Lords Sitting of 14 April 1970

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.
The Viscount Tenby—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PROTECTION OF HISTORIC WRECKS
LORD ILFORD: 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 will appoint a Departmental committee, or some other appropriate investigation, to report what changes in the law are necessary to afford adequate protection to historic wrecks (wrecks more than 100 years old) against robbery, plunder, irresponsible interference and the other perils to which they are at present exposed.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government said in another place that they would carry out an appropriate investigation into the need for a comprehensive review of Part IX of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 for the purpose of giving better protection to wrecks of historic or archaeological interest. A body to investigate these problems will be set up in the near future. Its exact structure is under active consideration now.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that mildly encouraging Answer, may I ask him whether this is not a matter which calls for a measure of urgency? Has the noble Lord read the reports of what has been taking place on the wreck of the "Amsterdam" off the Sussex coast?
LORD BROWN: Yes, my Lords, I have some information about what has been
318
taking place, and I note that the noble Lords thinks that the matter is urgent.

PIRATE BROADCASTS FROM SHIPS
2.39 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name; on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action is to be taken in respect of broadcasting from ships sailing on the edge or beyond territorial limits; and whether international consultation and action are being considered to ideal with the evasion of existing law.]
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are applying the Marine Etc. Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967. We have already taken certain counter-measures to protect marine communications; we shall continue to take all steps open to us, nationally and internationally, to combat the nuisance to legitimate broadcasting services and to shipping services.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether she can say precisely what active steps are being taken; and secondly, whether the existing Marine Etc. Broadcasting (Offences) Act is quite incapable of covering these particular pirates?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, in answer to the last part of that question, I do not think the Act is incapable of covering these pirate acts. Your Lordships will appreciate that this is a complicated matter, but I am confident that the measures we are taking will produce results. We produced results before; there are good international Conventions which cover the situation and I have confidence in them.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while apologising to my noble friend, may I again ask what specific attempts are being made in this respect?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am quite sure

319
the House would not wish me in advance to advise the pirates concerned of the steps we are contemplating. We are doing what we should foe doing under the international Convention.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether this particular Act covers pirates operating from aircraft?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: Yes, my Lords, it does.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can my noble friend assure us that this pirate ship is outside the range of the artillery weapons that practise at Foulness and Shoeburyness?

MILITARY HOVERCRAFT DEVELOPMENT
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 now finally abandoned support in military hovercraft development.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELA-COURT-SMITH): The Government are continuing their support for military hovercraft. The BH 7, now undergoing manufacturer's trials, has been purchased by the Ministry of Technology for evaluation by the Royal Navy. 200 Squadron Royal Corps of Transport continue operations with their SRN 6 craft, as does the Royal Naval Squadron stationed in the Falkland Islands. Military evaluation and development of hovercraft is still being conducted by the Inter-Services Hovercraft Unit. I can assure the House that there are no plans to abandon any of these projects.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, and welcoming it, I would ask him: would he not agree that, with the good potential exports of the BH 7 to other countries, it is about time the Ministry of Defence made up their minds to place orders for the Services? Does
320
he not agree that it would be helpful to the industry as a whole if this were done?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, this work naturally requires evaluation and, as I indicated in my original Answer, a variety of steps are being taken to enable this evaluation to take place, and so that the possible utilisation of hovercraft for military purposes can be fully appreciated.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how long this evaluation will take?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I do not think that one can put a positive period to it. It is a continuing process, and so, of course, is the examination of the results by the Ministry of Defence.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether Her Majesty's Government will consider granting R and D support for civil projects, and in particular the SRN 4?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, that is a little different from the Question on the Order Paper, but the position is—and it bears upon the point raised by the noble Earl—that we are at present in discussion with the British Hovercraft Corporation about the assistance which can be given for the further development of existing craft and for new craft.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how many hovercraft are in service with the various units that he mentioned?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, in the case of BH 7 there is one undergoing manufacturer's trials at the present time. It will be loaned to the Royal Navy for evaluation in due course. There are four SRN 6 with the 200 Squadron Royal Corps of Transport, one SRN 6 in the hands of the Royal Naval Squadron, four SRN 5 and one SRN 3 with the Inter-Services Hovercraft Unit.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his information is very encouraging, and that, despite the shaky start in the development of this principle, there is a feeling that there could be something here of great potential value to this country?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am sure the remarks made by the noble Lord will be noted and appreciated.

NATIONAL TRUST BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
GOSPORT CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

EXPORT GUARANTEES AND PAYMENTS BILL
2.45 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill be now read a third time, I should like to take the opportunity of correcting a somewhat misleading comment that I inadvertently made last Tuesday during the course of the Second Reading debate on this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood—who, I understand, unfortunately is not able to be present; he is held up by transport— expressed a wish to have a Committee stage in order that there could be a short debate on the Question, that the clause stand part. In answering him I indicated that there was a difficulty, namely, that the Bill was a Money Bill (I am afraid I incorrectly called it a Finance Bill) and, reading Hansard, I realise that I may have implied that because the Bill was a Money Bill we could not have a Committee stage. That, of course, is not the case, because while we frequently— indeed, in most cases, I think—negative the Committee stage of Money Bills, we do sometimes have a Committee stage. In this particular case agreement had
322
been reached through the usual channels to propose to negative the Committee stage, but of course such an agreement is informal and has no force if noble Lords want a Committee stage. As I said in answer to Lord Inglewood, I should my-self have preferred it if more noble Lords had taken an interest in this important subject of export credits; but as I gave the impression that we could not have a Committee stage I must apologise, and I do so now. I do not know whether there is to be any comment on this matter but I now formally beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Brown.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for having put the Record straight for future guidance. I have certainly no intention of raising any further points on this valuable Bill.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
2.49 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It signalises an important stage in the history and development of the United Kingdom atomic energy industry, and perhaps I could most usefully begin by trying to indicate the antecedents of the Bill. In 1954, the Atomic Energy Authority was set up with three main tasks: research and development for atomic weapons, research and development for nuclear power, and the production of nuclear materials. The plants for the production of these materials were established at Windscale, Calder Hall, Springfields, Chapelcross and, later, Capenhurst. At first they produced materials for nuclear weapons, but rapid progress was made with the development of nuclear reactors for electricity generation, and when the country embarked on the first nuclear power programme, based on the Magnox reactor, originally designed primarily for military purposes, the Authority applied the formidable expertise it had acquired in military materials to the large-scale production of fuel elements for civilian use. These civil production activities

323
had become a substantial business by 1965 when the Authority, with the approval of the Government, created a trading fund, so that its production business could be separately accounted for and managed on a more commercial basis.
The year 1965 was also an important year in the development of nuclear power in this country for another reason: it saw the first commercial order for a new type of nuclear reactor, the Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor, which for the first time offered us the prospect of nuclear power at lower cost than that which could be obtained from the most modern power stations burning conventional fuels. Nuclear energy now supplies 12 per cent. of the electricity we consume, and this percentage is continuing to rise. Perhaps more significant is the fact that at present over half the generating capacity ordered in recent years by the Generating Boards has been nuclear capacity. I should perhaps say that this does not of course mean that nuclear power generation will replace generation by other fuels in the foreseeable future. Indeed, the main fuel for this is, and will remain for many years, coal. It means, however, that nuclear energy has now acquired an importance which confers a corresponding importance on the organisation for supplying the nuclear fuel from which the energy is derived.
The breakthrough of nuclear energy into commercial competitiveness meant that it had, so to speak, come of age. This carried with it far-reaching implications for the organisation of the country's nuclear activities. Although important development programmes remained to be carried out, the exploration stage of nuclear energy, when the emphasis had been primarily on research and development, had now been successfully accomplished, and a new form of organisation had to be found, more suited to the commercial exploitation of the technology which had arisen from those successes. This was the problem which the Select Committee on Science and Technology examined in 1967, and this was the back-ground to the Government's plan for the reorganisation of the industry which my right honourable friend the Minister of Technology announced in July, 1968.
324
That plan was, in effect, in three stages. The first stage envisaged the formation of the two reactor design and construction companies, replacing the three previous consortia, and incorporating design teams from the Atomic Energy Authority, while the Authority itself would withdraw from the commercial design of power reactors, and concentrate on research and development. That stage is now substantially complete; the two companies are now in business, the Authority has taken up a 20 per cent. shareholding in each of them, pending the formation of the Nuclear Fuel Company (to which I will come a little later) and a number of Authority design and development staff have transferred to one of the companies.
The second stage in the comprehensive development is the one with which this Bill is concerned. It involves the creation of a more commercial organisation for the Authority's fuel production business, by establishing it as a separate Government-controlled company, to be called British Nuclear Fuels, Limited. This will be set up for the purpose under the Companies Acts, and it will take over the Authority's 20 per cent. holdings in the two reactor companies. This measure also involves, as a corollary and on a smaller scale, the transfer of the Authority's other production activity, the highly successful radio-isotope business, to another, separate limited company, also Government-controlled, the Radiochemical Centre, Limited. Thus, these two companies will between them take over substantially the activities which until now have been covered by the trading fund established in 1965.
So far as the third stage of the reorganisation is concerned, we have already had a debate in your Lordships' House in so far as the remaining research and development activities of the Authority will be involved with the creation of an Atomic Energy Board to advise the Government on reactor development policy, as indicated in the Green Paper published in January and debated in this House on February 5.
The scope of this reorganisation has thus been very wide. Perhaps I may at this stage say a word about one of the principles that the Government have in mind in undertaking it; this is the principle of combining the strength of a successful public enterprise with that of

325
private industry on the basis of partnership. It is argued in some quarters that public and private enterprise are necessarily incompatible, or indeed mutually opposed, and cannot work together. This is not a view which the Government adopt; they do not believe in this conflict, and the re-structured nuclear industry will, the Government hope, embody a fruitful partnership between the public and private sectors.
So far as the proposed nuclear fuel business is concerned, of course nuclear fuel is already big business, and is likely to become much bigger business in the next few years. The home market for nuclear fuel is worth over £25 million a year, and is growing rapidly. The continuance of this growth will depend upon the continuance of competitiveness of nuclear power with other fuels; but it is the general expectation that by the end of the 1970s the market will be about five times its present size. The world market is already worth over £100 million, and by 1980 it is confidently expected to be worth more than £1,000 million a year. So the opportunities presented by this fast growing world market are most encouraging.
The Atomic Energy Authority has already built up a thriving export trade. In its last financial year it won orders worth some £11½ million. The growth of the market means that competition is very strong; but examples have come to mind of the Authority's success, such as the recent contract secured by the Authority to supply fuel to an American-built reactor in Holland, and other con-tracts secured to re-process the fuel from American-designed reactors in various places on the Continent of Europe.
As I have already suggested, these developments are promising. But the market is one which in most countries is strongly subject to political influences. A number of countries are anxious to be self-sufficient, if they can, rather than have to rely upon supplies from abroad. A successful nuclear fuel business will therefore need to be international in its operations. The Authority has already formed partnerships with commercial enterprises overseas, and these developments can be expected to receive a fresh impetus once the British business is itself organised as a normal industrial under-taking.
326
On the other side of the activities which will pass to the two new companies, the radio-isotope production activities at the Radio Chemical Centre at Amersham are a good deal smaller, as I have already indicated, but a great deal more diverse than the fuel business. The uses to which radio-isotopes can be put are legion, and are growing year by year. They are used as tracers in academic research and have contributed greatly to the growth of basic knowledge in the life sciences. In medicine they have extended the range of radiotherapy and introduced some radically new methods of diagnosis. In industry they are making a substantial contribution to manufacturing efficiency, chiefly in the field of non-destructive testing. The Radiochemical Centre deals with thousands of customers all over the world and despatches tens of thousands of consignments. Its record of growth and profitability is a consistent one, and it has consistently sold over half its output abroad.
The central purpose of the Bill is therefore a very simple one: to transfer the relevant assets and activities of the Atomic Energy Authority to the two new companies. Noble Lords will appreciate, I am sure, that as the new companies are intended to be set up under the Companies Acts and to be subject to the provisions of those Acts and to their own Memoranda and Articles of Association, the Bill does not have to provide for their structure and organisation in the manner that a Bill setting up a statutory corporation does. The intention of the Government is that the companies should be registered before the Bill is enacted, but after each House of Parliament has approved the principle of the Bill by granting it a Second Reading. It may well be that the constitution of the companies at this stage will be of interest to some noble Lords, and I have there-fore arranged for their draft Memoranda and Articles to be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House.
The Authority establishments to be transferred to British Nuclear Fuels Limited, are, first of all, that at Capenhurst, Cheshire, the main function of which is the enrichment of uranium for use in the more highly rated fuel elements used in the Advanced Gas-cooled Reactor and other advanced

327
reactor systems. Then, secondly, there is Springfields, where uranium is extracted from ore and reduced to a form suitable for enrichment, and fuel elements of all types in current use are fabricated for supply to reactor operators. Thirdly, there is Windscale, in Cumber-land, where the spent fuel elements are returned for re-processing after use for the extraction of valuable plutonium and for the safe disposal of radioactive by-products, and where the Calder Hall nuclear power station is situated. Fourthly, there is the similar nuclear power station at Chapelcross, in Dumfriesshire. The main function of these power stations is now the supply of electricity to the national grid, but they are also used for the production of plutonium and the experimental irradiation of nuclear fuel elements. The Authority will, however, retain the exclusive use of their research and development laboratories, both at Spring-fields and at Windscale.
In respect of Radiochemical work, the Bill transfers the Radiochemical Centre at Amersham to the second of the two new companies, together with certain activities and facilities belonging to the Radiochemical Centre at Harwell. A number of the establishments to which I have referred are of course in development areas, and I am glad to say that the expansion of the nuclear fuel business over the next five years is expected to bring some hundreds of new jobs to those development areas.
It may be asked, why new limited companies incorporated under the Companies Acts have been chosen as vehicles for the development of these two successful businesses, rather than the establishment of new statutory corporations. The Select Committee on Science and Technology, to which I referred earlier, recommended a company as the most appropriate vehicle for the fuel-cycle business, and the Government have agreed with that recommendation. I have already mentioned (and it is clearly one of the reasons for this decision) the increasingly international character of the business. The developing network of international partnerships which it is expected will take shape will present fewer complications if companies overseas are linking up with a company in the United King-
328
dom. By far the most important of these developments will be the Anglo/ Dutch/German centrifuge enrichment project, in which British Nuclear Fuels Limited will, if Parliament enacts this Bill, be the British participant.
Secondly, in choosing a company as the vehicle the Government have emphasised the commercial nature of the undertaking, after a period during which in this, as in many other countries, the development of nuclear energy was undertaken as a matter of national policy rather than primarily for commercial reasons. The third reason which has weighed with the Government in this connection is the hope that suitable firms in private industry which are able to offer relevant expertise of one kind or another will choose to participate directly in the fuel company by taking minority holdings in its capital. This would provide a means by which it could gain access to the marketing organisations of British international companies and also to the financial and commercial skills which are necessary to the development of an international business. And to the extent that private loan and share capital is forthcoming, the calls on the Exchequer to finance the business will be reduced.
There are, however, three main respects in which the philosophy of setting up the companies as ordinary commercial undertakings must be subject to limitations which are imposed by the circumstances of this particular case. The first of these limitations is that the Bill requires the Government to retain permanently a controlling interest in the capital of the companies, either directly or through the Atomic Energy Authority as the Government's agent. It would, in the view of the Government, be quite wrong to allow such an important activity to pass out of public hands. Many of the operations of the fuel company in particular are likely to be very sensitive from the point of view of national security. The company will be engaged in the enrichment of uranium and the separation of plutonium, as well as the supply of fissile materials for military purposes. The Government have decided that it would not be right in such circumstances for the Bill to make it possible for the fuel company to pass outside their own ultimate control, and it is the intention to treat the radiochemical company in the same way. Initially the

329
capital of the companies will be held by the Authority, and they will remain subsidiaries of the Authority for a period while their affairs are disentangled from the parent body. But the Bill contains a provision which will permit the Minister to transfer the controlling Government holding in the companies to himself.
The second of the limitations that I mentioned also relates to national security. The Nuclear Fuel Company will pose a new kind of problem from the security point of view, and the problem arises because, in addition to having classified Government contracts, the company will be handling, and indeed genera-ting, secret information of a particularly sensitive character, but for purely civilian rather than military purposes. Other companies, and particularly the British arm of the international enrichment venture, will eventually raise the same problem, and the Bill deals with it by means of a Schedule of special security provisions which are very similar to those which were enacted for the Atomic Energy Authority itself when it was set up in 1954. These are, it is true, strong measures to apply to a commercial company, but the Government are convinced that the circumstances of the case justify their inclusion in the Bill before your Lordships. I should add that because they will be engaged in activities with which the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 is concerned, both new companies will be subject to that Act and to the inspection and licensing provisions which are part of it, but from which the Authority itself is exempt. Furthermore, that Act at present prohibits certain nuclear processes, except for the purposes of research and development, and the Bill therefore proposes an amendment to it empowering the Minister to allow those processes under permit.
The third limitation relates to the Authority staff whose work is being taken over by the companies. The Bill transfers them to the companies with their work. It has not been possible to allow them the option of remaining with the Authority, and so the Bill lays upon the new companies an obligation, to which the Government attach great importance, to provide terms and conditions of ser-vice for the transferred staff which are no less favourable, taken as a whole, than those they had under the Authority. The
330
Bill requires the companies to create suit-able machinery for negotiation on pay and conditions of service, and provides a right of appeal to arbitration in the event of any dispute as to whether the "not less favourable" stipulation has been met. The Bill also safeguards the pension entitlement of the transferred staff by providing for them to remain members of the Authority's superannuation schemes until the Minister is satisfied that the companies have introduced schemes of their own which are no less favourable than those of the Authority at the time.
The Bill provides for the companies to inherit the assets and liabilities of the Atomic Energy Authority's trading fund, including the loan on capital account. It also requires the companies, after taking account of the loan, to issue shares to the Authority in consideration of the difference between the value of the assets to be transferred and the liabilities. The assets would be transferred at their book values adjusted for some plants where the Authority have revised their estimates of the depreciation periods appropriate to the plants concerned, and no attempt is being made at this stage to assess the commercial value of the companies' assets or shares. Initially, all the shares will be held in the public sector which will receive all dividends, and their value will make no difference to the return which the public sector will receive, until the time comes for shares to be sold outside the public sector. Before then nothing must be done which would prejudice any negotiation for an appropriate price for the sale of the shares. Of course, when that time comes professional advice will be taken.
I have already touched on the possibilities for expansion which lie ahead of British Nuclear Fuels Limited, and a substantial programme of capital investment is needed over the next five years to cater for this. The Government, as I have said, hope that private interests will be willing to contribute to this programme, but public money will be needed as well, and the Bill contains provisions allowing the Minister and the Authority to make the necessary finance available.
To conclude, my Lords, the Government hope that if Parliament approves the Bill the two companies will be able

331
to start trading on October 1 this year. They will each be inheriting a sound business serving an expanding market. Both companies will be carrying further the strong tradition of successful public enterprise for which the Atomic Energy Authority is known. They will be making an important and growing contribution to the balance of payments, and to our industrial and medical needs at home; and, in particular, to the cheaper, cleaner provision of electric power which atomic energy is making possible. I trust that your Lordships will be willing to accord the Bill a Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a— (Lord Delacourt-Smith.)
3.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, we must thank the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, for explaining so clearly this important Bill, which has not yet been dealt with in another place: it has come to us first. We certainly support the principle lying behind the Bill. I remember, indeed, that one of my very last acts as Parliamentary Secretary for Science in October, 1964—over five and a half years ago—was to advocate the establishment of commercial companies, not only for the design and construction of nuclear reactors but also for nuclear fuels and isotopes, somewhat on the lines suggested in this Bill.
I did that after having made a study not only of the Atomic Energy Authority in this country, but also of the way in which the Americans were then handling these problems through their own Atomic Energy Commission. The American A.E.C. did not design or construct nuclear reactors; that was left to G.E.C. and Westinghouse. Nor were they responsible for selling fuel or isotopes. The A.E.C. in America are purely an administrative body, and it seemed at that time, already five and a half years ago, that the American system was operating more effectively than our own.
It took some time for the present Government to come round to this way of thinking, after very considerable discussion in the Select Committee on Science and Technology in another place. But, as I said in our recent debate on the
332
Green Paper proposing the establishment of a new British Research and Development Corporation, which would absorb certain establishments at present part of the A.E.A., it was reassuring that the Ministry of Technology now recognised that as a general rule only the customer knows what he wants (I am quoting from the Green Paper), and by his readiness to pay for it makes the supplier aware of his requirements.
I was glad to note, too, that the Green Paper stated that a contractual relationship between Government laboratories and their customers was essential if the programmes and size of these establishments were to be directly related to real needs. The Government—or, shall I say, at least the Ministry of Technology, for this was only a Green Paper—seem to be coming round to our way of thinking in these matters, both in the formation of the two new design and construction companies and in the formation of the two companies mentioned specifically in this Bill. The Bill is indeed closely related to the Green Paper, and I think it not inappropriate for me to say here that I do not think that the Government have faced up to the running-down of A.E.A.'s staff. The creation of a B.R.D.C. may be proving a convenient way of avoiding this problem. I have also read the strong criticisms of the proposed new British Research and Development Corporation which have been made, not only by the Institution of Professional Civil Servants but also by Dr. Lawrence Pilkington who, as your Lordships know, is not only a director of Pilkington Brothers but also chairman of the Conference of Industrial Research Associations.
I think that, generally, informed opinion is becoming more and more critical of the proposal to set up a B.R.D.C., and I certainly wonder whether the Government will be in a position to make up their minds as they have indicated, perhaps by June, regarding the establishment of such a Corporation. No doubt, if we have another debate on the Green Paper, on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, we can discuss this matter in greater detail. This afternoon, however, we are concerned entirely with the formation of these two new companies and the precise terms of the Bill. I should say here that I regret that there has been such long delay in bringing forward this

333
legislation. In the Report of the Select Committee on the Nuclear Power Indus-try, published on July 24, 1969, the Committee were already then critical about the progress of reorganisation in the atomic energy industry.
On the question of the intention to set up a nuclear fuel company, the Committee pointed out in July last year that the Minister had declared over twelve months previously his intention to introduce legislation to establish it in the place of the A.E.A.'s fuel business. The Committee pointed out that much depended on speedy action and that the extent to which the companies were enabled to participate in fuel manufacture and re-processing would be a further indication of the seriousness of the Government's intention that competitive industry should be entrusted with the nation's nuclear power industry. It must therefore be, I would judge, nearly two years now between the statement of this intention and the introduction of this Bill. Despite the delay, we none the less, as I say, welcome the principle underlying it.
I note, too, that it was already in July, 1968, that the Minister stated in another place that, in addition to asking the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to assist in the creation of the two new design and construction organisations, it would also be advisable to establish the Authority's fuel business as a publicly owned company under the Companies Act. That was in July, 1968. The Minister stated then that, in order to emphasise the interdependence of fuel and reactor design and supply, the Government intended that the fuel company should take up and hold minority share-holding in each of the two design and construction organisations. He also said that since the establishment of the fuel company would require legislation he was pressing that initially the Government shareholding should be taken up by the A.E.A.
In his letter to the chairman of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Mr. Benn made a number of points—this was already in July, 1968—with all of which I will not burden your Lordships but which I think in a general way we welcomed. We welcomed in particular the intention to create an organisation which would permit the sort of international industrial links which would be
334
of critical importance in all sectors of advanced industry and not just in atomic energy, and that this should be done with a special eye upon the future of the European nuclear industry in co-operation with our partners in Europe. As the noble Lord has said, the intention is that the new fuel company should be the British member of the new European Nuclear Fuel Consortium which it is proposed will manufacture uranium by the new centrifuge process. This is to be welcomed. But again there has been considerable delay, and I think I am right in saying that our German and Dutch partners have for some weeks been ready to establish the European Consortium and that British dilatoriness in the formation of our own fuel company has held up its establishment and getting on with the work at a time when our main competitors in the United States have been pressing on hard. I hope, therefore, that this Bill, appropriately amended, will have a speedy pas-sage through Parliament; but there have been these delays.
I should none the less say that we on this side of the House may have Amendments to put down, especially in regard to Clause 11, in which it is stated:
"The Minister may at any time by order made by statutory instrument transfer to himself all or any of the shares in either of the companies which are for the time being held by the Authority …"
Then, more particularly, in subsection (3) of Clause 11, that:
"… the shares in the company held by the Authority or by the Minister "
should
"carry in the aggregate more than half of the voting rights exercisable at general meetings …"
My Lords, even if at the outset the Minister and the A.E.A. may have a majority holding in the companies, I am very doubtful whether this should be specifically written into the Bill. We may well come to the point where these two companies are profit-making—indeed, in a sense they already are now—and would be appropriate companies in which the public should be entitled to invest. We know already from the Explanatory Memorandum on the financial effects of the Bill and from what the noble Lord has said this afternoon that the parts of the Authority's undertaking which are to be transferred to the companies are all

335
financed out of the Authority's trading fund, which has always traded at a net surplus; and the noble Lord gave us some impressive figures. Indeed, it is stated in the Memorandum itself that the estimated amount of that surplus for the financial year ending on March 31, 1970, is not less than £3·5 million in respect of the activities which will be transferred to Nuclear Fuels Limited and about £200,000 in respect of the activities to be transferred to the Radiochemical Centre Limited.
Personally, I see no reason why these companies should always remain under Government control. The Minister has said that there are certain security aspects, secrecy, involved which make it necessary for the Government to maintain control; but, frankly, I do not think that this is a good enough excuse. The products of the companies can be supplied by other countries of the world, and I think it would be altogether beneficial if these companies could operate on a strictly commercial basis. I will not go into this matter further this afternoon, but it is probable, therefore, that on Committee stage we may put down Amendments deleting those passages in Clause 11 to which I have referred.
I should now like to ask the Minister certain questions—I am sorry to be so long, but this is an important Bill— arising out of the views of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants. The Institution notes that the surpluses I have mentioned are expected to continue but that no estimate can at present be made of the amounts which might accrue to the consolidated fund by way of distributed profits. It seems to me, my Lords, quite natural for the staffs concerned to say that they would welcome a more precise statement than this, since the security of their employment will largely depend on the future success of the companies. I think the staff are right to ask for further clarification on the likely market during the next five to ten years—perhaps the noble Lord has to some extent answered this point—and that it is fair to ask for further clarification on the share of the market which the new companies can expect to obtain and on the implications as to the size and character of its staff. And, of course, they would also like to
336
have further information about dividend policy.
In regard to Clause 8, concerning transfers of staff, I note that the Authority employees engaged in that part of the A.E.A.'s undertaking which is being transferred to the new companies will automatically become employees of the appropriate company on the appointed day. The Institution of Professional Civil Servants say that this is an extremely unusual provision, in that staff are not given an option as to whether they would prefer to transfer to the companies or remain with the Authority. I understand that the Minister of Technology feels that the only practical proposition is to provide for the automatic transfer of staff, and that there is a special obligation to ensure that the terms and conditions of service with the new companies are satisfactory. I do realise, however, that staff are likely to be concerned about being transferred automatically, ignorant of what their future terms of service will be. I think that staff are entitled to know precisely where they will stand during the interim period, and that they should be given a clear statement of their position. I see, too, their point that staff should have an assurance that they will get the benefit of any change in Authority terms and conditions of service.
Capenhurst, which the noble Lord mentioned, houses a fairly large development team engaged upon the new centrifuge process. This will be the only development project of any size within British Nuclear Fuels. The major part of the development work at the other sites— Springfields and Windscale—will, I understand, remain with the Authority. Some staff are therefore concerned that when the development work on the centrifuge proces is in due course run down from its present high level of activity there will be no alternative work for this development team. I think it reasonable that staff should ask for an assurance that if they are run down or run out of work then the Government will make every effort to find them work elsewhere.
On the question of pensions schemes in Clause 19, I am also inclined to appreciate the point made by the Institution that it sees no practical or other need to establish what seem to be three

337
separate superannuation schemes, one for the Authority and one for each of the two companies; and that there will no doubt be a need to interchange expertise between the companies and the Authority. Ever since reading the Sutherland Report on Government Research Establishments and Universities I have thought it would be desirable if we could adopt in this country a system similar to that which obtains in Sweden, whereby staff in industry, in Government establishments and in universities have transferrable pension rights. I have mentioned this point in your Lordships' House before. This would greatly ease the interchange, and I was hoping that Mr. Crossman was going to do something about it. I believe that there would be great advantages in this country in simplifying and rationalising, rather than further complicating pension arrangements, as is done in this Bill. I know that the Minister said that it would not be appropriate for the new company staff to remain permanently in a public service scheme.
Of course, the I.P.C.S. are unhappy about this, too. They do not under-stand why it should be inappropriate for the staff of the companies to remain in a public service scheme. They note also—and this is very interesting—that when staff were transferred from the Atomic Energy Authority to the Nuclear Power Group that company agreed immediately to amend its scheme to provide benefits comparable with those obtaining in the A.E.A. I think that the I.P.C.S. have made a good point here. However, if Clause 19 remains unamended the Minister will have power to order that no pension scheme maintained by the Authority shall apply to any persons employed by the companies, irrespective of whether the companies are satisfied that the terms of the new scheme are no less favourable to them than the Authority scheme.
The Bill proposes that staff should be transferred to the new companies on their present terms but that these shall be only temporary (and this is what is worrying them), the final terms to be decided by the companies in consultation with any organisation appearing to them to be appropriate. I hope that in fact the organisation consulted will be the
338
Institution. The staff believe that they should not be compulsorily transferred to a new organisation with undefined terms of employment and that Parliament should not pass a Bill which does this. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could say something on this point. He knows much more about trade union question and, no doubt, the work of this Institution than I do: he is highly qualified to reply on these points.
In regard to the rump of the A.E.A., in our view there may be a need for an A.E.A. nucleus—an Atomic Energy Board of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord—to give independent advice to the Government on certain hardcore public services. Defence applications are no doubt transferred to the Ministry of Defence, but there may be a case for certain residual activities being transferred to a kind of research association, a kind of A.E.R.A., in which industry, customers such as C.E.G.B., as well as the Government, would make their contribution. I put this forward merely as a suggestion.
Finally, my Lords, I do not want to be responsible for delaying further the passage of the Second Reading of this Bill: it has already been relayed sufficiently in drafting. In view of the fact that most of your Lordships are no doubt waiting to listen to what is being said in another place, I think that we should now, as I have said, give this Bill a Second Reading, and our more detailed views on specific clauses can be made at the Committee stage. However, I should be interested to hear the Government's preliminary observations on what I have said this afternoon.
LORD CAMOYS: My Lords, I hope that it is not improper at this moment for me to congratulate the noble Earl on what he has said and to support him in every way. I put it to the Government that you cannot move people about with-out giving them somewhere to go to. The Government have failed in their housing programme—I am not trying to be rude; I am only saying that it has not worked. I support the noble Earl in what he has said and I suggest that we should concentrate a little on providing houses near these new companies for those people who would otherwise have long distances to travel to work.
3.35 p.m.
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, I rise to give a brief but cordial welcome to this Bill. It has often been observed, in this House and outside it, that the American and the British organisations for the exploitation of atomic energy took very different forms. In the United States the development was, from the outset, in the hands of private industrial firms working under contract to the Government through the Atomic Energy Commission. Over the years the A.E.C. has increasingly dismantled its monopoly and licensed private industry to produce and to deal commercially in nuclear pro-ducts. In the United Kingdom, the opposite course of direct State production of all nuclear materials was adopted. Having regard to the experience and capacity in this field of British industry in 1946, that would perhaps have been inevitable, even if a Government favouring private enterprise had been in power. There is therefore, in my opinion, no purpose in lamenting the course that was taken in the United Kingdom and which in fact has been a success, even though the American system has produced a very formidable commercial enterprise.
However, there has for a long time now been a strong case for modifying the British system and handing over more responsiblity and control to private industry. It is in many ways unfortunate that, partly owing to a difference of opinion between the political Parties as to how this should be done, the reorganisation and establishment of two nuclear design and construction companies took so long to bring about. However, that is now safely behind us, and this Bill to set up the nuclear fuel and the radio-chemical companies comes not a moment too soon.
In spite of the lack of success in selling our nuclear reactors overseas, the nuclear fuel and radiochemical business has done very well. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority recognised some time ago the importance of separating off this business and putting it on a commercial basis, and it segregated it in 1964 by setting up the trading fund. This has been well run by the Authority. It has become entirely self-financing and has met its capital requirements without borrowing from the Treasury. Last year the return on nuclear fuel services trading with the United Kingdom Generating
340
Boards met the target rate of 13 per cent. set by the Treasury. As was pointed out by the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading, the Authority has already developed a substantial export business. The Radiochemical Centre at Amersham, in particular, under the able direction of Dr. Grove has shown a remarkable capacity for growth and last year exported 57 per cent. of its production. There is therefore every reason for satisfaction at the achievement of our nuclear fuel business up to the present time.
But it is a logical step and entirely appropriate that the assets of the trading fund should now be transferred to commercial companies and that private industrial firms which have entered the nuclear field should have the opportunity of participating in them. The step is also required in order that this Government may participate in the centrifuge project on equal terms with the German and Dutch Governments. In a wider context, advanced technological industries are becoming more international in character, and the nuclear industry is no exception. As the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, said in this connection, the fact that nationalistic and protectionist influences are particularly strong in the nuclear field make it necessary to arrange for these tendencies to be overcome by special arrangements. Our own industrial organisation must be in a position flexibly to adapt itself to those special conditions.
I listened carefully to what the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, had to say about Clause 11 of the Bill. I must say I do not quite follow the purpose of this clause. Even if it is accepted that the con-trolling interest in these companies should remain in public hands, the Atomic Energy Authority will hold that interest on behalf of the Government. If at any time the Atomic Energy Authority should cease to exist, its functions would presumbably be transferred to some other body, to which the holdings could also be transferred. I should have thought, in principle, that to take back the shares into the Ministry would represent a retrograde step.
My Lords, when the two nuclear design and production companies were set up there was, I know, a good deal of hesitation among some employees of the Authority about transferring out of the public

341
sector. This hesitation about a change was perhaps in itself an indication that a more flexible and commercial system was overdue. I hope that in the case of these two companies there will be less reluctance on the part of those who will transfer to them under the provisions in the Bill. I see no reason to doubt the Minister's assurance that the terms and conditions of service for the staff under the new dispensation will be reasonable and fair.
In practical terms the real change will probably not be very great at the outset, but, in general, our objective surely should be to regard the peaceful applications of nuclear energy increasingly as important commercial and industrial activity like any other major industry. In the United States they are already nearly there. The American Atomic Energy Commission has said that since 1964 the nuclear economic climate has changed to one where virtually all activities are in the commercial/industrial sphere of the nation's economy. In this country the evolution will inevitably take place on a longer time scale, but this Bill represents a further step on the road and I therefore strongly support its Second Reading.
3.43 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have contributed to the debate for what they have said, and I will try to comment on one or two of the points which have been raised. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, returned to the question of the British Research and Development Corporation and the Green Paper. If I may say so, he was taking a second bite at the cherry; and if we come at a later stage to the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, no doubt he will be able to take a further bite at this topic. But I do not think that it would be generally the wish of your Lordships that I should on this occasion pursue some of the points which the noble Earl raised in that connection.
However, I should like to make a reference to the statement made, or the suggestion which the noble Earl offered, that there had been dilatoriness on the part of Her Majesty's Government in action associated with the tripartite centrifuge scheme, and that this dilatoriness was leading to delays affecting the
342
project as a whole. I am bound to say that I do not find substance in that contention. The discussions leading to this Agreement were of course complex ones, and as I think I indicated when repeating to your Lordships a Statement on the subject made by my right honourable friend, it was envisaged, even when agreement had been announced, that there would be—as has proved to be necessary—discussions on a number of complex questions: establishment, organisation, staffing and so forth. In fact, those discussions are continuing at present. As we foreshadowed at the time, these are complicated issues to resolve, and I could not accept the statement of the noble Earl that there has been some dilatoriness on the part of Her Majesty's Grovernment which contributed to this situation.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to interrupt him for a moment, may I say that both the Germans and the Dutch concerned have told me that we have been responsible for holding up the creation of the new European consortium, and I cannot see any reason why they should mislead me. So I am afraid I cannot let the noble Lord get away with that. It may be that he disagrees with what other countries think, but that, to my knowledge, is their view.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I do not think that I can, or wish to, add anything to what I have already said on this point. The noble Earl also asked about the staff employed on research and development. There is bound to be a continuing effort on centrifuge research and development for a number of years to come, and there will be close interworking between the staff of the British Nuclear Fuel Company and those who remain with the A.E.A. It is probable that the borderline on research and development between the two organisations may well change.
The noble Earl addressed himself particularly to two points: to the terms of Clause 11 and to the provisions affecting the staff transferring to the companies. On Clause 11, the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who speaks with great experience and authority in this field, also questioned some of the provisions in Clause 11. I offered the view that, quite

343
apart from other reasons, there were security grounds which justified the terms of Clause 11 and the maintenance of the predominant holding in public hands.
Even apart from these considerations of security, there may well be differences of view between the two sides of the House upon the propriety of such an important and growing sector of our economy having a predominantly public influence in its ownership. I hope that the noble Earl will, on reflection, agree with me at any rate on this point. He suggested that there was no need—indeed, that it was undesirable—to have provisions in the clause which retained the predominant holding in the hands of the Government, either directly or through the A.E.A. as their agent. He suggested that this was something which could be left until we saw how developments took place. I hope the noble Earl will agree that even if there could be established an overwhelming argument (I do not believe that this would be the case) for allowing the predominant ownership and control of one or both of these companies to pass into private hands, it should be something done only with the distinct and specific assent of Parliament. I hope that the noble Earl will take that into account when considering whether to put down an Amendment at a later stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, criticised the possibility envisaged in the clause of the holdings, which will initially be in the hands of the Authority, passing into the hands of the Minister. I think he said that he regarded that as possibly a retrograde step. The situation here is that the Government see the future of the Atomic Energy Authority as a research and development organisation. Incidentally, this is broadly in line with the recommendation of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in their 1967 Report. Possibly, too, we see it as part of a multipurpose research and development corporation, as put forward in the Green Paper which has already been mentioned. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it will hardly be appropriate, in the interests either of the Authority or of the country, that an Authority which had developed in one of those directions should remain the controlling shareholder in a permanent
344
sense of the companies which we are proposing to set up.
I come lastly to the question of the members of the staff. In the first place, the noble Earl asked me to what extent I could give any kind of estimate of the future trading prospects and share of the market which the companies might expect to gain. I do not think that at this stage I can add much to what I said on this point in asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading. It is always difficult to make prophecies of this kind, and the further ahead one tries to prophesy, the more difficult it becomes. But I think the facts speak for themselves. These companies will be operating, first of all, on the basis of the good record in the past of the Atomic Energy Authority, and, secondly, in markets which show every sign of growth; and I believe that they will be able to take good advantage of these possibilities.
The question of staff and their conditions is one to which the Government attach a good deal of importance. It may well be that it would be better for us to pursue this matter in more detail at a later stage of the Bill. I am not sure that it will be best for the advancement of this matter for me to attempt to make any detailed observations at this stage, but I should like to make one or two comments on the position. After all, there have already been a number of cases of statutory transfers of staff from one employing authority to another. When a transfer of work or function takes place and a number of staff are involved in it, it is necessary to choose between two methods of dealing with the situation. One is the method of giving individual options to those staff who wish to be transferred with the work. The other is that of effecting a transfer by Statute, as in this case.
It is not easy, in cases where the block of work and the number of staff concerned are substantial, and especially where staff have a measure of specialist expertise, to effect the transfers by individual choice. Where there is a statutory transfer, it is right that the Government should try to make provision in the Statute to see that the individuals who are being transferred by the terms of the Statute should have their positions safe-guarded so far as possible. The experience which there is of these cases shows

345
that difficulties can arise and that careful consideration is necessary.
The noble Earl made the point that it appeared that the staff transferred to the companies would be guaranteed their existing conditions only as a temporary measure and that in due course their conditions would be determined by the new companies, necessarily, as the Statute specifies, in negotiation with the representatives of the staff concerned. But he said that in that sense it seemed that the staff were being transferred with quite undefined and unguaranteed conditions in the long term. But, my Lords, when one comes to think about it, it is exceedingly difficult to give any guarantee in broader or longer terms than the one here proposed. That guarantee is that the staff will be assured of adequate negotiating machinery. If one were going to do anything else, the only form in which one could give a continuing guarantee, envisaging the changing situation over the years to come, would be to link the conditions and pay to some other organisation and I am sure that the noble Earl would be the last person who would advocate, as a permanent arrangement, linking the staff conditions in the companies to the Civil Service or to the Atomic Energy Authority or to some other continuing body. So it is a little difficult to see how one can deal with this problem other than in the way proposed in the Bill.
On the specific question of superannuation, it would be difficult to place staff who are to be in companies which are to operate as commercial companies under the Companies Act, albeit with substantial public shareholding, in an existing public authority superannuation scheme. But we should not overlook the guarantee in the Bill that the Minister must be satisfied that the new superannuation scheme established by the companies provides overall as good conditions before he is willing to allow the transfer from the existing public scheme to take place. As I say, I think that these matters can perhaps be better pursued in more detail at a later stage in the examination of this Bill, although I am sure that none of us is in any doubt of their importance. The observations which have been made by noble Lords in this debate will be taken note of, and I trust that your Lordships
346
will now be prepared to give this Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
ROAD TRAFFIC (DISQUALIFICATION) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
TREES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

EDUCATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
3.58 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill and as such covers two quite different subjects. The first of these, the subject of Clause 1, is by far the more important and deserves to receive the lion's share of our attention this afternoon. Clauses 2 and 3 serve only to rearrange the powers under which certain student grants—which are aready being paid out—are awarded. A minor point in one of these clauses has caused a certain amount of excitement but I hope later in my speech to set the mind of the House at rest on this issue.
I am glad to have the opportunity of opening the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, because it introduces a reform for which strong support has developed over a number of years and which as, I believe, welcomed by all those who have an interest in the education of handicapped children. The change provided for in the first part of this Bill can be seen as an important step in the development of society's attitudes to those who have the misfortune to be born with a mental handicap. In the last century and well into this one, it was felt that

347
the best way—indeed, one might almost say the only way—to deal with the mentally handicapped was to put them out of the way and forget them as far as possible. Society to-day is better able to understand that a mentally handicapped person is no less human that a normal one: he feels the same need for the affection and acceptance of those around him, and suffers no less acutely from the same frustration when he is unable to do the things that others around him are able to do. A child suffering from mental handicap is one whose mind is not capable of developing beyond a certain point: sometimes the potential for development is very small indeed; but sometimes, given consider-able patience and individual attention, the progress that can be achieved is quite remarkable. The education policy of this Government has concentrated upon the theme that each individual, whatever his circumstances, should be given the opportunity to develop his ability to the utmost. I am sure that the House will agree with me that this principle is nowhere more relevant than where an individual is fated inevitably to be handicapped in relation to his fellows. Mentally handicapped children therefore deserve our special attention, and their education should be carefully planned so as to make the most of every aptitude that they possess.
The 1944 Education Act requires local education authorities to establish which children in their areas suffer from any form of handicap which is likely to affect their ability to benefit from normal methods of education. They have a duty to provide education by special methods which meet the needs imposed by the handicap. Such education may be provided either in a normal school or in a special school. But the 1944 Act also calls upon local education authorities to consider the possibility that some children may suffer from mental handicap to such a degree as to make them "unsuitable for education at school". Section 57 of the Act provides that, after due medical examination, the local education authority should, in effect, wash its hands of such a child. The child is referred to the local health authority, who then have the duty to provide what is referred to in the Mental Health Act
348
of 1959 as "care and training in lieu of education".
The provision of training for teachers of mentally handicapped children under the ægis of the Training Council in itself constituted a marked advance on earlier practice, and a great deal has been achieved by local health authorities in carrying out their responsibilities to these children. It is in large measure due to the enlightened way in which they have developed the concept and practice of training for mentally handicapped children that we are able to-day to recognise that there is no hard and fast line between a majority of children who can be educated and a minority who cannot; and that there is much in common between the educational needs of mentally handicapped children and of other young children. Given a sequence of good learning experiences (though this may have to be more carefully structured than for other children) and opportunities to work individually or in small groups, with encouragement from sympathetic and knowledgeable teachers, they have shown that they can learn and can make considerable gains, both personally and socially. This Bill provides that every child shall have a right to the education that will enable him to develop his full ability.
The children who will be affected by the provisions of the Bill number around 28,000. About 6,000 are in hospitals, and almost all the rest attend centres—called junior training centres—administered by local health authorities; a small number, who may have additional handicaps, receive some training at home, and some have been placed in privately-run centres or homes. When the transfer takes effect, the junior training centres will be approved as special schools by the Secretary of State and will from then on be run by local education authorities. There has been a considerable expansion in training centre provision over the past decade. Many health authorities have been able to carry out the policy of separating children from adults and many junior training centres are housed in modern, purpose-built accommodation, looking very like schools: some authorities indeed call them schools. In some places a centre has been built close to a special school for educationally sub-normal children, and close working links

349
have already been developed. Such signs are encouraging for the future.
Education authorities will also be bound to make arrangements for the teaching of mentally handicapped children in hospital, on the lines of their existing arrangements for teaching children who are in hospital for other reasons, such as accident, illness or physical handicap. Many, though not all, hospitals for the mentally handicapped already provide some teaching for child patients, and in these cases education authorities will have a worthy foundation on which to build. Where at present children in hospitals for the mentally handicapped are not receiving any teaching, the local education authority will be bound to assess their educational needs and to provide for them. The successful development of educational work in hospitals for the mentally handicapped will depend upon the establishment of close relationships among all those who are in any way concerned in the welfare of child patients.
I have attempted in what I have said so far to provide the House with a picture of what is to happen if Clause 1 of the Bill before us becomes law. I should like now to refer briefly to the provisions of this clause. Clause 1(1) provides that, from an appointed day, first, no child shall in future be excluded from the education system as "unsuitable for education at school"; secondly, local health authorities shall lose any power or duty to provide training for mentally handicapped children—that is, those powers and duties that they have to have so long as there are children excluded from the education system; and thirdly, those children who are now subject to an order declaring them to be "unsuitable for education at school" shall from the due date be regarded as being in need of special education in the same sense as children with any other handicap.
Subsections (2) to (5) of the clause, which are substantially in common form, are included to fulfil the Government's undertaking that
"the conditions of service and salaries of staff will not be adversely affected by the change".
The local health authority is also the local education authority, except in Inner London and the City, and the mechanics of the transfer between the two authorities
350
will be straightforward. In Inner London the transfer will be between the Common Council of the City of London and the Inner London Borough Councils as health authorities and the Inner London Education Authority which covers the area of the City and the Inner London Boroughs as a whole: this accounts for the reference to
"local health authorities not also being local education authorities".
Here the arrangements will be more complex, as they will also be where responsibility for the education of children passes from a Regional Hospital Board to a local education authority. Subsection (6) refers to the Schedule listing enactments to be repealed by the Bill so as to achieve the purpose of Clause 1.
It has already been announced in another place that if Clause 1 becomes law in this Session in Parliament the date on which it is expected to take effect is April 1, 1971. In closing what I have to say about this part of the Bill, there is one point which I think I ought to make. Much is expected of this reform, and rightly so. But we must not expect everything to change all at once. The picture up to this moment has been one of gradual development and the legislation now proposed will allow that development to continue within the education system and as part of the general provision of special education for handicapped children. To start with, local education authorities will need a little time to explore their new responsibilities and to establish relationships with their new staff and with hospital authorities in the field of mental handicap. Their policy for the education of their new charges will have to be thought out carefully. The children, in virtually every case, will remain where they are now and will be taught by the same teachers. And this is right, for these are the teachers who have the special skills needed for this very difficult work and whom the children have learnt to know and trust.
The essence of the change is that for the first time both mentally handicapped children and their teachers will be part of the educational world: they will have access to the advice and facilities available in the education service. With the special school system open to them, a more flexible approach will be possible

351
in meeting the children's needs and they can be offered more challenging opportunities as their response develops. Teachers will be able to benefit from professional exchange with their new colleagues, both in special education and in the wider school sphere, and to contribute their own experience to broaden their colleagues' understanding of the implications of severe mental handicap. Out of this cross-fertilisation, made possible by the removal of a barrier that is simply outmoded, I anticipate that we shall see stirring developments in what is done for these children whose needs are so vast: no spectacularly sudden developments, but a steady advance that will be immensely worthwhile.
I turn now to the remaining clauses of the Bill. Clause 2 has received a great deal of publicity, most of which has been ill-founded. The clause is an enabling one which gives the Secretary of State power to supplement the grants paid to certain students. These students may at present receive discretionary allowances from either their local education authorities or from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. This clause does not extend present provision—it centralises it and will allow the application of uniform standards and conditions. Nearly all students attending first degree and equivalent courses or courses of training as a teacher receive an award from their local education authorities. These awards are mandatory under the Education Act 1962 and are paid subject to conditions which are either set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State or in arrangements approved by him. The awards comprise fees, maintenance grants and supplementary allowances; for example, for extra attendance at college or on a vacation course. Included among these supplementary allowances are allowances for the dependants of a student. Not all students are entitled to dependant's allowances. Only if a student is married before his course begins and either is over 25 or has supported himself for three years out of earnings may he claim, as of right, allowances for his wife and children. If he is not over 25, or if he has not supported himself for three years, or married after the year in which his course began, he is not entitled, as of right, to allowances for his family.
352
In 1964, following pressure from both major Parties, the then Secretary of State, Mr. Quintin Hogg, agreed to an amendment to the Awards Regulations which would give discretion to local education authorities to pay allowances for the spouse and children of an award holder in cases of hardship. This amendment was foreshadowed in an answer to a Parliamentary Question on July 23, 1964. Subsequently, in December, 1964, after consultation with the local authority associations, an amendment to the Regulations was made. This amendment, sub-sequently incorporated as Regulation 13 of the University and Other Awards Regulations, 1965, gave local education authorities power, in cases where in then-opinion hardship would occur, to make payments in respect of the maintenance of the spouse and children of the holder of an award even though the normal conditions for the payment of these allowances were not fulfilled. The payments were not to exceed those made to a fully entitled student but could be less.
It was agreed with the local authority associations that local education authorities would normally be expected to exercise their discretion only when a student had a child born within six months of the beginning of the course, or where the wife (or husband) was chronically sick or disabled.
At the same time the then National Assistance Board agreed, as a temporary measure, to consider requests for assistance from all categories of students who were not otherwise eligible for allowances for their dependants. Thus by the end of 1964 it was possible for these students to obtain assistance which would relieve the considerable hardship that many of them experienced. In many cases it would have been impossible for these students to complete their courses without this additional assistance, and had they been obliged to withdraw, this would have been a waste of public funds.
My Lords, I would emphasise that these students are not irresponsible young persons. The conditions governing the payment of dependants' allowances require a student to be married and over 25 before his course begins before he is entitled to allowances for his dependants. Many students who get married and have dependants during a course

353
are in their twenties, and a few, who may be following a very long undergraduate course, may be older. Some will have married and had children while in employment before entering college but, because they have not been self-supporting for three years previously, failed marginally to qualify for allowances for their families. It was against this background that the arrangements with the local education authorities and the National Assistance Board were concluded. The majority of these students are responsible, intelligent and decent young people who need help if they are to complete their course.
We are convinced that students should be encouraged to complete their course before they take on the responsibility of a wife or children. For this reason we intend that any allowances paid to students in respect of their dependants should be seen to come from a different source and be paid in a different form from the normal student grants. The present arrangements are temporary, and unsatisfactory. It is necessary to replace them with something that is permanent. The Supplementary Benefits Commission wish to withdraw from what was admittedly designed as a temporary expedient, because benefit is normally subject to the overriding condition that a fit person under pensionable age should be registered for employment. A full-time student cannot fulfil this condition. The view of the Commission is perfectly reasonable, and we are greatly in their debt for the consideration they have given to students in the past and for the patience they have displayed while new arrangements were discussed.
Local education authorities are very willing to relinquish their powers. Interpretation of hardship inevitably varies from one authority to another, with the result that anomalies occur. Additionally, they argue that, even if they could define hardship, they have no satisfactory machinery for measuring it. In any case, provision for hardship should, for the reasons I have stated, be made outside the normal awards system. Clause 2 of this Bill will enable the Secretary of State to bring together under the Department of Health and Social Security the responsibility at present exercised by local education authorities and the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
354
In due course regulations will be laid before Parliament giving details of the scheme. Broadly it is intended that from September 1, 1971, local education authorities will lose their power to pay discretionary dependant's allowance, and the Supplementary Benefits Commission will cease to accept applications from students for assistance. The regulations will specify the conditions under which allowance will be paid, and will enable Social Security officials to assess applications and the Department of Health and Social Security to make payments. The allowances will, as now, be discretionary and will not exceed those paid to a fully entitled student.
In view of what has been said in the newspapers and elsewhere about allowances for students' mistresses, I wish to make the position quite clear. The Regulations under which local education authorities have power to pay dependants' allowances refer to "the spouse and children of an award holder", but the Supplementary Benefits Commission do not distinguish between a married couple and a couple cohabiting as man and wife. The Ministry of Social Security Act 1966 says:
"Where a husband and wife are members of the same household, their requirements and resources shall be aggregated and shall be treated as the husband's and similarly, unless there are exceptional circumstances, as regards two persons cohabiting as man and wife."
In this respect the Commission have treated the student the same way as they treat other members of the community. The Bill is intended to enable the Secretary of State to pay allowances on the same basis as the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Who will actually receive allowances, and the conditions they must fulfil, will be set out in regulations which will be laid before Parliament later. On one aspect of the conditions I can give an assurance; it will not normally be possible for a student to claim an allowance for an unmarried partner unless there are dependent children of the alliance. It is with the children that we are mainly concerned, and I should like to emphasise this.
Various numbers of students have been quoted, and in nearly every case the numbers have been greatly exaggerated. We estimate that the total number of students affected by these arrangements

355
will not exceed 1,000 and that, of these, all but a very small minority—less than 1 per cent.—will be married. This is essentially a problem of students who are married with families, but who were either under twenty-five or not married when they began their courses: it is not, and never has been, a problem of unmarried students living together. In a very few cases there is the problem of illegitimate children. An unmarried mother will in future, as in the past, be able to go to the Supplementary Benefits Commission for help; the unmarried father who is trying to support his family will not. In these very few cases, a small fraction of the whole, the student will be able to apply for support for his children. I would conclude on Clause 2 by emphasising that it does not extend or change the rules at present governing the payment of dependants' allowances to students on the grounds of hardship.
Finally, I turn to Clause 3. Under this clause the Secretary of State will be given authority to make regulations in which he will designate postgraduate courses, and local education authorities will lose their existing power to make awards to students who wish to attend these courses. In future, such students will be able to apply only to a central Government agency—that is to say, a Government Department or Research Council—for an award. This change in the law was foreshadowed by the Secretary of State when he said on December 16, 1968, that an agreement to this end had been reached with the local authority associations.
The present position is that awards to postgraduate students are made by several central Government Departments, the Research Councils and local education authorities in England and Wales. However, for many years local education authorities have not been expected to make awards for courses that fall within the field of responsibility of one or other of the central Government agencies. This division gave rise to confusion and a substantial volume of complaints. Local education authorities felt that they were continually exposed to demands for discretionary awards from candidates whom they regarded as the responsibility of central Government. Then university departments may have been dissatisfied
356
with the number of awards made by a central Government agency for their courses and were disappointed when they found that local education authorities were discouraged from making awards for such courses. It has therefore been necessary to clarify and regularise the situation.
Clause 3 gives effect to a policy change which all who were consulted accepted— not only the local authority associations, but also the Vice Chancellors' Committee, the various professional associations, and the National Union of Students. Arrangements have been operating since the beginning of the academic year 1969–70 which reflect the assumption by central Government of the major responsibility for supporting postgraduate courses. Local education authorities have not, in fact, been making awards for courses for which central Government accept responsibility. But their power to do so still remains, and Clause 3 will remove this power. Clauses 4 and 5 are cast in formal terms with which the House will be familiar; the financial effects of the Bill, which are desoribed in the introductory memorandum, will be considered in another place.
I conclude by drawing the attention of the House back to the proposal in Clause 1 of the Bill: that the power to exclude mentally handicapped children from the schools should cease to be used, so allowing these children in future, like all the rest of their fellows, to receive all the wider benefits that our education system can give them. My Lords, this is a measure about children; it will relieve much tension and bring a happier prospect for the future to many children and to their parents. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Baroness Phillips.)
4.22 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for explaining this Bill so thoroughly. The noble Baroness devoted a great deal of her speech to the question of student mistresses, which has created quite a lot of attention in the Press recently. I must say that I shall have to study very carefully what she said, because it was rather complicated, but I should like to say straight away that I was not altogether convinced. I

357
should like also to welcome the fact that this Bill has been introduced in this House. It is always a pleasure when Bills are introduced here. No doubt it is an even greater pleasure to the Government on this occasion, when they consider what has happened to Clause 1 of their main Education Bill in another place. Perhaps that might encourage them to introduce more Education Bills here.
As its name implies, this is a rag-bag Bill of various miscellaneous provisions, of which I would agree with the noble Baroness the most important is that in Clause 1, which transfers to local education authorities the responsibility for the education of severely subnormal children, who are at present the responsibility of local health authorities. There is no doubt at all that this is a most welcome provision. It has been eagerly awaited by all those concerned with the education of these children, ever since the first decision was announced by the Prime Minister in November, 1968. Indeed, there has been a certain amount of impatience at the delay in bringing this legislation forward.
There can be no doubt at all that of recent years considerable advances have been made in the education of severely subnormal children and it has come to be generally acknowledged that every child can derive some benefit from education. I need only remind your Lordships of the debate we had on February 17 last, on a Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, drawing attention to the education of autistic children. In that debate particularly it was the common consensus of opinion, I think, that certainly autistic children can benefit from education, and in fact if they do not receive education they may well rapidly deteriorate. And so we have come to believe that Section 57 of the 1944 Education Act, which refers to children incapable of receiving education at school, is no longer valid, except in so far as severely subnormal children may require a different kind of education outside the normal school.
This transfer of responsibility for their education recognises that fact, and it has the additional advantage of establishing a more flexible boundary between the severely subnormal children and the
358
educationally subnormal children who are at present educated in special schools. I know there is at present excellent liaison in certain cases between the local health authority and the local education authority, which ensures flexibility between training centre, mental sub-normality hospital and educationally subnormal school, but this new transfer will certainly facilitate future Arrangements of that kind. However, I would agree also with the noble Baroness that the mere change of administration from health authority to education authority will not of itself accomplish miracles.
I think we should pay tribute to the local health authorities, who have hitherto carried the burden and have made very significant advances in the theory and practice of caring for these unfortunate children. I would quote just one sentence from a speech by Mr. D. A. Fiske, the chief education officer of the city of Manchester, because I believe it contains wise advice. He said:
"… above all, it is going to be necessary for those in education to recognise with due humility that a good deal of work has been going on under the health authorities in the training centres that most of us in education are not aware of, do not understand and should not condemn because it has not been done by people whom we should call qualified teachers."
This brings me to the main worry that I and my colleagues have about Clause 1 of this Bill; that is, the position of those who are at present teaching these children under the health authorities and will now be transferred to the local education authorities. It is clearly stated in the Bill that their position is safe-guarded and will be no worse than hitherto. But recently the Secretary of State for Education and Science has announced that all staff holding the Diploma in the Teaching of Mentally Handicapped Children will be recognised as qualified teachers provided that they have had five years' post-diploma experience of teaching subnormal children. Equally, those who have not as yet had five years' post-diploma experience will be eligible to become fully qualified teachers once they have completed their five years. This of course is welcome in principle, but if they are going to be given qualified status, surely the requirement of five years' post-diploma experience is very hard, not to say unjust.

359
If one takes the case of an older teacher—that is, in this context, over 25 years of age—he or she must have had five years' successful experience of teaching first, before he or she can qualify for a one-year diploma course. Is it really just that after that they should still have to wait another five years before they are entitled to be qualified teachers? I should have thought that in their case pre-diploma experience should equally count against the five-year qualification period. Or if we consider the case of the younger teacher, under the age of 25, he must have had at least 18 months' practical experience first and then take a two-year diploma course. Surely it is not fair to him that after that he has to wait another five years before becoming a qualified teacher.
We remember that the normal school-teacher takes a three-year course and then has to do one year in schools before he or she is qualified, and is in fact paid on the Burnham scale after three years; whereas the younger teacher in the mentally handicapped field will be expected to have done 18 months' qualified service and a two-year diploma course and had five years' experience—a total of 8½ years—before becoming recognised as a qualified teacher. That seems to me unjust, and I should have thought that a requirement of two years' practical experience after the award of a diploma in that case would have been much fairer. If this proposal is not modified, I fear that it may have an adverse effect on recruitment at a time when we are already short of skilled teachers.
It is envisaged—and I very much welcome the fact—that for the future there will be three-year training courses within colleges of education. But what about those teachers who, in the mean-time, before these courses get going, are either at the moment on diploma courses or are about to go on them? They see themselves facing a period of seven or eight years before qualification, while their brothers and sisters who are no better equipped than they axe with "O" levels find their way into a three-year course and qualify after three years. There really is a serious and difficult question here and I beg the Government to look carefully at it again. It is not as if large numbers were involved: in total
360
those who hold the diplomas number under 1,000, taking those in training centres and in hospital schools together, and surely 1,000 teachers in a body of nearly a quarter of a million deserve special treatment.
There is another side to this question. On the other side of the coin the teachers who are qualified in normal schools will no doubt be eligible for teaching the mentally handicapped, without having had any special form of training. This again is an important point and one that I feel has not been given enough thought. I would advise the Government that it was recommended specifically in the Scott Report of 1962 that a normal teacher transferring to the teaching of mentally handicapped children should take a one-year supplementary course. This seems to me to be a sensible recommendation. I very much welcome the fact that some teachers of severely sub-normal children will be recognised as fully qualified by the education authorities, but I think the future prospects of these teachers teaching in normal schools, and of teachers in normal schools teaching the mentally handicapped, requires much more thought and perhaps in both cases some form of transitional course.
I should like to ask two questions on Clause 1. The first is on subsection (1)(b), which relieves the local health authorities of responsibility for children of compulsory school age and transfers the responsibility to the education authority. I should like to ask what happens to these children when they come out of the bracket of compulsory school age, at the age of 16. Are they then automatically handed back to the responsibility of the local health authority? In many cases this might be most unfortunate when one thinks of instances of mentally retarded children who could well benefit by continuing their education. They may be 16 years in age but they may only have attained the mental age of 7 or 8. One would hope that in such cases it would be possible for them to continue their education under the local education authority rather than being transferred to the local health authority and having to attend an adult training centre or a mental subnormality hospital. If that were their future, it might well undo much of the good that had been done by their education up to the age of 16.

361
My second question is on finance. The Explanatory Memorandum states that savings resulting from administrative economies will result in no additional charge on the Exchequer. My Lords, I wonder what these administrative economies are? Whatever they may be, I think local education authorities will be hard put to it not to increase expenditure in this field. They will be facing a situation of a shortage of teachers, of inadequate places for all the children involved, of children in mixed training centres with adults, and children in adult hospital wards. As the noble Baroness explained, their responsibility will extend to all children and they will have to review the position particularly in mental sub-normality hospitals. At present in these hospitals only about one half of the children attend the hospital school and the other half are "ward-bound", and yet there is evidence that at least 10 per cent. of these children at present in hospital are well above the severely sub-normal level of intelligence. There is a large and challenging problem here, especially when one considers that only about one quarter of the staff in hospital schools are trained, and I cannot believe that local education authorities, if they are conscientious, will not find that they will need to give greater priority, both in capital and current expenditure, to these new responsibilities.
I now come to Clause 2, the one to which the noble Baroness paid such attention. I cannot altogether agree with what she said. It may well be that the clause is meant to apply to cases— and very rare cases—of exceptional hard-ship, but it certainly does not say so. As the clause reads at the moment it seems clearly to empower the Secretary of State to make supplementary grants to students in respect of their mistresses or, in the case of a female student, whatever the male equivalent may be. My Lords, we may be a permissive society, but we are not a libertine one and this provision is really more than we can take. Why should the taxpayer be asked to finance the student in these circumstances? I was surprised to see no sign of a blush on the face of the noble Baroness as she explained these provisions. Personally, I had put it down to a bit of electioneering on the part of the Government—an attempt to catch the students' vote. We shall certainly seek to amend this clause.
362
I am not at all clear about the procedure under this clause. The official handout that was given when the Bill was announced stated that the Department of Health and Social Security would assess and pay these special allowances, but the Bill itself says that the Secretary of State—presumably of Education and Science—may by regulations make pro-vision for the payment by him. I am confused as to whether this is a responsibility of the Department of Education and Science or whether it is the Department of Health and Social Security. In any case, although I fully agree that it may be right for supplementary grants for legitimate wives, husbands and children to be assessed and paid by the Secretary of State, I cannot believe that it is right to lay on him the responsibility for including mistresses and concubines. There may be a very few exceptional cases of hardship, but they are very few, as the noble Baroness said, and I should have thought that they should be treated in quite a separate way. Indeed, I should have thought that the right way to deal with them would be by means of the supplementary benefits provision. But as I have already said, I will read with great care what the noble Baroness has said to-day.
Finally, my Lords, I have nothing to say on Clause 3. It seems relatively un-contentious, but perhaps I may just inquire whether, in the case of postgraduate students, their grants also will take into account the degree of cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex that they may be enjoying. On the whole, I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading, although we shall certainly wish to amend it at the Committee stage.
4.39 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I should like to give a general welcome to this Bill. It does a number of worthwhile things. I shall have one major sin of omission to lay at its door, but on the whole it is a very good Bill. Clause 1 provides a reform which we all welcome, particularly those of us who have been interested in the education of mentally handicapped children. The borderline between health and education in this particular matter must be very hard to draw. We can have nothing but praise for the

363
people on the health side who have been looking after these children in the past, just as we can look forward with confidence to their being looked after, once the Bill is made law, by those on the education side—and of course for many it will be exactly the same; it is merely a transfer from one Ministry to another.
It is, I think, extremely important that we should acknowledge, as we are acknowledging in this Bill, that virtually no child is ineducable, and even if there are some, no one knows which ones they are, and one cannot draw a line. Children, however bad their handicaps are, respond to some form of education. That came out very clearly when I asked an Unstarred Question and we had the debate on autistic children which has been very kindly referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. It came out clearly that children who otherwise would often have been written off as ineducable were able to be educated to a large degree. I have no doubt that it will be, above all for the parents, a tremendous relief to know that no longer will children be written off in this way but that acknowledgment is made that they are educable.
I would cordially endorse—if one can endorse a question, a point about which I am not sure—Lord Aberdare's question about what will happen to these children at the age of 16 if they are capable of further education, because that is something to which we must pay more and more attention. I agree with Lord Aberdare on the point about the teachers with the diploma; it seems to me that the extra five years of teaching which they are being asked to complete after receiving the diploma is hard, and I hope that the Government will have another look at this matter.
I now turn to Clause 2, which has been dubbed by the papers, and to a slight extent by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, as the "libertines' charter". I have never really believed in this. The thought of Mr. Short leading a campaign for the permissive society is not one which carries very much conviction. I do not really think that on this matter the Government can be accused of making an election issue for student votes, because one of the things I would lay against the Government at the present moment is that they are very much aware that votes are
364
to be gained from the general public on anti-permissiveness, on a vieing with the Conservative Party on the subject of law and order; and to introduce this clause at this time is an act of courage rather than an act of vote-seeking. The fact that these regulations are to be made by the Secretary of State and are, we are told, to be laid before Parliament, seems to me a quite sufficient safeguard that they will not be abused.
It is extremely important that we see that people get the education from which they can benefit, and that true dependants are not in any way harmed by regulations drawn in too tight a way. I think that this clause, by taking over the work that the National Assistance Board was doing beforehand, makes sure that there will be no real hardship cases. I for one am perfectly prepared to accept the assurances of the Government that this provision will not be made into a sort of general hand-out for students' mistresses and lovers but will merely be a means of seeing that a very few hard cases, where children and other people would suffer, can be looked after. I must say I am a little perplexed by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who said, if I understood him rightly, that if you are going to have these exceptional cases and you are going to look after them, would it not be better to put them back to the National Assistance Board? I do not see why. If these cases are going to be paid for by the taxpayer anyway, why should they not be paid for through the regulations which make the most sense and where they fall most neatly into place?
It is on Clause 3, however, that I have my one complaint about this Bill. Although it is a complaint about something which is not in the Bill, I hope your Lordships will bear with me, the more so since I have been very brief on the previous two clauses. It is a complaint about the charges in the whole system of Regulations for postgraduate students, which have taken place not just in this Bill but over a period of time, and indeed very much over the last year.
There is one previous question, before I get on to this major one: the question of parental contributions. On that I should like to ask whether this clause may not lead to greater inflexibility in making awards in the less conventional areas of study. I am aware that the

365
National Union of Students has certain misgivings about this matter.
But it is more important, I feel, that this Bill should have taken steps, or Regulations should have been made at the same time, to abolish parental means testing for this particular category of student. Indeed, as some of your Lordships will be aware, I am quite convinced that the whole system of giving students grants according to their parents' income, once the students have passed the age of 18 and therefore the age of majority, is a totally unjust one. It seems to me that this is where the Government might well correct an injustice and what is obviously an anomaly. The defence which has been made in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and in another place by Mr. Fowler, that before the age of majority was changed to 18 the age for the ceasing of parental means testing was not 21, does not appear to me to be a very good defence. The fact that the age was 25 when the age of majority was 21 was silly and unjust, and the fact that it is still 25, now that the age of majority is 18, is even more silly and unjust.
And Mr. Fowler's accusation, made on January 30 in another place, of dereliction of parental duty by those parents who will not necessarily assist their children over the age of 18 is an unfair one. If we are giving grants to students, we should respect the age of majority. We have now taken the age of majority as 18, a time when young people take responsibilities, when they have freedom from what their parents can say to them. They may, and we hope they will, still accept parental guidance, but they should no longer be under the power of their parents as these particular clauses make them. It should not be within the power of parents, once students have reached the age of majority, to stop their children getting further education if they are able to profit from it; and that is the situation at the moment.
Even if the £ 35 or £ 40 million necessary to do away with the whole parental means test system is not available (and while in another place the Chancellor of the Exchequer is relaxing the economy, it seems to me there are worse ways in which it can be relaxed than in rectifying injustices, reducing anomalies and helping students), surely it can be done in this case of postgraduate students. Here
366
is a case where the average age of the students is between 22 and 25. It really is absurd that no advantage should have been taken of this Bill or of the regulations which will accompany it, and which have been put into operation over the last year. Before a year ago there were many more cases in which parental means testing was not applicable. It is only over the last year that we have got to a stage, which is finally reached in this Bill, where all postgraduate student grants have parental means testing applied to them.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, almost certainly will not be able to give me any assurance at this stage of the Bill; but I hope that what I am saying is something which the Government will take to heart. This is a real anomaly, which ought to be cleared up, and this would have been a good occasion to do it. But, with that exception, I, and I am sure all my colleagues on these Benches, wish this rather good Bill a fair wind, and certainly a better wind, as Lord Aberdare has said, than their present major Bill has got in another place.
4.52 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on the fact that, at long last, the changes which he has been advocating for years are now to take place. I have no doubt that the proposal that this group of handicapped children should be put under the care of the Department of Education and Science will be generally welcomed. It seems particularly suitable in view of the tremendous development in the methods and techniques of teaching both mentally subnormal and handicapped children. It is perhaps worth saying here that colleges of education have already been planning courses of training for teachers in this field; and the Church training college at Culham has already had notable success in pioneering such courses.
I would say just two things in regard to Clause 1 of the Bill. I think that this is an occasion when we ought publicly to say how much this country is indebted to the devotion of the large number of people who spend their lives in hospitals and institutions, as well as in camps, caring for children who come into this

367
category. From time to time, I visit hospitals of this kind, and I never cease to marvel at the extraordinary devotion which nurses seem to be able to give to these children. Recently there have been lamentable exceptions, and I think it is important that we should recognise what a remarkable thing it is that, faced with this tragedy—because it is a tragic situa-tion—so many people, including parents, respond with astonishing qualities.
Secondly, if the new proposals are to be successful this ought to be an occasion when there is a new support for voluntary help in this field. I found it interesting to observe the two reactions to the recent incident at the South Coast resort. There are still people who would like to push these things out of sight, and who are offended by or cannot bear the pain of seeing people in this unhappy position. But the really interesting thing is that once the matter became public there was a tremendous outburst of support and help from all sorts of voluntary agencies. I believe that this is still needed. Although the Bill will provide for the drawing up of statutory resources, there is still a tremendous amount that can be done by voluntary assistance, together with the statutory authority.
This is particularly true in those cases of children who are not in homes, hospitals or institutions but are still cared for by their parents. I believe that few people, except those who have been in close contact with these cases, can know of the tremendous strain that is placed upon a mother, day in and day out, who has to care for a child like this. I hope that it will be possible for women's organisations of various kinds to help in some way to provide the kind of rest and relaxation which is needed if that sort of work is to be done.
I come to Clause 2; and, having read it and having listened to the noble Baroness, I must say that this does not seem to me to be anything more than a change of procedure. I think it is a grave mistake to try to make out that here is some new matter of principle. I think it has been made quite clear that what is proposed, namely, a discretionary proposal, is in fact a change of procedure in dealing with certain cases. As I read the Bill, and as I listened to the
368
noble Baroness, I did not find anything which suggested that in the case of a student cohabitating with a girl there would be any question of assistance, whatever form that assistance might take, except in cases where there is a child, although I think the noble Baroness referred also to cases of illness. Obviously, this would be a special case, and might or might not qualify. But surely the point is: what is to be done in a situation where two students have lived together and have had a child? It would of course be quite possible for us to take the view that this simply cannot be recognised; that this is an intolerable situation. But we must recognise it.
What happens then? Provided that the young man leaves the girl and her baby, and no longer cohabits with her, the law of the land provides that she is eligible for some form of social security. But, my Lords, is it a very moral procedure, just at the point where perhaps the young man is really feeling his responsibility to insist that he should cast off that responsibility in order that the girl may qualify in the only possible way for social security? The alternative is that he should give up his studies and undertake employment, and so be able to support the mother and child. There may be cases where this is proper. Again, this is made discretionary to the Ministry. But is it really in the best interests, either of the student or of the country, that a student in this situation, who, shall we say, is half-way through his training as a doctor, should be told, "You cannot continue to train any more; you must go off and get such job as you can in order to support the girl by whom you have had a child"? I do not think that this is a way of developing responsibility within the student himself, and I doubt very much whether this is the best way to use our resources.
It seems to me that over the last few years, as usually happens, we have found a procedure for dealing with these cases. It has really arisen out of practice. The proposal now is that these matters should be handled by a particular Department. Like the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I am not quite clear who is going to handle them. But I hope that this particular Department will have some specialised understanding and

369
knowledge in dealing with cases of this kind.
The figures which the noble Baroness gave us made quite clear what a small percentage of cases is involved, and I am quite sure that we ought not to get the whole thing exaggerated. I think it un-likely that the percentage will get much larger. Nevertheless, it seems to me that we ought to be ready to recognise that under this clause there may be claims for support, not as a result of any exercise in permissiveness, but through this tendency of the younger generation to get married much earlier. I belong to a generation which did not think in these terms, but I believe that we have to recognise that for many young students the age when they are likely to get married is now much younger than it used to be. It may be part of their own insecurity, or of the insecurity in the world in which they live, but I do not think we should be too worried if in fact the number of married students increases roughly in proportion to the marriage age of the rest of their particular age group.
5.0 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has dealt so ably with the first part of this Bill that I should merely like to make a short intervention on Clause 2(4). I am sorry to find myself at variance both with the Church and with the noble Baroness. She did her best to give us an explanation which, of course, we shall look at carefully, but it was one about which I did not really feel very happy. This clause enables a claim to be made by a man or a woman cohabiting with a man or a woman, for the maintenance of his illegitimate child—or should it be children? I am not quite sure whether it is restricted to one child or whether it can be an increased family.
I think this is going too far. We are living in a very permissive society, but there must come a time when the public is supported when it takes a certain view. I know it is suggested that this is, as it were, merely a transfer of payments from one Department to another. But I think it is much more than that, because it gives the impression abroad that by putting it in the hands of the Secretary of State for Education the educational world is sanctioning this sort of behaviour. That is what I object to. If
370
these people have to be supported, let them be supported by the Department of Health and Social Security; but that the educational world should take over this responsibility and, as it were, sanction this sort of behaviour is bad from the public point of view. When I was up at Oxford those who got engaged were sent down. It was considered that we were there to take advantage of studying, and that if we got engaged obviously our minds were not on our studies. I think that was a fairly reasonable point of view. I am glad to say that I escaped both engagement and being sent down by rather a narrow squeak.
Education in the proper, broadest sense is not just restricted to learning; it is the education of the whole man, character training in the best sense of the words, and the accumulation—sometimes a very painful one—of worldly wisdom. Living in sin, as it used to be called (and I personally see no reason for altering that way of expressing it), and having illegitimate children is not only not being very worldly wise, it is throwing a burden on the community, on your honest and upright neighbour, for your own failures. If such people wish to study, and the community in its generosity (at the taxpayers' expense) wishes to support them, then I say let it be done by the proper Department and not by giving the imprimatur, the sanction, of the educational world. It is such a bad example to set to those young people who are decent, upright, and want to live a proper life. I do not think that we could have had a greater contrast than at this present moment, when three brave men, disciplined, calm, and facing death, are manoeuvring their space ship back to the earth—and I am sure with the prayers of everybody in the world behind them. Those three young men will no doubt be heroes in their country for many years to come, and their country will be very proud of them. We here, on the other hand, are now underwriting, as it were, the feckless, irresponsible young men and women, and taking money to support them from their honest, decent-living neighbours.
There was a time when the British characters was well known all over the world as one of the finest elements, respected everywhere, and the English-man's word was his bond. It seems to me that now, slowly but surely in this

371
permissive society, those sterling qualities of our countrymen are being undermined, and I feel that this Bill, with the encouragement which is given by the Government, is just another step in that direction. I hope that when the time comes and we go into Committee there will be an Amendment, and I shall vote against the inclusion of this subsection.
5.5 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, this is a curious little measure. It is called an Education Bill, and it has, I suppose, three clauses of most significance. I do not object in any sense to Clauses 1 and 3, but in between these two clauses there is Clause 2, which introduces a new principle in this country which must cause widespread concern. I hope that nobody here has ever formed the opinion that I am puritanical. I am not a bit puritanical, and I am very well aware of how people live and how youth lives to-day. My own deep feeling on this matter is that the Government, at this difficult time, should give a lead to the youth of the country.
This Bill carries an innocent title; it reminds the doctor of the necessity to sugar a pill, and somebody might well say, "Well, there is some significance in that". I feel—and having listened to my noble friend I am certain—that this represents another piece of ill-digested legislation which I would ask the Government to regurgitate. In fact, when we all read that very long statement made by my noble friend, which obviously is an after-thought which has been given to her to-day, I think we shall be able to discover, I am pleased to say, that the Government have made a collosal error in framing the Bill in this way. I have read the Bill and the 1965 University Awards Regulations (which of course have to be read to understand the Bill) over and over again, and everything I am saying this afternoon, as one should on a Second Reading, is related to just that.
I have the feeling that there are wise people who are saying, "Take this back. Let us save our face, but don't let it go forward as it is in the Bill to-day". Of course I am referring specifically to Clause 2(4), which says clearly that it provides for the mistress of a male
372
student, or the lover of a girl student, to qualify for a Government grant similar to that of the wife of a husband. I feel that the Government are conspiring with the "pop" films and some modern literature to give the impression that sex before marriage is not only right but that it should be encouraged, and indeed rewarded by the taxpayer. Because where is this money to come from? No money for the nurses—we cannot afford it; but the taxpayer is to be called upon to give this sex subsidy. I would say that this Bill also encourages young people to bring children into the world who are denied the right to exist within a stable, permanent relationship. That relates to what my noble friend has just said on the subject of children. Any encouragement of this kind to the students does not mean that they will ever suffer in the future; it is the child who is brought into the world who is going to suffer.
I really feel that the country should now be told by the Government whether chastity and virginity have any intrinsic value at all. We are told—I think my noble friend mentioned it—that this pro-vision will only concern mature students. Surely a student's lack of maturity is well established if he has to keep a mistress as a crutch to help him study. In the field of medicine, I remember that in my day men students accepted the fact that they had years of training before them. They had to put up with it; they had to discipline themselves. Nobody ever suggested that in order for those years of medical training to be made a little easier the Government would come along and finance a nice mistress for you. Furthermore, if a student is prepared to permit a young taxpayer, sweating in a mine, a factory or a shipyard, to help to support his mistress, that proves his immaturity. Why should not all we have heard about this Bill be applied to apprentices? Why should it not be applied to other categories of workers? Why only the pampered student? As a feminist, I feel very strongly that this provision makes a girl vulnerable to pressure from a selfish, undisciplined young man who, whether he becomes her lover, as he can do, at 25, or takes her as his mistress at 25, can qualify for a grant. I have looked up the 1965 regulations and they indicate that a girl student of 21 can take a lover, and a male student can take a mistress who is under 21.

373
I have a few questions which I should like to ask. As cohabitation, unlike marriage, is terminable at a minute's notice, is the student permitted to change partners and to retain the grant? Also, how often will this be permitted? Are we to have regulations setting out this nonsense, which will be read by every country in the world and make us a laughing stock? The taxpayer is going to pay a grant and "How many mistresses can you have?" will become the question. We shall soon have protests from Liverpool saying, "We believe in three mistresses, not one".
It seems to me that once again a Bill has been introduced which is designed to increase the load which a woman will have to bear in the permissive society: for it is she who will have to care for an illegitimate child and bear the accompanying stigma. My noble friend Lady Phillips knows the gossip of universities as I do. If a girl sleeps with a man, do your Lordships think the gossip goes around, "Ah, it was only one man"? I think the modern expression is, ''She sleeps around". But that expression is never applied to men. This is a Bill which is heavily loaded against women. Noble Lords may laugh, but they should think of their daughters. It is the girl who suffers. The Divorce Reform Act was loaded against the women, and here is another Bill of the same kind. It amazes me that a Labour Government have approved a measure which is detrimental to the morals of our young people and designed to undermine the institution of marriage.
I want to say to my noble friend Lady Phillips that I am sorry for her. She has been given this unpleasant task, and the more she tries to explain the Bill away the worse it becomes. Whatever she says, the regulations do not alter the principle. With full employment there is little difficulty in earning a living for three years to qualify for a subsidised mistress or lover. That is one of the qualifications. On the question of maturity which is being stressed, my noble friend must have learned that academic brilliance and stability are not necessarily related. She knows—and we do not have to look far from this place—that there are men who have done brilliantly at Oxford or Cambridge but who seem to be suffering from delayed adolescence. This Bill provides a suit-
374
able bedfellow for the new Divorce Reform Act.
The Government should have given more thought to the recent resignation of Sir Jocelyn Simon—that wonderful man, the President of the Divorce Court— from the Divorce Law Reform Union. He resigned after reading an article written by the Parliamentary Officer of that organisation (which guided the House on the Divorce Reform Act), who wrote:
"Either it will become perfectly acceptable at all levels of society that the young will live together unmarried, or else a divorce in the mid-twenties will become accepted as a perfectly ordinary part of life. Society will be forced to recognise this factor."
In his letter of resignation, Sir Jocelyn said:
"The author may well be right that this problem of behaviour is a likely result of the Divorce Reform Act, but it hardly seems to be a situation which an organisation devoted to the promotion of stable marriages should view with complacency, much less give implied approval to."
It appears that the attitude expressed by that member of the Divorce Law Reform Union, which, as I have said, supported the Divorce Reform Act, is reflected in the Bill before us to-day. Indeed, this may be one method of forcing society in the direction he indicated in that article.
Another point which I want to make to my noble friend Lady Phillips is that it seems that Clause 2 has established that needs have nothing to do with morals. In that case., can we expect some amending legislation? I ask that question because, if a widow in receipt of a small State pension cohabits with a man, the pension can be withdrawn. However, provided that the lover has a separate address, although he may have sexual intercourse daily, her pension will be unaffected. It would be interesting to know whether the same rules apply to this new sex subsidy for students? Can they live apart but, provided they prove that they are having regular sexual inter-course, qualify for the grant? Then, my Lords, housing being in short supply, are the Government prepared to get over this administrative difficulty by helping co-habiting students with accommodation, in order not to deny the poor little darlings the sex subsidy?
When are we going to stop harming our young people by spoiling them?

375
Throughout the country do we not see youths demonstrating, protesting—spoilt boys who are enjoying an education that was denied to their fathers and grand-fathers. What do we do? Instead of bringing in some legislation which may control them, we introduce this Bill in order to allow them licence in another form. Why should not a student learn the virtues of discipline and control, instead of being rewarded for indulging in pre-marital sex? What my noble friend said about children only emphasises the point. In other words, we say to them, "If you are unfortunate enough to bring a child into the world, don't worry; the Minister of Education will come along and look after it for you." I say again, apart from the principle involved, that it is the girl who is at risk. It is she and her illegitimate child who are to be the victims of this latest piece of permissive legislation.
I want to deal with what the right reverend Prelate said. I was rather surprised that he adopted such a very simple, easy attitude. I do not think he can have given the Bill very careful thought. The argument that this is simply a transference of funds from supplementary benefits to education is, in my opinion, cynical in the extreme. I suspect that that is an administrative afterthought. I was a Minister of National Insurance, and I always regarded supplementary benefit (or national assistance, as it was called in those days) as a net in which to catch all those unfortunate people who did not qualify for insurance benefits—people like the un-married mother and her child. Such assistance could hardly be said to en-courage extra-marital sexual intercourse. The grant to be given to cohabiting students, under the auspices now, I under-stand, of the Ministry of Education, is a positive incentive to sexual licence with official approval. Here is the great difference: the other allowance, of course, had to be asked for, and there was a careful investigation; but here it is going to be practically automatic.
My Lords, this provision has been injected into a Bill called an Education Bill, and we may well ask: "Education, what for?" Has sex education come to such a pass that the Government have decided to adopt an indulgent attitude towards irresponsibility, and, indeed, promiscuity?
376
And do not let us feel that that is an over-statement. This legislation is opposed to the principles about which most women feel strongly. I knew that the name of the noble Baroness who has just spoken appeared on the Paper only just before the House sat, and we have not discussed the matter. But it is rather significant that both of us, though politically absolutely opposed, and both having been to university, having given thought to this, should have come to the same conclusion: that this was a fundamental mistake on the part of the Government. My Lords, when the next Election comes, if the pundits are bewildered by the abstention of women, they should consider whether what has kept women away from the polls is not the price of food but the price which has to be paid by themselves, by women, and their daughters, for some of the permissive legislation which has now been put on the Statute Book.
5.22 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, parents of mentally handicapped children all over the country have been campaigning for the transfer of responsibility for the education of their children from health to education. The thought behind this enthusiasm was that at long last the teachers of their children would become highly qualified teachers, and their children first-class citizens in the educational world. I have always been a sceptic, in that I feared it would entail simply a switch from one Ministry to another, with little advancement to the teachers or the pupils. I can see that in the short-time period my fears have been realised in the implications of this Bill. In my opinion—and I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, will agree with me in principle—the teachers of mentally handicapped children, and indeed E.S.N. children, need the greatest skill, patience and endurance if they are to obtain the best results from their pupils.
The education of the mentally handicapped child is of the greatest importance to itself and to its family. I am privileged to be a member of the Training Council of Teachers of the Mentally Handicapped, representing on that Council the parents' point of view; and the decision of the Minister of Education that after receiving the Diploma of the Training

377
Council's two-year course, which is the only recognised diploma in this country, teachers will have to wait five years before becoming qualified for full teacher status, came as a considerable shock. I understand that some concessions have been made, and our chairman, Professor Clarke, of the Department of Psychology of the University of Hull, is leading a deputation from the Council to meet the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Short, on the 27th of this month to discuss this situation. I can only say, my Lords, that unless reasonable concessions are agreed upon I shall find it very difficult to remain on the Council as the position which I hold at present, representing parents on the Council, is in no way served by the Minister's decision.
My Lords, may I now turn to the changeover as it affects hospital schools? We have in the hospitals a number of abandoned children, and indeed a great number of those who are far from abandoned but who for various reasons are unable to live at home. The Education Act at present in force lays down the obligation of all parents to ensure that their children attend school. In the changeover of the mentally handicapped to education, how far does this responsibility rest on the hospital authorities? In Queen Mary's Hospital for Children, we have 340 menially handicapped children. Of this number, only 120 attend our special training school. Of this 120, approximately 20 are borderline cases, in the sense that there is some doubt as to whether they can benefit from the training that is given to them in the school. The standard for deciding whether a mentally handicapped child is capable of obtaining benefit from training is in the hands of the psychological department, who test all the children.
When this hospital became a comprehensive hospital, dealing with all aspects of child care, the case was put to the Regional Board, and I believe to the Ministry, as to whether there should be enough teachers and adequate schools to give education to all the children on the mentally handicapped side. It was then decided that we could have teachers only for those who were regarded by the psychologists as trainable. Personally, I feel that the present arrangement is wise, but in view of the Bill before us
378
I think we should know the thinking of the Government on this subject.
If we accept a ratio of one teacher to fifteen pupils—and that must be right—we shall need another fifteen teachers, which at present rates of pay would entail an increased cost of something in the region of £ 12,000 annually—in one hospital. I am asking this question as parents may insist on their children going to school, and the hospital may be put in a very difficult situation from the point of view of both accommodation and teaching staff. Here, I got a little bit bewildered. Did I understand the noble Baroness to say that, under this Bill, these children about whom I have spoken, those who are definitely cast out from school by the psychologists, will remain under the health authorities? From the reaction of the noble Baroness, I gather that I must have misunderstood the position.
Now I turn to another point. I understand that the salaries of teachers who are qualified under the Training Council Diploma will be decided by the Burnham Committee. I trust that there will be an improvement on the present salaries; otherwise, it is extremely unlikely that we shall get trained teachers to take on this arduous and essential work. On the takeover, it is important for us in the hospital world to know whether Burnham school holidays will be available to the teachers. At the moment they get far less than those in the normal schools, which is a great detriment to recruiting. If these holidays are decided upon, we must know at once, as it will mean that the children will be in the wards for far longer periods and it will require reorganisation of the nursing side of the hospital.
It would appear that the education authorities have not fully considered all the implications of this takeover. It is of vital importance that the plans of the Government are fully understood prior to the takeover, otherwise chaos may ensue. I have given the noble Baroness notice of some of these questions. Naturally I do not ask for immediate replies to those on which I have been unable to give her notice, but it may be that, after consideration, she will be able to let me know the views of the Government so that I can consider them for a further stage of the Bill.
5.31 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I believe that this Bill will receive a general welcome not only in this House but in the country, and I think we should be clear that there is no implication that the health authorities have not done their duty properly or even admirably. In the majority of cases, the chief medical officer, upon whom a great deal of responsibility rests in these matters, is also the health education officer, and it is within my knowledge that very great care is taken by these officers before a child is declared ineducable. The same problem at that end will still remain. The advantage will be that the children will not be divided into two categories; they will come into one category—they will be children, and they will be the responsibility of the education authorities.
One thing that I hope will arise from this Bill is that we shall not talk so much of training children who have been regarded as ineducable but that we shall begin to educate them. "Training" has never seemed to me to be a good word when used in regard to children. The object of education is to teach children to take their place in the world as they are best fitted to do. The object here is, has been and will continue to be, precisely the same. A child regarded as ineducable in the ordinary sense must be taught if it is possible to teach it. In many ways it is possible and, with new knowledge and new factors arising, more and more children are being taught to enjoy some life. They may not become valuable economic units—that is not what we are concerned with. We are concerned that a child should be taught to enjoy life to the best of his ability. In that respect this Bill should help us a good way forward.
I think there has been some exaggerated talk—and some of it in this House—on Clause 2. Clause 2 alters nothing at all. It merely brings into the daylight something which has been going on for a long time. Whether or not it ought to have gone on I am not arguing the merits of the case; I am not arguing morality. The fact remains that these things are now brought under the education umbrella, having previously been the responsibility of social security in some form or another. What I cannot understand is why it is not to remain
380
there. I am not arguing about the necessity to make this change, for I believe it is necessary. I am not arguing about the question of the mistress, the able-bodied mistress sometimes helps maintain her partner or vice versa; because there are cases, in spite of what the noble Baroness has said, where males are taken into care by females. It is not always as one-sided as it is made to appear.
In any case, it seems to me that this is a proper matter for social security. In fact, I think that we ought to deal with education purely as education. Extraneous matters such as maintenance or dependants ought to be the responsibility of social security. It is a social security matter and not an education matter. I am surprised that it has been brought into this Bill. I think it would have been far better to have a clear-cut decision that it should be taken as social security. There do not have to be separate payments, there are plenty of avenues existing for single payments to be made where the benefits come from more than one source. There is no question of the indignity of having to go to draw supplementary benefits. They can be drawn through a single channel. It would keep us clear on what we are spending on education and what we are spending on social security. The country ought to know these things, ought to know how it spends its money. I hope that it might be possible to reverse this tendency. I know that social security wanted to get rid of it—and, presumably, to get rid of the cost of it, too, and to make it part of the cost of education. But I do not think that that is the right way. I hope that some reconsideration will be given to this matter.
I think Clause 3 will be generally welcomed. It makes clear where the channel of responsibility lies for postgraduate courses. These are of various kinds; some are short and some are long. In the case of the long courses, I must con-fess that I am a reactionary. It seems to me that it would not hurt if persons who have already received education grants to get to a satisfactory degree state so that they can earn a reasonable living, and who want to go on to get another and higher degree (usually to command a higher salary in the market), were obliged at some stage to pay something back toward what the State has been prepared to spend on them. I know that as a

381
result of these postgraduate courses they become of greater value to the community, but they also become of infinitely greater value to themselves. When a person of 23 or 24 years of age has per-haps gone into industry for a couple of years and then decides to go for a higher degree—for example a B.Sc. wishing to attain an M.Sc.—I think it proper that he should be encouraged to do so. But I do not think that he should be encouraged entirely on the basis of the responsibility of the State. At that stage—and not at any earlier stage—provided that they are enabled to earn a much increased income as a result of post-graduate courses, I should like to see them recognise their responsibility to the State. I should like to reverse the process and put a little more responsibility on the person. Beyond that. I would give a general welcome to the Bill. The important part of the Bill is Clause 1 and I hope that we shall do nothing to imperil that.
5.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, like one or two other speakers I want to speak on Clause 2(4) of the Bill. So far as Clause 1 is concerned, I know nothing about the education of handicapped children but I thoroughly approve of the clause, and in this regard I thought that the observations of my noble friend Lord Aberdare on the qualifications of teachers were very pertinenit. We should spare no efforts in regard to the education of handicapped children. When we come to Clause 2(4) about which we have already heard quite a lot, I find myself on the side of the two noble Baronesses who have spoken. In fact, on the Divorce Reform Bill I was really on the side of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and one or two other noble Ladies, which may rather surprise them. It may appear that we are strange bedfellows—no, my Lords, that would be the wrong expression!—I mean it is strange that we should think alike.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I was thinking the same thing.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: We have become used to students, or militant students, expecting, apparently, to choose their own teachers and to do away with examinations, so perhaps we ought to regard Clause 2 of
382
the Bill as a mild adventure of the Government. Certainly, the modern State appears to impress on students that the world owes them a living; but I think it is extraordinary—in fact, this is the first time we have heard of it—that apparently the world also owes them a mistress. I deplore that this should appear in a Government Bill.
There may be cases of hardship, and if the hardship is genuine it should be dealt with in other ways; through National Assistance. This is bad propaganda for the Government, and although of course I ought to welcome that, it is also bad propaganda for the country that this should appear in a Government Bill. I think that some high-up person in politics actually said that he regarded the modern age as the most civilised age we have ever had. No doubt a great many so-called progressives will agree with the provisions in subsection (4). I am sure that Dr. Leach, Provost of King's, who gave the extremely controversial Reith Lectures will approve. I am equally sure that the great majority of the British public will thoroughly disapprove.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, pointed this out as being an example of great courage on the part of the Government. He may well be right. Perhaps it is, but I think it is an example of gross stupidity. It is an insult to married people. The corner-stone of a civilised community is the family. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, glossed over the words and said that they would apply to only a few people; but that is not the point, it is the principle that matters. My first thought on reading the subsection was that there had been some mistake in the printing, but apparently there was not, and one has to accept this as being what the Government intend.
My Lords, I find myself in a difficulty. I have always thought it unfair that illegitimate children should suffer under any disability because of their illegitimacy. It is not their fault that they are illegitimate; we should blame the parents. An illegitimate child ought to benefit from any State hand-outs in the same way as other children. But I object to the parents of illegitimate children benefiting from their lack of discipline. I am no saint, but one has to keep up certain standards in public, and it is

383
monstrous to find that mistresses and lovers are to receive grants from the State from what is, after all, taxpayers' money. It is extraordinary, and I am very surprised at Her Majesty's Government.
It is even worse in respect of the man because, presumably, if a woman who is a student receives an award, and provided that they are over 25, the man concerned can benefit from the grant and so he is just a gigolo. This is extraordinary legislation. Even during the last days of the Roman Empire, when the Roman citizens were being spoonfed into oblivion by the "Welfare State," there was nothing like this. I know my Gibbon fairly well, but I can find no reference to grants being paid for mistresses.
I ask the Government to think again about this measure. The majority of people in this country are tired of the permissive society; they are tired of their children being the prey of drug pedlars and of their property being broken into. We want to tighten up on the permissive society. But this measure, as some noble Lord said, turns it into the libertine society. I have always thought that if you have too many hand-outs from the State, eventually you will destroy the self-reliance and sense of responsibility of the British people. I agree that hard-ship and misfortune which is not the fault of the person concerned must be alleviated, but I implore the Government seriously to consider any Amendments which may be moved in respect of Clause 2, either by noble Lords opposite or on this side of the House, and to consider redrafting subsection (4) so that it does not read as at present.
The Arts Council is a Government body and I understand that it pays, or has paid, the fines imposed on individuals who have broken the law. If we can go as far as that, I suppose we could go as far as is provided in subsection (4) of Clause 2. But I hope that when she replies to the debate the noble Baroness will give the House some assurance that during the Committee stage the Government will try to amend this clause. As I said before, my Lords, it is very bad publicity for this country, and will make us a laughing stock in many countries.
5.50 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, I will be brief, but I should like to deal with
384
a point raised by the right reverend Pre-late the Bishop of Lincoln He is not in the Chamber at present, but presumably he reads Hansard. I went one better than the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, because I got engaged while I was a student, but I was not married until I had taken my degree. My grand-son did one better than me because he got engaged and was married when he was a student, but he did not have a family until he was a self-supporting schoolmaster. I think that not enough emphasis has been laid upon the difference between getting married when you are a student and keeping a wife or even keeping a concubine when a student, if your wife or concubine is not dependent or made dependent by having a child. That is another question. But I think that if one accepts a Government grant to become a student, one must refrain from producing a dependent family. If you have children, you will have, in effect, a dependent wife.
The right reverend Prelate said that people are marrying younger. No doubt they are; but they are also marrying women who are and can be independent. When I think of the mature student, the man I have in mind is the sort of man to whom we used to give grants for higher education through the Extramural Department of London University. He would be a man who had had no opportunity of higher education after the age of 15 or 16 and who, after he had been for some time a wage earner, had become a devoted and hardworking W.E.A. student. Naturally he had a wife and perhaps dependent children. If he was regarded as a suitable person for a grant to enable him to take two or three years of study for a degree or a diploma, the grant would be awarded, and if he had dependants extra payment would be given him for the purpose of keeping them. And I think rightly. That is the sort of mature student we should encourage. But on consideration I really think that Clause 2 of this Bill opens the door rather too widely, whether in practice or merely in public conciousness, to the horrible behaviour indicated as a possibility by my noble friend Lady Summerskill.
5.53 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I want to say just a few words on Clause 2(4). I speak because of some of the

385
things that have been said by previous speakers. Not one of them has denied that these situations exist. In these situations the most important persons are the children, and having listened to the noble Baroness sitting immediately in front of me I am very worried lest, if there is much of that kind of talk, the children of these associations will find themselves labelled not only as illegitimate but, as they used to be fifty years ago, as bastards. I think that in the interests of the children, who are the innocent people in these situations, whatever may be thought about them, the language in discussing this matter ought to be reasonably restrained.
There has been no suggestion, certainly no proof, that by transferring the cost of maintaining these mothers and children to the Department of Education and Science there will be any increased cost to the community. That needs to be borne in mind. I can appreciate what I may refer to as the reasonable attitude of my noble friend Lord Pargiter. Frankly, if we are not going to spend any more money and if these situations already exist, I think that in the interests of the children we ought most seriously to consider paying these allowances in such a manner as will encourage the development of a stable home background, and I would make an appeal that serious thought be given to what I regard as the courageous statement of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Lincoln. I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in what he said about this matter, for it would have been easy for the Government to dodge this one and very easy for them to have dropped it. But I believe that there is a considerable case in the interests of the children for treating this matter in a serious and constructive way.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I apologise for intervening in this debate without putting my name down and also for having missed part of it, but that was not my fault. I thought that my noble friend had explained Clause 2 very clearly and coolly enough to damp down some of those whom I call members of the Puritan League. I think it was unwise of the Government to bring this clause forward to play into their hands, and it may be that the clause was
386
a kind of Civil Service backlash. I simply cannot understand why the Supplementary Benefits Commission could not continue to deal with such a small number of people. It seems to me that the whole thing is a storm without any good reason.
5.58 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I must say I find it difficult to reply to this debate, not because of the suggestion that I was loaded with something which was difficult, because if you are a Minister you have to deal with all kinds of legislation presented to you, but because some of the noble Lords who have participated in the debate have ranged rather far and made it difficult for me to be coherent. Therefore, if I miss what they may regard as important questions, I apologise and will have to communicate with them by letter.
Let me say at once to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that as a keen historian I am very much tempted by what he said about the Roman Empire; but if he really wants classic cases of mistresses and children being kept on public money he has only to look at the Regency period. There seems to me to be a slight element of class discrimination when he brings in students and their mistresses; but I leave that aside at the moment. It is not my duty to give a discourse on morality or say whether sex immorality is the only kind of immorality there can be, though I think that there are worse kinds of immorality than sex immorality. I have to deal with Clause 2.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not like my explanation. I tried to emphasise that this was a discretionary power. It is not mandatory on the saviour State to keep all illegitimate children. This seems to be the emphasis that has been placed upon it. It is a discretionary power which will be exercised by regulations, and it is likely that when we see these regulations they may well place the emphasis on the children. As we have tried to emphasise, no student is going to be allowed to keep a wife or a mistress (if I may use this word, which is too often emotive) or someone with him unless there is a child. I thought I made that clear.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: It is not in the Bill.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: The regulations still have to come before the House. The provision in subsection (4) which seems to worry everybody is to regularise the situation which is at present accepted by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The Supplementary Benefits Com-mission cannot continue to pay money to fit men who are not available for employment: and a student cannot be deemed to be available for employment.
LORD ABERDARE: Have they been doing it up to date? If so, why has the situation changed now?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: They have been paying it up to date. I said that this was a temporary arrangement, which came in as a result of discussions in 1964—in case it might be suggested that this Government was the one which brought this about. It would be waste-ful—I do not think any noble Lord has contradicted this—to discontinue training in the middle of a course. It is equally true that many students have long courses. I know that several noble Lords have pointed out that when they were in college they wailed patiently; and I am sure that this is true. But I want to say that this is equally true of the majority of students to-day. The majority of students are sensible, responsible young people. I think it is unfortunate that the noble Viscount should bring in the question of protesting and people breaking up things, which has nothing whatever to do with the Bill that we are discussing to-day. As I say, I think it is unfortunate, because we have already had far too much of this in the Press, and it is something that is right away from the main point under discussion. This is the transference of a payment.
I am bound to say that there is a slight element of the attitude, "If we don't know about it, it doesn't matter too much"; but the moment that it is put into an Act of Parliament you know that some people cohabiting are entitled to this payment. Perhaps I may repeat that this is related to the children, where there are children. We have never accepted in the British Constitution the idea that a woman should neglect her children in order to go to work to maintain them. This is really what is being said if this is taken conversely. I am sorry that some noble Lords have sug-
388
gested that they may try to change this clause. If they do, I think they must be clear about what they are trying to change. If they succeed in taking this out of the Bill, then they will be throwing it back on to the Supplementary Benefits Commission, who should not be paying money to this man at all. So this is not so simple as merely deleting this clause. I will leave that point there.
I was very heartened by the support of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, because I am bound to say (and I say it in no sense of being unctious) that, as somebody who tries to be a Christian, when I deal with legislation or when I sit in court I constantly have before me the thought that one must exercise justice and mercy; that "There but for the grace of God go I." It is too easy to criticise. On the point that this is a mistress living with a student, I would ask: what about the woman who would like to marry the man, but is prevented from doing so for various reasons? She may well have a religious faith which forbids divorce; there are all sorts of reasons. When we come down to numbers, there are about 1,000 students receiving this money, the vast majority of whom are married. We must keep this thing in proper perspective. I can say no more on that point. Noble Lords can return to it during the Committee stage if they so wish. I hope that the Press will not put me forward as a propagator of sex subsidies for students.
When we come to the matters dealt with in Clause 1, I have some answers to the various comments made by noble Lords; but others are lengthy and, with permission, I will reply in more detail in writing to the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Grenfell: they will know that I will not omit to do this.
On the question of the responsibility of educating the children in hospital, I indicated by nodding to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that it will become the responsibility of the education authority. Obviously some kind of testing will have to take place, and it will be worked out from that point on. But these children are part of the Bill. I have taken note of the other specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell.

389
On the important question about teachers who will become of qualified status, which I think was raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, there is one matter in relation to the five years. As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, will know, at the moment, within the present structure, the period is ten years. The five years seem to be a reasonable period of time, and one that would give a large number of the teachers qualified teacher status already, because they would have done the five years and would qualify. Those who at the moment are in training will have the opportunity to move over to other courses. This is in the process of being worked out. The right reverend Prelate made some reference to the fact that colleges of education are already considering this matter. I do not think there will be any hardship: in fact, if I may fall back on the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, he said quite categorically that no member of staff would be worse off. He would not say this lightly.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I think that what those who are interested in this aspect want to see is not that they are no worse off, but that they are better off.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I take the noble Lord's point, and I know of his great concern in this subject. As he mentioned, there are to be some discussions later this month.
On the question of the qualified teacher status, I would only remind the noble Lord (I am sure he is well aware of it) that this will entitle them, when they are qualified, to teach any child in any school. Since they have entered the profession in a slightly different way, one has to exercise some caution here because one is discussing with existing teachers who, as will be known, are very chary of any change in case there is what they call "back-door entry".
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it seems to me that the fact that these teachers have taught mentally handicapped children for another five years will not in any way increase their qualifications for teaching in normal schools. Equally, those teaching in normal schools will have no special qualifications for teaching in schools for the mentally handicapped. I feel, as the Scott Report felt,
390
that there should be some course for each category to learn the other's trade.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, at the moment the position is balanced against the qualified teachers, who have to take a course if they are going to move to teach children in special schools, whereas those who will now come in as qualified teachers will not have taken the same general course as the present teachers. What I can assure noble Lords is that a large number of these people will automatically move into this because they will already have the five years. These are things which must be worked out. I think I can leave it there. I have taken note of the point made by the noble Lord, and I know from his distinguished record in this field that he will not leave the matter until he is happy about it.
Perhaps I might pick up one point in the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln which I have omitted to mention. I did pay tribute to the work of the health authorities, and this of course is very meaningful. There is no doubt, reading some of the documents that have come through, dry as dust as they are, that what they have done is remarkable. To those who work for the mentally handicapped I would certainly say that nobody could pay them sufficient tribute. I feel that every little bit of propaganda suggesting that some are not as good as others must be very hurtful to those people who have worked in this field all their lives.
I believe that the volunteer must be used. I have had a number of letters from mothers who have mentally handicapped children, and I wish there were time to read them to your Lordships. They are touching in the extreme, and as the right reverend Prelate said, only those who care for either the physically handicapped child at home or the mentally handicapped child, or those children who are both, can know the terrible strain under which they live. Any scheme of volunteers would certainly be something we should give our attention to.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, referred to the parental contribution. I take his point: I should probably have done exactly the same thing in his situation, and used the opportunity to bring this. in. He said that further

391
extensions of the principle would be a matter of priority in education expenditure. When we discussed this earlier I think I pointed out that very substantial sums would be involved if this were to be dropped at this point of time. This is not to say that changes will not take place, but I should be doing the case less than justice if I suggested that his very eloquent plea would be accepted at this point of time. However, it is always under review.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness would bear in mind this thought while it is under review: that although it would cost a great deal, as I said in my speech, to abolish it altogether, it could possibly be tackled from the top end and from the top age limit a little bit at a time.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I took note of that point. I do not think that any other noble Lords raised any other specific point to which I can reply this evening. But this does not mean that I have not taken note of them. I hope that this Bill is not going to have too stormy a passage through the House, because I hope that those noble Lords who are so opposed to Clause 2 will appreciate that this is not a mandatory claim upon the Secretary of State to subsidise students' mistresses: this is a discretionary clause to deal with cases of hardship where children are involved. If we keep this in mind we are not so likely to get confused. The regulations may well contain the words "child" or "children". I hope that I may make the appeal to those of your Lordships who are under a misapprehension that they will think again before trying to delete this clause.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sorry to keep interrupting but may I raise one point? Would the noble Baroness clear up a point in my mind about whether it is the Secretary of State for Education or the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security who is involved in this?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I checked that, because I made the point in my speech. The Department of Health and Social Security will act as the agents for the Department of Education. It is the Secretary of State for Education who is concerned in this.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FIREWORKS SAFETY BILL [H.L.]
6.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I find it extremely easy to move the Second Reading of this Bill to-night because I have the assurance that there is nobody in this House who now believes that the present legislation is adequate. It no longer fits the facts that we know, and I am sure that every single person in the House agrees with me thus far.
What are the facts and what can we do about them? The facts are that until last year the figures for injuries—mainly of children—by fireworks continued on much the same level year by year, in spite of everything which the manufacturers did to try to make their fire-works safer. That went on until last year, when an inspired broadcast by the B.B.C. woke this country up to what was happening. There was what can only be described as a popular movement towards taking more precautions, and the result was a set of accident statistics which were almost half those of the previous year. That was very good. It is our business to see that we not only maintain that situation but further improve on it. To do this we must see where these accidents mainly occur and how they occur. The place where accidents usually occur, according to statistics, is at the family or private party; a party which one supposes would be ruled over or controlled by the parents of the family or some other adult. The second most dangerous place is the casual incident in the street. This is an extraordinary fact, since it is illegal to let off fireworks in the street, and therefore every single one of these casual incidents was as a result of an illegal act.
What can we do to make things better? There are three possible methods of controlling fireworks. The first one is covered in the present law and in the Bill which the Government have recently tabled: that is, to control fireworks by saying that they should be sold only to people of a certain age. The present law is inadequate, and I

393
shall have some comments on the other Bill which I hope will be in order. There is a second and, indeed, a third method. The third method is that used in Ireland and in many of the States of the United States of America: the banning of the sale of fireworks to private individuals altogether, and allowing the sale only to public corporations or other established bodies. That is a method which is advocated in this country by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Consumer Council. Many other bodies—hospitals and so on—have written to me saying that that is the method of which they most approve. However, I would rather not see it dealt with in that way; I should like a little more liberty. But if the situation cannot be dealt with in any other way, then it may well come to that.
My method—which we have before us to-night—is to restrict the sale of fireworks to adults and to hand those adults, with a certain amount of ceremony, a set of safety rules. I put my faith in this because for some years I have been trusting to a set of safety rules. As everybody knows, I operate a floating youth club on the water, and a set of safety regulations is carefully read to every child joining the club. By now I have had 1,700 children through my hands. We have had 28,000 attendances and not one accident. That is because children—even children, let alone grown ups—can understand a set of safety rules if it is carefully put before them, and will in the enormous majority of cases do their best to try to keep them.
This I believe to be the best approach to this question, because, to begin with, it has a very good chance of reducing the accidents in the place where they normally occur—in the family party. Put a set of safety regulations in the hands of parents in such a way that they feel that they are important and they should keep them, and the chances are that accidents will be very considerably reduced. What is more, the slight difficulty, the slight extra trouble, in having to go to some public office for a permit before buying fireworks, giving name and address, taking that permit to a firework seller and there parting with it in exchange for the fireworks, will discourage the hooligans, who are the people responsible for the second most
394
serious series of accidents, those taking place casually in the street. I believe that my Bill would almost wipe out this type of accident—and it is quite a large proportion of the total accidents.
We all know that in the last few days the Government themselves have tabled a Bill whose import is that the age for the purchase of fireworks should be raised from 13 to 16. Before the Bill was tabled I thought the age was going to be raised to 18. I thought that that was inadequate; but to raise the age to 16 is totally inadequate. I am very glad that the Government are thinking of doing something, but, really, if they tried to do nothing they could scarcely have done less. It would be hard to produce a Bill which made less difference in the law. Moreover, I do not believe that the Government Bill is enforceable. I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench in front of me will tell me that my Bill is unenforceable. The fact of the matter is that the present law is unenforceable, and her Bill is unenforceable too. We are faced here with this colossal number of accidents from casual incidents in the street. They are already illegal; they cannot be made more illegal. The only way to prevent them is to prevent fire works from getting into the hands of such people.
I regret to say that many of the people I refer to are over the age of 16, and that many of those who are under the age of 16 will have no scruple in going to a shop and declaring themselves to be over 16, even as those under 13 now declare themselves to be over 13. And I regret to say that the shopkeeper, as many shopkeepers have publicly stated, will find it convenient not to inquire too closely into the age of the purchaser, probably so as to get rid of these explosives which no reasonable shopkeeper would ever wish to keep lying about in his shop. So I believe that, whatever gibe may be thrown at my Bill for being unenforceable, it is at least in that way no worse than the present law or the Government's Bill. Indeed, it will be a good deal more enforceable in certain directions than the present law, in that there is a clause demanding that the seller should keep a record of whom he has sold his fireworks to. That will put a stop to the bogus age, which we all know

395
is one of the most serious frauds now going on in this line.
Furthermore, my idea of issuing a permit is not all that difficult. I do not ask that it be done by some extraordinary policeman who keeps a dossier of every person who has ever let off a firework illegally; all that is quite unnecessary. All I want is that a permit shall be handed to somebody who is prepared to say, "I am of age, and this is my name and address …"; and that with it shall be handed a set of regulations which are understandable by the father and mother of an ordinary family. I believe that this small bit of ceremony will be very valuable. A little bit of ceremony attached to something like this does a great deal for a human being. I am sure Chat the noble Baroness in front of me (I am afraid we lack one or two Members who were previously here on these Benches) will agree when I say that, even in obtaininig something like a marriage licence, there is a value to the ceremony. If it were handed out over the counter of a post office it would not be regarded in quite the same light; although even if it were handed out over the counter of a post office, that would be better than not having to get a permit at all. It does call attention to the safety regulations—come to think of it, it would not be a bad idea to have a set of safety regulations in a registry office. But that is a different question.
The fact of the matter is that if a set of safety regulations is placed in front of an intelligent person, or even an un-intelligent person, in such a way that it is made clear that this is the way to keep the family safe, it will ensure that there is a very good chance that those regulations will largely be kept. That is what I am aiming at. So often I have seen or heard of people trying to keep safety regulations, trying to do something to keep their fireworks party safe, but simply not knowing what they should do and making a mess of it because nobody has told them. I want people to be told, thoroughly told. That is all I want for my permit and my safety regulations.
Let us come now to the terms of the Bill. Clause 1 is simple and deals merely with the issue of a permit. Clause 2 also is simple. It provides that a retailer shall
396
register and keep a record of these permits and retail sales. Clause 3 deals with a safety code, to be made by the Secretary of State and handed to everybody with the permits. The latter part of Clause 3 has been taken almost verbatim from the Road Code. In other words, it would not be an offence to fail to keep the safety regulations, but if any accident arose from not keeping those regulations—or if an accident arose for any reason—then the question would naturally arise, "Were the regulations kept?" If the regulations were kept, the person who was in charge of the party could say, "Well, I did my best." If they were not kept, then the matter might well be mentioned in court.
Clause 4 deals with "Eligibility for permit". It lays down that no person under the age of 18 years shall be entitled to hold a permit. Well, 18 is now the adult age, and it seems reasonable. Clause 5 is entitled, "Offence to sell fireworks except to holder of permit". That is clear, and it obviously follows. Clause 6 is entitled" Unlawful discharge of fire-works". The point is that whoever fires the fireworks should be the person who is technically in charge of them. If that person gives them to somebody else to take away and let off somewhere else, then he is no longer in charge of the discharge of the fireworks. That is to follow the general sense of the Bill.
Clause 7 ("Exceptions") I took directly from the present Act and therefore, I am sorry to say, is nonsense. We must make certain exceptions, and "sparklers" might well remain in that clause. But jumping crackers and "bangers" are some of the major offenders in accidents, so they should come out. And I may say that when I started this Bill I did not even know what "throw-downs" were. Apparently they have not been made for years, anyway; they are thoroughly dangerous and nobody now makes them.
If we are tightening up the law, however, there should be certain exceptions. I suggest that these exceptions could be inserted later, by order, and they should be those explosives and fireworks which are used for various commercial purposes. Miners and quarrymen, of course, use explosives. Seamen fire rockets on certain very necessary occasions. Farmers scare away crows, and I am told that sewermen let off smoke rockets to enable

397
them to detect where certain sewers lead. And there are a number of other such similar commercially used explosives. None of these, so far as I know, contributes to accidents to any known extent, and therefore I suggest that, because they have shown themselves to be safe in the past, they should properly be in this exceptions clause. But this is a matter that can be dealt with later. Clause 8, of course, follows: there must be power to vary or revoke orders. Clause 9 deals with interpretation, and the meaning of the expression, "retail purchase", is obvious.
That, my Lords, is the totality of what I suggest is a small and simple Bill which, if administered in the way I suggest, would be of simple administration, and would touch the problem at the two points where it most needs touching: first the private party, and secondly, the explosions in the street. I suggest that this is the right and proper way of doing it.
I do not wish to speak for too long. I want to hear all possible opinions from this House. At the end I intend to take this Bill to a Division. I believe that this Bill will almost certainly never become the law of the land, but I think that it will be valuable to my noble friends on the Front Bench to hear the opinions of your Lordships and to see your names on a Division List. So, whichever way the discussion goes I am going to ask that the Motion for Second Reading be taken to a Division. I should like the Bill to go to a Committee stage, where perhaps we could hammer out a document which, even if it cannot become law, can go into some file where at a later date the Government can use it instead of their present inadequate measure. But that is for the future, and I put it to your Lordships that it will be extremely valuable to this country if we can hear your voices and your opinions, and, finally, know your votes. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount St. Davids.)
6.34 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I have always held that a Private Member's Bill in your Lordships' House should be given a Second Reading unless it is found to be unnecessary or unwise or unenforce-
398
able. Some of your Lordships may re-member that I recently opposed a Private Member's Bill on the ground that it was unenforceable. I am sorry to say that, after the most interesting speech made by the noble Viscount, I find this Bill almost unique in that in my belief it is un-necessary, I think it is unwise, and I am certain that it is unenforceable. I am sorry to speak so strongly but that is what I feel about the Bill.
Let us take the unnecessary part first. What is the problem? The problem is to avoid accidents from fireworks. But how big is this problem, my Lords? In spite of what the noble Viscount said, that until last year there has been no proper decrease in accidents, that is not true. I do not want to go back farther than 1962, because it was in that year that the British Fireworks Manufacturers Safety Association was set up in an effort to reduce accidents. These are the figures. I shall take 1962 and then 1965, when the benefits of this Association began to be seen, and then I will give the figures for 1969.
The total injuries from fireworks in 1962—and I take the figures from official sources—numbered 2,832. That figure represents accidents of all kinds, both comparatively unimportant accidents and the more serious ones. By 1965, the new steps that were being taken were beginning to bite and the figure of 2,832 was reduced to 2,339. In 1969 it was reduced to 1,636—only a little over one half of the 1962 figure. There are even more striking figures when we come to serious injuries, which is what I believe we are all concerned about. In 1962 there were 988 serious injuries from fireworks. Already by 1965 this figure had been reduced to 376. Last year, in 1969, the figure was further reduced to 240. So it is no good the noble Viscount saying that the present law and the present Regulations and efforts are having no effect: they are having the most startling effect. Perhaps I may add that in 1965 and 1969 there were no deaths from fireworks. I have taken those two figures because I do not have all the figures here. What we are really considering as being of most importance are the serious injuries.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, if the noble Lord will excuse me, undoubtedly he has given correct figures, but in skipping from 1965 directly to 1969

399
he has forgotten that we reached a plateau in 1966, 1967 and 1968 when the figures held more or less level. It is true that there was a great drop when the manufacturers, as I have already mentioned, made great efforts which had great results, but after 1965 we hit a level plateau and it was not until 1969 that the figures again dropped.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies to that point, would he allow me to ask him this question. What is a serious injury? Is it one where the person is taken to hospital?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, it is such an injury as the Home Office says is serious. From a common sense point of view, if one burns one's finger or something of that kind, if it is burned quite badly it is included in the total injuries, but unless you have half lost the finger it is not included in the serious injuries. That, of course, is not exact, but there is a kind of accident which the Home Office considers serious.
Of course the noble Viscount is quite right; there was a big drop in 1969. But there has been a very big drop since 1962; progressively it has gone down since 1962. It may be luck or it may not, but there was a very big drop last year. Compare these figures with those for other accidents in the home. They do not count compared with walking under ladders, missing the step going downstairs, heaters in the home and so on. Are we really going to have, as I hope to show, rather complicated laws which will be almost impossible to enforce for a situation that is improving and is really no very great problem? The noble Viscount mentioned that certain States, and certain countries, ban fire-works entirely, and of course he does not want to do that. I think I am right in saying that in no case was the legislation brought in for safety reasons; they were entirely political. So far as I know, they were brought in because the States were subject to riots, other disorders, assassinations and so on. That is really why the regulations were brought in. I say that the Bill is in fact unnecessary.
I also say that the Bill is unwise for three reasons. I think it is an unwise
400
moment to introduce it into your Lord-ships' House. I do not wish to be rude or unpleasant, but I think it is rather wasting your Lordships' time if this goes further, in spite of what the noble Viscount has said. Even if it got through your Lordships' House in its present form, which I rather doubt, it is no good sending it to another place, because they threw it out last April; they saw it and they did not like it.
The second reason is that if this Bill became law, and the law about permits was obeyed, I think it is a fact that nearly all fireworks would in a short space of time become public displays. That sounds very nice, but there just are not enough experts to deal safely with public displays, which could use a more dangerous type of firework than you would have in the home. Also, although of course the numbers involved in a public display are very much smaller than in the private use of fireworks, already 15 per cent, of casualties are due to public displays; that is, even being let off by so-called experts. If there are a great number of public displays, I am afraid that the fireworks will be set off by rather unqualified people.
The third reason is one which I know could be amended in Committee, and the noble Viscount has already said that he thinks the Bill is thoroughly bad in this respect. If the Bill went through in its present form, you would have to have a permit for the sale or purchase of marine distress signals, insecticidal smokes, toy pistol caps, indoor fireworks, anti-vermin cartridges and so on. That is unwise, to say the least of it, because the effect would be that many yachtsmen, mountaineers and other people would not go in for buying safety equipment, except probably the highly qualified ones; it would be too much bother to get a permit. After all, one wants these things used. The noble Viscount has said that at the Committee stage he would be prepared to accept an alteration in that respect. For the reasons I have given I feel that the Bill is an unwise one.
Now I come to the most important thing. I believe the Bill to be unenforceable. Clause 1 (1) says:
"No person shall make a retail purchase of a firework … unless he is the holder of a permit, issued for the purposes of this Act by a local authority …"

401
How is the local authority to know who to issue permits to? If the noble Viscount goes to a local authority and I go to a local authority and we each ask for a permit, how do they know whether they ought to refuse me and give one to the noble Viscount or vice versa, unless we are very well known—and being very well-known may mean being a friend of the clerk issuing the permit. I do not see how local authorities are going to deal with this sort of thing at all, unless they give permits to more or less anyone who applies, and then what is the point of having a permit? Clause 1(2) goes on to say that the permit shall:
"contain the name, address and date of birth of the holder of the permit".
How are they going to know that? Has everyone got to take along a birth certificate when they ask for a permit? If not, how do the local authority know whether the date of birth is true or untrue?
Under Clause 2 retailers have to keep records of every shilling firework they sell. This is going to be intolerable for the retailer—and I mean intolerable. When it comes near to November 5 the work will be enormous if a man has to keep a record of every sale. Aud much more important, who is going to know whether the records are correct or not? If I was a very busy small shopkeeper and had a permit to sell fireworks, how would I keep a correct record and how would I know that it is a correct record? I sell to a permit holder who is allowed to buy. How do I know whether he is the permit holder or the younger brother of the permit holder? And then I have to write it all down, with five more young men or women waiting for their fire-works. It would be intolerable if we now put all this additional work on the retailer, and in my view it would be the end very largely of the British firework industry.
I believe that the Government Bill is entirely right. I have only glanced at it; we have not had it before your Lordships' House. It puts up the age from 13 to 16, which I think is very wise, and I think the wording is "apparently 16". That seems to me a much more sensible way of dealing with this. What the Government Bill is saying, in effect, is that you must not sell fireworks to children. We know that some of them
402
will be under 16 and some over, but I think it is a good age to put in a Bill. Why the noble Viscount puts the age at 18 I cannot think. You are ready to ride motor-bikes at 16 and have more accidents on them at 17 than with fire-works. I think the Government Bill is right. You cannot sell to somebody who appears to be a child but if he appears to be grown up you can. I think it is the sensible way of dealing with it.
The last clause I am going to deal with is Clause 4(2). Pity the poor local authority! Subsection (2) says:
"… the granting of a permit shall be in the discretion of the issuing authority "—
and of course that is right, if you are going to issue a permit—
"but such authority shall have regard to the applicant's ability and willingness to comply with the Safety Code."
How can a local authority know of the ability to set off a firework of somebody who comes in for a permit? If they give that person a safety code and ask him, "Are you going to obey this?" of course he will say "Yes". But how are they to satisfy themselves that this is true? This subsection seems to me to be pure nonsense and to be completely unenforceable.
There are other points which I am not going to labour. I would suggest that, subject to what the Government spokes-man may say, your Lordships should consider whether it would not be better if this Bill did not receive a Second Reading. I had not intended to go as far as this, but I have been challenged by the noble Viscount to call for a Division, and I shall therefore do so.
6.52 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was a little unfair in making a comparison between the annual figures for accidents in the home with accidents with fire-works. I should have thought that a fair comparison was between how many accidents in the home occur on November 5—or for that matter, on any other one day in the year—and the number of accidents with fireworks on the same day. With that comparison, I think that one would inevitably come to the conclusion that fireworks are dangerous things. Having said that, I am bound to say that I share the doubts of the noble Lord,

403
Lord Derwent, about the enforceability of this Bill.
I should like to get out of the way three rather small points regarding the particulars of the Bill, which I trust are a little more than just Committee points, before coming on to the main matters that I wish briefly to discuss. I notice that the period of the validity of the permit is to be at the discretion of the local authority. It seems to me that, as matters stand, different periods of validity will apply in different local authority areas. I think this is unsatisfactory, and that, since the Secretary of State has some role to play in this proposed scheme, it would be much better that he should lay down a universal period of validity for these permits. I notice a remarkable lacuna in that there appears to be no provision at all for the withdrawal of a permit once it has been issued. I should think it imperative that if a permit holder has a serious accident with a firework, due to his stupidity or negligence, there ought to be specific provision for the withdrawal of his fireworks permit. So far as I can see, this is not at the moment included in the Bill.
My third particular point concerns the "Exceptions" clause. I am not very happy about the exclusion from the Bill of jumping crackers and "throw-downs". I am not a great expert on fireworks, but I rather fancy that these jumping crackers and "throw-downs"are the sort of fire-works that hooligans use deliberately to scare domestic animals. One of the features of firework night which I find so abhorrent is this hooliganism directed at domestic animals, with fireworks which may not be dangerous but which scare the life out of these wretched animals.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, possibly the noble Lord did not hear me. I said that I myself exactly share his opinion on this point, but I put this clause in the Bill simply because it is in the present Act. But clearly he is quite right that this needs considerable change.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am grateful for that.
The other brief remarks that I should like to make are directed to the cost of administering this permit scheme. Having made an intelligent estimate, or guess, as to the cost, I would ask: would not that
404
amount of money be better spent in other means of preventing accidents with fire-works? I understand from the Registrar-General that there are just under 40 million people in the United Kingdom over the age of 18; that is to say, nearly 40 million potential permit holders under this scheme. We are a pretty sensible nation, and I should hope that 30 million of those 40 million people are potential permit holders. I concede that probably half of them would not be interested; they would be people who would never wish for the rest of their lives to buy a firework. In passing, I think it worth mentioning that, because of this scheme, these people would be giving up a right—which they have had hitherto—simply because of the bother of having to go and apply for a permit. I do not think that these people should be entirely forgotten.
We have now reached a figure of 15 million potential permit holders. I should think that one could have an across-the-board exemption for those classes of people who occupy positions in society which they would not occupy if they were not the sort of people who could be trusted to be sensible with fire-works. The sort of people I have in mind are Peers and Members of the House of Commons; officers and non-commissioned officers of the Armed Services; civil servants of equivalent grades; justices of the peace; professionally qualified people like architects, accountants, lawyers, dons, school teachers, clergymen and so on. After all, it will be an absurd situation, will it not, if one has to say to a regimental sergeant-major or to a schoolmaster, "You cannot be trusted to buy a five-shilling rocket to amuse your children or your grand-children unless you shall first have satisfied the 'mandarin' that you are a proper person to have this privilege"?
Supposing that across-the-board exemption reduces the 15 million to 10 million people, I should think, at a guess, that there will be 10 million applicants for permits under this scheme, each of whom is going to be supplied with a printed safety code. What is going to be the cost of administering this? It will clearly be a substantial sum of money. I have no idea what the exact figure will work out at. But let us briefly consider whether that sum of money, whatever it is, could not be more usefully

405
applied in other ways to prevent accidents with fireworks.
For example, let us spend some of that money in keeping up the review and enforcement of the general law applicable to the sale and discharge of fireworks: on inspection of the manufacturer of fireworks in his factory, to make certain that fireworks are made as safe and as foolproof as they possibly can be; on inspection to ensure that fire-works are labelled as clearly and as intelligibly as possible, with certain warnings on how to handle and discharge them safely. Then, of course, we should review and enforce the legislation as to the age below which children shall not be allowed to buy fireworks. In that connection, I take note of the Explosives (Age of Purchase) Bill, which is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and which has recently been given a First Reading.
Secondly, let some of this money be spent on publicity campaigns, such as that inspired television campaign last year to which the noble Viscount him-self paid tribute and which caused a dramatic reduction in the number of accidents with fireworks. Let some more money be spent on campaigns in the newspapers—perhaps by articles, or by advertisements. By all means let leaflets be printed; and let a stack of leaflets containing this Safety Code be supplied to every fireworks dealer. Surely they will be pleased to include a leaflet with every parcel of fireworks they sell, because they have a vested interest in selling fireworks and they know very well that every bad accident that is caused with fireworks is going to damage their prospects of future sales.
My Lords, there it is. I simply wonder whether the money that this permit scheme would cost could not be more usefully employed elsewhere to the same end. I shall be very interested to listen to the debate, and a decision on how I shall vote—if there is to be a Division—I will reserve until I have heard the rest of the debate.
7.2 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy for what lies behind the Bill of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, because even as low a figure as 1,653 injuries, four-
406
fifths of which are to young people, is a serious and important business. If I may pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, the figures which were quoted from those published account for a four-week period, and not just November 5. In fact, it is understood that the large number of incidents which take place in the street—some 490 incidents out of the total 1,600— happen a long time before firework night.
Having said that, I regret that I can go no further with the noble Viscount. I find this Bill an irritant; an irritant that will not achieve the objects he sets out to achieve. I will not repeat the objections the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, raised, because I agree with all of those, but I have also one or two others. I do not see how a retailer can be expected to keep a register of every banger, rocket, Roman candle, squib, serpent, atom whizz and so on that he sells. The noble Baroness laughs; it is quite humorous, but one sees young children buy fire-works as they acquire the pennies; they do not go out and buy 30s. of fireworks; they go out and buy "A 3d. banger, Mister, please". Once outside it has to go off quickly or it will literally burn a hole in their pocket.
Therefore, how can we do this? We may argue that chemists and so on have to keep a register; but they are not faced with such a short four-week period and with having so many single and isolated little sales. I do not think that this proposition is at all practical. On the other hand, if such a requirement were made of the seller, I think a number of sellers would just give up the business, because it is a short season, starting somewhere around September and finishing a day or two after November 5, or after the weekend that follows November 5. In April, 1968, the registration fee for premises selling fireworks was raised from Is. to 12s. 6d., and in the following year, 1969, there was a dramatic reduction in the number of establishments applying for a registration. So probably the shop-keeper felt it was not worth the bother at 12s. 6d.
It may be thought that undesirable activities can be controlled in this way, but I do not think it is right or fair. I do not think you can squeeze people in this manner. So far as the person

407
who buys the fireworks is concerned, you may provide that it must be a 16-year-old, or, if you like, a 20-year-old, but I do not think it makes a lot of difference. Indeed, two days ago I was told by a firework seller that one of his best lines of business was with the university; they buy all the bangers at the end of the season and have a high old time with them. How does he decide whether a 20-year-old student is a responsible person? One cannot legislate against idiots.
I do not think that the public (the buyer), or the public (the seller), should be inflicted with more forms, more permits, more ages, names and addresses to be given to authorities. I was talking to the local office of the Weights and Measures in Southampton only this morning, and the young lady said, "Our inspectors are always out, and I deal with the permit applications". Is a young lady in an office—and presumably most Weights and Measures offices are equally busy—to decide whether the applicant is a fit and proper person? Why should she? Why should the person applying have to show himself to be fit and proper? I do not think this is right at all.
I quote from the B.B.C. programme: "If you ban one, ban all." Suppose one requires a permit; are there not likely to be firework touts? We are not going to stop an elder brother from going in with his young brother's sixpence and coming out and saying, "Here you are, nipper; I've got you a couple." That will happen, and this Bill is not going to stop it. I do not think this Bill is going to stop anything at all.
The question of the cost of the permit has been raised, and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, will indicate to us what the cost of such a registering system might be. If we are so concerned about 1,653 accidents, four-fifths of which, according to the table last year, are to children and one-fifth to adults over 21, we must ban all fireworks and only have public displays, such as happen, as I understand it, in the Republic of Ireland, France, Australia, some parts of the States, Canada and so on. Nobody wants to be a killjoy; nobody particularly wants to interfere with other people's ideas of fun, until such time as
408
they affect the safety and peace of mind of other citizens. But I do not believe that this Bill is going to help in this way.
I should like to see a far greater degree of responsibility undertaken by the manufacturer, the seller and the buyer. I have the text of the B.B.C. programme here and it is surprising how many parents said, "Oh, if only I'd thought!" These are supposed to be responsible people, youth leaders and so on. How many said: "If only I'd thought! I gave him this to hold and he put it in his pocket, and it went off and burned his thighs, and burned his face." Or, "I only threw it across into the fire because I thought it had gone out, and it landed in his anorak collar." This is how the accidents happen—the simple "I didn't think" type of accidents. No legislation is going to stop that. I should like to see the Government Bill that was tabled last week strengthened. I should also like to see more monies devoted to such organisations as ROSPA, to bring out more publicity, and more films shown to youth groups and to youth leaders, the so-called responsible people who "did not think" until it was too late.
7.11 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the line which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is pursuing is to me the most difficult part of this Bill, because I am naturally very much opposed to interference with individual liberty of this kind. My first reaction when I began to study this Bill—I think in consequence of my noble friend's approaching the Consumer Council about a year ago—was to be very hostile to the idea of stopping people from having their fun. However, I have looked at this matter rather closely, and I am not sure that that line will stand up to-day.
In the first place, there are only three bodies of which I know whose business it is to examine this subject: the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the British Safety Council and the Consumer Council—with which I am concerned—and they are all solidly behind the Bill. That does not mean that the Bill is good in detail, but it surely means that your Lordships should give it a Second Reading. Let us not forget that this is a Second Reading

409
debate, and most of the criticisms that have been made of it—not all, I admit— have been Committee points which could be dealt with in Committee, and that is where they should be dealt with.
I have one or two points to make on figures. My noble friend corrected the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and I should like to correct him further in that the figure for 1968 jumped up again. It came down after 1962, but it jumped up again to 2,500 in 196b and then went down again to 1,600 in 1969. If that had been a balance-of-payments figure nobody would have treated it very seriously, and I am not sure that we are not setting too much store by statistics. My figures, which are taken from the same source, show that there were 598 eye injuries in 1968 and that the figure was reduced to 411 in 1969.
What we have to decide is whether fire-works are dangerous and should be con-trolled, or whether they are part of the Englishman's heritage—which, after all, started so gloriously with Guy Fawkes— and should be maintained. I think that it is not a very easy decision to make. I believe that this level of accidents writes off the liberal argument against interference, provided that you can make your interference effective—a point to which I shall come in a minute. But though I have many doubts about the details in this Bill, I must support its being given a Second Reading and being treated seriously. A total of 1,600 people injured, which seems to be a sudden fall that may not be maintained, is too large to allow when we know the source of their injury and that that source is controllable.
I should now like to take the three general Second Reading points made by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. First of all, he said that the Bill is unnecessary. I think I have shown that if it were effective it would certainly not be unnecessary, and I think that on that the noble Lord will agree with me. So I have disposed of the first point. His second point was that it is unwise. That was really not a very full statement, and I do not know why it should be unwise to have a shot at something that needs doing. I was unable to see quite how the point that it is unwise was justified. It was a good part of a trio, but it carried no weight. The third and by far the most important point was that the Bill is un-
410
workable. I do not think it is unworkable, although it may present some problems. As a farmer I can get as much strychnine as I want, if I obtain a permit, and it is quite right that I should have to do so. Every chemist keeps a poisons register, and it is quite right that he should have to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, spoke as if children were still going to buy fireworks, but the whole point of both this Bill and the Government's Bill is that they are not. So his idea of people going into a shop, buying a little rocket and running out again and letting it off is not what we are considering. Thus we have the situation that this Bill is no more unenforceable than any other Bill, any other set of rules which limit the availability to the public of a dangerous substance. What your Lordships have to decide is whether fire-works are dangerous enough to justify that degree of interference; and that, I think, warrants our giving the Bill a Second Reading. In my view, this is a serious question, and I do not think it has been answered by anybody. I myself am not absolutely clear about the answer, but I certainly feel that we should give the Bill the courtesy of a Second Reading.
I have now remembered the unwisdom to which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, referred; and this is something about which I feel very sensitive. It seems to me that it is a privilege of your Lord-ships' House to introduce Bills which you know will be defeated in another place; and to suggest that that is a waste of time—which was the frank suggestion of the noble Lord—is a derogation of our already extremely slender power. I would support any noble Lord who wished to get an important subject discussed in this House, if necessary at the expense of Parliamentary time—and it certainly would be—if only to get it aired, if it needed airing. I think I have really said enough, but there are just one or two points that I should like to add.
First of all, nobody here is suggesting the kind of ban that exists elsewhere. I think it is important to realise that in Ireland and the United States there is a very much more complete ban, and they seem to manage all right. The three societies which I have mentioned all wish to see the sale of fireworks limited to people who are in some way shown to be

411
responsible. That is the object of this Bill. If the Bill as it stands does not succeed in carrying out that object, the place to modify it is in Committee. I do not think that the Government's Bill will meet the case, although it is clearly a perfectly sound Bill. It is quite right that children of 13 should not be allowed to buy fireworks, and it is probably right that children of 16 should be able to do so. But that is a point which we could alter in Committee. But if ever a Bill is unenforceable, that Bill is; so let that not be the sole argument on the Bill now before us. I think your Lordships will be making a grave error of judgment if you do not give this serious Bill the courtesy of a Second Reading.
7.18 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, the motives of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, in moving this Bill are entirely sound. I speak as a Vice-President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, but let me stress immediately that I do not necessarily reflect their views. In fact, I have not even had an opportunity of consulting them. Also, I was for a time Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Committee on Home Safety, while that Committee was in being. Your Lordships will know that I have frequently raised home safety questions in this House and will continue to do so.
I recall—I think in the early 1960s— that that Committee had talks with the firework manufacturers on the whole question of fireworks, and I believe that my noble friend Lord Derwent was closely connected with a lot of those negotiations when he was in the Home Office. I should like at once to pay tribute to the firework manufacturers, who have done an enormous amount to promote safety. The labelling is now very much better and the warnings are very much more easy to read and understand.
My Lords, I am bound to say that I take the view of my noble friend Lord Derwent and others—and I say this with a great deal of reluctance—that this Bill should not get a Second Reading. I want briefly not only to say why, but to give one or two suggestions as to what could be done to improve safety. In a way, the noble Viscount may be some-
412
what unlucky because a Government Bill is, so to speak, on the stocks. I have not seen a copy of the Bill, and I must obviously reserve judgment until I have done so. What concerns me is that if one makes too many rules and regulations about issuing fireworks to the young they will make their own. Recently, on "Panorama" I watched a programme about this very question of firework accidents which was set in, I believe, a Children's hospital in Manchester. Nobody who saw this film could have been any-thing less than shocked by some of the pictures that were shown, but I take the point of my noble friend Lord Derwent here: that if one looks at accidents in the home as a whole—and most firework accidents do occur in the home or in the precincts of the home—one must realise that oil-heaters, untacked linoleum and kettles which are the wrong way round on the stove are the main causes of accidents, particularly to children and to old people.
My Lords, in this programme one of the doctors suggested, if I recall correctly, a complete ban on fireworks, and I am bound to say that in some respects this would perhaps be almost a better solution than the noble Viscount's Bill. But if this were to be carried out, 10-year-old Johnnie and his mates would get hold of some sodium chlorate and might well make their own fireworks. I respect the view of the doctor on this particular programme who contradicted this view, but for once I find myself in conflict with the medical profession, for whom I have the utmost respect, because, having a seven-year-old son of a fairly adventurous nature, I am not sure that I could rely on him not to do just that.
Let us briefly examine the Bill. I do not want to go over ground that has already been covered on the issue of permits by a local authority, but I live in a large village in Surrey which has a very efficient local authority who have a great deal to do. The village in which I live has about four newsagents' shops which sell sweets, certain types of head-ache cures and, at times, fireworks. Is it to be suggested that every small) village shopkeeper in England, Wales and, indeed, Scotland—I do not know whether this Bill applies to Scotland— should have to obtain a permit from a local authority? Anybody who serves on

413
a local authority (I do not, but I have many friends, of all Parties, who do) knows that they are pretty overworked these days. This happens under any Government, because more and more legislation is turned out by successive Governments and this means more and more work for local authorities to do. Leaving aside the cost, which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, mentioned, it is surely pertinent to ask: can local authorities really carry out such work as this, well-meaning as undoubtedly it is?
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, did I understand him to ask whether it was right that these small shopkeepers should have to go to their local authority to get a permit, under the terms of the noble Viscount's Bill? Is that what the noble Lord said? If I heard him aright, I would point out that the question cannot apply because they have to do that now. Or did I misunderstand the question he posed?
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I think the noble Lord may well be right. Leaving that aside, let us take this question of returns of fireworks. Many of these small shops are owned and man-aged by humble country folk, many of whom know the local children and youths, and in many cases they will not serve them if they know they are under age or suspect them to be under age. Turning to the firework manufacturers for a moment, I should like to ask the Minister of State one question, and I apologise for not having given notice of it. It is as to how much liaison and inspection there is between the firework manufacturers and the Home Office. It seems to me that the B.S.I. standard, if applied to fireworks, will be of some considerable use in determining whether they are in fact completely safe.
My Lords, I now take up the question of how we are to get over this problem of firework accidents. I believe the answer is largely in the current Home Safety Act, which I had the privilege of helping to pilot through this House. It seems to me that perhaps more public money could be used to promote home safety; and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who in fact suggested more money going to ROSPA. My Lords, I am all for that. I believe this is very necessary because, surely, the answer is
414
to get among the schools and show films and film strips, some of them perhaps horrific film strips, particularly to sixth-formers, illustrating what can happen if a boy has a. penny banger in his pocket which goes off, and if fireworks are let off in a crowded room without the instructions being read. I cannot help feeling that that would be more effective than trying to put more work on local authorities at the present time, because it seems to me that not every adult going to a local authority is necessarily going to be a person of complete scruples. He can quite easily go and get a permit for fireworks and then give the fireworks to his kid brother, and his kid brother could then let them off. The most efficient local authority cannot guard against that happening.
I do not say that it is necessarily a complete waste of Parliamentary time to discuss this Bill but, as my noble friend Lord Derwent and others have said, I do not think it is enforceable. It is not enforceable because of the work which would be put on to the already over-burdened local authorities. As I have said, I believe that education is the answer to all forms of safety, be it in the home, be it on the farm or be it on the factory floor. For these reasons, albeit reluctantly, I cannot support the Second Reading of this Bill.
7.30 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I do not want to take up your Lordships' lime, but I personally think that this is a question of whether fire-works should be banned or not. I know that vested interests are against me if I suggest that they should be banned, but there are many accidents. I live in the country, and I have had fireworks at parties for my children. The main feature of such parties is usually the bonfire. I have tried to control those who set off the fireworks, but they are set off in the dark and it is very difficult to control in those circumstances Therefore, I am against this Bill and I am against the sale of fireworks entirely.
7.31 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, gave the House a very full explanation of the purposes of this Bill at the outset of this debate. Whether we agree with his views

415
or not, none of us would doubt his sincerity or question his objective; namely, that of reducing accidents, particularly to young children. This aim is one wholeheartedly supported by Her Majesty's Government and one which I know is shared by all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. But we are not convinced, for reasons which I shall give the House in a moment, that the situation is such that it calls for such severe restrictions on the sale and use of fireworks as are proposed in the noble Viscount's Bill. Moreover, for reasons that several noble Lords have pointed out, we doubt whether the system of control which the Bill seeks to set up would really be workable in practice.
Her Majesty's Government have been actively considering whether there is a need for further measures to reduce the number of accidents caused by fireworks in addition to those which already exist. Noble Lords Who have spoken in this debate and who appear to be experts in this subject are no doubt familiar with the law relating to the setting off and sale of fireworks and therefore there is no need for me to repeat it. I would only say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that under the 1875 Act, as amended, all firework factories are licensed by the Home Office and they are subject to inspection by the Inspector of Explosives, as indeed are the contents of fireworks.
Several noble Lords have made the point, with which the Government entirely agree, that in addition to the safeguards provided by the law there are a number of other steps that need to be taken by the Government and by the various interested organisations to see that fire-works are used safely. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, reminded us of the setting up of the British Firework Manufacturers' Safety Association in 1962. This organisation co-operates closely with the Home Office both in technical matters and in promoting publicity designed to secure greater safety. I agree with the point made by Lord Airedale, Lord Auckland and by other noble Lords about the efforts which need to be made every year, and particularly at the crucial time of the year, by the Home Office itself, by the local authorities, by the Firework Manu-
416
facturers' Safety Association and by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, to ensure that fireworks are safely handled in accordance with manufacturers' instructions. As most noble Lords seem to be aware, there have been a great number of developments in this field as regards labelling, the posters and pamphlets now circulated to schools, the films on television, and particularly the "Remember, Remember " film which the B.B.C. first showed in December, 1968, and then repeated, with, we believe, effective results on the number of accidents.
These are part of the active publicity campaign with which we all agree. In addition to activities of this kind, the British Firework Manufacturers' Safety Association and the Home Office have been in very close discussion, and their consideration of these matters has resulted in a number of other safety measures which affect the kind of fire-works that are made. For example, the cheap "bangers" have been discontinued; and from the point of view of parents this is something to be welcomed. A number of kinds of fireworks which are regarded as more dangerous— those that are unpredictable in that they zig-zag—have been discontinued.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, crossed swords with the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, over the accident statistics. The burden of what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said was that so long as any one child was injured we should take special measures. I will not enter the lists on this aspect except to confirm that, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, pointed out, there has been an appreciable decline; and although the 1968 figures were certainly not what some of us would like to see they were much below the 1962 figures; and the 1969 figures, probably as a result of the intensive publicity campaign over a wide field, show a very substantial decline.
I referred at the outset of my speech to the consideration which Her Majesty's Government have been giving to this subject. Those noble Lords who have followed the proceedings in another place will recall that during the fireworks season last year there was a considerable amount of public discussion and my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-secretary for State undertook to arrange,

417
as soon as the accident statistics for 1969 had been analysed, a meeting of various organisations interested in the subject. This meeting was held at the Home Office on March 23. It comprised representatives of safety and consumer organisations, local authority organisations, firework manufacturers and retailers. A number of suggestions, including some of those which noble Lords have mentioned here to-night, were considered for amending the law in relation to fire-works.
The meeting considered the point made by the last speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme—whether the retail sale of fireworks to the general public should be completely banned—and that made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that they should be confined only to organised displays. This suggestion received support from some of the representatives at the meeting although the difficulties of confining the sales to organisations and of judging their acceptability were recognised. On the other hand, while there was general agreement that organised displays should be encouraged, there was strong support for the view that individuals should not be prevented from buying fireworks.
The meeting also considered a proposal which was very similar to that contained in my noble friend's Bill, that fireworks should be sold only to individuals licensed by a local authority. This proposal received no support at all, on the ground, first, that it was not justified and also that local authorities could not undertake the task of licensing all the potential purchasers of fireworks.
The Home Office were urged to take a number of positive steps to reduce accidents, including raising the minimum age at which fireworks may be purchased from 13, as it is at present. My right honourable friend has given very careful consideration to the views ex-pressed at this meeting and has concluded that restrictions as severe as those proposed in my noble friend's Bill on the sale and use of fireworks would not be justified. He is, however, in no doubt that the age at which fireworks may be purchased should be raised, and that is why on April 9 I introduced in your Lordships' House a Bill to raise the age to 16, following the announcement on the same day by my right
418
honourable friend in another place that he would be moving in this way.
At the same time, my right honourable friend is pursuing with the manufacturers, and other organisations, various suggestions that were made at the meeting on March 23 for further publicity and other measures to reduce the number of accidents. In proposing the age of 16, it has been borne in mind that the minimum age for the purchase of firearms and ammunition is 17; and therefore the minimum age for the purchase of fireworks could not reasonably be higher. When we come to discuss the age limit, as between 16 and 17, for the purchase of fireworks there may be different views and I have no doubt that the House will listen to them with great care.
My Lords, I have taken some time, I am afraid, at this late hour to explain why Her Majesty's Government do not consider that more severe measures would be justified. I could continue to comment on one or two specific aspects of my noble friend's Bill, but I think that the points have already been made in the debate. The only one that I should like to try to answer (although I think probably it is for my noble friend to answer) is one that was put to me by one or two noble Lords: what would be the cost of the proposals contained in the Bill? I was asked whether I could give any estimate. It would be very difficult for us to give any meaningful estimates at this stage. Expense would be incurred by the need for local authorities to employ additional staff to issue licences. The cost would depend also on how many people decided to apply for licences. As I have said, I think this is something to which my noble friend should reply. I would conclude by asking the House to support the raising of the minimum age for purchasing fireworks, which we shall be considering in connection with the Government's Bill which already has been given a First Reading. For the reasons I have given, I cannot recommend the House to support the Second Reading of my noble friend's Bill.
7.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I must thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and for staying until this late hour to deal with this subject. I think I owe them the duty of

419
going through, at least briefly, the remarks they made. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was a little hard on me, especially as I was under the impression that during my speech I had answered most of his strictures. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if he thinks that I am maligning him.
As to whether the provisions in the Bill would be enforceable, I do not think that any law ever made in this House has proved entirely enforceable. Some things are more enforceable than others. The present law in relation to fireworks is not enforceable, as we can see from the very large number of accidents that occur because of actions which, under the present law, are illegal. There will continue to be accidents from the same causes, even if we raise the minimum age of purchase, so I do not think that much may be said about that.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and also with the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that it is impossible totally to enforce the provisions in the Bill. I feel sure that many people would find ways around them. Nevertheless, I believe there would be a better enforcement of them than is the case in respect of the present law. There would be errors; there would be errors in book-keeping and in a number of matters; but at least there would be fewer accidents, and it is that which concerns me. I still feel that 18 would be the right minimum age. At least an adult can be sued: he may be taken to court, and that is a matter of which I think notice should be taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, made some remarks on the length of the validity of the permit, and perhaps on that point I was not very clear. My intention was that a permit should be provided for the purpose of one purchase. It would be yielded up to the shopkeeper who would keep it in his book. Surely that would be the best thing to do with it. I much enjoyed the list of exceptions given by the noble Lord—that was great fun. But let me say that although a regimental sergeant-major may know quite a lot about explosives, there is a remarkable amount of ignorance, even among your Lord-ships, about what safety precautions
420
should be taken. I am afraid that the same level of ignorance may exist also among solicitors and accountants, and among other people who do not normally use explosives in the course of their trade. Therefore I should like to see them get a set of safety regulations, because I think that they would learn a great deal from the regulations, and safety would be increased.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am quite sure that a great many dons, for instance, would be perfectly hopeless with fireworks; but they have enough intelligence to know it, and they would not attempt the exercise.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, the trouble is that dons frequently think that they know a great deal more than they do; and it might be quite useful to put into their hands a set of safety Regulations from which they might learn much. If this whole Bill goes down the drain, I shall not weep over it, provided that a set of safety regulations may be pressed into the hands of everyone. Even those speakers who opposed other clauses said a few kind words about the idea of having some safety regulations.
Regarding sales, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, there would not be sales of individual fireworks. The sales would involve larger quantities of fireworks. No one would get a permit to buy just a sixpenny banger; people would get a permit to buy a display which they could use at home, so that there would not be the sales to children. I think that the remarks on that subject were rather beside the point. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, made a considerable point when he quoted the B.B.C. and the people who said that they "did not think". The point is that we have to make them think. That is what my Safety Code is for. Let that survive, if the rest of the Bill goes down the drain, as it certainly will, and I shall not be too sorry.
My noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge has been a great support to me, and his advice I much welcome. Strangely enough, the speaker I most agree with is the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, who determined to vote against the Bill because he did not want any fireworks sold to anybody at all. In

421
my belief, the noble Lord is the mouth-piece of the people on this subject. From everything I have heard from taxi drivers and odd conversations in the street, I believe that that is the true voice of public opinion.
Although to-night I have been facing mainly the criticism of those who consider this Bill goes too far, I believe that they are not my real opponents. My real opponents stand on the other side of me: those who would like to take the banning of fireworks a great deal further. I believe that if this Bill, or something like it, is not made the law of this land, what we must come to in the end is the complete banning of the sale of fireworks to private individuals. Any legislation of a less strong character than the Bill I am proposing will be only a stop-gap measure. What I hope is that it will not be used as an argument for not doing something more in line with what is necessary if the figures continue to be bad. I shall leave it at that, as the hour is late, and ask your Lordships to decide this matter.
On Question, Motion for Second Reading disagreed to.

HOSPITAL PATIENTS AND PRIVACY RIGHTS
7.53 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will acknowledge the right to privacy in hospital, and in particular the ability to choose to be in a single room, as something to be established as soon as financially possible. I have read the Question in full at the beginning in order to make clear to your Lordships, as I am sure it will be already to most, the things for which I am not asking. I am not asking that this matter of single rooms in large quantities be given a high priority. I am as aware as those noble Lords interested in health matters of the sad difficulties under which the Health Service operates to-day: of the shortage of staff; of the shortage of money and of the bad old hospitals which need to be replaced, and I do not think that what I am talking about to-night takes precedence over any of those matters.
The second thing I am not asking for is that we should have all private rooms
422
in hospitals, even eventually when the millennium comes. I accept that many people, when they are ill and in hospital would rather be with other people in hospital wards. Some of them would rather be in big hospital wards which give a large element of companionship and yet do not leave them at the mercy of one or two people, as they might be in a much smaller ward. On the other hand, some people would prefer to be in smaller rooms with two or three or six people; but again these have their drawbacks.
I do not seek to establish how many people would prefer to have single rooms, because that is still largely an unknown quantity. There have been one or two investigations but, like many investigations into something which does not really exist, the results are not very reliable. Therefore I do not seek to base my Question on anything to do with what the public want in the way of rooms. All I am asking the Government to do is to acknowledge, as something which they should grant and work towards, the right of the patient to choose what degree of privacy he wants.
Privacy is something which we all value at some time or other in our lives and most of us for most of the time. It is not a thing which is confined to any age or sex or to any class. One of the things which poor people who get glimpses of the public schools most dislike and disapprove of is the dormitory system. On the whole, in our kind of civilised society it is taken for granted that people should have a room of their own, if they possibly can, for the whole of their lives. Of course, it is not always possible, but that is a matter which we very much deplore. We try to get away from the overcrowding of houses and the sharing of rooms, and if we do have people sharing rooms it is usually with close relatives or people they know well. Universities and colleges try as much as possible to give students single rooms; for their work and living. Even in prisons we regard it as a great disadvantage if people have to share cells.
It is only when people are at their lowest ebb, with their resistance at its lowest, that they are often pitchforked into a situation where they suddenly find themselves cheek by jowl, day and night, with 20 or 30 complete and utter

423
strangers, most of them sick and ill them-selves. I do not think that this is something which we should accept. We have to accept it for the time being, because of the shortage of money and because of priorities, but it is something which in the long term we should not accept.
I am informed that the clinical need for single rooms is estimated at 14 per cent. of bed space in hospitals. That does not include amenity beds, which are beds which people in the National Health Service can get by the payment of some-thing extra, or beds for private patients who are not on the National Health Ser-vice. The present recommended rate for the building of hospitals, I am in-formed, is 20 per cent. of single rooms, which presumably includes the 14 per cent. of clinical need and allows only 6 per cent. for amenity and private rooms together. I feel that in the long run that will not be enough; and even in the short run it is possibly not enough. And what is more disturbing is that I am informed that in a number of hospitals which have been built recently the number of private rooms built is considerably lower than the recommended rate: Greenwich is an example at 14 per cent.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for interrupting, but when he talks about "private rooms" does he mean rooms for non-paying patients?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I beg your Lordships' pardon: I should have said single rooms. If I may "recap", so that there is no misapprehension, 20 per cent. is the recommended rate, to include clinically needed single rooms, amenity single rooms and rooms for private patients. But what I am saying is that a lesser proportion than that is being provided at the moment; indeed at Greenwich only enough is provided for the clinical needs, without provision for either the amenity needs or the needs of private patients.
When I first became interested in this subject it seemed to me that the cost of producing a large number of single rooms would be astronomical. But I am in-formed (and these, I believe, are Ministry figures) that this is not in fact so. The
424
cost of building 50 per cent. single rooms in new hospitals would add 12½ per cent. to the cost of wards, and 15 per cent. more space would be needed. There would, of course, be greater running costs, and there would be a need for more labour. On the other hand, it is possible—and I do not think enough serious study has been done on this—that there are some advantages. I understand that it is dubious whether there would be a decrease in infection from having more single rooms, and therefore, less curtaining, although it would appear to the layman that curtaining must be a carrier of infection and that a big ward must carry more infection. However, if I am told by the scientists and doctors that this is not true, I must accept it.
I feel that one way in which economies would be made would be on bed occupancy. At the moment there are empty beds in some large wards because, under the ward system, it is necessary to fit in patients of a certain kind, or of a certain sex, or suffering from a certain disease, into a particular ward. Therefore, there may be overcrowding in one ward and under-occupancy in another. More single rooms would make the position more flexible. Bed occupancy in hospitals at the moment ranges from 80 to 87 per cent. With more single rooms one might get nearer to 100 per cent. occupancy. There are various things that would be easier, such as giving treatment to patients where they were, instead of taking them out. Visiting would be much easier from everybody's point of view.
One point about privacy that I think I ought to make here is that, in addition to the lack of privacy in big hospital wards, there is a lack of privacy for patients to talk to their doctor and to visitors. Patients may have a great many things to talk about. Some of them may be suffering from emotional weak-nesses, and it may be a good thing for them to cry to their relatives, and to talk to them openly and freely in a way that is not possible in big wards. It is envisaged by those who have most pressed for single-room accommodation that people should have a right to choose, and that probably more people would choose single rooms in the future if the present policy for building more day rooms in hospitals—rooms where patients can go and spend time together in the

425
afternoon when they can get up— were continued, because they would probably welcome having their own individual rooms to themselves for the rest of the time.
I think it is worth while taking up your Lordships' time on this matter, partly because there is an absence of pressure groups on it. There are all sorts of good causes which suffer from the lack of pressure groups. State education suffers, or has in the past suffered, from the lack of enough pressure groups because so many people who have influence send their children to private schools. There are so few people who want to know about this matter of private rooms in hospitals when they are not patients, but when they find themselves patients it is very different. I must pay tribute to the Patients' Association, which I think is doing very good work in this way.
I should like to wind up, my Lords, by repeating that I am not asking for a large number of additional private rooms to be built immediately. What I am asking for is an acknowledgment by the Government of the goal that we are all, I hope, seeking. There are two important aspects for any political action. There is, first of all, the goal that we want to see; secondly, there are the steps that can be taken, given the money, the political situation and everything else. If you concentrate only on the first you are a woolly-headed idealist; if you think only of the second, you run the risk that the steps you take will be moving in the wrong direction. I am frightened that we are going to build too many modern hospitals that are not adaptable to provide single rooms. I am frightened that we are not going to take any steps in this direction because the Government, quite rightly, do not want to raise people's hopes too much by saying immediately: "Of course we think this is a very good thing". My Lords, all we ask is that this right to privacy should be acknowledged as something which society, when it can, will provide to the individual. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
8.8 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I speak for no particular pressure group of any kind, and I do not even know what that important body, the B.M.A., are thinking
426
about this subject. But I know what I think about it, and I support almost everything that the noble Lord has said. One thing I should like to say which is almost irrelevant (and this is, perhaps, the only instance where I differ from the noble Lord) concerns bed occupancy. I think an enormous amount of nonsense is talked about bed occupancy. A great deal is made of it by boards of governors and Regional Hospital Boards. It is supposed to be a great virtue if your beds are always full. But, in fact, it is an inhumane object, and what happens is that a patient who has been on the waiting list for two years for a hernia operation is sent a telegram to come in on Saturday morning because there happens to be a bed vacant, nothing is done for him until Monday evening, and then his operation is performed on the Tuesday morning. As I say, this is almost irrelevant to the noble Lord's Question, but I think we have to get it straight.
When the noble Lord says in his Question,
"to choose to be in a single room, as something to be established as soon as financially possible ",
I would go further and say, "something quite essential in any up-to-date hospital". I must give a few reasons for saying that. When the Health Service started there were to be amenity beds, and for a very small sum of money, which I think was then four or five guineas a week, you could elect, provided it was not needed for somebody much more ill than yourself, for some dire clinical need, to have a room to yourself. That system, so far as any hospital I have ever worked in, failed simply because there were not enough amenity beds. In the hospital in which I did most of my work for the last twenty years before I retired, the Manchester Royal Infirmary, and in my own wards, there were, so far as I remember, about 25 beds in a ward and there were only two single rooms. There was one room with three people in it. I can think of nothing worse than a ward that contains three people, except being in a ward which contains two people, because you have to be polite to somebody, and being polite as well as being ill is almost too much to contemplate.
There are various reasons why certain people want to be by themselves; certain people have intellectual resources of

427
their own, others do not, and prefer to live in groups. Among the major annoyances of the big wards and multiple wards are television, smoking, unpleasant noises and, occasionally, unpleasant smells. Nevertheless, I concede with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that there are a number of people who would much rather be sharing a ward with four, five or six people; and, like the noble Lord, I would agree that they should have every right to do so. I would rather be in a ward for one or in a ward for 30, because on neither occasion need I be polite to anybody else. Those who like company are very well catered for in a modern hospital by the much greater pro-vision of day rooms and common dining rooms. Very recently I visited a patient, a lady, who was in a mixed ward one part of which was for men and another part for women. There was a common dining room in between them, with day rooms, and so on. Sometime we must consider the two nuisances of television and smoking, but this is getting a little irrelevant.
Certain absurdities also creep into this. Surgery is more and more a matter of team work. There are these wonderful operations that can now be done on the heart, and they have to be done in a modern hospital where there is a trained team and every possible amenity. It is no longer possible to do this kind of operation in the ordinary nursing home. So these people have to come into hospital, people who would much rather have private treatment and be in a private room. They are looked after very well in intensive care units, which have grown up so much in the past few years, and these are quite splendid. It does not matter whether you are next to a man or a woman or anything else—well, I sup-pose there is nothing else. While you are intensely ill, being looked after for these few critical days, you are splendidly cared for in the modern intensive care unit. After that there is the stage of convalescence.
We also have to remember that there are a very large number of people in hospital who are not ill at all. I am sure your Lordships do not take me quite literally when I say that, but there are a lot of people who need to come in for
428
investigation. They walk into the hospital, they come in on public transport, they were working the day before and are not direly ill. They do not have to be put to bed immediately and nursed by a highly trained team of nurses. These people have to be looked after as well.
I have had rather special experiences of the needs of the kind of people who like to be by themselves. For twenty years I was a Professor of medicine and, therefore, not in the private practice of medicine, not receiving fees from patients that I saw, and I was quite content for it to be so. I saw a lot of people, my own colleagues, their wives, doctors, all kinds of people who wanted to see me, and I had nowhere to put them except in a general ward with a lot of other people, which most of these people disliked intensely. If I had an amenity ward, if I had a single ward, almost certainly by the evening it would have to be taken up by some emergency for which it was needed. So I am very much in favour of the provision of private, single wards. I do not think that the difficulties of provision are unsurmountable. I do not think every hospital can be converted to-morrow in this way, but this is an ideal for which we should work, and a very proper one at the present time.
I would finally mention two other reasons for the provision of more single rooms. One, which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has already mentioned, is privacy of conversation, not only with your friends and relatives but also with your doctor, and this might improve doctoring a great deal in our public hospitals. The other reason is the little matter of death. If you have only two single rooms in a ward of 25 or 30 people and you say to one of your patients, "I think you need more rest and we ought to put you in a room to yourself", he thinks he is going to die. And he is usually right.
8.17 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, my first impression on reading the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was that it was a very tall order. I would question whether it should be regarded as a right for every National Health patient to have, at his own choice, a private

429
room. To take the last sentence of his Motion:
"… as something to be established as soon as financially possible."
it seems to me that with the present pressure on the National Health Service it is not really a priority; a great many things should be done and a great deal of money should be spent before we can acknowledge the right of every National Health Service patient to have a private room. There are great advantages in having a private room: you can have visitors whenever you like, although that is an advantage which is perhaps sometimes a mixed blessing. You can listen to the wireless without having to put a head-phone on your head, and you may smoke or not smoke as you choose. That is something that if you really want it you should have to pay for it—at least under present conditions. The trouble is that you have to pay a devil of a lot!
The noble Lord referred to pressure groups. The pressure group in this case is the Patients' Association, which is a body which has done, still does and will do very useful and valuable work. The case that the Patients' Association makes out for the right of the National Health patient to have a private room is mis-leading. I have it here:
"If privacy is the most precious right we have,"—
I can think of more precious rights—
"this right is forfeited the moment one becomes a hospital patient under the N.H.S. Wards designed to accommodate the sick poor in charitable institutions are not only still in use but provide the pattern for hospitals now being built and planned,"—
I cannot believe that that is the case—
"so that patients in the next century can look forward to enduring the same conditions as the objects of Victorian charity in the last. People who would rather not share a bedroom with members of their own family have no choice of companions with whom to share the embarrassment and distress of affliction. The patient is not able to talk privately to doctors and nurses, nor to his visitors. He has perforce to adapt himself"—
and so on.
Well, that is surely not true of a modern hospital. It may have been true of some of those old hospitals we still have in use. I had experience of one, which was formerly a workhouse. The plumbing was out of order and it was very understaffed—but I have no
430
doubt that it is a lot better now than it was in 1951. But I am referring to a modern hospital. I have in mind, for instance, visiting a patient in St. Bartholomew's. The wards are not over-crowded; the curtains are very adequate. One can obtain a very high degree of privacy, and I cannot think there is any hardship in being nursed in such a general ward. It is asking a lot, I think, to regard that as not good enough for the ordinary patient.
The statement of the Patients' Association goes on to point out that
"… student hostels and halls of residence are designed to allow each student a study-bedroom to himself ";
and points out the amenities of being in prison where
"People sentenced to imprisonment are not herded into dormitories as are those who have the misfortune to fall ill."
One of the "amenities" of prison life, I imagine, is that of being shut in your cell for very long hours; although in a male prison one may have to share it with two other inmates. All this is really an overstatement of the hardships of a general ward in a modern hospital. One of the hardships which is pointed out by the Patients' Association is what is regarded as the outrage of being examined in a teaching hospital by students, or in the presence of students. The statement says:
"In addition to the extra anxiety, pain and discomfort which are often occasioned, many patients experience embarrassment, and a sense of outrage, and those involved would do well to ponder the legal implications of examining patients in such circumstances without obtaining their consent."
I believe it is now possible for a patient in a teaching hospital to state that he or she does not consent to such examinations. Is that not so at the present time? I think it is. Even so, I cannot help thinking that we have gone a long way since the days when that was the kind of treatment which the poor were subjected to in charitable institutions, which hospitals then were, in order that the doctors could be trained in the service of the rich.
I think anyone who takes advantage of the National Health Service should regard it as a public duty to play his part in medical education, on which he Is subsequently dependent. It is not asking a great deal. Therefore, I think that the

431
demand that every National Health patient should, as of right, be entitled to a private room is an unduly tall order; and I cannot think it will be within the bounds of National Health finance in the near future, or even in the far future, to make it a reality.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down would she make one point clear? I have listened with great interest to her observations. Presumably her comments were not addressed to any case I made out; I hope she will acknowledge that the matters she referred to were a very long way down the list of my priorities. And I certainly did not put the case for the Patients' Association, for which I have a great admiration, on which she was commenting.
8.25 p.m.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has put this Question. He raised it in, if I may say so, a most restrained and reasonable way. I should like to comment on it from two directions. One is the personal view. As the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, have said, some patients like company in wards, and others like privacy. Having, un-fortunately, had to spend quite a considerable time in hospital last year, I am in the second category. And as I cannot afford private rooms—£60 a week nowadays in our hospitals—I was extremely grateful to get into a little annex of a ward, which gave me privacy and made the whole difference to me.
I speak as chairman of a hospice for terminal illness. I am glad to say that the noble Baroness who has just spoken is associated with me as a Vice-President; three other Members of your Lordships' House also are Vice-Presidents—suitably, two on the Government side, two on this side, and one on the Liberal Benches, Lord Amulree. I know quite well that many of our patients prefer being in a small ward of eight beds, with television. But the important thing, at least in this particular hospice, which of course is for very seriously ill patients, is that it demands very heavy nursing, and one is always
432
up against the problem of getting enough nursing staff and enough administrative staff. This is an important point because in all the hospitals in this country we are very short of nurses, and of cleaning and administrative staff; and, of course, numbers of small rooms definitely increase the amount of work that has to be done. With the heavy nursing that is required in the hospital with which I am associated, it is very important that the staff are able to keep an eye on the patients without having to dart into room after room: they must be able to see them all together.
So I entirely agree with the noble Lord that, in the long term, it would be excellent if we plan for more private rooms, not for paying patients, but for those patients whom the noble Lord, Lord Platt, mentioned, who prefer privacy, as I certainly did myself. I agree also with what was said about students. Patients should be asked to agree before a large number of medical students come to take part in examinations and in subsequent treatment. I do not entirely agree with what was said about lack of privacy in a ward. From what I have seen when visiting patients in hospitals, and from what I might call my own hospice, I think that with curtains and screens one can produce the privacy that is required for ordinary conversation and visits. But I agree very much with what the noble Lord said about the last hours of a patient's life. It would be a very good thing if at that time patients could go to a private room.
So, on the whole, I should like to support the noble Lord in his plea, in long-term planning, for an increase in the number of private rooms for non-paying, National Health, patients. But I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, in that I am afraid it is a long-term plan and we must look first at a great many other important priorities.
8.30 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, at the beginning may I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and I think every other noble Lord who has spoken to-night on the Question, that patients should have the right to privacy to which as individuals they are entitled, and that privacy is certainly one of the many aspects of hospital life, quite apart

433
from the effectiveness of clinical treatment, which loom very large indeed from the point of view of the patient.
We are all aware of all the other factors which come into play when a patient enters hospital, and also, I think, of the fact that overcrowded wards, inadequate bed space and the close proximity of patients together in large wards are among the worst features of daily life in some of our present hospitals. Even where, on occasion, one sees that space standards are adequate, the large, old "Nightingale" wards built in the past are really quite unsuitable for the needs of patients, and indeed of doctors and nursing staff to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, with his great experience in the health service, has reminded us, I thought very graphically indeed, of the kind of issues that arise in this situation. In the large ward there can be too much noise, too much disturbance. The recent introduction of television, which has proved such a boon in some of our long stay hospitals, can be a constant irritant to a patient who is unable to bear noise in his immediate surroundings. The other problem, as the noble Lord also reminded us, is that the seriously ill and the less ill cannot be sufficiently separated and it is then very difficult to sustain privacy in any reasonable form.
In discussing this subject most of your Lordships have been concerned with the planning of hospitals in the future, recognising that this is, for reasons of priority, a plan which we can only make for the future. However, I still believe that by upgrading existing hospitals one can create the kind of atmosphere which gives greater privacy to patients. Although one noble Lord mentioned that curtains might be a source of infection, to my mind the greatest upgrading and the greatest improvement that we produced in any local hospital was by the curtaining in every single ward in that old 1750-style workhouse building.
When one turns to the planning of our new hospitals, where we need to take account not only of the best techniques and the most effective procedures and treatment of patients' clinical conditions, but also their needs as people, one is beginning to see that we should create a much quieter, much more domestic
434
atmosphere by grouping beds in smaller numbers and in separate bays. The plan which the Department has evolved for a standard ward in an acute hospital comprises 30 beds, of which six—that is 20 per cent.—are in single rooms and the remainder are in multiple bed bays of six beds each. We believe that grouping in this way will be welcomed and we hope that it will be found satisfactory by the great majority of people who experience a stay in hospital. The multi-bed bays that we are now designing are large enough to provide and sustain patients with the kind of companionship which some of them way wish for, yet I believe (and I have seen something of this in practice myself) are small enough to allow those who wish it to withdraw from social contact from time to time when they so desire.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, quoted the example of Greenwich District Hospital. It is quite true that in that hospital the number of single rooms amounted to 108 out of a total of 767 beds—that is only about 14 per cent. of the total number of beds provided— whereas now our standard wards provide for 20 per cent. The Greenwich decision was one taken locally by a group representing the Regional Board, the hospital management committee and the Department, on the ground that this was the appropriate percentage in the light of experience, to meet the needs of that area. I hope what I have said will put the noble Lord's mind at rest. That is all I wish to say on that question.
Several noble Lords have mentioned priorities and indicated that they accept that we can move towards these changes, which will provide greater privacy for patients, only within the resources available. But I think that the real problem that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has posed in his Question is: what is the optimum point we should aim to reach? I do not think he would envisage a hospital, for example, consisting of all single rooms. Nor, I believe, would the noble Lord, Lord Platt. We have tried to determine what would be a suitable, and indeed an economical, provision of single rooms in a hospital, trying to weigh the different factors that come into play, of which privacy is certainly one; but there are also factors such as liability to

435
infect others, susceptibility to infection, and seriously ill, noisy patients who have to be admitted in the middle of the night. Moreover experience shows that the need will vary from season to season with the type of ward unit, the patient treated and the judgment of the individual clinical and nursing team.
But we are fairly confident, having tried to weigh and balance these factors, that the 20 per cent. that we are now advocating in our new buildings will provide an adequate number, balanced with the small bed bays that I referred to earlier, to enable clinical and nursing supervision to be carried out throughout the ward in the best way, and indeed to provide the kind of flexibility we should wish to see in our hospitals for the future. But as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, pointed out, we cannot really be confident that this 20 per cent. will be sufficient to allow every patient who wishes it, whether or not his clinical condition requires it, to have a single room, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Platt, reminded us of—that people differ in their preferences and in their needs. Patients who have never been in hospital before often find that their views on the question change as a result of the actual experience.
The few studies which have been carried out during these last years on patients' preferences, and which we have used in our hospital planning studies, have not indicated anything like a large-scale, unmet demand for single room accommodation. In fact, the two most extensive surveys that have taken place have shown that the proportion of patients who wanted single rooms was 8 per cent. and 11 per cent. respectively. Clearly we have not yet come to the end of our thinking here. We are considering whether any further survey might usefully be undertaken in order that our studies, our forward planning, the best type of hospitals for this country for the future, can be assessed as accurately as possible.
My Lords, the hour is late and I am reluctant to detain the House on a number of matters that have been raised following this Question. I would only say in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady
436
Stocks, who raised the question of the participation of patients in teaching in hospitals and their rights to privacy in this context, that this is a subject in itself to which we have given careful consideration. We shall shortly be issuing new guidance to hospitals on this difficult and delicate matter, and yet one of central importance to the development of medical education.
As a result of the few things I have been able to say to-night I hope that noble Lords will accept that we are well aware that there is a great deal to be done in relation to privacy in our hospitals. We are trying to keep our priorities right and realistic, and these concepts of personal privacy and choice are an integral part of our planning for the hospital wards, both for to-day in our older hospitals, and also for tomorrow, in the hospitals of the future.

NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on February 19 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
TEESSIDE CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Select Committee, with Amendments.