Lords Sitting of 12 May 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 Ripon.

ROAD CONSTRUCTION: USE OF WASTE MATERIAL
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the date of the first meeting of the Working Party jointly appointed by the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Local Government "to consider what further encouragement can be given to use waste as 'fill' for road building"; and when is it expected they will report their findings.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the first meeting will be held before the end of the month. It is too early to say how long it will take the Working Party to complete their task.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask if he is in a position to state what is the composition of the Working Party and, in particular, whether the Treasury will be represented in order that any possible saving to the taxpayer may be fully assessed?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the composition of the Working Party is from the appropriate Departments of State, and the Treasury, as is customary in such cases, will be kept closely in touch.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, since this is a question which concerns not only the appropriate Departments of State but also local authorities, amenity societies and many of Her Majesty's citizens, can the noble Lord give us an assurance that in due time the report of this Working Party will be published?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I cannot give that assurance before seeing the report. But I would remind the noble Lord and the House that the whole purpose of the operation is to find means of achieving amenity ends by using more of this "fill" for road construction.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider setting up a Working Party to inquire into alternative ways of using this waste material, such, for example, as artificial aggregates for making concrete?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the Government have all these possibilities closely under review, but at the moment I am not sure that a Working Party would be the right way to go about it.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, could not the final curtain be drawn upon the Aberfan disaster by the removal of these slag heaps, once and for all, and their conversion to some useful purpose, such as widening the M.4 motorway and other road schemes?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the trouble is that there is so much more in these waste tips than could ever be needed for any conceivable road programme.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to endeavour to secure that the Working Party deal with this matter as one of urgency? And would he recognise that an early report would be a quite outstanding contribution in the present European Conservation Year?
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords.

TURNHOUSE AIRPORT AND COMMONWEALTH GAMES
2.41 p.m.
LORD KILMANY: 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 estimate has been made of the probable increase in traffic at Turnhouse Airport at the time of the Commonwealth Games; and what steps are being taken to accommodate this extra load of passengers.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as operator of the airport, the Board of Trade keep in close touch with the airlines, but so far they have learnt only of one additional flight being arranged. However, many more flights could be accommodated without difficulty outside the peak hours and there is still time for them to be arranged.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him if he can say, in making his estimate, whether B.E.A. were asked how many additional flights they could operate if these were required?
LORD BESWICK: Well, my Lords, they can operate quite a number of additional flights if they are required; but the bookings at the moment do not appear to justify putting on any further flights.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in view of the Minister's statement that he thinks further flights will take place, will he ensure that, alongside any expansion of other facilities, the public telephone facilities are greatly expanded compared with what they are at the moment?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that is a little outside the scope of this particular Question, but I will see that one of my colleagues takes note of it.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether B.E.A. have the aircraft available to put on all these additional flights?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not know what additional flights the noble Lord is talking about; but if more are required, certainly they can be put on.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is it not the fact that the flights will not be needed because of the black countries' refusal to take part in the Commonwealth Games in Scotland?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, unfortunately this appears to be a matter which is delaying the progress of booking, and so on.

POWER STATIONS SECURITY AND PUBLIC SAFETY
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: 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 are satisfied that security precautions at gas pressure control installations and nuclear power stations are adequate.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH): My Lords, the Gas Council advise me that they are reviewing the scope for possible improvements in the light of the recent vandalism at Leavesden. The main question is really one of providing stouter locks and doors to resist forcible entry by unauthorised persons. Security precautions at power stations sites are primarily a matter for the Generating Board, but in so far as these have any implications for nuclear safety I am satisfied that the Board's precautions are completely adequate. The Central Electricity Generating Board are of course tightening up their general security arrangements as a result of the Wilson Report into commissioning delays.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. But is he aware that the kind of sabotage perpetrated at the Watford gas control station could well endanger the safety and lives of thousands of people? Does not the noble Lord realise that incidents of this kind, including vandalism at Wylfa, are making some people think that we are losing all semblance of law and order in this country?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I think the two situations are quite different, and, while not underestimating the hazard involved in each of the cases, I hope that we shall keep a sense of perspective and recognise that there is no justification for talking of either of these situations in panic terms.

SIMONSTOWN NAVAL BASE AND UNITED NATIONS ARMS RESOLUTION
2.43 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: 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 who is at present in command of the naval base at Simonstown; whether it is a fact that the French flag now flies over Admiralty House; whether any changes have been made in the facilities offered to Her Majesty's ships since our refusal to supply vessels to the Government of the South African Republic following the Simonstown Agreement; and whether they are satisfied that the facilities now available at the base are adequate to secure the protection of the increasing volume of British shipping round the Cape.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, the Simonstown naval base is under the control of the South African Navy. British interests are represented by the Senior British Naval Officer, South Africa, with the rank of Commodore. The facilities at Simonstown are provided by the South African Navy, but under the Simonstown Agreement the Royal Navy has access to them.
No changes have been made in the facilities available to the Royal Navy, nor would we expect there to be any, since Her Majesty's Government consider that the United Kingdom's obligations under the Agreement have been, and are being, carried out. Those items which Her Majesty's Government refused to supply to the Government of South Africa were not covered by the Agreement.
The South African Navy is purchasing submarines from France and is being assisted by French technicians and advisers in preparing for their operation. The number and location of these advisers is entirely a matter between the French and South African Governments. I have no evidence of any flag, other than the South African flag, being flown from Admiralty House.
492
The facilities at Simonstown would make a valuable contribution to the defence of the sea routes round the Cape which could also be defended by our general capability forces.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, arising out of that comprehensive Answer, for which I thank the noble Lord, may I ask him this supplementary question? In view of the categorical statement in this House last week by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who negotiated the Simonstown Agreement, that an undertaking on our part to supply certain naval vessels was part of that Agreement, does not the noble Lord think it right that we ought now to carry out our side of the bargain?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, in my reply to the noble Lord's Question I said that we had carried out our part of the bargain. That consisted of providing certain anti-submarine frigates, and coastal minesweepers to the South African navy. That obligation has been carried out.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that Her Majesty's Government paid a subvention, or made a loan, of £6 million to Cammell Laird, and that that sum of money happens to be the price of one frigate?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is not directly related to the noble Lord's Question.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if the Government believe, as I understand they do from the Answer the noble Lord has given, that the base at Simonstown is, if not vital, at any rate very necessary for the protection of British interests in that part of the world, would it not be wise not to adopt too unfriendly an attitude to a Government in whose power it is to deny us those facilities? Would it really be too much to ask the Government to explain why it is not possible to sell submarines and naval ships to the South African Government when they cannot, in any circumstances, be used for the policy of apartheid?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, We are, as a nation, bound by the United Nations Resolution 191 of June, 1964.

493
This calls on States, which includes the United Kingdom, to
"cease forthwith the sale and shipment to South Africa of arms, ammunition, of all types, military vehicles and equipment and materials for the manufacture and maintenance of arms and ammunition in South Africa."
That resolution is a general ban on the supply of all forms of arms to South Africa and that is what ties the hands of Her Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, are the Government aware that, despite this extraordinary changed attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the South African Navy, so far as I am aware no British ship has received anything but the greatest help and hospitality from the South African Navy in Simonstown?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as I said in reply to a Question last week, the Simonstown Agreement, as drafted, is in operation now and is being carried out in co-operative terms by both sides.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's recent reply to my noble Leader, can he say whether the United Nations have taken over the responsibility of safeguarding our shipping round the Cape of Good Hope?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why the Government feel bound by the resolution that he has quoted and not bound by various resolutions dealing with Gibraltar?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another and entirely different question.
VISCOUNT DAVENTRY: My Lords, can the noble Lord answer the final paragraph of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, which has not, so far as I know, been answered?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am afraid that it may be due to lack of clarity on my part. The facilities at Simonstown, as I said, would make a valuable contribution to the defence of the sea routes round the Cape and—a point I should like to stress—they could also be defended by our general capability forces.
VISCOUNT DAVENTRY: My Lords, the question as to "adequate facilities" has not been answered. Is the noble Lord satisfied that the facilities are adequate?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, yes; I think the arrangements made are adequate.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the United Nations passed the resolution in June, 1964? The Tory Party were then in power and they never made any protestations about it.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his helpful remark.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask, with apologies, and I hope in conclusion, whether the noble Lord is satisfied that the Government of South Africa are themselves satisfied with the working of the Agreement? Because I was there the other day and I have reason to believe that they are not.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, no Agreement works to everyone's satisfaction, but in operational terms it is working very well.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, will the Minister agree, in view of the world-wide and growing expression of abhorrence against apartheid, that the Labour Government were extremely far-sighted when they made the decision not to send any arms to South Africa?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as I said in answer to a supplementary question, Her Majesty's Government are bound by the United Nations resolution of June, 1964.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, was it not made perfectly clear at the time of the passing of that resolution that it was not to include the supply of ships, and so on, under the Simonstown Agreement?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, ships were included under the Agreement and the ships have been supplied.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the French Government are equally bound by that resolution?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as I said at the time when I was asked a question on this subject, I am not responsible for the activities of the French Government.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the incompleteness of some parts of the noble Lord's reply to the Question, may I ask whether he is aware that Great Britain has an investment in South Africa of around 2,600 million rand, and that its protection merits a better degree of support than the British Government are giving at present? Further, is he aware that the present policy is causing great irritation, as expressed by several Ministers in South Africa, and that in the event of a crisis the United Nations, which is now in debt to the tune of £70 million, would be a poor substitute for any assistance?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am aware of the British investment in South Africa, but Her Majesty's Government are also aware of investment in other parts of the Commonwealth which are supporting the United Nations resolution which I mentioned.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Her Majesty's Government are supported by all those who support the rule of international law through the United Nations?
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, did the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, say that certain ships had been supplied by Her Majesty's Government?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords.
LORD VIVIAN: Then may I ask him whether the two frigates which were under order from the Upper Clyde Shipbuilding Company have been supplied? May I remind the Minister that I put down a Question on this subject two and a half years ago?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I was not accountable for my Department two and a half years ago.

BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
WEST HERTFORDSHIRE MAIN DRAINAGE BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

CONSUMER PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Consumer Protection Act 1961 in relation to the enforcement of the provisions set out in Section 2 thereof. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

REGENT, ROYAL AND CARLTON TERRACE GARDENS, EDIN BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report.
ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
2.55 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. COMMITTEE STAGE OF PUBLIC BILLS
The Committee have considered a proposal by the Leader of the House for curtailing proceedings on public Bills in Committee of the whole House, where no amendment has been set down to a Bill and no notice has been given by any Lord of his intention to move a manuscript amendment or speak to a particular clause. At present the House normally resolves itself into a Committee upon such a Bill, in accordance with Standing Order No. 42. The Lord Chancellor leaves the Woolsack and the Lord Chairman, with the agreement of the Committee, puts the question that he should report the Bill to the House without amendment. Provided there is no objection, he then moves: "That the House be resumed". The Lord Chancellor then returns to the Woolsack and the Lord Chairman says: "My Lords, the Committee of the Whole House to whom the … Bill was committed have gone through the same and have directed me to report it to your Lordships without amendment".
The right to a Committee Stage is provided by Standing Order No. 42 which reads: "Unless the House otherwise orders, Bills are committed after the Second Reading for a date to be appointed". Under the proposed new procedure Bills would continue to be automatically committed by an Order of the House to a Committee of the Whole House, unless the Committee Stage has been negatived immediately after Second Reading. But in cases where no Lord has either put down an amendment, or made known his intention to move a manuscript amendment or to speak to a particular clause, it would be open to the Lord in charge of the Bill to move that "the order of commitment be discharged".
The Committee wish to preserve the right to a Committee stage, if such is desired by any single Lord, and they therefore recommend the proposed new procedure to the House, subject to the following safeguards:—

(a) That the Motion for the discharge of the Order of Commitment should only be moved on the day appointed for the Committee Stage.

(b) That if a single Lord objects, the question on the Motion for the discharge of the order of commitment should not be put and the House should proceed at once into Committee.

(c) That unless Standing Order No. 41 has been suspended, the Third Reading of a Bill should not be taken on the same day as that on which the order of commitment has been discharged.

(d) That the Motion for the discharge of the order of commitment should not be moved without due notice.

It is not intended that this new procedure should replace the "Committee Negatived" procedure, under which the House decides immediately after Second Reading not to make an order for the House to go into Committee on a particular Bill. That procedure applies
498
only to a limited category of Public Bills, such as Supply Bills, some Money Bills, some Bills to ratify treaties, or Bills which are being accelerated in cases where the House has agreed to suspend Standing Order No. 41.
The Committee recommend the following amendments to Standing Orders:
Standing Order No. 41 ("No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day")—at end insert "or the order of commitment is discharged".
Standing Order No. 42—insert the following new paragraph:
"2.If, at the time appointed for the House to go into Committee on a Bill, no amendment has been set down and it appears that no Lord wishes to speak to the Bill or to table a manuscript amendment, the Lord in charge of the Bill may, having given notice, move 'That the order of commitment be discharged'; provided that no such Motion may be put to the question if a single Lord objects." Side note to Standing Order No. 42 should be altered to read "Commitment of Bills".
In addition the Committee recommend that the Lord who is to move the discharge of the order of commitment should use the following form of words:
"My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill, and that no Noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment, or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any Noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged."
The Committee recommend that a passage should be included in the revised Companion to the Standing Orders to explain the new procedure clearly so that Peers may understand the procedure and be aware of their right to have a Committee Stage on any public Bill, unless the House otherwise orders.
2. UNSTARRED QUESTIONS: CONTINUING THE DEBATE AFTER THE GOVERNMENT HAS REPLIED
The Committee note that there have been a number of occasions when the debate on Unstarred Questions has been continued after the Government reply has been given. This practice has been considered by the Sub-Committee on Observances and Customary Behaviour in the House (see paragraph 13 of the Sub-Committee's Report in Appendix A).
The Committee recommend that in future:

(a) procedure on Unstarred Questions should be regulated by a decision of the House that it is undesirable for Lords to continue the debate after the Government reply has been given, save for questions to the Minister before he sits down;

(b) that Standing Order No. 28 ("No Lord to speak twice on one matter") should be amended so as to apply explicitly to Unstarred Questions as well as Motions.

They further recommend that guidance on the use of Unstarred Questions should be included in a revision to the Companion to the

499
Standing Orders. They have invited the Companion Sub-Committee to give further consideration to the possibility of devising as an alternative to the Unstarred Question some other form of short debate on a motion at the end of a day's business.
3. CONVERSION OF SESSIONAL ORDERS INTO STANDING ORDERS
The Committee recommend that the Sessional Orders passed in the opening days of each new session in relation to—

(a) The setting up of the Appellate and Appeal Committees of the House; and

(b) The recall of the House during adjournment;

should be replaced by Standing Orders, thereby obviating the need for such Sessional Orders to be passed without notice. The Committee recommend that the new Standing Orders should be in the following terms:
Appellate and Appeal Committees.
1. For the purposes of its appellate jurisdiction, the House shall have Appellate and Appeal Committees, of which all Lords qualified under the Appellate Jurisdiction Acts 1876 and 1887 shall be members.
2. These Committees shall be:—

(a) two Appellate Committees, which shall hear any cause or matter referred to them and shall report thereon to the House;

(b) two Appeal Committees, which shall consider any petition or application for leave to appeal that may be referred to them and any matter relating thereto, or to causes depending, or formerly depending, in this House, and shall report thereon to the House.

3. In any criminal matter, or in any matter concerning extradition, an Appeal Committee may take decisions and give directions on behalf of the House.
4. The Lord Chancellor, if present, or in his absence the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary present, shall take the chair in any Appellate or Appeal Committee.
5. For the purposes of the preceding paragraph, seniority shall be determined by reference to the date of first appointment to the office of Lord of Appeal in Ordinary without regard to rank in the Peerage.
6. For the purposes of section 8 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876, any Appellate Committee may sit and act while Parliament is prorogued.
Recall of the House
1. If, during any adjournment of the House, the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that the public interest requires that the House should meet at a time earlier than that appointed, he may signify that he is so satisfied and notice shall be given and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in the notice, as if it had been duly adjourned to that time.
2. If the Lord Chancellor is unable to act for the purposes of this Standing Order, the Chairman of Committees, after consultation with Her Majesty's Government, may act in his stead.
4. REVISION OF THE COMPANION TO THE STANDING ORDERS
The Committee have authorised the Clerk of the Parliaments to prepare and publish a new edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders and Guide to the Proceedings of the House of Lords relating to public business, last published in 1963. In order to aid in the process of revising the Companion, the Committee authorised the setting up of a Sub-Committee to be known as the Companion Sub-Committee with the following members—
The Chairman of Committees (E. Listowel)

M. Salisbury

E. St. Aldwyn

L. Strang

L. Beswick

L. Amulree

L. Merthyr

L. Denham

L. Henley

Bs. Wootton of Abinger

with the Clerk of the Parliaments and with the power to co-opt further members.
5. MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
The Committee have considered the proposal by Lord Archibald that the form and content of the Minutes of Proceedings should be reviewed and recommend that this should be considered by the Companion Sub-Committee on the understanding that priority be given to the preparation of the Companion.
6. ALTERATIONS OF STARRED QUESTIONS AND MOTIONS
The Committee recommend that any Motion or Question on the Order Paper be "daggered" whenever any material alteration is made to the text, in order to draw the attention of members of the House and of Government departments to the alteration.
7. OBSERVANCES
The Procedure Committee set up a Sub-Committee on 25th March, 1969, to consider the Observances and Customary Behaviour in the House. The Sub-Committee consisted of—
The Chairman of Committees (E.Listowel)

M. Salisbury

E. St. Aldwyn

L. Strang

L. Beswick

L. Amulree

L. Merthyr

L. Rea

L. Henley

with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
After a number of meetings, the Sub-Committee made a Report, the text of which the Procedure Committee have now considered and endorsed, subject to certain minor amendments. They recommend that the substance of this Report (as amended) should be included in the revised Companion to the

501
Standing Orders. The text of the Report (as amended) is attached as an Appendix to this Report and it is hoped that in general it will serve as useful guidance for Peers, until the revised Companion is ready.
The Committee however, consider that paragraph 13 of the Sub-Committee's Report dealing with "Unstarred Questions: continuing the debate after the Government has replied" is of too great importance to be treated as merely a matter of "Observances of the House". They have therefore considered it separately in paragraph 2 above.

FORMAL CUSTOMS
1.Bowing
By the custom of the House all bows (except those by a Peer and his Supporters on Introduction when raising their hats to the Lord Chancellor) are Court bows, i.e., head and not body.
(a)To the Cloth of Estate
Standing Order No. 18 lays down that:
"When the House is sitting, every Lord is to make obeisance to the Cloth of Estate on entering the House."
Peers, should, therefore, bow to the Cloth of Estate immediately on entering the House, but it is unnecessary for them to do so on leaving.
(a)To the Mace
It is in accordance with the custom of the House for Peers to bow to the Mace in procession, in virtue of its character as a symbol of the authority of the Sovereign.

(c)To the Tellers in the Division Lobby
It is not the custom of the House to bow to Tellers in the Division Lobby, as is the practice in the Commons. In the past when Peers attended the House covered, it was the practice for them to remove their hats, for the purpose of identification when passing through the Division Lobby. The Sub-Committee call attention to the practice whereby Peers give their names clearly to the Clerks in the Division Lobby; this practice is strongly commended both because it expedites Divisions and also because it reduces the possibility of error in compiling the Division Lists.
2.Movement in the House
Passing between the Peer who is speaking and the Woolsack or the Lord in the Chair
The terms of the first paragraph of Standing Order No. 18 are:
"The Lords in the Upper House arc to keep dignity and order, and not to remove out of their places without just cause, to the hindrance of others that sit near them, and the disorder of the House; and are not to pass between the Woolsack and the Table, nor between the Woolsack and the Lord who is speaking."
The Sub-Committee consider that the Standing Order is not sufficiently known or obeyed and
502
that the House should be reminded of its terms. Although some flexibility is needed as, for example, for movement between the Government Front Bench and the Official Box, the Sub-Committee take the view that Peers should respect the terms of the Standing Order, both on entering and leaving the Chamber. Lords who are speaking should do so from their places and not from the gangways in the House.
They further recommend that the Standing Order be extended to cover movement not only between the Woolsack but also (when the House is in Committee) between the Chair and the Lord who is speaking. This could be achieved by inserting the words "or the Chair" after "Woolsack" at the end of the fourth line of the Standing Order.
3.Conversation in the House
The Sub-Committee recommend that the attention of the House should be called to the terms of Standing Order No. 20:
"If any Lord has occasion to speak with another Lord while the House is sitting, they are to retire to the Prince's Chamber, and not converse in the space behind the Woolsack, or else the Lord Speaker is to call them to order, and, if necessary, to stop the business in agitation."
The Sub-Committee consider that the practice of talking in the House, as well as in the space behind the Woolsack, is increasing, contrary to the Standing Order, and that the attention of the House should be drawn to the terms of the Standing Order.
4.Modes of Address and Appellations
The Sub-Committee recall that this subject was recently considered by the Procedure Committee, which laid down the practice of the House in a Report on Appellations dated 9lh December, 1964. Despite the guidance contained in that Report, the Sub-Committee consider that the practice as there laid down is not generally observed and suggest that St might be for the convenience of the House if the text of the Report on Appelations were included in the revised Companion. They also observe that there are some small ambiguities in the earlier Report of the Procedure Committee, to which they have given further consideration. The Report, with appropriate amendments, is attached to this Report (Annex A).
Further, the Sub-Committee recommend the reversal of a previous decision in regard to the appellation of women who have seats in the House. The Third Report of the Procedure Committee 1963–64, dated 11th June, 1964, recommended that there should be no change in the existing practice whereby women with seats in the House are not described in Division Lists and other House papers by the senior title (if they have one) by which they are ordinarily known, as is the practice in the case of peers, e.g. the holders of Irish peerages.
The Sub-Committee see no good reason for continuing this discrimination and recommend that in future the same general practice should be applied impartially to both sexes. In the case of a woman with a seat in the Lords

503
who is also the holder of a title higher than that by right of which she sits in the House, whether by inheritance, marriage or courtesy, she should generally be known by the higher title, except in the Journals of the House where it would be added in brackets after the title by right of which she sits in Parliament.

PARLIAMENTARY MANNERS
5.Speeches
(a)Length of Speeches
On 13th July, 1965, the House agreed nemine dissentiente to a Resolution—
"That speeches in this House should be shorter". (L.J. 197, p. 386.)
The Sub-Committee doubt whether this Resolution has had the desired effect and suggest that, as occasion arises, the House should be reminded of its terms and that it should be noted in the revised Companion. Long speeches may make it difficult for busy Peers to observe the obligation to stay to the end of a debate in which they have taken part (see paragraph 6 below).
(b)Reading of Speeches
On 17th June, 1936, the House resolved that the reading of speeches was to be deprecated (L.J. 168, p. 241). There are some occasions, however, e.g., Ministerial Statements, when it is necessary to read from a prepared text, but the Sub-Committee suggests that it is not in general conducive to good debate for Peers to read speeches. In practice many speakers may wish to have "extended notes" from which to speak, but it is in the interests of good debate that speakers do not stick too closely to the text of prepared notes.
(c)Maiden Speeches
It is usual for a maiden speaker not to be interrupted, whether or not he asks for the indulgence of the House; and to be congratulated by the next following speaker. In return the Maiden speaker is expected to be short (10–15 minutes) and unprovocative. The reason for this is twofold. First, enjoying as he does the indulgence of the House, he should not take advantage of that indulgence to express views in terms which would ordinarily provoke interruption. Secondly, he must not make it difficult for the following speaker—whatever his personal views—to congratulate him with sincerity.
6.Attendance at a debate in which a Peer himself is taking part
Not all Peers appear to be aware of the conventions in regard to attendance at a debate in which a Peer himself is speaking.
Absence from a debate before a Peer takes part in it himself means that he rises to speak in ignorance, or partial ignorance, of what has already been said. This may lead to repetition of points already made and to silence on points which need to be replied to. The result is that the debate degenerates into a series of set speeches.
Presence after a Peer has spoken is largely a matter of courtesy to subsequent speakers who may wish to take up points or put questions on points previously raised in the debate.
Ideally, Peers should attend the whole of a debate in which they are taking part, but the
Sub-Committee recognise that it is not practicable to lay down rules which apply in every case, and that there may be occasions when a Peer is justified in intervening in a debate although he cannot attend the whole of it. Long speeches (see paragraph 5(a)) also deter participating Peers from staying to the end of a debate. Nevertheless, it is considered discourteous for a Peer taking part in a debate not to be present for the opening speeches, for at least the speech before and that following his own, and for the "winding-up" speeches.
7.Declaration of Interest
The Sub-Committee consider that the present guidance on this subject as laid down in the Companion to the Standing Orders, page 62, is not entirely satisfactory. They commend to the attention of the Procedure Committee the words used by the present Leader of the House in a reply to Lord Balogh on 10th June, 1969:—
"My Lords, there are no Standing Orders governing this matter (Peers and Declaration of Interest). It is a long-standing custom of this House that noble Lords speak always on their personal honour. It follows from this that if a Peer decides that it is proper for him to take part in a debate on a subject in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, he should declare it."
The Sub-Committee consider that this answer is more strictly in accordance with the custom of the House than the words at present in the Companion and recommend that it should be incorporated without the first sentence in the revision of the Companion.
The revised passage would then read:—
"'It is a long-standing custom of this House that noble Lords speak always in their personal honour. It follows from this that if a Peer decides that it is proper for him to take part in a debate on a subject in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, he should declare it.' (Lord Shackleton, Lords Hansard, 10th June, 1969, Col. 523).
Subject to this, and to the guidance to Members or Employees of Public Boards, there is no reason why he should not take part in debate. It is, however, considered undesirable for a Lord to advocate, promote or oppose in the House any Bill or sub-bordinate legislation in or for which he is or has been acting or concerned for any pecuniary fee or reward (Report of Procedure Committee, 18th May, 1960)."
8.Reference to the Commons and individual M.P.S
The Sub-Comimttee recommend that there is no justification for a change in the current rules as set forth in the Companion, pages 61–62.
9.Bringing "luggage" or newspapers into the Chamber
The Sub-Committee believe that it is contrary to the custom of the House for books or newspapers (except for the purpose of quotation), or briefcases, or Ministerial boxes, to be brought into the Chamber; and recommend that an appropriate entry should be made in the revised Companion to this effect.

GENERAL USAGE
10.Correction of speeches for Hansard
The Sub-Committee have noted that the Editor of Hansard applies a working rule "That nothing material should be added or subtracted after the speech has been delivered". They recommend that an appropriate entry should be made in the revised Companion to ensure that Peers are acquainted with the rule that there can be no alteration of the sense of words spoken by them in debate.
11.Peers purporting to speak on behalf of some outside body or association
The Sub-Committee are concerned at the growing practice by some Peers of appearing to speak chiefly on behalf of some outside body or association. Peers should speak for themselves and are responsible for what they say. They should not speak as the representatives of outside interests or persons. On the other hand, the views of some Peers gain added weight from their experience outside the House of matters under debate and it is reasonable for them to inform the House of this connection, when making their contribution, and to associate some outside body with the point of view that they are putting forward. The Sub-Committee suggest that guidance on this matter should be incorporated in the revised Companion in the following terms:—
"Peers are reminded that when speaking in the House they speak for themselves and not on behalf of outside interests. While they may indicate that an outside body agrees with the substance of the views that they are expressing, they should avoid creating an impression that they are speaking as a representative of outside interests."
12.Abuse of Question Time
The Sub-Committee have considered whether there is currently a widespread abuse of question time and in particular whether there is evidence of:—

(a) "hogging" the Order Paper; or

(b) using Questions and Supplementary Questions as a means of expressing views rather than of eliciting information.

They do not recommend any change for the time being in the present rules of the House.
They note with concern however that the practice of using Questions and Supplementary Questions as a means of expressing views rather than of eliciting information is increasing and recommend that the House should be reminded of the terms of the 1966 Report of the Procedure Committee which was agreed to on 9th August, 1966 (L.J. 199, pp. 189–90). This report, which was comprehensive, will be included in the next edition of the Companion. Meanwhile for convenience it is attached as Annex B to this report.
13.Unstarred Questions: continuing the debate after the Government has replied
The Sub-Committee note that in recent years a certain number of attempts have been made to continue the debate on unstarred questions after the Government have replied. There have also been instances of such attempts on motions for papers. The view of the Sub-Committee is:
506

(a) that in future procedure on unstarred questions should be regulated by a decision of the House that it is undesirable for Lords to continue the debate after the Government reply has been given, save for questions to the Minister before he sits down;

(b) that Standing Order No. 28 ("no Lord to speak twice to one matter") should be amended so as to apply explicitly to un-starred questions as well as to motions;

(c) that the procedure on motions should similarly be regulated by a decision of the House that it is undesirable for Lords to continue the debate after the Government reply has been given, except for the mover who has a right of reply.

The Sub-Committee recognise, however, that such a regulation of procedure, if adopted by the House, would give the Government the last word and would represent a certain restriction on the right to speak on a matter still before the House. The Sub-Committee consider that this restriction is justified in the interests of orderly debate. The view was, however, expressed in the Sub-Committee that by itself this was an unacceptable restriction, which should be entertained only as part of a general revision of the present practice of unstarred questions and motions for papers.
The Sub-Committee, however, consider that this is a matter of too great importance to be included in a Report upon "Observances" and recommend that the whole question should be further discussed in the Procedure Committee itself.
ANNEX A

APPELLATIONS

  THE COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWRNG METHODS OF DESCRIBING PEERS IN DEBATE
  1. The proper modes of referring in debate to the various degrees of the peerage are:—

  Archbishop

  The Most Reverend Primate (the Archbishop of)

  Bishop

  The Right Reverend Prelate(the Bishop of)

  Duke

  The Noble Duke (The Duke of)

  Duchess

  The Noble Duchess (The Duchess of)

  Marquess

  The Noble Marquess (Lord)

  Marchioness

  The Noble Marchioness (Lady)

  Earl

  The Noble Earl (Lord)

  Countess

  The Noble Countess (Lady)

  Viscount

  The Noble Viscount (Lord)

  Viscountess

  The Noble Viscountess (Lady)

  Baron

  The Noble Lord (Lord)

  Baroness or or Lady*

  The Noble Baroness (Lady)

  or the Noble Lady* (Lady)

  * In the case of Scottish ladies of the lowest rank of the peerage, they are properly described as "Lady" rather than "Baroness".
  The words in brackets above are added only when necessary for the purpose of identification and there is no need to add the name of the Lord if it is clear who is being referred to.
  "Gallant" and "Learned"
  2. Peers who hold the rank of Admiral of the Fleet, Field Marshal or Marshal of the Royal Air Force, are properly described as the "Noble and Gallant Lord". Their service rank should not be referred to.
  The Lord Chancellor, Lords of Appeal and Peers who are Law Officers of the Crown or Judges of the Court of Appeal or the High Court are properly described as "Noble and Learned"; this description should also be applied to Peers who have held any of these offices.
  "My Noble Friend" and "My Noble Kinsman"
  3."My Noble Friend" may rightly be used of a fellow member of the political party to which the speaker belongs, in place of one of the descriptions listed above.
  "My Noble Kinsman" and "My Noble Relative" are used between relatives; the actual relationship should not be mentioned.
  ANNEX B
  EXTRACT FROM SECOND REPORT OF THE PROCEDURE COMMITTEE 1966–67, DATED 12TH MAY, 1966
  STARRED QUESTIONS
  The Committee have examined the present arrangement for Questions; the limit of four Starred Questions per day; the possibility of a Question Time of fixed duration and the extent of the Table's authority in advising Peers upon the form and content of the Questions which they wish to put down. Further, whether any modification is required in the practice of the House in regard to supplementary questions and Ministerial Statements.
  The Committee are of opinion that there is no need to change the present limit of four Starred Questions per day; nor are they in favour of imposing a time-limit for Questions in this House.
  As regards the Table's authority in advising Peers upon the form and content of Questions, they recommend that this authority should not be, extended and that the Table should continue to act in an advisory capacity only. They reaffirm the principles that the wording of a Question is the responsibility of the Peer who asks it, and that the decision whether a Question is or is not "in order" and may properly be asked is in the last resort one for the House itself.
  At the same time they have noticed an increasing tendency to incorporate in the text of Starred Questions and Supplementary Questions statements of opinion or the demonstration of a point of view. They recommend that the attention of the House should be drawn to the need to discourage this practice and to the fact that, in terms of Standing Order No. 32. the essential purpose of Starred Questions and Supplementary Questions is to elicit information from the Government. They also recommend that an appropriate entry be made in the Companion to the Standing Orders.
  The Committee further observe that, while the practice of the House of Lords allows considerably more latitude than that of the House of Commons, there are certain categories of Questions which are generally regarded as
  508
  "not in accordance with the traditions of the House", i.e. are considered inadmissible. Such Questions are:

  (a) Those casting reflections on the Sovereign and Royal Family;

  (b) Those relating to matters sub judice;

  (c) Those phrased offensively.

  The Committee recommend that the attention of the House should be drawn to these categories of Question and that a suitable entry should be made in the Companion to the Standing Orders.
  So far as Ministerial Statements are concerned the Committee emphasise that they are for the information of the House and that when such Statements are made the occasion should not be allowed to develop into a debate.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report, except for paragraph 2, be now agreed to. In asking the House to agree to this Report, I think I should explain why I am proposing to defer asking the House to agree to paragraph 2. The House will note from paragraph 2 that the Procedure Committee invited a Sub-Committee to give further consideration to the possibility of devising, as an alternative to the Unstarred Question, some other form of short debate on a Motion at the end of a day's business. Since the publication of this First Report, some noble Lords have expressed disagreement with paragraph 2 and, in particular, with the proposal to curtail present rights of your Lordships on Unstarred Questions without proposing at the same time an alternative form of short debate. It was for this reason that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, tabled an Amendment to leave out paragraph 2 of this Report.
  The Sub-Committee who are considering this matter at the present time have already held one meeting and are due to meet again to-morrow. They have not yet reached a final conclusion on a form of Motion which might be offered as an alternative to an Unstarred Question, or upon the procedure which would govern it. But it was the unanimous view of the Sub-Committee that the House ought not at this stage to be asked to consider the "regulation" of Unstarred Questions without having before it a Report and recommendation on the possibilities of alternative forms of debate. I have therefore, with the authority and concurrence of the Procedure Committee, thought it right to bring forward the whole Report this afternoon with the exception of paragraph 2. In these circumstances I am

  509
  sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for withdrawing his Amendment, and I hope that your Lordships will concur with the procedure I have suggested.
  There is one further point in this Report to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. The House will observe that over half of the text of this Report consists of an Appendix which is a Report of the Sub-Committee on Observances and Customary Behaviour in the House. It is proposed that the substance of this Report in the Appendix, which has been endorsed, with minor amendments, by the Procedure Committee, should be included in a revised Companion to the Standing Orders. I hope that in the meantime, until the revised Companion has been completed, approved by your Lordships and published, this will serve as useful guidance to any noble Lords who may wish to consult it. I think that the rest of the Report is self-explanatory, but if there are any points which noble Lords would like to raise I will do my best to answer them on behalf of the Committee. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Report (except for paragraph 2) be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  LORD FERRIER: My Lords, it would be ungracious of me not to rise to support the noble Earl's Motion. This I do, and I look forward to the outcome of the Committee's further consideration of the matter of Unstarred Questions and/or of mini-debates. On the rest of the Report I have only one small comment to make, and that is on the subject of the brevity of maiden speeches, which is dealt with at the bottom of page 9. When I made my maiden speech I was put through the hoop by the late Sir Charles Hendriks, of happy memory. He pointed out to me that noble Lords ordinarily extend to a maiden speaker the courtesy of not leaving the Chamber, if that can be avoided, in the course of his speech. He added that if a maiden speech is long it is difficult for noble Lords to extend that courtesy, and they have a right to expect the return courtesy of a short speech from a maiden speaker.
  LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I speak with bated breath, but I should like to make reference to paragraph 4 on page 8 and to Annex A, entitled "Appellations", on the last but one page. I wonder whether we should lose any respect for each other in this House if we did not use such long appellations when we referred to each other. In another place, honourable Members are referred to by the name of their constituency rather than by their own name. In your Lordships' House the rank is always mentioned; but I have always felt, since I was fortunate enough to become a Member of this House, that the name in itself might be sufficient. In my own particular case, to say, "the noble Lord, Lord Royle" seems to be going a very long way round. Have we not now got to the time when we can refer to each other as "Lord Royle", "Lord Smith" or whoever we may be? I wonder whether the Committee on Procedure would look at that point. I know that this custom goes back for centuries, but in the second half of the 20th century it seems to me an unnecessarily long way of referring to another Member of your Lordships' House.
  LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? When the noble Lord, Lord Royle, was in another place he was referred to as "the honourable Member for Salford …"—I am not sure whether it was "South-West" or "East". That strikes me as at least as long as "the noble Lord, Lord Royle". It would be possible, of course, to economise in another place by leaving out the word "honourable", to which they rightly attach some importance. None the less, it is the custom that some noble Lords occasionally drop the words "noble Lord". I must admit that I find the use of the words very valuable, for it enables me, first, to think what I am going to say, and secondly, sometimes, to recall the name of the noble Lord. This is really a device for enabling noble Lords to think a little, and although it may go against the spirit of Lord Ferrier's wish for short speeches, none the less I believe it is convenient to many of us.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier—because we were both in the first batch of Life Peers—I, too, benefited from the guidance of Sir Charles Hendriks. Indeed, in some ways the job of the Leader

  511
  of the House of Lords was easier in those days, because if you did not do it right you got "told off" outside by Sir Charles Hendriks. I still remember him once, when I was a very new Member, sending me running into the Division Lobby to vote against the Government which he was supposed to be assisting. We certainly benefited from that in a way which was no doubt quite improper but was permissible to a considerable institution, and in a way which we should not expect from those who serve us so admirably to-day in the role which Sir Charles Hendriks fulfilled.
  May I make one small, general point on Unstarred Questions? I fully accept that there are views on this subject. It leaves me, as Leader of the House, slightly up in the air. I conceive my role, and that of any Leader of the House, as interpreting what the "going" procedure is, and this clearly is a matter of dispute. I therefore entirely welcome the action of my noble friend the Lord Chairman in reserving this paragraph. Just to preserve it in a completely neutral position, I would quibble on the word "rights". The point at issue is whether there is a right of reply. In this matter the Companion gives no guidance at all, and so far as I am concerned I shall be happy to conform to whatever my colleagues may recommend. I appreciate that noble Lords wish to have a right of reply. I think that sometimes the value of a right of reply can be overrated. But this is for the House; and noble Lords who, like the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, attach importance to it are fully entitled to have their views taken into account.
  Generally, I should like to congratulate the Committee on some of the changes they have recommended. I only hope that those of your Lordships who have not yet had time to read them will do so, because there is some very valuable advice of a kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has drawn attention.
  LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that, curiously enough, I am not one of those who consider that the questioner in an Unstarred Question should have a right of reply. My idea is to go in the other direction: that if any noble Lord speaks
  512
  after the Minister, then the Minister, by leave of the House, should be entitled to speak again. But I felt the matter could be left to the Committee, and when they report further it might be debated.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken for their remarks. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Royle, that his suggestion about the mode of appellation of noble Lords being made shorter is one which the Procedure Committee will consider, because we are all anxious to save the time of the House. I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his intervention, because I did not perhaps make it clear what I meant when I referred to the rights of Peers on Unstarred Questions. The question of the rights of Peers in this connection is one about which there is a difference of opinion in the House, and it is a matter on which the practice of the House has varied from time to time. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made it clear that this was still an open question; and the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, expressed one view, namely, that the asker of an Unstarred Question does not have a right of reply. My Lords, on behalf of the Procedure Committee I should again like to thank those noble Lords who have spoken for their support of this Report.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL
  3.7 p.m.
  BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time. As your Lordships will see from the Explanatory Memorandum, the object of the Bill is to increase the employer's National Health Service contribution by 1s. a week, from 8d. to 1s. 8d. With permission, I will hereafter refer to the National Health Service contribution as "the N.H.S. contribution". The need for the increase is that the contribution, being a flat rate, yields about the same amount each year. The cost of the services, on the other hand, increases year by year. The contribution therefore has to be revised from time to

  513
  time, and we are now due for such a revision. The N.H.S. contribution is collected with the weekly National Insurance contribution, and the increase applies, therefore, in respect of every employee for whom the contribution is paid. The Bill covers Great Britain. I should add that the stamp for self-employed and non-employed persons also includes an element for the N.H.S. contribution, but this Bill does not increase this.
  If I may remind the House, health and welfare services are financed from three sources: charges to recipients, the N.H.S. contribution and taxation. In recent years, charges have provided about 5 per cent. of the total and the N.H.S. contribution about 10 per cent. This leaves by far the greatest proportion of the cost to fall upon taxation—about 5 per cent. from rates and 80 per cent. from central Government taxation. The weekly insurance stamp has provided part of the cost of these services since the introduction of the National Health Service in 1948. Some of your Lordships may indeed recall that under the old National Health Insurance scheme medical benefit for the insured person was financed entirely from the stamp. The Beveridge Report recommended that persons insured under the wider scheme of National Insurance, introduced in 1948, at the same time as the National Health Service, should not be relieved wholly of the burden of contributing as such to the health services. This recommendation was accepted. The Service therefore started with a contribution towards the N.H.S. amounting in the case of the adult male employee to 10d. a week, of which the employee paid 8½d. and the employer 1½d.
  Looking back, we must surely now be surprised at this division between the employee and the employer, the latter paying only 15 per cent. of the total contribution. This anomaly has been continued through the various changes in the contribution. In 1957 it was established as a separate N.H.S. contribution to make clear to contributors by special printing on the stamp how much goes towards the National Health Service. This Act increased the rates and there were further increases in 1958, 1961 and 1968. The 1965 Act, which this Bill amends, was a consolidating Act which did not alter the rates. As a result of these various changes
  514
  we have now arrived at a rate of 3s. 10d. a week for the adult male employee. Of this 8d. is paid by the employer and 3s. 2d. by the employee. In other words, the employee still pays about five times as much as the employer.
  Your Lordships will be aware that the Government's proposals for a new system of earnings-related contributions and pensions continue this levy towards the N.H.S. I do not wish to anticipate the debates which will no doubt take place on that measure. But the point which is relevant to us to-day is that a very significant change is proposed in the division of the contribution between the employer and the employee. This is explained in Cmnd. 4222, the Explanatory Memorandum on the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill 1969. The Government have decided that under the new scheme employers should bear a higher proportion than employees. The rates are 0·6 per cent. of the payroll by employers and 0·3 per cent. of earnings (up to a ceiling) by employees. The yield of this earnings-related contribution is expected to be about the same in the first year as would be yielded by the present flat rate contribution increased by the 1s. of this Bill.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would the noble Baroness allow me to interrupt? I hesitate to do so; but she said that the Government had explained this. Did the White Paper give an explanation of that decision?
  BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, to which decision 'does the noble Lord refer?
  LORD DRUMALBYN: The decision to divide the total contribution into three parts: two-thirds to be paid by the employer and one-third by the employee.
  BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, my reference was more directly concerned with the broad proposals on the earnings-related contribution. I do not think that this explanation is in the Memorandum, but I will check it for the noble Lord. The good employer recognises his interest in a good Health Service being provided for his employees. An added factor is that as we turn our eyes towards Europe, we find that it is the practice there for the employer to bear the bulk

  515
  of the contribution towards the equivalent of our health services.
  I have traced back the history of this contribution and outlined its future because we can from both directions explain why an increase is needed now and why this should fall on the employer. The present flat-rate contribution has become out of date. The employer's element has not been revised since 1961 except for getting rid of the odd halfpenny in 1968. Looking to the future under the earnings-related scheme, the employer will then pay twice what the employee does and this Bill makes a modest step towards this in raising the employer's contribution so that he will pay about half what the employee does.
  I would not want the House to think that this measure can be justified only in cold arithmetical terms. There is no precise relationship of the contribution to total expenditure that can be regarded as proved right. But we must from time to time top up the yield from this contribution as the development of the health and welfare services continues. The Government's plans are that expenditure in real terms should increase 3·5 per cent. this year over last year and 4·3 per cent. again next year. These increases of course represent the allocation of additional resources to the services and the ability to meet greater demands upon them. In the last five years we have considerably increased both the hospital building programme and the staffing of hospitals in England and Wales. Expenditure on hospital building has more than doubled. Hospital medical and dental staff has increased by about 20 per cent. and nursing staff by about 15 per cent. As a result, a greater number of patients is being treated each year and the standard of treatment is being maintained, and indeed improved, by provision of more modern facilities. The humanity of the programme may be seen from the increase of day attendances at geriatric hospitals from 200,000 to 500,000 over these same years. Community services have also been improved; I mention only the increase in health centres from 30 to 159 and the increase in places at training centres for the mentally handicapped from 33,000 to 48,000 between 1964 and 1969. The family practitioner services are also being improved by the financial encouragement
  516
  given to the provision of premises and the employment of ancillary staff.
  In addition to these improvements in real terms in the Service, we also have to meet the effects of price and pay increases. What we are providing is services; and these depend heavily on manpower—indeed, I should say woman-power. I am sure your Lordships regarded as well deserved the recent substantial increases to nurses. But the cost of these and other pay awards has to be found.
  The details of the Bill are simple. It has one main clause. Subsection (1) provides for the increase of 1s. 0d. in the employer's weekly rate of contribution. Subsection (2) provides for this to be modified as necessary for decimalisation. In practice, the present 8d. is £0033 in decimal terms and the 1s., which your Lordships will readily see is exactly 5 new pence, will make the new amount £0083. Subsection (3) provides for the increased contribution to be paid over to the Government of Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man in respect of members of Her Majesty's Forces and seamen of foreign-going ships who are treated as belonging to those places. The modest increase in N.H.S. contribution rising from this Bill is a necessary step to enable the development of the health and welfare services to be continued. I ask the House accordingly to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
  3.17 p.m.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for giving us the background to the Bill. She says that it is a very short Bill and that there is not much of it to go through. It is, however, important; it involves putting an additional charge of £53 million on industry, adding that, on the one hand, to the national coffers and, on the other, eventually to the cost of goods and services in the country. As those who have had to deal with these things know too well the question in cases like this is always: how is the additional cost of the Health Services to be divided; how much to be apportioned against the Exchequer and how much against the stamp? And in so far as it is apportioned to the stamp, how should that be divided?

  517
  I should like to make one or two general comments. It is not a criticism, because arguments have to be used; but inevitably when we on this side say that we in this country should bring something into line with what is being done on the Continent we are immediately told, "You must act in accordance with your own wisdom and not have too much regard to what happens abroad." But when it suits the Government to point out what happens abroad they do not hesitate to use that argument. I think that it is right to put this point now, because I doubt very much whether, when the countries to which the noble Baroness has referred were establishing their contributions, they were concerned so much with what was the right contribution as between employer and employee as with the raising of money; and with who could pay, and how much. But I think that we should have regard to what is the right contribution as between the employer and employee. I shall be coming to this in greater detail in a minute.
  It is inevitably true that year by year the annual bill presented to the nation for the health services goes up. In so far as the increase is due to the improvement in the services there should be no complaint; and we certainly do not complain about it. The nation should undoubtedly provide for itself the best health services that it can afford. Year by year medical science devises new, and generally more costly, methods of treatment, prevention and cure. Year by year also, the cost of existing services rises through inflation.
  I think I should say straight away that there has been no marked difference between the real increase in spending on health and welfare under Tory and Labour Governments. The noble Baroness told us what is being done at the present time, but I think I am right in saying that in the first four years of the Labour Government the increase in real terms was 15·7 per cent., and in the last four years of the Tory Government it was 14·2 per cent.—not a very marked difference. To put it into more concrete terms, in the 13 so-called "wasted years" of Conservative Government the number of family doctors increased by nearly 20 per cent.; the number of full-time nurses increased by over 25 per cent., and the capital expenditure
  518
  on local health and welfare services quadrupled. By 1964, in the community care services, one new training centre, one new hostel for the mentally ill or handicapped, two new maternity or child welfare clinics and two or three community homes for old people were, on average, being opened every week.
  Mr. Enoch Powell, as Minister of Health, made plans for a vast programme of hospital building which has gone ahead ever since. In the last year of the Conservative Government expenditure on hospital building was five times as much as in the last year of the previous Government. As for housing, the Labour Government have been able to take advantage of the great surge forward planned under Mr. Harold Macmillan's Administration. We can all, in our different ways, rejoice in that. Whether the Labour Government have taken full advantage of it is a matter for argument. What is not a matter of argument but is a matter of fact is that the surge forward has not been nearly so great as the Labour Party gave the country reason to expect.
  How should the bill for the health services be apportioned between the beneficiaries? That really is the question which this Bill raises. The services have never been completely free. When the Health Service was first introduced it was thought right to include a contribution to it in the weekly insurance stamp; but it was not a health insurance—a point that people did not really appreciate—it was a contribution which was included in the weekly insurance stamp. That was done, as the noble Baroness indicated, largely for historical reasons.
  At the same time, a small weekly contribution per employee was to be made, not only by the employee but by the employer, and a contribution which presumably, at that time, the Labour Government thought appropriate and fair in proportion to the relative benefits to be derived by employer and employee respectively. As the noble Baroness said, the actual amounts were 8½d. per week to be paid by the employee and 1½d. by the employer. The smallness of the contribution reflects the staggering underestimate made by the then Government of what the National Health Service would cost. Although the cost of the

  519
  health services rose steadily, these charges were not increased pro rata whenever national insurance contributions were increased. Looking back, I feel that perhaps this was a pity. In fact, the changes were not raised at all in 1957 and they have been increased three times since: the last increase, the noble Baroness said, being in 1968 when the contributions were fixed at 3s. 2d. for the employee and 8d. for the employer. I would point out that that is a four and a half fold increase for the employee and a five and a half fold increase for the employer. In addition, the charges for ophthalmic and dental appliances were introduced by the Attlee Government, and the present Government have, characteristically, wobbled in their attitude towards them.
  My Lords, when the present Government were considering what contribution should be made in the future, by employer and employee respectively, towards the national insurance and the health services, their first idea was that the charge upon employer and employee for the health services should be equal. Then they baldly stated—I say "baldly" because, so far as I can find, there was not any explanation of this—in their White Paper last December (Cmnd. 4222) the words which the noble Baroness has quoted this afternoon. She did not mention that the employers would pay on the total payroll; they would not only pay two-thirds of the total health contribution, but would pay on the total payroll, whereas the employees would pay only on that part of their wages and salaries which does not exceed one and a half times the national average earnings. I think that is right.
  No reason, so far as I can find (I looked it up because I was puzzled by this), was given in the White Paper for this apportionment. Now the Government have decided that the present yield from the insurance stamp to the National Health Service cost should be increased from, I think, £178 million to £231 million. My Lords, no reason is given for that amount of increase. Given the increase in average earnings since 1961, I can find nothing unreasonable, in principal, about increasing this amount, though how much it should be again is anybody's guess. It means that the combined
  520
  employer and employee contribution per employee will increase from 3s. 10d. a week to 4s. 10d. a week. I think that because on a previous occasion (in 1961, I think) the National Health Service contribution was increased by 1s., the Government have thought of the amount of 1s. and said, "It is a good precedent: let us make the increase 1s." I doubt whether there is any more reason for it than that.
  If it is now thought that the Labour Government were wrong in 1948 in their assessment of the relative benefit to employer and employee respectively of the National Health Service contribution included in the insurance stamp, I think we should be told rather more of how circumstances have altered to justify this change of view. Why should the employer in future be required to pay one-third of the total National Health Service contribution when hitherto he has been paying a little less than one-sixth? Why in the future is he to pay more than two-thirds of the total National Health Service contribution? These are big changes, and we ought to have reasons for them.
  After all, my Lords, the married employee, in his contribution, is contributing also, if his wife is not working, for his wife and children, as well as for himself when he ceases working and paying any National Health Service contribution. On the other hand, most substantial manufacturers, so far as I know, not only provide medical services, at their own expense, in their factories but are expected to provide them; and they do so without assistance, I believe, from the National Health Service.
  BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? If, for instance, a patient is treated at the factory, he would probably be advised to go to his own National Health doctor afterwards. It is not a double service, such as the noble Lord suggests.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: Quite so, my Lords, but that only means that in his personal capacity the employee is treated at home. The factory is paying for the medical service he gets in his capacity qua employee at the factory. This is my point: has this been taken into account in fixing the proportion between the employer and the employee?
  BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, it is only a very limited service that he gets at the factory. The doctor at the factory does not provide him with medicine or anything like that.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that is quite so, but I am concerned with the division of the total contribution between the employer and the employee. I am asking whether this service, albeit a limited service, that the employer is giving has been taken into account in fixing this proportion. I think we ought to know this sort of thing. The employer's contribution, as I have said, is an additional cost on the goods and services that he provides. To put the whole extra charge on him simply increases the prices that he must charge for his goods and services. This is directly inflationary, and at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that we must do everything possible to avoid letting inflation get a grip on our economy.
  We are told that it is only a small additional burden. How often have we been told, when an additional impost is proposed, that in proportion to the total cost of producing the goods or selling them it is only a little. But it all mounts up. The same argument comes each time: it is only a little increase. One has only to recall the redundancy payments contribution, which falls entirely on the employer. It started at 6d. a week and now is already 1s. 3d. a week. But all these changes are completely dwarfed by the selective employment tax, which makes every other additional impost look small. For those industries which qualify for repayment it is a forced loan which still must cost them 4 per cent. interest—really 8 per cent., for six months or so—and for the rest, it represents a savage increase in the cost of the services that they provide. I think I should say this to your Lordships, because it shocked me when I saw it. I noticed in one field that the outgoings for selective employment tax in a particular service almost equalled the entire profits in that field before tax. That is extraordinary.
  I said that, in principle, I saw no objection to increasing the total National Health Service contribution as a proportion of the total National Health Service costs. But in present circumstances does it make sense, with an expected
  522
  Government surplus of £619 million, to put this additional levy wholly on industry at a time of inflation? We shall certainly have to re-examine the whole of the financing of the National Health Service. But what is extraordinary is the change of attitude of a Labour Government. I wonder whether the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, recalls that the Prime Minister resigned from the Labour Government in 1951 when the health charges were first imposed. He took them off when he came to power, and then he put them on again. Does the noble Baroness also recall the fuss that her Party made when the National Health Service contribution was increased in 1961? I wonder whether she remembers that the Prime Minister then wrote in the New Statesman:
  "Year by year the case is becoming stronger for taking the Health Service and its contributions under the general Exchequer system."
  My Lords, if the case is becoming stronger, I am afraid that the Prime Minister must be becoming weaker.
  This Bill is one more example of the staggering from expedient to expedient that is so typical of the Labour Government. The awful thing about it is that it foreshadows the next lurch, which is contained in a Bill that has not yet come to your Lordships' House. When it does come we shall have a fuller opportunity of probing the reasoning, if any, behind the expedient. In the meantime, though few, if any, of my noble friends will be convinced that the balance of argument justifies the provisions of the Bill, we shall certainly not oppose it. I should like to ask the noble Baroness one question, and it is: when will this increased contribution come into effect? I would just mention to your Lordships that subsection (2) of Clause 2 of the Bill says:
  "This Act shall not come into force until such day as may be appointed by order of the Secretary of State made by statutory instrument".
  We shall be most interested to know when this new charge will come into effect.
  3.34 p.m.
  LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, what an interesting electioneering speech we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. He even praises Powellism. Is that a sign of what is

  523
  to come during the General Election period?
  LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I may ask whether the building of new hospitals is Powellism?
  LORD LEATHERLAND: But the noble Lord went far from that and heaped coals of fire on the head of Mr. Enoch Powell. I can see the ranks of the Tory Party closing ready for the General Election which lies ahead. It struck me right through the noble Lord's speech that he seemed willing to wound, but afraid to strike. Does he want the National Health Service expanded? Does he want nurses to get more pay? Does he want more hospitals to be built? Does he want more general practitioners to be available for the general public? If he does, then the money for it has to be found. Where does the noble Lord want the money to come from? Should it be paid by the employer? We have heard that the noble Lord does not like that, despite the fact that British industry is now prospering and making handsome profits. Does he want the money to be paid by the taxpayer through increased taxation? If so, let him get on his feet and say that the Tory Party stands for an increase in taxation.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: May I get on my feet and point out once again that there is a Budget surplus of £619 million envisaged? No extra taxation is necessary in order to cover this amount. As to division, all I want is a fair division.
  LORD LEATHERLAND: But we need £600 million to underpin the safety and security of the pound sterling, especially when colleagues of the noble Lord go round the country talking about another forthcoming devaluation. We must have an insurance policy to defend the pound sterling against that. The noble Lord does not want the employers to pay; he does not want the taxpayers to pay—or does he? Apparently, he merely wants the worker to pay. Well, we know where he stands there, and no doubt we shall hear more about that in the Election period. He says, in a very sinister way, that if a Tory Government got back they would have to examine the whole financial structure of the National Health Service. That sounds to me like a threat to the people who now enjoy the benefits
  524
  of the National Health Service. If I cast my mind back a few months, we then heard demands from the other side of the House that nurses should get extra pay. We have given them the extra pay. The money has to be found. The noble Lord is willing for them to have extra pay, but is not prepared for anybody to put their hands in their pockets to provide the money. We have heard of the hospitals that have been built—two or three of them while the Tories were in office. Large numbers of them are now being built. There is one being built in my part of the country which will cost well over £5 million in its first phase.
  Now let us look at the benefits or burdens that this Bill will put upon employers. More money is going to be spent, and more is being spent: more is being spent now on the health services than was ever spent during the 13 years of the Tory Government; and we propose to increase it. The more that is spent on the health of the people the less absenteeism there will be from the factories, the mines and the shipyards through ill-health: and, as we all know, far more working days are lost to the nation through ill-health than through strikes. The noble Lord and his Party talk eloquently about the days lost through strikes, but not a single word do they say about the time lost through ill-health. Here we are trying to grapple with that evil of ill-health, and the noble Lord throws cold water upon this beneficent Bill. More people are now being treated; more people are now being cured. The noble Lord at one stage trotted out some percentages to show that expenditure on the Health Service increased by 14 per cent. under the Tory Government and increased by only 15 per cent. under the Labour Government.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: Four years each.
  LORD LEATHERLAND: But this 15 per cent. is upon an increased base figure; a base figure that was being increased year by year under the Tory Government, and is being increased year by year under the Labour Government.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sorry to interrupt again, but if the noble Lord puts words into my mouth I think I should be allowed to correct them. I did say "in real terms" in each case.
  LORD LEATHERLAND: The noble Lord does not want me to put words into his mouth. He has already put them there himself, and I sincerely hope that when the Election comes next spring the electors will remember them. I think the noble Lord, instead of blinding us with statistics, as he tried to do during his lengthy speech, should come out openly and say whether the Tory Party want to see the National Health Service expanded, or whether do they not. That is the issue before us in this Bill to-day.
  BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, after these splendid, fighting speeches I feel that there is not a great deal left for me to say. To the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I would say that I am sure I should have done exactly the same thing were I sitting where he is, but I think he will notice that in my historical survey I did not attack previous Governments; I simply described how the different increases had come about. I omitted to give some figures, following the remarks that we have heard that speeches are too long, and, as always, everything I omit seems to be something I should have included. This bears on what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn asked me, and perhaps it would be useful to other noble Lords.
  These are the figures of the relationship between the yield of the levy and the total cost of the services. Ten years ago, in 1959–60, the total cost of the services was £864 million, and the contribution provided £110 million, or 12·7 per cent. In 1969–70 the cost of the service had risen to £1,973 million, while the yield of the levy had risen to £176 million, or 8·9 per cent. In between those years there was, in 1962–63, a high point in the proportion of the cost met from the levy, when after the increase 14·9 per cent. came from the National Health Service contribution. If we left the contribution at the present rate the proportion it would meet would fall still further from the 8·9 per cent. of 1969–70. We estimate that the effect of the increase proposed, which will bring in about £53 million in a full year, will be to raise the proportion to about 10·3 per cent. in the current and next years.
  The noble Lord asked me to explain the basis of the contribution, and he said that the White Paper did not do this. I confirm that he was correct: it does not
  526
  do this. The reasons for this basis are the return which the employer receives from a good Health Service, keeping his staff well at work, together with the practice in the rest of Europe for employers to pay the greater share. I explained that in my opening speech, and it is not included in the Memorandum. We heard from the noble Lord the suggestion that by putting this contribution on the employers we are placing on them an unfair burden and indirectly raising prices. We have to remember that the amount which a good, healthy manpower service provides is to be assessed in real terms. Absenteeism has to be paid for, and a Health Service has to be paid for. If the employers have a good, healthy work force they are saving money. I do not think it has yet been proved that the increase which an employer pays is automatically passed on to the consumer. In any case, the Health Service has to be paid for and the employers are one of the groups in the community that benefit.
  The noble Lord made some reference to the occupational health services. I do not think it is necessary to remind him that employers are not compelled by law to provide medical and nursing services. As my noble friend pointed out, this would be a very small part of the treatment given to employees.
  BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: On that question, my Lords, I felt it was a gross distortion of the truth to say that if an employer provides a nurse and a first aid service that is being very generous.
  BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, this is really a simple measure, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has pointed out, it involves a great deal of money. We shall have ample opportunity to debate the whole principle when the major Bill comes before the House. I hope, therefore, in view of the answers provided by my noble friend on the Benches behind me, the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.
  LORD NEWTON: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I do not think she answered the very important question of my noble friend, Lord Drumalbyn, as to when the Government intend to bring this increase into effect.
  BARONESS PHILLIPS: No, my Lords, I did not, but I will see that before the passage of the Bill the reply is given.
  On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.

  REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  EDUCATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
  3.47 p.m.
  BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
  Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Phillips.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Clause 1 [Mentally handicapped children]:
  LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved the following Amendment:
  Page 2, line 44, at end insert—
  ("(iii) he shall be afforded the opportunity of taking a conversion course leading to recognition as a fully qualified schoolteacher after one year's probationary service;
  (iv) in the event of his qualifying as a teacher by means of five years post-diploma experience, he shall only be required to complete a further one year's probationary service.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, since I put down this Amendment a most welcome and satisfactory statement has been made in another place by the Secretary of State for Education and Science. He said that in the first place one-year courses will be available to those who hold a diploma to enable them to attain the status of fully qualified teacher, and in the second place that diploma holders who qualify by virtue of five years' post-diploma service would not be required to serve a further probationary period. This is highly satisfactory to me and meets the purpose of my Amendment.
  I do not wish to seem niggling, but I should like to ask for an explanation of one phrase that was used in his statement, which is to be found in Hansard of May, 7, col. 563. He said:
  528
  "Where they have the necessary admission qualifications I am proposing to make available, subject to teacher supply, a number of one-year courses which will enable them immediately after completion of the course to be given the status of qualified teachers."
  I should like some further explanation on what are the "necessary admission qualifications". Are they, as I suspect, the requirements that the diploma holder has to have five "O" levels which is the normal standard for teacher training? For entry to the diploma courses they needed only three "O" levels. Is the position to be this: that those who hold this diploma in the teaching of mentally handicapped children will be told that if when they were at school they obtained five "O" levels they can go on this one-year course and eventually become a qualified teacher, but if they had only three or four "O" levels, they will have to wait five years and cannot go on a course? I should have thought that it was the possession of the diploma, together with satisfactory reports and references, that should qualify a teacher for a conversion course, and not his or her previous performance at school. That would seem to me to be more in keeping with the principle of equal opportunity, and certainly with the principle to which the Government paid such heed; that of postponing selection until as late as possible.
  These conversion courses are only to cover a transitional period, until such time as the diploma courses are phased out, and three-year courses at colleges of education are the normal rule. I should have thought that in this transitional period it was right to give an opportunity to all those who have gained a diploma to take this one-year conversion course.
  I should like to make one further point on that, which also is important. When the time comes when these three-year courses are the normal rule, once again those who are to enter on them will require five "O" levels, and those who have fewer will be denied the opportunity of going on these courses, or even of obtaining any form of diploma. I wonder whether the Government are satisfied that this is right in a profession already under-staffed and under-trained. Would they not consider that, in the interests of a fully-trained teaching profession, which they strongly support, more and not less

  529
  opportunity for training should be given to the teachers of the mentally handicapped? The Training Council have done excellent work hitherto with their diploma in the teaching of mentally handicapped children, and we should all acknowledge our debt of gratitude to them. They have indeed significantly raised the standard of training in the Service. But is it really wise in the future to raise the entry standards to the extent of requiring five "O" levels, and neglecting those who have hitherto been able to obtain a diploma?
  My Lords, I know that my noble friend Lord Grenfell, who unfortunately is detained on other business, was hoping to be here and would have supported me in these few remarks. I beg to move.
  3.52 p.m.
  BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am almost sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has read what the Secretary of State said in another place, because I was looking forward to being able to tell him what he has already discovered for himself. Nevertheless, I am pleased to be able to underline what was said. If I may follow on his point in connection with the necessary admission qualifications, I thought perhaps he was assuming that the provision referred to the probationary period, but I now see he was not. So far as the admission qualification goes, it will of course be five "O" levels. I should like to say at once to the noble Lord that somebody entering a college of education—and I am speaking now as an ex-member of the profession—who could obtain three "O" levels, would surely not have a great deal of difficulty in obtaining five "O" levels. If this were a matter of obtaining some "A" levels there might be some hardship, but I should not have thought there would be so much difficulty in obtaining the additional "O" levels. In other words, the kind of person who can obtain three could obtain five.
  On the question of the training under the conversion courses scheme, I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that a great deal of discussion is taking place on this matter because, obviously, not all the training schemes can be the same. There are so many different types of teachers entering: there are those who will be completely new, those who will be in the middle of their training for the
  530
  diploma. Some courses we are calling "end-on" conversion courses, which go on after diploma courses; and there are others which will run in association with three-year courses of training. So the types of training which will be offered are still very much under consideration, and will be, with the Training Council. I am afraid that I cannot suggest to the noble Lord that there will be any modification of the qualifications for entry. I think that that deals with all the questions he put.
  May I follow up one point which the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, put to me and to which I did not reply at the time of the Committee stage, concerning the changeover of staff during this rather difficult period? Those entering the Education Service will of course be subject to the Education Service provisions in respect of holidays and pay, and so on. Since these differ from the service conditions under which they are now working, the difference will be dealt with by some extra staff. Where this is not possible, the staff already there will be paid extra if they have to work longer and have not such long holidays. I am giving this reply now so that it will be on the Record for the noble Lord. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has any other points to raise.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She has certainly covered all my points, but I was not very satisfied about the entry qualifications. I am glad to know that the content of these conversion courses is still under discussion, because I believe that they should vary to take account of varying needs. I am very sorry to hear that there will be no modification in the entry requirements. It is not satisfactory to say that people who have obtained three "O" levels should be able to obtain five, because the fact is that they have already left school and are now working.
  LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: But, my Lords, (will the noble Lord give way?), one does not have to be at school to get five "O" levels. These people can take two "O" levels, and surely they ought to be in a position where they can do so, and then take the year's course. So they would take, at the most, two years to convert, instead of five. Surely this is a reasonably satisfactory solution.
  LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that. It is at least some consolation that they can get an additional two "O" levels at some further educational establishment. In any case, there is no need to pursue this matter very much further. I am grateful that the Government have gone at any rate as fas as they have done in helping, and if they can help further I shall be more grateful. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  CONSERVATION OF SEALS BILL
  3.56 p.m.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In July of last year your Lordships gave a Third Reading to a Conservation of Seals Bill after very considerable discussion both on the Committee and at the Report stages. We got no further because it was not taken up in another place. The Bill now before us comes up here from another place and is virtually identically the same Bill which your Lordships passed through all its stages less than a year ago, and it is couched practically ipsissima verba. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with yet another full explanation of the Bill, and will content myself, and I hope satisfy your Lordships, by giving the reasons for which such a Bill is necessary, going into perhaps a little more detail on the differences between this Bill and the one we passed last year.
  Of the two seals found in British waters, one is the grey seal, which was found to be becoming very rare at the end of the last century and at the beginning of this century. It has been protected by legislation ever since 1912 during its breeding season, at the time at which a seal is most vulnerable to commercial exploitation. As a result, the grey seal has become quite common in some places, so abundant as to cause considerable damage to fisheries, and of course has caused considerable grumbles by fishermen. The other species, the common seal, has never been protected. It also is subjected to commercial exploitation and, without protection, in some places has become quite rare. Indeed, in some places it is no longer
  532
  found. It seems obviously necessary, therefore, to reduce in some way the population of grey seals where there are too many, and to protect in some way the common seals where there are too few; and of course to provide that where seals have to be killed it is done as humanely and as expeditiously as possible. That is what this Bill does.
  The Bill allows the Secretary of State, by making Orders for increasing the length of a close season or taking it away altogether, to control the nation's stock of seals; and it allows him to secure that seals are properly and humanely killed by specifying the weapons which are to be used. Moreover it brings seals, which, as your Lordships will be aware, are capable of doing considerable damage to fisheries, into the same category as other potentially noxious animals, like rabbits, hares and deer. It puts them on the same footing as those animals, in so far as if they are found on anybody's land in such numbers as to do damage to his neighbour's crops, the Minister can order the person on whose land they are found to destroy them in order to prevent further damage taking place. That is provided for by an Amendment which your Lordships introduced into the Bill last year.
  Seals are attractive creatures. They arouse strong emotions, among naturalists like myself who like watching them, and among fishermen who do not like watching them destroying their nets and the fish within those nets. However, after considerable discussion last year we found a Bill which produced a reasonable compromise between the not necessarily entirely conflicting interests of the naturalist and nature lover and the commercial fisherman, and, as I have said, my Lords, this is virtually the same Bill as the one we passed last year.
  There are two small alterations to which I should perhaps draw your Lordships' attention. In Clause 5 there is an increase from £50 to £100 for second offences against the provisions of the Bill, save for one which apparently in another place was not considered quite so heinous, and that was obstructing somebody in the course of his investigations. I think one might sympathise with that. There were also two very small drafting Amendments. As the Bill

  533
  left this House last year, under Clause 9 it would still have been an offence for a fisherman to attempt to shoot a seal, but not an offence for him to shoot a seal if it was attacking his nets. That would seem to be a little ridiculous, and accordingly an amendment has now been made in the Bill. I hope your Lordships will look as favourably on this Bill in its very slightly amended form as you did on its predecessors. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
  4.3 p.m.
  LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, it is a great honour for me to follow again the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who is such a great expert in these matters and who again has so lucidly explained his Bill. The situation is a little curious. On May 24, 1968, we had the Second Reading of the Conservation of Seals Bill. On June 10, 1969, again there was the Second Reading of a Conservation of Seals Bill; and here we are, in 1970, on May 12, with the Second Reading of the Conservation of Seals Bill. Well might someone coming from the realm of Alice in Wonderland think that he had wandered into the circle of perpetual time, when nothing ever happens. But this Bill has had the blessing of having been breathed upon by the wise men in another place. It has passed all their stages, so perhaps this time our efforts will not be in vain. There is not much for me to add, because I have said my piece before, and I think that to sell one's cabbages too often on the same subject is a mistake, as well as very boring for your Lordships.
  There is one small point on which I think this Bill differs from its predecessors and which the noble Earl did not mention. This Bill limits the power of the Secretary of State in giving permission to kill seals. He is prohibited from permitting the use of strychnine in any form at all, and I do not think that was in the previous Bill.
  The Bill has received unanimous approval in your Lordships' House and in another place. The only slight doubts we ever had in dealing with it were from noble Lords who, quite rightly, put what they considered to be the views of the National Trust, which body they felt had to represent the views of numerous
  534
  members of their society. These, as the noble Earl said, tended to be people who probably loved looking at seals. But, as we know, it is not necessarily in the best interests of the seals that they should be allowed to increase in unlimited numbers on the same ground. This Bill gives power of control, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, will agree that the Secretary of State has given adequate guarantees, personally and to members of all parties, that these powers will be used only within reason, when it is obviously in the interests of the fishing and of the seals themselves for this to be done.
  I hope that this Bill will go forth on its way, pleasing all. It was summed up best for me, I think, by what the honourable Member for Hereford said in another place: that the Bill combines regulation, conservation and humanity. I cannot do better than echo his words, and commend the Bill to your Lordships.
  4.6 p.m.
  VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I suppose that I am next on the list of speakers. I should like to give a welcome to this Bill, although I do not intend to speak at any length on it. Indeed, there is no need to as it has been through another place. However I should just like to tell your Lordships that I was almost brought up among seals, and I particularly welcome this Bill because it will protect the common seal, which at the present time is getting into a rather parlous state.
  The other point I would make about the common seal is that in my experience it actually takes very few salmon. I have shot several common seals out of interest, to try to find out what they were eating—I think I have said this before in your Lordships' House—and I have never found that the ones I have shot have been eating salmon. They do sometimes eat salmon, but on the whole they eat small fish, eels and shellfish.
  Of course, the grey seal does great damage if it gets into a salmon net, but I hope that: the Secretary of State will not be too influenced by the interests of salmon netting and salmon fishing in ordering the wholesale massacre of seals. I am on both sides of the fence, because

  535
  I have salmon fishings and salmon-netting rights, and I also breed salmon; but I imagine that the Greenland nettings probably take the majority of the salmon I breed. We are told that the damage done by the seals to the salmon fishing industry varies between £50,000 and £100,000 a year, but that is a mere flea-bite compared to the damage done by the Greenland nets; and, as I have said before, if only Her Majesty's Government would concentrate on trying to bring some influence to bear on Germany to support us, and particularly to influence Denmark in her Greenland fisheries, it would be a great boon.
  We are told that if we do not destroy seals we shall have an imbalance in Nature. In actual fact that is complete nonsense, because Nature herself keeps by far the best balance. If we did not destroy seals the young seals in the colonies would not get enough milk and many of them would die. Also on the West coast we have the killer whale, which locally is called the "thresher" and scientifically is called the "grampus". It is amazing what this mammal can eat in half an hour. I have seen one chasing a salmon shoal, and this whale can eat in half an hour more salmon than a grey seal will eat in half a year.
  I do not want to prolong this discussion my Lords. I welcome this Bill, but there is one point, which has been brought up before, that I am not very happy about: the weight of the bullet, 45 grains. That is all right if you are going to shoot a seal in the head every time, if you are a good shot. But if the shooting is done by people who are not good shots they are going to wound seals with a bullet as small as that. Apart from that, I can find nothing in the Bill with which I disagree. The clause relating to entry on land is, I think, perfectly fair. I presume that clubbing for seal cubs is allowed. It is abhorrent to me personally, but I presume that it is allowed and provided that it is done efficiently it is as painless as shooting. I should have preferred that young seal pups should be shot with ·22, or killed with a humane killer, because they are so tame you can stand over them; therefore wounding should not arise. But I
  536
  do not make any point of it. I welcome the Bill and hope that it passes through your Lordships' House.
  4.12 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I must apologise for not being in my place when the Bill was called; the loudspeaker in the Library is not working too clearly, and it was only when the noble Viscount was announced that I realised that this Bill had been reached. I do not wish to address your Lordships for long, because I have spoken on both the previous occasions when the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, was presenting this Bill to your Lordships. My concern about this subject is because I happen to be a member of the Council of the National Trust. The National Trust has on the Fame Islands much the largest grey seal colony off the coast of England. We have been in discussions with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, but we have not succeeded in coming to any satisfactory arrangement with him and the sponsors of the Bill. I do not propose to expatiate on these problems this afternoon. When the Bill was in another place attempts were made by amendment there to protect the position of the National Trust, but owing to the rules, which I confess I always find it rather difficult to follow, there was difficulty in getting an Amendment accepted for discussion. I am proposing to put the same Amendment, or a similar one, down when the next stage of this Bill is reached.
  Having said that, I want to make it quite clear that the general purpose of (he Bill is very much approved of in the National Trust, particularly the defensive measures which are at last being taken to protect the common seal. It has been pointed out on more than one occasion that the common seal is now no longer the common seal; it is becoming very uncommon, and without something of the sort of protection provided by this Bill it might well become pretty nearly extinct altogether. There are other features of the Bill which I think merit strong approval, and therefore I do not want it to be thought that I personally, or the body for which I am speaking, have any general opposition at all to the Bill. It is much to the contrary. We feel that on the whole it is a very good Bill. But our discontent is that our own position on

  537
  the Fame Islands has not really been taken into account. I think that is all I need say today. I hope in due course to put down an Amendment which we shall be able to discuss at a later stage.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, may I make one small comment on the Farne Islands? I apologise for not putting my name down on the list of speakers. I know those islands very well indeed. On the Farne Islands there are now some 6,000 grey seals, and I believe that at the turn of the century there were no more than 200 or 300. An increase of that magnitude has done enormous harm to the fishing interests. Having regard to the necessity for moderation in all things, I hope the National Trust will agree to culling when it is considered necessary.
  LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I have already spoken on this Bill as a common seal. May I say, at the conclusion, that I am very relieved that the now uncommon seals are receiving some mercy at last.
  4.16 p.m.
  LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should have been very disappointed if the noble "Seal" had not taken part, as he did on the last occasion with the most brilliant speech I have ever heard in this House. I have always been uncertain whether he is a common or a grey seal, but from the way he sings I think he is almost a harp seal.
  I think the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, can be pleased. There is a certain repetitive quality about events in this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, has indicated. None the less, I think this is an example of the right way to proceed, and I think it is a credit to your Lordships that this Bill, which was initiated first by the noble Earl, was then the subject of co-operation and discussion with the Government and then was introduced by the noble Earl again, and further amended, should have gone as successfully as it has done through another place.
  The noble Earl, who is in a very good position to judge all the interests, as himself a distinguished biologist, has really done a very good job indeed. It is important to stress again the matter to which I know he attaches importance, that this is a conservation Bill and not a protection Bill—I know that he was some
  538
  what irritated that the word "protection" slipped in at one place. This is a much more up-to-date and contemporary approach, in which I think a successful attempt has been made to balance all the interests and generally produce a much more satisfactory situation.
  The Bill we have before us to-day is, apart from one or two drafting alterations, identical with one this House passed last year; at least the principles are the same. There is one small but important change, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, drew attention (or it may have been the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene), and that is that the Bill now prohibits absolutely the use of strychnine for killing seals. This was a matter which the Government undertook—indeed I undertook—to consider in 1968, and on which agreement has finally been reached. Although the Secretary of State is permitted to license the use of poison for killing seals, he is specifically debarred from licensing strychnine.
  The Government therefore welcome this Bill. In our view, it contains the essential ingredients to enable the management of the seal population around the coasts of Great Britain to be put on a firm scientific basis; and when I say "a firm scientific basis" I fully acknowledge that this is an area where experience makes the scientific base firmer. But at least, even if there still will be areas of doubt as to the development of the seal population, we shall be able to proceed in a much more orderly way.
  The establishment of close seasons for both species of seal which inhabit our coastal waters provides reasonable measures for preserving seals, and it enables the Government to strengthen those measures at short notice, by extending protection (which is used correctly at this point) throughout the year, if the survival of either or both species ever appears to be threatened in any area. It provides—a matter to which importance is attached—protection against cruelty, whether from inhumane methods of destruction, or from needless or excessive killing in the breeding season when seals are most vulnerable to attack by man. This removes the casual chap with the gun, to whom the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, referred, taking

  539
  pot-shots at seals. At the same time, the Bill takes care not to add to the problems of fishermen and does not unreasonably restrict the killing of seals for fisheries protection purposes. It provides scope for selected culling of seals in the interests of conservation and management of seal stocks to enable a healthy and viable population of seals to be maintained.
  The only matters which have aroused controversy—apart from the point to which I shall come in a moment, raised by my noble friend Lord Chorley—have concerned the minimum size of rifle and the type of ammunition effective for killing seals humanely. The other one is of course the provision relating to compulsory access on to land. The specifications of the firearm and ammunition included in Clause 1(1)(b) were drawn up in the light of expert scientific advice by the Natural Environment Research Council, and the Government are satisfied that weapons and ammunition conforming to these standards are, if properly used, suitable for killing seals humanely.
  I think an essential point here is the efficiency of those who are engaged in this process. Noble Lords who are interested in deer stalking know that they never allow anyone to go stalking on their land unless they are reasonably certain that the man was going to kill any stag he fired at. This also calls for some accuracy in shooting, although the target in this case is not the head but the body and the heart. I have such confidence in the views of the noble Earl in this matter that if he agrees with the Government and the Natural Environment Research Council on this point, despite some evidence that has been given to the contrary, I am content to accept it.
  I would now refer to the question of clubbing. Individual Peers and others find clubbing a distasteful method of killing, but I must stress that it is not necessarily an inhumane method. I think we have all had the experience of walking on land and finding wounded animals. Only the other day I found a squirrel which somebody had shot at. In these circumstances, the choice is either to wring the neck of any animal (although you cannot really wring the neck of a seal) or to club it. One ought
  540
  not to be misled into thinking that clubbing is necessarily inhumane when it is done properly. But it will no longer be a very practical method of killing, because, while clubbing is not prohibited so far as the young ones are concerned, they can only be killed under licence in the close season; otherwise they are protected. So clubbing is likely to be very much diminished; and it has been the practice to allow killing only by shooting.
  LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I do not quite agree with him. I have always thought that clubbing, especially if it is inaccurate, is rather inhumane. If the Government permit a certain method of killing, why do they allow clubbing to go on? I do not see the logic in this. I should have thought that if properly administered clubbing kills, but if it is not properly administered it can be inhumane.
  LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the same thing applies to people who do not shoot straight.
  LORD MERRIVALE: Quite so.
  LORD SHACKLETON: Perhaps the noble Lord does not want people to shoot either. However, what I am saying is that clubbing is no longer to be an important method in this matter. But I will leave this issue to the noble Earl whose Bill it is, to comment further if he wishes.
  I should like to touch briefly on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Chorley. The Government attach considerable importance—and I am reinforced by the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, who intervened, but who has left—to the need for Clauses 11and 12, which provide for the exercise of powers of compulsory access on to land to enable seals to be counted and observed for research purposes, or destroyed in the interests of fisheries protection.
  As noble Lords know, the principle embodied in these clauses is not new; similar obligations will be imposed on landowners and occupiers in respect of seals to those which have long been in existence with regard to other forms of wildlife which, if not properly controlled, would be liable to become a nuisance and cause damage on other land

  541
  in the locality. The reluctance of certain interests to allow seals to be killed on their land has in the past led to considerable difficulty in carrying out some culls that have been fully justified on scientific grounds for the protection of fisheries. The Bill, on the other hand, affords a greater degree of protection but, at the same time, recognises and provides for the rational management of seal stocks which underlines the need for provisions of this nature.
  I should like to urge the noble Lord, Lord Chorley (though he may not feel able to accede to my wish), that he should not put down an Amendment on the Committee stage. The case has been strongly put. I appreciate that there are feelings among many individual members of the National Trust, but it seems to me that this is an important part of the Bill, and I sense that the view of your Lordships' House is that they would reject such an Amendment. It is not for me to anticipate in any detail what would happen, but I think we want to make progress with this Bill. It has had quite a long run. These issues have been fully debated and discussed. They were in fact debated in another place. I rather think that on the first occasion (though I may not be accurate on this) the Amendment was withdrawn, no doubt to provide an opportunity for further discussion, and then it was not selected. But I think that now we all want to get this Bill through. It is a useful Bill, and one which the Government would be pleased to see reach the Statute Book. It is particularly appropriate that a measure which is concerned with conservation should be passed into law in European Conservation Year.
  4.30 p.m.
  THK EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords. I am most grateful to those of your Lordships who, both this time and previously, have supported this Bill. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House and to the Government, who could not have been more helpful throughout. The fact that the Bill is introduced in the form in which it comes to your Lordships is entirely due to the help that I have had from them.
  I think I must refer to this very emotional question of clubbing, and I would ask those of your Lordships who are
  542
  worried about this practice to think of the appearance of one of your children or grandchildren, or, for those who are not married, a nephew or niece, when newly born, when the sutures of the skull are still open, and when those of us who are males scarely dare to handle it for fear of damaging the brain. That is the position in which a baby seal is when it is clubbed. It is quite clear that, with the sutures of the skull not closed, one slight tap, accurately applied, is going to kill it instantly, and does.
  Moreover, it is much more humane than shooting. If you are shooting, it is possible for your foot to slip on a rock and for the bullet to be two, three or four inches out of place, and you have to reload and fire again. If your foot slips on a rock when you are hitting, you can raise your hand and bring it down again within a quarter of a second. I am quite convinced that clubbing is the most humane way of killing juvenile animals that man has ever devised.
  I would urge the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, not to put the National Trust in a position in which I, as a member of the Trust for many years, should not like to see it. The Trust, like every other landlord, if it neglects its duty as a landlord, so far as rabbits, hares, or deer are concerned and allows the stock on its land to get too big, is liable to be told by the Ministry of Agriculture to reduce that stock. If it refuses to have it done, it is done by the Ministry. Of course the National Trust has never put itself in that position. It has been a good landlord; it has maintained the stock of deer and the like (and it is particularly deer that can be harmful to the neighbours) at a reasonable level, and nobody has had cause to complain. I am quite certain that no body, whether a corporate body or an individual, that wishes to be a good landlord, would like to put itself in a position of being above the law and injuring its neighbours in a way that no other person in the country could do. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, to think that over, and perhaps he may feel that the National Trust ought to be in exactly the same position as every other good landlord in the country—or bad landlord, as the case may be. I am grateful to all of your Lordships who have supported this

  543
  Bill, and I hope that it will now receive a Second Reading.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  ROAD TRAFFIC (DISQUALIFICATION) BILL
  House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL
  Reported, with Amendments.

  HAVERING CORPORATION BILL
  Reported without amendment.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before five o'clock.