which a statutory register has been authorised, three conditions have been fulfilled, viz.:—

(i) The sphere or territory within which the vocation operates has been clearly defined.

(ii) The vocation has already been long in general use.

(iii) There has been already in existence a well-established and efficient system of voluntary examination and registration."

I freely give Her Majesty's Government, the second of those, but, after all, the sphere or territory is what ills the flesh is heir to. I do not call that a definition. A definition must define, and there is no definition and no limit to the tasks which the social services have to undertake. As a definition, I submit to noble Lords opposite, who are considering carefully and perhaps a little anxiously their relationship with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it resembles far more those definitions that he propounds to us in speech and tantalises us with in some of his later books. I do not think that there is in existence a well-established and efficient system of voluntary examination and registration. Therefore, the Government are breaking entirely new ground in this matter, and it behoves us to consider it very carefully.
Some time ago now, I remember the welfare officers asking me whether I did not think they should have, as it were, a chartered society, with examinations and degrees, or a register. I replied that I thought that was quite unnecessary. I thought the first thing their young people should do was to learn absolutely thoroughly the law of the Welfare State. That would give them the tools of their trade; and after that the thing they could get was experience, experience and more and more experience. That certainly was my experience when I was doing that kind of work. I think it is an extremely important thing, and it seems to me that in this Bill no account has been taken of the extraordinary value of long experience. For that reason, I do not view this Bill with great enthusiasm, although I hope that it will work a great deal better than I feel it may.
LORD NEWTON: My noble friend has ranged fairly widely, as he told me he was going to do. We have listened to his views with interest. I hope that his fears will not be realised, and that the

885
Bill will work out better than he seems to think. He spoke about the association which exists between the work of health visitors and social workers. That is certainly the case, and it is recognised in the Younghusband Report, and in the Bill.
LORD SALTOUN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
6.17 p.m.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 4, to insert the following new clause:
Pooling arrangements in respect of expenditure on social work training
". As soon as may be after the passing of this Act the Minister shall make regulations in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Part IV of the First Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1958, to establish pooling arrangements in respect of expenditure by local health authorities on grants for training in social work, and accordingly the said paragraph 1 shall be amended by the addition at the end of sub-paragraph (4) thereof of the following:—
'(f) in the training of persons in social work',"

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the new clause which I propose to insert is to make it possible to extend the pooling arrangements which already exist to include social work training for both health and welfare services. Supposing this were to occur, I am sure it would immediately transform the whole prospect for the recruitment, for the grants to students, and for the setting up of courses about which we have been talking. The plan would not cost the Government any money, but it would at the same time stimulate the laggard local authorities and not discourage the keen ones. I think the scheme before us now is one which would appeal only to the most progressive and the most wealthy local authorities. They are probably the people who would do the job in any event. But it would not encourage the poorer ones, or the less interested ones.
At the present time, the local authority pays the cost of each student's training, even though that student may move on and go on somewhere else. The pooling scheme works well for the health visitors, for the training of probation officers and for child care. It has been said that health visitors get seconded by the local authority, but I do not think they do. I
886
think many of them are sponsored to the local authority, which is not quite the same thing, and do not get employed by the local authority until their training has been completed. That again is why it seems anomalous that the health visitors will be trained under some kind of pooling arrangement, whereas the social workers, with a closely linked and parallel council, do not get training. Where I think that is a bad thing from another point of view is that it has always been my hope—indeed, as I said on Second Reading—that the two councils might one day be joined together. If they are to be treated in a different way, it will make that desirable project much further away Chan it is now, which is one of the reasons why I put down this Amendment. So far as I am aware, the local authorities would have no objection at all to the pooling arrangements, and therefore I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)
6.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I strongly support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. It is quite clear from the reply that was given by my right honourable friend the Minister of Health in another place, and by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in his reply on behalf of the Government in the Second Reading debate in this House, that it was very unlikely that the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, with regard to the necessity of central grants would receive any consideration. But I see no reason why this Amendment suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, should not have the very careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government at this stage of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has pointed out, it does not infringe any commitment to which my right honourable friend has aligned himself in connection with this Bill. Nor does it evoke antagonism to the principle of restriction of Government expenditure from the centre, because finance would be provided by local authorities by placing a requisite amount into a pool.
The noble Lord, Lord Newton, might well claim that in his reply to the noble

887
Baroness, Lady Summerskill, he has in the main answered the points arising out of this Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. I do not think that is the case. I have listened with very great attention to the reply which the noble Lord gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and so far as I can see the only new statement that emerged was that in the case of the category of social worker with whom we are now dealing they would not previously have applied to the local education authority for a grant, whereas the psychiatric social workers and other categories, such as probation officers, might have done so by taking a social science course. I do not think that that, on the face of it, is a complete answer.
In the first place, this is a new service and it is clear that local education authorities, in the sequence of arguments enunciated by the noble Lord, are already committed to pay great sums of money under the further education grants to existing or old-established services. The question is: are the local education authorities likely, under the present procedure of a block grant, to increase the level of further education grants for new services? Quite clearly in rich and more progressive local authorities we shall see great advances; and doubtless numbers of persons wishing to obtain training will receive it. But I doubt whether that will be the case in the poorer areas, or in the areas of the more unenlightened local authorities. It came to my notice that, as in York, a social worker applied to his health and welfare committee to take a course. This was denied him. The only way that he was enabled to take the course was to resign from his occupation under the local authority and, having resigned, then apply to the further education committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, said in the Second Reading debate that the Younghusband Committee Report emphasised that a total of 5,700 persons were required for this category of social worker under this Bill. There are approximately 3,000 persons employed now, leaving a deficiency of well over 2,000. There can be no doubt whatever that unless the Government show greater sympathy for the point that
888
we have insistently raised throughout all stages of this Bill—that is, that some pooling arrangement or central grant should be provided—the provisions of the Mental Health Act as regards community care will be virtually a dead letter.
It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Newton, with the best possible intentions, to inform your Lordships' House that we shall see how this provision of the grant under further education will operate. But I am not speaking on behalf of a limited specialised pressure group emanating from one particular organisation or society; I am speaking as a layman concerned for thirty years with the whole range of social work, having been engaged in this kind of activity long before the concept or the implementation of the idea of a Welfare State. The need for some pooling or central grant is universally recognised, both centrally and locally, by the people in the field who have to do the work.
We have not heard from my right honourable friend the Minister of Health, or from the noble Lord, Lord Newton, any statement to show your Lordships why the Department they represent have come to the conclusion that the claim we make is an irresponsible one. From what source does the noble Lord, Lord Newton, obtain his information in support of his claim that social workers engaged in health and welfare departments, or who are required to be recruited in those departments, will, in fact, get the degree of training that is required under the provisions now contained in the Bill? Is it from the representatives of local authorities, both on municipal and county level, that that information has been provided? Is it from those who are responsible for administering the Acts from the centre? I claim that, without any question whatsoever, the number of people who are required, first, to be recruited for training and, second, to be engaged in the service at the present time, will not materialise unless this system of pooling is very carefully gone into. Therefore, I would appeal at this late stage to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, not to give the official reply but to say that he will inquire again into this question and perhaps report at a later stage to your

889
Lordships' House upon the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I cannot resist supporting both the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, on this particular matter of financing the students. I supported the noble Baroness in the hope that we might get something in the way of a direct grant. Obviously that is not going to happen. Now we are offering, under this Amendment, a different method, and one which, as Lord Feversham has pointed out, meets a great many of the criticisms put forward by the Government on the direct grant plan. This pooling system has been in the Home Office now for a considerable number of years; I do not know how many years, but a long time. It works very well. It works on the training of probation officers; it works on the training of child care officers. It is acceptable to local authorities; it is acceptable to the central authority. If something works very well in one category of training, why should it not work in another, which, although it is different in the sense that people are being employed for different types of social work, is in fact in many ways identical because we are dealing with the identical people coming into the profession.
It has been said here—I think the noble Lord, Lord Newton, said it in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill—that local authorities would be quite adequate in this, and he also instanced that local authorities would be the employing bodies and so on. That is perfectly true; local authorities would be the employing bodies. But the fact is that in the smaller local authorities, where the need is great but not as pressing as it is in the great areas where the populations are so very large, there might be quite a number of very suitable candidates who would like to be trained, who would be good in the profession, but who would not be supported by their local authorities because the local authority might say, "We cannot employ you. We want only three or four and we already have three or four, and we cannot therefore offer you a job".
Most local education authorities will give grants for further education, teaching, whatever it may be, only if the
890
trainee guarantees to give some work in the county when he or she has finished training. It is therefore necessary to satisfy that particular aspect of grant giving, if it is to be through a local education authority before they allow the person to go and take training. That is very limiting indeed, especially when we want, as the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, reminded us, at least 2,000 new people in this field. I wish we could persuade the Minister to have a second look and see whether or not it is not possible to use the method the Home Secretary uses which is so very successful and which meets the criticisms which are levelled against the central grants system.
I do not think we can hope to get the personnel required for the responsibilities that are being put on the local authorities unless we can make a real recruiting drive. The noble Earl, Lord Feversham, has reminded us that the Mental Health Act, the latest of the responsibilities being put on local authorities, is only now coming into effect, and we are only now beginning to see what our responsibilities as members of local authorities are going to be. I can promise your Lordships that there are very few local authorities in the country who, faced with these added responsibilities, can undertake them in what I would consider any adequate manner because they simply have not got the personnel; it just is not there. I would hope that the Minister would really consider this. After all, this new Mental Health Act, which was an immensely important Bill which he himself put through the House in another place and which we have had through this House, is something of tremendous importance, and we are not going to be able to handle it from the local authority angle unless we can get more people.
There is one other point I should like to make to the Minister in connection with this question of getting grants through local authorities. The difficulty is that you have to satisfy a great many interests, a great many committees; you have to time your application so that it comes in at the moment at which these various committees meet to pass these grants forward, and local authorities do not meet every week; some committees do not meet every month; some meet every two months. It must

891
all be synchronised with the question of when the university training courses are beginning, at what time they may join in—it is immensely complicated—whereas, if you had the control of selection and finance in your own hands through a central department it would be very much easier to meet the demands when they came from the trainees and the demands from local authorities throughout the country. I would beg the Minister to consider this plan. He does not like a central grants system, but this pooling plan, which is a plan which works so extremely well in the Home Office, might be applied in this department to this type of trainee so urgently needed to-day.
6.35 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My two noble friends have taken the opportunity, which I do not believe the mover of the Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, intended should be taken, of having yet another debate on the merits of having grants paid from some central source or by the local education authorities. My two noble friends have once again demonstrated their lack of confidence that the local authorities will do their duty and live up to their responsibilities. We have debated this question this afternoon. We debated it on Second Reading. I explained why I believe that the local authorities will discharge their responsibilities, and I really do not think there is anything more about that which I can usefully add to-night.
LORD AMULREE: I am bound to say that what the noble Lord has said is not very encouraging, and, indeed, is rather disappointing. I think while quite a number of local authorities will do their duty, and do it extremely well, there are always some bad local authorities. One found it a long time ago, when one was working with local authorities; where permissive powers were given, they were used by some but not by others. In the same way, I think that in this matter, if it is not made simple for the not very progressive local authorities to get money, the training will not be done. I think we have got to make this Bill work; we have got to get these people.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Before my noble friend continues, perhaps I might be permitted to dissociate myself from the general observation he made, that I am a party to demonstrating a lack of confidence in the acumen and sense of obligation of local authorities. That is not the case. I would, however, make clear that in almost every branch of social service, apart from the one under discussion, the grant or pooling arrangement is available, and therefore this provision that does not give it is a disincentive to many local authorities. All the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and I are asking is that the Government should not give a disincentive to local authorities, but an incentive that has been given under other Acts and adopted by other Government Departments over a number of years.
LORD NEWTON: I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving the assurance that his object is not to demonstrate lack of confidence in local authorities. I am bound to say that the purport of the speeches he has made so far did make me feel that might be the case, and I am glad to know that I was wrong. If I may turn to the actual Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has moved, it refers only to the expenditure of local health authorities, but of course the expenditure of welfare authorities is equally relevant. In the view of the Government, in neither instance is there a sufficient case for pooling arrangements. I will try to explain the reason for that view. Although employing local health authorities incur substantial expenditure in sponsoring nurses for health visitor training, local authorities will not incur the same order of expenditure on seconding staff for social work training.
As I explained while we were debating an earlier Amendment this afternoon, the normal mode of entry to the health visiting profession is for the qualified nurse-midwife to be sponsored or seconded by a local health authority for the further training needed for the health visitor certificate. The expense which thus falls on employing authorities is pooled. Some 500 health visitors are trained under such arrangements each year, and the Jameson Working Party

893
recommended that this rate of recruitment should be doubled. This represents a continuing burden on employing authorities.
In the case of social workers, on the other hand, the Younghusband recommendation is that some 500 people should be recruited annually, and this will consist, in the large part, of people who with the assistance of a local education authority grant have already completed their general training in social work. Although authorities will no doubt continue to second for this training people who are already in their employment—for example, welfare assistants—the continuing burden which this represents will not be at all comparable with the corresponding burden in the health visitor field. In the case of social workers the financial burden will fall, in the main, on the local education authority as part of its expenditure on further education grants, as the Bill provides. As for the training of existing staffs—that is to say, the training of those already being employed as social workers—the Younghusband Working Party envisaged that only 250 serving officers would need to be seconded from their existing employment for full-time training, and that most of these would be seconded for only one year. The financial burden on employing authorities which this represents, spread over a period of ten years, as is envisaged, would not in the view of the Government justify elaborate pooling machinery.
There is just one further point that I should like to make. Some local health authorities, in addition to meeting the cost of individual health visitor students, themselves run training courses for them. In so far as these are run at a loss, it would be unfair for the local health authority concerned to shoulder the whole cost. It is not, however, contemplated that local health and welfare authorities will run courses, apart from in-service training, for social workers. The courses will be run by the local education authority as part of their normal further education activities. Those are the reasons why the Government do not feel that the provisions of the noble Lord's Amendment are justified, and I hope that he will be satisfied and feel able to withdraw.
LORD AMULREE: I cannot say for one moment that I feel satisfied, but I certainly do not propose to take this Amendment to a Division. Before I sit down, I should like to thank the noble Baroness and the noble Earl for the support they gave me, and at the same time to express my great disappointment that the Government have not been able (to give me a better answer. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
First Schedule:
CONSTITUTION, ETC., OF COUNCILS
2. The Privy Council shall appoint one person to be chairman of both Councils.
3. The other members of the Council for the Training of Health Visitors shall be appointed as follows:
(a) fourteen by the Health Ministers;
8. The members mentioned in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 4 of this Schedule shall be appointed after consultation with such universities and other bodies concerned with the training of social workers as the Health Ministers and the Minister of Education think fit.
6.44 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL had given Notice of several Amendments relating to the constitution of the Councils, the first being, in paragraph 2, to omit "one person to be chairman of both Councils" and to substitute:
"the Chairman of each Council and may appoint the same person to be Chairman of both Councils."
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name and that of my noble friends. On the first Amendment I said that the views I expressed reflected the attitude of the social workers and the health visitors towards this Bill, and I must confess that having listened to this debate I have been forcefully struck by the dedication, the self-effacement and the modesty of the women who have been responsible, indirectly, for wording the Amendments that have come before us. I think your Lordships will agree when I explain this Amendment to you, that it is, in the Parliamentary world, the supreme example of a modest approach to a Bill. In fact, I have never before moved anything which in my view should be

895
accepted immediately by the Government out of gratitude to these magnificent women.
Line 10 of the First Schedule provides for one person to be appointed by the Privy Council to act as chairman of both Councils. I understand that it has been suggested that that person should be Sir John Wolfenden. On the Second Reading of this Bill I said that Sir John Wolfenden must be the most overworked chairman of this decade. I personally have nothing to say against him, and I understand that the nurses have accepted the proposal. I would remind your Lordships that these two important Councils will be concerned with an increasing amount of work. Surely it might be desirable, in the years to come, to have two Chairmen of these Councils, so that, if necessary, the Councils' work can be conducted simultaneously. That seems to me to be a quite modest request. At the same time, it is thought that if this Amendment were accepted those who are responsible for choosing the Chairman might be able years hence if necessary, to change their mind and to have two Chairmen instead of one. The Amendment therefore suggests that for "shall" we substitute "may". That is all these women are asking for: that in the years to come they might change their minds and have two Chairmen instead of one.
To me this Schedule is an anachronism. I must not say how I feel about it. I want to put gently the views of these excellent women. I am glad that the noble Lord is smiling sympathetically. If I had moved an Amendment of my own I might have moved to delete this part of this Schedule altogether. I realise that in this Committee I am speaking to noble Lords who have taken a personal interest in this work. The two Councils which are being set up will be composed, in the great majority, of women. In fact, the health visitors of this country are almost wholly women. Yet they are prepared to accept a man as their Chairman. I recall that 30 years ago, when I started in politics, I was co-opted onto an urban district council (in those days women were never elected to an urban district council) for the purpose of serving on the maternity and child welfare committee. I recall that
896
in those days women were rarely elected, and so the Government of the day felt that if women were to voice their views on maternity they would have to be appointed, because their chance of being elected was nil. I remember that, as a young woman, I went to my first meeting of the maternity and child welfare committee and found in the chair a man of 80. I think this was a remarkable thing. But that was many years ago.
Here, in this Bill, these fine, dedicated, self-effacing women are prepared, in 1962, to accept one Chairman of both Councils; and in this Amendment they are humbly coming to you to ask if you will change "shall" to "may", so that perhaps in the future they might have two Chairmen—and dare I whisper, in case I shock some noble Lords, that perhaps the Chairmen might be women? But they have not even asked for that. They have not even said, "Perhaps your Lordships will allow a woman, in the years to come, perhaps in the 70s, to preside over the health visitors of this country." They have not gone so far as that. They have asked for this simple method, and surely the noble Lord who represents the Government is not going to rise and say that he does not see his way to accept this simple Amendment—that is the least he can possibly do. Surely simple courtesy, compassion, respect for these wonderful people will cause him to say: "Well, we at least will accept this." I ask the noble Lord, if he has been briefed to say "No," to get up boldly and say, "I will not obey my masters this time. I will take it back and think about it."
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, leave out from ("appoint") to end of line 10 and insert the said new words.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
LORD AMULREE: I would just briefly say a word on this Amendment, though I do not want to follow the noble Baroness in the talk she gave on the male and female members. I should like to support the Amendment because I think it might, in time, be necessary or convenient for the Council to have a separate chairman, and, supposing that was not possible because of this Bill, it would need amending legislation to bring it in, which might be embarrasing for the Minister in charge. On the other hand, supposing the Amendment proposed is

897
accepted, there is no reason at all why the Minister should not continue to appoint a single Chairman; but, if he wished to make a change, he could. Therefore, from a purely practical point of view, I believe there is a lot to be said for this Amendment, and I should like to support the noble Baroness.
LORD NEWTON: I hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, when he got up to speak, was going to support what is in the Bill already, in view of what he said during the Second Reading debate: that in his view, far from there being two Councils with one or two chairmen, there ought to be one Council for both health visitors and social workers. You could not then have two chairmen for one Council. Apparently the noble Lord has changed his mind.
LORD AMULREE: I have not changed my mind. What I said was that there should only be one Council, and therefore only one chairman. If you are going to have two Councils, for heaven's sake have two chairmen.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: One man and one woman.
LORD NEWTON: That is going as far as you can on an association between the two sets of workers. With all respect to the noble Lord, it represents a very substantial change of position. The noble Baroness is always at her most beguiling when speaking on feminist subjects.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: No—the injustice of men.
LORD NEWTON: That is the noble Baroness's way of putting the same thing, Which I have defined in a slightly different manner. It is very beguiling and very charming and, as a mere man, it puts me in a rather embarrassing position. I should not dream of expressing an opinion about the extent of the sacrifice women make when they find themselves, shall I say, under masculine authority. Perhaps I might just say that I have known women who rather like being bossed by men. Perhaps they are not women known to the noble Baroness.
This is really a question of achieving the right relationship between these two Councils. There are two extreme views: one, that there should be two completely
898
separate Councils, and the other that there should be one Council for both groups of workers. The solution propounded by the Government in this Bill represents a position half way between those two. We believe, as did the Younghusband Report, that there is, and must be, association not only between the workers concerned but between the Councils. I should like to read to you a few sentences from the Younghusband Report on this subject. I quote from paragraph 126, on page 27:
"The functions of health visitors in providing health education and social advice inevitably bring them into contact with a variety of social problems. Similarly social workers are frequently concerned with families where there is a health problem. These two field workers, each trained in different professional disciplines, should complement each other, and should each know enough about the other's field to recognise the point at which referral is indicated. There is a necessary overlap of knowledge between health visitors and social workers. An overlap of function may also occur when social workers are either not available or are not adequately trained."
Well, those are very strong arguments for there being association between the Councils, which is accepted by the Government. The Government further believe that the arguments for the association of the Councils are arguments which have permanent validity, not just validity at the moment when the Councils are about to be set up, and that the best guarantor of permanent validity is a single Chairman.
Health visitors and social workers both do their jobs largely in people's homes; both work on their own, in co-operation with others, in an environment which is personal to the individual they are helping. These conditions of work will continue to prevail. Health visitors and social workers have complementary duties, and will prepare cases for one another according to the nature of the help required. This close working relationship will continue. It is therefore surely right that their training should be co-ordinated. Moreover, there are common elements in the two kinds of training, and this will continue to be the case.
The Government regard the association of the Councils as settled policy and, as I have said, a single chairman is the main guarantor of this. To leave the matter open—which is what the noble Baroness is asking me to do in her

899
Amendment—would, in my view and in the view of the Government, lead to argument and conflicting pressures, not all of them perhaps as beguiling as the noble Baroness has been this afternoon: but pressures would be there which would not be in the interests of the sound development of the work of the Councils, or in the interests of the workers themselves. The training of social workers on this scale and on these lines is new, and we want it to start on the basis of a right relationship, and to continue so; we do not want it to start properly and then to fall apart.
My right honourable friend the Minister said on this matter in another place [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 659 (No. 106), col. 155]:
"I admit that this is a matter of judgment and balance, but it seemed to me, and I respectfully advise the House, that on balance there is greater advantage in spelling out in the Bill that these two Councils are to have a common chairman."
It is the same advice as I am respectfully giving to your Lordships this evening.
Perhaps I could just add in conclusion that although Sir John Wolfenden is to be the first Chairman of the two Councils if the Bill is enacted and when they are set up, I see no reason why at some time or another there should not be a woman as chairman of both Councils.
LORD STONHAM: T think the noble Lord, Lord Newton, has made very heavy weather of this and has not dealt with the point at all. There are in fact two points. The Bill says that the Privy Council "shall appoint one person to be chairman of both Councils," and my noble friend's Amendment suggests that the Privy Council shall appoint the chairman "of each Council and may appoint the same person to be chairman of both Councils." So we are on this quite narrow point, but it is an important point in the view of the people mainly concerned. We want to leave the way open, without the need for further legislation, for two different persons to be the chairman of these two Councils if later it should be found advisable. The noble Lord put it the wrong way round. He said that if we were to lay it down didactically now, that would prevent pressures in the future. I should have thought that was entirely wrong.
900
Leave the matter fluid in that one single sense now, and if pressures arise—and they will not arise without reason—then they can be accommodated by the appointment of two separate chairmen.
The noble Lord's other point was that there must be co-ordination, which of course is quite right. The work of health visitors and social service workers is so closely related that there must be this co-ordination. But as I see it, there are going to be two large Councils. The only co-ordinating factor is the single chairman of both Councils. I do not know how the details will finally be worked out, but I think it is highly probable that these two Councils will meet in the same building and, inevitably, they will work closely together whether they have one chairman or two.
Hard by Paddington station in Eastbourne Terrace is a very large building, which no doubt has a frequent visitor, and it has four floors. Each floor accommodates the headquarters of a Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, and it is very necessary for those four Hospital Boards to correlate their work, but they all have separate Chairmen, separate regional committees and, indeed, separate officers, and no difficulty arises in that regard at all. In fact, as my noble friend suggested, this is an extremely modest Amendment, characteristic of the people who have put it forward. The noble Lord has not really introduced one sound reason at all why it should be refused, except one which may seem to him to be overriding, and that is that his right honourable friend has made up his mind that he will not give way. But in my submission that is not a sound reason at all, and I still hope that we shall have another look at it.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: May I point out an argument for some degree of elasticity in this matter, afforded by subsection (3) of Clause 3, which reads:
"Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for conferring on the Council for Training in Social Work such functions in relation to other social work as are conferred on it by subsections (1) and (2) of this section in relation to the social work therein mentioned; and, in connection therewith, for making such modifications in the constitution of that Council, as she may deem expedient."
I understand that in that subsection we are envisaging a great and expanding

901
future for the Council for Training in Social Work. Further matters may be made to come within its purview; it is expected that it will develop into a more and more important Council, and therefore Her Majesty's Government are very properly taking power to modify the constitution of that Council.
Is it not evident that, if this Council does becomes a greater and more important body, it will immediately be affected by this Bill; the chairmanship may very possibly become a whole-time job, and you may lose the services of a really suitable chairman, because he will say, "I am afraid I have not time to take on the health visitors. I should have been happy to take on the social workers"? By insisting that he shall have this dual function we may be depriving ourselves of the possibility of employing a first-rate man. In view of the fluidity of the work of the Council for Training in Social Work, I beg Her Majesty's Government to reconsider the matter, and to see Whether it is really sensible to tie for all time the hands of future Ministers of Health.
LORD NEWTON: I do not really think there is very much more that I can say about this. The noble Baroness told us, when moving the Amendment, that she was putting it forward on behalf of one of the interested parties, which she is perfectly entitled to do. What the Government have to do, as I understand it, is to consider the points of view of all interested parties on matters of this kind—and, indeed, on any matter—and then make up their mind What they believe to be right in the general interest. That is what has been done with this Bill, after considering the representations of all who are interested. It is a matter of judgment, as I said when I was concluding my last speech, and now it is for the judgment of your Lordships.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I find the noble Lord's explanation, or half-apology, most unsatisfactory, but I have no intention of pressing the matter. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved, in paragraph 3 (a), to leave out "fourteen" and insert "sixteen". The noble Baroness said: I think most noble Lords
902
who have spoken will agree that this Amendment does concern a legitimate grievance. The purpose of it is to ensure that health visitors have adequate representation on the Council. I would remind the noble Lord of the Bill dealing with professions supplementary to medicine, which I think was amended later on in the Report stage, because the women concerned, as well as some men, felt that they did not have adequate representation on the bodies which had been set up. Here, again, these excellent women—and I do not really like the expression "interested parties" which the noble Lord has used; it almost suggests that they had some ulterior motive—who are going to serve the community in this field, should quite rightly have adequate representation on these bodies. I shall explain to your Lordship just what the representation is but, in the first place, I would say that it is now weighted in such a manner that it does not fulfil the undertaking which the Minister gave in another place, as the noble Lord will recall, that a slight majority would be given to the health visitors representative of the professional and educational interests. The noble Lord will recall that was recommended in the Jameson Report in paragraph 374.
I should not be doing my duty if I did not put on record what these figures are, and I am hoping that in this case the noble Lord will consider this again, in order that he might move an Amendment on the Report stage. He will agree with me that if this grievance is perpetuated it will mean inevitably, with the long discussions that will take place on these various Councils, that there will be a waste of time and there will be some fruitless argument, because the women there feel that they are not adequately represented. As the Bill stands there will be a Council of 32 members, of whom fourteen are to be appointed by the Health Ministers, and six by the Health Ministers and the Minister of Education. The remainder of the Council consists of representatives of local authorities and one appointed by the Governor of Northern Ireland. Of the Health Minister's appointments, thirteen are to be appointed as follows: after consultation with associations appearing to represent health visitors, eight; after consultations with the

903
B.M.A. and the Society of Medical Officers of Health, three; after consultation with the General Nursing Councils for England and Wales and for Scotland, two, making thirteen in all.
LORD NEWTON: Sixteen.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: It is thirteen. The noble Lord cannot count. It is not sixteen. This leaves one of the Minister's appointments unidentified, to be allocated as he likes; and that makes fourteen. Surely, professional representation should be by the representatives of health visitors, which number only eight—the first eight I gave the Minister. With the six educational representatives referred to, the total becomes fourteen.
The noble Lord will recall that in another place the Parliamentary Secretary replied to a question on this subject, and in the Parliamentary Secretary's calculations she achieved what she described as "a slight majority" by including the General Nursing Council representatives and the unidentified seat. Now the General Nursing Council does not represent the specific health visitor, and the representatives of the General Nursing Council are concerned only with the nurse-training content of the integrated courses. The General Nursing Councils are not concerned with the specific health visitor training. Those of your Lordships who have served on various organisations will agree with me that often there are representatives of other bodies, but when it comes to voting only the people who are concerned with a matter which is of interest to their own body are certain to vote one way: they can never be sure that they will have the support of representatives of the other body. The same will happen, of course, in this assembly.
I agree that, to a lay person, the name of the General Nursing Council sounds as if it is representative of the nursing world. One might say also that the General Medical Council is representative of the doctors: but, of course, the general practitioner and the specialist would reject that immediately. The General Medical Council, as so many noble Lords know here, is concerned with discipline and with all kinds of matters quite removed from the work of
904
the doctor. It is precisely the same way in the world of nursing. These health visitors do not feel that the General Nursing Council represents their attitude, or will necessarily support them on some matter which is concerned with health visitor training. That is why they have asked for this whole matter to be reconsidered. While the present Minister of Health may say that his intention is to fill the unidentified seat with a representative of the health visiting profession, I doubt whether he can commit his successors; and in any case, of course, if the noble Lord counts these figures up he will see that they need two more places for professional and educational interests to achieve even parity with the other representatives.
Now I ask the Minister to consider this, because it is a serious grievance. Again I would remind him that if these Councils start off this work without the important people, the health visitors, feeling they have proper representation, inevitably there will be a waste of time; and it is quite wrong at this stage, if one sees that a grievance can be removed, not to remove it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("sixteen").—(Baroness Summerskill.)
LORD NEWTON: The Amendment which the noble Lady has just moved is, in fact, a paving Amendment to the next one, and in her speech she was principally concerned with the next Amendment. Therefore, if I may, I will discuss them both together. I can assure the Committee that very great care has been given to trying to strike the right balance of representation, not only on this Council but on the other one as well. It has not been at all easy, because there are parties—the noble Baroness does not like the word "party", but it is a perfectly harmless word—who are naturally interested in matters of this kind. It is perfectly right and proper that they should be. They all have their points of view, and the Government have to try to strike what they believe to be the right balance. I have to tell your Lordships to-night that, in the view of the Government, there is no justification for an increase in the health visitor representation for which the noble Lady is asking.

905
The Jameson Report recommended a slight majority of numbers covering professional and educational interests, and that is what the Bill provides. The total of professional and educational interests represented is sixteen, which is why I used the figure sixteen when the noble Lady was speaking. That, of course, includes the two members of the Council appointed after consultation with the General Nursing Councils. The noble Baroness did not seem to think it appropriate to include the General Nursing Councils among the professional and educational interests, but the General Nursing Councils are educational bodies, and they have an interest which is very near to the health visiting profession. So the position is that, as recommended by the Jameson Report, the professional and educational interests will have a slight majority on the Council even if neither of the remaining two members—that is to say, the member appointed by the Governor of Northern Ireland and the member appointed without consultation—belongs to the professional and educational group. So we have in fact provided in this Bill what the Jameson Report recommended, and I hope that the Committee will think that that is the correct thing to have done.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Again I must record that I think the Minister's reply is most unsatisfactory and will be received by those who are closely concerned with the administration of this Bill, which will become an Act of Parliament very soon, with certain despondency, because this is the moment when we could have changed and altered it in such a way as to make it acceptable to them all. However, at this late hour I will not press it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in paragraph 8, after "consultation with" to insert:
"the Joint University Council for Social and Public Administration and"
The noble Earl said: This is a comparatively small but none the less very important Amendment. It was moved in exactly the same terms in another place but was rejected, although the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry
906
of Health gave an assurance that the Joint University Council would be consulted under paragraph 8 of the First Schedule. The purpose of my moving the Amendment now is to get the assurance embodied into the Bill. I am not at all impressed with the reply given on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in another place: that it is inappropriate to single out the Joint University Council alone on the face of the Bill because the Government intend to consult and cover all educational interests. If your Lordships will turn to paragraph 10 of the First Schedule, you will see that it is specifically mentioned there that the British Medical Association and the Society of Medical Officers of Health should be consulted. Why not the Joint University Council in paragraph 8? Anyone who has read, as many of your Lordships have done, the full Report of the Younghusband Committee will have seen that the evidence given by the Joint University Council provided (in my opinion, at least) for the main concept: the creation of a training council for social workers. Their experience and knowledge is admitted on all sides to be of the highest standard. There is every reason why they should be specifically mentioned in the Bill.
It would seem to me that if the noble Lord, Lord Newton, rejects this Amendment, he is giving undue deference to the wishes of the Parliamentary draftsman. Before the last war, when I served for at least seven years on the Bench which he is now occupying, I often had occasion to use words that he has himself employed during the course of this debate: that it is never wise to insert unnecessary words in the Bill. We have the assurance under paragraph 8 that the Government will consult the Joint University Council; but the Joint University Council and others wish this to be specifically mentioned. It is not analogous to the case to which the noble Lord referred. I do not think that these words are unnecessary, and I very greatly hope, this being the last Amendment to this Bill, that for the first time the noble Lord will find it appropriate to accept it.
I am not very accustomed nowadays, as I used to be, to taking part in the Committee stage of Bills in your Lordships' House. I have had great experience of similar work in the past, and in

907
those days it was quite customary, with a Bill of this character, for one or two Amendments—not major, substantial, Amendments—to be accepted by the Government. I cannot understand whether it is his right honourable friend the Minister who gives an edict that in no circumstances will any Amendment be accepted, or what are the causes which enable the noble Lord, Lord Newton, to ride, with great politeness, but with a certain roughshod element, across the path of noble Lords and Ladies, who I think are well qualified to speak on the subjects which have engaged us this afternoon. Therefore, I do ask the noble Lord, Lord Newton, to accept this Amendment, which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, after ("with") insert ("the Joint University Council for Social and Public Administration and").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I should like to add one word on this matter, because I feel very strongly about it. This is a training Bill; it is a Bill which sets standards for training in social work. This is a Bill in which we are hoping to gat the very highest professional standards, comparable to the standards which obtain in many other professions—teaching, nursing, and so forth; and the universities are the people who set those standards. They are the people with the experience and with the trainers, and they are the people who can really bring these standards into effect. To leave them out, and to say simply that they will be consulted, is, to me, an insult to the most important body concerned in this particular work.
I entirely agree with Lord Feversham that the Minister seems to be impervious even to the great blandishments of the noble Baroness opposite, which I am unable to emulate to the same extent. But, because one feels tremendously strongly about this matter, and because the noble Lord may not even be prepared to accept the Amendment or to say that he will consider any of these points, it seems to me an exceedingly depressing state of affairs. I cannot imagine that in any other Council for the training of a particular profession, whether it is the medical profession, or whatever profess-
908
sion it is—the university medical schools, for instance—they would be omitted. I cannot imagine that one would try to organise training for a particular profession of any kind without bringing in the most important people who are responsible for that training. Here, in this long list of people on the Councils, we have all the employers of these social workers in large numbers. We have a great many other people, to whom Lady Summerskill referred, in connection with her most modest plea, and I thought that these Schedules might be altered. Yet there is no sign of any movement on the part of the Government (towards taking into account any of our efforts to improve these Schedules.
I think that to omit the Joint University Council on this occasion is most unwise. I am sure that it would greatly improve and help the Councils themselves if they were assured of representation from this most important body, which is responsible for advising on the training of practically all these people whom we are hoping to got into the service.
7.26 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: I find the blandishments of both my noble friends very appealing, but I am afraid, even so, that I am not able to accept this Amendment, although, of course, it would have been very agreeable for me to be able to accept one, at any rate, during the course of our proceedings this afternoon. But I would assure my noble friend Lord Feversham that the reason I cannot accept the Amendment has nothing whatever to do on this occasion with drafting considerations.
The Joint University Council for Social and Public Administration provides a most valuable forum for the exchange of views of university social science and public administration departments, and it is in these departments that a body of knowledge on social work has grown. Because of this, Ministers will certainly consult the Joint University Council, as my noble friend knows already, before making their appointments to represent the educational interests.
We also recognise that, partly as a result of the work done in these departments, and partly as a result of the efforts

909
of trained social workers in many spheres, social workers have become increasingly aware of themselves as belonging to a profession with a unified body of knowledge, recognised standards of professional skill, and an ethos of its own. We fully appreciate that, if it were not for this, the development of this new two-year training proposed in the Younghusband Report would be an idle dream. We welcome the manifestations of this growing professional awareness, and we have such bodies as the Joint Training Council for Social Work, which was set up in October, 1959, and the National Institute for Social Work Training, which was set up two years later, in October of last year, both of whom we propose, incidentally, to consult in many appointments; and, indeed, the Council for Training in Social Work, which this Bill will set up, will carry social work further along this path.
Nevertheless, this does not mean that those organisations which have been working towards this end should be named in the Bill. The Government do not think that the rôole of any single body in the social work field is established in such a way as to warrant singling it out for special mention in the Bill. It would also be objectionable to pick out a particular university body and give it representation separate from that of the universities generally who are specified in the Bill. So they are the reasons why I am unable to accept this Amendment. But my noble friend—
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Might I interrupt the noble Lord?
LORD NEWTON: Might I just finish?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I do not want him to finish.
LORD NEWTON: My noble friend has exactly what he wants. He has been told by me to-night, as was said in another place before, that this body will, in fact, be consulted. I imagine that if it is not consulted, he and others would soon want to know the reason why. I thought that the assurance which I have given him was a pretty good one.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Perhaps I may be permitted to ask the noble Lord, as he did not want to mention in
910
the Bill any single organisation or body because it might prejudice other bodies not mentioned in the Bill, why, in paragraph 10, there is a mention of the Society of Medical Officers, which on the question of training social workers has not in the past been a particularly qualified body to give an opinion? Why are they specifically mentioned?
LORD NEWTON: I suppose it would be perfectly reasonable to argue that they should not have been put into the Bill.
7.30 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, will not think that our silence on this side in any way indicates a lack of support for the Amendment. We regarded it as a strategic silence, in the hope that the pure and unsullied stream of oratory and wisdom which came from them would have its effect. We are extremely sorry that that has not been the case. We are quite unconvinced by the arguments of the Minister, if only for the fact that, if these words had been written into the Bill, it would have been in an Act of Parliament and would not have relied on the assurances of a Minister of a Government whose life is of uncertain duration. Therefore, I assure the noble Earl that whatever course he wishes to take about this Amendment, we will support it.
LORD NEWTON: I would ask the noble Lord whether he is now saying that an undertaking given by me, as a representative of this Government, would be dishonoured by a Government of another complexion.
LORD STONHAM: I am not saying anything about dishonour. What I am saying is that undertakings given by the Minister now are undertakings given by a Minister of this Government and there are precedents for indicating that they are not binding on another Government, probably of a different political colour, in another Parliament. That is another reason for suggesting that these words should go into the Bill.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Newton for at least providing me with a half-assurance that Her Majesty's Government will consult the bodies he has

911
named. Although such consultation is not embodied in the terms of the Bill, at least we have on record that a great number of educational and other institutions will be consulted on the appointment of personnel to the Council, and I am grateful for that assurance. I do not think that the terms that have fallen from the noble Lord in reply are quite logical or clear, but at this late stage I have no intention of taking this issue to a Division, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

CARRIAGE BY AIR (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS) BILL
7.33 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the background of this Bill begins with an International Convention which took place in Warsaw in 1929, when a large number of States agreed to introduce a system, the basic principle of which was that liability for death or injury of passengers carried by aeroplanes or injury to or loss or delay of their luggage or other goods consigned in aeroplanes should be limited, and that, in return for this limitation of his liability, the carrier should automatically be liable to pay the requisite sum without proof of negligence, except where there was wilful negligence or misconduct on his part.
This was acceptable all round, because it gave the carrier a limit, which was then expressed in terms of notional gold francs and worked out at about £3,000—although in special cases the two parties might contract for a higher limit—and passengers or owners of goods damaged or lost would not have to prove neglect and would be saved a lot of time and
912
money. About 50 States ratified this agreement and it came into force in their domestic law, thereby setting up a pattern of similar domestic law all over the world for the benefit of people using aeroplanes.
In 1955, there was a further International Convention in the Hague, as a result of which a protocol was produced which amended the original Warsaw Convention and brought it up to date. For one thing, it raised the upper limit from £3,000 to £6,000. Whereas the Warsaw Convention was put into force in this country by the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, and the Hague Convention was dealt with last year by the Carriage By Air Act, moved by my noble friend Lord Abinger in this House, so far, the 1955 Convention has not yet been brought into operation because only about 25 out of the necessary 30 States have ratified it. Therefore, although in this country it could at any time be brought into force by Order in Council, it is not yet the domestic law of this country or of any other country and we still rely on the 1932 Convention.
There was a third meeting last September at a place which I am reliably told is pronounced Guadalajara, Mexico, which dealt with a small lacuna found in the provisions of both the 1932 and the 1961 Acts, as they now are. This is really all that the present Bill deals with. The lacuna which was found was that the liability in both the original Conventions fell upon the person who is described as "the carrier" and nobody has decided whom this meant, whether the person who actually had the aeroplane and carried the passenger or, for instance, some agency who arranged tours and included air travel which was contracted for directly with customers. It had been thought, though in fact there had been no litigation, that there would be differences in the interpretation in this country and America as against other countries in Europe. In this country, the carrier would be the actual aircraft owner but on the Continent it might be the contractual carrier. Although this particular failure to clarify the matter had been pointed out by the Brazilian delegate, to his credit, in 1929, this is the first time that anything has been done to put the matter right. It has been a subject of some

913
confusion to aircraft owners and insurers.
There is only one difficulty about this Bill—that is, that the 1961 Act, which will provide a new code when it comes into force and entirely replace the 1932 code, has not come into force itself. Therefore, this Bill has to cope with a dual position: first of all, the transitional period under the 1932 Act and then, When the Hague Convention is ratified, the transfer to the provisions of the 1961 Act. This really is what makes it a little complicated. I do not know whether this particular trouble will arise, because it is possible that the 1955 Convention will be ratified first, but there is a race going on between them and we must provide for this eventuality. Other countries are introducing legislation to deal with the Guadalajara Convention, and I think that it is to our credit that we seem to be the first off the mark, largely through the efforts of my honourable friend the Member for Abingdon in another place.
As your Lordships will have looked at this Bill, I am afraid that you will not allow me to get away with what I have already said, because of the very complicated provisions, and, as quickly as I can, I will go through what it says. The first clause makes the Convention, set out in the Schedule to the Bill, the domestic law of this country. This has been done in this particular form, rather than by enacting the whole thing as a substantive law in the main part of the Bill, so that there is no doubt whatever that we are getting exactly the same law as all other countries who ratify the Convention.
Then it is provided that where there is any inconsistency in the texts, of which there are three in this Convention, the French text shall prevail. Your Lordships might think this a little strange, but the reason for it is that the original Warsaw Convention was written entirely in French and there were no other texts, and ever since for these Conventions the French text has prevailed. This enables the courts in this country to use these texts if there is any inconsistency; but, so far as I know, no inconsistency has occurred. Nevertheless, it is a strange procedure which I thought your Lordships would like to have explained. It is also interesting that this is by no
914
means the first time that we have had a French content in an Act of Parliament, because there is the precedent in the old days of Norman French Acts, the last of which was passed by your Lordships' House in 1439.
The second clause starts by defining the Warsaw Convention, and it does so in substitution of Article 1 (a) of the Convention itself. The reason why it is done in this fashion is because of the transitional scheme which I explained to your Lordships, so that the Bill, as it stands, will apply, first of all, to the 1932 Act before the Convention scheduled to the 1961 Act comes into force, and when that Convention is ratified and comes into force in this country, then the "Warsaw Convention" will mean the Schedule to the 1961 Act. But in that transitional process no rights or liabilities will be affected by the change if they have been incurred before the change takes place.
Then, subsection (2) of Clause 2 is a provision which concerns the provisions of Article 7 of the Convention in the Schedule. It is a small point, but it had to be provided that arbitrators should be brought within the general context of this Bill, whereas the actual text of the Convention mentions only courts. While I am talking about Article 7, it has turned out that there will need to be small changes in the rules of the courts of Scotland and of Northern Ireland in order to deal with it. However, these matters do not have to be in the Bill, but can be dealt with administratively Subsection (3) is merely a matter of Scottish phraseology.
Clause 3 looks most alarming. It is, however, again a matter which can be explained fairly simply by the extension of the definition of "carrier". Whereas before there perhaps would have been only one body or corporation that could be sued as the carrier, now under this new Convention there may well be two in any particular case. It has therefore had to be provided, first of all, that where the limit of £3,000 or £6,000 is sued for, this shall be the aggregate of the limit of the money which can be claimed from any of the contracting carriers or the actual carriers. Secondly, in subsection (2) the servants of either of the carriers can be protected in the way that the 1961 Act protects them;

915
that is to say, by allowing them the same limitation of liability as their employers. There was a small difficulty about this, but it has now been put into this form in the Bill so that all the servants of all carriers will be protected and be given the same limit of liability as their employers have.
Then the third subsection brings in the possibility that two foreign States might both be involved, one as an actual and one as a contracting carrier. Without their express submission to the jurisdiction of the courts in this country the courts have no power to deal with them at all, and it was provided in the Convention that if they signed the various conventions they would be deemed to have submitted. Now there may be the necessity of bringing in an extra foreign State and provision is made for it.
Clause 4 is again interim, but as the law stands at present, if this Bill becomes law before the 1961 Act comes into operation in this country, there might be situations where the servants or agents of a carrier would not enjoy the limit that their employers have, whereas other servants and agents would enjoy it. This clause has been drafted to take away that possibility.
Clause 5 enables the British Government to extend by Order in Council the provisions of this Bill to overseas territories. Your Lordships will see that it does not apply now to trust territories, and this is because with the independence of Tanganyika we have none. I wonder whether perhaps my noble friend Lord Denham will be able to say if this is intended to be done by Her Majesty's Government, and how quickly. The second subsection of this clause provides again that Her Majesty's Government may by Order in Council extend the provisions of this Bill, as they have done the provisions of other Acts, to the varieties of carriage by air not covered by the Conventions themselves. One of these, for instance, is what is called non-international carriage. That for some extraordinary reason does not mean what it says at all, but means, for instance, a trip between this country and Turkey, because Turkey has never ratified the 1929 Convention.
None the less, there was in 1952 a statutory instrument which brought
916
within the scope of these Conventions and the various agreements in them such carriage as that; and there is also the possibility of bringing in the sort of carnage which is done by Her Majesty's Government, for instance, when they take your Lordships in a delegation abroad by Transport Command. There was some mention of this variety of carriage in another place, and the phrase occurred, which to me seems an unpleasant one, but is in common use, of "blood chits". These are some variety of document which your Lordships might have to sign which would exempt the Crown from liability in the case of an accident. It seems to me that it would be a very good idea if this sort of carriage by the Crown were to be brought within the general ambit of this Bill. I wonder, again, whether the Government have any views or any plans in this particular respect.
Clause 5 of the Bill comes into force before the rest of the Bill is brought into operation by Order in Council and this will enable the Orders to be laid, so that I hope that, at the same time as the Bill comes into force in this country, its provisions may also be extended to our Colonies and other dependencies. The Act will bind the Crown, but not until the 1961 Act comes into force. This is because under the 1932 Act the Crown is not bound, and it has been thought better that where the binding of the Crown is to be brought in it should be brought in all at one time and not possibly, first, under this Bill, and secondly, under the 1961 Act.
Clause 7 is self-explanatory, and I think I need only draw attention to the actual provisions of the Convention in two particular respects. First of all I have to explain why Article 1 (a) is not reproduced. Its substance appears in Clause 1 (1) of the Act itself. Secondly, there is nothing sinister in the fact that the eleventh to eighteenth Articles have been left out. They are purely internal machinery for the Convention itself.
Finally, Article 10 allows what seems to me to be an important provision in this particular respect: it allows the various companies or firms which are dealing in this particular field, for instance a travel agent who arranges tours and the aircraft firm he employs to take his passengers on it, to arrange

917
between them indemnities, so that the liability in law need not fall too hard on the one or on the other. These indemnities are allowed under the Convention, and Article 10 makes this quite clear. This will be for the protection of genuine travel agents and others who arrange tours and whose passengers perhaps unfortunately suffer some mishap through no fault of their own. I am afraid this is a complicated Bill. I have attempted to explain it to your Lordships, and if in any respect I have failed I will try to answer any questions that your Lordships may have. But otherwise its purpose is simple. It is to supplement the previous law, as it says in its Short Title, and I hope it will receive the approval of your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
7.52 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount on the clarity with which he introduced what may be a simple proposition, though it is extremely complicated because of the fact that this is an amendment to a Convention which we have already amended in certain respects. All I want to say is that clearly we should welcome this. It shows once again the difficulties we get into with these international Conventions, and it shows the danger of putting into effect Conventions which it is not possible to subject to quite the sort of scrutiny as that to which we subject our own legislation. It is perhaps a surprising thing that we have had to wait all these years for this particular gap in the Warsaw Convention to come to light—the fact that it was not picked up at the later one at The Hague, and that one had to go to Mexico to get it straight. I do not know how we are going to solve these problems in the future. Clearly, there will be an increasing flow of Bills, with probably French and other Schedules, and the question of the definitions of "the carrier" or the "transporteur" or "transporteur de fait" will, in fact, be the same in both languages. But I can see difficulties in the future. We shall no doubt have to be not only lawyers, like the noble Viscount, but also linguists as well.
There is only one question I should like to ask the noble Viscount or,
918
perhaps the Government. It is the question of Clause 6, and the fact of actually binding the Crown. I quite see that that was necessary in regard to the earlier Carriage by Air Act. But, as I understand it, this Bill is primarily concerned with this problem of the contracting carrier, to bring him into the picture as well as the actual carrier. I suppose it is visualised that in certain circumstances the Crown may be a contracting carrier. I am sorry that we have to wait for the abolition of the "blood chit". With regard to the provision in either of the Acts which binds the Crown, we have still to wait for ratification of the earlier Convention. I do not know whether the Government can give us any later news on what the state of the ratification is, and whether the United States have succeeded in overcoming their anxieties in this matter. I hope that the Government will continue to press, as I am sure they have already done, to ensure that these highly desirable Acts come fully into force. I would make only one small protest. This is a more respectable Bill for a Private Member's Bill, but it is still, I should have thought, the Government's duty, rather than that of public-spirited noble Lords, to see that Conventions are ratified.
7.55 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, may I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross on the excellent way in which he moved the Second Reading of this Bill? It is, as your Lordships will have perceived, very much a lawyer's Bill, and I thought my noble friend succeeded in making its provisions admirably clear. So much so, that there is little left for me to say, except to deal with one or two points that have been put to me. I will come to those in a moment.
The Bill is needed, as my noble friend said, to enable the United Kingdom to ratify a Convention which was adopted by a diplomatic conference under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organisation in September, 1961, known as the Guadalajara Convention. The reason for the Convention, as my noble friend has explained, was an ambiguity in the Warsaw Convention of 1929, and also in The Hague Protocol

919
of 1955, which contained no clear indication whether the carrier therein referred to was the person who contracts to carry or the person who performs the carriage, when those two persons are not one and the same. To remove this doubt, which affects passengers and consignors of goods as well as air carriers and their insurers, the Guadalajara Convention applies the rules of the Warsaw Convention to both the person who contracts to carry and the person who performs the carriage.
Forty States took part in the drawing up of the Convention, which may be taken as some measure of the importance which is attached to the point. But for the Convention the plaintiff's lawyer would be unable to say with certainty which carrier the plaintiff is entitled to sue without bearing the burden of proving negligence, and the defendant's lawyer would be unable to say with certainty whether the particular carrier is entitled to the limitations and defences of the Convention. The removal of this uncertainty will decrease the risk of costly litigation to the benefit of all parties.
The point about the "blood chit" which my noble friend passed on to me, though a small one, can be most intricate. The position, as I understand it, is this. This Bill, like the Carriage by Air Act, 1961, which it follows, will bind the Crown. However, the Convention itself—the amended Warsaw Convention, or the unamended Warsaw Convention—applies only to international carriage, which is either carriage for reward or gratuitous carriage by an air transport undertaking. The Convention itself will not apply to non-international carriage or to gratuitous carriage by the Crown or by any other person who is not an air transport undertaking. Gratuitous carriage by the Crown itself is the context in which at present the so-called "blood chit" is necessary—a document exonerating the Crown from any liability for an accident involving the person who signs it. It has been established in the courts that a carrier cannot contract to limit his liability to the dependants of a passenger who is killed, although he can, and often does, contract out of all liability.
Section 10 of the 1961 Act (which is applied by Clause 5 (2) of this Bill)
920
enables the Government by Order in Council to apply the Convention to carriage to which the Convention does not otherwise apply, and it also enables the Order to make exceptions and modifications in so applying the Convention. The intention of the Government is at a future date (it is impossible at the moment to say exactly what this date will be) to exercise this power in relation to gratuitous carriage by carriers who are not air transport undertakings. That category includes the Crown.
In so applying the Convention it may be necessary to make certain exceptions. As at present advised, I do not know what those exceptions may be; I am simply making a reservation on this point. But when an Order is tabled by the Government to this effect it will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, and can then be debated. The upshot is that "blood chits" are at present still necessary, but when such an Order has been passed they will become unnecessary. Thereafter "blood chits" will not be further used by the Crown acting as a carrier by air, although that is not to say that they will not be used at all, because the Crown is not the only air carrier in the category of gratuitous carrier.
My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross asked me if I could give any indication as to whether Her Majesty's Government would extend the Act to British possessions and other territories under Clause 5 of this Bill. In the view of Her Majesty's Government it is desirable that the maximum uniformity of the laws of different countries in relation to carriage by air should be achieved, and it is expected that the provisions of this Bill will, after any necessary consultation with the Governments of the territories concerned, be applied to British possessions and other territories by an Order in Council made under Clause 5 (1) of the Bill so far as international carriage is concerned; and so far as non-international carriage is concerned by an Order in Council made under Clause 5 (2). But Her Majesty's Government will, of course, consult with the territories concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked one or two questions, some of which are not really matters for me to give an answer to on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, but my noble

921
friend I am sure will deal with them afterwards. The present state of ratification of the Hague protocol which is dealt with under our 1961 Act is that 25 States have to date ratified the protocol. As the noble Lord will be aware, the protocol comes into force when 30 States have ratified it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, can he tell us any more about the state of opinion of the American Goverment, where, I believe, the difficulty is at the moment?
LORD DENHAM: No, I am afraid I cannot. I understand there is not a great deal of change at the moment on that point. The noble Lord also said he thought it was rather a pity that this and other Bills dealing with the ratification of International Conventions should be left to a Private Member's Bill. But I would put to him this point: that it is a very good thing if we can ratify these Bills as soon as possible, and when it so happens that a private Member is kind enough to take on a Bill of this kind that will save time and can therefore be got through to the point of ratification more quickly, I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the Government are right to take this course.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry, but may I interrupt the noble Lord? This defence of this action seems to me to make it very much worse. The noble Lord himself realises that it is a tremendous source of complaint which is well known to noble Lords who have been in another place that private Members get a very raw deal, and here is private Members' precious time being taken up on what is admittedly Government business. This is a Bill which, I take it, is drafted by Government draftsmen. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, may not agree with me, but in another place they would.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will not expect me to follow him into a discussion of the
922
business of another place. I will not add anything further to what I have said except that my honourable friend the Member for Abingdon is, I am sure we all agree, a very suitable Member to have initiated this Bill in another place. It only remains now for me to say that in the view of Her Majesty's Government the Bill is a useful one which deserves a fair wind and I hope it will receive a Second Reading this afternoon.
8.6 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for your reception of this Bill. I really think that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, need not worry about this particular point being dealt with by private Members' legislation. It so happens that my honourable friend the Member for Abingdon has a great deal of experience and expertise in this matter. He chose to take this up in order to get it more quickly into law, and there is nothing objectionable which one could see about that. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Denham for What he says are the Government's plans. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will get on quickly with their various Orders in Council so that the maximum uniformity, not only in territorial extent but also in the types of carriage which are intended to come within this form of the Convention, may be achieved as quickly as possible.
I am afraid that I made one slight error in describing clauses in this Bill which I ought to put right at this stage. Subsection (2) of Clause 3 exists for the benefit of the servants and agents of all carriers—the time limit of two years during which time only they are liable to damages under the various Conventions—and I think I ought to make that clear as I did not do so before. With those remarks, and with my thanks to your Lordships for your reception, I ask that this Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RECORDS) BILL
8.9 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Short title, saving, commencement and extent]:
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "which is contained in" and to insert "made by or under". The noble Baroness said: This Amendment arises out of some comments which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made on the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble Lord said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 241 (No. 88), col. 271]:
"It is also important that, whereas in some cases it is obligatory on the part of the local authorities to permit searches and inspections of documents to be made, in other cases it is quite optional. What the legal profession is concerned about is that it should not be an arbitrary act on the part of local authorities as to whether or not they refuse to permit inspection."
This Amendment has been drafted in order to meet the anxiety of the Law Society, for which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was the spokesman on Second Reading.
The Amendment secures that any searcher or legal inquirer who already has a right of access to a statutory instrument shall have that right preserved. Right of access is preserved to any document that is required and is available, and to which people already have a right of access. Further, this protection extends to the Rules of the Supreme Court; that is to say, any court of law, including the House of Lords sitting in its judicial capacity, as well as to regulations made under Act of Parliament. Therefore, the clause is, in effect, a non-interference clause, leaving the decision as to whether or not a document called for is a privileged document to the dis-
924
cretion of the judge, where it already belongs.
The practical effect of this legislation will be that more documents deposited, let us say, by a private individual will be available to searchers and others, but that there will be no change in the right of access to any document or record where the right already exists. This covers, of course, local authority documents and records as well. I hope that this Amendment, and the assurance that I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and through him to the legal authorities, will satisfy them. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford has an Amendment down on the Paper, which my Amendment really covers, because my Amendment is couched in wider terms than his, and I hope mine may meet the requirements for which he is asking. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 40, leave out "which is contained in") and insert "made by or under").—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I should like, first of all, to express my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood for having taken the initiative in introducing this Amendment. I think your Lordships will appreciate that everyone who has spoken upon any step since this Bill first came to birth is strongly in favour of the principle which it contains. We want to help it in every way we can. But as my noble friend was indicating just now, there is one particular aspect which has caused us a certain amount of anxiety; that is the provision in Clause 9, as printed, under which the right of people to have access to, and to take copies of, documents are
"without prejudice to any provision … contained in any other Act"
of Parliament—"other", of course, meaning other than in this measure. It seemed to us that that was insufficiently comprehensive, and the point was taken by my noble friend, who has very kindly sought to meet it by the introduction of the Amendment she is now moving.
If the Amendment fulfils all that she claims for it, I shall be perfectly happy, and I have no doubt that everybody else will be perfectly happy. But quite candidly, I am by no means sure that it does. I should like to congratulate

925
my noble friend on the skill with which she has sought in her drafting to meet the particular point; and in parenthesis may I say that if she is out of a job at any time, and would like to come to my office as a professional draftsman, I should be delighted to accord her an interview. But she did claim very definitely that her Amendment was wider than mine.
If I may, with your Lordships' consent, and in order to save time, make a brief reference to my Amendment, which in the circumstances I may well not move, I would point out that her Amendment, the one which we are discussing, deals with those provisions which are "made by or under" any Act of Parliament. I must confess that I am not quite certain what in fact a provision which is made "under" an Act of Parliament really means, and how one would so define it. I appreciate that it is obviously intended to cover delegated legislation of all sorts. My noble friend claims that it does, in fact, cover the Judges' Rules. That is a very important point, that it should do so. But I am not quite convinced that my noble friend is quite correct in saying that. The way in which I seek to achieve the same abject must, I think, be wider, because my Amendment provides that
"… nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect any duty or obligation whether arising under any such Act or Measure or otherwise. …"
I do not believe one could get anything wider than that. I shall be very grateful if the noble Baroness will reconsider the question of there being some merit in my Amendment, even though her Amendment has the supreme advantage of brevity and of being much shorter than mine.
I have not stressed the importance of eliminating any possibility of ambiguity, because I think your Lordships are already seized of that; it was brought out in the Second Reading debate. But, so far as I can see (and of course I am also speaking upon the advice of those who are much more learned than I am in these matters), the Amendment which we are now discussing leaves open certain ambiguities which I know it is the wish to my noble friend to avoid. If my noble friend would allow an opportunity before the next stage of the Bill for reconsideration of the exact phraseology I should be very grateful,
926
and certainly in those circumstances I should not move the Amendment which stands in my name.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I hasten at once to disclaim any expertise on drafting legal Amendments which would compare with that of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, but this particular Amendment has been considered by very high authorities, and I am told that it does cover all the points which the noble Lord has raised. On the other hand, of course, there is absolutely no reason why, if this Amendment is accepted, we should not, between now and Report stage, discuss further with the Law Society and the legal interests whether they are completely satisfied. It is my intention and (as this is a Private Member's Bill) the intention of the mover in another place, that this point which has been raised should be adequately and properly covered. I would therefore give the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, the assurance that if the Committee will accept my Amendment to-day, which I think covers all the points the Law Society require, then if, between now and Report stage, it should be revealed that in fact they are not satisfied, we can put forward another form of words on Report stage. But I hope very much that the discussion between the Law Society and the noble Viscount and myself may reveal that the width of the drafting of this Amendment may indeed be greater than his, and that the greater will therefore contain the less. I would also say that I shall be happy further to discuss the matter at a later stage in the Bill.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL [H.L.]
8.21 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(Lord Denham.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[The reference is to Bill [71] as first printed for the House of Commons]
Clause 8, page 11, leave out line 33.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, Clause 8 (3) of this Bill as it went to another place, was in the following terms:
"The powers of the committee may be exercised by the chairman thereof and not less than four other members thereof of whom two are judges of the Supreme Court".
In another place the subsection was amended by leaving out the words
"of whom two are judges of the Supreme Court."
The effect of the Amendment here is simply to provide that the quorum of the Committee is the Chairman and any other four members. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Denham.)

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (HISTORIC BUILDINGS) BILL
8.23 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I am afraid that when we consider this Bill we shall have none of the fireworks which we have had so far to-day. Nevertheless, if your Lordships pass this Bill it will, I think, fill a gap in the historic buildings legislation. I can promise your Lordships that at this late hour I will be quite brief. If any noble Lord would like to read about this Bill at much greater length he can consult Hansard of another place for February 9, and can read several excellent, but excessively long, speeches on the subject, their verbosity being justified, I believe, not so much by the subject matter under consideration as by the desire of the speakers concerned that the subsequent business on the Order Paper should not be reached. We do not have such rules in our House, so there is no fear that,
928
due to my verbosity, the noble Lord opposite will not be able to put his Question and receive some sort of reply from my noble friend.
LORD SHEPHERD: Some sort of reply!
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Before coming to the actual provisions of this Bill, I think I should give a little of the historical background to the ancient monuments and historic buildings legislation. The first Act in this line of country was the Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882, under which the Ministry of Works were given power to acquire certain ancient monuments which were specified in the Schedules, to punish people who defaced them, to appoint inspectors to look after them, to become guardians of monuments, and to maintain them. This Act gave no power of any sort to local authorities.
The present power of local authorities to take an interest in ancient monuments dates from the Ancient Monuments Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1913, and the Ancient Monuments Act, 1931. Under Section 11 of the 1913 Act certain local authorities have the power to make grants and to contribute to the upkeep of ancient monuments. In practice, although the 1931 Act defines "monument" as
"any non-ecclesiastical building, structure or other work, whether above or below the ground,"
and an ancient monument as a
"monument or group of monuments of which the preservation is, in the opinion of the Commissioners"—
who were the predecessors of the Ministry of Works—
"a matter of public interest by reason of the historic, architectural, traditional, artistic or archæological interests attaching thereto,"
the preservation powers have been applied to remains and ruins rather than to dwellings which are inhabited by people or used for any purposes.
There is considerable doubt as to whether the interpretation of an ancient monument in the 1931 Act will in fact hold water; and, even if it does, the whole procedure for a local authority's giving a grant to a house that is actually inhabited, other than by a caretaker, is cumbersome and has so far been little

929
used, if at all. The reason why it is cumbersome is that, before they can act, they have to consult a body called the Ancient Monuments Board which at the moment is virtually non-existent, and, I gather, has been so for many years. This Act also suffers from the snag that it permitted only county and borough councils to give grants to historic buildings; it did not allow other local authorities to do so.
Parallel with this we must consider the Town and Country Planning Acts, which of course culminated in the Act of 1947. One of the main features of this Act was to require the Minister to list buildings which were of historic or architectural interest. These buildings are now on one of two lists—either the statutory list, in regard to which, before an owner can do any major alterations to the building, he must give the local authority concerned two months' notice; or the supplementary list, which has no legal significance at all and is purely a guide to the local authorities and the owners concerned. Out of the 1,474 local authorities in England and Wales, up to March 31 of this year 1,010 had produced full statutory lists based on surveys, and 246 of them had produced incomplete statutory lists based on works of reference only. This left some 210 to produce any list at all. All the areas that had produced full statutory lists had also produced a supplementary list. So far there are 81,586 buildings on the statutory list and 88,660 on the supplementary list. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume that eventually there will be about 100,000 buildings on each list.
With this Act must be coupled the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act, 1953, which was brought in as the result of the Gowers Report. This set up the Historic Buildings Councils for England and Wales and for Scotland. The Council for England has only some £400,000 to spend each year. The one for Wales, and the one for Scotland, have about £75,000 each. Of course, this is entirely inadequate to give grants to all the buildings on the statutory list, let alone on the supplementary list, which need them. It is therefore thought desirable that local authorities should be able to help where the Historic Buildings Council does not feel in a position, owing to lack of funds, to do so.
930
Perhaps I can now sum up the position as it is at the moment. With the exception of a small number of county councils and county boroughs who have taken special powers in local Acts (for example, Gloucester County Borough took special powers in 1958, and Buckinghamshire County Council in 1961), a county council or county borough in England or Wales could theoretically give a grant to an historic house provided they got the permission of a virtually non-existent body, the Ancient Monuments Board, and provided that they took the view that "ancient monuments" covered buildings actually occupied and used. Urban and district councils could not do anything towards giving grants for historic buildings as they have never been included in any of this legislation. The Historic Buildings Council have powers to give grants to buildings of outstanding interest, but, owing to shortage of money, they interpret "outstanding" very narrowly, quite rightly, and therefore cannot give grants to buildings which are in their opinion deserving of grants but not sufficiently deserving as to qualify for some of the £400,000 available. This they make perfectly clear in their reports each year. In practice also they tend not to give grants to groups of buildings which, although in themselves of no great interest, as a group are of exquisite beauty and value.
In Scotland the position is somewhat different, as under Section 339 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, local authorities are given powers which are more generally available and less cumbersome than the powers under the Ancient Monument Acts. For this reason this Bill does not apply to Scotland. But I regret to say that Scotland has been rather neglectful in this regard, and I think there are only three examples where local authorities have actually given grants to historic buildings in their area. These are Stirling Town, which has given £5,000 for the toll booth: Falkirk, which has given £3,000 for the restoration of the town's steeple; and Lanarkshire County Council, which has given £1,750 for David Livingstone's house. Other than those, these powers do not appear to have been used in Scotland, and I am hoping that, although this Bill does not apply there, it may remind some of the local authorities that

931
they have these powers and can use them.
I should like very briefly to consider the clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 (1) enables local authorities to give grants or loans to the owners of historic buildings which are in their area or in their immediate vicinity. Under paragraph (a) of that clause they can give them to any building that is on the statutory list without consulting the Minister of Housing and Local Government, but under paragraph (b) of the same clause if they wish to give a grant to a building that is not on the statutory list, they must consult the Minister of Housing and Local Government. They are also allowed to give a grant towards the upkeep and maintenance of the garden to which a grant-aided house is attached. Clause 1 (2) defines the terms upon which local authorities can make loans. These terms are drawn as widely as possible and allow them to make loans which are interest-free, and to waive repayment of the loans if they feel so inclined. Clause 1 (3) gives the local authority power to insist on the house being open to the public if they give a grant, but not if they give a loan. Clause 1 (4) defines "building" as in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, and "local authorities" down to district councils, but excludes the London County Council and the City of London—not because they are such Philistines that it was thought not worth while to include them, but because they already have the powers in Section 15 of the City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1954, and in Section 156 of the London Government Act, 1939.
Clause 2 enables the local authority to recover any grant (either in total or in part) if the owner of the house sells the house at a profit within three years of receiving the grant. This was put in because it was considered undesirable that owners of houses should benefit from public money and make a capital profit. Clause 3 is purely financial, and is the usual provision for any increase in the rate deficiency grants, which are expected to be so small as be virtually nonexistent and so are of no great concern.
My Lords, I do not expect this Bill to have the effect of immediately restoring to their former glory all the 100,000-
932
odd statutory scheduled buildings in this country, but I think that it will provide a useful means for some of them to be preserved in a state which will be both a credit and an advantage to the country. I also think that it may have the effect of making local authorities take a greater interest than they have heretofore in many of the very fine buildings and structures which are situated in their area. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Duke of Atholl.)
8.35 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I do not feel that I need detain you long, as the case for this Bill has been extremely ably deployed by my noble friend. Twelve years ago, when dealing with houses of historic or architectural interest in this country, the Gowers Committee stated in their Report—and I quote:
"These houses represent an association of beauty, or art, and of nature—the achievement often of centuries of effort—which is irreplaceable, and has seldom, if ever been equalled in the history of civilisation."
Fortunately, many such houses have been saved as a result of the Historic Buildings Act, 1953, but there is a limit to the expenditure of Government funds, as anyone conversant with the Reports of the Historic Buildings Council knows very well. Consequently, as my noble friend has pointed out, many buildings of merit—indeed, the bulk of those listed under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947—fail to qualify for assistance under the 1953 Act.
In their latest Report the Historic Buildings Council note that they have managed so far to keep within their annual ration of £400,000. But—and I quote the words of the latest Report:
"This has only been possible by refusing the claims of a number of buildings which we should truly have liked to help."
Such buildings may not rank with the Blenheims, but they may, in their own modest way, be very fine and add much to the beauty and dignity of our national landscape—as indeed do their gardens, which I am glad to note have in fact

933
been brought within the scope of this Bill. It is, perhaps, all the more important that the local value of such buildings should be even more fully recognised to-day, and local interest in them increasingly stimulated, when development of one sort or another—often vary desirable in itself—could mar the character of many of our towns and villages.
Be that as it may, there is surely a part for local authorities to play in supplementing the assistance given from central funds. Some of them, it is true, already do so under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments Acts or of local Acts, but this Bill, as my noble friend has explained, will be valuable in conferring a clear and simple power on all local authorities in England and Wales. I am sure, too, that there is every advantage in leaving some real measure of initiative in this matter to local authorities, and that noble Lords will, therefore, particularly welcome the provision in the Bill that, where a building is listed, a local authority should be empowered to offer assistance without an affirmative wink from Whitehall's all-seeing eye. I think this Bill was generally welcomed on both sides in another place. In that place it had a youthful and skilful pilot. If I were that Bill myself, I would deem myself lucky to have found in your Lordships' House another such pilot.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I should just like to thank my noble friend very much for the kind reception he has given to this Bill, and hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

B.O.A.C. and CUNARD-EAGLE LTD.
8.42 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD rose LORD SHEPHERD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they approved the arrangements announced on June 6, 1962, between British Overseas Airways Corporation and Cunard-Eagle Ltd., whether they are satisfied that the terms are in the interests of B.O.A.C, and whether they will make a statement. The noble Lord said: My
934
Lords, I beg to ask the Question that stands in my name on the Order Paper. Perhaps on reflection the House may well regret the action that it took earlier in regard to legislation on the Sea Fish Industry Bill, in which we saw the might of Tory strength in this House used to upset a carefully considered decision on the Committee stage. I would not have mentioned this if I did not feel it was my duty to draw it to the attention or this relatively thin House. Many of us feel that again the Government have treated Parliament with the utmost contempt in relation to the matters about which I have placed the Question on the Order Paper.
My Lords, in the afternoon newspapers of June 6, the chairman of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the chairman of Cunard announced their agreement to the creation of a new limited company, to be known in future as B.O.A.C.-Cunard Ltd., in which B.O.A.C. would have 70 per cent. of the capital and Cunard 30 per cent. The House rose on June 7. Both Houses of Parliament were, therefore, precluded from considering what was a major change of Government policy, because the announcement that was made came into effect last Monday. It came into effect during a period of Parliamentary Recess, when both Houses of Parliament were unable to consider the matter or even to question the Minister on policy. In fact, it is only to-day in another place, and here by my raising the question this evening, that Parliament has had the opportunity of having a statement from the Government as to whether they approved of this agreement, as to whether it was the Government's view that this agreement was in the interests of the British Overseas Airways Corporation—a public corporation—and about the manner in which this agreement will affect future policy.
As I understand it from the little information that is available, we have this new company, 70 per cent. B.O.A.C, 30 per cent. Cunard, which is to be the Flag carrier. It is to replace the statutory body on the Atlantic route, from the United Kingdom to the east coast and central part of North America, the Caribbean and the northern part of South America. We have the position that Cunard, a private company, is now going to participate in what was a

935
nationalised monopoly, but we have very little detail. The purpose of asking the Government this Question is, first, to find out from them how this decision, with their approval, will affect future Government policy. The Government may well say that this agreement has been brought about because it would not be possible for B.O.A.C. to operate with a competitor on this route. This competitor was brought in on the route, or could be brought in on the route, by the Government Act of 1960.
B.O.A.C. are operating—if my information taken from the timetable is correct—27 flights a week from the United Kingdom to the United States, 5 down to the Caribbean and 5 down to South America. Like all other airlines, they are having a very difficult time. At present Cunard are operating three services a week into the Caribbean, but under the 1960 Act they had made application for a service to the United States. That application was refused by the Minister, because he felt, as he said in his statement, that an added service would seriously affect the capacity and ability of B.O.A.C. With this agreement, obviously, the element of competition has been dismissed.
What I want to know from the Government this evening is whether they have agreed with the new Flag carrier—B.O.A.C. and Cunard—that there will be no other competitor on that service. If that is the case, as I suspect, then what the Government did not like by way of a State organisation having a monopoly of that service, they are prepared to tolerate when a private operator is integrated and taking part of the risks and advantages that may come from that service. Can the Minister say whether this agreement that has now been made means, in effect, that no other private operator will obtain a licence to operate this service and that, therefore, the service of the Flag carrier—B.O.A.C. and Cunard—will maintain the monopoly?
My Lords, this is very important because it makes one wonder how it was that the Government decided that Cunard should participate in this service. We know that Cunard made this application to fly to the States; we know that it was accepted by the Air Transport Tribunal; and we know that they
936
invested a very large sum of money in the purchase of two Boeing 707s and spent close on a million pounds in providing facilities and for the training of crews. It would look very much as though the Government have accepted this situation to compensate for the disastrous position the Cunard company have probably got themselves into because they obtained this licence only to have it then rejected; because obviously the aircraft that they have would be quite unsuitable and certainly would not be profitable to them operating purely on the Caribbean service.
I want to ask the Minister how the percentage of this new company was decided upon—B.O.A.C. at 70 per cent., Cunard at 30 per cent. Was it based upon what assets the Cunard company were prepared to put into the new company? We know that the Cunard contribution, basically, will be these two Boeing 707s that they have, and possibly £2 million in cash. Or was it a division based upon the flights, the services, that are provided? I can hardly believe that that is the case when one looks at the large number of daily and weekly services that B.O.A.C. provide in comparison with those of Cunard.
My Lords, I should like to know if the Minister can tell us whether this division of capital was based upon the revenue that the two companies could put into the service. Can the Minister say what proportion of revenue B.O.A.C. are sacrificing to this new company, and what Cunard are putting in? Obviously there must be some basis upon which the two chairmen decided how these shares should be allocated. We have very little information; but it seems to me extraordinary that Cunard, by providing £9 million capital, made up of aircraft and cash, should be able to buy in and acquire, basically, 30 per cent. of all the goodwill, of all the capital—public money—that has been put into the Atlantic services in the last ten, twelve or fifteen years. This is an extraordinary thing, and I think that Parliament is entitled to know on what basis this shareholding division was made.
I should also like to ask the Minister: what is going to be the future position of possible losses? Are Cunard going to share in those losses which at the present moment all airlines are suffering

937
on the Atlantic route? Are they going to bear their 30 per cent. share of the losses that will be involved? I wonder whether the Cunard Company, with all its difficulties, its genuine difficulties, in sea transport, will be in a position to bear some of the very heavy losses that are being borne to-day on the Atlantic route. And what of the future? We know the cost of new aircraft. The Boeing 707s will shortly be obsolescent; they will shortly be replaced, we hope, by the V.C.10s. It is questionable whether the £30 million capital of this new company will be able to buy the aircraft to operate these large areas, these large services. Are Cunard in a position, are they willing, to provide 30 per cent. of the new money that will be required to put these aircraft into operation? Or is it, as one can well imagine from the sort of mixture of arrangements that are being made—with aircraft being handed over to this B.O.A.C.-Cunard company; then being leased to B.O.A.C., B.O.A.C. having to maintain them and operate them and then charge the new company for their use, for the actual flights that are made—that in the long term B.O.A.C. will have to bear the heavy burden of these new aircraft? Because I cannot imagine that, on their capital of £30 million, this new company will be in a position to buy the equivalent number of aircraft to replace the Boeing 707s.
My Lords, there are many things about which we shall need to know from the Government, but the main thing which worries us is that the Government, without any announcement, without any statement in Parliament, without any indication that their policy has changed, appear to have agreed to what is nothing more than the denationalisation of a third of the B.O.A.C.—and let it be on record that it is what will be, in the future, the most lucrative side of the British Overseas Airways Corporation. What are these shares? This B.O.A.C.-Cunard company will be a limited company, and 70 per cent. of its shares will be held by B.O.A.C. But we may well wake up one morning to find that the B.O.A.C. board, with the agreement of the Government opposite, have agreed to the sale of their shares in this new company. It may be another case of W. G. Brown. My Lords, can
938
the Government say whether this new company will be regarded as a subsidiary of B.O.A.C.; whether the shares that are held by B.O.A.C. will be regarded as statutory, so that they cannot be disposed of without an Act of Parliament? I think the House is entitled to know what is at the back of this extraordinary policy of Her Majesty's Government.
It is not only B.O.A.C. that we must consider to-day. We may well find that B.E.A. have been put into a similar position; that a new company has been created in which they share some of the main routes, the most lucrative routes, to Europe with British United Airways; and then we may find that the shareholding of this limited company has suddenly been sold without any approval of Parliament, and that Parliament has never been in a position to say "Yea" or "Nay". My Lords, I think we have embarked, in the late stage of this Government's life, upon a very serious course. The Government appear to be able, they appear to be willing, to change their policies without announcement in Parliament, denying Parliament the opportunity to discuss and approve. The nation has put a great deal of money into B.O.A.C. Its most lucrative routes, the most expanding routes, will be across the Atlantic. The Government appear, for an investment of £9 million, to have given to a private corporation 30 per cent. of a monopoly.
My Lords, I do not like monopolies of any sort, but if there is to be a monopoly, let it be a State monopoly answerable to Parliament. I think it is quite wrong that, behind the scenes, representatives of a private board have made this arrangement with a public corporation. In fact, I would suspect that what they have done is quite contrary to what Parliament understood of the Act when it created B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., and I am certain it was not in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Mills, when he advocated and piloted the 1960 Act which gave greater freedom to transport. I do not think he ever contemplated that by this Act a private operator would be put into such a position that a public board would decide that it would be convenient to make this deal. This is possibly only the beginning.
The hour is late, but I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mills, will give us a full and frank statement as to why the Government have decided on this agreement, and how it will affect future policy. Because I must remind the noble Lord that the chairman of the board has stated that he looks to this agreement as being on one side; that he would not be averse to any other suggestions from a shipping company or an air line company for a similar operation to be made. We must face the fact—the Government may welcome it—that our air lines, our statutory bodies, are in fact being denationalised. If that is the Government's intention, then let them be honest to Parliament.
9.2 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in asking his Question, has betrayed a very suspicious mind. He has not seen that this is just a business arrangement of a type which was foreseen, and which B.O.A.C. were fully empowered to make under Section 3 (4) of the Air Corporations Act, 1949. He need not look at the Act of 1960 and say that that is the reason for it.
I think it might be helpful, my Lords, if I first explain the nature and the origin of the agreement between the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the Cunard Steam-Ship Company. This was an agreement which was freely negotiated between the two companies. It so happened that the agreement was reached on June 6. On June 7 my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation informed Parliament about it. I do not think there is anything in that to which the noble Lord could say that any discredit attaches. It was the obvious thing to do. As soon as the companies reached agreement, the Minister informed Parliament. It is true of course that it was on the eve of the Recess, but things do happen like that.
On June 6 these two companies announced their decision that it would be in their mutual interests to pool their resources on certain trans-Atlantic air routes, mainly between this country, the United States, and the Caribbean, and that they had therefore set up a joint subsidiary company in the United
940
Kingdom for that purpose. This, I repeat, was a commercial agreement made between these two companies, and—let me repeat this too, because it is important—the agreement was one which B.O.A.C. were fully empowered to make under Section 3 (4) of the Air Corporations Act, 1949. There is no provision in that Act requiring them to seek the approval of the Government to agreements made under this section. However, it is customary, and I think right, for the Corporations, especially where questions of investment and other major issues of public policy are involved, to consult the Government before entering into agreements of this kind.
When the Corporation informed my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation of this proposal, his first responsibility was to decide whether or not it was against the public interest, or whether or not there was any overriding objection to it. As he said in another place, he was able to inform the Corporation that the Government had no objection to the proposal which, moreover, they considered might well be of benefit to the British civil aviation effort in this important area.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has told us what was the essence of the agreement: that it was to form a company with a capital of £30 million, 70 per cent. of which was to be provided by B.O.A.C. and 30 per cent. by Cunard. The noble Lord asked me on what basis that was decided. Well, the answer is a very simple one: it was decided because it was felt by B.O.A.C. that Cunard must have a sufficient stake in this joint enterprise to keep and sustain their interest in it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there is no relation, then, either to revenue or to flights, but purely to what was of interest to Cunard?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, purely the appreciation by B.O.A.C. of what it was necessary Cunard should bring to this company in order that B.O.A.C. might benefit from what Cunard had to offer. It is quite true that the routes which were being covered consisted of what have been the most competitive, yet potentially the most profitable, in the world. The noble Lord knows that recently there have been losses, and I

941
have no doubt very heavy losses, on the part of operators concerned. British operators are in competition on the Atlantic route with nearly 20 international air lines, including two major United States air lines who are themselves understood to be considering proposals for a merger. The new B.O.A.C.—Cunard arrangement should open up new opportunities for increased efficiency and economy in operating British aircraft on these routes, because both companies, whatever else they have done, have earned a fine reputation for service, reliability and safety.
The new company will take over all this good will, and they will be able to achieve economies by rationalising their operations, their sales, their maintenance arrangements and so on. As regards sales, in particular, the experienced and widely spread sales organisation of Cunard should bring considerable benefits to the new company. I think that there should be benefits for both companies. I am sure that the two companies have a lot to offer each other and that, working in collaboration in the way they have decided, they have a lot to offer in the future to the British civil aviation effort.
What was the alternative? It was that they would have to continue to light each other and I cannot see that that would have brought any benefit to British civil aviation.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, did the Government correlate this with the 1960 Act?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in the 1960 Act, the Government did not insist on competition for the sake of competition. Indeed, the Minister of Aviation said during the Second Reading of the Bill that it should not be assumed that the Corporations and the Independents would always be in conflict with one another, and that he saw no reason why genuine pooling arrangements should not be made between them on certain routes.
The noble Lord asked me how this position would affect future Government policy. I do not think that it affects it at all. This is a commercial arrangement made between two companies, one of which is a nationalised company, which saw benefit in it for both. The
942
noble Lord asked whether the Government have given an undertaking that there will be no future competition on this route. Again I think he asked that question because he has a suspicious mind.
LORD SHEPHERD: Certainly.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the answer quite categorically is that the Government gave no such undertaking. Anyone is free to apply for a licence to the Air Transport Licensing Board, which would consider the application under the procedure laid down in the 1960 Act.
LORD SHEPHERD: So this arrangement has not eliminated the fear of competition which, from the Minister's statement, was obviously the cause for the creation of this company.
LORD MILLS: It has eliminated a certain competition. It is always open to anyone under the Act, if he is so bold, to apply for a licence. This arrangement has done nothing to make that impossible. The noble Lord asked what was going to be the future position about the apportionment of losses. That is quite clear from the financing of the company; that is, roughly one-third by Cunard-Eagle and two-thirds by B.O.A.C. The noble Lord may believe what he says, that the capital is insufficient. Time will show. For the moment the parties to the agreement think that it is the right capital they ought to have.
The noble Lord asked me if the new company would be regarded as a subsidiary of B.O.A.C. It is a subsidiary of B.O.A.C., which has the majority of the capital. On the question of who will provide new money, if new money should be required for replacements or for any other purpose, the noble Lord has sufficient experience of business to know that that is a matter which will have to be considered when the case arises. There is nothing in the agreement to anticipate that. I think it is quite right that they should determine the amount of capital they need to operate on this line and decide the proportions which they are both going to have. That is just ordinary common-sense business.
I should like to reply to the noble Lord's statement about denationalisation. It is not denationalisation. Let us keep

943
a sense of proportion here. The capital of B.O.A.C. is £150 million; the shareholding of Cunard-Eagle will be £9 million. That is not denationalisation. I would read to your Lordships a paragraph from the Spectator of June 15, dealing with this question of nationalisation. This is what they said:
"B.O.A.C.'s interest in the Cunard organisation, especially in the United States, goes back a long way. For some years the B.O.A.C. management has been trying to get Cunard to collaborate in sales. Now they are getting much more than this: they will be combining their sales offices, parading each other's slogans and hammering the American and West Indies markets with the doubly familiar name of B.O.A.C.-Cunard.
"Criticism is coming from believers in pure nationalisation (though they might take comfort from the disappearance of a separate airline in favour of a mere minority holding) and those who fear monopoly. There is so little to be said about nationalisation these days that its advocates cannot be blamed for making the best of an irrelevant job."
There is no question here of denationalising anything. It is a purely commercial agreement, which I believe has been wisely arrived at. The Times of June 7 said this:
"It is to be welcomed as a sensible practical arrangement".
And so I present it to your Lordships. It should be of very great benefit not only to the Cunard Company but particularly to B.O.A.C, whom I am sure we all wish well.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he did not deal with one point which I think is very important: the question of B.O.A.C. shares in the new company. Can the Minister undertake to say that it is not the Government's intention to agree to the sale of these shares in this new company to any other organisation, even if it is the Cunard, who may wish to increase their shareholding in this company? Can the Minister give that undertaking?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I wish to be careful about what I say here. There is a provision which your Lordships will see from the announcement by the two companies that if Cunard changes hands the shares must be offered to B.O.A.C. at their asset value. There is no intention that these shares should be offered
944
on the market, and the Government would make it their business to take steps if there were.
9.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, for having said as much as he has to-night about this agreement. Certainly it has become a little more intelligible to me than could have been possible in the circumstances in which we adjourned before the Whitsun Recess. The noble Lord says that my noble friend Lord Shepherd must have a suspicious mind to take this matter up in this way. But surely the noble Lord does not think that anybody on this side of the House can be less suspicious, having regard to the policies of the Government in relation to nationalised industries in the last ten years. Here is a great Corporation which has always been a public Corporation, and we get this sudden announcement that an agreement has already been made. Whether the Ministerial colleagues of the noble Lord like it or not, the general comment in commercial, as well as in ordinary, society about this matter seems to be that this, if anything, was much more a question of getting Cunard-Eagle and the Cunard Steam Ship Company out of difficulties in the hope that this would create new business for them by the generosity of the agreement with B.O.A.C. This is not just something springing from my noble friend Lord Shepherd and myself; it has been canvassed in many quarters.
Everybody knows what the latest report of the Cunard Company is in general and of their difficulties; and I sympathise with them, because I want to see our shipping companies prosperous. Nobody can say that so far they have received an enormous amount of help in their overall difficulty from the Cunard-Eagle. However, if there is any other report to be made in that connection, we shall be glad to hear it, because it will help to relieve suspicion. But I think that in these matters Parliament ought to be informed much more in the open and with full details as to what has taken place. The statement in another place on June 7, just before the Recess, escaped the attention of a large number of Members of Parliament. I hope the noble Lord will not mind if I say that

945
we ought to be furnished with a Government White Paper as to what was the reason for their approval, what is the agreement, and what they are pledged to for the future.
I will not challenge any of the statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Mills, on this point to-night, at short notice, but perhaps he would agree to recommend to the Government that they issue a White Paper giving not only Parliament but the public full details. After all, the noble Lord can speak with some pride; and so do we feel some pride, because we were the initiators of B.O.A.C. That Corporation has a capital of £150 million, but a large part of it, if not all of it, came from public money. The whole nation is interested in B.O.A.C. When you come to break out into this sort of agreement, then surely Parliament and the public ought to be given the fullest possible details. My noble friend Lord Shepherd quoted a case of a much smaller transaction in which I was personally interested as First Lord of the Admiralty during the war, when we were forced by circumstances to take over the Brown firm; and from its nationalisation onwards it became a very profitable concern. But what do the Conservative Government do? They sell it, just at the point when the public were perhaps getting some little set-off in one company which was taken over, reorganised, brought to profit-bearing and might have been at least some help in paying interest on war damage. No; sell it; let private enterprise have it! We have had the same thing in regard to the railways. The railways now, instead of being maintained as a public service, are to be cut to pieces in order to provide a profit without giving a proper service to the public. We never know what will be the next move of the Government in these matters. We think this is a very sad state of affairs. If the Government are going to allay the kind of suspicions which the noble Lord attributed to my noble friend Lord Shepherd to-night, then I think they should give us a full, detailed White Paper; and I hope that this will be done.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a couple of minutes, but as the noble Viscount the Leader of the
946
Opposition said that there is perhaps a feeling abroad that B.O.A.C. have rather come into this agreement at the coat-tails of Cunard, I should like to read to your Lordships an extract from B.O.A.C.s own newspaper to its staff. It is an extract of a statement made to them by the Managing Director of B.O.A.C. He ends in this way:
"This"—
that is the agreement—
"is good for B.O.A.C.—otherwise we should not have done it. It is good for Cunard—otherwise, presumably, they would not have done it either. It is good for British Air Transport, in that it rallies the best brains and experience in the trans-Atlantic business against foreign competition. It is good for the travelling public and freight shippers, in that it offers them the combined facilities of two great British undertakings with unrivalled reputations for service."
That does not sound to me like an unwilling B.O.A.C.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That sounds to me like well-written propaganda to a stall without any facts at all. It is just a propaganda statement to the staff to persuade them to work well, with no facts at all behind it. I still think that is not a substitute for a White Paper from the Government.
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: I hope I shall be forgiven for interrupting again, but I said that it was only an extract. At this late hour I could not read the whole item. But if the noble Viscount would like to see it, I will let him have it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: What I want is that the public should have it.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to add just one word. I do not think the noble Viscount would want me to start debating the merits of nationalisation or denationalisation, what has happened in the past or what is likely to happen in the future. But I should like to say this to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, who is always so courteous: that if he wishes to take the matter further, perhaps he would have a word With me and we will see what can be done.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Orders made on May 28 and 31 discharged, and Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition
948
to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on May 9 discharged, and Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past nine o'clock.