Lords Sitting of 24 October 1968

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester
The Marquess of Cholmondeley—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Viscount Torrington—Took the Oath.

FIJIAN ELECTORAL SYSTEM
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 it is proposed to introduce a nonracial electoral system in Fiji.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, the system of election in Fiji is part of the new Constitution introduced in 1966. Her Majesty's Government are always ready to consider proposals for further constitutional changes if and when the people of Fiji so desire.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether it is not the case that in 1965 the then Colonial Secretary, Mr. Greenwood, indicated that this division of the electorate into racial groups would be only temporary? Is there a single other Colony in the whole of the world where the people are divided into racial groups for electoral purposes? Is this not quite wrong in principle, and does it not tend to increase racial differences?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, paragraph 5 of the Report of the Constitutional Conference reads as follows:
"Her Majesty's Government for their part recognised that elections on a straight Common Role was not practical for Fiji until a greater degree of integration of the communities had been achieved. They made clear, however, the importance they attach to introducing a system whereby some Members
1538
would be both elected by and responsible to electors drawn from all communities."
There is still this deep division in Fiji and clearly if we are to have a change it must come from a broad agreement by the two political Parties and other communities. But I think one should recognise, as I am sure my noble friend does, that the system by which the Island is divided into three and the electors are required to return three Members drawn from the three communities is a major step towards achieving a multiracial society in Fiji.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while again thanking my noble friend for his Answer, is it not the case that the number of Cross-Bench Members who are elected otherwise than on a racial basis is significant within the Assembly? Is it not also the case that in Fiji (and one is glad to recognise this) there is great racial harmony, despite all the economic differences, which is promising? Does not this system of three different races having the right to elect only persons of their own race rather stabilise the system than encourage racial harmony?
LORD SHEPHERD: No, my Lords. I believe that the innovation introduced under this Constitution was a major step towards the multiracial society that we wish to see there. But there are still deep divisions, and until we can overcome those I find it hard to see how we can change the present Constitution.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, does not my noble friend think, as Sidney Webb said years ago, that to have a period of gradualism is the best course? Is it not recognised that we cannot superimpose on indigenous people a democracy that we here have taken so long to build? They have to grow into it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think I would agree with my noble friend, although I am not sure about gradualism.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether there is also sex discrimination in the franchise?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords I believe that the Common Role includes all adults in Fiji.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in view of the Question and the nature of Her Majesty's Government's Answer, would not Her Majesty's Government

1539
agree that there is involved in this matter a serious and complex problem and one, incidentally, among other important issues, involving the honour of the British Government? Is it not regrettable that a Question couched in the meretricious simplicity of this Question, and concealing behind it a series—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord I would point out that it is not the custom of this House to make imputations about other Lords.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, with due respect to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, may I say that I listened to two speeches from the noble Lord who asked this Question, who was not at all interrupted in the course of them. May I conclude by asking whether it is not impossible for this matter to be given adequate consideration in anything less than a full-dress debate, and therefore is not a Question of this kind regrettable?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would not accept that. I would, however, agree with the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government and the British Parliament have a deep responsibility for racial harmony in Fiji, in the same way as we have in Rhodesia.

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT AND U.S. NOISE REGULATIONS
3.12 p.m.
EARL AMHERST: 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 they have any information about a recent report in a national newspaper to the effect that the Americans may be seeking regulations to ban the flying of the Concorde aircraft to and from and over the United States on account of alleged noise, both in the air and on the ground, and to keep the ban in force until the Boeing project can become competitive with the Concorde.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it would appear that the report referred to
1540
draft Aircraft Noise Regulations which the American authorities are expected to announce shortly as a result of discussions between France, the United States and the United Kingdom, following the London Noise Conference of 1966. These draft regulations will apply only to future subsonic aircraft. The question of supersonic aircraft will have to be considered in due course, but this cannot be done until the necessary technical data are available.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask if any representation in this matter has been made by the authorities at Kennedy Airport?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, Kennedy Airport is one of the airports which has noise regulations, and of course they, like other authorities, are interested in this problem. They have asked B.A.C. and Sad Aviation for data, and those two companies have replied that they will be happy to give all available data and to collaborate with flight development when that starts.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, while again thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I would ask whether, if any ban is eventually imposed, we shall have full notice of it and whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps, either unilaterally or in conjunction with the French, to counteract it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I hope that there will be no question of any unilateral ban on this aircraft or any other aircraft. I hope it will always be a matter for international discussion.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, is there not a very simple answer? That is that if such regulations are made in the United States—as I, for one, greatly hope they will be—we should make similar regulations in this country applying both to the Concorde and the Boeing jet project, to the great advantage of the people of both countries.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand that there is another point of view which suggests that mankind would be happier if we returned to the horse-and-buggy era; but I am not sure that that is a majority point of view.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, as a recent comer to this House I wonder whether I could be informed if it is considered the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to answer for reports in American newspapers. Is it not a flimsy basis on which to frame a Question to worry your Lordships?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend, if I may call him that, sitting as he does in that part of the House, will probably learn, when he has been here a little longer, that we have a little wider latitude in this House in regard to Parliamentary Questions than they have elsewhere.

BRITISH V.G. AIRCRAFT PROJECT
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can make any further statement on the progress of the British V.G. Aircraft Project.]
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, discussions are still going on between the United Kingdom and a number of her NATO allies about the possibility of collaborating on a new multi-role combat aircraft. Some of the solutions which are being considered would make use of swing-wing technology.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. In view of the recent announcement that the French company, Dassault, are now going to collaborate in a joint V.G. project with an American company to compete with any joint British V.G. project for future NATO military requirement, may I ask how much longer the Government consider they have to make a final decision on a British project, without endangering its future?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am not sure that I quite got the noble Earl's point. There are safeguards in
1542
the consortium arrangement designed to prevent industrial information from being passed to non-participatory Governments. I think the noble Earl also referred to the agreement between Dassault and Ling-Temco-Vought. There certainly is, I understand, agreement for the exchange of "know-how", although there is no agreement, so far as I know, to develop an actual aircraft, and I do not quite know what will come of that. There is always, of course, a certain risk in collaboration, but there are also advantages to be gained. The noble Earl asked me how long we should wait. I do not think I can speculate. The initial memorandum of understanding was signed by the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy on July 17, and Canada and Belgium are also considering whether or not to sign. The negotiations are still going on.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lord, can the noble Lord say to what extent the recent ordering by France of the prototype swing-wing Dassault G.4 aircraft is contrary to any agreement reached previously between the French Minister of Defence, M. Messmer, and the British Minister of Defence, Mr. Healey, regarding the past joint variable geometry aircraft project?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lord, the noble Lord always impresses me by the thoroughness of his research. That really is another question. It would be unlikely that there was any breach of agreement or I think we should have heard of it; but I will look further into it.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lards, would the noble Lord not agree that here is a relationship between the two, and that the Daily Telegraph published a very interesting article on this subject? Would it not be interesting to the House to find out whether the French have, in effect, broken down in any way on the agreements previously reached between our two countries in regard to the point project?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords. the more the noble Lord goes on, the more dangerous I think it would be for me to agree with anything he said.

F.111 AIRCRAFT PROJECT: COST OF CANCELLATION
3.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how soon a final agreed compensation figure will be reached over the cancellation of the F.111 aircraft, and within what period the payment will become due.]
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, although our negotiations with the United States authorities have not yet been completed, considerable progress has been made. The dollar cost of cancelling the F.111, including expenditure already incurred, is estimated to be about £25 million and there will be some additional cost in the United Kingdom as a result of the cancellation of contracts for equipment placed with British firms. It is expected that a figure for dollar charges will be agreed with the United States authorities before the end of this year and that payment will be made during the current financial year.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Can he say whether the standard cancellation clause in the American contract referred to the amount of compensation being in relation to the state of development of the aircraft at the time of cancellation?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I can give a categorical "No" in answer to that question.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
Returned from the Commons earlier this day, with certain of the Amendments agreed to; with certain other Amendments agreed to with Amendments; certain others agreed to with consequential Amendments to the Bill, and
1544
with the remaining Amendment disagreed to and an Amendment proposed in lieu thereof: the said Commons Amendments printed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Returned from the Commons earlier this day, with certain of the Amendments agreed to and certain others disagreed to, with a Reason for such disagreement: the said Reason printed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45.
RACE RELATIONS BILL
Returned from the Commons earlier this day, with certain of the Amendments agreed to, and certain others disagreed to, with a Reason for such disagreement: the said Reason printed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45.

BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say that it is intended to take consideration of these Reasons and Amendments in the following order after the Secretary of State for Social Services Order: Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill; Race Relations Bill; Town and Country Planning Bill.
I might add that printed copies of these Reasons and Amendments have been available in the Printed Paper Office since 10 o'clock, a fact to which I draw special attention as it indicates the devotion of the Printers in this matter, since the debates on the Bills in the other place were not completed until 3.30 this morning.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, may I mention that I made an inquiry for those papers at 12 o'clock and that they were not then in the Printed Paper Office?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that would appear to detract from the praise I have just given, but my information is that they were there at 10 a.m. I will look into the matter again.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES ORDER 1968
3.24 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON: rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Secretary of State for Social Services Order 1968 be made in the form of the Draft laid before the House on October 16. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, which relates to the Secretary of State for Social Services. The proposed merger of the Ministries of Health and Social Security was, I believe welcomed on all sides of this House when I made a Statement about it last week. The Special Orders Committee have examined the Order and reported, and we are now clear to go ahead. I hope, therefore, that this Order, while containing much consequentially of great interest, will not be controversial. Therefore I do not propose to take up much of the time of the House in introducing it, although if any points are raised by noble Lords I will do my best to answer them.
I need only say initially that the purpose of this Order is to bring into one Department under a Secretary of State the present Ministry of Health and the present Ministry of Social Security. The new Department will he known as the Department of Health and Social Security and will be placed in charge of the Secretary of State for Social Services, my right honourable friend Mr. Crossman. The Order will take effect from November 1, 1968. The activities of the two Ministries which will be merged are complementary. The Ministry of Social Security provides cash and the Ministry of Health care for the sick, disabled, handicapped, elderly and others in need. Both recognise that adequate income, support, advice and practical services are likely to be important ingredients in maintaining family stability. Both provide short and longer term help and both are concerned with particularly vulnerable groups, such as elderly and the mentally ill.
The planning of services and kind and cash benefits should be improved in comprehensiveness and efficiency if carried out centrally within one Department. In their practical operation there is much scope for co-operation at the local level
1546
—that is, between the local staff of the new Department, on the one hand, and the local authority officers and general practitioners on the other. The bringing of responsibility together will not automatically achieve a more effective service, but it will help towards this end. There will also be improved scope for co-ordinated research, including local survey work and the development of new ideas and policies. On October 16 the Prime Minister said in another place, and I echoed it here, that improved co-ordination was one of the main purposes of the reorganisation. I mentioned that at present problems affecting the elderly, the very young, and the long-term sick and disabled cut across Departmental boundaries.
In moving this Order, I should like to add one personal note. I think it was noticeable in some of the remarks which were made the other day that noble Lords, as indeed Members of another place, have a high regard for the two Ministers concerned. In particular, the Minister of Health—and what I say about him is in no way to the detriment of the Minister of Social Security—has for several years occupied a very difficult role. I think there is a degree of agreement that he has been a quite exceptional Minister of Health. I am therefore glad that in the course of these postings and personnel arrangements there is another place for him, where I am sure he will discharge his duties with great ability. There is no doubt that he has been a great and valuable Minister of Health. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Secretary of State for Social Services Order 1968 be made in the form of the Draft laid before the House on October 16.—(Lord Shackleton.)
3.28 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, my noble friend, Lord Sandford, welcomed this Order when it was announced, and I hasten to do the same. Indeed, I could hardly do otherwise, since the Conservative Manifesto in 1966 committed us to this merger. In principle, it is of course a very good thing to combine under one Department the responsibility for services to the individual, whether in cash, kind or care, be that individual a child or

1547
an old person, whether he is physically or mentally handicapped or otherwise in need of help. One advantage in particular was to be gained by this. Until now, I think I am right in saying, neither the Minister of Health nor the Minister of Social Security has normally had a seat in the Cabinet. Yet these two Ministers between them were responsible in 1967 for administering over a third of total central Government expenditure.
I looked up the figures and your Lordships may like to have them. Out of nearly £1,300 million of central Government expenditure, the National Health Service is listed in the national income and expenditure return as costing £1,270 million, and expenditure on war pensions, National Insurance, pensions and other benefits, family allowances and supplementary benefits amounted to over £2,900 million—well over £4,000 million in all between these two Ministries. This is a big assignment for any Minister, who has a weight of responsibility covering so many millions of people, quite apart from the hundreds of millions in cash, and this surely merits a seat in the Cabinet.
There have, of course, been overlords—I think there have been three—but overlordship is not, by and large, a satisfactory device. It tends to blur a Minister's responsibility for his own Department. The Conservative Government tried it and discarded it years ago. Generally speaking, surely the person who sits in the Cabinet should have the ministerial responsibility for the Departments over which he has to exercise authority. This has happened in the Defence services and it is logical that it should now be applied to the care of the individual. In this way it should be possible to make better use of resources, both human and financial, and co-ordinate them to the advantage of those whom they are designed to serve.
Of course, mergers ought not to be made unless there is a clear prospect of advantage for those for whom the Ministries exist. Where the Departments to be merged are different in character, there are bound to be difficulties to overcome, and I think I ought to point out the two main differences. The first is this. The Ministry of Health is mainly a co-ordi
1548
nating Department. Unlike the Ministry of Social Security, it does not have a large staff in the field. The Ministry of Social Security has a staff of 2,250 at headquarters. and over 58,000 at Newcastle, Blackpool and in the regional and local offices, plus 300 or so looking after hostels, reception and establishment centres.
To judge from the Green Paper on the administrative structure of the National Health Service for England and Wales, the Government do not intend to build up their own services in the field of health. They have put forward, as a basis for discussion, proposals for area boards which, according to paragraph 20, would take over the functions of the executive councils, regional hospital boards, boards of governors and hospital management committees, and would be responsible for planning and co-ordinating a very wide range of services—health centres, home nursing, health visiting domiciliary maternity services, child health services, family health centres, care of the long-term sick and ambulance services, not to mention postgraduate medical education and preventive medicine.
The present Minister of Health says in his introduction:
"The central theme of this Green Paper must be the unified administration of the medical and related services in an area by one authority, in place of the multiplicity of authorities concerned in the present arrangements."
By amalgamating the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Security, responsibility is being unified at the top for the cash and care services. That is all to the good. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will be able to say a little more about unifying administration at the ground level. On the one hand, the cart services will be under area authorities in co-operation with the general practitioner. On the other hand, the financial services will be under national authorities with their own network of services throughout the country. I wonder whether the noble Lord can say a little more about the advantages that the Government expect to gain at ground level.
To start with, is it expected that the areas for the two administrations will be the same? This has always been a difficult matter in administration. We

1549
have so many different areas—Post Office regions, Board of Trade regions, Ministry of Labour regions, hospital regions and the like—and I hope that with the consolidation of these two Ministries it will at any rate be possible to bring two sets of regions into line. Of course, the most obvious field "on the ground" is in the case of the physically handicapped, whether at home or in residential accommodation and hospitals, and in discovering and meeting the needs of the aged. I do not know whether plans have been made in advance of this amalgamation for this to be done, and, if so, whether the noble Lord can tell us about them.
The second difference is that the Ministry of Social Security covers the whole of Great Britain, while the Ministry of Health covers only England and Wales, so that you get a rather lop-sided merger. For Scotland, legislation dealing with social welfare services has already been passed this Session in the Social Work (Scotland) Act, and if the Seebohm Committee's recommendations for social service departments in local authorities are implemented there will be a similar kind of organisation in England and Wales. All the same, this seems to leave a problem, and I wonder what the Government envisage in the way of co-ordination between the two Secretaries of State and their Departments for their respective duties in Scoland. I do not know if it has been considered whether, to complete the merger, the Scottish section of the Ministry of Social Security should come under the Scottish Office.
The third question I should like to ask is whether the Government regard this merger as yet complete. If a man loses his job through redundancy there is no co-ordination between the unemployment benefit and redundancy payment, although of course the Ministry of Social Security has a responsibility for the collecting of redundancy payments. I wonder whether the new Secretary of State should not take over responsibility for redundancy payments. If I may introduce a slightly contentious note, he could hardly make a worse mess of it than the Ministry of Labour has done in respect of the cost and the financial control. Next, is it not time that policy and administration for family allowances were entrusted to one Minister and one Department, instead of being shuttled
1550
about between the Treasury and the Minister of Social Security, with the various Secretaries of State—for Scotland, for Education, for Employment and Productivity—joining in?
The noble Lord has touched en one of the sad features about mergers of two organisations, and that is that at least one of the two heads must go. In this merger it so happens that both Departments have political heads of quite exceptional ability, as the noble Lord said, and I should particularly like to pay my own tribute, as he did, to the Minister of Health—a man who has never sought popularity and who is wholly dedicated to his work, as I think all of my noble friends will agree. I wish that perhaps these two Ministers had some more positive assignments than they seem to have been given, but they certainly go to their new assignments with our good wishes.
I shall not ask the Minister how many civil servants he expects to save by the merger, though it is a common enough question. What I ask him is: how many have so far been saved by the absorption of the National Assistance Board by the Ministry of Social Security? This might be as good an indication as he could give us of what is likely to result from this merger. I do not ask this to embarrass the Minister, because I know that in fact the staff increase I by 3,176 in 1967. But part was due to the increase in the number of beneficiaries, and part to the work which the Ministry of Social Security does in connection with the selective employment tax. But if that can be left aside, perhaps the noble Lord could give us an indication of what this merger has meant or an equal basis; that is to say, making allowance for the increase in beneficiaries.
My last point is this. The new Secretary of State will be taking over at a time when both the National Health Service and the National Insurance system are under discussion, not to say under fire. He is credited—if that is the right phrase—with authorship of the Labour Party's scheme for National Superannuation in 1957, revised in 1958 and abandoned in 1960. He struggled on, and in 1963 produced New Frontiers for Social Security, proclaiming a scheme based on graduated contributions related to wages to give retirement pensions equal to half pay to the average worker.

1551
Perhaps in the last six months he has been overlording the long-promised scheme and will produce it with a flourish on November 1. Whenever it is produced, we have been assured that it will also provide for the long-term sick. At the same time we have, or will shortly have, before us not only Mr. Robinson's Green Paper, but the Seebohm Report on Local Authority and Allied Personal Services, and of course, also, the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government.
In order that all these matters may be considered together within one unified Department, this—and I hope my noble friends will agree—is a propitious time for the two Ministries to merge. High on his list of problems will no doubt be the problem of the wage stop, which still leaves 200,000 children in families living below the level of supplementary benefits—a problem of co-ordination of wage policy and social security policy, and a problem of quite exceptional difficulty. But apart from the immediate advantage that the Minister responsible for the two Departments merged will have a seat in the Cabinet, the advantages lie in the future as potentialities and not as certainties. It is up to the Government to turn them into realities for the benefit of the ordinary citizen, and in doing so they will of course have the full support of this side of your Lordships' House.
3.40 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should not like this opportunity to pass without my saying one or two words about the present Order, because (and this is the point I should like to touch upon first) I have known the present Minister of Health well for a very long time. I have worked in what is his constituency, and I have been very closely associated with him in all sorts of matters not entirely to do with his Department. My impression is that he has been the best Minister that we as a profession have had to work with since the days of Aneurin Bevan—which is saying something—and I am extremely sorry that he is giving up the work he is doing now. But I am sure he will do very well in the job he is going to, and I should like to wish him every success in it.
1552
The other point I should like to raise is this. While I can quite well see the advantage of joining the Ministry of Social Security with the Minitstry of Health, my mind goes back to the time when responsibility for environmental hygiene, and all that was involved in it, was taken from the Ministry of Health and put into (I think it is) the Ministry of Housing and Local Government because, it was said, it was far too big a Ministry and dealt with far too many things to work properly. It has always seemed to me that there was a very close connection between environmental hygiene (which, after all, is the basis of what a great deal of our society has been built on) and the prevention of disease, which is the job of the Ministry of Health at the present time. Therefore, it does not seem to me to be entirely logical to bring together the two Ministries which deal with hardship and at the same time not to join up in some kind of way the two Ministries which deal with the prevention of disease. I am not quite sure how that could have been done, because if a third Ministry had been brought into it I think it would have made far too large a Ministry. Nevertheless, I shall be interested to see whether these two Ministries now joined together do work successfully. If they do, it may be worth while thinking once more about what to do with environmental hygiene.
One of the great points the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has mentioned is that the Minister in charge of this Department will now be in the Cabinet, and I wonder whether it will be possible once more for us to have in this House a Departmental Minister in charge of health affairs, rather than somebody who does the work extremely well but is not connected with the Department itself. It was a great advantage, I think, when we had in this House a Departmental Minister from the Ministry of Health, and I wonder whether that will be possible in the future when this new Ministry gets going.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I should like just to ask one question. I may be wrong, but I had the feeling from the speech of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn that the Ministry of Health Green Paper was a foregone conclusion. I understand that this Green Paper is

1553
for discussion only, and I should like to have that confirmed because a great many discussions are taking place all over the country on this Green Paper. Perhaps I have got it wrong—I see that my noble friend indicates that I have. But I think confirmation of that would help many of us throughout the country, and we should be grateful to hear that that is so.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I wonder whether I also might ask the Minister a question, concerning the relationships of the local authorities with this new Department—because the local authorities have charge of the administration of certain welfare services. I am thinking particularly of old people, of people leaving mental hospitals and coming back into the community and of a variety of social security matters which, under the old system, have been entirely administered by the local authorities.
Equally, the hospital system in any given area is, of course, nothing at all to do with the local authority: they have nothing to do with the administration of the hospitals. Under the new scheme, will the local authorities still be the administrative bodies for much of the social security work, or will that be taken over and dealt with on the basis of the hospitals? In other words, will it be taken from the local authorities because it will then be linked up with the hospital service? I think this is rather important, since so much of the working, on the administrative side, of the Acts of Parliament concerning social security which have gone through has depended upon its being carried out by local authorities. What is the relationship between the local authorities and the new set-up when it comes into being?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I very briefly re-emphasise what the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, asked about the Green Paper? It has been rather distressing for those of us in the hospital world to find that the Green Paper has been rather assumed to have become a White Paper overnight, and we need reassurance on this point before the deliberations which we hope will take place in this House.
3.47 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for turning this into a general, interesting debate of
1554
a kind which certainly would not have been possible on an Order in another place, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will know very well. In this relaxed, end-of-term atmosphere, with the pressures of the Transport Bill and other Bills gone, this has given rise to a number of interesting points on which I hope I shall be able to give some reassurance. Therefore, it is rather important that one is able to have this opportunity. I would first of all say how much I appreciate the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Amulree and Lord Drumalbyn, about my right honourable friend Mr. Kenneth Robinson. I think we have had an exceptionally dedicated, strong, effective and humane man in that job.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that I have of course noted his remarks about ministerial representation in this House. This is a subject which, naturally, deeply concerns me. We should like to have a lot of Ministers, but I think I should be straying very far if I went beyond saying that we have noted his remarks. I think, if I may say so, that some of my colleagues do have difficulties—and these will be acknowledged by other noble Lords who have had the experience of being departmental spokesmen without being members of the Department concerned—but they have coped very well in this field. However, I note the noble Lord's point.
Turning now to some of the other issues, first of all I agree with the noble Lord that it is very desirable to have the Minister in the Cabinet. Of course, Departmental Ministers who are not in Cabinet—one is giving away no secret—do turn up when issues of their particular concern are under discussion. None the less, such a vast and important area of government particularly merits representation; and, as the noble Lord says, although one is now and again forced back to having co-ordinating Ministers, the system of overlords is an unsatisfactory one. Indeed, I remember that one of the less enjoyable episodes of my life was when I was twitting the late Sir Winston Churchill on his overlords, a subject on which he was peculiarly sensitive. His colleagues did not like it a bit, and I got the full weight of his wrath, mainly because he misunderstood a reference I made to Lord Cherwell.

1555
So I know all about overlords; and there is no doubt, I think, that what is proposed here is right. It is more difficult to be a co-ordinating Minister than a Minister with executive responsibility. My right honourable friend Mr. Crossman (we shall all be able to watch him on television tonight, though he will not be talking on this area of his interests) has been deeply interested in all these fields, and I am sure that he will bring great imagination and vitality into something which calls for imagination as well as for organising ability.
My Lords, this discussion has started to revolve around the Green Paper. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, raised this matter. It must be stated absolutely firmly that the Green Paper is for discussion; although, naturally, many people take sides on this. I have my own views on the Green Paper; but it has been deliberately put out for consideration. It raises interesting and important issues; but some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, are matters which really cannot he discussed to-day. It is not only the Green Paper; there is the action that may be taken in due course through Seebohm and, of course, we are waiting for Maud. I am saying clearly that the Government are thinking very hard on these matters and that there are all sorts of plans and ideas under consideration.
The difficulty is that one cannot do everything at once; the Government are taking it in stages. We have no intention of going off at half cock on the Green Paper. It is far too important a matter, as are the relations with the local authorities. Initially, of course, there is no change in the organisation locally. There is co-ordination at the top. There will be, in particular, the development of certain common services both on the establishments side and the social side and there will he room for some rationalisation at headquarters. It is true, notwithstanding the remarks I made about overlords, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services does have a wider concern than merely his Department. He will be responsible for the co-ordination
1556
and, above all, for the development of the co-ordination, over the whole social services field. This will enable him to make sure that measures for environmental health—and I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who was on an obviously important point—will be considered along with other health measures. I think therefore that I cannot answer (and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, expects me to answer) his questions about areas and whether the area boards will be the same. But, in any case, the policy is not yet settled in certain of these matters.
There were certain other points that noble Lords asked me. I should say that there are no plans for actually integrating the local services of hospitals and general practitioners with the local offices administrating cash benefits. This is the sort of discussion in which at the end one is driven inevitably to the conclusion that everything should be in one large Ministry, that everybody should live in London, preferably all in Whitehall, controlled by one computer which would probably be at Newcastle. One can only do one's best; but I think this is a logical and natural integration from the policy point of view. I do not think I can deal with the question of redundancy payments; nor will I be drawn by the noble Lord into a discussion of whether they are good or bad. I should have thought that they were serving the purpose for which they were intended, which must be not only to protect people who have the misfortune of losing their jobs but, above all, to facilitate the rationalisation and re-organisation of industry. So I will merely say that I do not accept his particular criticism. I am sure that he does not want to go further—
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him. I was talking only about the financial administration of this, the financial control, which has cost the country very much more than was originally estimated.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not see how the noble Lord can expect to see a financial control in relation to something which is determined by numbers and events outside direct control. Nobody has been more worried than the Government, and particularly

1557
the Treasury, about the mounting cost; but they are serving their purpose. I would not say that it is faulty administration. The noble Lord might wish to say that it is faulty government; although I am sure that in his present kindly mood he would not want to say that. It is in my view nothing to do with the control. However, I think perhaps I had better not go any further.
My Lords, I have mentioned that there will be merging of certain Departments. I mentioned establishments, organisation, information and intelligence; but the Ministries will generally go on as before. My right honourable friend will have his principal office at Alexander Fleming House at the Elephant and Castle, and noble Lords may be interested to know that for the time being Mr. Swingler, Minister of State, will have his office at the present Ministry of Social Security building in John Adam Street and will look particularly after the social security side of the new Department. Mr. Ennals will concern himself particularly with the Health service.
There are difficulties. As one who has worked as a Minister within a federal department the Ministry of Defence as it was, I know of these difficulties; but they can be overcome and they will be overcome and gradually one gets this better organised policy. The noble Lord asked me what savings had been made as a result of the 1966 merger. He was kind enough to point out that he already knew that manpower had increased so that it was difficult to point to a saving in manpower; but there has been a major rationalisation. It so happened that, wearing my Civil Service Department hat, I have recently seen some of the work which has been going on. It is of a very advanced kind. If noble Lords want to see the finest application of P.E.R.T. networking they will find it in some of the work done in the co-ordination of the old Assistance side with the Ministry. But there has been extra manpower and cost resulting from the success of the supplementary benefit schemes and the additional task which this Government, I confess, have put on civil servants to perform.
I am glad that no noble Lord asked me anything about the Children's Department. I hope it is clear that there is no change in regard to this at the
1558
moment. Although the Secretary of State for Social Services in his co-ordination role will have an interest in this it is much too early to say what change there will be. On the question of Scotland, again I am sure that noble Lords would not expect that there would be any general change. Things may look lopsided on a chart; but it does not mean that they are not practical solutions. The Secretary of State for Social Services will be responsible for the social security services in Scotland as is the present Minister of Social Security. I do not wish to be drawn into any suggestion of further devolution in that direction at the moment.
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords. I believe I have answered practically every point that has been made. I would only say something which I think one should say, since we have been generous in our compliments. Anyone who has worked with officials in the Ministry of Health, and particularly with those in the regions of the Ministry of National Insurance, and in the offices, will know that there you find a most devoted group of people who do not at all conform to the public idea of civil servants. They really are civil servants and they deal with the public as human beings. I am grateful that your Lordships appear likely to approve this Order.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, sits down, may I ask whether he realises how relieved were those of us who are members of county councils to hear what he said about the position regarding the Green Paper? Does he realise that it confirms us in the view that the Government not only wish the Green Paper to be discussed by county councils but are prepared to keep an open mind until the results come up? Does the noble Lord realise how important that is, seeing that the local authorities have not only to form considered and serious opinions on the Green Paper but also on the Seebohm and Maud Reports, as the three things are related?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.1 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing with certain of the Lords Amendments to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (116) as first printed for the Lords. The Commons Reason is printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
Clause 2, page 2, line 27, leave out Clause 2.
Schedule 1, page 14, line 17, leave out paragraphs 3 to 7.
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because the Amendments are at variance with the purposes of Part I of the Bill, which is designed to confer on illegitimate children the same rights in the estate of a deceased parent as those enjoyed by legitimate children.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed. Noble Lords will recall the proceedings in this House on the several occasions upon which this part of the Bill was debated. They culminated in the acceptance by your Lordships of Lord Drumalbyn's Amendments deleting the provision giving illegitimate persons the only indefeasible right of succession conferred by the Bill: the right to legitim out of their parents' estate. My Lords, I can add little to what I said then. The Government remain firmly of the opinion that in this matter of principle the right and the just course to pursue is to give illegitimate children the right of succession in their parents' estate which legitimate children have. For this we must retain in the Bill the original Clause 2 and the consequential paragraphs in Schedule 1. I am in complete accord with the reasons for the disagreement to these Amendments in an
1560
other place, and for that reason I now ask that the House doth not insist on its Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, here we have something which I put forward and which a majority of your Lordships were good enough to agree with. This matter has gone back to another place and it was very fully debated yesterday. The other place have confirmed their view—in fact it was the first time the other place had dealt with this point in detail, apart from the Committee stage. My Lords, I regret their decision. This clause is different in kind altogether from the first clause, which deals with succession in intestacy. This involves the overriding of the express wishes of a testator in favour of illegitimate children and in that respect gives the same right to them as to legitimate children. I still do not feel that this is right, but I would not advise my noble friends to contest the view of the majority as expressed in another place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RACE RELATIONS BILL
4.5 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER):My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments on the Race Relations Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (170) as first printed for the Lords. The Commons Reason is printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
Clause 18, page 12, line 42, leave out subsection (7).
Clause 18,page 13, line 4, leave out sub-section (8).
Clause 19, page 14, line 12, leave out subsection (7).
Clause 19, page 14,line 18, leave out subsection (8).
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because they would leave it open to courts hearing the new causes of action created by the Bill to arrive at decisions without assessors, and it is desirable for decisions in the field of racial discrimination to be taken with the assistance of persons having special knowledge and experience of race relations.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed. I do not suppose that any of your Lordships will want the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and me to rehearse, for the third time, the views which we have expressed on the question of assessors. That question has now been considered in another place for about an hour and a half, in a debate which, naturally, covered substantially the same ground. As your Lordships know, there are four views which anybody is entitled to hold. One is that these questions ought to be left to the courts; the second is that we ought to have special race relations tribunals; the third is that they should be left to the county court for a county court judge alone to decide but that he should be assisted by two experts on race relations as assessors, and the fourth is that they should be heard by a county court judge and two assessors voting by a majority.
As I have said, these views were considered below. It would be ungracious on my part not to acknowledge the observations made by the chief spokesman for the Opposition, whom I must not quote, but they were to the effect that Parliament ought to be grateful to my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General and to me for having saved us from special race relations tribunals. Of course, I express no opinion myself on that.
My Lords, if I may say so, it will, I think, be a matter for consideration by the county court judges whether they should not follow the practice—which is, I believe, observed by assessors, the Elder Brethren of Trinity House, who sit on Admiralty cases—in which the judge, if he is acting in part in his decision on the advice given by one of the assessors, says
1562
so in the course of his judgment in open court. I must not, of course, conceal from your Lordships that this is not my favourite clause in the Bill. Neither must I conceal my view that as apparently the Chairman of the Race Relations Board would have proposed—in the event of the assessors being taken out of the Bill—that the Board should exercise its undoubted legal right to apply to county court judges for assessors, as between those alternatives it is better to have it in the Bill rather than have differing practices among different county court judges; and it is better for the Lord Chancellor—though he does not want any more to do—to find experts in race relations rather than that it should be left under the County Court Rules for them to be found by the local registrar the local county court.
Finally, noble Lords may feel that this is perhaps not a matter in which they should seek to press their views any further, bearing in mind the fact that when they considered this question in a Committee of the Whole House, with about 131 voting, they decided that they agreed with the other place in having assessors; and that when they reconsidered that opinion, with about 40 fewer Members voting, they changed their minds. In view of all those facts I hope that your Lordships will not insist on the Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendments to which the commons have disagreed.—(The Lord chancellor.)
4.9 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I assure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that my recommendation to this House would certainly be that we should not insist on our Amendments. That fact does not prevent me from greatly deploring the attitude taken by Her Majesty's Government yesterday in another place. The Amendments to the English clause, the first two of these Amendments, were mine. They wt re a definite attempt to improve the Bill and I think that improvement was successfully accomplished. While there had been great differences in this House and in another place about what should constitute unlawful acts of discrimination, I think there was a great measure of

1563
agreement in both Houses that we desired the court proceedings to be such as would command the greatest sense of justice among all concerned. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it would be inappropriate to rehearse all the reasons that were then given, but may I remind your Lordships of this single fact? In this very novel state of the law, in which new quasi-torts or civil wrongs are being created. we shall have this position. The plaintiff in every case will be the Race Relations Board. The judge will be a county court judge who will be compulsorily assisted by two assessors appointed from a list prepared by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and it will not be disputed that their skills and qualifications will he precisely the same as the qualifications of those who are chosen to constitute the Race Relations Board.
I ask your Lordships to imagine the effect on the mind of a defendant who comes before a court on a wholly novel charge, that he has been responsible for a tort that has never hitherto been a tort. He is being sued by the Race Relations Board and the judge is considered a person not qualified to decide by himself the difficult questions put before him, but is to be assisted by people of precisely the same qualifications as the plaintiffs and whose advice to the judge he will not hear. I understood from the noble and learned Lord that that may not be so, and that the judge may himself indicate the advice which had been given. I very much hope the noble and learned Lord is right in that assumption.
In the debate in another place last night my Amendment and the support given to it by this House were supported, and very weightily supported, by Members, legal and non-legal, of the Conservative Party and of the Liberal Party. In the ensuing Division, all the Members of the Liberal Party present voted in favour of our Amendment. For those reasons, I greatly regret the Government's decision, but I concur entirely with the advice of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that we should not insist on our Amendments. The Commons have decided and, there being this clash between the Houses, I have no hesitation in advising this House to accept their view. I am certain in my own mind—and I hope I shall be forgiven for saying this
1564
because I have given a good deal of thought to the subject—that the decision is a wrong one. I am certain that it is a decision which will be much regretted by Her Majesty's Government themselves.
As I listened to the debate in another place, I was impressed by Members, who spoke from both the Liberal and the Conservative Benches, all making the point that the more cases under this Bill were considered as ordinary cases and not treated as special, the better for the cause of harmony in race relations. Anything that gives the court a distinctive and novel character was to be deplored.
In an earlier debate the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack said, quite rightly, that this was a compromise and that compromises are not always wrong. I respectfully agree with him but, as was pointed out by Mr. Quintin Hogg, who was praised by the noble and learned Lord for his conduct of the Bill, in another place (I am not consciously using his exact words), I cannot approve of a compromise when it is a compromise between sense and nonsense. That is what this compromise is. There is an argument for a special court and overwhelming arguments against it, and I congratulate the Government lawyers in providing that at least we are saved from the nonsense of a special court. But, having saved us from that nonsense, they ought not to have insisted on assessors to assist the ordinary court.
For one thing I am deeply grateful, and that is that the other place have assigned the Reason for which they have turned down my Amendment. They say:
"Because they would leave it open to courts hearing the new causes of action created by the Bill to arrive at decisions without assessors,—
and I ask the House to mark these words—
"and it is desirable for decisions in the field of racial discrimination to be taken with the assistance of persons having special knowledge and experience of race relations."
If I may. I will quote some words I heard from Winston Churchill in commenting on another statement of this kind:
"The opposite of the truth could scarcely be expressed with greater precision."
4.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I join with my noble friend Lord Conesford in regretting the Government's decision to

1565
retain this provision in the Bill. In the course of the debates on this Bill I have not expressed any opinions with regard to the other parts of it, whether they be good or bad. In my view, this provision is bad. I know no real precedent for it, and I am sorry to say that I think that it will be a very unfortunate precedent for the future.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has indicated that it would be a good thing that a county court judge, when he receives advice from the assessors, should disclose what that advice is. I think that that would be an excellent thing, and I hope that county court judges will be advised to say, when giving their judgments, whether or not they have received any assistance from the compulsory assessors, and, if they have received it, what that advice is.
When this subject was debated on the second occasion—and the noble and learned Lord seemed to think that something was wrong about our reversing our previous decision: I was not here on Committee stage—I asked specifically on what issues, what questions, the assessors would be expected to give assistance. Was it in the judge's task in determining questions of fact?—and it will be a question of fact for him to determine as to whether or not there has been discrimination. Or was it as to what should be done if the judge decided that there had in fact been discrimination? Those questions of mine have not so far been answered, either by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or by spokesmen for the Government in another place. I still do not know what are the matters, what are the issues, on which it is thought that assistance in these particular types of case will be required from assessors.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made it clear more than once that it will be for the judge to decide all these matters: to decide whether or not the evidence establishes discrimination; and to decide what should be done if it does establish it. I pose this question. In approaching that task, a county court judge has to proceed impartially and independently. Is he bound to ask for assistance in determining who is telling the truth, or what remedy to impose? I should like to know that. These specially qualified persons are being imposed on the county court judge. Is he bound to
1566
put questions to them? Is he bound to seek their views? Or will it be left to him only to ask for them when he thinks that they might be helpful on some particular point? I hope that it is the latter; but I should like to know.
We are told, my Lords, that the assessors will be people with particular qualifications. The only answer to the argument advanced last time by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor (and I will not repeat the argument), and in his answer to-day, was that it would be better to have assessors in all cases under this Bill than to leave it to the Race Relations Board to apply in particular cases for assessors and have assessors sitting in some county courts and dot in others. I am astonished to think (it may be implied—I do not know; but l hope not) that the Race Relations Board have so little confidence in Her Majesty's judges as to think that they cannot determine questions of fact without assistance. I am astonished, also, to think that they regard these questions of fact and the interpretation of this Bill as so difficult as to require the advice of experts on racial relations. The kind of case that will come before these judges is whether in a particular instance a man has been guilty of a particular kind of conduct. I do not think that any expertise which a county court judge does not possess is required to answer that kind of question.
My Lords, I do not take the view that it is better to have assessors automatically than to leave it to the Race Relations Board to apply for them in particular cases. I do not exclude the possibility—although I cannot see it—that a case might arise in which assessors could serve a useful purpose. As I say, I cannot see such a case; but if there were one, then they could apply, in the same way is an application can be made to the county court now. In the ordinary case, where there was no such special requirement or need. I would much rather see application made to the county court judge, who I am sure would welcome sitting with assessors if he felt that they had a t useful role to play. But I do not think the fact that some disparity existed as between different county courts would matter in this instance, any more than it matters now if assessors sit with one county court judge on one case and not with

1567
another county court judge on another case. And, of course, there is the right of appeal from that decision.
My Lords, the Reason why the Commons have disagreed seems to me not easily reconcilable with the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I should like to be clear upon this, if the noble and learned Lord is going to reply—and I say this in conclusion. Is it, as he regards it under this Bill, in every case the duty of the county court judge to ask for the assessors' views? And, if it is, is he bound to ask them for their views on the evidence?—in which case, they will be acting perhaps as a kind of pseudo jury. Or is he bound to ask them their views as to whether damages should be awarded for loss sustained.
I think, my Lords, that this is a wretched compromise. I cannot congratulate the Government or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on having achieved it. But at the same time I join with my noble friend in thinking that it would be better, rather than standing firm on this Amendment, to see how it operates; and I hope that we shall in due course rescind it.
4.27 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to add a few sentences. I was unable to be present during the debate on the Report stage because I was in long, and I hope useful, discussions with my noble friend Lord Shepherd on another matter. But I do not think I can be silent to-day when this Bill is reaching its conclusion. I am not going to enter into discussion with noble Lords on the points which they have raised. I would only say this: that I think the Opposition are wise in taking the view that we must learn from experience in this and other matters. I have my reservations on certain points in the Bill, but my overwhelming feeling is one of congratulation and gratitude to the Government that they should have introduced it. I feel that in this debate, instead of our discussing what are incidental, though important, matters, a tribute ought to be paid in this House that we are now to have this type of legislation on our Statute Book, which will indicate to the world that this country stands against racial discrimination.
1568
I venture to say this because it is now 18 years since I first introduced a Bill on this matter in the other place. I was not the pioneer. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Sorensen, who introduced the first Bill on this issue, is not present on this occasion, which I regard as historic. I think that tribute should be paid to my noble friend as a pioneer in this respect: all I tried to do was to follow in his steps. The overwhelming feeling that is with me at this moment is that after 18 years, having had to meet considerable opposition, we now have this Bill before the House supplementing the earlier measure that was introduced. I hope that from this House, in the concluding stages of this Bill, there will go out, not criticism of incidental matters, however important they are (and of course they can be adjusted as we have experience of the Bill), but the tremendous fact that our Government and Parliament have now indicated to the whole world that we are against racial discrimination, and we believe that men and women, whatever may be their race or colour, belong to one family and, as citizens in this country, should have equal rights.
4.30 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wish only to add this brief footnote to our discussions. May I say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that I personally feel it perfectly appropriate at this stage, above all, in the Bill that we should be concerned with certain details. It seems to me more appropriate that we should be concerned with those points than with certain more general aspects that I should have thought had been very fully covered in earlier stages of our discussions. In any event, at Third Reading, at our last stage of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack spoke—and I was very struck by the sincerity of his words about the Government's wish in their handling of the Bill to find as much common ground as possible. With those words fresh in my mind, I personally find the attitude which the Government have taken towards these Lords Amendments really rather sad.
Like other noble Lords, I have read the proceedings in another place with close attention, and I must say that in my view the Government clearly got the worst of the argument—and I do not

1569
think that they have had the best of the argument this afternoon. I find it rather disheartening that they should nevertheless have decided to bludgeon the Lords Amendments out of the Bill by the application of the Party Whip, against the run of opinion in another place and against the weight of argument in another place. I can only say, in conclusion, that I very much regret that the Government on this occasion have not accepted the advice of your Lordships' House and thereby taken steps to improve in this particular, not unimportant, aspect the Bill now before your Lordships. Nevertheless, my Lords, much though I regret their decision on this point, I share the views expressed by my noble friends that we must now see how the Bill operates, and that it would be wrong for us to seek to prolong this argument with another place.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords. I hope it is in order for me to make a few remarks at this moment upon the Commons' objection to our Amendment, and to seek, perhaps, some clarification from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack when he winds up. I am particularly concerned—and I think my concern is shared by my noble friends on my left—that we are, by agreeing to this Amendment, agreeing to what is basically a new departure in the application of justice in the county courts. It seems to me that we have a situation where the plaintiffs, who will always be the Race Relations Board, in setting out their case will he aided by the assessors—who apparently will have similar qualifications to those of, and may indeed have other connections with, the Race Relations Board—in the advice that these assessors will give to the county court judges. The fact that the county court judges may subsequently tell the court what that advice was hardly helps, because presumably by that time the judge will be summing up, when it is of course far too late for the defence to rebut any of the suggestions made by the assessors, who appear to have similar qualifications at least to the plaintiff; namely, the Race Relations Board. I hope therefore that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be able to clarify and perhaps set my mind at rest on this point.
4.34 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I rise for a moment or two merely to indicate to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack that a voice is being raised in this House in support of the line that he has taken. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, saw fit to call in aid of his case some words by the late Sir Winston Churchill. The words of Sir Winston Churchill were multitudinous and multifarious, and if I cared to search my memory sufficiently I could find many of them which expressed the view which he then held of the Conservative Party. But that would be quite irrelevant to our discussion here this afternoon. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, rather weakened his case by having to depend, by having to fall back, on words which Sir Winston Churchill had used. It seemed to indicate that he was not quite confident of the force of the argument that he himself had been able to marshall against this Bill.
I also seemed to sense in the utterance of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, some indication of the idea that if the county court judge had to sit with assessors then the respect in which that county court judge would be held by those who appeared before him was likely to be undermined. People, he indicated, would seem to feel that the judge himself was not competent to adjudicate in these cases, and that he really required the assistance of these other two people so that he could arrive at a proper judgment.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord in all his arguments is always so fair that I am sure he would not wish to misrepresent me. Of course, what I am saying is that that is the effect of the Statute without this Amendment: that the defendant is being told that Parliament considers this matter too difficult for the judge alone. That was the point I was making.
LORD LEATHER LAND: My Lords, the point is exactly the one I was making, except that, whereas I said the people who will appear in the court would gain that impression, now we are being told that that impression is being forced upon them by Parliament in all its wisdom. The argument is still the same.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is a lawyer of great experience. I am not.

1571
But in my young reporting days it was my duty to attend county courts very regularly and to travel round my particular county at that time in Cheshire in the footsteps of the county court judge. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will remember him: His honour Judge Ruegg, the great authority on the Rent Act. I came to the conclusion that I have never seen tangled webs of evidence, of truth and of lying, unravelled with more complete efficiency than I used to see that task performed by the county court judge. I am quite sure that county court judges are quite competent to deal with any problem that comes before them, and to weigh up all the evidence that may be placed before them.
However, I am in favour of the appointment of these assessors. If the assessors are to be appointed—and I refer now to another of the noble Lord's arguments and to one which I think was used by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne—then I think they should be compulsorily present in every single case, and not merely be present in particular cases where somebody has asked for them. If we are to have an air of impartiality, then let them be there automatically on every occasion. If there is an element of picking and choosing as to when an assessor shall be sitting and when he shall not be sitting, I think it might undermine the measure of authority which the judge and the assessors would normally have.
I am very firmly of the opinion that if the county court judge finds it necessary in any case to retire to his private room to look up a point of law or for some other purpose, the assessors most decidedly should not retire with him. I further feel that if the assessors are to give any advice on native customs, social conditions, or matters of that kind, to the county court judge, then they should do so orally, loudly, and in such a manner that everybody in the court will be able to hear them. There should be no whispering into the judge's ear as there sometimes is whispering by the clerk of the court to the chairman of a bench of magistrates. Also, I feel that in giving their advice, or the benefit of their experience with coloured people, to the county court judge, the assessors should not say anything to the county court
1572
judge which really ought to be placed before the court in evidence and subjected to the possibility of cross-examination.
Having said all that, my Lords, I feel that many of the coloured people who come before our courts, in a strange land with customs far different from those prevailing in their own territories, may look upon the county court judge as the great symbol of law and order, and possibly of repression, and that the presence of two what I will call respectable civilians sitting on either side of the judge might enable these people, these deprived people, in many cases, to feel a greater sense of confidence in the impartiality of the court. With those few little provisos which I mention regarding the way in which the assessors should conduct themselves, I am heartily in favour of retaining the provision for assessors in the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will not want me to prolong the argument, but in case I be thought discourteous I should perhaps say two things. First, in reply to the observations made by the noble Earl. Lord Jellicoe, as to the extent to which the Government should meet the opposition to this Bill (with which basically, as he knows, I agree), I would respectfully point out that there is no doubt at all that there are a great many supporters of the Government who feel strongly that race relations is such a sensitive subject that it ought to be dealt with by special race relations courts and not left to a judge who may have had nothing at all to do with race relations or with coloured people.
Therefore, the Government moved to a second suggestion—and there were many who thought it the right solution —that the court should consist of a county court judge and two assessors hearing everything together and deciding by a majority. It may be that as a lawyer I am prejudiced, but to have a judge of questions—particularly if the questions involve to some extent questions of law—outvoted by two laymen would not have commended itself to me. Hence the Government have moved to the third suggestion; namely, that the judge only shall decide but that he shall have assessors sitting with him.

1573
Then there was a point stressed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who asked whether the judge is obliged to ask questions of his assessors, and, if he does, what questions he is to ask them and on what points. The position will be exactly as it is under Section 91 of the County Courts Act, which provides that application may be made for assessors who are to assist the judge. The existing Act does not say how far the judge is bound to ask them questions, or exactly what questions he is to ask. It is left to him, and the position under this Bill when it becomes law will be just the same. For that reason, it does not seem to me that it would make much difference whether we leave in the assessors or take them out of the Bill, because without altering the County Courts Act I understand that the Board are entitled to say that they would apply in every case for assessors. I should imagine that, having been invited, learned county court judges would he unlikely to refuse, in which case we arrive at the same position, except for two points. First, some judges might differ; and, secondly, I feel with all respect that while I do not want any more work to do, I have local contacts all over the country. I have my county courts and their staffs, and I have 190 advisory committees on the appointment of justices of the peace. But it would have been difficult, I think, to have left it, under the Rules of the county court, for the registrar of the local county court in some way to find people skilled in race relations. I do not intend to continue the argument any further at this point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
4.45 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments and the Commons consequential and other Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments and the Commons consequential and other Amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Scrota.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should have said that for convenience of reference the Marshalled List contains not only the Commons Amendments which this House has now to consider but also the original Amendments to which the Commons Amendments relate. I shall call only those Amendments on which the House has to take some action.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS C0NSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF ONE OTHER OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (132) as first printed for the Lords. Commons amendment; are printed in italics.]
[No. 1]

LORDS AMENDMENT
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusa
".—(1) The Minister may give directions requiring applications for established use certificates to be referred to him instead of being dealt with by local planning authorities and. on any such application being referred to him in accordance with such directions, section (Certification of established use) (4) above shall apply in relation to the Minister as it applies in relation to the local planning authority in the case of an application determined by them.
(2) Where an application is made to a local planning authority for an established use certificate and is refused, or is refused in part, the applicant may by notice under this subsection appeal to the Minister; and or any such appeal the Minister shall—

(a) if and so far as he is satisfied that the authority's refusal is not well-founded, grant to the appellant an established use certificate accordingly or, as the case may be, modify the certificate granted by the authority on the application; and

(b) if and so far as he is satisfied that the authority's refusal is well-founded, dismiss the appeal.

(3) On an application referred to him under subsection (1) above or on an appeal to him under subsection (2) above, the Minister may, in respect of any use of land for which I an established use certificate is not granted (either by him or by the local planning authority), grant planning permission for that use or, as the case may be, for the continuance of that use without complying with some condition subject to which a previous planning permission was granted.
(4) Before determining an application or appeal under this section the Minister shall, if either the applicant or appellant (as the case may be) or the local planning authority so desire, afford to each of them an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose.
(5) The decision of the Minister on an application referred to him, or on an appeal, under this section shall be final.
(6) In the case of any use of land for which the Minister has power to grant planning permission under this section, the applicant or appellant shall be deemed to have made an application for such planning permission; and any planning permission so granted shall be treated as granted on the said application."
The Commons agreed to this Amendment and made the following consequential Amendment to the Bill:—
[No. 2]
Page 19, line 27, leave out "section 16(2)" and insert "sections 16(2) and (Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal) (4)".
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendment No. 2. It inserts a missing "consequential" into Clause 19.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendment No. 2.—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 3]
Clause 17, page 17, line 29, at end insert—
"() Where a person (in this subsection called 'the contractor') is under contract to another person (in this subsection called 'the developer') to carry out any operations on land and—

(a) a stop notice takes effect (whether in relation to the developer or the contractor, or both) prohibiting the carrying out or continuance of those operations; and

(b) the operations are countermanded or discontinued by the contractor accordingly,

then, unless and in so far as the contract makes provision explicitly to the contrary of this subsection, the developer shall be under the same liability in contract as if the operations had been countermanded or discontinued on instructions given by him in breach of the contract.
This subsection applies only to contracts entered into on or before 1st November 1969, whether before or after the commencement of this section."
The Commons agreed to this Amendment, but proposed the following Amendment there to:
Line 16, leave out "1st November" and insert "the end of".
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4 to the Lords Amendment No. 3. In moving this Motion I should like to point out to your Lordships that the effect of
1576
this Amendment is to prolong by two months the period during which the provisions dealing specially with the right of a contractor whose work has to be interrupted to claim compensation from his employer remain operative. Your Lordships who participated at the Committee and other stages of the Bill will recall that originally in this House the period was 12 months. This Amendment is an extension of the period, and we hope that it is acceptable to your Lordships in this form.
Moved. That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4 to the Lords Amendment No. 3.— (Baroness Serota.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: My Lords, I think this Amendment is indeed acceptable. It is a transitional matter, and as I said when the substantive Amendment was introduced into the Bill at Third Reading a number of people consider that it is the wrong way round but at that stage there was nothing that could be done about it. It is a pity that the Government were not able to deal with this matter before the Third Reading in this House, because it was raised quite early in proceedings in another place. But if there are another two months of specific protection before it has to be done by contractual forms. so be it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
(No. 5]
Clause 20, page 20, line 15, leave out from "Minister" to "shall" in line 16 and insert "whichever of the following provisions are relevant, that is to say those of the principal Act;
section 16 of this Act:
section 18(2) to (4) of this Act:
Part I of Schedule 5 to this Act; and section 14 of the Civic Amenities Act 1967,"
The commons agreed to this Amendment, but proposed the following Amendment thereto:
[No. 6]
Line 4, leave out "(4)" and insert "(5)"
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6 to the Lords Amendment No. 5. In doing so I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the original Amendment made to Clause 20

1577
by your Lordships is incorrectly reproduced in the Paper. Where it says "section 18", it should have referred to the second of the new clauses about established use certificates; and the subsequent reference should be to Schedule 3 and not to Schedule 5. The Commons Amendment corrects an error in the Amendment which came before your Lordships' House, to Clause 20, page 20, line 15 of the Bill, which was not corrected on Third Reading.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6 to the Lords Amendment No. 5.—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No.7]
Clause 21, page 21, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
The Commons agreed to this Amendment and made the following consequential Amendment to the Bill:
[No. 8]
Page 21, line 11, leave out from "had" to "but" in line 17, and insert "with reference to the person previously appointed, asked the question referred to in section 19(6) above, the question need not be asked again with reference to the person appointed under this section and any answers to the question shall be treated as given with reference to him".
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their consequential Amendment No. 8.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their consequenial Amendment No. 8.—(Baroness Scrota.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 9]
Clause 58, page 50, leave out lines 16 to 22 and insert—
"(4) If after the commencement of this section outline planning permission is granted without the conditions required by subsection (2) above, it shall be deemed to have been granted subject to these conditions.
(5)The authority concerned with the terms of an outline planning permission may, in applying subsection (3) above, substitute, or direct that there be substituted, for the periods of three years, five years or two years referred to in that subsection such other periods respectively (whether longer or shorter) as they consider appropriate.
(6)The said authority may, in applying the said subsection, specify, or direct that there be specified, separate periods under paragraph
1578

(a) of the subsection in relation to separate parts of the development to which the planning permission relates; and, if they do so, the condition required by paragraph (b) of the subsection shall then be framed correspondingly by reference to those parts, instead of by reference to the development as a whole.

(7) In considering whether to exercise their powers under subsections (5) and (6) above, the said authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations."
The Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment thereto:
[No. 10]
Line 3, leave out "(2)" and insert "(3)".
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10 to the Lords Amendment No. 9. This is a drafting Amendment which I hope your Lordships will find acceptable.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10 to the Lords Amendment No. 9.—(Baroness Serota.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it is not a drafting Amendment. What has happened is that this House has been shown by this form of dealing with the matter to have made a mistake. But in fact this House did not make a mistake, either in this case or in the case of Amendment No. 12. We got it perfectly right when we sent the Bill to the Commons. What I believe has happened is that when the Lords Amendments which were passed on Third Reading in both these cases were turned back into references to the Bill as it was originally sent to us, the draftsman wrote it down for the Commons incorrectly, and the Commons presumably passed it incorrectly. Now we are told that we made the mistake. This is not so. I am perfectly prepared to agree with it, because the drafting as amended in this way would be correct in the Bill as it now stands, and the same applies to Amendment No. 12, but I do not think your Lordships should be supposed to have made this mistake.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 11]
Clause 60, page 51, line 44, leave out as from the date specified in the notice "and insert" at the expiration of the period specified in the notice (whether the original period

1579
specified under subsection (2) above or a longer period substituted by the Minister under subsection (2) above)"
The Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment thereto:>
[No. 12.]
Line 3, leave out "(2)" and insert "(1)".
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12 to the Lords Amendment No. 11. May I say once again that this is a drafting Amendment; and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will agree with me on this occasion.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12 to the Lords Amendment No. 11.— (Baroness Serum.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, no; I do not agree. The position is exactly the same.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 13]
After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule:

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF PLANNING BLIGHT PROVISIONS OF PRINCIPAL ACT
.—Section 138
In subsection (1)—

(a) after the word 'Act', where occurring for the first time, there shall be inserted the words ' and of sections 30 to 33 and (Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice) of the Act of 1968';

(b) paragraphs (a) and (b) shall be omitted; and

(c) in paragraph (c), for the words in parenthesis there shall be substituted the words ' (otherwise than by being dealt with in a manner mentioned in section 30(1)(a) or (b) of the Act of 1968)';

For subsection (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections—:
(5) In this section and in the said sections 139 to 151 "these provisions" means the provisions of this section, those sections and sections 30 to 33 and (Power of morgagee to serve blight notice)of the Act of 1968; and "the specified descriptions" means the descriptions contained in paragraphs (c)to (f) of subsection (1) of this section and paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 30(1) of that Act.
(6) In these provisions and in section (Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice) of the Act of 1968, "blight notice" means a notice served under the next following section or under the said section (Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice)'.
Section 139
In subsection (3)—

(a)in paragraph (a) the word 'designated' shall be omitted, in both places; and for the words 'any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of the last preceding section' there shall be substituted the words paragraph (c) of section138(1) above or paragraph (a) or (b) of section 30(1) of the Act of 1968 '; and

(b)in paragraphs (6), (c) and (d) for the words that subsection ' there shall be substituted, in each place, the words ' section 138(1) above'.

In subsection (4), for the words a notice served under this section.' there shall be substituted the words ' a blight notice'.
Section 140
In subsection (1), for the words Where a notice has been served under the last preceding section' there shall be substituted the words ' Where a blight notice has been served'.
For subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
'(3) Any counter-notice served under this section in respect of a blight notice shall specify the grounds (being one or more of the grounds specified in subsection (2) above or, as relevant, section (Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice) (8) or 31(1) of the Act of 1965) on which the appropriate authority object to the notice'.
Section 141
In subsection (1), for the words notice served under section one hundred and thirty-nine of this Act' there shall be substituted the words a blight notice'.
Section 142
In subsection (1), for the words Where a notice has been served under section one hundred and thirty-nine of this Act' there shall be substituted the words Where a blight notice has been served'.
In subsection (2)(b), for the words 'the notice under section one hundred and thirty-nine of this Act 'there shall be substituted the words' the blight notice'.
In subsection (3), for the words from the beginning to' that notice' there shall be substituted the, words Where the appropriate authority have served a counter-notice objecting to a blight notice'.
Section 144
In subsection (1), for the words 'a notice has been served under section one hundred and thirty-nine of this Act' there shall be substituted the words a blight notice has been served'.
Section 145
Subsections (3) and (6) shall be omitted.
Section 146
In subsection (1), for the words ' a notice under section one hundred and thirty-nine of this Act' there shall be substituted the words a blight notice '.
Section 149
In subsections (1)(a), 1(b), (3)(a) and (3)(b), for the words the whole or part" (wherever occurring) there shall be substituted the words 'the whole or a substantial part'.
In subsections (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) for the words six months before the date of service' there shall be substituted the words twelve months before the date of service'.
Section 150
Subsection (5) shall be omitted."
The Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendments thereto:
Line 23, leave out from "provisions" to second "'blight" in line 24.
Line 26, leave out "the said section (Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice)" and insert section (Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice) of the Act of 1968".
BARONESS SEROTA BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House cloth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 to the Lords Amendment No. 13.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 to the Lords Amendment No. 13.—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No.16.]
Schedule 3, page 76, line 43, leave out subparagraph (1) and insert—
"(1) Regulations under this Act may provide that an application for listed building consent, or an appeal against the refusal of such an application, shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by a certificate in the prescribed form and corresponding to one or other of those described in paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 16(1) of the principal Act (requirement of certificate that the applicant is the owner of the land or has given notice to the owners of his intended application or has tried to do so) and any such regulations may—

(a) include requirements corresponding to section 16(2) (contents of certificate), section 16(4) (planning authority not to determine application for a certain period) and section 17(3) (duty of planning authority and Minister on appeal to take into account representations by owners, tenants, etc.) of the principal Act;

(b)make provision as to who, in the case of any building, is to be treated as the owner for the purposes of any provision of the order made by virtue of this subparagraph."

The Commons agreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment thereto:
[No. 17.]
Head (b), line 3, leave out "the order" and insert "regulations".
BARONESS SEROTAMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17 to the Lords Amendment No. 16.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17 to the Lords Amendment No. 16. —(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 18.]
Schedule 6, page 102, line 20, leave out from "the" to end of line and insert' said Act of 1968; for the words paragraphs (a) to (c)' there shall be substituted the words paragraphs (a) to (b)'; and for the words section 177(1)' there shall be substituted the words `section 177(1)(a)'".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu:
[No. 19.]
Page 102, line 20, at end insert "for the words 'paragraphs (a) to (c)' there shall be substituted the words paragraphs (a) and;b)'; and for the words 'section 177(1) of that Act' there shall be substituted the words section 177(1)(a) of the Act of 1962'".
BARONESS SEROTAMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 18, to which the Commons have disagreed, and agrees with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19 in lieu of the Lords Amendment No. 18.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on its Amendment No. 18 and agrees with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19 in lieu.—(Baroness Serota.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I certainly would not suggest that this House should insist on its original Amendment. Having spent twenty minutes in considering this charge, I still do not understand the difference, but I have no doubt that it is an improvement in the Bill if the matter is dealt with as suggested in Amendment No. 19.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSING ACCIDENTS
4.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the deep concern over the recent level crossing accidents, and what further action the Railways Board intend to take. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of my Unstarred Question to-day on level crossing accidents is not intended in any form as a criticism of neglect by either the Government or the Railways Board in their concern and responsibility for the safety of public and private level crossings. The very fact that Clause 121 of the Transport Bill specifically sets out the Board's obligations and the Minister's powers to insist on those obligations in regard to level crossings is proof enough of awareness of the problem.
The purpose of the Question is to express what I believe is a growing concern as to exactly what is being done, what modifications to automatic crossings, what modifications to manned crossings, what modifications to unmanned crossings are taking place following the Hixon Report and its recommendations. The concern. I believe, is based on good grounds, particularly in view both of the fatal accidents which have occurred since the Hixon Report and also of the known policy of the Railways Board to step up their number of automatic level crossing installations to something like 150 new installations every year.
There is, I believe, at the present time some confusion in many people's minds, which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, will correct to-day. as to the numbers of public and private level crossings that exist to-day. The figures, which I have obtained—and perhaps he would confirm them later—are that there are some 2,425 public level crossings and approximately 13,000 private level crossings, or what are termed occupation and accommodation level crossings. In both these groups there are really three types of level crossing: there are the manned level crossings in the public sector; there the the unmanned level crossings, gated or ungated. in both the private and the public sectors, and there are the automatic crossings, which were started, I believe, in 1961. As the House knows,
1584
the trend to-day is to convert as many as possible of the manned crossings to automatic crossings, on the grounds of cost of operation, so long as the safety factor is satisfactory.
May we turn briefly to the private level crossings? Although the protection and safety required at public level crossings is of course of paramount importance, the safety of the private level crossingsis, I believe, of equal importance, not only for the farmer who crosses with tractor and trailer but also for the express train that maybe thundering down with many passengers and which may well hit the trailer. In view of the large percentage of private, as compared with public, level crossings, it is perhaps not surprising to learn that accidents at the private crossings are far more frequent than at the public crossings. I believe I am correct in saying that since the Hixon Report was published there have been three fatal accidents, all suffered by persons in motor vehicles—none suffered, luckily, by those in the trains that struck them. Had there been fatal accidents to the train passengers, I am sure the concern would be a great deal more and would be expressed a great deal more loudly. I hope to-day the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, will have some information to give us on the future steps that the Minister, or in Particular the Railways Board, intend to take to increase and ensure the safety of private crossings, as well as tell us the progress they are making on the automatic crossings.
If one looks at the public level crossings, one finds that there are to-day 207 automatic crossings, or just 10 per cent. of the total number of public level crossings. The Railways Board, one understands, intend to increase this number to a further 1.500 crossings. I do not think many people doubt the great advantage that will be obtained by the Railways Board with these new installations, both in traffic movement and cost of operation, particularly as one noticed evidence given at the Hixon Inquiry that indicated that a single manned and gated crossing could cost in some cases over £3,000 a year. However, it is the safety factor that I am sure outweighs the advantages of the reduction in costs in many people's minds. I am not sure that the argument that the more automatic crossings there are, the more familiar they are to us, the less danger they will be, is really

1585
valid, and a comparison with the Continent must surely also be misleading. We have in Britain a far greater density of population, a far greater density of cars and a great many more level crossings per million acres than on the Continent, in France, Holland or Germany.
The whole question of the safety factor of level crossings was gone into in great detail in the excellent Report on the Hixon disaster, and this was published last July. On July 25, now more than three months ago, the Minister announced in another place that he accepted entirely all the main recommendations of that Report, including the one for increasing the time cycle from 24 seconds up to 32 seconds before the arrival of the fastest train on that crossing. He went on to say that many of the additional safeguards proposed involved a great deal of complicated technical work which would fall on the shoulders of the Board, and that consultations between his officials and the Board had already taken place. That was last July. I should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, to-day if he could tell us how far those consultations have reached.
In addition to those consultations, I understand that the Ministry of Transport have recently engaged a firm of consultants to advise them on the steps they should take to implement the recommendations of the Hixon Report. If this should be so, perhaps again the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, can tell us what terms of reference this firm was given and how soon they arc expected to report. At the time of the publication of the Hixon Report the Minister said in another place that modifications of the existing 207 automatic crossings would be carried out as early as possible. Could the noble Lord tell us to-day whether this work has already been started, particularly on the time cycle expansion? Can he also say whether a halt has been called to installing any new automatic crossings until all the technical problems of modification have been sorted out by the Railways Board?
The final question I have for the noble Lord is to ask what is the latest figure for accidents on both the public and the private level crossings over the past year, and the number of accidents that have occurred on the automatic level crossings since their inception in 1961. My Lords,
1586
I apologise to the noble Lord for asking so many questions in such a short space of time, but I believe that this is the purpose of an Unstarred Question. Knowing his mastery of his brief I am sure he will be good enough to give us as many answers as possible, because it is, as I said at the beginning, the lack of information as to what is happening that is causing the greatest concern
5.2 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Loris, I think the noble Earl has done a service in asking this Question this afternoon. It is fortunate that the procedure of this House is such that we are enabled to raise a matter of this description when it is so difficult to do so in another place. Accidents at level crossings are so infrequent that the Press naturally highlights teem, and rightly so; television and radio draw the attention of the nation to these difficulties, and again rightly so. It is up to us who safeguard the public conscience in Parliament to probe and to see that every possible step is taken with aview to reducing the accident risk involved in the many level crossings which we low have; and it is well that we should approach this matter not in an entirely unemotional atmosphere, but bringing to emotion common sense and reason and practical application.
We have a large number of level crossings. The numbers have been given by the noble Earl. What can we do at out them? We all know that there is a perfect answer: we should do away with the level crossings altogether and build bridges or underpasses. Of course, that is absolutely impossible. The expense involved makes it absolutely impracticable for it to be done. Therefore we are faced with the question, how can we test deal with this situation? A lot of controversy has taken place about the Continental electric and automatic type of level crossings which have replaced the man in the signal box whose chief duty was to turn the wheel and open the gates for oncoming traffic. That was the reason why the box was built there. As a relief signalman of many years ago, I have worked in nearly all kinds of railway signal boxes, including this type of signal box, and I know how soul-destroying is the job and how expensive it can be.
Naturally, when we take away the manned crossing and replace it with the

1587
automatic crossing, particularly the type with the pole coming only halfway across the road, no matter what safeguards arc provided by the flashing lights, there is a reaction, and will be until this type of crossing has seen a long period of service and has demonstrated how effective it can be. It can be extremely effective, and it is effective provided the ordinary people using the roads take normal care. With most of the accidents that have taken place we find that there has been some neglect by the ordinary citizen in carrying out the duties that one would expect of him when he goes through a railway crossing of this particular description. On the other hand, in this present experimental stage it may be necessary to consider whether the flashing light warning gives sufficient time to enable proper clearance of the crossing. Again, if there is too long a time intervening it encourages people to dash across the crossing. It is a matter of trying to find the correct measure in this particular direction.
In regard to some crossings out in the countryside I wonder whether it might be feasible—I am not entirely advocating this—to have an audible warning system attached to the two flashing lights. I say this quite diffidently, because I know that the general desire to-day is to reduce noise in the countryside and elsewhere. If this could be provided as an added safeguard. and is attractive to the normal motorist and the normal person using the roads, it might well be worthy of further consideration. I wonder whether my noble friend, when he comes to reply, can say whether this line of thought is being pursued.
Then we turn to the unmanned crossings. There have always been accidents at these crossings; but because that is so it does not mean that due attention should not be given to them. Exactly what can be done is indeed difficult from the point of view of practical application. These accommodation or unmanned crossings which give access to agricultural land or to the farmhouse are used simply with a view to carrying out necessary agricultural husbandry. What can be done? Is it feasible and practicable for the railways to go to the expense of establishing some kind of audible warning when a train is coming
1588
into a section on one of these hundreds of crossings? The noble Earl said that there were something like 13,000 accommodation crossings. I accept his figure. Is it feasible to do that?
Again, it was all very well when we had steam trains if the person using the crossing carried out the ordinary instructions which were usually exhibited alongside these crossings— that he ought to open the further gate first and then get his vehicle straight across, and there would be less risk of accident. That was all very well in those days. You could hear the steam train coming along. Today, we have a much more silent train, the diesel engine or the electric train, which may be coming along in fog. This creates additional difficulties. One knows that a tractor on a farm has not quite the speed of pick-up that a motor car has. It would be extremely interesting to see what device could be found to get over this genuine difficulty which has been increased with the more silent running of the trains that we have to-day. Therefore, on this side of it I do not know whether my noble friend can give us any further information. But I am sure we should appreciate some indication, first, on how far the talks have got between the National Farmers' Union and the representatives of British Rail (I understand that talks are taking place in this particular direction) and, secondly, whether there has been any indication from research establishments of other more modern devices which might be applicable to this particular problem.
These are real and genuine problems. I hope that by this very short debate we shall reduce the temperature a little, reduce the sensationalism a little which the Press adopt when these accidents do occur. Many of them, as I have indicated earlier, are due to human faults not attached to the railways; and very often it is the human fault of the individual, in not exercising the necessary care or not having a vehicle under proper control on these particular crossings. These arc important factors. We know that there is only one really effective solution, and that is to build a bridge or a subway—something which is a totally impracticable proposition. But I should welcome my noble friend's remarks on this particular question.
5.12 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and to voice my own personal concern on two points arising originally from the disaster at Hixon and the subsequent public inquiry. There is, of course, national concern over these accidents: first, over their number, and over the accidents in general—not all of them, mercifully, so serious as that at Hixon; and secondly (and this gives me personally the most concern), because of an apparent lethargy on the part of the Railways Board to alleviate what is a clear public anxiety in this matter. I have no doubt that the Railways Board are, in fact, taking the necessary steps, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, when he replies, will be able to confirm that. Nevertheless, the public at large, no doubt as a result of the misrepresentations alleged by the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, are concerned that the Railways Board are not taking the steps necessary to secure adequate safety on these crossings.
When the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, was speaking a moment or so ago he seemed to ask (perhaps I can help the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, by answering for him) whether it was reasonable to expect the Railways Board to go to the great expense involved in modifying these crossings, and he also mentioned how soul-destroying it was for the signalman to have to wind the handle all the time. He asked if it was reasonable for the Railways Board to have to take steps to prevent these disasters by making this expenditure and relieving the signalmen of their boredom. My Lords, surely it is. Surely it is the responsibility of the Railways Board to take such steps as may be necessary, so that even the most stupid citizen when using the crossing is not subjected to the possibility of being hit by a train. If, for example, the interval before the descent of the boom on these automatic crossings is too short, so that slightly stupid people tend to rush across, then steps must be taken to prevent them from rushing across. It is no good anybody saying—and I do not think that the Railways Board do say this—that it is up to the citizen not to dash across when the boom is about to come down, or is just coming down: because it is the responsibility of the Railways Board
1590
to make their installations as safe as can be.
On a particular technical point, I wonder whether the noble Lord Lord Hilton, when he replies, will confirm that since the Hixon disaster no further automatic crossings have been installed incorporating the short 24-second delay in the descent of the boom, as distinct from the 32-second delay recommended in the Hixon Report. Finally, let me say how grateful I am to the noble Earl. Lord Kinnoull, for raising this matter, and how much I look forward to the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Hilton.
5.17 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, once upon a time I used to be a director of a South American railway, and there we went to the opposite extreme. Precautions at level crossings in the country were a no ice to the engine driver to whistle, and then everybody jumped for his life. You knew where you were then; you had to look out for the train. Now, with these more sophisticated automatic crossings, the onus seems to be distributed. The railway ought to stop people getting r cross, and people ought to see that they do not go across. But the blame for an accident can almost always be laid on either party.
Recently a crossing has been opened fairly near me: I have to go over it, and I never like it very much. Is certainly gives an audible warning: there are bells and there are flashing lights. However, it is up a slope; and I am always frightened that the day may come when one will be on the slope, letting a train from one direction goby, and engaging gear and going forward, and perhaps stalling the engine in so going, and getting caught by a train coming up the other way. That is a very real danger. I do not think that the danger as so much of actual ignorance or carelessness, as of failure to keep cool. The ordinary person, under conditions of danger—there is danger—can get flustered; and if that happens he may stall the engine of his vehicle. It is the presence of two trains, one after the other, going each way, that seems to me to be so extraordinarily difficult to cope with. One could suggest, of course, that there might be an ordinary road red light, 50 yards down the road, as well as the red lights on the gate; but even that would not deal with the double danger.

1591
When one turns to private crossings, I must say that they fill me with the most appalling alarm. I know one where my children have on occasion taken ponies across. The visibility is not very good, but normally there are only four trains an hour. But what about these smaller crossings where the line is heavily trafficked, where there maybe trains practically every five minutes each way? I cannot see how that problem can be effectually solved. How is a farmer, or anybody else, going to deal with a private crossing on a really heavily trafficked main line? That will be extremely difficult without underpasses, and so on. I am looking forward with great interest to the Government reply, because I do not believe that this problem is anything near solved, although I am grateful to hear that a longer interval is being provided, because that is an elementary precaution which should be taken.
5.20 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising this matter this afternoon. It is something which causes everybody concern, and I hope to give a fairly full reply to his Question. Obviously I shall not be able to give answers to all the questions which have been posed in such a short time. I will do my best, however, and if I leave questions unanswered I will write to the noble Lords who have asked them. I should also like to thank the other noble Lords who have taken part so far in this debate.
It is always very sad to hear of accidents where someone is killed or injured, and perhaps especially so where young people are concerned. I know that my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport, is as saddened as I am, and as other noble Lords are, by the recent accidents at level crossings. I am thinking particularly of the case of little Julie Brendt, 11 years old, who was killed by a train at a footpath crossing on the Isle of Sheppey the weekend before last. And also of the three people who died when their car was struck by a train at an occupation crossing near Hull in the early hours of a Sunday morning at the end of September. I am sure that we all sympathise deeply with those who have been bereaved as a result of
1592
these and other similar accidents. In both of these cases my right honourable friend is waiting to hear from the Railways Board the results of the Board's inquiry into the accident. There have been other accidents, too, at level crossings this year, but while I am not for a moment trying to minimise the distress which these accidents cause, I think we must place them in some sort of perspective.
There are over 17,000 level crossings in England, Wales and Scotland. About 2,000 of these are manned crossings on public roads. Just over 200 others are guarded by automatic half-barriers. For the most part, the remainder are protected by gates which are operated by the crossing user. These are found on privately-owned roads, or acting merely as a connection between fields severed by the railway line. As your Lordships probably know, those on private roads are known as "occupation crossings "; those between fields are generally referred to as accommodation crossings. So far this year, on all of these 17,000 plus crossings, there have been 104 accidents reported where train movements have been involved. Last year, in the whole of 1967, there were 169 such accidents. But fortunately in by far the majority of these cases there were no casualties. In fact, out of the 104 accidents this year, there have been casualties in 23 of them. Five of these accidents happened at public crossings, 17 at occupation or accommodation crossings and one, as I have already mentioned, on a footpath crossing. Last year there were casualties in 51 accidents, but, of course, in some accidents there may be several casualties. We still have in our minds the very serious accident at Hixon earlier this year, to which noble Lords have referred, where a train was derailed and some of the passengers and the Railways Board's employees were killed or injured. But this has been the only accident last year and this year where those travelling on the train have been among the casualties.
The Railways Board have always been concerned with safety. Moreover, at level crossings they are required by law to provide a certain standard of protection. On public level crossings, the Board have to maintain gates or barriers and employ people to operate them unless the Minister makes an Order under

1593
Section 66 of the British Transport Commission Act 1957. Then the Board would have to comply with such new conditions as the Minister may lay down for the protection of the public—and it is by means of these Orders that the Minister has authorised automatic half-barriers at some 200 level crossings. On private level crossings, the situation is different. There, the Board are required by law to maintain only "good and sufficient" gates or stiles depending on the type of crossing; it could serve just a footpath. They are not required to employ anyone to operate these gates.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is concerned to see that the Railways Board comply with the safety requirements placed on them by law. In addition, from what I have said about varying the obligations placed upon the Board, your Lordships will see that the Minister has an even more particular interest where he has agreed to new arrangements being made on public crossings. The Minister's interest is generally watched over by his Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways, to whom the Railways Board report immediately an accident occurs. The Board investigate every accident, and the Chief Inspecting Officer considers whether one of his own inspecting officers should also investigate the circumstances.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question on that particular point? He mentioned that accidents took place on level crossings at the rate of 104 a year, or two a week. Are all the accidents reported to the Chief Inspecting Officer? 'The human casualties were not numerous. Do the accidents involve mostly animal casualties?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I have no information in my notes that the accidents actually refer to those in which animals are involved, but I will find out and let the noble Lord know. My information is that each accident is reported to the Chief Inspecting Officer, who investigates. The Board investigate every accident, and the Chief Inspecting Officer considers whether one of his own inspecting officers should also investigate the circumstances. Of course, in the case of a major disaster the Minister could order a public inquiry. But
1594
in the majority of cases the causes of the accident are relatively clear and the Board's investigation is sufficient to establish the facts and to indicate where remedial action should be taken. The results of the Board's investigation are always conveyed to the Railway Inspectorate, who are thus able to keep watch on safety at such crossings. But although unfortunately accidents do happen from time to time, level crossings are, in general, safe. No accident has only one cause, and equally there is no single solution to the accident problem—short of replacing all level crossings by bridges segregating road and rail traffic, a point which was made by my noble friend Lord Popplewell. But with over 17,000 crossings, this would involve the expenditure of millions of pounds which could undoubtedly be more effectively spent on safety measures elsewhere.
I think I should preface what I have to say about the steps being taken on a broad front to improve safety on level crossings by pointing out that even where crossings are manned, accident; do happen. Eighteen of the 51 accidents involving casualties which occurred in 1967 were at manned crossings prottected by gates or barriers. Perhaps the most important action that is being taken relates to automatic half barrier crossings following the Hixon accident. In regard to the question which was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tregarne, as to how many similar barriers had been erected since the Hixon disaster, I am glad to inform him that none have been erected since that date. As your Lordships will know, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport accepted the main recommendations of the searching public inquiry into this accident conducted by Mr. E. Brian Gibbens, Q.C., and action to put these recommendations into effect is proceeding.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked quite properly what was being lone to make these crossings safer. The Railways Board, in conjunction with the Ministry, are reviewing the programme for future automatic half-barriers. Work on modification of existing crossings has started, and priority is being given to the modifications necessary to ensure that danger cannot be caused by a second train arriving immediately

1595
after the first train has cleared the crossing. This point was made so well by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. These modifications will provide for the barriers to stay down until the second train has passed, but at many crossings the recommendations pose serious technical difficulties for the railway engineers, and it will necessarily be sometime before work is completed.
Work on the approaches to the crossings is starting, and my right honourable friend is arranging for extra road markings to be put down, such as double white lines to prevent overtaking near the crossings, yellow box markings to warn drivers not to go on the crossings unless their' exit is clear, and so on. An industrial designer has been appointed to advise on the whole design and presentation of the crossings to the road user. Where the movement of abnormally large loads is authorised by the Ministry, warnings are given of the automatic half-barriers on the route, and the need to telephone for permission to cross is stressed. But although much is being done, and is being done as quickly as possible, it is too early yet to say when the new look automatic half-barrier crossings will be fully operating.
However, as I have indicated earlier, by far the majority of crossings—some 12,500—are occupation and accommodation crossings at which the Board are required by law to provide only "good and sufficient gates". In actual fact, at some of these crossings the safety measures go further than is required by law. At some the gates are manned by railway employees. At others, miniature red and green lights give an indication to the person wishing to cross of the approach of a train, or telephones are provided. There are two problems at these crossings. On the one hand, we have certain crossings which, although built on reads which were privately owned when the railway was constructed, are now used to such an extent by the public that they are virtually public crossings. My right honourable friend has taken steps in the Transport Bill to provide himself with powers to require the Railways Board to carry out such measures as he thinks are justified in the light of the present public use of the crossings. It is not likely that many of
1596
them will need the sort of protective measures required at crossings on public highways, but at a good number of them extra protection of some sort is necessary for the benefit of the public who use them.
On the other hand, we have the crossings where there is no general use by the public but which are used by the owners or occupiers of the land, generally farmers, and people working for them. It is accepted on all sides that the unobtrusive approach of the modern railway train at speed, and the present-day heavy farm vehicle which is very often both slow and noisy, can present difficult problems at some of these crossings. Improvements are in the interests of both the Railways Board and the farmers, but my right honourable friend is aware that there have been real practical difficulties in arriving at a fair apportionment of the cost of carrying out these improvements. He has received representations from the National Farmers' Union on all these matters, and he is arranging for further discussions to start soon between his Ministry, the Railways Board and the N.F.U., with a view to arriving at some acceptable standard basis of apportioning the cost between the Board and the farmer. I can assure your Lordships that everything possible is being done to make level crossings acceptably safe, both in particular cases where the inquiry into an accident reveals particular measures that should be taken, and on a broad front.
I hope your Lordships will agree that I have tried to give a full Answer to the Question. But if the noble Earl or any other noble Lord wishes further information on other accidents, perhaps they will write to me and I will send it to them.