Lords Sitting of 15 November 1966

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester
The Lord Hindlip—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

CRUISER CONVERSIONS
2.35 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: 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 when the conversion of H.M.S. "Blake" will be completed and whether similar conversions will be carried out to H.M.S. "Lion" and H.M.S. "Tiger".]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL NAVY (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, plans for the conversions of the "Tiger" Class cruisers are going ahead in accordance with decisions announced in the 1966 White Paper. The first ship to be converted, H.M.S. "Blake", is expected to complete towards the end of 1968.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, but in view of the great increase in the versatility and effectiveness of these cruisers which their conversion to helicopter-carrying cruisers will lead to, can he confirm that the full conversion programme will in fact be carried out to all three ships?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is difficult to say what the noble Earl means by "the full conversion". Nevertheless, an important element, and one of the factors which has been under consideration, is the need to take into account revised helicopter plans. As the noble Earl knows, it is proposed to take into the Fleet the SH.3D anti-submarine
1172
warfare helicopter, and this aircraft, with its very much greater capacity to cope with the submarine threat, is an important element in considering how these ships shall be converted.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, am I right in supposing that they will be converted to carry up to four of these helicopters? Can the noble Lord confirm that this is the case?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is correct.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, whether the Minister of Defence is considering the designing of a new class of ship to succeed these ageing cruisers for the purpose we are now talking about?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question.

BEVERCOTES COLLIERY
2.38 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: 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 the National Coal Board have now agreed that the expensively equipped Bevercotes colliery shall be worked for only five days a week; and whether this is in accordance with Government policy on productivity.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the National Coal Board announced on October 31 that Bevercotes colliery would be operated under existing national wage agreements. The Board considered that five-day working at the pit was preferable to further delays. However, on November 10 the National Union of Mineworkers proposed that the special arrangements previously discussed, but on which agreement had not been possible, should be modified. The new proposals are for eighteen shifts to be worked each week, including three shifts at weekends. The Board are giving immediate consideration to them. The Government hope that more intensive working of expensive capital equipment will thus prove possible. The lessons

1173
expected to be learned from the new techniques to be used at this experimental pit may have far-reaching effects on further improvements in productivity in the coal industry, which is in accordance with the Government's policy of encouraging increases in productivity throughout the economy.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for that Answer which conveys a great improvement on the position that we knew before he made that statement? May I ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that we cannot afford to install extremely expensive machinery which is then not fully used?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords, but this is a revolutionary experimental plant, and as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will be aware, with revolutionary techniques of this kind it is much easier to solve the technical problems than to solve the human problems relating to them. The important point is that this new agreement has been, or is likely to be, achieved. We shall get started, and from this we expect very great improvements to flow throughout coal-getting.

IMPORTED TEXTILE MACHINERY
2.40 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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—

(a) what was the value of textile machinery of a character not manufactured in this country imported in 1965 free of duty; and

(b) on what grounds the free entry was abolished.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, during 1965 remission of duty was recommended on textile machinery valued at £10·3 million on the grounds that similar machinery was not procurable from domestic sources. Duty remission has been suspended because, after reexamining the matter and considering the arguments put forward by the various economic development committees, Her
1174
Majesty's Government concluded that the scheme was no longer in the national interest.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that reply may I ask the noble Lord two supplementary questions? First, is it not apparent from the large volume of machinery that was imported that it is required to keep the industry efficient and up to date, and would he not ask his colleagues in the appropriate Ministry to reconsider the matter? Secondly, can he refute the reports which are circulating that this decision to abolish free entry was taken without consultation, which was to be expected, with the Confederation of British Industry, the "little Neddy" for the wool textile industry, or the central employer organisation, the Wool Textile Delegation?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the decision to abolish the remission of duty is a decision taken on balance of advantage to the economy as a whole. It is realised that it may represent some disadvantage to the industry using this machinery, but great difficulties have been experienced in the operation of the duty remission procedure. It was becoming increasingly expensive and was causing friction between manufacturers of the machinery and the industry itself. On the second question, I am unable now to say precisely whether consultations took place with the C.B.I. or the wool textile industry. What I can inform your Lordships is that full discussions took place with the national economic development committee concerned, and the views of the other "little Neddies" were taken into account.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, while I agree with every word uttered by the Minister in his reply to my noble friend, may I ask whether he is aware that remission of duty on imported machinery has not been allowed to any other manufacturing company in the world?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I was not aware of that, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for the information.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, from the reply which the noble Lord has given it is to be understood that the reports that those bodies which I mentioned were not consulted are correct. Secondly, does the

1175
noble Lord not appreciate that the value of the machinery imported itself indicates the necessity for this industry to be up to date and to get prototypes not manufactured in this country?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the noble Lord is mistaken. I was quite clear in my answer to his first supplementary question. I do not know the position with regard to consultations with the C.B.I. or the wool textile industry. If the noble Lord wishes to know the answer, I will get it for him. On the other point, I have already said that the decision taken was on balance, and it seemed to be on balance to industry as a whole. It is recognised that this could be some disadvantage to the wool industry itself.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that answer. In view of strained relations with the C.B.I. that have developed in connection with other matters, can the noble Lord give an assurance that in future there will be full consultation?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the noble Lord is rather pressing on this matter. The inference from his question is that consultation did not take place on this occasion. May I reiterate that I do not know whether consultation did take place, but I will find out for him.

TEES VALLEY AND CLEVELAND WATER BILL
2.48 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Your Lordships will perhaps expect a few words of explanation of the purpose of this Motion. Private Bill Standing Order No. 104 provides that every Private Bill which is opposed shall be committed to a Select Committee of five Lords who shall be named by the Committee of Selection. In view of the controversial nature of this Bill and the widespread interest it has aroused, the Committee of Selection met and recommended that the Select Committee to which the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Bill is committed should consist of seven Peers. The Committee
1176
will start sitting on Tuesday, November 22, and it is expected that the hearing may last some three weeks. I beg to move.
Moved, That Private Bill Standing Order No. 104 be dispensed with for the purpose of allowing the appointment by the Committee of Selection of seven Lords to sit on the Select Committee on the Tees Valley and Cleveland Water Bill.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Wells-Pestell be appointed a member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the place of the late Lord Haire of Whiteabbey.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ARBITRATION (INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT DISPUTES) BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

BARBADOS INDEPENDENCE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL [H.L.]
2.49 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. Perhaps I might give notice to the House that I propose, when we come to the first Amendment, to ask the House to treat the Amendments en bloc.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Champion.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a point here. When we come to Schedule 3, Amendments 14 to 19, I have two points to raise on Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I raised these points on Amendments 14 to 19.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I was hoping that it could be done that way. Perhaps the noble Lord will indicate, when I have moved the Amendments en bloc, where he wishes to raise any objections or queries on any of the Amendments Nos. 1 to 19.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill [60] as first printed for the House of Commons]
(No. 1)
Clause 19, page 12, line 26, at end insert—
("(c) the performance by a registered medical practitioner of an operation on an animal for the purpose of removing an organ or tissue for use in the treatment of human beings;
(d) the carrying out or performance of any treatment, test or operation by a registered medical practitioner or a registered dentist at the request of a person registered in the register of veterinary surgeons or the supplementary veterinary register.")
(Nos. 2–8)
Clause 28, page 17, line 18, leave out ("of veterinary surgeons")
Clause 28, page 17, line 24, leave out ("that") and insert ("the")
Clause 28, page 17, line 28, leave out ("that") and insert ("the")
Clause 28, page 17, line 47, leave out ("coming into operation") and insert ("commencement")
Clause 28, page 18, line 10, after ("commencement") insert ("of sections 19 and 20")
Clause 28, page 18, line 11, leave out ("the commencement of")
Clause 28, page 18, line 17, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("passing")
(Nos. 9–13)
Schedule 1, page 19, line 13, leave out from ("If") to end and insert ("on the coming into force of a recognition order for any university a member of the Council is appointed by the university")
Schedule 1, page 19, line 16, leave out from first ("of") to ("shall") and insert ("that member")
Schedule 2, page 20, line 43, leave out ("1967") and insert ("1968")
Schedule 2, page 20, Line 45, leave out ("1967") and insert ("1968")
Schedule 2, Page 23, line 10, leave out ("for") and insert ("to")
(Nos. 14–19)
Schedule 3, page 24, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert ("anything (except a laparotomy) done, otherwise than for reward, to an animal used in agriculture, as defined in the Agriculture Act 1947, by the owner of the animal or by a person engaged or employed in caring for animals so used")
Schedule 3, page 24, leave out line 7
Schedule 3, page 24, line 10, at end insert ("whether by chemical means or otherwise")
Schedule 3, page 24, leave out line 11
Schedule 3, page 24, line 15, at end insert—
("The performance, by any person of the age of seventeen undergoing instruction in animal husbandry, of any operation mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph if either of the following conditions is complied with:—

(a) the instruction is given by a person registered in the register of veterinary surgeons or the supplementary veterinary register and the operation is performed under his direct personal supervision;

(b) the instruction is given at a recognised institution and the operation is performed under the direct personal supervision of a person appointed to give instruction at the institution:

and in this paragraph 'recognised institution' means—

(i) as respects Great Britain, an institution maintained or assisted (in England and Wales) by a local education authority or (in Scotland) by an education authority or in either case an institution for the giving of further education as respects which a grant is paid by the Secretary of State or an institution recognised for the purposes of this paragraph by the Secretary of State;

(ii) as respects Northern Ireland, an agricuultural college maintained by the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.")

Schedule 3, page 24, leave out lines 19 to 28 and insert—
("(a) of a horse, pony, ass or mule;
(b) of a bull which has reached the age of twelve months; or
(c) of a goat, ram, boar, cat or dog which has reached the age of six months.")
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I beg to move, with the leave of the House, that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 19. Before I mention briefly the main changes made to our old friend the Veterinary Surgeons Bill, I would point out that a large number of these Amendments are purely drafting ones. They are the Amendments numbered 2 to 10 and 13 on the Order Paper, including the technical Amendments to Schedule 2—Nos. 11 and 12. In addition, however, there has been one Amendment of substance to Clause 19, and a large number of Amendments to

1179
Schedule 3. I should like to say briefly a few words about the most important of these.
The Amendment to Clause 19 will enable a few surgeons specialising in this field to operate on animals for the purpose of transplanting animal organs to human beings. This is a useful provision, to enable a promising line of development inhuman medicine to continue. It will also enable members of the veterinary profession to obtain the assistance of medical specialists in the treatment of animals. This is obviously useful.
The Recess has provided time in which to enable discussions on Schedule 3 to the Bill to take place with the various interests concerned. It has therefore proved possible to make Amendments to the Schedule which bring it up to date. These are matters in which I know your Lordships have a particular interest, because we had a number of discussions upon these points when the Bill was going through its various stages in this House. I am sure, therefore, that the House will expect me to devote a little time to running through the main changes.
The first change does two things. It limits the term "anything done", which would cover any treatment and any surgical operations. This exemption was discussed with the Royal College, the British Veterinary Association and the Farmers' Unions and we agreed that it should be limited by the exclusion of laparotomy, which is a short way of saying the cutting open of the abdominal cavity. But this limitation is not intended to exclude, for instance, the puncture of the rumen for dealing with bloat. As it happens, this would be covered in any case by the provision relating to first aid in the Schedule. But other examples of operations not excluded are the minor operations listed in the Schedule, which are recognised as normally bēing carried out by stockmen and shepherds. There is also another limitation. This exemption is confined to the owners of animals used in agriculture or to people who are used to dealing with these animals. We feel that it is wrong, for instance, to allow a horticulturist or a tractor driver who never deals with these animals to be exempted. It seems right and proper that this exemption should be one allowed only to the owner of the animals or someone who is used to dealing with them.
1180
As your Lordships well know, Schedule 3 sets out certain exemptions to the prohibition on the practice of veterinary surgery by unqualified persons which is contained in Clause 19. Another change that has been made, therefore, is to delete the exemption about the destruction of an animal, since this is not veterinary surgery. With this Amendment it would be legal, for instance, for a shepherd to put an injured sheep out of its misery; without it, there is doubt about the legality of such an action. This does not, of course, open the way for anyone to destroy animals by painful methods. That is a matter dealt with by the legislation relating to cruelty to animals. Two other small Amendments are to make it quite clear that the operation of caponising may be carried out by chemical means and to delete the operation of the spaying of a pig from the list of minor operations. Another important Amendment makes provisions which enable young people of seventeen to perform certain minor operations as part of an educational course and under appropriate supervision.
I believe that there is, and will be, no disagreement on the merits of providing adequate training for stockmen. There has however been some criticism of the form of words used in this Schedule, in that it does not provide for the teachers themselves to be trained by veterinary surgeons. The Government consider that the teachers who give such training ought themselves to be trained by veterinary surgeons. But it is not possible to express this in an Act without defining the word "training"; and it makes no difference whether it is called "training" or "appropriate courses of instruction" or any other similar vague phrase, because until the words are defined the courts cannot really come to any firm conclusion. We have therefore defined the bodies that may give the instruction and insist that they should appoint instructors for this purpose, with the idea that it should be left to the Department of Education and Science to ensure, through administrative means, that as full effect as practicable can be given to the principle of the training of the instructors by veterinary surgeons. If in the course of time courses that can be identified in legislation, and certificates that can be similarly identified, are provided, then

1181
consideration can be given to amending the Schedule to tighten up these provisions.
The remaining change is to Part II of Schedule 3. This has been brought up to date by reducing the ages below which certain animals may be castrated by laymen. The Royal College and the British Veterinary Association have taken the view that for the horse, pony, ass and mule unqualified performance of this operation should not be allowed at all. This has been accepted. However, the Royal College and the B.V.A. also think that the cat and the dog should be put into this same group on the ground that a general anæthetic is used and both operations are veterinary surgery. But they accept the practical difficulties in preventing lay castration of farm animals.
The People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, on the other hand, oppose the singling out of cats and dogs from the other animals. I have pointed already to the practical difficulties for farm animals. The P.D.S.A. also run a number of clinics where these operations are carried out by laymen under veterinary supervision. Finance is also no doubt relevant here. As a charitable organisation the P.D.S.A. provide services for people who cannot afford the fees of a veterinary surgeon.
This problem was carefully considered in another place, and it was decided to leave the age for cats and dogs as it stands to-day, on the grounds that we had little information to justify alteration. It was also pointed out with some cogency that it would be easier to alter the ages downwards by an amending Order at a later stage should this be considered desirable, than to alter them upwards should a mistake have been made in putting them too low. This, like the previous point on which there is some controversy, is one that can be changed by an amending Order requiring an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, should further investigation show that the Government—supported, I may say, by the Opposition in the other place—have made a mistake in fixing the maximum age at which cats and dogs may be castrated, at six months. The revised ages will still, of course, mean that unqualified persons must observe the Protection of Animals (Anæthetics) Acts in carrying out the operation of castration.
1182
My Lords, I do not think I need say more about these Amendments. I commend them to the House, and I shall be happy to listen to anything which noble Lords have to say on this Bill, which has in the past proved of such interest to this House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Champion.)
3.2 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having explained the purport of these Amendments to your Lordships. With Amendments Nos. 1 and 14 we are of course in full agreement. The noble Lord will recall that at an earlier stage of the Bill he told your Lordships that it would not be possible to reach finality on Schedule 3 before the Bill became law. In the course of his remarks to-day, he made it clear that there was some opportunity for further consideration, but what the British Veterinary Association, the R.S.P.C.A. and the N.F.U. are also concerned about is that, while the concluding stage of a Statute has a certain air of finality about it, inevitably this is not the end of the story so far as Schedule 3 is concerned.
The noble Lord's remarks have made it clear that the Government's mind remains open on a number of these aspects, particularly on the question of defining the qualifications of instructors at institutions at which instruction is given to students in animal husbandry. On this subject the noble Lord said—and he emphasised the words—that as full effect as practicable would be given to the agreement which was reached between the R.S.P.C.A., the N.F.U., the Department of Education and Science, the Animal Health Division the B.V.A. and the Royal College on this matter; that is to say, after the initial instruction which has to be given by qualified veterinary surgeons, those who give further instruction will themselves have received some appropriate training from a member of the veterinary profession.
What is not clear is why it is not possible for the Department of Education and Science to insist and to ensure that this is so. Why is it possible for the noble Lord to qualify this requirement by saying only that it will be done so far as practicable? I am told that there

1183
is no shortage of veterinary surgeons to give this kind of instruction to students of animal husbandry; and there certainly will be no shortage of veterinary surgeons who can give instructions to the instructors of these students. Therefore, it seems odd that the noble Lord should have to qualify it in this way. It would give a great deal of satisfaction if he could go a little further.
The noble Lord said that as soon as the courses themselves had been defined it would be possible to introduce an order to carry this agreement into effect. I would ask him to be a little more specific about any difficulties which exist in the meantime in giving what he called administrative effect to this agreement. Would he tell the House what these difficulties are; and would he further state what steps are being taken to minimise and, ultimately, to eliminate them? The object, of course, is to ensure that animal husbandry students will later carry out the operations as to avoid pain, and in the most efficient manner possible. It seems quite obvious that, if that is to be so, those who give the instruction must themselves have received adequate instruction. This is what I am asking the noble Lord to ensure, even though I recognise the immediate drafting difficulties which have prevented his giving effect to this in the Schedule itself.
May I now turn to the other point on Amendment No. 19? As the noble Lord said, the issue here is whether the words "cat or dog" should be included. I would remind noble Lords (or inform them, if they have not already heard of this) that at the Committee stage in another place the Government's spokesman said:
"Having heard the discussion in the Committee, we would be prepared to table an Amendment on Report to remove 'cat or dog' from paragraph (c) and to insert 'cat or dog' in paragraph (a)".
—which sets out the animals that may not be castrated by unqualified persons. Of course that has not been done. The noble Lord has given us the reasons, but it must clearly be an unsatisfactory situation when this very delicate operation is being carried out by people who are not fully qualified. I hope the Government will adhere to the undertaking they have given—and I quote from what the Parliamentary Secretary said in another place:
1184
"After the Bill becomes law, I think that we should have a look at this again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 735 (No. 94), col. 1791; 11/11/66.]
I would ask the noble Lord to say that, in having a look at this matter, he will bear in mind two points. The first is the great difficulty involved in getting evidence of cruelty in the carrying out of these operations, so that the mere negative that there is no evidence will not be adduced; and, secondly, that he should bear in mind that it is no argument to say that, because there are likely to be some infringements of a Statute, therefore certain provisions should not be included in that Statute. Neither of these arguments will really hold water, and I would ask him to make clear that, in considering this matter, he will bear these points in mind.
One recognises the difficulties, and one recognises also that these operations are currently carried out on cats, and have been for a long time. But I would suggest to your Lordships that there is no justification for the exclusion of dogs, whatever may be the case for cats. I would urge the noble Lord to introduce an order at the earliest possible moment to transfer dogs from paragraph (c) to paragraph (a), in order to ensure that these operations on dogs are carried out only by people fully qualified to do so—and we hope that in due course the same restriction will apply to cats.
3.10 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to support everything my noble friend has said. While I am glad to see the improvements that have been made to Schedule 3, about which I must admit I was extremely unhappy, I think the inclusion in paragraph (a) not only of dogs but also of cats would be advisable, and would not be beyond practicable application. Dogs and cats may present something of a problem in areas where a veterinary surgeon may be some way away, but not beyond that of the other animals which are already covered in this paragraph.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has, I think, called attention to the fact that throughout the whole process of the Bill through this House I said that probably we should not be able to resolve the doubts and difficulties on Schedule 3

1185
while the Bill was going through the other place. This has been found possible. I do not know that any of us can be completely happy with Schedule 3 as it now stands, and that is why I was careful to emphasise the fact that the working of Schedule 3will be watched carefully in regard to what we are all anxious to do, which is to secure the maximum prevention of cruelty to animals by unqualified people. Of course, this Bill went through the other place and was subjected to all the democratic pressures that can be brought to bear on Committees, on Ministers, and indeed on the House as a whole, and what emerged from discussions there was this Schedule 3 as it will be after these Amendments are embodied in it.
What I will say to the noble Lord is that, so far as I personally am concerned, and for as long as I have any connection at all with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, it will be my desire to ensure that the Minister of the day in fact watches very carefully the operation of this Schedule 3. The noble Lord and I have lived with this Bill. Indeed, we are almost its father and mother. We started it in the last Parliament and have continued it in this, and I think we are a little proud of our offspring. That does not always apply to one's offspring, but it does in this case. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for his continued interest in animal welfare.
On the question of the qualification of instructors, what I said was that as full effect as is practicable can be given to the principle of the training of instructors by veterinary surgeons, and I went on to qualify those words, as the noble Lord has admitted. We know the difficulties that are visualised in some people's minds, but we cannot see that any difficulties will in fact exist about the administrative arrangements involved. We have considered the practicability of these courses, their definition, the question of a certificate of qualification, and so on. We have all these points in mind. But I am not going to pronounce on this whole matter in answer to a question raised by the noble Lord. All I can do is to give him the undertaking that I am sure he is asking me to give—namely, that we will also watch this aspect very carefully, because it is a part of the job that he
1186
and I, and indeed Parliament as a whole, have been engaged on for so long. My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will now be able to accept the Amendments from another place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ARMED FORCES BILL
3.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER of DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before I discuss the individual provisions of the Bill, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this Bill includes provisions relating to the Royal Navy as well as to the Army and the Royal Air Force. In the past Bills on naval discipline culminating in the Naval Discipline Act 1957 have come before your Lordships' House on their own and not as part of a tri-Service Bill, whereas legislation in this field affecting the Army has usually accompanied legislation on the R.A.F. Moreover, unlike the Army and Air Force Acts, the Naval Discipline Act is a permanent Statute which does not have to be renewed every five years.
In this Bill we are proposing a number of amendments to the Naval Discipline Act, as well as to the Army and Air Force Acts of 1955, which are designed to bring the Acts governing the three Services nearer together. We are also proposing to bring the Naval Enlistment Acts 1835–1884 up to date and into line so far as is possible with the law governing enlistment into the Army and the R.A.F. I stress the words "so far as is possible" because, however tidy-minded we may wish to be with regard to the three Services, I am sure your Lordships will all agree that they are different in certain respects.
This is a fairly complicated Bill and therefore I do not propose to deal with any of the broader issues affecting the Army and the Air Force and the Navy, but will take your Lordships through as much as possible of the changes that are being brought into force as a result of this Bill. Indeed, there are some more substantial changes than were made on

1187
the last occasion. Your Lordships will recall that until 1955 the Army and Air Force Acts were renewed annually. In 1955 Parliament decided that the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 could be renewed annually by Order in Council, subject to Affirmative Resolution, up to a maximum of five years and that then an Act of Parliament should be needed. This pattern was repeated in the Army and Air Force Act 1961.
Clause 1 of this Bill proposes that this procedure should continue for a further five years. As the Army and Air Force Acts are to be continued by Clause 1 until the end of 1967, your Lordships will not be asked this year to approve the draft of Orders in Council providing that the Army and Air Force Acts shall continue in force for a further year. In effect, the debate on the Act will provide sufficient Parliamentary control for this year, and it is in the renewal in subsequent years that we proceed by Order in Council. It may be of help to the House if I go in some depth into the purpose of the particular clauses, although I should ask your Lordships' indulgence because to some extent this will amount to a rehashing of a Committee stage, but in fact it may save the time of your Lordships if I do this on Second Reading.
Clause 2 has been called a somewhat radical proposal, but I hope your Lordships will find it none the less acceptable. It brings together in one clause provisions empowering the Defence Council to make regulations governing the terms of enlistment and certain conditions of service of regular soldiers, sailors and airmen; and I should like, if I may, to explain how these terms and conditions have been regulated up to now. Until 1955 the terms of enlistment and conditions of service in the Regular Army and Royal Air Force were laid down in some detail in Acts renewed annually by Parliament. This annual renewal meant that any change which might be desired could be proposed to Parliament within a year. When the quinquennial system of renewing the 1955 Acts was introduced it was found necessary, despite the revision in the 1955 Acts, to revise the terms of Army enlistment in the Army (Conditions of Enlistment) Act 1957. The Army and Air Force Act 1961 contains an almost complete revision of these terms
1188
and conditions of service. Although we saved a great deal of Parliamentary time, we missed a certain amount of flexibility as a result of this in regard to terms of enlistment. If we had not proposed Clause 2, we should have had to propose yet further, though relatively minor, amendments. If your Lordships would wish to consider these they are set out on page 3 of the Select Committee's Report.
The history of the Navy's terms of entry and conditions of service is very different. They are contained in outline—I stress, in outline—in the Naval Enlistment Acts, 1835 to 1884, though a great deal is laid down in regulations, a very great deal indeed. The powers of the Defence Council are more flexible but some types of engagement common in the Army and R.A.F. cannot under present powers be introduced into the Navy. When we came to consider how to bring the laws regulating entry into the Royal Navy up to date, and as far as possible into line with the other two Services, it became clear that if we were to attempt to apply to the Royal Navy even some of the very detailed provisions governing the Army or Air Force which are set out in Schedule 1 to the Bill we should be asking Parliament to run the risk of having to spend as much time revising these provisions as has been spent on the Army's provision over the last eleven years. In fact the risk would probably be greater, because the provisions of the 1955 Acts came at the end of a long line of Annual Acts and represented the outcome of a wholesale revision of those Acts whereas Parliament has not legislated on Naval enlistment since 1884.
We therefore thought that we should be justified in asking Parliament to empower the Defence Council to regulate the terms of enlistment and conditions of service for all three Services and with rather more freedom than the Army and R.A.F. have had up to now. In order to meet the needs of the day in a competitive market we need flexibility in laying down terms of enlistment and we need to be able to vary them at short notice. Otherwise we may well lose a good many recruiting opportunities. I would stress to your Lordships that recruitment is in many ways very much a market operation. There are times when the market is favourable. You cannot always foretell how the market will go and flexibility

1189
is what any good and effective employer seeks. At the same time, it is right that we should make proper provision for Parliament to oversee and have a say m what we do in this matter.
In asking for this greater freedom we have been careful not to ask for more than we need. I should emphasise that we are asking for freedom only in the field covered in Schedule 1 and described in subsection (1) of Clause 2. We are not asking for freedom in the fields covered by Clauses 4 to 11 of the Bill, nor in the Army and Air Force equivalents, which are in Part I of each of the 1955 Acts. For instance, parental consent to the enlistment of young soldiers and airmen will continue to be regulated by Statute—and I think your Lordships would wish this—as will the retention of Regulars in an emergency. These are matters over which clearly Parliament should have control.
Moreover, subsection (1) enables the Defence Council to regulate the terms of the engagements on offer but it gives no power to force anyone to accept them. When they have been accepted voluntarily, subsection (3) prevents any right given from being varied without the individual's consent, and this is obviously right and common sense. Subsection (2) gives power to repeal the provisions in Schedule 1 by regulation. The reason for this is that the timing of the repeal is important. We need to make sure that Parliament has accepted the regulations which will take the place of the provisions in Schedule 1 before the repeal takes effect. We have therefore specified in Schedule 1 the provisions to be dealt with by regulation.
Your Lordships may like to have an explanation of subsection (4) which deals with the method of making the regulations. I have explained that at present some of the field is covered by Statutes, but there are powers enabling the Defence Council to prescribe the more detailed provisions by regulations which are not made by Statutory Instrument at all and do not have to be laid before Parliament. We propose that in future all the regulations in this field shall be made by Statutory Instrument and be subject to annulment by Parliament. The difference between the categories in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4)—I apologise to your Lordships for being so technical, but important issues of Parliamentary
1190
control are involved—is that if the regulations amend or repeal an Act they will be laid in draft, but that if they do not they will be made before being laid before Parliament.
Your Lordships who are familiar with the procedures in this matter will appreciate both the difference and the reason for this particular differentiation. When regulations are laid in draft either House of Parliament may resolve within forty days that the Instruments be not made, in which case no further proceedings may be taken on the drafts. This is without prejudice to the laying of new Instruments in draft. This procedure gives the maximum degree of Parliamentary control short of the Affirmative Resolution procedure. When Statutory Instruments which do not amend or repeal an Act of Parliament are made (for example, those described in subsection (4)(a)), either House may resolve that an Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Instrument be annulled—in other words, the Negative Prayer procedure. If this is done no further proceedings may be taken under the Instrument and an Order in Council will have to be made revoking the Instrument. This is without prejudice to the validity of anything done under the Instrument or to the making and laying of a new Instrument.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that in asking for greater freedom in this field we have had careful regard to Parliament's rightful interest in these matters and that we have struck the right balance between taking up Parliament's time unnecessarily and ensuring that Parliament can intervene whenever it thinks fit. I realise this is a delicate field and Parliament is rightly always sensitive to proceedings under Statutory Instruments. But I think the degree of control—and in certain respects Parliamentary control is being increased—represents the right balance; and I can assure your Lordships from my own experience when I on one occasion wished to alter a relatively simple arrangement, with regard to the engagement terms of applicants to the Women's Royal Air Force, which we thought would help recruiting, I was prevented from doing so; indeed we have had to wait a couple of years to do it, and I think this is therefore desirable.
May I turn to some of the other provisions, Clauses 3 to 11 and Clause 13? These clauses will bring the terms of

1191
enlistment and conditions of service for ratings and marines up to date, and in general into line with those applying to soldiers and airmen in Part I of the 1955 Acts. There is, however, nothing in these clauses to confer on Naval recruits the right to purchase their discharge in their first three months of service. We told the Select Committee on this Bill and the Committee of the other place that we intend to make regulations under this Bill giving all new recruits to Royal Navy and Royal Marines the right to purchase their discharge for £20 during the last fourteen days of their third month of service. As the grant of this right is an entirely new departure for the Navy, we think that the regulations procedure which is more flexible than legislation is a reasonable one to adopt initially. I hope that your Lordships, too, will agree.
Clause 12 proposes a new clause to take the place of Section 10 of each of the 1955 Acts. It proposes that Her Majesty's powers to retain in the Service Regular soldiers and airmen when national danger is imminent or a great emergency has arisen should be exercised by order instead of the time consuming procedure of a Proclamation; the words about informing Parliament are in line with those recently approved by Parliament in Section 5 of the Reserve Forces Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and others who took part in that debate will remember, we were concerned about the new arrangements for calling out the Reserves in an emergency, and in this context this is consistent with what applied on the previous occasion.
My Lords, I should like to turn now to Part III of the Bill, which is mainly concerned with disciplinary matters. Clause 15 provides a new power to take a person subject to Service law into Service custody as a preferred alternative to his being taken into custody by local authorities overseas. I am sure your Lordships will accept that we have a duty towards those we send abroad on military duties, to the civilians and dependants who accompany them, who may be subject to military law, wherever practicable to keep them out of custody in local gaols, possibly under unsuitable conditions. This is not, of course, to say that they should escape trial and punishment for offences against local law. They
1192
would be made available for investigations and trial in the local courts whenever this was appropriate. I will not go into this difficult question of jurisdiction, because this is confined to the question of custody.
We have, however, international agreements which entitle us to take pre-trial custody of our own personnel. Without the new power provided by this clause, such custody can only be taken lawfully with the consent of the person concerned except where it happens to be authorised under local law. This is obviously an unsatisfactory and slightly confusing situation, and Clause 15 will provide a statutory foundation which should assist our Service authorities to protect the Service personnel and at the same time help them in the responsible discharge of their obligations to the local courts. Since the person would be taken into custody in anticipation of process before the local courts, the duration of such custody depends upon the speed and activity of those courts. Control therefore presents difficulties, but the Defence Council will make regulations to ensure that they are kept fully informed of any case where the power is used and the Government would do all that is practicable to avoid a person from being held in custody for an undue time.
If I may quickly turn to Clauses 21, 32 and 17, this is the group of clauses designed to improve the disciplinary arrangements of all three Forces, to increase or introduce monetary punishments in a manner which will be recognised as consistent with developments in civil practice; and it brings the three Services closer together. In doing this, perhaps I may, with your Lordships' permission, take some clauses out of their numerical order, and, first of all, Clauses 21, 32 and 17. The punishment of a forfeiture of a sum from pay, to a maximum equivalent to fourteen days' pay, was introduced into the Army and Air Force in the 1961 Act and experience has shown it to be a most useful and satisfactory device, well designed to meet modern disciplinary needs. In many cases it has, for example, proved a valuable alternative to detention.
However, courts-martial have sometimes refrained from awarding this penalty, even where appropriate in form, because the maximum amount which could be forfeited did not seem sufficient

1193
in view of the gravity of the offence. In consequence, they have awarded other punishments which may in the event have had greater financial effects; for example, forfeiture of seniority or reduction in rank, and these punishments may have turned out unnecessarily damaging to a man's career. Clause 21 therefore proposes an increase in the sum awardable as a forfeiture by court-martial from 14 to 28 days' pay for Service offences, and that a court-martial should be given the same power as a civil court to award a fine for a civil offence. The summary powers of commanding officers would remain unchanged. The opportunity has also been taken in this clause to convert the punishment from that of a forfeiture of a sum from pay to what I think will be more naturally understood—namely, a "fine".
In Clause 22 we seek to introduce a new punishment in the Army and R.A.F. of dismissal from Her Majesty's service, which would be awardable only by courts-martial. This already exists for officers and warrant officers in those two Services and for all ranks in the Royal Navy, but N.C.O.s, soldiers and airmen can at present only be "discharged with ignominy" by courts-martial under the existing powers. Courts-martial may shrink from the stigma involved in awarding discharge with ignominy while agreeing that the accused should he dismissed. This has left the discharge of the accused to be dealt with by administrative means. We therefore propose that courts-martial in the Army and R.A.F. should be given the power to dismiss N.C.O.s, soldiers and airmen from Her Majesty's service.
LORD GLENDEVON: My Lords, may I just intervene to clear up something here. The wording of Clause 22(2) is:
"The punishment…shall henceforth be known as 'dismissal with disgrace'…"
It includes the word "disgrace". I was wondering what difference there is between "disgrace" and "ignominy".
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to go on, he will find that I am coming to that. I appreciate that this is a complicated measure. It is arguable which is worse, "disgrace" or "ignominy". I think that is the point that the noble Lord is on. What we are proposing is that it will be possible to dismiss, or to dismiss with
1194
disgrace; in other words, there is an option. We are proposing to change the name of the more serious punishment at present known in the Army and R.A.F. as "discharge with ignominy" to that of "dismissal with disgrace" which already exists in the Royal Navy. We feel that the latter term is less obscure and will bring the advantage of uniformity. Let me say to the noble Lord, that it will also be possible merely to punish with dismissal, without disgrace. If the noble Lord is unhappy about this we shall be able to go into it more fully on the Committee stage. It will, incidentally, leave the term "discharge" to signify the termination of service by administrative means.
Clause 32 introduces the punishment of fines for naval ratings, and in general brings the three Services into line as regards fines. Clause 17 increases the maximum fine awardable to a civilian. This latter change will be helpful in enabling more minor offences by civilians to be disposed of adequately without the formality, publicity and delay and expense of a trial by court-martial.
Clause 16 enables a foreigner to be placed in command over Her Majesty's Forces. It will be appreciated that such a situation may arise in joint forces in NATO, for example, and elsewhere. It may be suggested that foreigners have already been put in command of Her Majesty's Forces in the past under prerogative powers, but it was felt desirable to put the position beyond doubt by Statute. Clause 28 will ensure that Her Majesty's present power to put officers of Commonwealth Forces in command of Her United Kingdom Forces continues unaffected. I assure your Lordships that where members of our forces are placed to serve under foreign command the present practice will be continued whereby the powers of discipline over them will be reserved to British officers
I should like now to turn to a rather difficult legal point. Clauses 25, 26 and 35 relate to the barring of a second trial by either a civil court or by proceedings under the Service Acts in respect of the same or substantially the same offence which has already been dealt with by the other body. Briefly, their purpose is to apply fully to members of all the Services

1195
the Common Law principle that a person may not be put in jeopardy twice for the same offence. This principle, although enshrined in the 1957 Naval Discipline Act, has not yet been fully extended to the other two Services. I think your Lordships would agree that the time has come to bring them all into line on this point.
I ought to mention that there is one point in Clause 25 which we have subjected to examination legally. This deals with the application of the doctrine of autrefois acquit and convict in relation to trial by the civil courts after previous proceedings under the Service Acts. It is likely that the Government will wish to put down an Amendment in order to deal with a rather tricky legal point, but I will not go further into it at this stage, and when the time comes I shall no doubt need to ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to help in this matter. I should also remark that the expression "substantially the same offence" which appears in Clauses 25 and 35 is that which, as noble and learned Lords will recognise, is based on the words used in judicial proceedings of this House in the case of Connelly v. The Director of Public Prosecutions to describe the Common Law principle of autrefois convict.
I must apologise to your Lordships for going into such detail, but, as I indicated, this Bill is essentially a package of important changes. It is difficult to single out, as one does on other Bills, a single main purpose. It is essentially concerned with improving and bringing up to date provisions for the conduct and control of Her Majesty's Armed Forces. Following the precedent of the last debate, I have not discussed general issues relating to the Forces, but if noble Lords have points of this nature which they wish to raise—and we are grateful to certain noble Lords for giving notice of these points—my noble friend will be prepared to deal with them in his winding-up speech. Indeed, for the noble Lord who is particularly concerned on the question of dismissal as opposed to dismissal with disgrace I will see whether my noble friend can give a clearer explanation; but I can assure him that the account I gave is correct.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that the present machinery for conducting
1196
legislation for the Armed Forces is now pretty satisfactory. We are at the start of a new quinquennial cycle, and the Bill permits the continuance of the Acts for five years; but provides for this only for the coming year, and each subsequent year is still subject to the wishes of Parliament. There is still the annual procedure of Order. As part of the quinquennial cycle, the Bill has been exhaustively examined with enormous thoroughness by a Select Committee of another place. This arrangement stems from a recommendation of a Select Committee sitting in 1952–54 which included in its membership my noble friend Lord Rowley. He is here seeing the products of some of the stalwart work done in the Select Committee. A major development this year has been the way in which the Royal Navy has been associated: entry and discharge into the Navy and discipline within the Navy are being brought closer towards the practice in the other two Services without, I am convinced, any detriment to the distinctive naval practice which has grown up over so many years out of their great wisdom and experience in these matters. This is indeed an "Armed Forces Bill", and as such I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shackleton)
3.47 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I should like. to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for his very clear explanation of the Bill, which I must say takes a good deal of understanding for a mere amateur like myself. The Bill has taken quite a long time to reach this House, for I note that the Second Reading debate in the other place took place on December 13, 1965—before the Election. It was then, as the noble Lord said, very carefully considered by a Select Committee, and I should like to join with him in his tribute to the work which was done by that Committee.
It is not a controversial Bill, and on the whole we welcome it. We particularly welcome the fact that conditions of service for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force are being brought into line. Though I have always been opposed to integration for integration's sake—and indeed in the past I have felt that in

1197
some cases it has been overdone—I think that where it can be carried out without loss of efficiency it is a good thing. This Bill takes us a good step further in bringing into line the various rules and conditions for the three Services. When we next have a Defence debate in this House, I should like to discuss the detailed figures of economies which have been made in military and civilian personnel as a result of the reorganisations which have been carried out, particularly those in the Ministry of Defence. However, I feel that this Bill would not provide the right atmosphere for such a discussion. I intend only to select for mention one or two points which arise from the clauses of the Bill, and I shall be fairly brief. I should like to ask for certain enlargements on what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said; and we shall of course, have a chance on Committee stage to go into more detail, if that becomes necessary.
Clause 2, which is a very important one, deals with enlistment and conditions of service; that is, recruiting. I noticed that almost every speech on this Bill in another place referred to recruiting, and almost every speech that we have had in Defence debates in your Lordships' House has also done so. I am quite sure that it will be a great improvement if the Ministry of Defence can alter conditions to suit the climate of the moment, and to take advantage of the climate of the moment for getting recruits.
Nevertheless, as the noble Lord has said, Parliament has always been very jealous of its powers, and we are a little alarmed that regulations should be brought in and acted on immediately, without Parliament having the opportunity to examine them, not necessarily on the Floor of either House, but in our Libraries. I think this Bill creates a precedent in that the new proposals become regulations on the day that they are submitted to Parliament. True, I understand that Parliament can annul them, but if such a thing were to happen a number of Servicemen would already have been admitted under conditions which were then vetoed by Parliament. I will not say any more about this, but I hope to examine the matter, and I also hope that some of your Lordships will speak about it, at Committee stage.
1198
I now want to turn to Clause 9, which deals with the admission of young persons. I am not quite sure what the former regulations were, but we are in complete agreement that parents and guardians should have to give their consent before a young lad under 17½ can join up. Can the noble Lord tell me whether it is the case already with the Army and the R.A.F., and that this clause therefore brings the Navy into line?
LORD SHACKLETON: Yes, my Lords.
LORD THURLOW: At present permission has to be obtained for the Army and Air Force boys.
There is also the question of one of these young men changing his mind. I should like to say just a word on this point, because I think we are in difficulties. Certainly in my experience, boys in the Army and in the R.A.F. are given very expensive technical training at apprentice schools. They are first-class establishments, and I know one very well. It grew up under my command, and I know that the education provided there is more expensive than that at Eton—or even Borstal. Obviously, the Service must get a return for such public expenditure in at least a few years of service in the arm the boy has chosen. The Services must be protected from being used merely to give a technical education which, when completed, could command higher wages in industry. But, equally, a boy who is genuinely unhappy and a misfit in the career chosen by him in a fit of enthusiasm, should be allowed a chance of changing his mind. Can the Minister who is to wind up give us any yardstick, and tell us whether the regulations for the three Services are the same?
I turn now to Clause 15 which deals with comparatively junior officers putting senior officers under arrest. This clause appeals to me enormously. It conjures up in my mind an elderly General being pursued by a fierce foreign policeman dangling a pair of handcuffs, and, when almost exhausted, throwing himself in the arms of the first officer
"not below the rank of lieutenant-commander or a military or air-force officer of corresponding rank"
begging to be put under arrest. It is a sort of modern variant of hide-and-seek,

1199
which your Lordships might well introduce to your children and grandchildren. I think that Mr. Giles of the Daily Express should not let the opportunity slip to depict such an interesting possibility. But it is a very sensible regulation, and I appreciate the causes behind it.
I notice in Clause 25 (I am having to jump about a little, because this is related slightly) that a civil court is debarred from trying an officer or man if he has already been tried under military law. How does this apply to offences committed in foreign and Commonwealth countries? I had experience of a case where an officer on my staff was involved in a traffic accident and was fined. The other party, a local driver, who in my opinion—and I was a witness to the accident—was solely to blame, got away with it. If that officer had asked me to arrest him, which I was quite prepared to do, would he not then have been able to be tried in the civil court of the country concerned? That country was then a Colony, and it is now a Commonwealth country. I should be very grateful if that point could be answered in due course.
Clause 16 deals with command over Her Majesty's forces by foreign officers. I know that my noble and gallant friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein is rather alarmed about this clause. As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, many of us, certainly I myself, have served under a foreign General in General Eisenhower. In fact, I should think there are very few of your Lordships who did not serve either under Marshal Foch or General Eisenhower in one or other of the last two wars. So that we have all done it. But I now understand from the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that this clause makes the law rather tidier, and will meet cases which could easily crop up when British troops are operating under the United Nations. But I should like to be assured that there will always be safeguards whereunder a British officer can refer to his own national superior authority, as indeed frequently happened in the last war with Commonwealth contingents who were operating under British command.
Clause 21 deals with fines instead of stoppages of pay. I was amused at the suggestion of the honourable Member for Buckinghamshire, South, who thought
1200
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer prompted this innovation because when a rating's pay is stopped he does not pay income tax, but when he is fined the same amount he has to pay income tax on the fine as well. My only point here is to ask the Government whether they contemplate punishing by fines any offences which at present have other forms of punishment prescribed for them.
My Lords, those are some of the points I wanted to raise. We have not had long to study this Bill; we have had only five days' notice. We shall have to look at it again in the light of what noble Lords opposite have to say.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord had two years' notice.
LORD THURLOW: It was on the Order Paper only for five days before this debate.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, his interest is such that I assumed he followed all the proceedings in another place continuously at the time.
LORD THURLOW: But we had our summer holidays, when the noble Lord and I were both fishing, and I am afraid that I forgot. But I recommend that your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading.
4.0 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for explaining this Bill, which really consists of a series of Committee points, in such a lucid way. In fact, he was so lucid that he drew my attention to one or two points that I had missed and to which I propose to refer to-day. The Bill is made up of a large number of, to some extent, unrelated details, but there are one or two very important principles enshrined in it which I hope to bring to the notice of your Lordships.
In the first place, I am going to speak about the Royal Navy. I have a great admiration for the Royal Navy, but I have no knowledge of it. I had always understood, perhaps mistakenly, that the sailors regarded themselves as being different from the Royal Marines because the Royal Marines were sworn men and they were not. This difference has shown itself on several occasions during the history of the Royal Navy, one being that in

1201
the old days, I think, they did not salute but pulled their caps off. However that may be, perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to confirm that in future, at all events, there will be no distinction at all; they will be under exactly the same duties and responsibilities and the same regulations, the one as the other.
In the second place, I should like to ask the noble Lord what is an "enemy" nowadays. Your Lordships will note that in Clause 28 the word "enemy"is used. It is true that this is an amendment to the previous Act; nevertheless, it is rather interesting to know how a man in the Armed Forces can be quite sure that he is deserting to an "enemy". Take the U.2 incident, for example. In that incident, an aircraft was shot down, but not by an "enemy". In the cold war, presumably, soldiers may frequently be engaged with people who are not "enemies"; and perhaps we could have—not now, but perhaps at the Committee stage—a clear definition of what "enemy" means, and even what "desertion" means, in the circumstances of the cold war.
Then I should like to raise a question on Clause 25, which is possibly—historically, at any rate—the most important clause in this Bill. Historically, again, as a result of Cromwell and his Generals, it has always been the case that a conviction by a court-martial did not absolve an officer or a soldier from trial by a civil court. It was no excuse; and this was one of the ways, historically, in which the civil power was able to keep its hold over the military. Until to-day—or, at least, until the passing of this Bill, which may be in two or three weeks'time—it has always been regarded, so far as the Army is concerned, as a vital principle in our civil and military law that conviction, sentence and punishment by a civil court is a good plea in defence to a charge before a court-martial, but not the other way about. I think it should be stressed that if we pass this Bill we shall in fact be approving a principle which will go against everything that has been enshrined in this field in the past. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, can deny that. At any rate, he does not seem to at the moment.
There is also the question of the Court of Criminal Appeal. A few years ago
1202
we brought into being this new, final appeal—I think very properly, if I may say so. Both in this House and in another place we had discussions about giving the right to an officer or a soldier convicted by court-martial to come before a very high court of appeal—to all intents and purposes, the Court of Criminal Appeal in this country, headed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington. It would be interesting to me and perhaps to other noble Lords to know whether that innovation has been a successful one, how many appeals have been heard by the noble Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, and his colleagues, and what has been the effect of this new system on the Army.
Going a little wider—because, after all, the Army Acts, which nowadays this Bill supersedes, were the historic vehicles on which the Houses of Parliament could debate Army matters—I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one or two other points of a more general nature, but still of a domestic nature, affecting the conditions of service of the Forces. For the first time in, perhaps, a hundred years, the majority of the British Army will very shortly be stationed in this country. As your Lordships know, under the Cardwell system half the Army was stationed in India and half here. Now, with the gradual drawing back of the legions from overseas to this country, the thinning out of the garrisons and the dwindling of commitments, in a few years' time most of the Army will be here; and that raises considerable problems on which I think we should spend a moment or two.
In the first place, this Bill is an example of integration, in a sense, and I should like to know what other examples of integration are being carried out by the Ministry of Defence. It seems to me that most of the services of the Army, as distinct from the operational units, could very largely be integrated. The medical, legal, dental, transport, educational, signals, stores and ordnance services, as well as the chaplains and perhaps many more, could be integrated. I do not see that in many cases it matters very much, except in detail, whether in most of these jobs a man is doing them as a member of the Army, the Navy or the Air Force. I should have thought that there was great scope for integration.

1203
It is possible even in the operational services. I do not want to repeat a lot of old soldiers' tales, although I could, regarding the last war, about operations going from one force to another. I myself was suddenly confronted with a battery of naval guns and told to seat them, get them ready for action and fire them. I had never seen naval guns before in my life. I think that, very often, a great deal too much is made of the fact that one wears a blue tunic, a khaki tunic, a sky-blue tunic or whatever it may be. There is a great deal that can be done, even in operational matters, in the way of integration. Then there is the Defence College. We have heard that there is a new Defence College planned, to be called the Royal Defence Academy; and this, to a large extent, is to supersede the existing Navy, Army and Air Force Colleges. Perhaps we could hear a word on that, and what the situation is.
But my main and last point, and the one I want to urge upon Her Majesty's Government and the Ministers here present, is the question of accommodation. I have already mentioned that in the very near future considerable numbers of troops will be coming hack to this country. From the Mediterranean, in particular, I understand, the movement of troops has been greatly intensified, and they may be back even a year ahead of the time originally planned; so there will be a great need for permanent camps and married quarters. As we know, the position of married families is a very different one to-day from what it was in the days when most of us served in the Forces; and in fact in most units to-day there is on the strength an officer whose duty it is to look after the married families. Very soon the troops, and Air Force personnel as well, will be returning from Aden, Cyprus, Libya, Malta, Borneo and even, maybe, if the Government can persuade the Germans to cooperate, from West Germany. In all these cases, except that of Borneo, their families will accompany them. The position of Hong Kong is rather curious, because there, it seems, the flow is the other way. The Government are anxious to have Hong Kong take more troops than it has or wants. This I believe is because they hope that Hong Kong will pay for the troops it gets.
1204
In the past the strategic reserve in this country was concentrated largely in the Home Counties and in Southern England—sensibly enough, I suppose, when one thinks that they might be wanted quickly, and that the likely enemy was to the East. It does not say very much for our air transport; but it may be that this scheme was drawn up in the days of sea transport and has not been adjusted since. However, it need not apply any longer. When most of the Army will be at home, there is no need for all the units to be in the Home Counties or Southern England. Indeed, it would be very unfortunate if they were. In my view, it would be a very good thing, and much cheaper in other ways, if the troops stationed here were not concentrated in one area but went to their natural habitat, in the Midlands, in the North, in Scotland, in Northern Ireland or in Wales, as the case may be.
There is another aspect. Now that the Government have practically decimated the Territorial Army, there will no longer be any Army presence in many places in the country; for the drill halls are to be sold and will become bingo halls, or whatever it may be. Many of the small towns in this country, and most of the larger ones, have a drill hall on which is the symbol of the regiment and, underneath it, the legend, "Such-and-such a battalion, Territorial Army". The emblem of the regiment, both Regular and Territorial is there; and the Army presence is effected all over the country by these Territorial drill halls. But in future the drill halls will not be there and the Army presence as such will cease to be.
Therefore it is very important in the future that the Regular Army should have their permanent camps in many different parts of the country. May I say that here I have a fish to fry of my own. My own brigade, the Welsh Brigade, rarely has a battalion in this country at all. We should wish to see one battalion in Wales; and this fits in with what I have been saying. My brigade headquarters in Cwrt-y-Gollen, would make an excellent site at which to station a battalion. A permanent camp could be built in addition to the existing buildings. The fact that it is not situated in Southern England does not matter now that the Severn Bridge has been built. Cwrt-y-Gollen is within 25 minutes of Bristol, and the

1205
alleged isolation of South Wales, including Monmouthshire, no longer applies. I think that permanent camps like this will have a most important effect not only on the distribution of troops but on recruiting. So far as recruiting is concerned, I am glad to say the Welsh Brigade has one of the best records and my own regiment, the Welch Regiment, is, I believe, the top regiment in the Army. I must say, incidentally, that I got these facts on the Armistice Day parade last week. I cannot vouch for their accuracy, because that is not necessarily an occasion on which one could get strictly literal accuracy about one's own unit. But, in any case, I believe they are very well up in the table.
My Lords, that is all I have to say. There are a number of questions which I shall want to refer to on Committee stage of the Bill; but if the noble Lord who is to reply could give me an answer to those I have posed now I should be very much obliged. I end by wishing the Army, as always, every possible success in its ardous duties in the future.
4.15 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has just spoken will forgive me if I do not follow him in some of the remarks he made, except to express my agreement to his reference to the possibility of further integration in the three Services. Some of us on this side of the House, like noble Lords on the other side, and those of us who were formerly in another place, strongly advocated the desirability of extending integration certainly to the administrative services of the Army, Navy and Air Force. We held those views a considerable time before the 1964 Act was passed which, as we all know, provided for further development of the Central Organisation of Defence. However, I certainly would gravely doubt whether I understood the noble Lord correctly when he, possibly by way of illustration, referred to his own experience in being asked to take charge of a battery of naval guns when I imagine he was presumably trained as an artillery officer of field artillery or garrison artillery. I may of course be mistaken, if the noble Lord was an infantry officer, but my experience would be such as to make me believe—and there are noble Lords who are sitting
1206
on the other side of the House who would agree with me—that it would be a very undesirable thing to place in command of an artillery unit an officer who knew nothing at all of the guns for which the unit was responsible.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as I said, I do not want to go into old soldiers' tales, but it was the case; it is true. It occurred in 1940, when all sorts of odd things were happening and my battery—it was rather a scratch battery at that—was suddenly called upon to take over Naval guns, to install them, to put them up, and fire them on the East Coast. This is what happened.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, in an emergency many things happen. I remember in 1918, during the retreat of the Fifth Army, that we had to bring up the cooks, the batmen and everyone else, in order to put them into the front line to stem the German advance. What we do in emergencies is perhaps different. But, as regards integration, I share to some extent the doubts of the noble Lord who spoke for the Conservative Opposition. I supported the 1964 Bill because, like others, I believed there was a strong case for central organisation of defence. But I do not believe that you can destroy the traditions of the three Services by an Act of Parliament.
We see what is happening in Canada at the present time. I was over there a few weeks ago in connection with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference. An extraordinary position was arising because it has been decided that Admirals should in future be called Generals. The noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, is not in his seat to comment, but I cannot imagine a Field Marshal being happy at being given the rank of Admiral. Throughout the history of our country our Field Marshals have carried us to victory. They have attained a prestige of which they and all of us can be proud; the same applies to the Navy. Whatever may happen in the years ahead, if and when we get greater unification to the extent of having one integrated defence force, I hope we are not going to fiddle around and start to interfere with the three operational Services, whatever we do with regard to the administrative services. That does not mean that I am old fashioned enough to say that there is no possibility of a further

1207
degree of integration in the operation forces of our three Services.
I like this Bill because it is an attempt, and a very good attempt, if I may say so—it was very clearly and explicitly explained to the House by my noble friend Lord Shackleton—to deal with a very difficult situation which has arisen because we are in the middle of a changing situation affecting the Armed Forces of our country. The then Deputy Secretary of State for Defence and Minister for the Army, in his speech in another place, referred to what he called the harmonised integration of the three Services. He gave as an illustration the fact that, whereas this Bill does not in any way seek to have a code of discipline for the three Services, it has taken the different Service codes and tried to relate them to one another, so as to have, so far as possible, a common basic standard of disciplinary rules. That is perhaps not going very far but I believe it is the way in which we are going to advance.
The then Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy, in his speech, described what I think he called the functional approach. He pointed out that his responsibility as regards personnel covered the three Services and therefore there was, to an extent, integration in dealing with the personnel of the three Services, although at that time he was Minister for the Navy. That seems to me the way we have to advance along this road towards the possible integration of our Armed Services.
In my view, this Bill has the merit that, although it looks a bit scrappy, it deals with a great number of problems. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, called it a package, which it is. It seems to me that we are now in a very much better position than we would have been but for the changes that took place subsequent to 1952.
My noble friend Lord Shackleton referred to the fact that I was one who sat on the Select Committee, appointed in 1952, which had eighty sittings and finally reported in 1954. What was the great advantage about the appointment of that Select Committee? The noble Viscount, Lord Monsell, who sits opposite, and I were in the House of Commons thirty years ago or more, and he will remember as well as I do that once a
1208
year there was always an all-night sitting to debate the Army Act 1881. I doubt very much whether anything constructive came out of the twelve or fourteen hours of deliberation. I never did think that much came out of all-night sittings, anyway. It was because many of us—Members on both sides of the House, for this was not a Party approach at all—took the view that some attempt should be made to put the law relating to the Armed Services on a sound basis that Her Majesty's Government appointed this Select Committee in 1952. As a result, the recommendation was made that there should be this quinquennial Act of Parliament and that we should seek to get away from the annual argie-bargie on Party lines which was certainly not to the advantage of those in the three Armed Services. To-day this Bill is possible because of the change that was made as a result of the acceptance of the Report of that Select Committee. Now we do not have an Army Act or an Air Force Act to renew each year and the quinquennial Act which we are discussing to-day obviously must spread itself over problems affecting the three Services.
I would say only this, my Lords. I believe it is a considerable step forward, and while there may be differences of opinion on how far we should go along the path of integrating the Armed Forces, I believe, with the noble Lord who preceded me, that a great deal more could be done, although I should certainly be very shy of any change which would arouse bitterness and disputation in the Services, such as characterised the changes which are being put through in another Commonwealth country. My Lords, I should again like to associate myself with the congratulations offered to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for his excellent introduction of the Bill. I am quite sure that he has done a great deal to clarify some of the problems with which it deals.
4.24 p.m.
LORD GLENDEVON: My Lords, may I detain your Lordships just for one minute? I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for the courtesy with which he took the point I made, when I interrupted him regarding the terms of Clause 22, but I am still a little worried. I do not think that I explained my point very clearly. What I am worried about

1209
is the reason for changing the word "ignominy" to "disgrace". I did not think there was very much difference between them, but a few minutes ago I took the liberty of slipping out from the Chamber to visit your Lordships' Library, and there I looked at the dictionary. I found that "ignominy" is defined as "dishonour", and "disgrace" as "downfall from a position of honour". That being so, I wondered why the trouble has been taken to change these two words. I do not feel any more strongly about it than that.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I say one thing about the choice of words? I know of a certain professional man who was called before his professional disciplinary council on a charge of infamous and disgraceful conduct. In the event, they found him guilty of infamous but not of disgraceful conduct. I did not understand the significance, but the effect was that he was not struck off. The distinction may be of that order, but my noble friend Lord Winterbottom may be able to go into it further.
4.27 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Bill before us is, among other things, a measure of consolidation and as a result it covers a very wide field. Many questions have been asked during this debate and I cannot claim to have stored every answer in my memory. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if from time to time there is something of a paper-chase in my attempts to answer points made. Since the noble Lord, Lord Glendevon, has raised the point about "ignominy" or "disgrace". I might give him an immediate answer before I come to other points.
Basically, the terms "ignominy" and "disgrace" are, in terms of the present Bill, interchangeable. In some Forces people are discharged with "ignominy". In the Navy men are discharged with disgrace. The term "disgrace" is something which we all understand, but not everyone understands exactly what ignominy means, or the force of it. I suppose that slipping on a banana skin is ignominious but not disgraceful. For this reason, "disgrace" was selected to apply to the three Services. There is also a legal point behind it. Dismissal with disgrace means the same as discharged with ignominy, but we want to use the
1210
same term in all three Services. We are, however, introducing a new power for courts-martial to dismiss N.C.O.s, soldiers and airmen in conjunction with a period of detention or imprisonment. What happened in many cases in the past was that when one of these other ranks was court-martialled and imprisoned he was subsequently discharged administratively from the Services. Now, however, in addition to the punishment of imprisonment we wish also to discharge him formally. There is a difference. That is the reason for the changes in the Bill.
Before launching into answers to the interesting points raised by noble Lords in the course of the debate, I should like to make a small debating point—wearing now my naval cap. It may be thought that since Part II, Clauses 2 to 14, deals almost exclusively with the Royal Navy, the Royal Navy is catching up with the other Armed Forces. I maintain that whereas it has been felt by both Houses that we have to watch the Army and the Air Force year by year, the Navy has been trusted to get on with its affairs without interference since 1884, and now it is necessary for the other two Services to catch up with the Navy. That is a partisan point, which I hope will not be taken too seriously.
May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for giving me advance notice of the points he was going to raise? I should like to answer in broad outline at this stage. Perhaps we can go into the various points in Committee stage, when we get down to the details of this complicated and, I find, interesting measure. Clause 2 we must debate in detail. My noble friend has indicated its importance in terms of the control by Parliament of the actions of the Executive, and we must go into this with some care.
The second point raised by the noble Lord was the right of young men, who had decided on a Service career but after a comparatively short time felt that it was not for them, to leave the Services. The Army and Air Force have made arrangements for this in the past by allowing a man to buy himself out for £20 during the last 14 days of his third month of service. Until now the Royal Navy has not followed this procedure, but it is the intention of the Royal Navy to fall in line with the Army and the Air

1211
Force. The information about this can be found an page 21, paragraph 5, of the Select Committee's Report. But it is no good looking in the Bill for this intention. What will happen is that the Royal Navy will use powers conferred upon it by this Bill to bring its arrangements into line by administrative action, as was stated in another place. Any young man who finds that the Navy is not for him can get out towards the end of his third month of service.
Clause 15 (and the happy picture of a junior officer placing his senior officer under arrest!) is designed for the protection of senior officers. As the military situation becomes curiouser and curiouser, it is necessary to pass rather curious regulations. There has been the case, which your Lordships may have noticed, of a member of our Armed Forces in Cyprus being involved in some illegal transaction with the Turkish element and spending a substantial time in a Cypriot gaol—an experience which I do not believe he particularly enjoyed. This is something which can happen to almost anyone, and this clause is designed to protect British Servicemen serving abroad who come into conflict with the local civil power. While a man is waiting trial, in whatever circumstances, we wish him to be under the control of his own commanding officer. And if we have to do something rather peculiar in arranging for a junior officer to put a senior officer under open arrest, this is something that we have to do for the sake of the senior officer.
Clause 25 binds only civil courts within the jurisdiction of Parliament. If there is a question of a charge before a foreign court or before a Service court-martial abroad, the matter will be decided by our status of forces agreement with the country concerned, if there is one, and there nearly always is. Most of such agreements contain provisions for avoiding double trials. We live in an odd world, and this is one way of getting round its problems.
Then comes the interesting point raised by the noble Lord on the problems that arise when British officers and other ranks serve under foreign commanders. My noble friend mentioned one case, but there is a series of interesting cases. There is the instance of the mixed-
1212
manned ship, the "Claude V. Ricketts", on which nationals of five nations were serving under an American commanding officer and commanding Admiral. The drill there was that every national group had its own senior officer and minor breaches of discipline were dealt with by him, any major breaches resulting in the man concerned being sent back to his base in the home country and replaced by someone else. There is the other and more important example of the Second Tactical Air Force serving under a Belgian commanding officer, who was responsible for technical deployment of the Air Force while discipline remained a purely British responsibility. This problem is one which we are facing now to an increasing degree and we hope that this Bill makes suitable arrangements for the situations as they arise.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I ask whether an officer serving under a foreign officer is entitled to refer to his own national senior officer, wherever he may be? I do not think it would occur in the case of the "Claude V. Ricketts", but if the senior British officer had a complete disagreement with the captain would he have any right of appeal to their Lordships of the Admiralty?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a complex question and I should be grateful if we could consider that at a later date. In point of fact this question has not arisen, but I agree that it might arise and a definition from these Benches might be helpful. Can we leave it at that? I am interested in this point, too, and should like to know the answer.
The final point raised by the noble Lord was whether a new series of offences are going to be punished by fines rather than by any other form of punishment. I think it is true to say that fines will not be used as a new form of punishment. They will appear in what I may call the descending scale of punishments available under the Army Act. What has been happening in the past is that courts-martial have been faced with serious charges for which until now they have been able to punish the offender only with the forfeiture of 14 days' pay, and in many cases it was the court's opinion that this was not an adequate punishment. As a result, instead of men being fined

1213
they have been punished by detention or imprisonment or loss of seniority. The point was made by my noble friend in his opening speech that if courts-martial can inflict heavier punishments by fine, then we can avoid a number of cases where men have been punished by detention or imprisonment, when of course we lose their services, or where men have suffered supplementary and unforeseeable penalties because of loss of seniority. With the introduction of Clause 21 more men will be fined in future for offences for which in the past they suffered detention. I hope I have answered all the points which the noble Lord raised.
I should now like to turn to the interesting points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—and again may I thank him for his courtesy in giving advance notice? First of all, he asked how the Royal Marines were to be treated under the Bill. If my recollection is right, Royal Marines were originally soldiers. I shudder to say this in your Lordships' House, but I understand they were carried on board Her Majesty's ships and were to protect the officers from outraged conscripted men. They were originally soldiers but are now a magnificent part of the Royal Navy. They have always been treated under the same terms as those of the Army Act, and Schedule 3, which amends Part I of Schedule 7 to the Army Act 1955, lays down how they will be treated in the future when this Bill comes into force. In fact, Schedule 3 lays down an almost exactly parallel arrangement of disciplinary measures between the Royal Marines and the Army.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, but the question I asked was not about the Royal Marines. I asked about the sailors, members of the Royal Navy, and whether they would in future be treated in the same way as the Royal Marines. I knew about the Royal Marines, but I was not sure about the sailors of the Royal Navy.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I should be grateful if this point could be raised at a later stage. The Bill deals with the Royal Marines as a separate entity. Perhaps I might give the noble Lord an answer at a later date.
The next point raised by the noble Lord concerned Clause 28 of the Bill, which contains definitions of "desertion"
1214
and "enemy". Again, in this rather odd world in which we live, it is rather difficult to decide who is your enemy. The situation in Cyprus provides a classical situation. You find a situation in Cyprus where Her Majesty's forces, either British or Canadian, are conducting a police operation. The Canadian forces may be involved in a clash with some Turkish paramilitary forces, and the British are not. Does this automatically make the Turkish populace of Cyprus enemies of Her Majesty's British forces? This is again a very complicated subject, and we hope by this clause to avoid any confusions that might arise from situations such as this.
The next point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was about the effectiveness of the Appeal Court from court-martial proceedings, which I believe started operations in 1952. The figures I have here are that since 1952 there have been 330 appeals from courts-martial to the Court of Appeal, and of those 330 appeals, 16 were allowed. That is the measure of importance of that particular decision.
I was also asked about integration. This is an important and interesting subject, but it is also a very wide one. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do not go into it at great length. I could make a complete speech on this subject, because, of course, integration has been the objective of Governments of both Parties since the creation of the Ministry of Defence. The creation of the Ministry of Defence by a Conservative Administration was the first step towards obtaining economies that arise from integration. But this is a long and difficult operation, as my noble friend has pointed out. Deep loyalties are concerned, and the work is not easy. It is not easy, for instance, to give one simple reason, in that in the past the various Services have called the same article by different names. One of the first and important jobs to do in getting economies from integration is to find out what one is talking about. A common vocabulary for the three Services is almost the first step towards achieving integration.
The work has, however, started. In the last Defence Review the first steps were announced: unification of defence plans; the taking over by the R.A.F.

1215
of responsibility for accommodation stores; responsibility of the Navy for victualling all three Services; and the responsibility of the Army for providing the transport for the three Services. Something has started in three important fields. And this is not the end of the road. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, mentioned a series of functions which to any outsider and any rational human being would seem to be more suitable for common treatment than for single-Service treatment. I think this is a view shared by the Ministry of Defence. But we are the people who have to do the job, and we have to carry through this complicated operation.
Medicine is one thing that strikes all of us as something capable of integration. Some careful studies have been done in this field, and action is, I think, about to be taken. The review of the Services' long-term hospital requirements is now almost completed. This has been a long and exhaustive study. As a result, a substantial reduction in the number of beds to be retained in the remaining Service hospitals is planned. Detailed plans are now being prepared for the modernisation on a reduced scale of the naval hospitals at Plymouth and Haslar, and the military hospitals at Colchester, Millbank and Woolwich, as well as for the complete reprovision of the old military hospitals at Tidworth and Cattery. The R.A.F. hospitals at Halton and Ely will be progressively modernised, and those at Cosford and Nocton Hall will in due course be reprovided as part of a joint hospital campus with the National Health Service. In all cases our plans have been fully discussed with the Ministry of Health and are designed to ensure the greatest practicable measure of co-operation between ourselves and Regional Hospital Boards. This is a welcome development. These hospitals are not purely naval hospitals, but are also serving the civilian community surrounding the particular areas concerned.
The noble Lord then raised another interesting question, that of tertiary education for Regular officers. This is, I think, one of the most interesting developments that I have met during my brief period in the Ministry of Defence. The position is that an independent inquiry into tertiary education for Regular officers has now
1216
been completed. This inquiry was carried out by Professor Michael Howard, of London University, and Mr. Cyril English, Senior Chief Inspector of Schools, and the Ministry of Defence are grateful for the thorough and confident way in which they have carried out their study. The results of this study are now being examined by the Defence Council, and I expect that it will not be long before a statement on the decisions of the Council, based on this report, will be made to your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord then turned to what is one of the great problems facing us—namely, the accommodation to be provided for troops and their families being brought back to this country. He used a phrase which I thought had a rather unhappy ring. He talked about "the return of the unhappy legions". I do not think we can be compared with the City of Rome at a late stage of degeneration. The legions are not returning home because the centres are collapsing.
LORD THURLOW: Are they not?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: It is for economic and strategic reasons that some of these troops are returning. The problem of housing these men is one that we have to face. There is a substantial housing shortage, and the Ministry are well aware of the size of this problem. It has been tackled with energy, and in particular the resources of industrialised building are being employed, and will be employed to a greater degree, to provide houses for these men and their families when they return to this country.
I should like to make some mild complaint against the application of the word "decimation" to the Territorial Army. We had an interesting debate in this House when I thought we managed to convince noble Lords opposite, and indeed noble Lords on this side of the House, that these Reserve Forces were not being decimated but re-equipped and redesigned to perform their function in a world war. The old form of war has disappeared for ever.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I say that the noble Lord did not convince me?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I regret that fact. Lastly, the noble Lord made a plea that, if and when the Welsh Brigade

1217
came back to this country, accommodation might be found for them in their native land—I do not know whether I can call Wales the native land ! The noble Lord also made what was a very important point in terms of mobility, when he pointed out that the Severn Bridge brought Wales, from being a remote peninsular, directly in contact with the mainland, if I may call it so. This, I am certain, will be noted by my noble friend who is responsible for these problems, and I think the suggestion is one that merits careful consideration.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves my points, I do not expect an answer to my question on Clause 25 because I did not give him notice of it (in fact it was the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who drew my attention to it); but I think the change of the jurisdiction of civil courts over a soldier ought to be explained more fully than we have had it explained to-day.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think the whole House is agreed—and certainly my noble friend and I are agreed—thatClause 25, as is Clause 2, is one of the most important and controversial clauses in the Bill. As my noble friend suggested, we hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may intervene at this point to clarify the clause for the benefit of the House.
My noble friend Lord Rowley—and here I support him completely—issued a warning against the too-rapid integration and disregard of deep-seated, deep-rooted loyalties of the Services in which various members of the Armed Forces served. I think that Canada has given us an interesting laboratory experiment which we should study with benefit. Lastly, I understand very well the satisfaction that my noble friend must feel when he sees at long last the results of the marathon sittings of 1952 to 1954, when some of the first steps to get a common policy to the three Services were hammered out, which led, I presume, to the creation of a Ministry of Defence—a process of integration and a process towards achieving economies which successful integration movements within the three Services can bring about.
My Lords, this is a complex Bill, which covers a wide field. There are many points in it which we have not as yet
1218
had an opportunity of discussing but which I presume we shall discuss on Committee stage. I am grateful for the constructive approach of noble Lords towards our proposals which have been made during the course of this stage of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
4.55 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 Kennet.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD STRANG in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Rate support grants
1.—
(4) The aggregate amount of the rate support grants for any year shall be divided by the Minister into three parts (to be known respectively as "the needs element", "the resources element" and "the domestic element") which shall be of such amounts respectively as may be prescribed; and the provisions of Schedule 1 to this Act shall, subject to sections 3 and 4 of this Act, have effect with respect to the determination of the amounts payable to any local authority in respect of those elements for any year and with respect to the other matters there mentioned.
4.56 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved to add to subsection (4):
"Provided that if the aggregate grants receivable by any local authority in respect of the year 1967–68 are as a result of this Act liable to be reduced below the aggregate grants receivable by that authority in respect of the year 1966–67, by an amount exceeding the product of a rate of three pence in the pound, such reduction shall not take effect wholly in 1967–68 but shall be evenly spread over that and the three following years."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to temper the cold wind that otherwise is likely to blow very severely on certain authorities who may be substantial losers by the new system of grants embodied in the Bill. The Amendment in no way attacks that new system. Indeed, we all think it can be

1219
so operated as to be an improvement on the old.
Briefly, what the Amendment says is that if the prospective loss of grant to a local authority in receipt of grant exceeds a 3d. rate, then that loss shall be spread over four years evenly instead of falling immediately and in full on the first year. This change would cost the Exchequer nothing, because it would be an adjustment solely within the field of local authority finance. Local authorities which would otherwise be gainers under the Bill would gain a little less, but those authorities who would be substantial losers would have a tapering arrangement applied so that the loss would be spread out over a number of years.
I think it is almost universally accepted that a sharp and artificial increase in rates in any part of the country arising from new legislation is a bad thing. You may have to hurt people, but you should not bump and jar them unnecessarily. Of course, it is worse when the public have been led to expect that domestic rates on houses and flats are likely to be reduced under the Bill. I quite appreciate that it is not the Government's intention to guarantee everybody a reduction in rates, but nevertheless a good deal has been made of the point that the domestic ratepayer is to be helped, and yet I am afraid that in certain areas the domestic ratepayer will find that the result of the Bill is not that he is going to pay less, but that he is going to pay a good deal more by reason of loss of Government grant.
On the Second Reading of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said:
"My right honourable friend will prescribe, for each year, an amount by which the poundage of the general rate levied by each authority is to be reduced in respect of dwelling houses…it is expected to be 5d. in the first year…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 277 (No. 60), col. 459; 31/10/66.]
Despite that, the 5d. may well be swallowed up and drowned in various areas through substantial loss of grant which this Bill will in other respects effect.
My Amendment is designed to raise the principle of transitional arrangements. It is not offered to the Committee as a perfect piece of drafting, and if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, can pick holes in it
1220
nobody will be less surprised than I. The noble Lord in his official position will probably agree with me that it will require a far more lengthy and detailed Amendment, such as only a Government could be responsible for drafting, if transitional arrangements are to be introduced into this Bill. But if the Government will accept the principle of a transitional arrangement, and bring forward their own more precise Amendment on Report, I certainly would be prepared to withdraw this one.
Noble Lords may recollect that I was responsible in another place for what became the Local Government Act 1958. That was the last occasion when there was a substantial change in the grant system. My 1958 Act provided for tapering arrangements over several years on a sliding scale to soften the blow to losing authorities. That is to be found in Section 15 of the 1958 Act, and when I say that that section runs to sixty lines noble Lords will understand why I did not on this occasion attempt to repeat anything like that, but simply sought to raise the general principle of transitional adjustments in a reasonably short Amendment. I know that in the outcome Section 15 of the 1958 Act gave rise to some difficulties in application, and I would not press for a precise re-enactment of that. That section, for example, protected all receiving authorities against any loss of grant in the first year. My Amendment does not go so far. It only bites if there is a loss of over 3d. in the pound, and it would give rise to correspondingly fewer calculations.
We are seeking here simply to secure that the working of the Bill makes practical sense. There is no great question of principle involved as to whether or not there should be transitional arrangements, but I suggest that it is the more necessary for your Lordships' House to take a close interest in the working of the Bill in this respect, in that this Government have not supplied Parliament with figures showing the probable effects of the Bill on each separate authority. The Government in another place were pressed to do that but were not willing to do so. That contrasts with the previous occasion in 1958 when I had a White Paper laid before Parliament which showed estimates of the effects of the Bill on each authority in receipt of grant.

1221
I know that not all those forecasts could have been absolutely right, but they did give Parliament a broad idea how the Act was going to affect each local authority. That is what is missing on this occasion.
The Government could help us a great deal even at this late stage if they would give us more information. I asked for further information in my speech on the Second Reading a fortnight ago, but my request was not complied with during the course of that debate. For example, what is the greatest loss of grant in terms of the product of a penny rate that any county or county borough is likely to suffer next year, compared with this year, as a result of the new grant arrangements embodied in the Bill? I cannot help thinking that the Government must have calculated this, and I would ask that Parliament should be given this information.
As I have said, the Government know that we are in no way hostile to the principle in the new grant clauses of this Bill. In pressing the need for transitional adjustments to be included in the Bill we are seeking to improve further a Bill which, in principle, almost everybody accepts. That is why I hope that the Government will, in principle, accept the case that I am making out for the necessity for transitional arrangements. It appears to me that otherwise a great deal of hurt will be done in some areas, a great feeling of unfairness will be created, and all through the Government having departed from the precedent which has hitherto been set when Parliament has been reorganising the local government grant system.
The Government said in another place that the reason the Bill did not contain any transitional arrangements was that such arrangements are not easy to make. It is not always easy to do justice, we know, but nevertheless we all accept that justice ought to be done. I am making a plea for justice. I am simply asking that the principle should be accepted. If the Government will undertake to insert some arrangements of their own in this Bill for transitional adjustments, I shall be willing to withdraw my Amendment, but otherwise I shall be very reluctant to do so.
5.6 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, raised the question why the Government had not made available an exemplification, as it is called in the jargon of the business; that is, a table which would show the probable gain or loss to different local authorities, as he himself made one available before the 1958 Act. The reason for this is that the new system of London government has been operating for so short a time that the figures for London and for the counties which were amputated to make Greater London are not available. We have no valid figures for that area and we do not know quite how it will work there.
That being so, the presence of so many guesswork figures in any exemplification we might make now would distort the whole exercise. As a matter of fact, we have drawn up an exemplification and we have shown it in confidence to local authority circles concerned—circles which, because of their professional association with this work, are well able to allow for the fact that it is perforce utterly unreliable—but we do not feel we should be justified in laying these figures before Parliament because they would reach a wide general circle that would perhaps be less capable of allowing for their inbuilt unreliability, and to do so would cause greater confusion and alarm, and possibly raise more false hopes.
To turn to the Amendment, the noble Lord said it was not drafted in the final form he would wish and asked that the Government would make an Amendment of their own to the same effect. I do not want to pick holes in the Amendment as it is drafted, but I would point out to the Committee that in drafting such an Amendment it would be difficult to avoid allowing for events which ought not to be allowed for in a transitional scheme. Suppose in the first year a large industrial works opened in a new area which this year qualifies for rate deficiency grant; this will increase the amount of rateable value per head of the population so that the local authority will be entitled to a smaller measure (or

1223
perhaps none at all) of the resources element. And quite rightly so, because they will have the additional rate resources provided by the new works. It would be quite wrong if, in addition, they received compensation for the reduction in grant.
Again, some authorities may have received large amounts of specific grant in 1966–67 in respect of once-for-all expenditure—say, major road works. If they do not have to meet similar expenditure the next year it would be quite wrong to compensate them for the reduction in grant. I do not say it would be impossible but it would be extremely difficult. The Government are not convinced that it would be worth while for the following reason.
The noble Lord has told us, from his own experience as Minister of Housing and Local Government, how he introduced a transitional scheme. I do not know whether he remembers, but within the Ministry the memory of the traumatic results of that scheme is still vivid. The transitional scheme was to cushion the effects of the change in the system, and another transitional scheme had to be introduced to cushion the effects of the first transitional scheme. For that reason the Government are fighting a little shy of transitional schemes, and it is notable that none of the local authority associations has suggested that we should have one this time. I must therefore advise the House that the Government do not consider a transitional scheme to be necessary, and that in particular the Amendment as it is drafted would be difficult to apply; but that is a point which I have already covered. I therefore advise the Committee not to make the Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: This explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is the most extraordinary I have heard in this House. He is in effect saying that Parliament are such a lot of "suckers" that they cannot be given figures which may be subject to some inaccuracies, but local authorities are such wise people that inaccurate figures may be put before them because they will not believe them. Anybody who has seen some of the figures produced by Her Majesty's Government—not always the Government opposite—knows
1224
how inaccurate Government figures are. I assure the noble Lord that we are not such "suckers"; he can produce these figures and we will make due allowance.
LORD KENNET: Parliament includes no "suckers", but we cannot guarantee that among the readers of Hansard there will not be some "suckers".
LORD MARGADALE: There is considerable feeling among those counties who think they are hardly done by, although we have not got the figures before us. The noble Lord has said it is not impossible to draft an Amendment to follow that of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I hope he will consider now trying a little harder to do so.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, would be prepared to think again about this matter. I have listened to what he said. Part of his reason for not taking any action was that in his view the present Government would not be able to make a better job of it than the Conservative Government did. It seemed to me a somewhat curious argument to hear from the other side, but of course one must respect it. He said it would be difficult. Yes, I agree it would be difficult, but justice is involved here, and I feel very strongly that the difficulties should be faced and an attempt should be made. He said that the local authority associations had not asked for transitional arrangements. I am not in the confidence of the two principal local authority associations, but I can guess one reason why they would not have asked, and that is that the majority of their members are gaining authorities who clearly would not want a transitional scheme; it is a minority of authorities who are going to lose who do want it badly. For that reason I think that your Lordships' House should not take too seriously the fact that, by a majority, the principal local authority associations have not asked for a change.
I do not feel inclined to let this go. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be prepared to give some further consideration to the matter between now and Report stage. I am not asking that the plan in my Amendment should be adopted: mine is relatively crude; I think something better could be done.

1225
But I do feel that we should make a serious effort in your Lordships' House to secure a greater degree of justice for the losing authorities, and it is the Government who could help us.
LORD KENNET: I do not claim that everything that the noble Lord did when he was Minister of Housing was always done in the worst possible way. There are situations which of their nature do defeat attempts to alleviate marginal difficulties of this sort. I will, of course, undertake, as always, to look at the matter again and inform my right honourable friend, but without holding out any specific hopes of being able to meet the noble Lord.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: In view of that assurance, and emphasising that we may have to come back to the matter on Report if the Government are not able to help us, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause I agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Reduction of grants in case of default
4.
(2) The appropriate Minister may make regulations for prescribing standards and general requirements in relation to any function of a local authority; and in determining for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section whether there has been such a failure as is there mentioned, regard shall be had to any such regulations and any other standards or requirements imposed by or under any enactment.
LORD ROYLE LORD ROYLE moved, in subsection (2), after "authority" to insert "which they are required by statute to perform". The noble Lord said: This Amendment would have been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, had he been able to be present to-day, but he found he could not be present and therefore I beg to move the Amendment. I confess straight away that I move this Amendment at the request of the Association of Municipal Corporations. The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, as your Lordships know, is President of that organisation, and I happen to be one of its Vice-Presidents. I propose to put the point as briefly and concisely as I can,
1226
but I think it is necessary to go back to subsection (1), which says in effect that if a local authority fail to achieve reasonable standards in the discharge of any of their functions the Minister may make a reduction in the rates support grant after having made a report to Parliament.
We come to the subsection the Amendment is concerned with, subsection (2):
"The appropriate Minister may make regulations for prescribing standards and general requirements in relation to any function of a local authority; and in determining for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section whether there has been such a failure as is there mentioned, regard shall be had to any such regulations and any other standards or requirements imposed by or under any enactment."
I seek to insert after the word "authority" "which they are required by statute to perform". I seek to insert those words on the grounds that there may be no Parliamentary control, or very little Parliamentary control, as against the words of an Act of Parliament, over such regulations for prescribing the standards and requirements.
The position under the present Bill is altogether different from that under Lord Brooke of Cumnor's Act of 1958. The scope of relevant expenditure is extended to cover expenditure on the whole range of local government services excepting housing, which of course has its own subsidisation system separately, and also exempting trading services. This change brings within the functions a whole range which have not heretofore been subject to detailed Government control. Previously local authorities have been treated as responsible bodies. They consider at the moment that this particular subsection takes away a great deal of the feeling that they are responsible bodies. This subsection (2) empowers the Minister to prescribe standards and general requirements in relation to any function (and I underline the word "any"); housing, trading services, even the functions of Local Acts of Parliament—the lot. I suggest to your Lordships and to my noble friend Lord Kennet that this is an invasion of local authority independence which is quite unjustified. It is rather a strange way of increasing local authority independence, as we have previously envisaged it in both Houses, and I would ask my noble friend what extra money is being offered

1227
by the Government to justify these extra controls.
The White Paper, and the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, indicate that there will be something like £30 million extra in the first year, approximately £60 million in the second, and something like £90 million in the third. But as long ago as 1963–64 the total was £1,020 million, so it is quite a small increase, remembering what has happened in the meantime to costs and other exigencies, in relation to the demand by the Government for such unlimited efforts.
I want to be brief and not to go into great detail, because I am sure that my noble friend knows just what I mean and where I am going. Accordingly, I want to say that the object of the Amendment is to confine the regulation-making powers within more reasonable limits, to those functions where, for their performance, Parliament has thought it necessary and proper for the local authorities to be under a statutory duty. I hope I have made the situation clear, while trying to be as brief as I possibly can. I am certain that my noble friend on this occasion will be able to reply to what I have said without the use of four or five letter words. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 9, after ("authority") insert ("which they are required by statute to perform").—(Lord Royle.)
LORD BURDEN: I think the first point in regard to the Amendment which my noble friend has moved, is to recognise that local authorities are responsible bodies, competent to discharge their own functions and to exercise their rights and responsibilities in their own right. Under the Local Government Act 1958 the general grant was paid to the relevant authority for revelant services. Most of these had previously been grant-aided, sometimes involving statutory responsibility for Ministers to secure a nationwide provision of the service in question. One could mention, for example, the health services and education. They are national services in which the local authorities play a great part in administering the day-to-day work.
Bearing that in mind, obviously little objection could be taken to the central Government's laying down broad prin-
1228
ciples in circulars in relation to those national services. However, in the clause under consideration this Bill introduces a new principle, whereby the Government take power, whether the service in question is grant-aided or under statutory duty, to issue circulars regulating, or instructing the local authority how to carry out, the duties imposed upon them. One must remember that many local authorities have managed to promote Local Acts of Parliament enabling them to perform certain services for their citizens, and in that way to perform a useful function in experimenting in regard to local authority activities. Again, quite a number of Acts of Parliament allow local authorities to carry out certain work. I submit to your Lordships that it is an entirely new principle for the central Government to claim the right to issue instructions as to how responsible bodies, such as, for example, the Greater London Council, should carry out duties not specifically imposed upon them, but taken either by Local Act or by permissive legislation.
I recall the time, as I am sure does my noble friend Lord Royle, when, in a transitional period, local authorities administered the Poor Law to which the central Government made not one penny contribution. But at the committee meetings of the council dealing with Poor Law matters there were inspectors sitting in watching what was done, and no doubt reporting whether anybody stepped over the line in regard to Poor Law matters. Are we now to have inspectors going round to local authorities to see that they carry out their responsibilities under private Acts or permissive Acts to the satisfaction of the central authority? I would submit to your Lordships that, just as you cannot make a person good by Act of Parliament, so you cannot make a local authority good by a constant stream of circulars dealing with this and other matters. I beg of the Ministry not to impose these leading strings, not to put these restrictive measures on local authorities who have done their work so well in the past, but to continue the old practice of dealing with the services which are nation-wide in their character and attract grant-aid in a substantial way. I beg to support the Amendment.
5.28 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: I should like to say that this Amendment, at any rate,

1229
has the support of the County Councils' Association. I have no need to go over the general principles that have been enunciated, but there is one point that I should like to mention which has not been mentioned; namely, the stultifying effect that regulations may possibly have. This, I think, is most important. Once regulations have been made (here it is not a question of prescribing minimum standards), the impression is, of course, that the aim is to keep the cockfighters up to the scratch. But they might have precisely the opposite effect because if the Minister prescribes standards by regulation—and the Bill says "standards", not "reasonable standards" or "minimum standards"—it would be open to local government, certainly to any ratepayer, to lodge an objection at audit if the standards were exceeded in respect of a service, and the auditor would have to take note of the objection. I do not say that it would happen, but it could happen.
I should have thought it was highly important that we should not have prescribed regulations which have a stultifying effect, and the effect of bringing all services to a particular level. After all, what we want in local government is innovation in regard to the services provided. We want improvements in services from time to time. Often it is improvements carried out by one or two authorities which lead to a general alteration of the standard of the service, and possibly at times equally in regard to economy.
Once we get down to this basis of regulation for all services, it can hardly be argued that the amount of the rate support grant is a justification for this, having regard to the relatively small amount that this provides out of the total. I feel that the Government should look at this matter again. I do not think that it is the intention of the Government to make regulations which will have a stultifying effect, but they will in fact do so because authorities will be encouraged to work to a particular regulation in providing a particular standard and will be in considerable danger if they exceed it. I hope that this aspect will not be lost sight of, and that we may expect to see some changes made in the form of the clause as it now stands.
5.31 p.m.
LORD KENNET: Let me say at once that there is no question of "leading strings" or armies of inspectors listening in to local affairs and putting people right. I would remind the Committee that what we are discussing is not a given body of regulations which are all waiting in draft to be passed in a Schedule by your Lordships. We are discussing only whether or not we should give the Minister power to make regulations. I can assure the Committee that if he is given the power he will use it sparingly. I would remind the Committee also that the power will be to make regulations subject to annulment in either House of Parliament. And I know that both Houses are quick to seek to annul an Order when armies of inspectors go out into the country with leading strings. All the same, when I first saw this Amendment I thought that it was a jolly good one.
LORD ROYLE: It still is.
LORD KENNET: It seemed to me that it would be absurd to empower a Minister to make regulations about the standard of a service which a local authority did not even have to provide if it did not want to do so. But when I went further into the matter, I found that there were good reasons for playing it this way rather than limiting the power to services which had to be provided by Statute. For example, under Section 26 of the National Health Service Act1946, local authorities are required to make arrangements for vaccination against smallpox and immunisation against diphtheria. They are statutorily bound in that respect. So this would be within the regulation-making power, as the noble Lord behind proposes to amend it. But they are also empowered, though not bound, to make similar arrangements for vaccination or immunisation against other diseases, for instance, measles or polio. This would be outside the Minister's regulation-making power if the Committee were to amend the Bill as is proposed.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Health has no immediate proposals for making regulations in either of these respects, but if for some reason they became necessary I think it would be odd if standards in respect of one disease could be controlled though not in respect of another. Again, under Section 28

1231
of the same Act local authorities are empowered, but not required, to make arrangements for the prevention of illness, and for the care and after-care of persons suffering from illness, including mental illness, or mental defectiveness. Here again, no regulations are in prospect, but if the need to regulate standards arose it would be odd if so large and important a field of the local health services were shut out from the control of central Government, as they would be by this Amendment.
It seems to me that we now have to legislate for a situation where it is almost an historical accident whether a particular function is required of local authorities or merely permitted. I am sure it would be wrong to make one kind of subject potentially regulatable and not the other. Surely, in practice if these controls are sensibly applied, by which I mean applied as little as possible, and if this system is administered with a decent sensitivity, as I think it will be, I should have thought that local authorities might be quite glad to have standards given to them on what the central Government think right about polio as well as about diphtheria. In view of what I have said, I do not know whether my friend would feel able to withdraw the Amendment. On the face of it it is a good one, but when one looks into it it would appear to give rise to rather absurd anomalies.
LORD PARGITER: Would my noble friend apply his arguments generally, instead of, say, to a case like polio? Let us take the example of public conveniences in a local authority. I wonder what sort of regulation we should get from the Ministry in such cases.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I must say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the local authority associations in this matter. It has always seemed to me to be a point of principle which should be accepted by central and local government that there are certain fields in which Parliament says that local authorities must do certain things up to certain standards if they are to receive grant, but outside those fields it is desirable that the local authorities should enjoy as much autonomy as possible. I appreciate the ingenuity of Lord Kennet's answer. I do not mean to be
1232
disparaging when I say "ingenuity", for he drew attention to a complex aspect of this matter. But I cannot help feeling that if the Government desired to find a way through this problem which would not give offence to the local authorities, such a way could be found.
I would ask the noble Lord to give further consideration to this, because it is reasonable that those of us who care about the independence of local government should pay careful attention to words like this in a Bill before Parliament. Likewise, the local authorities have no desire to defy the central Government where the central Government think it right to make regulations which will set standards. But it seemed to me that, though the noble Lord's reply was effective in showing that this was not quite such an easy matter as the noble Lords who had raised the subject had perhaps supposed, it did not entirely prove that it would be impossible for the Government to find a way through. I very much hope that we can pursue this further. I should not have thought that it was a matter upon which anybody would wish to divide the Committee, but I should be sorry if it were just pigeonholed and forgotten about.
5.37 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: If this matter is to be pursued further, I should like to make one observation about it. Subsection (1) is not the sort to be interfered with. It allows the appropriate Minister to deal with the failure of a local authority to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard in the discharge of any of their functions. The subsection which we are considering to-day is ancillary to that. I feel that, whether it was a question for the court or for a district auditor, they would be on very dangerous ground indeed if they sought to use this subsection to lay down anything but minimum standards. The subsection needs to be read in conjunction with the one immediately before. It goes on, after the words to which objection is taken, to say:
"and in determining for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section whether there has been such a failure…regard shall be had to any such regulations and any other standards or requirements imposed by or under any enactment."
It seems to me, therefore (I say this with great respect to the local authority

1233
associations, and I entirely see their point), that this subsection is one which protects local authorities and not one that imposes any additional duty on them. They will be able to look at the standards which are so laid down, and which have to be laid down in accordance with the practice of local authorities generally. On the strength of that they could say, "We have done the minimum you require us to do."
That, I feel quite certain, is the effect of this subsection, and if this Amendment were carried it might have the very opposite effect, because local authorities would be protected in some cases and not protected in others, since no one desires to interfere with the first subsection. Therefore, I suggest that if any alteration were to be made it would require rather more elaboration than appears in this Amendment, and a little more consideration of what is the purpose of the subsection and the clause as a whole.
It is quite true that one can draw a distinction between the functions which a local authority is required by Statute to perform and those on which in some cases it is given an option—the functions which it may or may not perform. But one must be rather careful about the words used, and remember that a local authority can do nothing whatever except what, in one sense of the words, it is required by Statute to perform; that is to say, it often has a statutory duty laid on it, and in broad terms it is entirely a creature of Statute. After all, Parliament has an ultimate sovereignty which local authorities do not have, so that, in one sense of the words—though I quite see the point that has been made about this—they can do nothing which they are not required by Statute to perform, whether the requirement is a general one, such as that in Section 1 of the Education Act, or a specific one. Therefore, without wishing to interfere unduly in this very interesting discussion, and apologising for having taken up the time of the Committee, I think that this Amendment might not have quite the effect my noble friends think it will have.
LORD ROYLE: I always bow to the superior knowledge in these matters of my noble friend Lord Mitchison. He has a tremendous knowledge of them, and I take a great deal of notice of what he
1234
says. But he will remember that in opening this discussion I put the two subsections together and pointed out that there was a relationship. However, the powers which are being taken under subsection (2) are powers which would limit the activities of the local authorities, or at least, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has pointed out, take away some of their autonomy and a great deal of their independence. Nothing that my noble friend Lord Kennet or my noble friend Lord Mitchison have said has moved me on this point. I feel confident that I and my noble friends who supported me are right in this matter, and that subsection (2) will badly affect the local authorities, taking away a great deal of their independence, if these few words in the Amendment are not accepted.
But your Lordships know the difficulty. I always say this to noble Lords, if I have moved an Amendment from this side of the House: I am a loyal supporter of the Government, and I dislike the thought of sending anything back to another House, and therefore wasting time in a very busy Session. It is only on those grounds that I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. Nevertheless, in view of what has been said, I hope that by the time we reach the Third Reading my noble friend may have had another look at this and, if these words in the Amendment are not sufficient to achieve what is in our minds, perhaps he will have produced some others. It is in the hope that that might happen that I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BURDEN: With due respect, I think that my noble friend Lord Mitchison has missed the whole point of this debate. The point of this debate and of this Amendment is to deal with the claim, as the clause stands at the moment, on the part of the Government to give directions in regard to a service to which there is no national contribution of any kind, and to give instructions in regard to a service for which the local authority has obtained powers under a Local Act. However, we all agree that in regard to health and education, which are national services, the circular instructions are appropriate. I want to support what my noble friend Lord Royle has said, and to say that the

1235
Association of Municipal Corporations feel very keenly about this. I would ask that between now and the Third Reading or Report stage the Government receive a representative from the Association, or any other bodies, to discuss this matter and see whether an adequate solution can be found.
LORD KENNET: I am always ready to receive representatives from the Association, but I think I should say not necessarily from any other body.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Reduction of rates on dwellings by reference to the domestic element
6.—(1) Every rating authority shall reduce the amount which, apart from this subsection, would be the amount of the general rate levied by the authority for any year on any dwelling-house or mixed hereditament in their area by the following amount in the pound, that is to say—

(a) in the case of a dwelling-house, the amount prescribed for that year in pursuance of paragraph 1 of Part III of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

(b) in the case of a mixed hereditament, one-half (disregarding any halfpenny) of the amount so prescribed.

5.46 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL LORD POPPLEWELL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "amount in the pound" and insert "percentage". The noble Lord said: I hope your Lordships will agree to discuss this Amendment with the two subsequent Amendments, and also with the Amendments to Schedule1. I should first like to apologise for not having put down these Amendments earlier than late last night. Hence they are starred, and it may be that the noble Lord who is to reply is not sufficiently aware of their importance. In this matter of giving easement to the domestic householder based upon the criteria laid down, there is, of course, a general overall desire not only to be fair, but to be fair as between one part of the country and another. As I see this Bill, it departs somewhat from that principle.
May I go into a little history of rating? I remember in my local authority days
1236
spending many hours and days with my local rating assessment committee, fixing the values of all the properties in my council's area. The handing over of this procedure to the Inland Revenue was chiefly because of the wide divergency which existed in rating all over the country, and of a desire to get a reasonable uniformity in rating as a whole. Naturally there cannot be complete uniformity, because the sizes and the letting values of property vary considerably according to the siting. For instance, a three-bed-roomed house in the Welsh valleys or the industrial towns will have a different assessment from a property in some of the more salubrious areas of our country. But this series of Amendments is designed to try to secure a little better balance than there will be if the Bill remains as it is, because it is suggested that rate relief should be calculated by a percentage, instead of by reference to the rate in the pound. The rate in the pound relief results in the occupiers of dwellings that have a high rating assessment receiving a larger amount of benefit than occupiers of dwellings with low rating assessments. This is so obvious that it must be the intention of the Minister that it should be so, and these Amendments do nothing to alter that, because of what I referred to earlier.
However, the rate in the pound relief has a second and a rather more unfortunate result. Not only do high assessments earn more relief in actual money, but they may also earn a higher percentage of relief than lower assessments. This is a very technical argument, and I hope your Lordships' Committee will follow me in it. For instance, similar properties in different parts of the country have different rating assessments in the way that I indicated a little earlier, and because these are based on rental values, and rental values in the prosperous areas are higher than those in the poorer areas, one gets a higher rating assessment in such areas. Let me take, as an example, a three-bed-roomed house in, shall we say, a place like Eastbourne. I am not quite certain of my figures here; in any case they are purely hypothetical. Let me take a three-bed-roomed house in a place like Eastbourne, with an assessment of, shall I say, £100, and a similar house in one of the industrial towns. There, we should probably find that, instead of

1237
the assessment being around £100 as in the Eastbourne area, it would be about £50.
Taking this illustration, and assuming that the rate in the pound levy is 16s. in the poorer area as against 8s. in the wealthy area, we get the result that a rate-paper in the poorer area and the ratepayer in the wealthy area would both pay an annual rate of £40. If we now take the amount of domestic relief on a £50 assessment at a 6d. in the pound relief, it would mean an easement of £1 5s. 0d. That is in the poorer area. If we take the same basis of 6d. in the pound, on the £100 assessment in the wealthy area one sees that the relief is £2 10s. 0d.—just double. It works out at 3⅛ per cent. for the poorer area and 6¼ per cent for the wealthy area. This indicates the argument I am trying to make, and I hope the Minister will have another look at it.
These Amendments that I am now proposing will completely remove this type of unequal relief. As this particular rate relief is also subject to a Government grant, it is important that it should be fairly distributed between one ratepayer and another. If one looks at the Bill itself one sees that it says that the amount of the domestic element payable to a local authority for any year shall be the proportion of the aggregate amount of that element which the aggregate amount of the reductions, in pursuance of Section 6 of the Act, brought into account in that year in the authority's records, bears in relation to the aggregate amount. This is the same principle. This is where reimbursement to the local authority, so far as rate grant relief is concerned, is passed on from the central Government by way of a percentage grant. I am asking that the same principle should be embraced in this Bill.
I think that this easement should be given to those persons who are seeking this particular domestic relief, because your Lordships will know that the basis of the relief to be granted does not vary from area to area; it is a static quantity, whether the person is living in a very wealthy part of the country or in a not so wealthy part. It is to remove this inequality that I propose these Amendments; and, as I say, I apologise for not
1238
having given more notice. Because of that, I do not think my noble friend who is to reply to me tonight will have had sufficient time to discuss it with the Minister concerned, but I sincerely hope that, now that I have voiced this particular point of view at this stage of our proceedings, he will give me an assurance that he will seek to discuss the matter with the Minister of Housing and Local Government and see whether it is possible, either on Report or at some other stage of the Bill, to meet the particular points that I have put forward. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 44, leave out ("amount in the pound") and insert ("percentage").—(Lord Popplewell.)
LORD SORENSEN: I fully accept the apology and explanation given by the noble Lord for the appearance of these Amendments at so late a time. Equally, I am sure he will appreciate the difficulty that this thrusts upon those who have been considering this Bill, for, of course, the Amendments involve many complex and intricate matters that may well need considerable discussion behind the scenes. But, be that as it may, I equally appreciate that the noble Lord's purpose is to secure greater equity as between one domestic ratepayer and another. I fully accept the figures and the illustrations he has given, for inevitably, in this world of inequality, inequalities exist in this particular sphere as elsewhere. On the other hand, it is quite possible that these Amendments may either increase the inequity or establish other inequities.
The noble Lord appreciates as much as I do that this Bill gives every domestic ratepayer a reduction of the same number of pence in the pound on account of the domestic element of the rate support grant. The object of the noble Lord's series of Amendments is to provide, instead, for a uniform percentage reduction in rate pound ages for domestic ratepayers throughout the country, and thus a uniform percentage reduction in rates. I repeat that the noble Lord's intention is an excellent one, and I thoroughly understand it. At the same time, I would submit that it is unacceptable because it takes no account of one of the objects behind the domestic element—that is, to counterbalance, to some extent, what the

1239
Allen Committee described in their Report as the over-achievement by the rate-deficiency grant of its object as a levelling factor.
Broadly, areas which have a high percentage of rate-deficiency grant (and will qualify in future for a high percentage of the resources element) are generally areas where average house rates are relatively low. The Government's earlier intention had been to deal with this problem by ending or radically changing the rate-deficiency grant itself; but, as he said in moving the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, the then Minister, Mr. Crossman, had been surprised and impressed by the affection (as he called it) which so many treasurers showed for the grant—an affection, I assume, arising not merely from long familiarity but from valid administrative and other reasons. He decided therefore to try to improve and rationalise the system rather than to discard it.
So the rate-deficiency grant is carried over into the new system, virtually unaltered, but the domestic element will correct some of its excesses by giving rather less than average relief, proportionately, in areas where house rates are generally low; and rather more than average in areas where average house rates are high. In other words, an attempt is made to secure the equity the noble Lord wants. It ought not to be thought that the initial difference in house rates is explained by a greater ability to pay rates. Thus, for example, the Allen Committee reported that
"rates are much lower in the North, for every income group, than in England and Wales…". (Paragraph 212.)
On average they took 2·1 per cent. of household income compared with 2·8 per cent. in London and 2·9 per cent. in the South; and, in case this is thought to be justified by the theory that all incomes in the South are higher, their figures showed that rates took 6·4 per cent. of incomes in London between £6 and £10 a week, but only 5·3 per cent. in the North; 5·4 per cent. of incomes between £10 and £15, but only 3·2 per cent. in the North.
As a corrective, the uniform poundage reduction proposed by the Bill is relatively mild and slow-working. It will, of course, give additional aid to those areas with low house rates and high rate-deficiency grant as well as to areas with
1240
high house rates and little or no rate-deficiency grant. Thus, 5d. off the rates this year would have given an average reduction nationally of 3·57 per cent. In Inner London the reduction would be 4·1 per cent.; in County Durham, 3·55 per cent.; in Inner London the average house rates, area by area, range from £45 to £121; in Durham, from £15to £36. London gets virtually no rate-deficiency grant. In Durham the county council gets 33 per cent. and all the districts save two also get the grant. The exceptions are districts with large amounts of industrial rateable value. Twenty out of the 35 districts get more than 40 per cent. deficiency grant, and it is of interest that the authority where the average rate payments per house are only £15 gets 68 per cent. grant.
The disparity between rates paid by householders in areas earning substantial amounts of rate-deficiency grant and those receiving little or none is generally substantial and, on the showing of the Allen Committee and comparison of the rates paid on, for example, post-war three-bed-room houses in different parts of the country, it does not appear to be justified by differences in levels of income. The Government therefore consider that the marginally higher share of the domestic element that will go under their proposals to the areas with high house-rates is amply justified. It does not depend upon the withdrawal of grant from areas with low house rates—indeed, they share in the new grant money from which domestic element will be payable; and it will not result in a dramatic narrowing of the wide spread of average house rates in different areas. But they think that it is a move in the right direction. They will of course keep a careful watch on the way it works out over the next few years for it, together with the whole of the system of local government finance, will come under review in connection with the work of the Royal Commission.
In these circumstances, having given this explanation to the Committee and to the noble Lord, and having thanked him, as I do, for bringing the attention of the Committee to the anomalies and difficulties that he had in mind, nevertheless I trust that he will appreciate that it is impossible for us to advise the Committee to make these Amendments, although I can assure the noble Lord

1241
that I will bring the points he has raised to the attention of the Minister.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I much appreciate what my noble friend has said, particularly in his remarks over the question of rate deficiency payments and how they affect the poorer areas. I accept that from my own experience in these matters. But I am afraid he did not understand my point regarding the variation of the domestic element of relief between one section and another. However, in view of the complexity and technicality of the whole problem, as has been indicated by my noble friend, I will give careful consideration to his observations. In the hope that it will not altogether rule me out from raising this matter again on the Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. I shall not move the following two Amendments on the Order Paper.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Grants for public open spaces]:
6.6 p.m.
LORD PARGITER LORD PARGITER moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "on and after 1st April 1967" and insert "at any time". The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to take the Amendment to Clause 8 and the Amendment to Clause 9 together so far as the arguments are concerned because they apply equally to both. I should not wish to detain the Committee by repeating the same type of argument with a variation of words in the case of the second Amendment. I am making these proposals as a result of representations made to me by the County Councils Association who I believe are also supported by the other associations of the local authorities.
In general, I would say that the proposal to reinstitute the specific grants are welcomed by the Association. A case was made at the time that they ought never to have been withdrawn. By its nature, this type of exercise operates so unevenly over the whole country that many authorities lost out badly as a result of the withdrawal of the specific
1242
grants, and other authorities may have gained something that they had no right to gain.
With regard to Clauses 7, 8 and 9, the fact remains that payment is provided for specific planning grants in respect of development and redevelopment, in the case of Clause 7; for public open spaces, in the case of Clause 8; and for reclamation of derelict land, in the case of Clause 9. The inconsistency appears to be that under Clause 7 grants in respect of the acquisition of land for development or redevelopment will be payable, whether or not the expenditure is incurred before or after the passing of the Bill. Clause 8, on the other hand, applies only to the acquisition of land for the purposes of public open space on or after April 1, 1967. Clause 9 draws a distinction between grants towards the acquisition of land for reclamation which will be payable irrespective of when the land is acquired, and grants in respect of carrying out approved works which will be payable only if the works are carried out after April 1.
The inconsistencies are quite considerable. There has been correspondence between the Association and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. They have maintained that it is administratively convenient to start specific grants without retrospection where this can be done fairly. The argument appears to be that in certain cases the acquisition is a sort of short, sharp action and therefore there is no long-term effect. The acquisition may be a short and sharp piece of work, but certainly the effect is not necessarily short term, because, in effect, the loan charges are equated on either a notional or an actual basis. Usually, with regard to the acquisition of land, it is over a period of 60 years. So it may well be that a local authority will, in this current year or before the commencement of the Act, acquire land. It would receive a grant in that year, or it would be an element in the general grant because it would be approved expenditure, and the normal case would be to provide a grant in respect of the notional loan charges. But it means that in effect, because this is being taken out of the grant element and put into a specific grant, the authority would receive nothing at all for the remaining period of, say, 59 years to which

1243
it might be committed for the repayment of the loan and loan charges.
This would appear to be quite inequitable, and the same argument may well be used regarding the question of work on land reclamation. This is not always a short and sharp operation. A local authority may buy derelict land, marshland, which may require filling in. Or it may buy derelict land in a mining area or something of that kind where a great deal of work has to be done and where the authority must carry it out over a period of years. In so far as the authority started work last year, it will not get grants for the future. It will get the amount which it would have got under general grant and nothing for the future. But it is committed to carrying out the work. So a progressive authority, which may be doing things for the general good of its population at the present time will be penalised, and a more laggard authority, which has not been doing anything and which will be pushed into doing something, or which may be more inclined to do something knowing that it will receive a specific grant, will receive grants over the whole period. This would appear to be penalising progressive authorities, and certainly encouraging people not to do things until they are either obliged or encouraged to do them by receiving the necessary incentive of a "carrot". I hope, therefore, that what is the fact with regard to Clause 7 may become the fact with regard to Clause 8 and that part of Clause 9 with which we are concerned.
The county districts who provide open spaces will not be the recipients of the need element of the rate support grant. I have in mind a county where many authorities will be concerned with this matter and have been incurring pretty substantial expense in connection with the acquisition of land, and so on, and with land reclamation. This is in Lancashire where if the clause remains as it is drafted it will have a considerable effect. With the Amendments I am proposing, if they are accepted, it would mean that the position would be reasonable for all authorities; and the authorities would be treated equitably, whether they commenced the action to purchase or the land reclamation before the appropriate date or after. The argument used by the Ministry with regard to develop-
1244
ment and redevelopment is that this is something that takes place over a long time and therefore it would be proper not to insert the date of April 1, 1967. If the Ministry recognise the principle, surely this should apply to the whole of the three clauses; and that is what I am asking the Government to agree to do.
If it is any consolation, I would point out that this will not cost the Treasury any more money. I know that there would be strong resistance if it did, and I am not even sure how we could deal with it in this House. But this will mean reallocation of the grant on a more equitable basis, out of the total sum to be provided. It is a question of distribution rather than finding additional money, so I hope that my noble friend may be able to indicate that the Amendment is acceptable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 23, leave out ("on and after 1st April 1967") and insert ("at any time").—(Lord Pargiter.)
LORD BURDEN: I should like a little explanation about Clause 9(3). It reads:
"The amount of the grant which may be paid to a local authority under this section in respect of any land shall not exceed one-half of the expenditure incurred in acquiring the land and carrying out any works for its reclamation or improvement, as approved by the Minister for the purposes of this section"—
and this is the point about which I should like an explanation—
"reduced, unless the Minister otherwise determines, by the value of the land after carrying out those works,…".
In other words, the Minister contributes half towards the reclamation and putting the land in order, and when it is in order, the Minister, under this clause, will deduct from the cost the whole value of the land, which seems to me a little anomalous. No doubt there is a legitimate explanation.
6.14 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: The noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, has had very great experience of administration as a county councillor and possibly elsewhere. I confess that I listened to him with fascination and admiration, both for his analysis and for his exposition. I, too, served on a county council for some twenty-five years, but I never had the experience that obviously the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, had,

1245
partly because when I was first elected to that body and I asked to be put on the finance committee, it was decided that it would be more appropriate if I served on the mental hospital committee, which I did. Possibly the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, served on both committees—I do not know—but, in any case, he has given us the benefit of his very rich and ripe experience.
I can assure the noble Lord that many of the arguments he has adduced have already been considered very carefully by the Minister, and the County Councils' Association, to which the noble Lord also referred, has, I understand, made representations. As a result of this, despite the eloquent description and explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, I am afraid that the Government cannot see their way to accept what he here proposes. There are two Amendments, one dealing with Clause 8 and another with Clause 9. I am glad that the noble Lord included both in his exposition, but I will try to deal with each one separately.
So far as Clause 8 is concerned, the Amendment seeks to remove the qualifying date of April 1, 1967, so that acquisitions of land or appropriations made "at any time" should rank for grant under Clause 8. The intention again is most laudable. The clause empowers the Minister to pay grant at a minimum rate of 50 per cent. in respect of expenditure by local authorities on and after April 1, 1967, on or in connection with the acquisition for use as a public open space of such land as he approves for the purposes of the clause. Land appropriated for use as a public open space may also be brought in as though acquired for the purpose. Expenditure incurred in the acquisition of land for use as a public open space is "relevant expenditure" for the purposes of general grant under the Local Government Act 1958. Loan charges payable after April 1, 1967, in respect of acquisitions prior to that date will be taken into account for the purposes of the new rate support grant, one element of which corresponds closely to the general grant. Expenditure in connection with acquisitions or appropriations effected from April 1, 1967, onwards will benefit from the new specific grant.
1246
The nature of the transactions here being assisted does not justify any arrangement for bringing past transactions into the new specific grant system. Open space grant relates to acquisitions or appropriations. These are short sharp transactions. In this way the situation is quite different from that of the acquisition of land for comprehensive redevelopment which may be assisted under Clause 7, to which the noble Lord alluded. A scheme of comprehensive redevelopment may take a considerable number of years to see through, and successive acquisitions may take place as the scheme progresses. All these acquisitions should be dealt with on the same footing, and so in Clause 7, which deals with the redevelopment grants, the arrangement must be such that the new grant system can look back to pick up acquisitions completed before the coming in of the new system, but forming part of a continuing whole.
These considerations do not apply to Clause 8. Transactions prior to the 1st April, 1967, stand by themselves, falling to be helped as may be as part of the expenditure assisted through the general grant and then under its successor, the rate support grant. It would not be reasonable to unravel the completed transactions of the past relating to the purchases of land for public open space in order to change the basis of grant aid. Without a very complicated exercise of this sort there could be duplication of grant aid. As a matter of reassurance, it may be mentioned that where land is already held by the local authority and is first appropriated for use as public open space after 1st April, 1967, the Bill provides for payment of grants in the same way as if the land had been acquired for that purpose on the date of appropriation. Detailed arrangements for the grant will be a matter for an explanatory memorandum, the terms of which will be a matter of discussion with representatives of local government. I imagine that this is very necessary.
Turning to the other Amendment to Clause 9, I would point out that the clause as now drafted provides for the payment of grant in respect of approved schemes for the reclamation or improvement of derelict, neglected or unsightly land where the works are carried out on or after April 1, 1967. The Amendment

1247
would enable grant to be paid from April 1, 1967, on works carried out at any time—that is before April 1, 1967. There would be serious practical difficulties in approving for grant purposes schemes where work was already in progress. In some instances it would be difficult to determine, when work had reached a certain stage, whether the land had in fact been in a derelict, neglected or unsightly condition. There could be arguments about the reasonableness of the works being undertaken. Once work had begun it would be difficult to settle whether value for money was being obtained or to exclude from the grant payment unacceptable costs—for example, works of development—which the authority might have carried out in good faith on the assumption that their expenditure would be reimbursed. The County Councils' Association pressed for this retrospective payment in correspondence in July of this year, but their request was refused for the reasons I have outlined.
The clause only requires the work to be carried out on or after April 1, 1967. The land which is to be reclaimed or improved, or any other land which may be required in connection with the reclamation or improvement, could have been acquired at any time. It was not thought right to restrict the grant to land acquired after April 1, 1967, because land may be acquired under a variety of powers and it may be that by a change of circumstances after acquisition works of reclamation are undertaken at some future date. I have done my best to give a reply to the noble Lord. I thank him again for drawing our attention to this complex matter, and in all the circumstances I hope that he appreciates why it is that I cannot accept this Amendment on behalf of the Government.
LORD PARGITER: I have listened with interest to the explanation given by my noble friend, none of which dealt with the equity of the situation. It dealt with the difficulties of applying the proposals I have put forward, and I can well understand Government Departments shying away from difficulties and being likely
1248
to be more willing to approve inequity in these circumstances. Nothing said by my noble friend alters the basic fact that this is inequitable as between one local authority and another, between the progressive authority which has done something betore the Act and the non-progressive authority which does something after the Act. He referred to the needs element of the rate support grant, but district councils will not get this in any case, and they will get no redress with regard to that part of the total grant available to authorities generally. If I thought that there was the least likelihood that I should get anywhere with it, I would carry this further, but as I know from past experience that I am not likely to get much change out of it, having regard to what has been said, I ask your Lordships for leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
LORD KENNET: It may seem that this would be a convenient moment to adjourn the Committee stage of this Bill, and, if that is so, I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved, That the House be now resumed.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I would not seek to dissent from that proposal but I trust it will not mean that we shall be expected to sit very late on Thursday instead. We are closing our proceedings somewhat early this afternoon, after disposing of only four Amendments, and we have a large number to deal with another day. Perhaps that matter could be considered in the appropriate quarter.
LORD CHAMPION:This arrangement has been made through the usual channels. I can assure the noble Lord that we will carefully consider what he said and, if necessary, will try to find another day, rather than sit too late; but I do not make a firm promise about this. It must all depend on the business programme that is facing us.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

THE HOSPITAL SERVICE AND PART III ACCOMMODATION
6.28 p.m.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether steps cannot be taken to increase the co-operation between those working in the Hospital Service and those working in accommodation provided by local authorities under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948, particularly in the case of the aged and infirm. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to put the Question on the Order Paper. I should like to divide my remarks into two parts. First, I will read your Lordships a short quotation from the National Assistance Act 1948. Section 21(1) at the start of Part III, says:
"It shall be the duty of every local authority…to provide—
(a) residential accommodation for persons who by reason of age, infirmity or any other circumstances are in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them…"
The reason why I put this Question down is that it seems as if in a number of parts of the country, particularly in the Home Counties, there are not enough beds provided by local authorities under this section of the Act. Where one comes across it frequently is when one is trying to transfer from hospital to Part III accommodation patients who have been restored to health so far as they can be, though it has not been practicable to send them home again. As a result of this situation, it is claimed by some that the local authorities have not done their duty in this matter and have not provided enough beds under this section of the Act. But by the two points that I want to raise I think it can be shown that this is not necessarily the truth.
The two questions that I want to put, partly to myself and partly to the noble Lady who is to reply, are: first, are more beds needed? And, secondly, can one say that the proper use is being made of the beds which exist at the present time? To secure the proper use of these beds (it is difficult to separate these two points completely) it is necessary to make sure that the procedure whereby a person is admitted into a welfare bed is satisfactory. The most general way this is done is by the efforts of the welfare officer
1250
attached to the local authority. I have had a good deal of experience of welfare officers, and I am bound to say that I have always found them extremely helpful and courteous, and they always try to do their best. But often they tend to decide, with no consultation with the doctor in charge of the patient, whether the patient is fit to be moved from the hospital to a home. This can cause difficulty, because we on the medical side may say that the patient is quite fit, and the welfare officer, who is generally a person of considerable experience, though not necessarily trained, may say that the patient is not fit. The result in such a case is deadlock.
If we were to make more beds available in the country, great expense would inevitably be incurred, and I do not think it is necessary to incur that expense. Therefore the rules for admission to these homes must be tightened up—because it is becoming more and more expensive to entertain people in these homes. When one has visited these homes and talked to some of the people (I am talking particularly about the accommodation provided under Part III for people who are infirm and incapable of looking after themselves) one finds that they have got there for all sorts of curious reasons.
One reason is that they feel lonely by themselves—and that may well be true. Another is that they feel that their neighbours are talking about them. A common reason for admission is that other people are gossiping on the stairs, pointing fingers at them as they go up and down stairs. These are what I might call sentimental grounds. It seems that this power has been interpreted too liberally in the past. Sometimes the matron in charge of a home appears (I say "appears", because I do not know) to have a good deal to say about the type of person admitted, for matrons do not like people who will cause great trouble. I can sympathise with their feelings because they have difficulty in finding staff. But these homes were not intended for nice, kind people who can do a good deal for themselves: they were intended for difficult people.
The present teaching, I think, is that generally one should maintain people in their own homes for as long as possible. That can be done in various ways by laying on domiciliary services for them.

1251
I agree that it is not always possible to decide on the amount of domiciliary services required. But supposing a person requires a great deal of services, it may be more expensive to keep that person at home rather than care for him or her in a welfare home. I feel that this principle should be borne in mind more frequently when applications are made for admission to welfare homes. One of the difficulties is that the majority of people in the Registrar General's social class No. 5—that is, the lowest class of all—particularly when they are single, tend to get into these homes, because they find for various reasons that it is difficult to maintain independent life by themselves.
I now come to the second part of my Question. It is difficult to ensure that there is efficient and good co-operation between the welfare department of the local authority and the medical side taking care of the patient. I do not say for one moment that this is the fault of the service; the fault, I regret to say, is that of Parliament, which passed two Acts, the National Health Service Act and the National Assistance Act, and provided no means for them to meet together in the middle. This has led to a great deal of difficulty and trouble. One has seen the way in which this difficulty can be overcome. When I was engaged in medical practice, about once a year, when I became overcrowded with people who should be transferred, I paid a visit to the welfare officer of the London County Council, who was a friend of mine, and told him of my troubles, and they were solved temporarily by people being moved on the spot. But that seemed to be a cumbersome way to do it, and one that ought not to be necessary in the future.
Tied up with that is the fact that when patients are discharged, particularly the infirm, whether from their homes or from hospital, and are taken into one of these Part III welfare homes, they have no continuity of medical care. They pass from a fully staffed and equipped hospital department, where they have been got on their feet and assisted to move again, to the care, quite often, of a part-time general practitioner. It has been said that this is quite right, and is supposed to occur, because when they go home they do not get more than the
1252
care of a part-time general practitioner. But the point is that they are not quite fit enough to go home, and therefore I do not think that argument applies with any great force.
What one sees frequently is that though people become mobile under hospital care and can look after themselves up to a point, when they get into a welfare home, because there is nobody to carry on that treatment, they tend to get put back to bed and become immobile again. This is done for a good reason: the staff are not experienced in the care of elderly folk and are afraid that they may fall down and break their leg or that some other catastrophe may occur. A very sensible circular was issued by the Ministry of Health some time ago which said that it was not necessary to transfer from a welfare home to a hospital people who are dying or who have a mortal illness. There I entirely agree. But I think this can be carried a little too far. You find, in some of these big houses, particularly, a large number of sick people who are lying there with no particular care and attention. I do not say that at the moment a great deal could be done for them all, but a certain amount could be done for some if they were seen by somebody from a well-equipped department of a hospital. Something could be done for them, as it is for their more fortunate colleagues who happen to go into the other channel and go into hospital.
The person who controls where they go is the general practitioner. If he thinks that they should go to hospital, they go to hospital; if he thinks that they should go to a welfare home, that is where they go. This can lead to a certain amount of trouble. The suggestion I would make is this. Would it not be possible for the hospital authority to have some control over, or some say in, the care of the patients in Part III accommodation of the welfare homes? This is the first suggestion that I have made that might cost a little money. I am afraid it would cost a little money, because it would mean paying a doctor to do extra sessions there or employing extra staff. This would have to be worked out. I think it would cost more money also because, if they were looked after properly, it would be necessary in some of these homes for the patients to have something to do.
It is awful for so many patients to find they have nothing whatever to do, because although it is not impossible, it is difficult for local authorities to employ physiotherapists or occupational therapists, which could make an enormous difference. In one little home I know in North London there are about seventy fairly mentally degenerate old ladies. We got a voluntary physiotherapist to come and do a little bit of "fun and games" in the evening, and the result was extraordinary.
I should like to ask whether more co-operation between the medical and welfare side could not be encouraged and, supposing it is not considered possible to run it on the medical side, whether the admissions to these homes could not be given more to an experienced medical social worker, or somebody who has some idea of what can or cannot be done. The alternative, which I think is going a little too far, would be for the Regional Boards and boards of governors to take over the Part III accommodation from the local authority. That would probably require Parliamentary time and Parliamentary work, so I do not put that suggestion forward as a very serious idea, but it may be a suggestion worth thinking about.
Another way in which we might save people going into these homes from the world outside would be to have more of these consultative clinics for elderly people established by the local authority. I think they exist in about 25 per cent. of the country at the present time, and they are all on rather an experimental basis. For my final point I should like to ask whether something of that sort could be considered, because it might not only save the pressure on the beds but mean that the beds would be properly used for the right people; and in that event we might not need to say continually that we need more beds.
6.42 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, before I reply on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I should like to say how grateful we are to the noble Lord for raising this point to-day, and how we all salute the way in which he continually brings it before us. As a poacher turned gamekeeper, I must say that this would have been my role had I not been stand-
1254
ing at this Dispatch Box. The noble Lord might like to know that, before I was part of the Government, I was very much concerned with this problem. Only today I received a report of the Old People's Welfare Conference, Putting Planning into Practice, one session of which—I did not speak at that one—was devoted to the subject which the noble Lord has so ably put before us this evening. We are, of course, all aware that the noble Lord is a practitioner of many years' experience in the field of geriatrics.
Where both hospital and local authority services for the elderly and chronic sick are well developed little, if any, difficulty is experienced in ensuring that patients are cared for in the way that is best for them. But where services are deficient on either or both sides, it is inevitable that there are difficulties such as the noble Lord has outlined: for example, misplacement, blockages of hospital or welfare beds, waiting lists to both hospital and residential accommodation and delays over urgent cases for transfer. There are particular difficulties in those areas which are short of geriatric beds but still have large, former Public Assistance, institutions in use as welfare homes. While co-operation in these circumstances between the respective authorities can do much to ensure that the difficulties are minimised and that the best use is made of the accommodation available, it is also necessary to extend the services themselves as the noble Lord has truly said. This is one of the objects of the hospital building programme, and of the plans for development of community care.
It would not be inappropriate, I think, for me to recall to your Lordships the recent action which the Minister of Health has taken to promote the care of the elderly in hospitals and in residential homes provided by the local authorities. In September last year the Minister issued to hospital and local authorities a Memorandum on the Care of the Elderly in Hospitals and Residential Homes. This Memorandum restated in more definite terms the responsibilities which both partners ought generally to accept. But it went further. It also contained a final section advocating joint planning and joint operation of the two services, and it suggested in detail administrative arrangements for achieving these objectives.

1255
May I quote from one section of this which impressed me particularly? Referring to the difficulties, the circular said, in these very strong words:
"The difficulties may arise because of the defects in past admission arrangements and in part because of mistaken assumptions by each service about the functions and limitations of the other."
The response to the Minister's advice has been encouraging. A number of Regional Boards and local authorities had, well before the issue of this circular, established joint working groups to survey the services available and to bring to light difficulties and deficiences. In some cases, therefore, existing machinery has been put on a more formal basis. In other parts of the country planning or working groups covering suitable geographical areas have been set up in response to the Ministry's circular of last year, with of course general practitioner representation. I think it is fair to say that almost throughout the whole country machinery for co-operation, which is so essential between hospitals, local authorities and general practitioners, is already getting firmly established.
I turn now to more detailed forms of co-operation, in which I know the noble Lord is particularly interested. In a number of areas there are joint appointments of geriatric physicians between local and hospital authorities. In one hospital region, for example, the majority of the areas are covered by joint consultant appointments. In another area—I know this will hearten the noble Lord—a geriatric physician has recently been appointed as a Co-ordinator of Geriatric Services covering the interests of the Regional Hospital Board, the local teaching hospital and the local authority. The effects of this imaginative appointment are being watched with keen interest.
In other areas geriatric physicians visit welfare homes at the invitation of the welfare authorities, and of course they advise on cases referred by the general practitioner. The Minister welcomes such co-operation between the two authorities. He very much hopes that local authorities will not hesitate to seek the advice and the assistance of the hospital geriatric physicians whenever necessary. Their help and skill, based on their wide experience, will prove of benefit to individual patients in residential homes,
1256
and may well enable them to suggest methods of prevention which might retard or even prevent deteriorating processes, thus lightening the load for the staff of the residential homes as well as possibly obviating the need for hospital admission.
The Minister shares the view that cooperation between the staffs responsible for hospital patients and for residents in welfare homes should be increased by all practicable means. But let us remember—and I know the noble Lord has underlined this—that while a pattern of co-operation can be laid down, its effectiveness will always depend on the resourcefulness of the different partners. The Minister appreciates the need for the continuing study of all practicable measures which will enable progress to be made. He also relies on the enthusiasm, willingness and good faith of those working in the services to put them into effect. I know that Her Majesty's Government will take note of the practical suggestions put forward by such an eminent worker in this field as the noble Lord who has introduced the Question this evening.