Lords Sitting of 16 March 1967

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

S.T.D. AND ALL-FIGURE DIALLING
3.5 p.m.
LORD MOYNE: 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 it is not easier to remember 01 Regent 1234, rather than 01–734 1234, especially since the name of the exchange has a known geographical connotation; and whether, since the dialling operation can be the same whether controlled by letters or numbers, the names of the old London telephone exchanges could not be retained.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, while we all regret the disappearance of the old exchange names, this has become unavoidable because of the growth of the telephone system. Many London exchanges already have names which have no recognisable geographical connection, and from 1970 there will not be enough pronounceable three-letter codes left for further expansion. As a mixed numbering system would be confusing, it was decided two years ago to change completely to all-figure numbers: this will also assist the development of international subscriber dialling, since many foreign countries do not have letters on their dials. The all-figure numbering programme will be completed in London by September this year.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lady for her reply. Would not the exigencies of S.T.D. or long-distance dialling be met by putting the numerical equivalent of the London telephone exchanges in the local directories? The noble Lady has also men-
418
tioned the difficulty of pronounceable combinations. Could not the number of names be increased by various mnemonic devices, even though they are not geographical? Is it not a fact that "W.D.O." is to be the new "number" of Whitehall? Is it not possible to think of making it "A.D.O." for Whitehall, where we make much ado about many things, including telephones? "A.D.O." is perhaps not a very good example of what I want to suggest—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, it gives me particular pain to interrupt the noble Lord, but could he ask a question, or leave the questions he has already asked where they stand?
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I have left them. Are not the interests of the million or so people who use the telephone daily in London more important than those of the handful of people who want to dial London from, say, San Francisco?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, with great respect, I feel that the noble Lord has gone beyond the ordinary bounds of the House. May I suggest that he leaves the matter where it is?
LORD MOYNE: Would the noble Earl allow me to make a graceful quotation? I am at the mercy of the House.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it is not for me to allow, or not to allow, the noble Lord anything. It rests with the House. But my strong opinion is that the House feels that the noble Lord has gone far enough; indeed a little too far.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that I have every sympathy with him. Perhaps a debate on an Unstarred Question might be useful in this matter. I should like to reply, but because of the enthusiasm of my own colleagues I found it a little difficult to follow the noble Lord's questions. On the question of combinations, I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that already we have had to move away from purely geographical combinations—for example, in "Viking", "Vigilant" and even "Renown"; and the number combinations will enable one to dial Paris or New York far more easily. I do not

419
know whether the noble Lord is in the habit of dialling Paris, but when I visited the exchanges I saw how simple and straightforward numbering is. I am happy to tell him that the Post Office have evidence which suggests that numbers are actually easier to dial than letters.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, would the noble Lady give an assurance that the telephone user who continues to dial the name of an exchange when it has been changed to a number will not be told that the line is no longer operating but will be referred to the new number?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that that will be the code of practice. He may be interested to know that a third of the telephone numbers in London will still be related to the letters, while the other two-thirds will be changed.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, could the noble Lady assure me that this changeover to all-number combinations is not just a further manifestation of the egalitarianism of Her Majesty's Government?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I think that I can safely say that it is not.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, while we all welcome the fact that it might be easier to dial New York or Paris, can my noble friend give me an assurance that it will be easier to dial from Tooting to Tottenham?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am sure that I shall be accused by the noble Lord of being biased in this, but I would suggest that we have a very good telephone service. It is really second to none.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I stand on this. If wrong numbers are obtained through an automatic exchange, as noble Lords who have seen this in operation will know, this is not the fault of the automatic system but invariably the fault of the person dialling.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that if anybody telephones in the dark, as I happen
420
to do a great deal, it is much easier to dial numbers than letters?
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, is the noble Lady aware from her experience that the "jackpot" has already taken to numbers and given up the names?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that contribution. I often feel that we over-emphasise people's inability to remember numbers. I have watched people doing complicated football pool permutations which completely defeat me.
LORD PEDDLE: My Lords, in view of the difficulty the Post Office experience in regard to telephones, has consideration been given to the advisability of the City of Hull taking over the national telephone service?

DOMICILIARY CARE OF DISCHARGED PATIENTS
3.15 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: 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 the numer of patients discharged from hospital in any given area who still need nursing care, either in their own homes or in any other institution.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, I regret that information is not available in the form requested by the noble Lord. I can, however, tell him that in England and Wales in 1965 domiciliary midwives visited in their homes 263,019 mothers discharged from hospital before the tenth day after delivery. In addition, health visitors visited 38,936 other patients discharged from hospitals other than psychiatric hospitals.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Could he tell me whether it would be possible for the Minister to start some such inquiry as I have in mind, to find out, not necessarily over the whole country, but in one of the areas, what these figures would be?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord that our knowledge of this aspect of the Health Service is inadequate. Some little time ago there were experiments in five areas with unlimited home nursing services, but the results were inconclusive. I understand that the Queen's Institute of District Nursing have asked my right honourable friend if a research project could be sponsored by him in relation to the co-ordination of hospital and district nursing services. This he is considering, and I will see that the noble Lord's view, which is of great value, is taken into account.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that helpful reply.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, in view of the fact that the future care service is basically within the province of the hospital almoner, would it be reasonable if I put down a Question to the noble Lord asking that investigations should be made at selected hospitals to find how far the almoner can follow discharged persons?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that it would be reasonable for the noble Lord to put down a Question. Whether I shall he able to give him all the information that he wants, we shall have to see; but certainly I suggest that he puts down a Question.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, the next time we have these figures, he can give them in terms of percentages?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the figures that I have given are 100 per cent. of what we know. These are the absolute figures in this particular field. But the point is that they cannot be related particularly to the terms of reference which the noble Lord suggested.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, what I should like to know is what percentage of the number the noble Lord has given represents discharged patients who need this care; otherwise it does not convey much knowledge.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry. I now understand what my noble friend means. I think this is one aspect of the matter where our knowledge is in-
422
adequate, and it is the sort of thing which I should have thought would come out if we carried out some further research into it.

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
3.18 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: 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 they will introduce the Protection of Consumers (Trade Descriptions) Bill.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, I have nothing to add to the statement made by my noble friend Lord Rhodes on October 20 last, when he informed your Lordships that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade intends to introduce this legislation as soon as Parliamentary time permits.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which is very disappointing. I had hoped that Parliamentary time—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: — would have enabled him to answer my Question a little further. There is another new aspect. Does the noble Lord know that, while the abolition of resale price maintenance is in general of great benefit to consumers, one unfavourable aspect has been the great increase in the practice of marking down, or double marking, and that many retailers and manufacturers are anxious for this to stop? The only way to achieve this is by a Bill. Is it not possible, in view of the urgency of many matters in connection with this, that we could hear something more encouraging about Parliamentary time?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot he more encouraging than I have been in my Answer to the noble Lady, but I can assure her that the Government are quite aware of the need for this legislation. Although this

423
may appear to be a stalling reply, it is an honest reply, and the hopes and intentions are to introduce this legislation as soon as Parliamentary time permits, which I hope will be, if not soon enough entirely to satisfy the noble Lady, at least soon enough to forestall her from coming back more often on this question.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, and are my Front Bench aware, that we really do find it rather irritating that this is treated as an amusing matter? Is the House aware that I am really speaking to my noble friend the Chief Whip? Is the noble Lord aware that many of us, I think on all sides of the House and outside, are concerned about this matter and deeply disturbed that, whatever Government is in power, we never can get a definite answer to this sort of question? Is the noble Lord further aware that it is just not good enough to get up and tell the House that this will be done when Parliamentary time permits? We have had this so many times in the past, and we should like a definite answer on this occasion.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend appreciates that it is impossible for me to anticipate the legislative programme before it is actually arranged and published. I would remind my noble friend that in fact legislation was introduced not so long ago, and unfortunately it fell by the wayside because of the last General Election. So it is not quite accurate to say that this is something which has been pressed on successive Governments without any result.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, there must presumably be some forward planning of these matters. Can the noble Lord therefore say whether this Bill will or will not be introduced during this Session? If not this Session, can it be introduced early next Session?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, before I reply to the noble Lord, if I may I should like to congratulate him on asking his first question from the exalted position which he occupies, and I am sure will continue to occupy, with such distinction.
I can give no promise as to when this legislation will be introduced. All I
424
can say is that the Government are conscious of the need for this, as was evidenced by the fact that it was in fact introduced some 15 months ago. So there is no reason to accuse the Government of treating this matter lightly and as something which can always be pushed to one side. It will be given a high degree of priority.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that there is a considerable and increasing volume of opinion that is favourable to the early introduction of this Bill, both on the part of the trade and of the consuming public?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am well aware of that fact, and it will undoubtedly play a large part in the allocation of time for consideration of the Bill.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether they are using this long interval to try to get a Bill which will be better drafted than the one presented to the House in the last Parliament?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that when the Bill eventually appears—and when I say "eventually" that does not mean that I expect it to be a long time—it will undoubtedly benefit from the experience and views of all those who have interested themselves in its passage.

SOUTH-WEST AFRICA
3.25 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 what alternative government for South-West Africa can logically be contemplated in view of the declaration of the British representative at the United Nations that the Republic of South Africa had forfeited any right to administer that territory, having regard to the facts that:

(a) The Port of Walvis Bay through which 90 per cent. of the

425
outward and inward ocean bound traffic passes is in South African territory and never formed part of the original mandate, and no alternative port exists;

(b) All internal railway rolling stock is owned by the Republic of South Africa; and

(c) The risk of starvation amongst the black African population would arise.]

LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on South-West Africa is at present studying alternative forms of Government for South-West Africa. The report of this Committee is likely to be published in the near future.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's reply, which appears to do little to alleviate the unfortunate effect of the statement made by the British representative at the United Nations, is the noble Lord not aware that the South African Government have gone quite clearly on record that they would only surrender their responsibility for the area by force? To reinforce that view, may I remind the noble Lord of the words attributed to the Prime Minister of South Africa, that any attempt to end his country's control over South-West Africa would be a war of aggression?
Is the noble Lord also aware that the South African Foreign Minister is reported in the Press as having said that:
"South Africa would resist with all the powers at its disposal any attempts which endanger the safety of peoples committed to our charge".
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am well aware of all the views expressed by the South African Government, and I would recommend the noble Lord to await the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee for the special Session of the General Assembly in April.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he could give me a reply to the first two points in my Question, because he is suggesting some action which is quite outside the realms of practical possibility.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I did not reply to the first two points of the noble Lord's Question because they were
426
not in fact questions but statements of fact of which I am well aware.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, then perhaps the noble Earl the Leader of the House will make some comment on this. I think it has been customary in our House to assume that in any Question where the facts mentioned must essentially form part of that Question, it has become habitual to so regard it.
THE, EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord is appealing to me, but I will not venture to pass an opinion, except to say that I thought the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, was rather straining the use of Question Time. I should not like to say more than that.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, it is merely a matter of procedure and again, with due respect, the noble Earl shied off the reply. May I ask him to deal with that aspect of it?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord is asking me a question, and I do not think I can refuse to answer. I do not quite know what the question is, but I can only repeat that I thought the noble Lord was going rather further than is usual in Question Time.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, is it not usual to find that Questions which are not palatable to Her Majesty's Government are considered to be straining the use of Question Time? I am bound to say that I do not see anything other than that in what the noble Earl the Leader of the House has just said.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, these things are very much a matter of judgment, but I think that if any Member of the House, and in particular an experienced Member like the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, reads what the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, said in Question Time, he should ask himself whether Question Time would work if everybody asked questions in that form. I think he would agree that it would not.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, when I have taken the advice of the Table with regard to forming another Question on these points, will the noble Earl be willing to answer it?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the answer is, of course, that there is no restriction on Questions at all.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BATH UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, that, until the House adjourns for the Recess at Easter, Standing Order No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended so far as is necessary to give Government Business, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day; and that Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended during the same period.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ISLE OF WIGHT AND PORTSMOUTH (SOLENT FORTS) ORDER 1967
3.30 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET) rose to move that the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth (Solent Forts) Order 1967, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are in the Solent between Portsmouth and Ryde four old forts, called St. Helen's Fort, No Man's Land Fort, Spitbank Fort and Horse Sand Fort. At the moment, so far as local government is concerned, all of them are in no-man's-land, and this Order brings each of them within the area of the nearest local authority on the mainland. The forts were built between 1861 and 1880, following a Royal Commission to consider the nation's defences. With the advances then being made in naval technology, and in particular the development of steam power, it was feared that the Navy might no longer be able to maintain mastery of the Channel;
428
and the forts were built to protect Portsmouth Harbour and the Solent.
I do not think that anybody, on either side of the House, will feel that mastery of the Channel against Her Majesty's possible enemies on the other side is of such immediate importance to-day as it was a hundred years ago, and for this reason the Defence Department wishes to dispose of the forts. They are deserted, but they represent a continuing liability of about £1,000 a year for upkeep. In 1963, accordingly, the Army Department decided to sell them, but three local authorities, the Isle of Wight County Council, the Hampshire County Council and the Portsmouth City Council, expressed the fear that when the forts ceased to be Crown property they might be used for advertising stations or some other purpose which ought to be subject to control. It might appear to many of us that they were right.
I remember sailing past these forts on a warm sunny day and one of my daughters, then aged 12, said "Let us buy one". I said, "I will see if we can raise the price. What shall we use it for?" She said "A restaurant, night club, coffee bar; I do not mind. Somewhere where I can give parties." Children grow up. The ambition seems to be not unreasonable, and I am sure all your Lordships would agree that restaurants, coffee bars and night clubs ought to be subject to the normal services and controls provided by local authorities even if they are standing in the middle of the water. The Army Department accordingly agreed to postpone the sale until the forts had been included in a local authority area.
This Order gives effect to proposals made to the Minister by the Isle of Wight Council County and Portsmouth Corporation under the relevant section of the Local Government Act 1933. The proposals were advertised last autumn and no objections were received. The forts are deserted and no private interests are affected, and the Minister decided, as it was within his power to do under the 1933 Act, that it was not necessary to hold a local inquiry. The Order will now enable the Army Department to put an end to their continuing liability for upkeep, and to dispose of these forts without any risk being run of their being

429
used in ways contrary to the ordinary plannings laws. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth (Solent Forts) Order 1967, be approved.—(Lord Kennet.)
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think many of us know the Solent and many have sailed, like the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, past these forts. Those of us who know them are grateful to him for his careful explanation of the reasons behind this Order. We in this House will shortly be discussing defence. Many of us have some quarrel with aspects of the present Government's defence policy, but I think we have no quarrel with this particular decision. As the noble Lord has explained, these forts were built some hundred years ago to defend the anchorage of Spithead and Portsmouth Dockyard from distant bombardment from the East. I think we all agree they are not likely to serve that particular purpose very adequately in the future, and because of that, and because, as the noble Lord has explained, this Order is made with the full agreement of the local authorities concerned, I should like to add that we fully endorse it. I look forward to seeing what transpires at these forts in the future, and perhaps enjoying some of the facilities the noble Lord has foreshadowed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PARKING PLACES (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS) ORDER 1967
3.35 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Parking Places (Transfer of Functions) Order 1967, dated February 14, 1967, and laid before this House on February 23, 1967, be approved. The purpose of this Order is to transfer to local parking authorities in England, Wales and Scotland the Minister of Transport's powers under the Road Traffic Act 1960 to make orders creating or amending schemes which involve charging for street parking. At present, in England the Minister of Transport makes and amends designation orders for schemes which charge for street parking (except in Greater London, where the Greater London Council took over the
430
Minister's powers in 1963). In Scotland and Wales the respective Secretaries of State make these orders. The Minister concerned makes these orders on the application of local authorities.
These powers were first introduced under Section 19 of the 1956 Road Traffic Act. At that time parking meters were a novelty in this country, and their introduction aroused a good deal of opposition. It was therefore felt that they should be the Minister's responsibility and should be subject to the approval of both Houses. By 1960, however, when the powers were re-enacted in the Road Traffic Act, experience of the first parking meter schemes in London had begun to change the climate of opinion. Parliament felt that it was only a matter of time before local authorities which already made all other orders to control parking, both on and off the street, should make their own designation orders. A provision was therefore built into Section 5(7) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act of the same year to enable the Minister to make an Order transferring her functions at any time to local authorities.
The Minister considers that the time is now ripe for local authorities to make their own designation orders. Charging for street parking is now much more widespread. It has become a recognised means of controlled parking where demand is very high. Outside London 13 large towns already operate meter schemes and 4 more have applied to introduce them. The Minister therefore proposes to make use of Section 5(7) of the Road Traffic and Road Improvement Act 1960 to make this Order which transfers her powers to make orders creating or amending schemes involving charging for street parking to local parking authorities in England, Wales and Scotland. In England and Wales the local authorities to have this power would be county boroughs and county districts (that is, non-county boroughs and urban and rural districts) and in Scotland, county councils and town councils.
The Minister would, however, keep control of the essentials. She would retain her powers to approve the type and design of meters, to receive objections and to hold public inquiries where necessary. She would have new powers

431
to consent to orders before they are made and to vary or revoke orders. The Minister has retained the safeguard of consent because she still confirms general schemes of traffic and parking control (which give local authorities a certain amount of latitude in the matter of access to premises) under Section 11(8) of the Road Traffic and Roads Improvement Act 1960. So long as she continues to confirm these schemes she considers it would be premature to relinquish all control over designation orders, because they also give local authorities greater discretion about the needs of access than they have under other parking regulation powers which they exercise without reference to the Minister. One other safeguard has been retained. Where the parking authority is not also a highway authority for a road to which an order relates, it must of course obtain the highway authority's consent before making the order.
This is a step towards getting a better balance between central and local government. Except for orders relating to trunk roads, these parking meter orders are the only ones actually made by the Minister. Local authorities already make all other orders dealing with parking and loading, including the provision of off-street parking places where charges are made. They are required only to submit orders to the Minister that affect a trunk road or if an objector claims that they deny reasonable access to premises. These safeguards will not be affected by this Order. The proposals should save a good deal of time and work for both central and local government without prejudicing individual rights. At the moment the Minister prepares the details of each scheme, advertises it, receives all objections, and finally lays the order before Parliament. All this takes a great deal of time and effort, to no real advantage to central or local government, or to those affected by the scheme. Indeed it is the remoteness of the present system from the individuals concerned that often gives rise to quite unnecessary difficulties; many objections could better be resolved locally by those who have a first-hand knowledge of local conditions.
Under the new proposals the local authority would prepare and advertise the scheme, and receive all objections in
432
the first instance. Only after it had considered these objections, and revised the scheme if necessary in the light of them, would it refer the order and any unresolved objections to the Minister. Having considered the objections—and held a public inquiry, if necessary—the Minister could then consent to the scheme, subject to any variations she might think fit. My Lords, I believe this Order raises no important questions of policy or principle but it is something which we can do within existing legislation which will be of benefit to both central and local government. I therefore hope the House will agree with me that it is high time that local authorities should be able to make their own designation orders, and will approve this Order.
Moved, That the Parking Places (Transfer of Functions) Order 1967, be approved.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
3.41 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for kindly explaining to the House the purpose of this Order, and may I say that for myself I welcome it. This is a process of evolution, and to me, in particular, it is good news to hear that parking schemes have gone so well. I had the honour to introduce the first parking meter system in the country, in Grosvenor Square, and it was part of my honour to lend to a distinguished member of the Grosvenor family the necessary 6d. so that he could put 6d. in a meter. It cannot often be that that family is short of 6d. I am quite sure that in normal circumstances parking meters provide the best way of controlling parking. The parking attendants, who enforce the necessary parking regulations, are thus paid for, and it avoids the burden falling direct upon the ratepayer.
I understand that there is flexibility in these schemes, and that the Minister will, in circumstances which warrant it, allow other schemes, as indeed exist in my own home town of Guildford and in Cheltenham. On the whole, parking meters have served extremely well, and I am glad to hear that the Minister considers that the best plan is for local authorities to prepare their own schemes and take their own initiative. I think it would be interesting to hear whether the Minister retains any

433
power herself to take action if a local authority is unprogressive and does not produce a parking scheme when one is obviously needed in a town—whether she can herself take some action which would prod the local authority to do something. I should also be interested to know whether a county council could take the initiative to set up a charging parking scheme, in a county district or in a non-county borough which had not itself taken the initiative. Could the county council then take the initiative?
I am sure your Lordships were glad to hear that the proper safeguards are still maintained, that where objections are not overcome by local discussions and negotiations a local inquiry can still be held, at the Minister's direction, which would of course dispose of any objections that remained. I am sure that a safeguard of that kind is needed, and that the Minister should keep the ultimate consent in her own hands. With those few observations, I am pleased to give my support to this Order.
3.44 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I give a general welcome to this transfer of powers from the centre to local government. I think that this is a step in the right direction. But quite distinctively from the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, I would hope that parking meters are not going to be looked upon as a permanent solution to the parking problem. They are a necessity at the moment, but I sincerely hope that transferring this authority to local authorities will not in any way diminish the zeal of local authorities to clear our streets of parked cars and provide proper parking places near the periphery of business premises, shopping centres and so forth. I hope, too, that local authorities will ensure that the provision of decent, wide streets at vast expense is not offset by cluttering them up with cars as is the case at the moment.
One realises, of course, that this is a most vexed question and quite a lot
434
can be said in connection with it. In my opinion, parking meters have to be provided at a reasonable charge. There must be a differential between the long-term and the short-term parker. But while I wholeheartedly agree with the transfer of these powers, I also hope that it will in no way diminish the zeal of local authorities to provide completely adequate and proper off-street parking.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, as this Order applies to Scotland, and the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, have referred to the Minister in feminine gender, may I ask whether, in regard to Scotland, the Minister concerned is the Secretary of State?
3.46 p.m.
LORD W1NTERBOTTOM: My Lords, working backwards, I presume that what the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has suggested must be the case, because this Order is tabled before this House jointly between the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, I am afraid that in both cases my answer must be in the negative. The county councils have no power at present to take initiative in this matter; and, again, the Minister has no default power to act where local authorities have themselves not acted. But the Minister can revoke or vary orders that local authorities have made. As the noble Lord knows, Ministers of Transport are most persuasive people, and I am sure that no local authority would voluntarily argue with them on a subject of this type.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Popplewell, the point he raised is, of course, outside the scope of the Order. But I am certain that we all recognise the fact that parking meters are but one aspet of solving the traffic problem as a whole.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TELEVISING THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE
3.47 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to. In moving the approval of this Report, I must start by apologising to your Lordships for two printer's errors. Correction slips have been issued, and are available in the Printed Paper Office. Before I refer to the contents of the Report, I should like to take this early opportunity of expressing the gratitude of the Committee to the British Broadcasting Corporation and to Independent Television for the great help they have given us throughout our deliberations. They gave us a great deal of their valuable time both in preparing memoranda and in submitting oral evidence, and we are very sensible of the debt we owe to them.
I should like now to turn briefly to the Report. The House will have noted that the entire Report, including the recommendation for a three-day closed-circuit experiment, was agreed unanimously by the Committee. But your Lordships are probably aware that a number of members of the Committee, are like some other noble Lords, opposed to the public televising of the proceedings of the House. Those noble Lords on the Committee of this view have asked me to say that, while they have not changed their opinion about the undesirability of having any public televising of your Lordships' proceedings, they are nevertheless in full agreement with the particular proposals the House is considering this afternoon. They have come to this conclusion because they think that a closed-circuit experiment will assist the House to form a judgment about the nature and the value of public broadcasting.
436
We are asking your Lordships in this First Report to agree to two proposals. First, to a three-day closed-circuit experiment early in 1968, the results of which will he seen by your Lordships; and, secondly, to widen the Committee's present terms of reference so as to include sound broadcasting. I should like to start by dealing with our main recommendation which is in favour of a private closed-circuit experiment. The Committee interpreted their terms of reference as meaning that the House desired a public television experiment. The evidence we heard, however, convinced us that such an experiment should take place only after a closed-circuit experiment had been conducted.
The value of such an experiment would, I think, be twofold. It would show Members how the House would appear when televised, and it would also provide them with some idea of the use of our proceedings which the broadcasters at present intend to make in edited programmes. It would also help the broadcasting authorities to judge for themselves the value of their present ideas about broadcasting the proceedings of the House. Your Lordships will observe from pages 30 and 31 of the Report that the broadcasters attached the greatest importance to a closed-circuit experiment. Indeed, in answer to a question I put—namely, whether it would be difficult for public broadcasting to take place without a previous closed-circuit experiment—the answers were, and I quote: "Most inadvisable", and: "We would want an experiment even if your Lordships were not wanting one". These were the two reasons why the Committee felt that such an experiment would be of value.
I should like at the same time to emphasise to the House the warning contained in paragraph (8) of the Report. In this paragraph we pointed out that, however useful and necessary the closed-circuit experiment might be, your Lordships will not receive an accurate impression of the physical conditions in this Chamber that are likely to prevail when public broadcasting takes place. The reason is this. It is because, in order to keep down the cost of a closed-circuit experiment, we shall have to use conventional television cameras, and they will take up a certain amount of space

437
in the Chamber itself, and will require a higher degree of lighting than your Lordships are at present accustomed to. There is no doubt, therefore, that the closed-circuit experiment will cause some slight inconvenience, but I am sure that in any experiment at a later date in public broadcasting, if miniature remote control and concealed cameras are used, your Lordships would scarcely be aware of the existence of any equipment in the Chamber, or, indeed, that televising was actually taking place.
The Committee considered carefully the question of how long such an experiment should last. While we recognise that the cost of a one-day experiment could be nearly £6,000 less than the proposed three-day experiment, we considered that only by taking a period of three days would it be possible to obtain a typical cross-section of the main types of proceedings in your Lordships' House. I should hope that during these three days it would be possible to cover Question Time, the Second Reading of a Public Bill, the Committee stage of another Public Bill, and, of course, one of the general debates which normally takes place on a Wednesday afternoon, and which are such a characteristic and outstanding feature of our proceedings.
So, after one day of rehearsals, which will take place on the Monday, in the proposed programmes the remaining three days will be televised continuously. The resulting signal will be shown on monitor television sets placed in various Committee Rooms. This will enable noble Lords to see how the continuous live coverage of our debates will appear. In the week following the experiment, your Lordships will have an opportunity of seeing, again on closed-circuit monitors, "dummy" edited programmes of various types, representing the uses which the B.B.C. and Independent Television might make of our proceedings. The Committee recommend that it should be left to the House to decide whether the broadcasters should be allowed to broadcast publicly any part of the closed-circuit experiment. If the broadcasters express the wish to use this material, the House should be asked as soon as possible after the experiment whether to allow it.
The provisional estimate of the cost of this three-day experiment is £16,650, and to this must be added the sum of £1,050
438
for the construction of a sound-proof commentary box, bringing the total cost up to £17,700. The Leader of the House has informed the Committee that there is no reason to suppose that the Government will alter their previous decision to make available, early in 1968, the sum of £18,000 for the purpose of a closed-circuit experiment in this House. I very much hope that the Leader will be able to confirm this to your Lordships this afternoon. But, of course, the ultimate decision to vote this money will rest with the House of Commons.
The second recommendation for which we seek the approval of your Lordships to-day seeks to widen the Committee's terms of reference to include sound broadcasting. The Committee recommend this extension of their terms of reference because at the moment they have no power to consider whether the B.B.C. should be allowed to make use of sound extracts from any television recording in its radio broadcasts. Obviously, such extracts would find a place in current affairs programmes, schools broadcasting, news bulletins, and so on. Indeed, the B.B.C. have already indicated to the Committee their interest in sound broadcasting of our proceedings, and provision of technical facilities for this would be both easy and inexpensive. Already, as your Lordships are aware, tape recorders are in use in order to help Hansard. and it may be that only very small technical improvements would be necessary in order to provide the B.B.C. with a continuous recording of the daily proceedings of the House. If your Lordships agree that our terms of reference should be so widened, I believe that the Committee would, in a subsequent Report, be able to put before the House some interesting suggestions about sound broadcasting.
If your Lordships approve this Report, and authorise the Committee to continue their work, I should like to say something about the future programme we have in mind. We shall, of course, go on preparing the ground for the closed-circuit experiment in 1968, and also examine the question of sound broadcasting. But we shall also then pursue our inquiry into several other matters closely connected with the televising of Parliamentary proceedings. These will include privilege, copyright, the repercussions of Parliamentary television on the Press, and

439
archives—that is to say, the question of whether the proceedings of Parliament should be preserved for posterity, and communicated to the young, by sound and vision as well as by the printed word. In some of these fields we shall be breaking fresh ground, and we may—I hope we shall—be able to perform a service that will be useful not only to your Lordships, but to Parliament as a whole. I trust that I have succeeded in making clear to the House the principal considerations that have led the Committee to make the recommendations in this Interim Report, and I hope that they will be acceptable. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
3.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, approving the Report from the Select Committee. If I may say so, they appear to have done an excellent job and to deserve our sincere gratitude. I am sure the House will not wish me to enter this afternoon into the general question of the wisdom or unwisdom of televising our proceedings here, although it is a question in which I personally happen to be particularly interested. We gather from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that all members of the Select Committee, whatever their views on the general question, were unanimously in favour of these proposals for a limited experiment. I certainly feel that in this they have all acted in complete accord with the Resolution of the noble Lord, Lord Egremont, which was carried last year.
My main purpose in speaking, apart from generally supporting the Report, is to answer a question which the noble Earl put to me and which will readily occur to anyone who reads the Report. The noble Earl has pointed out that, on being approached by the Committee, I informed them that in my view there was no reason to suppose that the Government would alter their previous decision to make available, early in 1968, a sum of up to £18,000 for the purpose of a closed-circuit experiment. I can now confirm that this is, in fact, the attitude of the Government.
I think that that is all I can usefully say this afternoon. I repeat that it gives
440
me great pleasure to support the noble Earl's Motion, and to express on behalf of the House, if I may, our deep appreciation to the members of the Committee for their hard and successful work, and to include in that reference the various officials who gave them such invaluable assistance. I beg to support the noble Earl.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I too should like to support the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, in what he has said. I think that the Committee's Report and the general attitude of your Lordships show once again how much more adventurous we are in these matters than the House of Commons, and how much more receptive to new ideas. Who knows?—we may even encourage our rather timid colleagues in another place to follow our example.
If I may say so, I think that the Committee have come to a very sensible conclusion. The experiment will enable us to see how televising of the House works out, yet we shall not be finally committed to anything until we have seen it on the television screens: we can leave the final decision until then. I would only say, on behalf I imagine of everybody in this House, how grateful we are to the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, and to all his colleagues who gave up such a lot of time to sitting on this Committee and making, their Report.
LORD EGREMONT: My Lords, I feel that I must say just a few words, as the man who is at the bottom of all this. First of all, I think that the Select Committee Report is a good one, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and my noble friend Lord Carrington have said; and it is all the better for being as short and terse as it is. I think that we shall all agree that the Committee deserve our congratulations. They have handled a difficult subject in a most careful, sensitive and sensible way, and it is an able Report.
All this comes from a Motion of mine suggesting that we should try this television experiment. We had a Division. and it turned out that we should; and that is what we are going to do. I have in the past moved various Motions in this House—indeed, I once got a Bill through this House—but I sometimes

441
think that the next worse thing to getting a Motion negatived is to get it accepted. I once moved in this House that speeches here should be shorter. This was agreed to without a vote. But it did not make the slightest difference, except to me. If I make a speech in your Lordships House now I have to be careful. I am hoist by my own petard; hobbled like a horse, as it were. So I shall be brief to-day, and, I hope, always.
I have no misgivings, no reservations whatsoever, about backing this television experiment as proposed in this Report. I cannot think that this experiment will do any harm, and it may do some good. But I am bound to confess to your Lordships that when I was talking the other day to an elderly nobleman to whom I am devoted, and with whom I am closely connected, he asked me what was "all this damn nonsense" about televising the proceedings of your Lordships' House, and who was at the bottom of it. I had to own up, and I said to him what the infant George Washington said about the cherry tree: "Father, I cannot tell a lie. I did it with my little hatchet". I am afraid that he was a bit shocked. But he—naturally enough—belongs to a different generation from myself. I am sure that I personally shall never regret the original Motion which got this thing going, and, thanks to the able handling of this subject by the Select Committee, I am sure that none of us will.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, it only remains for me, on behalf of the Committee, to thank all three noble Lords who have spoken for their friendly support for the recommendations in our Report. I should like, in particular, to thank the noble Earl the Leader of the House for confirming the Government's offer of a sum of money towards the television experiment. I feel that the fact that both the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition have spoken in this short debate is an indication of the importance which the House attaches to the subject of television, and this is a welcome encouragement to the Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

TEACHERS OF NURSING BILL
4.7 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I have been invited to pilot the Teachers of Nursing Bill through your Lordships' House, following its passage without Amendment through another place. This is a limited measure, designed to amend the prescribed practice, in the interests of the nursing profession. I am quite sure that none of your Lordships will object in any major way to any of its provisions, for it is welcomed by the whole nursing profession as it will undoubtedly improve the nursing service by increasing the numbers of teachers of nursing.
At present the General Nursing Councils for England and Wales, and Scotland, have powers to make rules granting certificates to teachers of nurses who have undergone a prescribed training, but in institutions approved for the purpose by the Councils. The powers do not, however, permit either of the Councils to grant a certificate to a person who has not undergone training in an institution approved for the purpose, even though the Councils regard the person as qualified to teach nurses. The number of such nurses is not known for certain, but it has been estimated that about thirty could he granted certificates if suitable changes in legislation were made, and that perhaps up to ten more would be granted certificates each year. The numbers are not great, but they would make a most welcome addition to the ranks of qualified tutors who are in very short supply.

443
The desirability of the measure, as I have said, is not in question. The nursing Press has advocated legislation and has welcomed the Bill, and the General Nursing Councils support it. The main purpose, therefore, is to remove the obstacle to giving certificates to a group of nurses by adding to the existing provisions, in Section 17 of the Nurses Act 1957 and Section 6(1)(f) of the Nurses (Scotland) Act 1951, powers enabling the Councils to make rules prescribing qualifications. They would then, of course, regard the possession of these qualifications as justifying the granting of a certificate.
Powers are also taken to permit the granting of certificates to persons who appear to the Councils and to the Secretary of State or the Minister, whichever is appropriate, to be qualified for the teaching of nursing, but whose qualifications do not conform to those prescribed elsewhere in the rules made under these sections. This will permit flexibility in dealing with unusual or new qualifications. For simplicity of drafting, Clause 1 of the Bill substitutes a new Section 17 for the existing Section 17 of the Nurses Act 1957; and in Clause 2 a similar substitution for Section 6, subsection (1)(f), of the Nurses (Scotland) Act 1951 is made.
In reframing the sections giving powers to the General Nursing Councils to grant certificates to teachers of nurses, opportunities have been taken, in the opening sentence of each of the new sections as set out in Clauses 1 and 2, to place beyond doubt the Councils' powers to limit the certificates to certain classes or descriptions of persons; namely, registered or, in England and Wales, listed nurses. Both Councils' rules already do this, but may be ultra vires. The opportunity has also been taken to make it clear that Councils can prescribe qualifications as to experience as well as formal qualifications. This provision is made in the final sentence of Clause 1 and of Clause 2.
The Scottish rules already prescribe experience, and the English rule did so until 1965, when new rules removed the prescribing of experience as this was thought to be ultra vires. It is necessary to be able to prescribe experience, however, as in the effort to increase the number of qualified tutors courses are being arranged, in theory and practice of educa-
444
tion, which do not include nursing subjects. Therefore, the Councils should be able to prescribe the minimum experience and responsibility in the practice of nursing which they consider necessary when the formal qualification does not cover nursing subjects.
I apologise, my Lords, if I have been a little technical, but it is necessary to explain very clearly what provisions are being made so that the various nursing authorities, when they come to read Hansard, will fully understand the position. I think I have covered the main provisions of this useful little Bill, and I hope the House will approve it and give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2a.—(Baroness Summerskill.)
4.13 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it is a fairly rare pleasure for those of us on this side of the House to be able to applaud and agree to everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, says. I am very happy that it falls to me to express it this afternoon, because I am sure that those of us on this side of the House also welcome this very useful though small Bill. It is a small Bill, and it affects only a small number of people in a rather narrow sector, but I think I can safely predict that there will be more people grateful for the benefits that accrue to patients in hospital through the working of it than there will be citizens who are grateful for the benefits of some of the other rather weightier measures that we have been handling in this House in the last few weeks. I think it will confer tremendous benefits in time. There is a great need for more teachers of nursing, and any Bill or measure which increases their number will be very welcome.
I have no points to make on the Bill itself, either in outline or in detail for the Committee stage. There is only one point that I should like to make before I sit down, and that is that by and large the teachers of nursing, and those who have the job of administering hospitals as matrons, all come from the same profession. A ward sister at the age of about 35 has to choose between going to the teaching side or the administration side. Apart from her own sense of vocation, I think she is bound to be influenced by the fact that the maximum salary for a matron is £2,100 and that for

445
a principal tutor £1,500. While welcoming the measures in this Bill, I would draw attention to this point and invite the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government to comment, if he is able to do so.
4.15 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness for the introduction of this Private Member's Bill in this House. As one who for some years was chairman of a hospital management committee and a member of a Regional Hospital Board, as well as being involved with the Queen's Institute of District Nursing, I know how important it is that we should have a sufficient number of sister tutors. In addition to this, for the last 12 months I have been a member of a small working party set up at the request of the Royal College of Nursing—a request which went to the King Edward Hospital Fund—to work on this very problem of the shortage of sister tutors available in the field. We came to some extremely interesting conclusions, with which I will not bother the House this afternoon, but I am glad that, as a result of this Bill, we may hope to have even the small increase in the number of sister tutors, or teachers of nursing as this Bill calls them, that are to be available in the future.
I notice that this Bill was before another place some eight and a half months ago, and that it will take six months from the moment it reaches the Statute Book before we can get the benefit of the measure to which we are hoping to give a Second Reading this afternoon. On that occasion in another place, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health said that the Government supported the Bill in its entirety and that it was hoped, as a result of the Bill, to get about thirty teachers immediately—that fact we have heard this afternoon—and possibly ten additional teachers each year thereafter.
We have not yet got the thirty teachers immediately, because it is now eight and a half months since the Bill came forward; and, grateful as we are to the noble Lady for introducing it to-day, it is a pity we did not have it perhaps a little sooner. We are also having to wait another six months before we have the advantage of these potential thirty sister
446
tutors who are waiting to be authorised to teach. But I welcome the Bill, and I hope that it will come into force as soon as possible so that the time-lag of the future will be shorter than it has been in the past.
4.18 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I, too, like the other noble Lords who have spoken, welcome this Bill. It is an extremely valuable Bill from the point of view of the profession—a profession which we ought to honour and recognise in its fulness, as we do now with some reluctance. We have always accepted the benefits of the nursing profession, but we have never given it the dignity which it deserved. Here, at least in one form of improved standards and recognition of improved standards, we are trying to give that kind of recognition.
It is also very important that we are here setting standards which not only will be of value in this country but are desperately needed throughout the whole world. I speak bearing in mind the great deal of work which is being done in creating sister tutors for the World Health Organisation and elsewhere throughout the world. The training of the teachers to teach the nurses has been one of the difficulties of many of the projects which have been undertaken by the World Health Organisation.
I feel rather sanctimonious, coming from Scotland, because as usual Scotland has in this case used a great deal of foresight and has moved well ahead of even this admirable Bill. We have in the University of Edinburgh the only Department of Graduate Nurses in Britain; and the graduate nurses we are teaching there for both their B.Sc. or M.A. degree, or for a one-year diploma or a two-year diploma, are in fact being produced not only for ourselves but for overseas. We have something like ten post-graduate nurses under training under World Health Organisation scholarships and fellowships at Edinburgh. The work being done there, the standard we have been able to establish, and the recognition we have been able to acquire, will reflect itself in terms of the registered nurses whom we are also going to encourage under this Bill. I think that the development of this advanced education for nurses is going to raise the status of appreciation of nursing. We do

447
not have to raise it in the public esteem; but we ought to raise it in the profession itself. I should like to ask my noble friend who is to reply what the Nursing Council foresee as the kind of people and quality of people we are going to produce with the help of this Bill.
4.23 p.m
LORD BESWICK: I should like, first of all, to join with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, in expressing my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Summerskill for being to ready to accept responsibility for the introduction of this Bill to this House. The Government support the Bill, and very briefly I propose to say why. All of us are conscious of the importance of the nursing profession in our national life, and all of us are ready to pay tribute, as did my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, to the individual members of that profession. There are times more than others, but to almost all of us there is some time, when we have particular and personal reason for realising our indebtedness to them. Yet few of us pause to consider how the standards of service and efficiency of the profession are maintained. Undoubtedly proper training is the starting point. The training of nurses has received more serious attention recently than for a long time past. Good training requires close integration of theory and practice. But training carried out in schools of nursing closely associated with hospitals poses special problems. It is necessary, for example, to ensure that service to patients does not prevent the student from receiving a properly planned training. This is particularly true under the syllabus introduced experimentally by the General Nursing Council in 1962, which is thought to be a great improvement on the previous syllabus and is being widely adopted. Discussions have taken place recently with the General Nursing Council about experimental schemes of training, and measures which can be taken by hospitals to help the student nurse to take full advantage of a planned training. Suggestions will be made shortly to hospital authorities which we hope will bring improvements.
Clearly, however, the quality of training is primarily dependent on the quality of those who control the courses and do
448
the teaching. It is important, therefore, that there should be an adequate number of qualified tutors. The introduction of the 1962 syllabus, which makes more demands of the tutor, has emphasised the need for more qualified tutors. At present this need is being met by employing more unqualified tutors who already form a large part of the tutorial force.
The General Nursing Council are very concerned with the question of increasing the numbers of nurse tutors. Current courses mostly take two years to complete, and many nurses are unwilling or unable to leave home to undertake them. An experimental one-year course is running at a technical teachers' training college, which is also starting a special experimental "sandwich" course. Some expansion of existing courses is possible, and the Council have also been considering with other bodies the possibility of organising further courses. But none of these measures—except the one-year course—can bring qualified tutors to the nurse training schools sufficiently quickly. It is against this background that the Government find in this Bill a means by which the General Nursing Council may register as qualified nurse tutors any nurses who wish to do this work, and whom the Council are satisfied have the requisite skills. I share the noble Lady's disappointment that it was not found possible to bring the Bill to this House earlier; but there have been Parliamentary reasons for that.
My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder asked about the sort of person whom the Council have in mind as possessing the requisite skills to become a tutor. All potential tutors, of course, must have nursing qualifications and experience. That is the prime qualification. But, additionally, there may be persons with such qualifications and experience who have degrees which suggest their suitability as teachers. Others may have had experience of teaching in some other discipline. For example, I was told of one case of a teacher of physiotherapy in a teaching hospital, as well as another who has completed a two-year course at a teachers' training college and holds a diploma in advanced biology and psychology. At present the General Nursing Council are prevented by Statute from accepting such persons as qualified because they have not taken the course

449
prescribed by the 1957 Act. if the Council did take them (this is relevant to what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said) their pay would be less than that of a qualified nurse tutor.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, also drew a comparison between the salary to be earned by a hospital matron, on the one hand, and a successful nurse tutor, on the other. I am not sure that this is a fair comparison, since, after all, the matron is, strictly, responsible for the school attached to her hospital, as well as for all other matters which one normally associated with her duties. However, I understand that it is a fact that, generally speaking, the salary of a principal nurse tutor is equal to, or similar to, that of a deputy matron. I am glad to remind the House that my right honourable friend the Minister of Health announced last week that he accepted the proposals of the Salmon Committee which provide for higher-paid posts in the tutorial service. The Nurses Act 1957, as amended by this Bill, will give the General Nursing Council, as my noble friend Lady Summerskill has said, greater flexibility and a wider discretion, while at the same time safeguarding the standards. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible speedily to pass this Bill through all its stages in your Lordships' House.
4.28 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSK1LL: My Lords, I should like to thank speakers from both sides of the House for the unanimous support they have given this Bill. May I ask my noble friend just one question? It can be a rhetorical one, and he can give me the answer afterwards. Will he use his powers to expedite the passage of this Bill to the Statute Book? So many Private Members' Bills embodying important provisions affecting the social life of the community are held up. If my noble friend consults the Hansard of another place he will see that last Friday 11 Bills were obstructed. This Bill has now received the support of both this House and the other place. Therefore I should be grateful if he could do everything in his power to expedite it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my power is limited; but it will certainly be used.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROYAL ASSENT BILL [H.L.]
4.29 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.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Signification of Royal Assent]:
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY moved to add to subsection (1):
"( ) Her Majesty's Assent shall, so far as practicable, be pronounced in the form and manner customary before the passing of this Act at least once in each Session of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. The purposes of this Amendment is to write into the Bill a view, which was expressed on both sides of the House during Second Reading, that our procedure of giving the Royal Assent by Royal Commission should be preserved at least once in a Session. I should like to make clear that this Amendment is not intended to cast any reflection upon the intention which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated during the Second Reading, that this old procedure would take place at least once in every Session. But, of course, the noble and learned Lord will appreciate that he will not be in Office forever. For myself, and I am sure I speak for all your Lordships, so long as the noble and learned Lord is in office we are quite happy that this procedure will be carried out once a Session, but after that there will be nothing in the Bill to provide that that should be done; and it would be quite easy for the procedure under subsection (1)(b) to come to be used entirely and for the procedure under subsection (1)(a) to fall into desuetude. As your Lordships know, once something has been abandoned it becomes a precedent that it is abandoned, and it may never be used again. As I say, the purpose of this Amendment is to see that, that shall not happen in this case.
I think that, before coming to the terms of the Amendment, I should first remind your Lordships of the position with regard to the prerogative, because if your Lordships will refer to column 1181 of Hansard of March 2, you will note that at the commencement of the Second Reading debate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said this:
"My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Royal Assent Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill."
Of course this Bill is entirely concerned with the prerogative, and Her Majesty sent that Message which was read out by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at the commencement of the proceedings of the Second Reading debate.
Now I turn to the actual terms of the Amendment. Your Lordships will see that it reads:
"Her Majesty's Assent shall, so far as is practicable…".
I have put in those words because it is conceivable that there could arise a situation in which it was not possible to comply with the Amendment without the addition of those words. Perhaps I can best illustrate that by quoting a hypothetical case. The Government of the day might decide, at short notice, either to ask for a Dissolution or to prorogue. It might be that at that moment there were no Bills awaiting the Royal Assent. In such a case the Statute could not be complied with, and I think it will be agreed on both sides of the Committee that we must not put something on the Statute Book which, in certain events, could become a nonsense. That is the reason for the insertion of those words: to cover a hypothetical case, possibly a case such as I have quoted, which might never occur but could occur.
There is another matter which I think I should mention. During the Second Reading debate the hope was expressed that perhaps Her Majesty might, again at her pleasure, come to your Lordships' House and give the Royal Assent in person. The hope was generally expressed that perhaps she would do that on some occasion. That position of course is
452
safeguarded in the Bill already by the provisions of Clause 1(2) and nothing in the present Amendment would affect it. On Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was good enough to say that he would consider whether something of this sort to preserve the procedure under paragraph (a) could be put into the Bill. This Amendment is an attempt to do that. It might not be the right way to do it, but I very much hope that it is. It is an attempt to preserve in the Statute, as the Bill will become, a ceremony which, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, is full of history. I believe it is the wish of noble Lords on both sides of the Committee that that should be done, and therefore, in the hope that this Amendment may do what I intend, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Grimston of Westbury.)
4.37 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): This is an Amendment which I think the Committee will receive with sympathy. I said on Second Reading that all Parties had agreed that the present intention was that we should have several Royal Commissions in the first year after the Bill was passed, and afterwards at least one every Session and, I think they also agree, at every Prorogation. I think we are all united in not wanting to lose this ceremony and that that intention should be carried out. Therefore it is natural that we should all sympathetically receive an Amendment designed to ensure that that is so.
There are, however, one or two considerations, none of them being of a Party political nature at all, to which I think I ought to draw the attention of the Committee. In the first place, such an Amendment would be very unusual. We do not ordinarily legislate in a matter which does, or even may, affect the prerogative without first asking Her Majesty. This was done on this occasion, and, as the noble Lord has said, the House is on such occasions informed by a Minister, who must be a Privy Counsellor, that that has been done. The proposals to which Her Majesty's Assent has been invited are proposals which do not in fact infringe the prerogative in any way at all. The

453
Bill, as the Committee will understand, leaves the prerogative exactly as it is; it leaves the Royal Assent in person exactly as it is and it leaves the Royal Commision exactly as it is. All it does is to provide a third and simpler method, not strictly of giving the Royal Assent, but of declaring it to both Houses; and it leaves Her Majesty free to decide which method is to be used at which time.
This Amendment, however, limits the prerogative. It is saying, "You must employ this particular method on these particular occasions". The noble Lord has not told us whether he has asked Her Majesty whether she has any objection to that; and if not, this would, I venture to think, be somewhat irregular. I am not quite clear what the effect of it is. The words are, "so far as practicable", whatever they may exactly mean. But who is to decide whether it is practicable or not? Is it Her Majesty or is it the Government, is it this House or Parliament? What happens if there is a disagreement as to whether it is practicable or not? I am sure that the Committee would agree that when we are dealing with anything so fundamental as the legality of legislation we must be certain.
I am not even clear about the legal effect. Suppose that three weeks before the end of a Session a number of Bills were ready, the Government wanted them to pass into law at once and there was a Royal Assent by the new method, and then the usual channels agreed that there was another Bill which would have to receive the Royal Assent before the end of the Session and they intended that that Bill should receive the Royal Assent by a Royal Commission. If that Bill did not in fact receive a Third Reading and there was therefore no Bill for the Royal Commission, without anybody intending it the Session would end without there being a Royal Commission. Is the effect of that that the previous Royal Assent is invalidated? Though it was praticable to have a Royal Commission for the Bills taken together, because the usual channels believed there to be another Bill to come, there was in fact no Commission. Is the effect of this that the Royal Assent is invalidated because it should have been by Royal Commission? Does it mean that all the Bills which purported to receive the Royal Assent on that occasion are invalidated,
454
although people had been relying on them as an Acts of Parliament? When dealing with the power to legislate we should be quite certain of the effect of the legislation which we are passing.
There is also this consideration—and I hope the noble Lord will not regard me as too old-fashioned or conservative, stuffy or reactionary, if I say that I think that nearly everybody in this country is glad that we do not have a Written Constitution. We have a Constitutional Monarchy, and that must mean, must it not, that there are conventions which it is important to observe? There are a great many things in law which only the Sovereign can do or decide, but it is the convention that the Sovereign, in acting or deciding, will heed the advice of his or her Ministers. Somebody may say that that is all very conventional; that it would be better to take all these legal powers away from the Sovereign and give them to the Government of the day. But if that were done, we should no longer have a constitutional Monarchy.
Let me take a simple and perhaps apposite example. If the Government have a number of Bills which have passed through both Houses and want them to receive the Royal Assent, they do not say to the Queen, "On March 22 we are going to have a Royal Commission." Not at all. Every time the Government want a Royal Commission, I write to the Queen and I say:
"The Lord Chancellor with his humble duty to your Majesty submits for Your Majesty's signature, if you shall so please, a Commission for giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills, the Titles of which are herewith enclosed."
Then Her Majesty graciously agrees, and we proceed from there.
Here is a Bill about which it is possible to take the view (I say it is possible because I myself take this view) that it is of a kind which ought not to be introduced at all, except after proper discussions and after it has received the approval of the Leaders of all Parties, in both Houses, and of Her Majesty. It does not infringe the prerogative at all, but it is accepted, with the agreement of all Parties that the present intention—because I agree that nobody can bind the future—is that there shall be several Royal Commissions in the first year, and after that at least one a Session, and one at each Prorogation. I suggest that this

455
is the right way to do it. This Amendment, however, says that it must be done in a certain way. If, for some reason, Her Majesty thought it more convenient to use the new method, this Amendment says that she cannot do it; that it has to be done in this particular way. I respectfully suggest that this is not the right way of doing it.
I am sure that a number of these considerations would not naturally have presented themselves to the noble Lord's mind when he put down this Amendment. I can quite understand that. But I hope that he will not divide the House on it—and I say "divide the House", because I cannot accept the Amendment as I am bound by the agreement which has been made, after long discussion and with Her Majesty's approval. The noble Lord may remember that I read to your Lordships on Second Reading not only the terms of the Royal Warrant, which is in the Bill, but also the terms of the Certificate which is to be given by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to Mr. Speaker, and even what the two Speakers are to say. In these circumstances, I would invite the noble Lord to consider whether this is not a matter which ought to be dealt with by common consent; and I suggest that it would be unfortunate if on a Bill of this kind the House were to be divided.
4.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I listened with interest to the observations of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He has deployed a number of reasons, some cogent and some less cogent, for non-acceptance of this Amendment. One of his reasons I should like to answer, if I may, because, with great respect, it did not seem to me in the least degree right or convincing. He said that we must be quite certain about the effect of this Amendment; and I agree. I should have thought that it was certain that this Amendment imposed a duty on someone to secure that there should be a Royal Commission at least once in every Session of Parliament. I was surprised to hear it suggested that the imposition of that duty on someone could possibly have the effect of invalidating the Royal Assent to Bills previously given, by whatever method that was given. I do not think that the effect of
456
this Amendment could conceivably be understood as having that result.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made clear what the process is for securing a Royal Commission for giving Assent to Bills. He writes to Her Majesty. It is Her Majesty's decision. I think it is clear that the effect of this Amendment would be to impose a duty on Her Majesty in relation to a matter which is entirely within Her Majesty's Prerogative. I sympathise to a great degree with what my noble friend Lord Grimston of Westbury said, but I think that it would be quite wrong to insert this Amendment into the Bill and in that way seek to fetter the exercise by Her Majesty of Her discretion and Her Prerogative.
I think that everything that has been said shows that we all agree that we want to see this old ceremony continued, and I would suggest to my noble friend that he should not press his Amendment, but should withdraw it. Then, should this Bill pass through all its stages, he should consider tabling a humble Address, which we could all support, with the view to acquainting Her Majesty of the views of this House that if possible—I would use the word "possible", and not "practicable"—the Royal Commission procedure should be used.
Such an Address does not seem to me in any way an infringement of the Royal Prerogative, or in any way seek to interfere in matters which are not properly within the province of this House. Therefore, I would support the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the whole way, except for one of the reasons he advanced, in saying that this Amendment ought not to be made. I hope that my noble friend will not press it. If he does, I shall feel constrained to vote in the opposite Lobby. On the other hand, if he feels that it would be right to table such an Address, then I should certainly give my support to it.
LORD CARRINGTON: It is for my noble friend Lord Grimston of Westbury to decide what he is going to do, but I must say that I was impressed by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, and what my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has said, and particularly with the suggestion made by my noble and learned friend in the

457
latter part of his remarks. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Grimston of Westbury would consider doing something on the lines suggested.
However, I rise primarily to ask one question of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Either I misunderstood him, or he has inadvertently misled me. I understood him to say that there was to be a Royal Commission at the end of each Session, as well as one at Prorogation. Surely, the ceremony of the Prorogation does not come under the terms of the Bill. Therefore, there must in any event, regardless of what is laid down in the Bill, be a ceremony at Prorogation. I think that, perhaps inadvertently, the Lord Chancellor may have misled the House in this respect.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I entirely accept what the noble Lord has said.
LORD CONESFORD: In common with many of my noble friends I have the greatest sympathy with the object which I am sure prompted the noble Lord to put down the Amendment, but I think, for the reasons which have been so amply given, it would be unfortunate for these words to appear in the Bill. Although there would be alternative ways of drafting what is in the Bill, the Bill as it now stands reads in a straightforward and dignified way that does not appear to cast any particular duty regarding the way in which the prerogative should be exercised. I think that is right. I think that what my noble friend intends to insert would have an unfortunate effect, and for that reason, as one who supports him in his object, I would add my word in support of the advice that has been given that he should withdraw the Amendment.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: I may say that I had no intention at any time of dividing the House on this matter. However, I think this debate has produced a reaffirmation of the general desire that this ceremony should not disappear. My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, an ex-Lord Chancellor, has answered the present Lord Chancellor, and I will not attempt to do so. However, before I withdraw the Amendment I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chan-
458
cellor could say a word in relation to the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne about the possibility of an humble Address to Her Majesty, which I understand should be done at the same time as the Bill is passed. It would, perhaps, be a little unfair to ask him to give a Yes or No at this moment, but perhaps he can say whether the Government would facilitate a procedure of this sort, in order that, in a proper way, we may make it known that we should like the old procedure to be continued every so often in order to preserve the old historical system.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have not had an opportunity of considering this point, but I will certainly do so. It is, I think, always open to noble Lords to move such a Motion. I should like to consider it; and perhaps noble Lords would consider whether it would or would not be a good thing for one House to express their view to Her Majesty. One would have to see, I suppose, what the position was in the other place. This is a matter for consideration, and I will certainly consider it.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: In view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I wish to raise a point with regard to Clause 1. It really links up with a point that I wish to raise on Clause 2; the two go together. A few minutes ago the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, perfectly accurately, that the Bill leaves the Royal Commission as it is, and indeed provides a third method of notifying a Royal Assent to Bills. I agree that that is the object. But if that is so, I should like an explanation of the inclusion of paragraph (a). I can see no need for those words in the paragraph if the purpose of the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord said, is merely to provide for a third method of giving the Royal Assent.
The provision for giving the Royal Assent by Royal Commission is contained in a Bill of Attainder of Catherine

459
Howard, and I think the Short Title of that Act is:
"The Royal Assent by Commission Act, 1541."
So that if one left that Act in force, there would be no need to say anything in the Bill about the holding of a Royal Commission; this Bill need only be confined to adding the third method. But, for some reason which I do not understand, we find in subsection (2) of Clause 2 that an Act of 1541 is to be repealed; and instead of the Royal Commission procedure depending upon statutory authority it will in future, if I understand this Bill aright, depend upon what is the form and manner now customary at this time. I find it difficult to understand why that change should be made. Presumably, there is some object.
So far as I can see, the purpose of the Bill would be completely achieved if paragraph (a) of subsection (1) in Clause 1, and subsection (2) of Clause 2, were omitted. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor (and I think I wrote to him about this matter, in the belief that I might not be able to be present when it was coming up at an earlier stage) will be able to satisfy my anxieties about this. It seems to me undesirable that we should replace a statutory provision for a Royal Commission, made, it is true, by a very old Act of 1541, by a reliance on custom, which is provided for in paragraph (a), unless there is very good reason for it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is, of course, the sort of point which Parliamentary draftsmen consider most carefully, and in this case, in view of the importance of the Bill, it was done by the chief Parliamentary draftsman, who drafted the Bill himself. One could, I suppose, in principle, have left the old Act and dealt only with the new method in this Bill, though I suppose there might then be some question as to whether this Bill was intended to replace the old method by a new one, or whether the old Act had impliedly been repealed. The reason why I understand the draftsman did it in this way was, first, because we all know to-day, from the ample records, what the present procedure of a Royal
460
Commission is. One of the draftsmen is going steadily through the Statute Book chronologically from the point of view of Statute Law revision. He has now got up to about the Reformation—that is to say, about this period—and I am told that the old Act would in any event have been in the next Statute Law Revision Bill, as something which it was no longer necessary to keep on the Statute Book. Of course, it will remain so far as historians are concerned. But we all know to-day exactly what happens when there is a Royal Commission.
The old Act, in fact, does not really describe it. It provides that the Royal Assent is made by letters patent, declared and notified to the House. But its title was:
"The Bill of Atteynder of Mestres Katherin Hawarde late Quene of England, and divers other psonnes her complices."
It contains no actual reference to the Royal Commission at all, and it was nor until 1948, when Bills were given Short Titles, that it was given the short title of the "Royal Assent by Commission Act". In fact, all it does is to provide for a Royal Assent to be lawful if given by Letters Patent signed by the Queen's own hand, and for this to be declared and notified to the two Houses in the Upper House. As I say, it does not actually refer to the Royal Commission, so there is really no point in keeping it on the Statute Book. It was for those reasons that it was drafted in this way.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his explanation of matters which, to say the least, were not clear on the face of this Bill. Of course it could have been made clear, as a matter of drafting, that this new procedure was additional to the old procedure; but, in the light of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I think perhaps there are advantages to be derived from the inclusion in this Bill of the subsections to which I have referred.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, without amendment: Report received.

IRON AND STEEL BILL
5.1 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. It is a Bill which, as your Lordships know, has been the subject of careful and rather lengthy debate in another place, but we have also given it a careful examination here, even though our debates were less prolonged. One thing on which I think we would all agree is that the debates we have had here on this Bill have been both expeditious and free from acrimony. At the end of the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, who I understand unfortunately has been unable to come to-day, said how agreeable it had all been. That was a strange thing to say about a major Bill for nationalisation, but I think this is a word we should apply to all stages of the Bill, and possibly it is a little late in the day for me to introduce acrimony—although I have some up my sleeve should this be necessary when I come to reply.
This does not mean, of course, that there have not been genuine and indeed strongly-held differences of opinion. Nor does it mean that the debates have not been constructive and useful. I freely admit, and indeed I welcome the fact, that the Bill has been improved by its passage through this House.
It might be helpful if I were to summarise the changes we have made in the Bill, because they help to illustrate the way in which our thinking has gone and the willingness of the Government to meet genuine, constructive criticism. All the changes tend towards increasing the flow of information reaching Parliament about the steel industry and the activities of the National Steel Corporation. There were, for example, the Amendments originally put down on Committee in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, requiring the Minister to define by Orders subject to Parliamentary procedure those private sector development projects in the basic field of iron and steel making, which required his consent. There was also the Amendment
462
put down by the same noble Lords extending the scope of the Corporation's annual report to cover all subsidiaries and not just the publicly-owned companies. Therefore, the Amendment required the Minister to inform Parliament whenever he decided not to take action on a representation made to him by the Consumer's Council, which is an important protection in certain areas of industry.
Moreover, I suggest that the Amendments were not the only useful result of our discussions. There were, what I think it is fair to say—even though I made some of them myself—some really important statements of Government policy. For example, there was the important statement made in Committee by my noble friend Lord Shepherd about arm's-length trading. He then said that the Corporation, in providing the information required by Clause 25, would inevitably have to explain a good deal of the basis of trading inside the public sector, and in this he also promised that the Minister of Power would discuss with the Corporation the possibility of including in its first report to the Minister, which he has to put before Parliament, a statement about the principles of this trading. In either case, Parliament would be well informed about the public sector's trading practices, and this information would—and I should like now to take the interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on Report—cover book sales. I hope this assurance meets the concern expressed by the noble Lord.
There was also the statement which I made on Report about the publication of information in the Corporation's accounts about loans by the Corporation to publicly-owned companies engaged in diversified activities. Finally, and appropriately, in view of the main concern of these Amendments and assurances, there was the statement which I made on Report about the Government's answerability to Parliament for the operations of the nationalised steel industry.
I think that all these Amendments and statements reflect substantial agreement on all sides about the way in which the Corporation should be treated. They illustrate the two principles on which we are all agreed. I am not suggesting, of course, that the Opposition agree with the fundamental question of nationalisation, but granting that, I think we are

463
all agreed that the Corporation must act as a tough commercial body and that accordingly it must have reasonable freedom to take its own commercial decisions. The second principle, however, is that Parliament must, wherever appropriate, be kept fully informed so that where the Minister and, through him, the Corporation are answerable to it Parliament can exercise its power effectively. Partly as a result of your Lordships' Amendments, I think we have now got the balance between these two principles about right.
Another fairly constant theme in our discussions has been the need to maintain a strong and healthy private sector. Here again, although there has been suspicion on this subject, I think we have reached a measure of general agreement. Members of the Government in both Houses have given assurances that they want to see a strong private sector, and these assurances I am glad to repeat now. Indeed, we want a strong private sector not only for its own sake but because we think some of the competition which it will be able to provide will itself be a valuable stimulus to the public sector.
During the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House various Amendments were incorporated and assurances given which demonstrated the Government's desire to have a competitive private sector, and in particular there was the new clause, now Clause 30, which establishes a formal procedure under which private sector steel producers can complain to the Minister about what they think are unfair trading practices by the Corporation. There were also the very comprehensive undertakings I gave on Report about the disclosure of information received by the Minister from the private sector under the Bill. I hope that these provisions to protect the private sector will help to refute the charge that this Bill opens the way to "back-door nationalisation".
There is no provision at all in this Bill which empowers the Corporation, once the act of nationalisation is completed, to buy up other companies except by mutual agreement with those concerned. The suggestion which we met and dealt with at an earlier stage, that the Corporation could start buying up the rest of British industry wholesale, is totally un-
464
realistic. If noble Lords wish me later to say something more on the subject of diversification and the protections that exist, in particular that the Corporation will not be able to extend its interests without the Minister's approval, for which he is answerable to Parliament, I shall be willing to go into this further.
The House might like me to refer to the only Amendments on which disagreement was pressed to a Division—the Amendments excluding the debentures of the Schedule 1 companies from the scope of nationalisation. It was made plain from this debate that there were strong differences of opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, although we were not able to satisfy him, will, I am sure, agree that we did not dodge the issue, and, as I said on that occasion, we were not nationalising the debentures in a fit of either pique or absent-mindedness. But the Government have again gone into this question very carefully in the light of what has been said, and I must tell your Lordships that the Government still find it impossible to accept these Amendments, and that my right honourable friend the Minister of Power will advise their removal when the Bill is sent back to another place.
I think perhaps I should also mention that the question of Commons Privilege may arise on these Amendments, although this is of course something entirely for consideration in another place. I think it is very likely that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will achieve what was the minimum of what he set out to do, which was to ensure that this matter was further discussed on the Floor of another place.
I should like to say a word about an aspect of the Bill which has received little attention in this House, perhaps because there is general agreement. This is the aspect of industrial relations. I very much welcome the fact that my noble friend Lord Citrine raised the point in connection with industrial training, which has drawn my attention to the fact that this tremendously important side of the steel industry has not come under much consideration by us here. As I say, this is because I believe there was no real conflict. As your Lordships know, Amendments were incorporated in another place which mark an important advance in the development of joint consultative and

465
conciliation machinery in the nationalised industries.
These Amendments resulted from the Government's anxiety that workers in the steel industry should have a real and lively sense of participation in the most important decisions affecting the industry. They also reflect the Government's conviction, now increasingly held by both unions and employers, that the old conception of industrial relations as an arena where two independent, and indeed hostile, powers, management and labour, negotiate or disagree is out of date and dangerous.
If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, has made as great a contribution as anyone in this country to that improvement, both in the fights that he made on behalf of the workers in harder times, and in the approach to this wiser, as I am sure he will agree, attitude of mind that is prevailing to-day. We are anxious to encourage the growth of a feeling that management and labour must cooperate positively and regard themselves as jointly responsible for the industry in which they work. It is vital for the country that the two sides of industry should develop, where it is not already in existence, this way of looking at their problems. I am very hopeful that the provisions of the Steel Bill will mark a real step forward in this direction.
This co-operation will be all the more fruitful if management and unions can each play their own distinctive part in the working of the industry. The Bill leaves with management the ultimate responsibility to manage, and therefore with the unions the ultimate right to take appropriate action to protect their members' interests. But the new provisions should ensure that the workers in the industry have a real and effective opportunity to make their views heard before decisions affecting their livelihood are taken.
One of the spheres to which the Corporation, both as a good employer and as an efficient business, will have to devote a lot of attention is that of training and education. In Committee my noble friend Lord Citrine asked why the usual references to training and education were omitted from this Bill. The reason is that there is already an Iron and Steel Industry Training Board in the iron and steel industry, set up by
466
the Minister of Labour under the Industrial Training Act 1964, and it would be inappropriate for the Minister of Power also to have statutory functions in this field similar to those of parent Ministers under other nationalisation Acts.
However, this will not affect the fact, it goes without saying, that adequate training and education for its employees will be one of the Corporation's most important responsibilities, in consultation with the Training Board. Indeed, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, that I have considered whether even at this late stage it might be worth while putting something relating to this in the Bill. But we have moved on since the earlier days of nationalisation, and from my own experience of industry I am sure that any progressive organisation, as I believe the National Steel Corporation will be, is bound to regard this as a major function, quite apart from the statutory obligations that may be laid by the Industrial Training Act.
I could also have said a few words about research, but I will only comment that in 1963 the Iron and Steel Board said that
"a substantial increase is called for in the research effort of all branches of the industry".
In their last Annual Report they said there had been an improvement. But clearly this is a very important field, and it is clearly a field in which the two sectors of industry must co-operate, and that is why my right honourable friend proposes to set up an advisory council on research and development covering both sectors.
I have put some emphasis on the importance of good industrial relations and training because of the difficulties the industry is now going through, difficulties which, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Power warned in another place, are likely to continue in the immediate future. These difficulties are not connected with ownership. For several years the return on capital employed has been lower than in manufacturing industry generally, and a mere glance at the interesting diagram in the Benson Report shows the sudden tumble of profits in relation to capital employed which occurred in 1961. Although there have been certain recoveries, it has never reached the 1960 peak.

467
As I say, this position of profits is not connected with the question of ownership, but it will, I think, be agreed by your Lordships that this problem arises from the world of surplus capacity, which has increased from 12½ million tons in 1955 to 74 million tons in 1965. Again, there are the profit figures for 1965–66 of eight major steel companies which showed a drop in profits from the previous year, from £67 million to £40 million. Since then figures for two more companies—Park Gate and Round Oak—have been announced, and they do nothing to change this picture.
There may be arguments in relation to the pricing policy that exists at the moment, but I think all this, in the round, is a striking confirmation of the worldwide nature of the difficulties that have come about; and these are shown again in the decision of Krupps to go public. There has also recently been further confirmation of the difficulties faced by the European steel industry in the debates on steel in the European Parliament on January 31 and February 1, when fear was expressed that the situation, already bad enough, would grow still worse. All this makes it more urgent than ever that the British steel industry should be rationalised and put into a posture in which it can compete the most effectively, and although I agree that there is disagreement as to the way to proceed there can be no disagreement as to the urgency.
There is a basic structural weakness, which is peculiar to Great Britain, among the major steel producing countries, and this must be put right quickly. Nobody, and certainly not the British Iron and Steel Federation, disputes the need to establish larger companies or units to help us catch up with our competitors abroad, and to ensure that we enjoy the advantages of scale of which we hear so much on so many occasions and which are so valid in the modern steel industry. It is clear that there have been differences of opinion about how this should best be achieved. The Government's view has been that public ownership of the major part of the industry is necessary. This view, and the Bill based upon it, has now been accepted in principle by both Houses of Parliament. I hope, therefore, that in view of the admitted urgency of putting
468
the industry right we shall be able to seek to put the arguments of principle behind us, and that everybody connected with the industry, whatever his feelings on the question of ownership, will work together for its future under nationalisation.
I think the constructive discussions we have had show how, despite these big differences of view on ownership, it is possible to co-operate to achieve the success of the steel industry, and that this will be the spirit in which managers and men in the industry are approaching nationalisation; and that, working together in collaboration with the Government, they will succeed in overcoming the problems which face the industry, and thus will enable it to play its full part in securing and sustaining the health of the British economy as a whole. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Shackleton.)
5.25 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, with this debate we come near the end of the consideration of the Iron and Steel Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, said on Second Reading, however distasteful this measure has been to us on this side of the House, it is one in which we have reluctantly acquiesced, and we have set ourselves to improve the Bill. In this we have met with the cooperation and the courtesy of the Government, and I should like to express the thanks of the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, and myself to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and other Ministers who have been concerned. I should also record the apologies of my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale, who is unable to be present in the House for this final stage this evening.
In the course of the five days, or part days, which have been spent on this Bill, 84 Amendments have been tabled from this side of the House, and the Government have tabled 29 Amendments of their own. Out of the total of 113 Amendments, 43 have been accepted. Therefore, I would agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said. The extent to which, on a major controversial Bill of this sort, the Government have been willing to make some fairly substantial changes, both in the content of the Bill and in the assurances which

469
have been given in your Lordships' House, has been gratifying.
In the earlier part of his speech, Lord Shackleton listed a number of the more important changes, and with his list in general I agree. For myself I would put the emphasis rather more sharply on three legislative changes, alterations in the Bill itself, which are of particular importance. The first is the removal of the representatives of the National Steel Corporation from the Consumers' Council, in the interests of greater independence. The second is the substitution of an Order, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in Parliament, instead of a notice setting the level above which the private sector will require ministerial consent for the installation of extra production facilities. The third is the addition of the new Clause 30 by the Government, following Opposition pressure in another place, establishing a formal complaints procedure for the private sector in the steel industry.
In addition to these concessions, there have been a number of smaller but still important changes: the information on subsidiary companies, for example, which is now to be included in the annual report; and certain ambiguities of wording which have been removed, both as a result of Government Amendments and of Opposition Amendments. I would agree, likewise, with what the noble Lord said about the number of assurances that have been given. Indeed, he has just used the words, "really important statements of Government policy", which is a stronger term even than the word "assurance". These are undoubtedly important. They have been noted by Members of this House and of another place and, most important of all, by people active in the steel industry itself. Finally, we have had on Third Reading the first comprehensive statement in either House of Parliament of ministerial accountability to Parliament for the steel industry after nationalisation. All this is to the good.
I would summarise by saying that the Bill leaves this House a better Bill in a number of respects than it was when it arrived, even after its marathon progress through the House of Commons. But we take no pride in it. On these Benches we are to-day, as we have been for twenty years, resolutely opposed to steel nationa-
470
lisation. The irony of this particular Bill, at this particular time in the development of the steel industry, is that it is so irrelevant. Nationalisation alone will solve no problems. Indeed, as Mr. A. J. Peech, the President of the British Iron and Steel Federation, said at the annual general meeting of the Federation yesterday:
"nationalisation may delay rather than speed progress".
Present-day trading conditions, as Lord Shackleton himself has said, call for rationalisation of the steel industry in Britain and of the steel industries in many other countries as well. What has been happening in Germany over the last year or so is perhaps the most effective emphasis one can give to that statement. Resources need to be regrouped, and all this is accepted by the steel industry. The pattern for the future which was so clearly set out in the Benson Committee's Report is already being followed. There has been the merger between Stewarts and Lloyds, Dorman Long and South Durham, which has been discussed at various stages during the Bill. There is also the very forward-looking "Anchor" project of the United Steel Companies, a £78 million development at Scunthorpe and Immingham, using the deep-water access at Immingham to import cheap foreign ores. These are instances of where the steel industry has already begun to move in the direction charted by the Benson Report.
The only consolation I see in this Bill is that I believe it will be the last of the old-style nationalisation measures we shall see in Parliament. A new generation has grown up, inside the Labour Party as well as outside it, who want to see Clause IV returned to the museum shelf. They want to see the attention of the Labour Party, and of the country, addressed to the real issues of what is the most appropriate form of organisation and control in each particular instance. Let us hope there will be no more cases where the solution will precede the appreciation of the problem.
Many noble Lords, on both sides of the House, will agree that relationships between Government and industry are now so vast and so complex that there is seldom a straight choice between private enterprise on the one hand and public control on the other. Things are

471
not that simple. There is an infinite variety of ways in which Government can, and does, influence industry and industrialists in what they believe to be the public interest. There are dangers, which we discussed in the Committee stage and again on Report, in this phrase "the public interest", but none the less it is undeniable that many ways do exist for Government to influence industry. Similarly, there are an infinite number of ways in which industry and industrialists can respond to these pressures. The interplay between these two forces is crucial, both to the management of the economy and to economic growth.
I believe that the Government already have at their disposal, or can acquire, all the powers they need to make their interpretation of national policy prevail over private economic interests if they wish to use them. I believe that nationalisation is both too costly and too rigid an instrument for the Government to continue to look to public ownership, in the Clause IV sense, as the most desirable means of making particular industries accountable to the community for those services which can properly be expected of them. But what a price to pay! As in some doomed pagan society, the steel industry is to be the last great ritual sacrifice. After that is out of the way, this modernminded Government will no doubt move on to other and more flexible ways of achieving public accountability. The aircraft industry, road haulage, telecommunications, ports, water supply, are all subjects which are being currently discussed, and in which old-style nationalisation remedies seem to play a surprisingly small part. But for steel, no. Basic industries call for basic measures. Reason has to take second place to the traditional generations-old canons of the Labour Party Constitution. That is why, in our view, this is a bad Bill and an irrelevant Bill. That is why we on this side of the House deplore it.
5.35 p.m.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I rise for a few moments for I feel that a Back Bencher from this side of the House should say a few words about this Bill. As I said on Second Reading, I do not approve of it at all, but like some of my noble friends I have done my best, since it was approved in principle on
472
Second Reading, and since the Government had a mandate for it at the last Election, to try to improve it. We have only been a small team on our side, but we have had the great advantage of having some extremely good advice given to us, and during the Second Reading debate we had some excellent speeches by Members of this House who are directors of steel companies. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and all noble Lords who have contributed so much to this Bill. In the 33 years that I have had the honour of serving this House I do not think I have ever heard a better "second leader" than the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, in helping with a most complicated Bill. His mastery of the Bill was extremely good, and he has been most tolerant throughout. I should also like to thank the Deputy Leader of the House for his courtesy in helping us with many difficult points in the Bill.
My view is that rationalisation could have been achieved without nationalisation. However, the Government have decided to do this, and we can do nothing more. I am pleased that with the cooperation of the Government we have been able to make some Amendments in this House. I have sometimes despaired on recent occasions, when we have been very careful in the number of Amendments that we have sent down to another place, that every single one on which we have not been able to reach agreement in this House has been rejected in another place. Therefore, on this occasion I feel that we have done something to make this Bill a more workable proposition. With those few words, I will now resume my seat.
5.38 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, I think my first words must be to disagree briefly, but firmly, with the description of this as a "bad Bill". Noble Lords opposite seem to be more and more inclined to the view that, when a matter of principle has been decided in another place, this House should accept that principle although preserving its right to amend. This Bill happens to be a Bill in which the principle of nationalisation of iron and steel was specifically put to the Electorate in the programme of the Labour Party. The industry was nationalised in 1949, and if chaos was

473
subsequently created in the industry the members of the Conservative Party must bear responsibility for the reckless way in which they de-nationalised it. I hope they will not be encouraged to make another attempt at de-nationalisation in respect of the present Bill. I believe that it is a good Bill and well drafted. It is a Bill which attempts to nationalise the industry, while at the same time having full regard to the need to preserve a strong private sector.
On February 28 when the Bill was in Committee, I expressed some concern at the omission of any reference to industrial training and education. The Minister gave me an answer "off the cuff", as he put it, and I must congratulate him on his accuracy of recollection, because in the letter he was good enough to send me afterwards I noticed that what he said came very near to the exact wording of the Industrial Training Act 1964. I was very surprised that I could not discover in the original Act of 1949 any specific reference to education and training. I could not understand that, because in earlier legislation, in respect of coal, gas and electricity, there were specific references to the responsibility of these public corporations to provide for adequate education and training and for the improvement in the general skill of the employees concerned. I wonder whether—I will not put it any stronger than that—in paraphrasing certain parts of the Acts covering the three industries which I have mentioned in respect of conditions of employment, there might have been some slip-up, because it so happens that in reference to the conditions of employment in the Bill itself the phraseology runs very close to that of the other nationalised industries.
Education and training were put in a separate part and given separate emphasis by reason of doing that, and I wonder whether it has been fully appreciated that education and training are as vital to the success of the industry as any other wording could be. All the other nationalised industries which I can recall have it as an obligation to carry out effective education and training in consultation with the trade unions and representatives of the employees.
I do not in the least suspect the intentions of the Minister in charge of this phase of the work, whether it is the
474
Minister of Labour or, by connection, the Minister of Power, but it happens that Ministers change and Governments change, and it could easily be argued that the very absence of these words affecting education and training, and the explanations which have been given, could furnish a reason why the important work of education and training was not pressed with, perhaps, quite the same emphasis as it would otherwise have been had the words appeared in the Bill itself. I know that it poses a dilemma for the Government, having got the Bill this far. to alter it in any way, but I really feel that there is all the difference in the world between a public corporation which has an obligation to the community as a whole, and private companies, or public companies, to put it more accurately, who are affected by the Bill. I say that because I cannot escape the feeling that, although the Industrial Training Act and the board which it subsequently set up for the iron and steel industry put a responsibility on all of the organisations, there is always a danger of the minimum being done under, as it were, such composite bodies.
I make no bones about it. I think there is an obligation on the public boards to set examples in these matters, and to go in for a considerably extended amount of provision for education and training, as well as other items of welfare and that sort of thing, to raise the status of industry itself. It cannot be denied that industry has been negligent in this matter, and while there are some splendid examples of private companies who have spent a great deal of money, and devoted much time and skilled attention to establishing effective measures of education and training, and also to provisions for thorough consultation, to my knowledge no industry has ever gone so far to make the provisions which now exist, for example, under the Electricity Act. I would say, I hope without boastfulness—and I thank the Minister for his personal references to myself—that the extent to which training and education, and joint consultation and analogous matters, have been carried on in the nationalised industries, is far beyond the average that can be found in any industry in the country and, indeed, it can be cited as an example to the world itself.
If the obligation were put in the Bill, with a duty on the boards, it would be

475
discussed at all the various levels with a sense of participation by the employees, and I regard that as extremely important. I do not care whether organisations are of a public character or a private character. I have no doubt whatever that in the years to come there will be more and more need for keeping employees in the closest possible association with the industries in which they are employed. If that is not done, I cannot see any real future for British industry. We are long past the stage of autocracy in industry, as in society generally, and I feel convinced that it is a good thing for employees at all levels, the works level, the district level and the national level, to have their machinery not prescribed by a training board, although that is a very useful thing, but so that they themselves, apart from any question of instruction which they may get from a training board can engage in the spirit of the Act in these very important functions.
I regard the Bill as a very considerable improvement on anything which has preceded it in regard to iron and steel. If one refers to the Schedule 4, Part V, on page 81 of the Bill, one will see how closely in all respects, except education and training, the Bill is trying to follow well-established precedents, showing a modern outlook and an approach to labour problems which I wish were more generally followed by private employers. I repeat that if, even for psychological reasons, this reference to education and training, with the insertion of only three words, had been included, I feel convinced that it would have given the employees a greater sense of belonging than they will have by leaving the matter entirely to an industrial training board.
I do not say these words in any sense of grievance, or anything of that kind. I feel that, if only there were to be a bigger moral obligation—which would be a continuing one and not varying in interpretation by changes of Ministers, sometimes with hostile views of the problems and certainly very often not in any sort of concordance about it all—the employees would regard it as conforming to the kind of principles to which employees in electricity, gas and coal have become accustomed.
5.49 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I venture to ask your Lordships to allow me to intervene at this moment. The Bill which is now in its closing stages, so far as your Lordships are concerned, has taken a very long time to reach this stage; in fact, it is a matter of years. It is curious—and this is something which I raised on Second Reading here—that the right honourable gentleman the Minister, in introducing the Bill on Second Reading in another place, said that if he had only known how many people could have been included he might have introduced a separate Bill. We realise that the Minister has every intention of making things as easy as possible in the industry which now comes under his surveillance. But I cannot help repeating what I said before: that I have a good deal of sympathy with the Government for the position in which they are. It has taken, as I said, a matter of years to get this Bill through. The amount of literature which Hansard has had to prepare is enormous—and a great deal of it has nothing whatever to do with the manufacture of steel—because so many points have been raised about how it is all to be worked.
There is one thing that I should like to emphasise—and it has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Windlesham. He quoted the speech of the President of the Iron and Steel Federation at the annual meeting yesterday, but I will read the next sentence, which, if I am right, my noble friend did not quote. Having said how unnecessary the Bill is, the President continued:
"However that may be, Parliament has made its decision and steel-makers will do everything in their power to make the new system work as well as possible".
That is to say, those who are engaged in this great and important industry are more determined to continue to make it successful than they are swayed by political considerations, whatever they may be. The Minister is already saying that he is anxious to do everything to help that part of the industry which has not been nationalised but I am sure he realises that it is one industry.
In moving the Third Reading the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made on remark with which I wish to disagree. It was rather suggested, if I understood

477
him aright, that the nationalisation of the industry will help to improve relations between those engaged in it. I hope I may be pardoned for saying that I have a great deal of experience about this matter. I was for many years in the industry, and I was always in touch with those feeding the furnaces, or whatever it was. I was always told, "This is the way things should work. If it is nationalised, it is all right, so long as we have the same management". There is a tendency, not only in this great industry but all through, to talk of "sides" of industry. I will never accept that. I say that we are all one. We are all one team; we all have the same determination to do the best we can for the job we are doing. It does not need an Act of Parliament to bring friends together.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, turned towards my old and very dear friend Lord Citrine, and said something about this. I am sure that he would support me in saying that those relations will not be disturbed by anything, and that we look forward to continuing our great industry, in spite of the fact that we have lost a great deal of time. It would have been quite easy for the Government, instead of getting together a very large sum of money and putting before Parliament a most elaborate Bill, which has taken years to come through, to ignore this dreadful dogma of nationalisation and to encourage rationalisation. In fact rationalisation was held up because it was known that the industry was going to be nationalised, and that those in the industry would have to take orders from somebody else at some time.
My Lords, that is all I have to say about it. We have improved the Bill; and I say again that those in the industry will do everything in their power to continue to make their industry something to be proud of and something which is of great value to the nation.
5.55 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, if the noble Marquess will not mind my saying so, I found his a very attractive speech. He will not expect me to agree with every word of it, but the spirit of a man who wants this industry to work for the best, and who wants all the people in it to play their full part and to serve their country and the world through their knowledge and their skill, is something that I find
478
very feeling and very attractive. I say this to the noble Marquess. I sat for 19 years for a constituency which included a large steel works. They were an extremely skilful and knowledgeable collection of people. They were bitterly opposed to nationalisation—and I mean the word "bitterly"—at any rate for some time. I have every confidence that they will now accept what is, after all, on any view of the matter, a democratic decision, and will do their best to serve their country and the world in this particular matter.
My Lords, this is the third Iron and Steel Bill that I personally have seen and spoken about. I think it is a better one than the first, and that the second one was an unworkable compromise which had much too much politics and much too little sense in it. But, be that as it may, the point is that, as I see it, we are now going to get the steel industry under public ownership. This is said to be a ritual sacrifice. That is not right. It is not a ritual sacrifice. It is an attempt to combine two things. One is the technical progress and management of the industry, including questions of research and the like, and including, too, questions of the relationship between labour and management, upon which my noble friend Lord Citrine spoke so eloquently just now. That is one side.
The other is that this is an industry of vital importance to this country; and what seems to me to be very important is that it is an industry which is changing itself in a changing country. We are not living in a world in which broad political generalisations that were valid, say, ten or twenty years ago are necessarily, or even probably, valid in the same sense to-day. It is all very well to talk about decisions of principle. I am afraid that all too often they are decisions of prejudice—and prejudice, as I see it, so bemused by some apparently simple notion as to forget that you have to change your institutions and change them in accordance with the changes among the men and women who are living in this country, who are finding new things, who are applying new things and who are developing new things.
If I had to find a fault with the technical side of the steel industry, it would be that I think it has been slow to adapt

479
itself to change in this country; but I am not going to deal with that now. I think, too, that one of the hindrances in its path has been the very curious capital structure—a structure of companies, if you like—which has grown up in a very different state of affairs and which has not been adapted with sufficient speed. We are told that Stewart and Lloyds are now going to amalgamate with South Durham. Well, they might have thought of that a long time ago and not at the moment when a steel nationalisation Bill was going through Parliament. And all the attacks which have been made since 1963, which was rather a landmark in this respect, have been a little halfhearted and a little cramped by the financial and company structure of the industry.
My Lords, why I was so pleased, if the noble Marquess will not mind my saying so, with what he said was because of the public spirit of it. This Bill is going through now. There may be what is comparatively a minor point raised about what to do with debentures, but it is clearly going through. As I see it, it is not going to be altered by a succeeding Government; I do not think the history of the industry would encourage any such alteration. It seems to me that it is our duty as citizens to do all we can here and in public and in anything we say—not to suppress our differences of opinion; I would not ask for that to be done—to see that the industry as now constituted gets through its impending difficulties. It is certainly going to have them. This is a hard world for the iron and steel industry and the reason why it is a hard world is because of the question of capacity. There is too much capacity in the world at the moment. This has always been the difficulty of the steel industry, and will continue to be the difficulty of the steel industry.
In my view, the first reason for public ownership of the steel industry is partly that you have to relate the capacity of the industry and what it is doing by way of developing or restraining that capacity—because there are such things as outdated plants—to the general economic state and progress of the country as a whole. This is so vitally important that it is right, not only that the industry should be in public hands, but that it
480
should be in hands of persons who are fully answerable to Parliament—and I welcome the changes that have been made in this respect—representing the people of the country. It has a certain uniqueness about it. The second reason is the question of power. It is really related to the other reason.
An industry as vital as this one—which not only employs a large number of men but plays an essential part in our industrial life—should not be left in the hands of any men but those who can be brought to book and made to answer by the people as a whole.
My Lords, if this is poisonous Socialism, then it seems to me that those who think that have really not kept up with the march of events in the world at large and in this country. I trust that those who have objected—whether we call it an objection on principle or for reasons of prejudice—are now going to rise to the occasion and to say, "Well, when all is said and done, we may have been wrong." Certainly, a large number of Members on this side disagreed with us. The lights of democracy in the world are a trifle faint nowadays, but here is a matter of vital importance which has been discussed for twenty years which has excited the attention of the electorate as a whole and particularly of those men who have been working in the industry, in whatever capacity. It has been discussed fully; it has been debated fully; every possible point has been taken.
I would not suppose we have got it dead right; but as a legislative Assembly we have had a remarkably good try. I hope that what democracy has decided is not going to be confused by clouds of prejudice or by the inability of any of us to recognise—as I myself fully recognise—that we are not always wrong, though we may often be wrong, when we have an unanswerable principle behind us.
6.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to take up the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, on a point he made at the beginning of his speech. He appeared to give the impression that, because the Government had a mandate from the people at the last General Election, this House ought not to have amended the Steel Bill at all. If we

481
are not here to amend Bills, why are we here? Is it for our beauty? I hardly think so!
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, may I intervene? The noble Viscount has it completely wrong. I have said in this House time and time again that when a matter of principle has been decided in the House of Commons we have no right, on that major question of principle, to reject the decision of the Commons. I have been asked specifically on at least one occasion by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition whether I took the stand that there was no right on the part of this House to amend legislation which came from the Commons. Of course I answered, No.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, the impression the noble Lord gave me was different; but if he meant otherwise, I apologise.
I should like to say that I heartily agree with my noble friends on the Front Bench that this is a bad Bill. There is no commercial reason for it at all. It is Party dogma; it is the desire for power that goes with the control of the steel industry. I only hope that the Government, having now captured the goose that lays the golden egg, do not strangle it. But if they do not strangle it, it will not be to their credit; it will be to the credit of the people in the steel industry. As my noble friend Lord Aberdeen and Temair said, everyone in this great national industry will obviously try to make it a great success. But whether they will be able to do so, with the dead hand of nationalisation on it, is a moot point. I only hope that they will be successful.
The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, spoke a great deal about prejudice. But so far as I am concerned there is no prejudice. The only things I am worried about are the facts. Some £1,200 million was written-off on the railways and in other nationalised industries. It all comes out of the taxpayers' pockets; it all lowers the general standard of living in this country. It is all very well for the noble Lord to say that we are prejudiced; but it is a matter of hard economic facts.
6.9 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I, in these final few minutes, try to restore the spirit of harmony which has prevailed throughout the greater part
482
of these debates? The noble Viscount may know something about strangling geese with dead hands; but I would rather come back to the real issues that are before the House. I think we ought to be conscious of the fact—though it is rather hard to realise it in this placid atmosphere, with fewer than two dozen noble Lords present—that really history is being made to-night. One of the great basic industries of this country is being taken into public ownership. All I have to say ranges around the question of compensation; and because of that I perhaps ought to declare an indirect interest. I possess no steel shares myself, but I am one of a committee of two public men which is responsible for the investment of a £10 million pension fund, and in our investments we probably hold three-quarters of a million pounds worth of steel shares. So to that extent I have perhaps an indirect interest.
What I want to say is this—that no debate upon the nationalisation of an industry would be complete unless something was said about the widows and pensioners and orphans who hold equity shares in that industry. We have had them trotted out from time immemorial. In this case I think they may be congratulated on the good fortune that is bestowed on them by the compensation clauses of this Bill. Those clauses are really generous. They have placed the compensation basis of shares at a level slightly higher—in some cases considerably higher—than the value which the City, through the Stock Exchange and the merchant bankers, placed upon them. And the alternative, if the shareholders had not been compensated in that way, was a rather grim prospect, because we know that many steel plants are now working at only 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. capacity. We know that our share of the world export market is going down. We know that competition from all quarters is stiffening. We know that every other main steel-producing country in the world has plants bigger than ours, more attuned to the needs of the mass production of to-day.
In Japan they have a plant turning out 7 million tons a year—twice as big as our biggest plant. In France they are reorganising the whole of their steel industry into three massive plants, each

483
turning out 7 million tons. In America they have nine plants which are bigger than the biggest plant that we have in this country. A similar state of affairs exists in Germany. If the industry were left as it is to-day, my Lords, the outlook for the equity shareholders would be very poor indeed. I think that they may congratulate themselves on the basis of the compensation which is being handed out to them. If I should happen to be wrong in that diagnosis, I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that the chairman of the Conservative Party organisation announced that he was a big buyer of steel shares for his unit trust at the time of the General Election, and only a few days ago one of our City editors said that Mr. du Cann, who was buying steel shares for his unit trust at the General Election, is still buying them now.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how many of those great companies abroad are nationalised?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I do not know—the noble Marquess probably knows. But he really supports the indictment against the steel industry of to-day. Whereas in other countries privately-owned steelworks have seen the desirability—nay, the necessity—of merging and amalgamating and building up gigantic plants, the steel industry in this country, under its private leaders, has not seen fit to do so. One of the main reasons for this Bill is not to carry out the provisions of Clause IV of the Labour Party Constitution, transference of ownership, but to amalgamate these private companies into bigger units so that they can meet their competitors abroad on equal terms.
My Lords, the noble Marquess has lured me away from the one simple thing I wanted to say, which is that compensation in the case of this Bill is very generous indeed. Because of this I can support it with an absolutely clear conscience.
6.14 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I had not necessarily expected to speak again, but there are certain points which call for a reply. I should first like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Wolverton, and to the noble
484
Lord, Lord Windlesham, for their remarks. Although in the latter stages we returned to an earlier type of disagreement, I think we have managed together pretty well on this matter. I listened with the greatest attention to everything which the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, had to say. No one has a wider or more remarkable experience of industry. I recommend any of your Lordships who have not done so to look at the career of the noble Marquess as recorded in Who's Who, which shows the depth of his industrial experience. I think that perhaps the noble Marquess read more into my remarks on the subject of relations within industry than I would have wished him to.
I did not, in fact, suggest that industrial relations in the steel industry were bad; I merely said they could be made better. I must say that not all the steel firms have records equal to those of the leading firms in the steel industry. I do not want to go further into this, and to suggest that industrial relations in the steel industry are other than good, but there are some forms of industrial relations which are even better.
The important part about this Bill in this respect is that it represents a further advance in association in a way which has an element of almost revolutionary quality in relation to the trade unions. The unions have always supported joint consultation, and at the same time—I am almost nervous to speak on this matter in front of the noble Lord, Lord Citrine—they have always recognised that the responsibility for management lies with management. There is a further recognition, in the appointments to the Corporation, and indeed in the Bill and in the negotiations, that trade unions and representatives of the workers will carry a greater degree of responsibility. In this respect I would say to the noble Marquess that he may wish there were not two sides of industry, but the fact remains that the great achievement (if that is the right word) of capitalism was to divide the country into two sides of industry.
If we are now advancing in the direction in which the good heart and experience of the noble Marquess suggests that we should, this is something to be welcomed. I have no doubt at all as to

485
his own feelings, and indeed anyone with industrial experience knows it is possible to identify the worker much more deeply with the welfare of his particular undertaking. Nor is this identification something which is necessarily given more willingly to publicly-owned industry than to privately-owned industry. I fully concede that. It is a function of management. It is perfectly possible that a publicly-owned industry, if not conducted well, might not have as good relations as the best of privately-owned industry. But, as is indicated by the advances made possible by this Bill, and by the organisation of the industry, it is very much our purpose that there shall be even greater identification and greater co-operation. This in no way reflects on what the noble Marquess and his friends may have achieved in the firms with which they have been associated, but I felt that his remarks called for that further explanation which I hope will be welcome to him.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord says.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess. If I may turn to my noble friend Lord Citrine, I would say that the points he had in mind were carefully considered, particularly in relation to industrial training, during the drafting of this Bill. I was not quite sure whether my noble friend was comparing this Bill with the 1949 Act, or rather with the other Acts of Parliament, such as those concerning electricity about which he knows so much, but it is true that in the 1949 Act the responsibility laid on the Minister in the appropriate section (I think it was Section 4) was that there should be consultation and some degree of power to ensure that training was provided; but there was nothing in the 1949 Act comparable to the provision in the Electricity Act. The provisions in Clause 31 for promoting efficiency and welfare must cover training, but it would be in the hands of the Corporation. As the result of the Industrial Training Act the statutory responsibility no longer rests with the Minister of Power but with the Minister of Labour.
I will see that my noble friend's views are brought to the notice of the Corporation. Indeed, his earlier remarks on this
486
question gave me some slight pause, and I considered this further. I will give him a definite undertaking that the Minister will take steps to ensure that the Corporation will pay full attention to education and training, and that the experience of other nationalised industries is made fully available to them. In giving that assurance, let me say that I have no doubt that the Corporation will recognise their responsibility in this matter.
I was interested to hear the forthright speeches of my noble friends Lord Mitchison and Lord Leatherland. My noble friend Lord Mitchison has played a significant part in this Bill. He succeeded in ensuring that the Committee stage lasted nearly a reasonable length and he certainly helped the Government by his knowledge. I welcomed part I of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, but I did not particularly welcome part II. I do not intend to enter into a discussion of the merits of nationalisation either with him or with the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard—who I must say produced the "Saying of the Week" when he said that there was no prejudice on his part. I should like to ask him whether he has even read the Benson Report.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I have not read the whole Report; I have glanced at it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am a little surprised that the noble Viscount has participated so actively in our discussions, particularly on the question of profit, without having read a Report which clearly establishes a certain area of argument. We are agreed that a fundamental reorganisation of the iron and steel industry is absolutely necessary. This has been agreed by the Federation and by the Benson Committee. There has been no free competition in the steel industry for more than thirty years and during nearly all that time the industry has been in private ownership. We must settle the uncertainty about the future of the industry.
What I cannot yet see is how noble Lords opposite anticipate that the necessary reconstruction, which so notably failed to be carried out in the past, can be carried out urgently enough without

487
a single owner. This means to us inevitably public ownership. I do not believe that noble Lords on the other side would welcome a single, private monopolistic owner. They are caught in a dilemma on this. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was good enough to suggest that the Government were showing a degree of flexibility in other fields of ownership. It is true that the aircraft industry is not to be nationalised. It is not even to have the Government majority holding that the Plowden Committee recommended. The aircraft industry does not occupy anything like the crucial position in the economy that the steel industry occupies. Furthermore, it is subject to a degree of control by the simple fact that the Government are their largest customer. But we believe that there is a fundamental case for reorganising iron and steel as a basic industry.
If all that noble Lords want to do is to make modest improvements in efficiency to the structure of an industry which they believe is basically right, they are correct in opposing nationalisation, but we believe that it is not possible to make the fundamental changes on the scale and at the pace required without public ownership. I would remind noble Lords that there are well over 200 companies involved, each with its own special interest to look after, and each legitimately concerned with protecting the interests of its shareholders. Some will have to suffer from rationalisation on the scale required, and all will have to put the interests of the industry as a whole before their own.
Nothing has shaken my belief that nationalisation is the only possible operation. I do not believe that it is reasonable to ask privately owned companies who have an obligation to their shareholders to sacrifice those interests in a way that might be disastrous to the proper position of the company without proper compensation; and the only way they can be compensated and a structure set up which will ensure the reorganisation of the industry at a speed and to the depth we need is by bringing the industry at one stroke under a single management. This is the only right solution. It has the great merit of being the simplest solution. It has also the merit of giving almost complete freedom
488
within the terms of control exercised by the Minister to reorganise on whatever scale and at whatever speed is necessary. The iron and steel industry is basic to our economy as a whole, and in our view such a basic industry must be owned, not by private shareholders, but by the nation as a whole.
As a tailpiece, may I say to noble Lords who have been prophesying doom that there have been reports in the Press that anxiety has been expressed recently by the European steel industry about the power of the competition they will get from a unified steel industry in Britain. May I also offer the comforting thought to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that on the day when we pass this Bill through its final stages, sterling is standing higher than it has for a long time past.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, but probably we shall not get into the Common Market because we are breaking all the rules.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BOY SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES
6.30 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the nature of the commitment required for boy-service in the Armed Forces at the age of fifteen years and for those who accept man-service at the ages of seventeen and eighteen years. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I express some apology to the House for taking attention away from this quite historic occasion through which we have just passed, to ask leave to put the Question which is in my name on the Order Paper. Some years ago, I happened to be travelling in the same railway carriage as three boys who had been for several years at an orphanage, and who were then being transferred to the Navy. They were 15 years of age. I asked the officer who was accompanying them for how long they were to be committed to the Navy, and, to my astonishment, he said: "For 15 years". This meant that those boys of 15 would be 30 years of age before that commitment would be concluded. I was startled.
In another place on more than one occasion I have taken up individual cases; but I am a little ashamed that not until to-day have I taken up the bigger issue which is underlying this situation.
I want to be very accurate in my description of what I understand to be the present position, and therefore I am going to ask the House to excuse me if I follow my notes more closely than I usually do. I should like to ask the Minister who will be replying if the statement of the existing position which I am about to make is accurate. The minimum age of enlistment without the consent of a parent or guardian is 17 years and 6 months, though in certain cases it is 17 years. Under that age, a person may be enlisted with the written consent of the parents, or a parent, or the consent of any person, where the boy is not living with either parent, who has parental rights and powers in respect of him, or, if no such person exists, with the consent of any person in whose care, whether in law or in fact, the person enlisting may be.
In the case of a boy under the minimum age, the term for which he may be enlisted must not exceed 12 years, but this term will not begin to run until his 18th birthday. Except at times whereby a Proclamation of National Emergency has been declared, an enlisted person may within three months of enlistment claim his discharge on payment of a sum not exceeding £20. Thereafter there is no right to claim a discharge on payment of any sum, but discharge may be granted, within the discretion of the Army Council, on payment of a sum of money. This privilege is often refused, and such refusal appears, on the material before us, not to consider at all the best interests of the infant. It follows from what I have said that a boy of 15 may be enlisted and may be compelled to serve, subject to the right to terminate within the three months of enlistment that I have mentioned, until he is 27 or 30 years old.
I have been led to initiate this debate to-night on the advice of the National Council for Civil Liberties and the Continuing Committed of the Board for Conscientious Objectors. They have sent me cases of boys, teenagers, from the Army who for the last two years have sought to leave the Armed Forces and
490
who have gone down in despair and frustration because they have not the opportunity to do so. There are 42 such cases, in great detail, in my hands at this moment. They have been forwarded to the Minister of Defence, and therefore I need not detail them. But I say this. I have rarely read such tragic human documents, showing deep unhappiness and utter frustration; leading, ultimately to some of these men becoming deformed characters as a result of what they have gone through.
There is one case here of a boy desiring to undertake a university career, refused even discharge by purchase. Even within the Navy he has continued his studies, passing his "A" level examinations, accepted by the Bristol University to go to that university, who has been turned down again and again, even when his parents were ready to purchase his discharge. I admit that sometimes ruses are adopted to get out: feigning sickness, deliberately failing examinations and deserting. These boys have been committed for 15 years to a life when they are 15 or 17 years old, too young to understand what it means; too young to have formed their lives; too young to have had a sense of what their future should be: and they become deteriorated. I say that these documents are epics of personal tragedy. Some of these men and boys have become conscientious objectors. There are instances which leave no doubt about their sincerity. The Peace Pledge Union have provided a number of cases.
I want, first, to make a suggestion to the Minister. It is that, in view of the circumstances in which these boys are committed to long terms in the Army, and their youthfulness, there should be a provision by which they can go to a tribunal when they claim to their commanding officer that they are conscientious objectors. At present, the procedure is this. First, they must refuse to obey orders; and if they have refused to obey orders, they are court-martialled. If at the court-martial they get a sentence of three months or over, then they are allowed to go to a tribunal. But these cases indicate that in many instances—and I have no doubt it is done quite deliberately—sentences of less than three months are given, for offences which otherwise would have required three months, simply

491
in order that they may not have the opportunity to go to a tribunal.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? Would be tell me the basis for his view, of which he has no doubt, that sentences are deliberately pitched lower than three months so as to prevent these cases from going to a tribunal? The noble Lord is quite correct: I am very against the legal procedure, and I think he should substantiate it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I shall be glad to do so, and the noble Lord will find the substantiation in the cases which have been forwarded to the Ministry. There are cases of long desertion. There is a case of 14 months' desertion, and at the end of that period a sentence was passed which was just inadequate, from the point of view of military law, for the offence which had been committed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt again, to ask the noble Lord on what basis he says that the sentence was inadequate? The noble Lord may be familiar with courts, but in their sentencing policy they take into account a large number of considerations, and he has made a most serious accusation against the administration of military law.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct, I am very familiar with these procedures. On several occasions I have been sentenced by courts-martial: so I know something about them. I have been the chairman of the Central Board for Conscientious Objectors, and I have followed these matters in great detail. At the moment when my noble friend interrupts me I find it difficult to turn to the actual page in the document which I have, but that document is going to the Ministry of Defence, and I say that in these cases sentences have been given which are out of all proportion to the seriousness of the offence that has been committed. There seems to be little doubt that the purpose is to retain these men in the Army. Indeed, there is evidence of pressure to get them to apply for discharge on monetary payment, rather than as conscientious objectors. There has just been
492
put into my hand the case of John Mayhew, with which my noble friend is probably familiar. This boy deserted for 14 months, he was sentenced to 42 days' detention and immediately flown out to the Far East. In all military experience that is a minor sentence for the offence of deserting for 14 months.
What I was seeking to do was to urge upon the Minister that these conscientious objectors should have the right to go immediately to a tribunal; and, secondly, that they should be provided with information about their own rights. Again, in these cases it is repeatedly said that they go to their commanding officers but are not given any information with regard to their rights. They do not even know that if they are sentenced to three months they have the right to go to an advisory tribunal. I am urging that at least they should be informed of these rights.
I do not want to raise this issue solely on the question of conscientious objectors. I suggest that it is wrong to impose long-term commitments on boys of 15, and even of 17 or 18. These are years in which decisions are being formed. I doubt whether any of your Lordships would disagree with me when I urge that 15 years is too young an age at which to allow a boy to pledge himself to a way of life until he is 30 years of age. As one reads these cases one often finds that the decision to join the Armed Forces at the age of 15 is due to temporary circumstances. It is often due to an unhappy home, to differences of opinions, or to divisions between parents. I often wonder how many Members of this House had mapped their future at 15 years of age, and would then have been prepared to decide what the pattern of their life should be until they were 30 years old.
I am approaching this subject with some optimism to-night, because there was a debate on this matter in another place before the General Election which brought a Labour Government to power. In that debate Mr. Michael Stewart urged strongly that there should be a reconsideration of the attitude towards these boys and that it was wrong even to ask that they should buy their discharges; wrong to keep them within the Armed Forces when they had joined at 15 years of age and had come to a different conclusion

493
later on. I was impressed not only by Mr. Michael Stewart's speech, but also by the speech in which Sir Fitzroy Maclean, answering on behalf of a Conservative Government, said that it was not desired to keep any of these boys or young men in the Armed Forces against their will.
Even the possibility of getting out of the Armed Forces by monetary payment is becoming less. The Minister of Defence will see, when he receives details of these cases, that applications to leave the Army, even by purchase, are continually being rejected, even when the commanding officer of the regiment has recommended that they should be accepted. In addition, the period which these boys have to serve before they can get discharge by payment is increased. In 1959, four and a half years' service was required before discharge by purchase could be obtained. Now the period is seven years; and what strikes me as being particularly wrong is that when the period of four and a half or seven years is being considered the early part of that period, between the ages of 15 and 18, is not taken into account. In other words, if a boy joins at 15 years of age he has to serve a term of 10 years before he can even purchase his discharge from the Army.
The second point is that of cost, which varies from £150 to £200. Poor parents cannot afford that amount. It is a discrimination against those who are poor. What is the Ministry's defence of this? It is that this sum is to reimburse the costs which these boys have caused in the Armed Forces. Do we consider this in other matters? Do we apply it to other forms of training? Do we apply it when we give university grants? Do we say that the students must follow certain courses until they are 30 years of age? Can they not become doctors? Can they not become scientists? Cannot they go to America and be participants in the "brain drain"? Are we to say, here and now, in the military sphere, that if they have been trained as apprentices in the Army the cost of this training must all be reimbursed, or else they must follow that life until they are 27 or 30 years of age?
I want to follow that up by putting this consideration. I want to challenge the view of the moral legitimacy of these long-term commitments of minors. It is not accepted in civilian life. The trend of British law is moving away from the idea
494
of restrictions of service, even for adults If my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor were here, I would remind him of the case with which he was closely associated where the rules of the Football Association and the regulations of the Football League as to the retention of players were held to be unreasonable and invalid, although they had been acted upon for many years. I am referring to the case of Eastham v.Newcastle United Football Club, in 1963. What I am saying to the Minister is that the same trend which is taking place in our civilian law ought to find some expression in these long-term commitments in the Armed Forces, particularly when they are for boys of 15 and teenagers.
I wonder whether the Minister would deny the fact that these commitments would not be legally acceptable to-day in the civilian sphere. I have taken the trouble to get counsel's opinion on this matter. This is what he writes:
"Both with regard to boy soldiers and also with regard to those who have attained the minimum age but are still under 21 I have no doubt that if this was a contract to which the Infants Relief Act, 1874, applied such a contract, by reason of the length of time that the infant binds himself to one master and by reason of the fact that the master can vary the terms of service at will, and also its general unilateral character, would be held to be unenforceable against the infant. Furthermore, the infant would have the opportunity of repudiating the contract within a reasonable time of attaining his majority.
"Both at common law and by the statutory provisions of the Infants Relief Act, 1874, the principle is well established ' that an infant is of immature intelligence and discretion '(Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition. Vol. 21, p. 138) and must be protected. Under all the terms by which infants as young as 15 are committed to serve in the Forces there is no vestige of protection for the infant. The terms of enlistment of infants as they stand at the moment are in complete contradiction with the long-standing principles concerned with the protection of infants."
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I intervene to ask the noble Lord this? In all these cases he has been quoting, is the parent not present? Is he not available to give his infant advice as to the best career for him?
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, very many of these letters, very many indeed, are from parents describing their frustration in approaching the Ministry of Defence and getting the refusal of the Ministry

495
of Defence of the discharges for which they have been asked.
My Lords, I want to conclude by making a series of constructive proposals.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am following the noble Lord with great interest. On the question of legality, is he saying that what is now being done is actually illegal, or is he merely saying it is repugnant in a legal sense?
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I would have hoped the noble Lord followed me. I am not saying it is illegal. The Army Act and the other Acts which cover it make what is happening now absolutely legal. What I am asking is that the same principles which now apply in civilian law shall be extended to military law; the same principles which say it is wrong that a boy of 15 should be committed for 15 years, that teenagers of 17 and 18 should be committed until they are 30 years of age. If they were civilian contracts there is not a court in this country which would be prepared to enforce them. I am asking that the same principles should be applied in the military sphere.
I conclude with some quite positive proposals. First—and this is what I have been saying—the principles of law relating to civilians should be applied in the military sphere. Second, boys of 15 should have the opportunity annually to obtain discharge, and without monetary payment. Third, they should not be committed to long-term service until they are at least 18 years of age. Fourth, they should have the opportunity to choose civilian life when they become adults at 21. Fifth, any Serviceman who claims conscientious objection should be able to go direct to a tribunal and at least should be informed of his rights. Sixth, the decision in individual cases should be with the commanding officer of the regiment, subject to appeal, rather than a decision by the Ministry. Seventh, the establishment of a military ombudsman to whom appeals could go, and unobstructed access of Members of Parliament to submit cases to him. Above all, I am asking for a full inquiry into the present discharge machinery, possibly by reference to the Committee on the Age
496
of Majority, under Mr. Justice Latey, whose terms of reference include examination of teenage contracts.
My Lords, I have raised this matter because I believe it is a matter of freedom and of democracy. We pride ourselves on our record in this country as a free and democratic society. We are proud of it. But this freedom is refuted by this denial to the path of life by these boys even before they have taken their first unattended steps on it. Democracy will be denied unless the Government will reconsider a tradition in the military sphere which is outlived in the civilian sphere.
6.58 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I was stirred to take part in this debate this afternoon by the same pamphlet issued by the National Council for Civil Liberties as I think stirred my noble friend to initiate the debate. My reaction to it was absolutely immediate. I wanted to do the same thing as he has done, to raise a Question in this House. I am bound to say if I had done so my Question would have been more aggressive than that which stands in the name of my noble friend on the Order Paper. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Shackleton, when he replies, not only will tell us what the conditions are, but, answering in the spirit of my noble friend's speech, will say whether he agrees that urgent consideration needs to be given to the reform of these conditions.
In making a protest against these conditions to-day, I do not speak out of any hostility or any desire to hit at the Armed Forces, for I am quite sure—indeed it is part of my case—that the Armed Forces provide a thoroughly satisfying career to the vast majority of young men who are recruited into them. In the same way, I do not claim, as has been claimed, that the conditions are withheld or concealed from young boys enlisting, or from their parents. I do not claim that there is misrepresentation in the advertisements issued by the Services because, like any other employer, they have the right to lure prospective employees. I speak because I think it is absolutely wrong for a young man to be bound until the age of 27 by a decision which he has made at 15.
It is quite easy to imagine hundreds of cases of young boys joining the Forces

497
because they are attracted by the publicity, the adventure, the open air life and the security which the Services offer, or because may be they are dissatisfied with their home life and want to get away from it. I think it is equally obvious that hundreds of parents—and I mean hundreds—will consent most willingly and thankfully to their sons entering the Services. They may have been in the Services themselves. They may be worried about their son's future; they may just want to get rid of him because they are fed up with seeing him around the house. It is equally obvious, and is borne out in the cases which have come to light, that of those hundreds a few and only a few of the boys who join will want to change their minds, for perfectly good reasons.
The Services' life is a peculiarly communal, institutional one. After a few years some boys may find that they have had enough of it, that they do not like it. Like the conscientious objectors of whom my noble friend spoke, they may change their moral and political views. They may, quite simply, want to get out; they feel that they have made the wrong decision, and they want to go somewhere where their talents can be used and where opportunities are better. I myself worked for several years in jobs where I could travel. I got married, and I no longer wished to travel. So I changed completely and took a completely different job, one that I found much more congenial, and one which kept me in this country. Why should this freedom which I had, and which every other citizen of the country has, be denied to Servicemen in time of peace?
My noble friend has underlined the fact that these conditions are repugnant to principles of the Common Law. He has also underlined the fact that they are unique; that no other walk of life, no other career, imposes any remotely similar obligations. Kindred topics, such as the emigration of young scientists and young doctors in search of better opportunities, are quite relevant and topical at the moment. My noble friend Lord Shackleton will remember saying in the House on December 20 last, in the debate on the brain drain, that the last thing we want to consider is to put any form of restriction on movement, and that certainly the Government had no inten-
498
tion of doing so. He said that it was even doubtful whether it is desirable to discourage this practice beyond a certain point. If this is the policy—and quite rightly it is the policy—of the Government with regard to trained young men who go abroad to work in other countries, how much more should it be the policy when we are concerned with young men most of whom will continue to work in this country, and who will give their training and talents to this country!
When I considered this situation, I thought that perhaps there was something unique in Service life around the world which in some way made these conditions acceptable. So I rang up a few military attaches around London. Without exception they found our conditions unacceptable. The United States enlists Servicemen at 18 years and not before, and for a maximum initial period of four years. The French allow a junior apprentice to opt out after two years' training, and, if he continues service, they require him to sign on for five years. The Canadians, who in a way come closest to us because they require a boy to sign on for five years from the age of 18, have one significant difference in their system, that is, that there is a constitutional right for any Serviceman to purchase his discharge at any time for a maximum of 250 dollars. Compare that sum even with the £175 or the £200 that is required from boys who have grounds for compassionate discharge, or even from boys or young men who have served the greater part of their term. I should point out that I do not agree with purchase, and I support what my noble friend has said about it. It bears no relation to the cost of training, and it penalises the poor. I find it almost as anachronistic and as absurd as the system of purchasing a commission.
As one might expect with a system which is repugnant to legal principles, and which no other profession and no other country has thought it right or necessary to adopt, I find the arguments in its favour have but little substance. It is said that the Forces are in grave need of recruits. I have no doubt that they are. But are the Services really saying that the career that they offer, and the life within their ranks, is so unpleasant that they have to compel the people that they have

499
to stay in? I do not think so. Furthermore, I believe that if the terms are changed you will get more recruits. I know full well that I would not advise any friend or son of mine to enlist on such onerous terms.
Then it is said, as my noble friend has pointed out, that the Army has a right to expect a return on its investment. My noble friend has made the point that this is not expected by any other employer or prospective employer, who takes the risk of training a man and spending a lot of money on him. But the argument is full of many more holes than that. First of all, as I think my noble friend Lord Shackleton will agree, it is only a minority who are crying to get out. Probably the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, would agree that life in the Services is satisfying and will continue to attract people and continue to keep them. But what kind of soldiers are some of these frustrated young men going to make? Many of them are driven to depression, desertion and moral deterioration. The country needs to make full use of all the trained men it possesses, and if a man feels that his talents can be better employed elsewhere than in the Services, then let him go elsewhere. I find it a most parochial attitude on the part of the Services to say that they have spent so much money, and therefore they should have the benefit. If a man leaves the Royal Air Force and goes into B.O.A.C., or if he leaves the Army and goes into Marconi, his training is not wasted. What will be a loss to the Services will be a gain to some other employer, whether it is public industry or private industry. But the country is not the loser.
The obvious reply to the economic argument is that even if it would cost millions of pounds to change the regulations, then that price must be paid because it is the liberty of the individual which is at stake. Just as private industry, the Health Service, the police, and everybody else take the risk of losing their trainees, so the Services must do the same. Surely what has happened is that these conditions exist because they have always existed—they have existed ever since the day of Farquhar's play, The Recruiting Officer. Now, perhaps for the first time, the hard-
500
ship which can be caused is becoming fully known and appreciated. When grievances such as this come to light, the Government—or perhaps not the Government, but the mandarins in the Ministry of Defence—drag up arguments why no change should be made.
I expect a positive answer from my noble friend to-day. My noble friend Lord Brockway has made his suggestions in regard to this matter. I consider that an initial period of two or three years, or may be four at the maximum, is what we want to aim at. As I say, I expect a positive answer, because why do we elect a reforming Government, and a new Government, if not to reform this kind of grievance when it comes to light? I am sure that my noble friend Lord Brockway will join me in saying that we will not allow this matter to rest, because even though there may not be many noble Lords in the House this evening, I feel that there will be many who will welcome a Private Member's Bill to amend the Armed Services Acts.
7.14 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, this occasion requires only a few words from me. Party differences are certainly not involved in any way, and I do not expect to find myself in any sort of conflict with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who is to reply. I think we are at one in considering that at all times, and especially now, whatever may be the future pattern of the Forces, recruiting requirements are of the greatest importance and that junior servicemen are a very valuable source of recruits. The ability to recruit healthy, intelligent boys attracted to the idea of Service life is one that is greatly valued by all three Armed Services. Indeed, it plays an essential part, particularly as technical service requires more and more technical training to-day, and this is bound to get more, rather than less, complicated in the future.
I agree that for a teenage boy to commit himself at the age of fifteen to fifteen years' service is not right. So far as I know, I think that this has applied to the Navy, and is being looked at, but that it has not occurred in the other two Services. I think that I am right in that. On the other hand, as a matter of principle, public interest must be taken into account when large sums have been expended on training young servicemen. I have had very considerable experience

501
of training young soldiers in my 32 years' service. The Service establishments for the training of boys are of the very highest standard, and I am most recently familiar with one of the very big Army apprentice schools which was formed under my own command and which I saw for the first three years of its life. These establishments provide a quite remarkable technical education, as well as taking immense care in the welfare of the boys. The parents are frequently welcomed; they can inquire into all aspects of the boy's life, and they are given the same consideration by the Service officers as if they were paying for an expensive school education. Incidentally, the costs of these apprentice schools are considerably more than the most expensive public schools in England. Junior leaders' units produce young men who invariably obtain a grounding which enables them to achieve rapid promotion when they come on to man's service, and they often obtain commissions which their education before they joined would not otherwise have made possible.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? He said that he thought the extension to thirty years applied only to the Navy and not to the other two Services. I now have in my hands the official Army and Air Force documents. In the case of the Army, apprentices may choose between enlisting for a period of twelve years full-time Regular service up to the age of 30 and enlisting for nine years full-time Regular service up to 27, followed by a further three years' service in the Reserve. I beg your Lordships' pardon, my first remarks should have related to the Air Force, and I will now deal with the Army. In the case of the Army, all boys are required to enlist to serve until they are eighteen, and thereafter to serve for either nine years with the Colours and three years in the Regular Reserve or six years with the Colours and six years in the Regular Reserve. It applies not only to the Army, but to the Air Force.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that. I shall come on to this a little later, and I shall be as interested as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to hear the comments of the Minister on this matter when he comes to wind up.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Brockway helped the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, because I think he got his sentences transposed. I wonder if I might try to clarify the area of argument on this point. There are, in fact, no initial engagements in the Army to the age of 30—I think the noble Lord did correct that. Technician apprentices in the R.A.F. may choose engagements to ages 27 or 30, and the Navy has some apprentice entries to age 30. I interrupt only to establish the facts. I am sure the noble Lord appreciates that.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I mentioned the R.A.F. when I should have said the Army, and the Army when I should have said the R.A.F.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, that was a word or two about the apprentice schools and the junior leaders. There are also, of course, the junior soldiers' units, of which the Junior Guardsmen's battalion at Pirbright is an example. There are about 300 boys there, ranging from 15 to 17, and 80 per cent. of them continue to become Guardsmen. The remainder are those who, for reasons of health or temperament, show themselves or feel themselves unsuitable for one reason or another.
I think it is this minority of whom the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is speaking to-day. I think it is a great pity that the noble Lord did not send to the Minister this large number of cases which he talked about, so that we could hear from the Minister the details of them, because I am very surprised that such a very large number of disgruntled servicemen should have approached the noble Lord. I should be extremely interested, when these cases are examined, to know what the Service Ministries have to say, because I have very strong suspicions from my long military experience that there is usually quite a lot behind these disgruntled applications, and all sorts of things come to light.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I again interrupt to say that these cases were sent to the Minister of Defence 10 days ago, and are in the hands of the Minister of Defence? They were not cases sent to me. They were cases sent

503
to the National Council for Civil Liberties and the Continuing Committee of the Board for Conscientious Objectors.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I shall be interested to know what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has to say about that, although I do not suppose he will have had time to go into the details of cases. Ten days is not a very long time, and they have to be examined by a great many authorities.
When the Army is faced with the problem of a junior recruit who does not fit in, it is usually the Army—or, indeed, either of the other two Services—which takes the initiative in releasing him, and it is seldom that a boy recruit and his seniors will disagree as to his suitability or unsuitability. Before he is released, in virtually every case, the company commander will have been in touch with the parents, and the problem is worked out in a humane, kindly and convincing way. It is worth stressing that all the officers and N.C.O.s sent to service units which deal with the training of juniors are most carefully selected. I know that every confidential report form in the Army contains a paragraph saying, "Is this officer suitable for training boys?" If he is, then he can be considered. It is a very great honour to be selected to go to one of these units. These officers give up very many of their evenings to assist the boys in their hobbies, and in getting to know them.
I am not going to try to explain the special arrangements made for boys; we have the Minister to do that. But it seems to me quite reasonable that a young soldier may purchase his discharge at any time during his first three months' service for £20, after which the rates vary in accordance with the Pay Warrant. If there is a case for re-examining the Pay Warrant, that might be a very good thing. I know that there are compassionate cases where such restrictions as exist on purchasing discharge are waived; but where the grounds do not justify free discharge the General Officer Commanding can authorise a partial reduction of 50 per cent. of the purchase, or a still greater percentage if he gets the agreement of the Command Secretary. As a former General Officer Commanding, I myself
504
have adopted both of these procedures in the past.
There are perfectly clear reasons why a free discharge cannot be given in all cases, and every case must be examined most carefully. A very great deal of public money is spent on the training of these young men, and they are given a remarkable education. Some firms are so well aware of this that they are not above trying to bribe boys to get out of the service, even offering to buy them out, because they have been so well trained. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will agree that when the taxpayer has paid a great deal of money it is only fair to get value out of this training. I wonder whether some of these cases which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has talked about relate to disgruntled youths who have had a most valuable and expensive training, and who see a good way of getting a lot more money in civil life for what the Services have done for them. I know of cases in the Army where boys have tried to get out, and when they were investigated that was found to be the reason.
I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I am sure that there should be reasonable and humane arrangements—and I believe there are—for misfits to get out of the Services. But I am sure that the Services must be protected when they have given these boys what is, in fact, a remarkably good start in life. In these days of so much juvenile crime and degeneracy and drug-taking, I must say that I wish there were more opportunities of such admirable training for our youth to-day.
7.27 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, this is the second time this week that I have had to ask for your Lordships' indulgence, in intervening without having asked for my name to be placed on the list of speakers. I hope I may nevertheless have that indulgence, although I should perhaps say that it is not my intention to make this a regular practice. The subject under debate on the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, concerns the balance between the necessary enforcement of discipline in a Service to which a boy of 15½ or a young man of 18 has committed himself, and the terms under which he may be released if, subsequent

505
to his enlistment, he should for some reason wish to be.
I wish to raise just one quite limited but important aspect of this matter, and I shall do so briefly—I understand that this matter is already under review so far as the Army is concerned—namely, what happens if during his service a recruit becomes, or alleges that he has become, a conscientious objector. At the beginning of the last war the treatment of conscientious objectors was extremely just and fair. Great care, great understanding, was shown by most tribunals for those who wished to register as conscientious objectors. I myself attended several tribunals as a witness in the early months of the war, and was immensely impressed by the way the tribunals were conducted. The attitude of respect and fairness shown by the judge to those who appeared before him in itself helped to discriminate between the hypocrite and the man of genuine conviction.
The circumstance of a man who has volunteered for Service discipline, and who thereafter wishes to register as a conscientious objector, is different in character from that of a man coming before a tribunal when he is liable for call-up in war time. But one must recognise that a change of conviction in such a matter can, and sometimes does, arise among young people. After all, 15½ is a pretty young age at which to have cleared your mind upon an issue of this character. The change of conviction may be genuine, whether we agree with it or whether we do not.
One must also recognise how very difficult it is to test whether it be genuine. The commitment already entered into cannot be lightly disregarded, either for the man's sake or for the sake of the Service of which he is a member. This would be treating the man's sense of obligation and integrity too lightly, and I think it is very wrong to treat a young man's sense of obligation and integrity lightly. After all, he has had much done for him during his period of Service training. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, in this respect. But I understand that, as things are at present, the procedure in the Army is that the man must prove his conscientious objection by refusing to obey orders; a military charge follows, and only after serving
506
some initial sentence can a tribunal be convened.
I find it very difficult to believe that this is really right. Clearly the tribunal's inquiry must be a searching one. I believe that the applicant may wish—indeed, may be expected—to provide some proof that he is ready in some way to make a form of recompense for an undertaking made voluntarily by him which he now feels bound to break. Not to require some such earnest of his sincerity would. I think, be doing less than justice to the young man's sense of responsible obligation. But I cannot think that the initial process of being treated as a criminal—for, in a sense, this is what it amounts to—is the right way to do it. I understand that this very matter is now under review at the War Office. Perhaps the Minister answering this debate will be able to confirm this. If this is the case, I would only ask: has the question of an option to transfer to some non-combatant form of service, at least for a period of time, been considered as at all events an initial resolution in some of the cases?
7.33 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I understand my noble friend's Question and complaint aright, it is not that he casts any reflection as such on military service and the training of these young apprentices—and I may say that I do not wish to involve myself or worry the noble Lord in regard to his personal conscience about military service—but that he is concerned about that minority of young people who, for one reason or another, have entered the Service and have subsequently changed their minds. I do not think, therefore, that there is any suggestion that these young soldiers, sailors and airmen get anything other than an admirable training, or that they are themselves—and this certainly has been my experience—other than very fine young men, the great majority of whom are in fact happy to continue in the Service. I should just like to make sure that we are agreed so far. I think my noble friend Lord Brockway agrees with me so far.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords. That is not the issue I raised. The issue I raised was the long-term commitment, which would not be accepted in civil life.
LORD SHACKLETON: That is not inconsistent with what I am saying. I am merely trying to establish the area in which there is agreement, not the area in which there may be either disagreement or difficulty.
I have listened very closely indeed to both what my noble friend Lord Brockway said and indeed to what my noble friend Lord Gifford said. Having listened to them, I am bound to say that there is a real area of difficulty here—and I will try to set out as clearly as I can the nature of the dilemma. In addition, there is the particular issue which he raised, as did the right reverend Prelate, in relation to conscientious objectors. I should like to deal with that very quickly, because I am not in a posito say very much about it. I have listened very carefully, and I have myself noted the procedure that is followed in these cases. I hope both the noble Lord and the right reverend Prelate will excuse me from commenting on that procedure, beyond saying that what they had to say will be taken very carefully into account. This was a subsidiary point, but certainly a very important one. I acknowledge that.
The only point in regard to conscientious objectors with which I really must disagree most strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—and it may well be that he inadvertently fell into error in this—is in regard to his suggestion that in certain cases courts-martial were deliberately sentencing deserters to a penalty less than that which would bring them within the scope of the conscientious objection appeal procedure. Regardless of what may have happened in the past—and I fully acknowledge the noble Lord's personal experience and, indeed, the courage he has shown in upholding his views in the past—I simply cannot accept that courts-martial have to-day deliberately given men lower sentences than those which would bring them within the field of this particular procedure. Indeed, he quoted the case of Mayhew, who, he said, was given a very low sentence bearing in mind the severity of the offence of desertion which he had committed. But, of course, Mayhew—and this is why I think my noble friend must have fallen into error—never claimed to be a conscientious objector.
LORD BROCKWAY: I admit the error at once. If my noble friend will remember, I had a look at some papers, and I then referred to the case of Mayhew when I ought to have referred to another case. I admit that mistake; but I can refer to other cases.
LORD SHACKLETON: I fully accept that my noble friend did not intend to mislead the House. But it proves my point that the sentences which are imposed for desertion are not as severe as my noble friend clearly thinks they should be, though he has suggested that courts-martial have been avoiding what would seem to be the appropriate sentence simply in order to prevent an individual going before the court-martial appeal court. Although it is perhaps dangerous for me to comment on courts-martial and how they operate, perhaps I may be permitted to express a view. I should have thought that, if anything, if there was any bias, it would have been towards enabling the young man in question to take advantage of that procedure; and I hope that my noble friend, in the absence of any definite evidence to the contrary, will accept that. I may say that all the cases to which reference has been made have been examined, and nothing has been found to suggest that there is any foundation for such an accusation, which I know did not emanate from the noble Lord. After all, he has to rely on information which other people give him. The courts-martial cases which have been made known to us, and which have been examined in detail, provide no evidence to support this particular allegation.
Perhaps at this point I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, that I am not able to comment on these particular cases because we have so far been unable to trace the great majority of them. The Army can trace none of the cases quoted, because in only one case is a name given; and in that case the name only is given and no regiment or regimental number. Indeed, there is quite an aura of anonymity. There may be reasons why people who send up these cases wish to keep them anonymous, but it makes it rather difficult to meet the charges. Nearly all the R.A.F. cases are anonymous. The Navy has certainly been able to trace some cases, but there again most of those are anonymous. I do not

509
make these points—although in a sense this could be argued—in order to make a tactical score. I grant that the noble Lord has presented a case which raises real difficulties and one which must give us all grounds to search our hearts and consciences. I will try to meet the noble Lord by setting out as fairly as I can the procedure followed in the circumstances and why hitherto, and certainly at present, this procedure is followed.
I should like first to explain how we have come to the present position and the present law governing enlistment in the Services, of which the enlistment of boys forms part. Originally, all persons entering the service of the Crown, in the Army and in a civilian capacity, entered that service for life. The Royal Navy was an exception in that seamen were engaged for the period of a ship's commission. Parliament, however, regulated the length of engagement of soldiers; and the Army Act 1881 contains provisions on the terms of enlistment of soldiers. The Air Force followed the Army's model. If your Lordships refer to Part I of each of the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955 you will find the terms of enlistment then laid down. These again were modified in the Army and Air Force Act 1961. The Royal Navy was governed by the Naval Enlistment Acts 1835–1884.
In the Armed Forces Act 1966, which was recently passed by your Lordships, the terms of entry of ratings into the Royal Navy were brought into line with those governing the Army and the Air Force, and the Defence Council were given rather wider powers to regulate the terms of enlistment for all three Services by Statutory Instrument, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure and therefore subject to Parliamentary control. An area of flexibility, still with Parliamentary control, has been introduced. In the exercise of these powers, the Royal Navy has now given recruits the right to buy their discharge for £20 at the end of the first three months' service. Thus all recruits to all three Services may buy their discharge during part of the first three months of service. I realise that noble Lords who are criticial will maintain that this period is not enough, and that the problems may not even arise at that point; indeed, even if unhappy, they may possibly, for perfectly laudable reasons, be persuaded to go on trying.
510
My Lords, let me now deal with why the Services want to recruit boys—because this is partly responsible for our dilemma. The Services look to the junior and apprentice schemes as an important source of high quality recruits to provide future warrant officers, petty officers, N.C.O.s and skilled tradesmen. As the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, said, some are commissioned. I must say straight away that I think they are a splendid lot of young men. I have from time to time given lifts to young soldiers. In my inspections at Halton, where I have talked freely to them, one cannot fail to be impressed with them. If I understood my noble friend Lord Gifford correctly, he would argue that this strengthens his case for allowing those who are dissatisfied to be allowed out, because the Services do produce a degree of enthusiasm and satisfaction probably greater among these young soldiers than even among the adult recruits. In the Navy these young sailors amount to over two-thirds of the total intake of recruits.
In industry and commerce, employers are increasingly trying to obtain their high-quality recruits direct from school and to train them in their particular field. Once a boy has received his training and has settled into a job generally—though not necessarily so; it will depend on certain types of management—he is unlikely to want to change. The Services must continue to follow the same practice if they are to get the leaders and the skilled men that they need. Experience shows on the whole that boys settle down more easily than adult recruits. Their wastage is less and they stay longer in the Service; that is to say, the proportion who extend their services or continue to pensionable engagements is higher than for adult recruits. Again, in general, because of their early start and the high-quality training they receive, they reach a higher rank than adult recruits. The Services think very highly of their boy entrants, and the boys think highly of their own Service. I think we can all agree on this.
My Lords, let me now face the point raised by my noble friend Lord Brockway. Boys between the ages of 15 and 17½ can join the Services, with the written consent of a parent or guardian, through an apprentice or junior training scheme. They undertake to serve

511
to the age of 18 and for a specified period thereafter. This varies, according to the Service and the type of trade concerned, from six years for most Army boys to a maximum of 12 years for certain recruits to the Royal Navy and the R.A.F.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt to ask whether it is not true that the junior who joins for six years in the Army receives 38s. 6d. a week less for the whole of his service than if he joins for nine years?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I was afraid that I should be asked that question. I have not my finger on the answer, but I may have it by the time I finish speaking. It is interesting, but it is not relevant to the main case, which is why they should be allowed to go. As I have said, they undertake to serve a certain period.
From the age of 17½ recruits may be entered for adult engagement without parental consent. Young men between 17 and 17½ may, however, enlist for adult service in the Army or the Royal Air Force, provided that they have their parent's or guardian's consent. The length of the initial engagement for adults is 9 or 12 years in the Royal Navy, the option of 6 or 9 years in the Army, and 5 or 9 years in the Royal Air Force; although a small number of 3-year engagements are available in the Army and Royal Air Force. All these engagements are for active service, and the rates of pay for certain of them depend on the length of these engagements. I have not yet got the answer to the point my noble friend raised. I was speaking in general terms, for I was not able to check the actual figures. All these engagements are for active service, and in some cases there is a liability for Reserve service.
In 1966 the Royal Navy took on 4,925 boys of the ages in question, the Army took on 5,838 and the Royal Air Force, 1,244. This makes a total of about 12,000 boys a year, amounting to about a quarter of the total intake. I have here a number of figures as to the number who left before completing their service, but in order to save time I will not give them now, because they were given in another place, unless the noble Lord wishes me to.
512
My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister of Defence for Administration said in another place that he was looking into the problem of terms of service for those who entered the Service as boys, and would announce the result in due course. But there are difficult and important manning considerations involved, and if there is one thing we ought not to do it is to dismiss these difficulties as ones which not only can we ignore but ought to ignore, in the light of the important principles which have been raised by my noble friends. A proposal to give all young entrants the right to go at age 21 would present the most tremendous difficulties for the Armed Services. It would almost certainly lead to a substantial (though how many one does not know) increase in the numbers which the Services would have to recruit; not necessarily because the number who would want to act out would be so very large, but because of the number who might join knowing that they could get out at that age without a commitment. That is quite apart from those cases which have come to the notice of your Lordships.
The right to leave might be exercised by other men who would otherwise be quite content to continue their service. Temporary difficulties or pressure from families may easily persuade a man to leave the Service and he may afterwards regret doing so. I have direct experience of this. I will not go into detail, but a group of airmen (and not all of them were very young) were, after their original application had been turned down, given the opportunity to purchase their discharge. This was two years after they had insisted that they wanted to leave. But by then they had changed their minds and wanted to stay. I think it is conceivable that my noble friend would accept some sort of barrier so that it was not possible for people to act too much on the spur of the moment.
The more men the Service recruit, the more they have to train. While the present training schools could no doubt deal with a modest increase, any substantial increase would involve the Services in setting up new training schools. There is no two-way traffic between the Services and industry—or at least very little—in respect of trained technicians. In practice, when a Service loses a trained technician, he is lost for good and the

513
Service has to train a replacement, which may take as long as five or six years. There is very little chance of recruiting a technician already trained by industry.
The Services are in difficulties about making firm manning plans, and these difficulties would be seriously increased by giving men a right to go at 21. The Services would not, for instance, be able to calculate at all accurately the outflow at the age of 21, because they would have little or no practical experience to guide them. Moreover, giving a right to go a 21 is the kind of step which, once taken, can hardly be retracted. Nor would my noble friend want it to be retracted. If we were to introduce an experiment to let everybody go at 21 it would, I think, be impossible ever to return to the former position and impose restrictions to which the noble Lords have objected.
It is therefore natural, as I am sure will be accepted by noble Lords, that the Services should be very cautious, faced as they are with the need to keep the Forces manned and to carry out the very onerous responsibilities that the people and Government of this country put upon them. Furthermore, they have to keep their costs within the limit of the Defence Budget, and there are plenty of people, including my noble friend, who would like to see that Budget reduced. The wider the door is out of the Services at an early stage, the greater the intakes and the greater the training bill.1/23/2007
Your Lordships may wonder why the Services should be able to hold young men when young men in industry can easily leave their jobs. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord with regard to a comparison of the position of the Service man vis-à-vis his ordinary fellow citizen in relation to the operation of Common Law. But there is a certain similarity, even so, between the terms for indentured apprentices in civil life and boy or apprentice entrants into the Services. I have had experience of this. There is usually a probationary period of three to six months, during which either the employer or the apprentice can terminate the contract. After the probationary period, any dispute between employer and the boy has to be referred to the National Apprenticeship Council which decides, sometimes after calling for further information, whether or not
514
the boy should be allowed to leave. Sometimes it recommends that he be transferred to another employer. The employer has the right to go to court, if the boy insists on breaking his apprenticeship, but in practice this rarely happens.
Despite the similarities, I recognise that in practice the Services do hold a man, whereas an employer normally does not. It is, however, worth making this point to show that this is not quite such a strange situation as all that.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise I am sure—no doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong—that an infant does have the right to avoid his apprenticeship contract at the age of 21.
LORD SHACKLETON: Then he has completed it. I am being as scrupulously fair as I can to noble Lords. The power to hold a Serviceman derives from the Service Acts. Parliament has made it an offence to desert or be absent without leave and has laid down penalties in these Acts, but noble Lords must face this. We may not like having Armed Forces. We may abhor war. There are those who in fact carry their hatred of war to the point where they can conscientiously object. But many of us cannot conscientiously object and have to face the consequences of the fact that there are fighting Services with the unique task of defending the country, and Parliament has recognised that the Serviceman should not have the right to leave at short, or comparatively short notice, and has provided penalties if he leaves unlawfully.
Your Lordships may also wonder whether a large number of men would leave if we gave them the right to go at, say, 21. We do not really know the answer to that question. As I have said, we hope that the vast majority are content with life in the Services. We know, however, that some wives of Servicemen may not be. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the average age at which a Serviceman marries is going down, and this is in line with the rest of the population.
The demands which the country imposes on Servicemen, such as readiness to go anywhere in the world at short

515
notice, and if necessary to serve unaccompanied on tours overseas, are very much disliked by the wives of Servicemen. Moreover, the Services cannot guarantee accommodation for the families of those serving at home. The Services do their very best to minimise the separation of a Serviceman from his family, but some degree of separation is inevitable. Here again, the shortage of housing in this country affects far more than the Services but money is limited. Naturally, no wife likes separation, and it is at this point that so many of these young men, very often over the age of 18 when they get married, find that they would like to get out of the Service. There is a real problem here, for which there is no quick and easy answer. The natural desire to liberalise the terms of enrolment for boys conflicts to some extent with the tasks the country has laid on the Services.
My noble friend referred to the cases raised by the National Council for Civil Liberties. I will not discuss them further now. My noble friend can read Hansard of another place, and I have dealt with certain points. I must point out, however, that Mayhew is being allowed out before he has completed his nine-year engagement, and will be let out in time to go to university if he wishes to do so. This is a case which has been considered sympathetically, and I would make clear that these cases are examined sympathetically and if there is a compassionate element particular attention is given to it.
I had a large number of cases brought to me by Members of another place. But we are in a difficulty here. Young men in the Services are free to approach their Members of Parliament, and the suggestion in the N.C.C.L. paper that they are not free to do so is simply not true. I know the care that is taken to prevent victimisation. This is such a well-established right that, although naturally it is far better for a Serviceman initially to use Service channels, he has still the right to approach an M.P. I have dealt with the question of desertion.
My Lords, I do not believe for a moment that I have satisfied either of my two noble friends. I am sure that they will recognise the extent of the dilemma and the concern that the existence of a situation of this kind must
516
cause to anybody with a liberal-minded approach to life. I can only say to my noble friends that I have listened carefully to what they have said. There will be a further examination of the problems to which my noble friend has called attention, but, having gone into the matter very fully, I cannot honestly see much prospect of an easy solution to them.

REHABILITATION OF DRUG ADDICTS
8.3 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government on what terms and particularly on what financial terms they intend to co-operate with voluntary bodies over hostels for the rehabilitation of drug addicts. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of my Question is to elicit further details from Her Majesty's Government about their policy on the rehabilitation of drug addicts. May I start by reminding the House of the view of the Brain Committee, which reported on the subject in July, 1965. On page 9, paragraph 25, of their Report they say:
"The withdrawal of a drug is only the first step in the treatment of an addict. Those who are discharged after satisfactory withdrawal of the drug of addiction may soon relapse on returning to their old haunts."
They go on:
"The situation would, in our view, be greatly improved if there were proper facilities for long-term rehabilitation, both psychological and physical, in the treatment centres and elsewhere."
They point out that in dealing with this subject they are outside their terms of reference, and they leave it at that.
Nearly twelve months later, we had a useful debate in your Lordships' House on a Question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, by which time public anxiety about this problem—not so much about the size of the problem as about the rate at which it was growing—had considerably increased. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who replied, in dealing with this aspect of the problem said that after the withdrawal stage, which was usually successful:
"…the addict needs to be in hospital. The second stage aims at removing psychological dependence on the drug, and this usually requires the patient to be under psychiatric supervision in hospital or in a local authority hostel. These hospitals are being provided,

517
and there is no reason to confine them to those addicted to narcotic drugs. The centres will deal with anyone in such need."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30/6/66, col. 833.]
He ended with the further statement:
"These are not simple matters. Her Majesty's Government are conscious of the need to reach early and sound conclusions, and hope to do so shortly."
In fact, my Lords, another seven months elapsed, and then there was a debate in another place. This time the Minister of Health, giving the further development of the Government's policy in this matter, said:
"I should like to say a little more about the problem of the rehabilitation of addicts. The Brain Committee said, and this is generally recognised, that withdrawal is only the first stage of treatment. The problem is to prevent subsequent relapse, and that can he prevented to some extent by improving facilities of long-term rehabilitation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 30/1/67, col. 140.]
We must have these facilities for long-term rehabilitation in order to complete and round off the cure of drug addicts. I do not know what facilities for this rehabilitation have been provided by the hospitals or local health authorities. Perhaps the noble Lord who is going to reply can tell us something. Treatment centres are in process of being set up. We know that. And we know that the Minister said at the end of January, in the same speech from which I have just quoted (col. 140):
"I am anxious to build on existing services and try new methods. One possibility is the accommodation of addicts in hostels, where they can receive psychiatric supervision and support while in regular employment. In arrangements of that kind I feel sure that there is scope for voluntary bodies, and I certainly welcome their co-operation."
What have the voluntary bodies done? I have some details, not I hope an exhaustive list, but a few examples. We have, I suppose, among the longest-established hostels the one at Spelthorne St. Mary's run for the past 88 years by the Wanted Sisters to deal with alcoholics and drug addicts. Perhaps most of their patients are those who pay privately for treatment, but they take in as many others as charitable subscriptions and donations will allow. They have developed over these long years good cooperation with local doctors and hospitals and with the local health authority. It would be interesting to know what is the further pattern of co-operation the Minis
518
ter has in mind for an establishment of this sort.
Then there is the centre at Chelsea, run, I believe, by doctors in private practice, and linked with a hostel run by the Salvation Army at which occupational therapy is given to the patients who are being treated for their medical condition. It would be interesting to know what pattern of co-operation is envisaged in a case like this. The third example is the centre near Bristol, run by a group of which the local rector is chairman, yet to be established, but trying to cope with the demand in that area and linked in some way with the local council for social service. What is the pattern the Minister would have in mind in a case like that?
Fourthly, there is a centre consisting of two houses in Watford, operated by a group of doctors and nurses—the Crossroads Trust. What is to be the pattern of co-operation here? Fifthly, there is the Hill Farm enterprise outside Birmingham, another centre not yet fully set up, but running in conjunction with All Saints' Hospital, so far relying entirely on subscriptions from the churches. What is the pattern of co-operation here? Lastly, there is Narcotics Anonymous, led by a group based on Dulwich, chaired by a clergyman, and using a house at Ripton in the country, entirely dependent on private subscription. These are not the only cases in the field; this is just an example of what the voluntary bodies are so far doing.
I mention these because all the other medical and psychiatric treatment of addicts in hospitals and clinics which was spelt out in some detail in the debate in another place at the end of January will be wasted if matching provision is not made at the same time for the rehabilitation of addicts in homes or hostels. As the Minister of Health has said, this is an ideal field for the voluntary bodies. As I have shown, they are already in action, or about to go into action in this field. It is good to know that the Minister welcomes their co-operation, but these bodies in turn would welcome his co-operation, and they want to hear now, and if not now, later, in what terms he is going to express it.
8.11 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on raising an important matter

519
in such an interesting way. I am only sorry that the lateness of the hour has precluded other speakers who would have liked to join in this little debate from taking part. I am sorry, too, that I am not in a position to give him much additional information to that which he has placed before us. By "rehabilitation", in this context, as he has said, we mean the second stage in the treatment of addiction.
The first stage, which is of short duration, involves the withdrawal of the drug of addiction, and that usually takes place in hospital. When it is completed, the patient is free from physical dependence on the drug, but only rarely is he free from psychological dependence. Most patients, therefore, as the noble Lord rightly says, need to enter a second and longer stage of treatment, which may be called rehabilitation. In this they receive psychiatric supervision, social support and are actively employed. The object is to enable them to overcome their psychological dependence on drugs, and to lead a normal life. At the present time, most of the mental illness hospitals which offer the first stage of treatment also offer the second stage. The treatment may be on an in-patient basis or on an out-patient basis. For in-patients, occupational or industrial therapy is usually provided in the hospital, or arrangements may be made for patients to go out to work in the community during the day and to return to the hospital at night.
For those patients who have left hospital, after-care services, including hostels of local health authorities, are available as to other patients who have completed treatment in psychiatric hospitals. There are, as the noble Lord said, various voluntary bodies who are running hostels, and some accept persons who have received treatment for addiction. The noble Lord made special mention of the Spelthorne St. Mary's hospital, and I should like to say how highly their devoted work is regarded. Hospitals in the Health Service, of course, usually offer continued supervision and support by means of regular out-patient clinics.
Given that there are all these services, it is perhaps not obvious why the noble Lord has stressed the need to improve arrangements for rehabilitation. But, of
520
course, he is quite right to do so. The explanation is that drug addicts make insufficient use of available services or—to put it another way—the services are not generally acceptable to addicts. In order to consider what is possible or desirable in the rehabilitation of drug addicts it is necessary to reflect on some sad, but relevant, facts.
The first is that, in general, addicts are not willing to undertake treatment which involves withdrawal of the drug of addiction. There are no reliable figures of the total incidence of addiction, and I cannot say what proportion of addicts undertake withdrawal treatment; but it is generally believed to be very small. Secondly, a substantial proportion of the addicts who enter hospital with the expressed intention of accepting treatment leave almost immediately and before undertaking treatment. It is thought that they enter hospital because of some personal crisis, and not because they have a genuine intention to accept treatment. Thirdly, there are patients who enter and remain for withdrawal treatment, which is, as the noble Lord said, usually completed successfully. They require the second stage of rehabilitation, but all too often they leave hospital against the advice of their doctor and then, having returned to their old environment, relapse into addiction. Finally, there are those who successfully complete the second stage of rehabilitation.
My Lords, I fear that this is a sombre picture, and it is no satisfaction to any of us to say that it is even darker in other countries. One study in the United States which followed up patients who had been discharged from hospital after treatment for addiction showed that more than 90 per cent. were re-addicted within six months.
This is the background of our discussion which the noble Lord has started. The problem is well-known to the psychiatrists who treat addicts, and it was, as the noble Lord said, recognised by the interdepartmental Committee on Drug Addiction under the chairmanship of the late Lord Brain. But it is one thing to recognise a problem, and another to find a solution. The fact is that there is no ready-made system of rehabilitation which guarantees success. We should all

521
like to see an effective form of rehabilitation, which is really to say that we should all like to see a reliable cure for addiction. But that is not to say that it can necessarily be provided by Government action. However, the Government accept the need to improve rehabilitation measures.
They have set up the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence. Its duly is to keep under review the misuse of narcotic and other drugs which are likely to produce dependence, and to advise on remedial measures that might be taken, or on any other related matters which the Ministers may refer to it. Legislation is being prepared to limit the authority of doctors to prescribe or supply restricted drugs to addicts, initially heroin and cocaine, and to require all doctors to notify to a central authority patients who are addicted to dangerous drugs. Hospital authorities have been informed of the treatment facilities that are required for addicts unable or unwilling to accept withdrawal treatment, and they have been asked to provide it urgently. The Government intend to introduce the necessary legislation—by way of an Amendment to the Dangerous Drugs Act—during the Session. In a memorandum that the Minister of Health sent last week to hospital authorities about the organisation of hospital facilities for the treatment of heroin addiction, he said that the question of after-care and its co-ordination with the hospital service was receiving further attention, and that guidance on the organisation of the rehabilitation of addicts would be forwarded separately.
Having outlined the existing arrangements for the rehabilitation of drug addicts and some of the problems, I should like now to outline some of the considerations that appear to the Government to be of the greatest importance in the development of future arrangements. The main difficulty in continuing treatment in hospital after withdrawal lies in retaining the interest and co-operation of the patient, and some modification of the usual occupational and recreational activities and arrangements for after-care may be necessary, especially in order to meet the needs of those addicts who are young, active and intelligent.
522
A conference of psychiatrists with experience in the treatment of addiction has considered this problem of rehabilitation. It seems to be necessary to provide psychiatric supervision, social support and employment, all in a form acceptable to the addict. It is possible that the services will be acceptable if they are provided in a hostel. These requirements suggest that there are important parts to be played by both the statutory services, including the hospital and local health authority services, and the voluntary bodies. It seems likely that the best results will come from co-operation between these services by joint ventures, and that the range of experiments in the rehabilitation of addicts should include the use of hostels, which may be run either by voluntary or by statutory bodies. I am afraid I am not in a position, and it would not be right for me here, to discuss the particular examples to which the noble Lord referred in his speech.
These are some interim observations pending the completion of the Government's consideration of the problem. I am sure the noble Lord will understand that I cannot today precisely define the role of voluntary bodies in rehabilitation generally, or in relation to hostels, or in the financial terms for which he asked. I assure him, however, that the Government recognise the need to improve arrangements for the rehabilitation of drug addicts, and will press forward their consideration of this matter with a view to reaching early conclusions and to issuing guidance about the desired form of co-operation between the statutory and the voluntary services. Our intention is to improve existing services and to experiment with new measures in order to reduce the rate and the risk of relapse which is such a tragic feature of treatment at the present time. In devising these measures, although I realise that I have employed terms which the noble Lord himself said had been used on previous occasions by other Ministers, I assure him that what he has said this evening will be taken fully into account.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past eight o'clock.