Lords Sitting of 21 October 1971

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

AIR FARES IN EUROPE
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my nome on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make a statement, or an interim statement, on the IATA conference commencing in Miami in September last for the purpose of discussing the introduction of cheaper fares in Europe; and whether they support the application made by B.E.A. on this matter.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the conference is still in progress. Agreement has been reached on some areas but it has been decided to leave European fares to be discussed at a further meeting beginning next month, possibly in Geneva. Her Majesty's Government welcome any move that will make low fares more widely available consistent with an improvement in airline revenues, and they support B.E.A. 's proposals to this end.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for the good news in the last part of his reply. May I ask whether the Government feel able to lend what active support they can on this particular matter as B.E.A. would hope to have these fares in operation for April 1? Would it be right to say that if notice of three or four months had to be given it would then be essential that this is done before Christmas?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, this is a matter of agreement between the airlines concerned. Whether this agreement can be reached depends upon the way they handle their business next month.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is it not true that if there is co-operation between the Governments at each end of the line, the proposed cheap flights will materialise more quickly?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not think that that is entirely true within the agreement of IATA.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY:
My Lords, I will leave my reply to that until the next Question.

AIR TARIFFS
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree that the time has come to simplify air tariff rates; and whether they would recommend to member Governmenits of IATA through State air lines that consideration be given to the possibility of having an experimental period, during which a simple cut-price holiday ticket replaced all the other special holiday tickets, thereby minimising confusion to the public and work for staff concerned.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there would certainly be advantage in some simplification of air tariffs, though not necessarily in going from one extreme to the other if the result was to limit unreasonably the choice of facility that was available to the consumer. A good deal of thought is being given to this question and we shall draw the attention of the airlines to the suggestions made by the noble Baroness.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. Am I correct in saying that B.O.A.C. and British Caledonian have been given exemption from normal licensing rules for flights to Malaya and Singapore? If so, would the noble Earl not agree that this means that they can run charter flights at low prices and both advertise and sell tickets direct to the public?—which is contrary to normal charter rules. As I understand that this exemption is an experiment and is in the

475
nature of a trial between now and March, why cannot we try some other experiments along similar lines?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that the supplementary question, which the noble Baroness has asked is very wide of the original Question, which referred to cut-price holiday tickets. However, if she cares to put down a further Question with regard to the point that she has made I will answer it.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask a supplementary question on cut-price holiday tickets? Is the noble Earl aware of the undesirable situation which has grown up on concealed group fares? Is he aware that touts buy these cheap tickets for sale to other people within the time limits imposed? Can the noble Earl give us any figures that his Department have secured (apart from the airlines) of the percentage of IATA cheap fares group tickets which are sold or resold to members of the public who are not members of the affinity group?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give that information because that question also is very wide of the original Question. If the noble Baroness cares to put down a specific Question I will answer it.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, can the noble Earl say how, after joining the Common Market, which will increase our cost of living by 20 per cent., we are going to get cheap air fares in the future?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, will have an opportunity to put that particular question next week.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, before we leave his matter, might I ask—while I know that the noble Earl is not responsible for what appears in the newspapers—whether he recollects reading in to-day's papers about a charter return flight to America which was cancelled in the early hours of this morning, and that one of the reasons given was that the tickets on that flight had been sold by people in this country within the last few days?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Baroness is very ingenious; but she is
476
referring to charter flights while her original Question referred to cut-price holiday tickets.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether there will be any change in the provisions applying to "E" licences for carriers to be granted for the year 1972?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without notice. I will try to find out.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to consider again what my noble friend has said'?—for on reflection he will find that her supplementary question was entirely relevant to the Question on the Order Paper.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I shall certainly read in Hansard what the noble Baroness has said; but, as I listened, I thought that her supplementary question referred to charter flights. The question on the Order Paper refers specifically to cut-price holiday tickets.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, does not the noble Earl recognise that the Question begins by asking Her Majesty's Government whether the time has come to simplify air tariff rates"?
EARL FERRERS: Yes, my Lords, but there is a considerable difference between scheduled air fares and tickets and charter flights.
BARONESS BURTON or COVENTRY: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I shall be glad to accept his invitation and to put down the Questions to which he has assured me he will give an answer?

NORTH SEA OILFIELDS AND ARTIFICIAL ISLANDS
LORD KENNET: 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 studies have been made and what discussions held among littoral States of the North Sea and other interested parties regarding the proposal to construct a 21-acre artificial island

477
in the high seas over the Ekofisk oilfield.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE
(THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My
Lords, there have been no formal contacts on this question. Various schemes are known to be under consideration. Any installations in connection with the Ekofisk fields would be on the Norwegian side of the Continental Shelf Boundary and would be subject to Norwegian Government supervision.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if there are to be these 21-acre islands built all over the North Sea, is it not the case, that we may expect them to come on our side of the Continental Shelf before long? Is it not also the case that each island carries with it a safety zone for navigational purposes—a "keep out" zone—of no less than 1 kilometre across? Further, is it not the case that there should be some international co-ordination of safety and pollution regulations governing, this type of under-water oil storage? And, finally and in general, is it not the case that if these things are to be built without any inter-governmental contact or arrangement for control, we shall shortly have a dangerous archipelago in what has been hitherto a fairly safe sea?
MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the noble Lord has quite rightly drawn the attention of the House to a situation which, I agree, could give rise to great difficulty. I am certain that the Government will pay great attention to what he has said. At the moment certain consultations are going on between the British Government and the Norwegian Government concerning these points. Indeed. the Seabed Committee of the United Nations is seized of the problem as well. But I take the point that the noble Lord has made and I will draw my right honourable friend's attention to it.

GREECE: VISIT BY GENERAL ANGELIS
3.10 p.m.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will explain to the House the extremely friendly and cordial reception they offered the Commander-in-Chief of the Greek Junta's armed forces during his visit to this country in view of the fact that the Junta shows no signs of reintroducing Parliamentary democracy, and recently tried the scientist, Lady Fleming, before a military tribunal.]
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, General Angelis's visit was part of the regular pattern of visits paid by the Commanders in Chief of the armed forces of our NATO Allies and other friendly countries. He came at the invitation of the Chief of Defence Staff and was shown the courtesies normal on such occasions.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, do not Her Majesty's Government agree that to associate with such a regime through the medium of NATO besmirches the democratic image of the British Government?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No,
my Lords, I do not agree with that at all. We consider the part that Greece plays in NATO to be one of great importance. At the same time, my Lords, as friends of the Greek nation and Greek people we have made them perfectly well aware of our hope that it will not be long before democratic processes are restored to that country.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, as one who knows and loves Greece and her Greek people, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the Parliamentarians of Greece—of what was Free Greece—including my friends the Speaker of the Parliament and the former Prime Minister, both of whom have suffered persecution simply because they believe in freedom, would welcome some gesture of moral support in their struggle to get back to the freedom for which they fought in the war and after it?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My
Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that the Greece that came into the war and stood beside us when we were alone against Nazi Germany, supported by Soviet Russia, was governed by a military dictatorship?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Answer!
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the noble Lord who asked me the original supplementary question. Of course we are aware of the strong feelings that are roused by this matter, but the Question on the Order Paper is more specifically directed to the recent visit of General Angelis. As I am on my feet, may I tell the House that news has just been received that Lady Fleming's sentence has, on appeal, been suspended for eight months, on health grounds.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he interprets this Question as asking the British nation to have two classes of guests: first class guests who think that the Westminster model of parliamentarianism is a good thing; and second, third or fourth class guests who do not? Secondly, may I ask whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Milford, speaks for the Labour Party?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, only the noble Lord, Lord Milford, can answer that question.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware that the noble Lord, Lord Milford, who was one of the stars in the recent film on the House of Lords speaks for the Communist Party? Is he also aware that the question asked by the noble Lord and the purpose behind it, irrespective of whether Lord Milford is associated with the Labour Party, has a good deal of sympathy and support from this side?
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, following what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, may I ask whether the noble Marquess would agree that the Prime Minister of Greece did have consultations last August with a number of ex-parliamentarians in Greece with a view to introducing, in due course, a parliamentary regime in that country? Would he not agree that it would be better, instead of having constant misinformed criticism of that country, to adopt the attitude which Vice President Spiro Agnew took a few days ago in the Pelo
480
ponnese when he appreciated the achievements which were going forward under the present Greek Government? Would not noble Lords agree that that would be a better attitude?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My
Lords, I think I have stated what is the position of Her Majesty's Government on this matter: that we have repeatedly said, as friends of the Greek people, that we hope to see a return to democracy there as soon as possible.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Marquess inform the House whether Lady Fleming's Greek passport will be restored to her, and also whether she is free either to remain in Greece or to leave the country according to her own wishes?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Lord the answer to those two questions. I have only received the news myself in the last few minutes; but if I hear any more I will let him know.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, will the noble Marquess make some inquiries about the progress of establishing a Fleming Institute in Greece? Will he be able to inform the House of any progress which has been made towards establishing that, as an indicator of our hope of a return to true democracy in Greece?—to say nothing of the model, so-called, of Westminster that stood alone when the rest of Europe was fighting against us.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that is a very much wider question.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, reverting to the original Question, are Her Majesty's Government aware of the very deep and wide feeling that it is inconsistent that our democratic nation should be associated with this oppressive regime which now exists in Greece; and that it is equally inconsistent for NATO, which claims to stand for the Free World, to continue to be associated with the Greek regime?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My
Lords, I am quite aware that certain people hold those views; but they are not

481
the views held by Her Majesty's Government. As I said, we consider the partnership of Greece in NATO to have been extremely valuable in the defence of the Free World.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that Lady Fleming has dual nationality, should we not make representations on her behalf and ask what exactly is to be her future—whether she is to remain in prison after the eight months or whether she will be able to return to this country?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My
Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we shall be doing our best to find out what exactly is the position.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, may I get back to my original Question? Is the Minister aware that there are 545 political prisoners in Greece, of whom, in spite of all denials,19 are women; and that the members of all Greek democratic Parties have said how discouraged they are at such gestures of hospitality, since the Junta interprets them as signs of support?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am aware that there are a number of political prisoners still held in Greece. We are all aware of that. I do not think that that in any way invalidates the Answer given to the noble Lord's Question.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, would the Minister agree that there are political prisoners held in Russia and in various other countries; and is it suggested that we should break off relations with any Government if they do not conform to our own standards?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLIC'OE): My Lords, I feel that I should at the start of our spill-over Session, remind your Lordships of Standing Order No.33, which is that a star attached to a Question indicates that such a Question is asked for information only. I believe that in answer to some of the supplementary questions we are going rather wider than our Standing Orders would normally allow.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure that the House will accept what the noble Earl has said. Could he, how
482
ever, tell us whether the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, referred to the Westminster "model", or to the Westminster "muddle", because if so, I think he ought to consider the matter?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I do not think it necessary for any country to follow either.

FUTURE BUSINESS: BRITAIN AND E. E. C.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, in view of the large number of your Lordships who wish to take part in the debate on the Common Market next week it has been agreed, through the usual channels, that the debate should now run over three days. It will, therefore, take place on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week. I hope that it may be possible to conclude the debate before dinner time on Thursday, and the House will then adjourn during pleasure until about 10 o'clock or 10.15 and then reassemble for Prorogation. Dinners will be available that night. If it appears likely that there will be sufficient speakers to warrant sitting later on Tuesday and Wednesday, dinners will also be available on those days.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl the Government Chief Whip for securing agreement to this course of action, rather than adopt what I thought the bizarre proposal that we should meet on Monday and not until 10 o'clock on Thursday evening. I am grateful for the change he has made. May I ask at what time it is proposed we should start the debate? Through the usual channels we agreed on 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday and 2 o'clock on Wednesday. In the light of the further names added to the list I wonder whether it would be agreeable to meet at 2 p.m. on Thursday also.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, we shall be meeting at 2 o'clock on Wednesday because there are two Introductions that day and it is obviously desirable that we should get these over and that the House should be able to get down to Business by 2.30. As regards Thursday, there are complications and difficulties about meeting at 2 o'clock on a

483
Thursday, but perhaps we could discuss this point through the usual channels.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, the noble Earl says it is hoped that the vote will be taken before dinner. Will he give the House some indication as to when he usually dines?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am fairly flexible in my dinner time, but I hope that we may be able to conclude our debate (because I know that many noble Lords would like to get home that night, and some have to catch trains at a comparatively early hour) and have a Division in the neighbourhood of 7 o'clock.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, will our vote therefore be taken before the vote in another place?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, while it would appear that we may be able to conclude our busines at the sort of time I am suggesting, I think we all know that in another place they are unlikely to take the vote before ten o'clock.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, before we go on to anything else, may I say to the noble Earl that, while I am grateful to him for undertaking to consider the proposal to meet at 2 o'clock on Thursday, it is necessary to reach a fairly speedy agreement. I wonder whether he can undertake to consider it within the next hour or so.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I hope we shall be able to come to a speedy conclusion about this, and in that event I will inform the House before we rise to-day.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question? I understood from the Order Paper that we were originally going to sit for three days, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and now we are sitting for the three days Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. Thursday is going to be a day when the debate will end at seven o'clock, which means that perhaps only 10 or 15 speakers—probably fewer, since most of them will be Front-Bench speakers—will be able to speak that day. This means that a large number of noble Lords will have to speak on Wednesday or Tuesday.
484
There are now 65 on the list, and probably by the time the debate starts there will be 80 speakers. Would it not have been better to retain the Monday Sitting, so that we had four days and it would have been possible to keep the debate to a fairly reasonable hour on all four days?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, obviously that would have been possible. I must admit that the impression I have gained from conversations with a number of noble Lords who are to speak next week and who have already spoken once, twice, and in some cases more than twice, on this subject, seems to indicate that they intend to be rather brief, in which case we shall no doubt get through the number of speakers indicated in reasonable time; and that I hope we may be able to do.
May I also inform your Lordships that at a convenient moment after half-past three this afternoon my noble friend Lord Carrington will be repeating in the form of a Statement an Answer given in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the General Service Medal for troops serving in Northern Ireland.

IMMIGRATION BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL) rose to move, That the Bill be recommitted to the Select Committee (which reported specially on the Bill on the 8th July last) with an Instruction to the Committee to consider further evidence tendered by the Promoters relating to oil spillage. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to

485
move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Bill, in connection with which I am moving this procedural Motion, seeks to authorise the construction by Shell (United Kingdom) Limited of two single buoy moorings about two miles off the coast of Anglesey to be used for the discharge of oil into pipelines for the conveyance to that Company's refineries at Stanrow, in Cheshire. The Select Committee, who considered the Bill and Petitions against it, heard evidence as to the likely extent of oil spillage resulting from the operation of these moorings. This evidence was of the operation by the Promotors of similar installations throughout the world and it showed that while there might be a risk of spillage, the probability of a large amount of oil escaping was remote and indeed the escape of a small amount would be rare.
The Select Committee made a special Report to the House last July, summarising the evidence on oil spillage and giving their conclusion upon it. It was originally proposed that the Bill before the House this afternoon should be read a third time to-day. However, since the Committee reported, the Promoters have submitted to me further evidence on the question of oil spillage from single buoy moorings similar to those proposed in the Bill. This question is of importance, because one of the objections to the Bill raised by the Petitioners was a possibility of serious pollution. To enable this new evidence to be evaluated, I am proposing to the House this afternoon that the Bill should be recommitted to the same Select Committee, with all Instruction from the House as set out in the Motion; namely, to consider further evidence tendered by the Promotors relating to oil spillage. beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be recommitted to the Select Committee (which reported specially on the Bill on the 8th July last) with an Instruction to the Committee to consider further evidence tendered by the Promoters relating to oil spillage.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, it may be thought fitting if I said a few words with regard to this Motion in view of the fact that I had the privilege and responsibility of being the Chairman of the Select Committee. I want to make it as
486
clear as I possibly can, in as few words as possible, that the Motion to recommit the Bill concerns one issue and one issue alone—that is, the risk of beach pollution and of harm to flora and fauna in the Anglesey area through sea pollution.
Under examination and cross-examination in Committee, the experts of the Shell Oil Company gave figures of spillage and certain assurances with regard to spillage. These are contained in a Special Report by the Select Committee, which was in the hands of your Lordships, as the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees has pointed out, so long ago as last July, and many of your Lordships must have seen and studied that Report. The particular assurances and the estimation of spillage is contained in paragraph 10 of our Report. If I may, I would read the words which seem to be the nub of the situation:
…. in 1970 the Shell Company handled 65 million tons of oil, involving 1.000 ships, through 16 single buoy moorings around the world with two recorded incidents of spillage … there had been only one incident of beach. pollution owing to spillage which occurred in 1968 in Muscat. During the same period, some minor spillages had ocurred at other ports owing to misjudgment in handling pipes … "
We wont on to say that the Committee were informed that in Sarawak, between 1966 and 1970, there had been 24 incidents involving the cleaning of spillage. They were loading incidents and not discharging incidents.
Since we reported and suggested that the Bill should proceed, we have received some other detailed figures. They came to light only early last week and copies of these new figures, which are being submitted to a local planning inquiry at present taking place in Anglesey, were sent to the members of the Select Committee as a matter of courtesy to us because, after all, we had completed our task. To save time, I have looked at the figures carefully (I hope I am right in my arithmetic), and I will try to summarise them in order to show your Lordships the difference between what was submitted to us at the time of our hearing evidence and what they are now.
The new figures deal with spillages in connection with Shell activities and are limited to single buoy moorings as envisaged in Anglesey. These are all discharged from tankers. In Japan, over a

487
period of six years there were 47 spillages of under 0· 5 tons, with 812 ships handled and 80 million tons of oil involved. There was no beach pollution. In Malaysia, over eight years there were three spillages under 5 tons, one between 5 and 30 tons,583 ships handled and 24½ million tons of oil involved, with no beach pollution. In Durban, over a period of a year there were 23 spillages,13 under 0· 5 tons,5 under 5 tons and 5 between 5 and 30 tons; 91 ships were handled and 7½ million tons were involved. Again there was no beach pollution. This is in accordance with the latest. figures submitted by the Shell Company.
My Lords, in view of these apparent differences—and they are pretty large differences—between what was given to the Committee and what has now come up; in view of the fact that the Select Committee was not unanimous in recommending that the Bill should proceed; in the light of our special Report and also, if I may say so, what I have had to say to-day, I feel that it would be a mistake to proceed to Third Reading of this Bill without hearing sworn evidence and examination and cross-examination. Therefore, for myself, I agree that the Bill should be recommitted; and, again speaking for myself, I am at the service of your Lordships' House to hear further evidence under Select Committee conditions.

NORTHERN IRELAND: GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL AWARD
3.32 p.m.
TIIE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, may I interrupt your Lordships' proceedings for a moment to repeat a Statement that has been made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in reply to a Question this afternoon. The Statement reads as follows:
"In recognition of the services of Her armed forces in Northern Ireland, The Queen has approved proposals for the grant of the General Service Medal and clasp for specified service in the Province. Details of these proposals are set out in a Command Paper which I am presenting to Parliament to-day."
488
My Lords, copies of the Command Paper are available in the Printed Paper Office.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends and myself, I should very much like to welcome the Statement that the noble Lord has just made. May I express the hope that the situation in Northern Ireland, which calls for the display of bravery so evident at the present time, will not be of long duration.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I also welcome the Statement made by the noble Lord. If anybody has deserved a medal for this kind of service, it is our Army in Northern Ireland at this time.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether this is a precedent for the award of this kind of medal, or whether such a medal was awarded in the period immediately after the First World War?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Lord's question without notice. I should know, but, unfortunately, I do not. I will let the noble Lord know about it.

ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
Debate resumed.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I warmly support the Motion moved by the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees that this Bill should be recommitted. It relates to a matter which has aroused considerable concern in Anglesey, as some of us are well aware; and as there is such a wide discrepancy between the evidence first tendered and that now referred to by my noble friend Lord Royle, I hope that the Committee will reconsider the matter. Could I be given some indication as to the kind of timetable? Will this subject be able to be dealt with fairly rapidly? A great many interests are concerned, and a good many people would be glad to have a reasonably early conclusion of the matter.
3.35 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I should like to say just a word or two on this Motion. As I understand it, the information that was given to the Committee was the best

489
information available to Shell or to anyone else, and it was only as a consequence of further inquiries that some new information came to light. Indeed, in fairness to the company concerned and to the county council, I think it ought to be made clear to your Lordships that they then volunteered this information, so that people would not come to any conclusion under any misapprehension. It ought to he made clear that there was no attempt to hide any evidence: in fact, it was evidence that had been discovered by the Promoters and the Anglesey County Council, and the Shell Company were only too happy and ready to provide this information to the Committee if they were going on to any further consideration of the matter.
3.36 p.m.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, as one of the two members of the Committee who did not feel that the Bill should be allowed to proceed unless subject to a Planning Inquiry Commission, it is perhaps appropriate that I should say a word. It would be logical and tempting, but not I think appropriate, to make a Third Reading speech, saying how much more able such a Commission would be to investigate the technical questions raised by the new evidence than any Select Committee. None the less, it seems right that our Special Report should be corrected, if necessary, before the Committee send the Bill (if they do send it) to Third Reading. We have put on record that we heard that the probability of a large amount of oil escaping during the transfer operation was remote. I confess that I was not convinced. Obviously, this new evidence brings the contention of the Promoters more into doubt. The House as a whole cannot assess new evidence or hear both sides upon it. Therefore it seems right that the Bill should be recommitted.
3.37 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, may I ask one question about this subject which I think is of importance? The evidence that will be considered is in amplification of what has already been tendered to the Select Committee by the Shell Company, and it is obviously correct that these figures should be considered, notwithstanding the fact that I must say, looking at them, that there are very few oil spillages of any cones-
490
quence. Most of those mentioned by the noble Lord were of less than half a ton, and very few of them resulted in beach pollution. But there is a question that I think is important if we are to have another look at this matter, and that is that if the oil is not brought into a single buoy mooring, as proposed in the Bill, presumably there will be an increase in the volume of traffic coming into the area outside the Mersey Estuary and of oil being transferred to smaller tankers so that it can go into the unloading point of the Stanlow Refinery. As I understand that the purpose of this terminal is to bring in supplies, ultimately to be used in the refinery which is to be expanded over a period of years to a throughput of something like 14 million tons a year, it seems to me important that one should consider not only spillages that might result from the single buoy moorings in the light of the evidence that has been mentioned, but also the comparative figures that could be expected if tankers of 200,000 tons and upwards were coming into the area of the Mersey Estuary and there being lightened to 75,000 tons in order that the ships could get to the existing terminal. I should have thought that there was an equal risk of spillage, and possibly a greater risk, from these transfer operations, than by taking the oil through single buoy moorings. I hope that the Select Committee will hear that in mind during their considerations.
It is a good idea that a fresh look should be taken at the problem from another point of view, and that is that if the timing of the Planning Inquiry now proceeding is such that it will have completed its work and the information arising therefrom can then be made available to the Select Committee, obviously the Committee will be able to reach a better conclusion than would be possible in the absence of that evidence. This would be a most helpful procedure. But I should like to be assured that adequate attention will be given to the other problem that I mentioned, the spillages during transfer between one tanker and another if the terminal is not built.
3.41 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I gave notice now of my intention to move an Amendment on the Third Reading of

491
this Bill. I apologise to the House if it makes confusion worse confounded: it is a complicated matter. It has nothing whatever to do with Shell's new evidence about spillages, which is a completely different matter. The point I am on is a completely separate one. When I and, no doubt, many other of your Lordships first saw this Bill we thought, "Well, our Select Committee will deal with that and will come to a clear conclusion and will be able to recommend to the House what ought to be done. "We have heard from Lord Moyne that they did not come to a clear conclusion, that they were divided; and, if I understand him aright, two of the five members of the Committee believe that the Bill should not proceed unless and until the choice of the place for the single buoy moorings is endorsed by a planning inquiry commission. I do not want to go into this matter too deeply now as the proper time is on Third Reading, but a planning inquiry commission is—
LORD HOY: My Lords, with all due respect, the planning inquiry commission can have no jurisdiction over this particular area; they can deal only with the installations.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this is a point which we can debate on Third Reading, but I believe that the House would be within its powers if it were to suspend the passage of the Bill into law unless and until what was proposed in the Bill has been endorsed by a planning inquiry commission. I may be wrong about that, and if I am later proved to be wrong I shall not move the Amendment: but at the moment I believe that the Amendment would be valid and would stand up.
The purpose of the Amendment would be to get a planning inquiry commission. This is a form of super-planning inquiry introduced by the 1968 Planning Act and which has never yet been used. I have given a good deal of thought to this, having been concerned with the Act in the first place, and I have reached the conclusion (which is a personal one) that this would be a very suitable case for the first planning inquiry commission. The Town and Country Planning Act says in Section 62(2)(b) that the sort of thing which may be referred to a plan-
492
ning inquiry commission is a matter where:
"the technical or scientific aspects of the proposed development are of so unfamiliar a character as to jeopardise a proper determination of that question unless there is a special inquiry for the purpose."
A single buoy mooring is not simply a buoy in the sea: it is a great deal more than that and has many parts. First of all, there is the buoy in the sea; then there is a pipeline connecting the buoy with the land; then the pipeline comes ashore at a certain place and there is a small installation there. It then runs further inshore, where there is storage, and from the storage there is a pipeline to the refinery where the oil is to be handled. In the case of Anglesey, that pipeline has to cross the Straits from the island to the mainland to traverse the whole of North Wales and, as at present proposed, will fetch up at Stanlow in Cheshire. No local planning inquiry can consider all these elements. Only a planning inquiry commission can do so, and since this is a technology which is entirely new to this country, it seems to me that it fits very well with the intention of the 1968 Act.
My Lords, I will go no further at the moment. If there had been a Third Reading to-day I should have moved the Amendment now, but since there is not. for a reason which I consider a very good one, I shall move the Amendment when the Third Reading of the Bill takes place.
3.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I express the feelings of, I am sure, many noble Lords that we ought to be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for giving us notice that he has it in mind to move this Amendment. I think we should also thank him for making just now the Second Reading speech which he was unable to do when we had the Second Reading. I have no intention to-day of re-making my Second Reading speech. still less of anticipating my Third Reading speech.
The situation is very simple. I understand that Shell produced at the inquiry the evidence that they had available. I have no interest to disclose, except that I have 100 shares in Shell Transport, but I do not act for them in any way; I am

493
simply an enthusiast for this project. Shell were then pressed to make further inquiries. They did so all over the world, and they came up with further information and, in all frankness and honesty, disclosed it. I do not wish to anticipate what may be brought out by learned counsel before the Select Committee when it has been re-established, but it is interesting to note that there is in fact a technical difference of some substance between pumping oil from the shore into a tanker—that is, loading it over great distances from very strong pumps which maximises the danger of rupture—and bringing it from a tanker ashore for a very short distance by means of pumps that are very much weaker and under very much better controlled conditions However, these are matters which will come out before the Select Committee. What matters, surely, my Lords, is that anxiety and disquiet should be allayed and the Promoters are eager that this should be so: anyone who wishes well to this project must wish the same. Therefore, I should like to support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Royle, on referring this back to the Committee in question.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, may I say one word, by leave of the House, before the Lord Chairman of Committees replies, referring to what my noble friend Lord Kennet has said about the planning inquiry commission. Our Report deals with the matter in paragraphs 14 and 15, and the nub of the situation is that:
"It is within the power of the Secretary of State for the Environment acting jointly with the Secretary of State for Wales, and no one else, to set up such a Commission and the Committee note that this request has already been made and has been refused."
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I thank all noble Lords for their support for the Motion to recommit this Bill to a Select Committee. On behalf of the House, I should like particularly to thank all noble Lords who have already served on this Committee and have spent a number of days on its work for their willingness to meet again to hear further evidence.
In answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady White, I can assure her that there will be no unnecessary delay, as a result of the hearing of
494
further evidence, in the passage of the Bill through Parliament. It is proposed, if your Lordships agree, that the Select Committee should meet again on December 7 and it should be possible to take the Third Reading in your Lordships' House before Christmas.
LORD HOY: That is a long time.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I believe that meets the convenience, so far as it is possible, of everyone concerned with the Bill. The noble Lord. Lord Avebury, asked whether the Select Committee would consider spillage from ships in addition to the evidence which it could hear about the single buoy moorings. The Committee will be confined to a consideration of the evidence which it has been instructed by the House to deal with, and it will not he in a position to consider any other matter. But the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred is certainly one which could have been dealt with by the Committee during the original Committee stage of the Bill. I believe that I hear some indications to show that this is a matter that was considered by the Committee at this time.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE: WHITLEY MACHINERY
3.50 p.m.
LORD REIGATE LORD REIGATE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will set up an inquiry into the workings of the Whitley machinery in the National Health Service. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is a simple and straightforward question, and really demands but a simple "Yes" or "No" from my noble friend. If I thought I was going to get the answer "Yes" I would sit down very quickly but, judging from a reply given in another place a few days ago, I am very much afraid that the answer is going to be "No". I must therefore express in advance my disappointment, unless there has been a sudden overnight conversion in the Department of Health and Social Security.
May I remind those who are interested in this subject that on August 17, The Times newspaper published a letter from Mr. Henry Brinton. Mr. Brinton is a friend and colleague of mine who has very long experience in all matters relating to the Health Service. Perhaps I may stress the bipartisan approach to this matter by saying that Mr. Brinton is also a life-long member of the Labour Party. In his letter, Mr. Brinton gave his reasons for resigning as a member of the Administrative and Clerical Whitley Council. It was a letter which contained many cogent reasons, which I will paraphrase—perhaps inadequately—as follows: First, he had a sense of futility in that the real authority, and the decisions of the Whitley Council, lay outside the members of the Council. Secondly, nothing over the years had really been done to redress the obvious anomalies and inequities that exist within the rates of pay and salaries inside the National Health Service, and which flourish under the present Whitley machinery. If I may quote Mr. Brinton's own words, he said:
"The Whitley machinery is now obsolete. If it is not swiftly revised, there is a danger of a breakdown in the Service."
I would not take quite such a gloomy view as that. I have never known a time when the immediate breakdown of the National Health Service was not prophesied from one quarter or another.
The fact is that Mr. Brinton's outburst unleashed a flood of correspondence which shows the degree and the amount of dissatisfaction there is in all ranks and quarters inside the Health Service on this matter. Many of the complaints that were made related to the writer's own salary or rate of pay. In many cases. the dissatisfaction was justified—although I have never known anyone write to The Times to say that they considered that they were adequately paid. The bulk of criticisms about the working of the Whitley machinery are and were justified. It is cumbersome and slow; the membership is often unrepresentative of either staff or management. It produces inequities and anomalies within the National Health Service and often takes inadequate cognisance of conditions outside the Service. Correspondence confirmed that dissatisfaction was widespread—a fact about which
496
many of us have been aware for many years.
Mr. Brinton was not original in his attack. I raised the question of the need for an inquiry into the Whitley machinery, in another place in 1965, in 1966, and in May, 1970. Mr. Kenneth Robinson attacked the Whitley machinery in a speech in the other place in 1962. Mr. Robinson is a good friend of mine, and was an admirable Minister; but I am sorry to say that when he went to his Department his view was that the machinery was satisfactory and we heard no more of the need for an inquiry.
An inquiry has been asked for from other quarters within the National Health Service. We cannot all be wrong in our view that the machinery could be improved. I should like to give some small examples of the faulty working of the Whitley machinery from my own experience as a chairman of a teaching hospital. Some years ago there occurred a shortage of pharmacists in the Hospital Service, due to the attraction of the higher salaries outside. This hit mainly the hospital services in the big cities, particularly London. There was a claim before the Whitley Council; it was considered by the Council with its usual thoroughness (but also its usual slowness), and the hospitals, short-staffed, unable to supply prescriptions to outpatients, had to give their out-patients "E.C.10s", which are the forms which indent on pharmacists outside the hospitals. That prescription is filled, quite reasonably and naturally, by the outside pharmacists at a far higher cost than it can be inside the hospital. Eventually there was an adjudication, and the salaries of pharmacists were increased. The hospitals were able to rebuild their pharmaceutical services. I think it is fair to say that the amount of the salary increase was far less than the actual cost incurred in having to farm out the prescribing through the E.C.10 forms.
The same story could be repeated many times over. Not long ago there was a great shortage of medical secretaries because, again, of the attraction of the pay outside. You cannot always depend on the job satisfaction that people get from working in the National Health Service, or on their loyalty. The Whitley machinery must be more responsive to outside circumstances. If I may refer to

497
another anomaly, the London weighting given for those who work in London is grossly inadequate, hence the shortages of staff which arise, nearly always first in London or the other big cities. What is the reason for that? It is because in the Whitley Council the actual London interests (if I may so put it) are a tiny minority; they are only a small part of the whole of the Hospital Service. There is another anomaly which my noble friend may like to take particular account of in this matter of the London weighting. The normal London weighting for, say, a hospital administrator is £ 90. But if he is a civil servant working within four miles of Charing Cross he gets £ 160. You get the anomalous position where a civil servant working at the Elephant and Castle is getting £ 160 because he is within four miles of Charing Cross, but the secretary of Charing Cross Hospital is getting £ 90. That cannot be justified.
Why do hospital administrators, and others in the National Health Service, have to contribute to their pensions, whereas their opposite numbers in the Department have a non-contributory pension? The result of some of these curious differences and anomalies is that I find that a hospital secretary of a 1,200 bed hospital, employing 3,000 people with a budget of £ 61 million per year, is on a salary scale below an assistant secretary in the Ministry, and only just above the scale of the private secretary to the Secretary of State. I do not think that the responsibilities are necessarily comparable. I could cite many other instances of discrepancies—and, indeed, straight injustices—but I have cited those in particular which have come to my notice fairly recently.
I do not want to detain the House too long, but I should like to make it clear to my noble friend that no-one wishes to abolish the Whitley machinery—that would be a recipe for chaos—at any rate not until an alternative and better means can be devised for negotiating salaries and pay. There have been many suggestions put forward for improvement and reform in the correspondence, particularly in a letter, which I hope my noble friend read, from the secretaries of the London undergraduate teaching hospitals. If I may quote from the very good leader in The Times for September 7, the position is this:
498
"It is not, however, necessary at this stage to make an immediate choice between the improvement or replacement of Whitley. The best course would be to set up an independent official review of the procedure for settling the pay and conditions of hospital staffs."
I cannot better that as a summary of what I wish to ask my noble friend to do.
I have a feeling that my noble friend is going to say something on the lines that he would expect the need for any changes to be considered in the first place by the two sides of the Whitley Council, in accordance with its agreed constitution. That is fair enough, so far as it goes, but I ask for a little more than that. Flow can the Whitley Council satisfactorily examine itself? It needs an independent and outside inquiry. I would remind my noble friend that history tends to repeat itself, and we had a similar situation in regard to doctors' pay in 1957. I should know: I was at the Ministry of Health at the time. On that occasion the Government of the day took the courageous step of going outside the Whitley machinery and setting up a Royal Commision to consider doctors' and dentists' pay. They did a very thorough job; they produced a great Report and, as a result, we now have the Review Body, which I think one can say has, by and large, brought peace in the negotiations in the medical profession—at any rate, comparative peace; there will never be absolute and complete peace.
In his Introduction to the Consultative Document which he recently published my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that his proposals differed from earlier proposals because the emphasis was on effective management. He stressed the importance of good management. How right he is! One can plan a brand new Health Service in a consultative document which looks terrific on paper; but it will not succeed, and it will not indeed be good management, unless it is based on a fair treatment of those employed. It is putting the cart before the horse to neglect this issue of staff relations when reforming the National Health Service.
4.2 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, before I begin dealing with the Question may I say that I notice that the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, is on the

499
list of speakers and that he is in his place? As he has so recently been in hospital, may I say that I am sure the whole House is delighted to see him here this afternoon and that we await with interest and pleasure what he has to tell us.
The Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, gives us a desirable opportunity of looking at an issue which has received, as he said, a good deal of publicity following the resignation of Mr. Henry Brinton from the Administrative and Clerical Whitley Council, which is a part of the National Health Service Whitley Council system. That system consists of nine functional councils and a general Council at the top. I doubt whether anybody thinks the set-up is perfect, and certainly it has been the subject of considerable and responsible criticism on a number of counts. As the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, said, there has recently been a considerable correspondence, particularly in The Times and the Guardian, and articles in both these papers, so there can be no doubt that public interest was indeed aroused by Mr. Brinton's resignation. To that extent, at least, he has been partially successful in some of his intentions. I speak as one who for some years served on a joint industrial council for local government employees and I served as an employer's representative. I there learnt that the Whitley system can produce results—good results, reasonably quick results. If I may say so as a life long trade unionst also, I know from experience in my own occupation that the system can work.
Having read the correspondence in the national Press and the articles that have been mentioned, and having discussed with some of the people involved the issues that are concerned in the Question, I find it impossible to avoid the conclusion that there are the strongest possible grounds for dissatisfaction with the way the system is working at the present time, and the demand for a review of the existing Whitley machinery in the National Health Service is therefore understandable. I have no doubt at all that the letters which have been written, including that by Mr. Henry Brinton, to which reference has already been made, in the Lancet of September 25 of this year, have been studied in the Department. They provided a very good basis on which any
500
review might be based, for they covered many, if not all, of the different types of skill employed in the Hospital Service.
Many of us are familiar with the position in regard to nurses. I am chairman of a residential school, and we have a pretty good sanitorium. We have difficulty at times in recruiting nursing staff. but we can always get nurses through an agency. I understand that in the Hospital Service much the same position obtains with regard to typists. I have been told pretty authoritatively of one hospital board that has an establishment of 27 typists. At one time it had three on the staff and seven from agencies. I am told that the agency typists fell far short of the standard requirement, but they were paid half as much again as the established ones. The complaint here is that there is far too much rigidity, and within the Department for which the Minister will be speaking this afternoon too little recognition of difficulties encountered at district level, where problems are particular and local. It is no exaggeration to say that, although the worst has never yet happened, the situation is at times explosive—highly explosive.
As I said, I am a lifelong trade unionist. I am proud to hold life membership of one trade union and to enjoy a very close association with another, NALGO. Your Lordships will therefore appreciate that it occurred to me to get in contact with a number of trade unions catering for those who serve in the national Hospital Service. I can summarise what they have conveyed to me by way of criticism of the way in which the negotiating machinery works, as being (a) too rigid; (b) too slow, and (c) too unresponsive to local needs. I am told that in the years from 1947 to 1962 the position used to be a great deal worse. Indeed, I recalled, before the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, reminded the House, that in 1957, as Mr. John Vaughan-Morgan, he was Parliamentary Secretary at the then Ministry of Health. So he will have been aware of the difficulties that, as I am informed, were even worse then than they are at the present time.
On the criticism of rigidity, the strong hand of the Treasury seems to be always apparent. As was stated by Mr. Stanley Mayne, Chairman of the Staff Side of the Professional and Technical"A"Whitley

501
Council, in The Times of August 21 this year:
"What ought to be realised is that as the whole expense of the National Health Service falls on the Exchequer, then the whole control of salaries is a matter of Government policy."
He went on further in his letter to say:
"The proposal over the years from the staff side of this Whitley Council, that in order to obtain a fair share of the available men and women at this level requires that these professions should be given salaries and a career value roughly equivalent to that of teachers. This has always been rejected notwithstanding powerful support from influential medical men and women who realise the grave difficulties occasioned by the serious shortages in each of these professions supplementary to medicine. This refusal by the management side of the P.T.A. Whitley Council to agree to the staff side proposition has never been ascribed to the natural wickedness of the management side but has derived quite clearly from Government policy and Government decisions against which the management side could make no useful impression."
While it is appreciated that the Treasury is bound to be involved, it is felt by the trade unions that management representatives should be able to enter into negotiations and be empowered to make counter offers to the staff side without having to ask for an adjournment, which again, as I am told, can mean, in some cases, several weeks' delay.
On the subject of delay, I might refer to the Pharmacy Technicians Committee of the Professional and Technical Council "B". The staff side submitted proposals for the regrading of pharmacy technicians arising out of the Noel Hall Report in February this year. A joint meeting to consider these proposals was not called until Friday, October 15. and when the staff side arrived they had to wait well over an hour because the members of the management side, apart from the departmental representatives, had not been supplied with the staff side's proposals, nor with the Department's counter proposals.
On the criticism of being too unresponsive to local needs, a letter in The Times of August 23 from Mr. P. W. Dixon, House Governor and Secretary of the Hospital for Sick Children, I think is not irrelevant. I have little doubt that the Department will have taken note of it.
"Mr. Milne"—
Mr. Dixon points out, writing in a letter dated August 19—
"rightly, in my view, recognises that the Whitley Council system is open to criticism, …
502
We have unhappily learnt to live with it, but our real criticism is not that it is obsolete, but that it is totally unrealistic and unnecessarily inflexible; "
He continues:
"There are two further points to which I would draw the attention of your readers"-—
which raised the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, and I refer to it only because Mr. Dixon gave not the figure of £ 160 but of £ 175, which makes matters even worse. He also drew attention to the fact that the Civil Service enjoys a non-contributory pension scheme whereas all grades of staff in the Hospital Service arc compulsorily superannuable at 6 per cent, per annum. Six per cent. per annum, my Lords, is a pretty substantial difference from nothing.
Mr. Dixon went on:
"One could make many other points; let one suffice. The salaries of para-medical workers—the so-called professions supplementary to medicine—are basically and outrageously inadequate. Upon the love, loyalty and devotion to the hospitals—my own included—of these and many other grades of staff we are totally dependent. It is time that the rewards were more adequate, that the books were opened, the frustrations revealed. What we ask is for a more flexible system within which to operate; the skills of management are no less in the hospital service than in other fields; the restrictions appear to be greater and the service to the patient consequently impeded."
There have been some suggestions that the Whitley machinery in the Health Service should be abandoned, and I should like to give a brief quotation from a letter written by Mr. Geoffrey Drain, the staff side secretary of the Health Service Administrative and Clerical Staffs Whitley Council, in The Times on August 18. He said:
"It is not Whitleyism itself which is at fault but the way in which it is operated in the Health Service, with its undue rigidity and incapacity to respond to change of circumstances and local needs."
As The Times of September 7 put it:
"… there is a danger that simply to sweep away the Whitley machinery would be a gesture rather than a policy."
Whatever is contemplated, I think it is essential that the confidence and trust of the trade union movement is ensured. As I understand the attitude of the trade unions, at least those with whom I have been in contact—and I have been in contact with quite a number—it is that

503
Whitleyism can be improved. Its weaknesses can be remedied. It can be made to work effectively and reasonably speedily. What is required is a constructive and co-operative approach, and I can say that the trade union side are prepared to play a full part in seeking that. I think it important to remember that, in any negotiating machinery, when the two sides go into the room to discuss, both sides should possess bargaining powers: one side ought not to go in with its hands nearly always fettered.
It is fair to say that the trade unions take the view that a thorough review of Whitley machinery should not be undertaken on an ad hoc basis: they think it ought to be a part of the examination being given to the whole Service. It may be that the existence of nine different councils is too many, but it could be that one council might be too few and could produce a situation in which there were interminable delays, even with the best will in the world. I am positive, and a great many people involved in the Health Service, and certainly on the staff side—and we have heard it from the noble Lord, Lord Reigate—feel, that there is an urgent need for son-le relaxation of Treasury control, for more flexibility to be permitted in negotiation, and for greater trust and responsibility to be given to those representing management at local levels. There needs to be a close look at the make-up of those representing management. May I make the suggestion that the Government should look at the possibility of setting up within the Department a section which should be designed to ensure that those working in it find good career prospects. Urgent attention might well be given to the training and to the development of staff in this particular field, with staff participation being secured in change and reorganisation as these may be under consideration.
There is a strong feeling that there is need for some greater permanence of Departmental and management representation on Whitley Councils. Greater permanence there would be of particular value because part of the difficulty today seems to lie in too frequent changes of personnel, due to promotion which necessitates the loss to the management side of the experience which has been
504
gained. I would not think that some changes, some developments, such as the one I have just been touching on, need wait for a very thorough examination. The problems of rigidity and inflexibility could be dealt with; many delays could be avoided. The Department can hurry when it is under severe pressure, and I hope that now that this matter has been raised in this House the pressure will be maintained. I would emphasise that there should be the closest consultation with the trade unions at every stage whenever there is talk of change being made, and, most vital of all, discussions with the trade union side at a very early stage at the very outset of consideration.
On this side of the House I think I can say that there is a recognition that the Service is suffering badly from the defects which have been mentioned. A solution must be found. Whatever form an inquiry may eventually take, the Staff Side must be involved; their views must be fully taken into account, again I repeat, from the very outset. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will be able to give the House some pretty clear indication of the Government's intentions. I hope he will not ride away by saying briefly that this can all be left for consideration when we are looking at the whole set-up. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether the Government have any ideas, and if so what they are, in regard to the integrated service foreshadowed in the Consultative Document where the local authority element will be coming together with the hospital element. I think it is reasonable to suppose that the Government should have given some thought to that. If they have not, I beg them to be in consultation with the trade unions fairly shortly.
With regard to the short term, can the Minister tell us whether the Government have under consideration practical proposals to remedy any e the defects that have been mentioned, and to improve negotiating procedures, with less rigid Treasury control, to give departmental and management representatives real scope for bargaining and negotiating? I believe again, if I may say so, that the Government would find the trade unions, if asked to help, not only willing but ready to make constructive proposals. But of the urgency of the question there can be no doubt.
4.23 p.m.
LORO AMULREE: My Lords, before 1 commence the few words that I propose to address to your Lordships I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, in saying how pleased I am to see the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, looking as well as ever and that he is going to say a few words to us later on.
For some time past I have been talking about what I consider to be the evils of the Whitley machinery in the National Health Service; that is why I am so pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, has put down this Question and given us a chance to talk about it. Surely one of the fundamental troubles with the Whitley machinery is that it was started a very long time ago with quite a different purpose. Then it was for employers and employees in the true sense of the word, whereas with the present system in the National Health Service the employers' side is not free to bargain they have always, as the noble Lord said, the feeling of the Treasury at their back, and they are not very free agents. I have attended two meetings of the Whitley Council, having gone with the Staff Side of an organisation with which I was then involved. I was most depressed at the effect, because although we were pleasantly treated, fairly treated, kindly treated, we knew from the start that the fiat had gone forth as to what we could do and that nothing we could do was going to change it.
The machinery is too ponderous and slow, and is not efficient at the present time. Why should it not be possible, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, suggested, that some body should be set up, like the review body dealing with members of my profession, which works, on the whole, pretty well? I know that some doctors do still come under the Whitley machinery, but they are the few employed in the public service and not those engaged in practice of any sort dealing with patients outside the public service. I am quite sure that something like that could be set up without a great deal of difficulty, covering, shall we say, the nurses and the various professions subsidiary to medicine, the para-medical people who do such a great deal of work for the service. A body of that sort I think might get rid of several anomalies in the salary scales. I am thinking par-
506
ticularly of the case of a large hospital where the salaries depend on the number of beds, and particularly of the mental hospitals. This means that the staff have no encouragement to treat their patients properly and to discharge them into the community, because that would mean a reduction of beds and therefore a reduction of salary. That is one of the great drawbacks. The purpose of a hospital should be gradually to reduce the number of beds it requires as it treats more people efficiently and well.
I am extremely pleased that the noble Lord has put down this Question. But I was rather sad when I read in Hansard that the Secretary of State in another place said, in reply to a recent Question that he would expect the need for any change to be considered in the first place by the two sides of the Whitley Council in accordance with its agreed constitution. If that is what we have to wait for, we shall wait until the world has come to an end before we get anything new. I am quite certain that the problems we are confronted with now are far too serious to wait for a long time. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, a rather more encouraging reply.
4.28 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, before I begin may I give my deep and grateful thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and indeed to everybody from all sides of the House who has so kindly sent messages to me in what has been rather an anxious time. In passing, may I humbly and with deep gratitude say "Thank you" publicly to the surgeon, the doctors, the nurses, at King's College Hospital. I think they have completely saved my eye and I shall be all right in about two or three weeks' time. I am deeply grateful to them. I was very proud when I left the hospital to feel that I play a small part in the National Health Service and the Hospital Service.
I have been unable to write a speech, but if I may talk for a moment in the line of a parable, a hospital is rather like a ship in the Navy, a group of hospitals like a flotilla, and the Hospital Service like a fleet. This ship has many cogs in it, it has many men and women who work together, and if by any chance any one of them lets the ship down it

507
may not only cause inconvenience but it could cost life. The only difference between the Royal Navy ship and the hospital "ship" is that when there is a pay rise in the Royal Navy everybody gets it, whereas, in the Hospital Service, under the Whitley Council, some people get a pay rise from one of the councils and some do not. Pay rises are not coordinated. Pay rises are not allowed on a certain common date, and, according to the different councils, there are also differences in overtime rates. This does not help to make what we all know we need, both in the Navy and in our hospitals, a happy ship. It causes difficulties and misunderstandings; above all, for the ordinary people who work in the hospitals, it causes bewilderment, which is not a good thing.
May I mention one small anomaly which struck me when I was thinking over these few words. For some unknown reason one of the points relevant to the pay of a building supervisor in a hospital or group of hospitals is the number of outpatients in that hospital or group of hospitals. For instance, in a general hospital which has a great number of outpatients the building supervisor will get his pay calculated on that number of outpatients. Next, take a group of hospitals such as the one of which I am proud to be chairman, which are hospitals for the long stay mentally subnormal. We have very few outpatients. Therefore, although our buildings are spread a great distance apart, the building supervisor cannot attain the pay of the person doing exactly the same job in a general hospital. This seems to me to be one of the unfortunate anomalies which cannot really be explained to the person concerned. I have no idea of the attitude of the trade unions to this situation, except from what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy said, but I feel sure in my mind that, if possible, we should have an inquiry to try and produce some form of sensible framework for pay, et cetera, throughout the whole of the Hospital Service, so that we can have a coordinated service and, above all, an understood and a very happy ship.
4.34 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I join with those who have welcomed the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell,
508
back to our flock. Having listened to him, I must say that his operation and his illness have not marred his fluency, and that what they have done, if it is possible, is to increase his compassion. The contribution which he has just made is what we might have expected from him, having heard him on debates similar to this over the years.
The noble Lord who put down this Question and I sat in another place for many years, and we have sat through debates like this over and over again. We have heard the same expressions of opinion; we have seen Ministers getting up and making half-promises. But the years have gone on and nothing has been done. What is happening now is a result of the failure to remedy the operation of the Whitley Council. We are now seeing the end products, and I am very depressed when I see so often in the papers criticisms of the National Health Service. We see foreigners coming over here, going round and then making a lukewarm comment when they leave our shores. Every now and then there is a scandal. It appears that a young nurse in her first year has been left all night looking after a ward of patients; or mental patients are ill-treated; casualty departments are closed and, in consequence, accident vicitims from the cars on our roads fail to find a doctor in charge. This all stems from one thing only: the matter that we are talking about to-day.
The fact is, my Lords, that the people who serve in our National Health Service are unique inasmuch as they have a sense of vocation and are reluctant to ask for adequate remuneration; and the Whitley Council exploits this. What we have heard to-day has been going on for years. All that is happening now is that these people who are being exploited in our hospitals—and I would say, broadly, that everybody below the consultant status is inadequately paid—are now becoming resentful: resentful to the extent that the consumers of the National Health Service come out of our out-patient departments, come out of a group practice, come from their doctor and have a complaint, and we hear for the first time the suggestion that an Ombudsman should be produced for the National Health Service. What a reflection on this wonderful Service to suggest

509
appointing an Ombudsman to inquire into the complaints about the doctors!
I do not know how long we are going to wait before something is done. I suppose we shall have to wait until there is such an appalling scandal, or until the under-staffing of our hospitals and clinics is such that the closures are so great that they cannot be overlooked. At the moment, of course, maternity wards which are needed cannot be opened because there are not enough nurses; casualty departments are closed; new hospitals are built but cannot be opened because there are not enough nurses. The fact is that we know that the girl who is prepared to nurse is generally a jolly fine child—or little more than a child. She is prepared to go and do jobs which many people in this House to-day would refuse to do; jobs which are unpleasant, jobs which are not congenial. She is prepared to do these for a miserable wage. But even these girls, after the first year, find the position unendurable, and one-third of these marvellous young women resign in the first year. They cannot start until they are eighteen—and many of them, after leaving school, fill in the years doing some sort of a job waiting for the time when they can go into a hospital ward—and then we find that in the first year we lose one-third of them; and this is, in my opinion, because we exploit their sense of vocation. It all comes back to the failure of the Whitley Council.
Somebody asked just now, "What about the agencies?" I went to the Nurses' and Midwives' Conference on Monday and, to my amazement, an ex-sister came up to me and said, "Could you do something to close these agencies?? Of course I will not close the agencies. I think one of the noble Lords who has spoken said that when hospitals are short—and all hospitals are short now—they have to go to an agency where they may have to pay a nurse from the agency twice the amount they pay nurses on the ward—and, indeed, perhaps more. I was asked to help to close these agencies which this sister—of course she was quite mistaken—thought were taking the nurses from the hospitals. The reason the agencies exist and prosper is because the Whitley Council fails to do its job in the first place. If the Whitley Council saw to it that these nurses were adequately paid, the nurses would not go
510
to an agency and say, "Get me a job where I get better conditions." It is the very failure of the Whitley Council that enables these agencies to exist and prosper. I would not try to close them. Their nurses are fully qualified; the agencies are not using people who are not qualified. But what they are doing is seeing that their nurses are adequately paid; and perhaps this, in itself, will force those in authority to see to it that the Whitley Councils do their job better.
I have only to remind your Lordships of what is happening. As I mentioned, the wards and casualty departments are overcrowded and understaffed. In the field of mental health,45 per cent. of our beds in the country are filled with patients suffering from some mental disability, and just a picture of those wards seems a disgrace to the National Health Service. The beds have hardly a foot between them; the wards are crowded, and they are so understaffed that these poor unfortunate creatures who are removed from our midst—perhaps thereby saving our consciences—have to sit like cabbages around the wards because there are not enough nurses to entertain them or keep them alive. Every now and then we have a scandal, and we hear that a male nurse has ill-treated somebody. But we must not simply say that the male nurse was a savage. How far are these nurses aggravated not only by the patients but by the knowledge that their skill and their vocation are being exploited? They are underpaid, and the only weapon which the under-paid worker has in this country is the strike weapon, which we hear about. But the only people who cannot and will not go on strike are the worst paid in the country; and they are the workers of our great National Health Service.
4.42 p.m.
BARONESS HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, a large number of anomalies have been mentioned and I should like to refer to another covering a very important member of the National Health Service; that is, the nurse. I do not know whether it is a general practice in all hospitals—it is certainly so in a hospital which must be very well known to the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, who has asked this Question—that a student nurse in her first year will get a certain salary; in her second year she will, with luck, get a little more

511
but will probably be obliged to move into a better room; and in her third year she will have no option and must move into a much better room. That means that although her salary is increased she loses a large proportion of it, because she has to pay a much larger amount for her room. This is really not an incentive for the nurses to stay on—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill—and it contributes to the wastage of nurses. I feel that there must be a very real lack of contact and communication between those on the spot, who are doing the job, and the Whitley Council.
4.44 p.m.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords, may I add my delight at seeing the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, back again with us looking so well? May I say how much I support the request of my noble friend Lord Reigate for an inquiry into the workings of the Whitley machinery in the National Health Service. I agree with what has been said on this subject this afternoon. I could give many further anomalies, but the most important is that in the Health Service nobody is paid at the same rate for the same work in civilian life. In the last week I have had two examples of this. The first example concerns catering officers. A complaint was made about the food in a great teaching hospital in London, and the answer was, "We cannot get the catering officers because we cannot compete with the outside world in the amount we pay them." The second example is that of technicians in teaching hospitals. We all try to put our technicians into a school, because they get higher pay than the technicians working in the hospitals. Those are two very broad statements of fact; and I know them to be true because I have heard about them in the last few days. Therefore, I beg the Secretary of State to change his mind and make some inquiry into the workings of the Whitley machinery, to see how improvements can be made for all the many people in the Health Service who are dealt with by the Whitley Council.
4.45 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT on HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE):
512
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Reigate for raising this matter this afternoon and for giving rise to a debate which has been of great interest. A number of your Lordships have contributed from your personal knowledge of the working of the Whitley Council, and I will certainly undertake to look at the various points that have been made. It goes to show the immense complication of the matter that so many difficulties have been brought to light this afternoon. There can be no doubt at all about the importance of securing that the National Health Service should have effective machinery for settling these terms and conditions of service. There cannot be any doubt, either, that this is a subject on which it is possible to hold many different views, as emerged in The Times correspondence which has been mentioned this afternoon and from which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, quoted. I appreciate the trouble he took to find out the reactions of the various unions concerned—he is connected with some of them—and although we do not always see eye to eye, certainly the unions concerned play a most helpful part in the Whitley negotiations. May I also add my word of welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, on his return? I may say that I hardly noticed his absence, because he managed to conduct a very spirited correspondence with me even from his hospital bed. But I am delighted that he is now back in person. In the course of my remarks, I will try to touch on some of the points that have been raised.
I do not want to go into any detail about agency nurses and agency typists, but I should like to touch on the subject to start with. We are naturally very concerned, but I do not think it can really be said that it is only a matter of pay. There are a number of nurses who find it a far more convenient way of working and they prefer not to be tied down in the Service. They like the freedom which is given them by an agency contract. They may be married women who want greater freedom and there are other considerations which enter into the matter. As I said, I do not want to go further at the moment into the agency situation, other than saying that we regret very much that there are so many agency nurses who have to be employed, especially in London.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, does the noble Lord suggest that the same consideration applies to typists?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, there are some considerations that apply in the case of typists, yes.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord has tried to gloss over this subject, but the nurses' profession in the hospitals is very much concerned with it. He said that it is not a question of pay, but of course it is. These days, most hospitals are prepared to take married women on a part-time basis and all the conditions offered by the agencies are acceptable in the hospitals. The hospitals are now in such a desperate plight that they will take anybody.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I have not tried to gloss over the matter. I have simply said that this is a problem. As the noble Baroness will find out an agency contract suits many women better and it is not only a question of pay. If you put up the pay for nurses in the Service, the agencies raise the pay of the nurses working for them. None of these matters is simple. The criticism of the Whitley settlements varies according to the viewer's standpoint. Some say they are too complex, some say too rigid, some say too broad, some say too detailed, some say too infrequent and some say too many, but a pay system covering some 700,000 staff in all parts of England, Wales and Scotland, belonging to hundreds of professions, trades and occupations and in the service of several hundred different employing authorities, can hardly be other than complex. I found my noble friend Lord Grenfell's comparison with the Royal Navy very tempting, but I am afraid that the National Health Service is rather more complex, though I am sure the Secretary of State would like to be in the position of the Commander-in-Chief. But if the pay system is unnecessarily complex, any of the parties can seek to change it—and changes have been made. There has been considerable reorganisation and simplification of pay structures for administrative and clerical staff, for senior nurses in connection with the introduction of the Salmon structure, and for ancillary staff following a comprehensive job evaluation.
514
It is clearly the concern of management that pay structures should fit the needs of good organisation. Those who negotiate pay structures need guidance from those concerned with organisation, but it is by no means clear that National Health Service employers in the past have given their Whitley representatives coordinated guidance on the general objectives that they should pursue in negotiation. Objectives should, however, be easier to define when we have an integrated service, and better guidance for the future should flow from the expert study into the management arrangements of the proposed new health authorities. The composition of the Whitley Councils has reflected the special features of the National Health Service, in which the staff are in the employment of hundreds of separate authorities although they are all in fact engaged in providing the same national service. The three Secretaries of State have responsibility to Parliament for the National Health Service as a whole, for achieving high standards, constructive policies, good management and sound finance. It is therefore appropriate that their officials should serve with representatives of the employing authorities on the management sides of the Whitley Council. Their function is not one of negative financial control, and, indeed, the financial constraints observed by National Health Service management are much the sane as those that have to be observed by any public service.
There have been suggestions that the salaries of all Health Service staff, or at least major groups, should be determined by a body independent of management and staff. This was the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, comparing it to the pay review body for doctors and dentists. This would, of course, give local management less opportunity than now for securing their own objectives on recruitment and pay structures. Staff interests would also lose the direct say which they at present enjoy in the Whitley Councils. I have mentioned the wide range of occupational groups which all expect some voice in central negotiations. If we take the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council, for example, which covers some 330,000 staff, we find that its staff side includes 12 professional organisations and trade unions representing every branch of nursing in the hospital and local authority services. I

515
think it is difficult to compare these Whitley Councils, negotiating on behalf of a number of different trades and occupations, with the pay review body for doctors and dentists.
One important fact which is often overlooked is that the Whitley Councils were not set up by Statute or Ministerial decree. They were established by voluntary agreement between the parties, and any departure from the principle of collective bargaining would not work unless it had the general support of both sides. It would be quite wrong, I suggest, to assume that changes of structure cannot be achieved by agreement. The General Council has only recently been reorganised on the management side to be fully representative of the functional council management sides, and this should enhance the possibility of its taking a more active part in the improvement of the Whitley system as a whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said, I think quoting from one of the letters to The Times,"Whiticyism can be improved". We very much hope that it will be, and we see the improved organisation of the General Council as one step in the right direction.
A number of criticisms made, both in The Times and in this House to-day, have centred on three main points: that Health Service salaries arc not comparable with salaries elsewhere, that London weighting is inadequate and that Whitley agreements allow too little discretion for local management. Perhaps I may deal with those three points. First of all, in an organisation as large as the National Health Service there is always someone's pay in need of review at any given time, and, of course, Whitley negotiations are a continuous process of comparison and adjustment. The pay of several key groups of National Health Service staff is kept in line with prevailing levels outside through links with the Civil Service and local government; and as a broad test of whether National Health Service pay is competitive, it is a fact that staff numbers continue to increase in almost every sector.
Secondly, there is the matter of London weighting, which was raised by my noble friend Lord Reigate. London weighting is currently under review in the National Health Service, but in fact it compares generally with levels in the Civil Service
516
and local government. Since the appointed day, London weighting in the National Health Service has followed the arrangements agreed for local government. Preliminary discussions on weighting for non-ancillary staff have taken place in the Whitley Council, following the recent agreement for revised allowances and a new inner weighting area for local government administrative, professional, technical and clerical staff, which is operative from May 1,1971; and discussions on a formal claim are expected to take place shortly. I think my noble friend may like to know the new local government rates, which are £ 144 in the inner zone and £ 105 in the outer zone. The previous local government rates, which are the ones which apply at the moment in the National Health Service, were £ 90 for staff aged over 18 and £ 50 for staff under l8. So I can assure my noble friend that there is movement on the front of London weighting. As for the question of local discretion, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I are anxious to achieve the maximum delegation of authority to local management. There are obvious difficulties in reconciling local discretion on salary levels with pay agreements applying to a national service, but we are considering how to get the right balance between flexibility and uniformity; and, of course, as my noble friend I know agrees, a complete discretion would be a recipe for chaos.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, also raised a question in connection with the adjustment of salary according to the number of beds—and this is indeed a problem. One obvious difficulty is that in many cases a large hospital with a large number of beds carries more responsibility than a small one, and therefore the man doing the job there should reasonably have a higher salary. But, of course, as the noble Lord pointed out, this may well have repercussions in the case of psychiatric hospitals, where they are anxious to cut down on the number of beds, although, as I am sure he is aware, the salary of existing staff is protected.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? They are affected when it comes to their pensions, and not in relation to their existing salaries.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, their existing salary is not reduced if the number of beds is reduced; although the post may be re-classified if they leave it and it is advertised. But the results of management study should help to provide a method of evaluating top posts which is not so dependent, we hope, on bed numbers.
The proposed reorganisation of the National Health Service will require sonic changes in the existing Whitley structure, if only to take account of the new pattern of employing authorities and the inclusion of former local authority staff. But I have to say to my noble friend that the answer, which I know he is expecting, is that we do not think it appropriate to ask an independent body to consider more fundamental changes at thin particular moment. In the first place, as I have said, reorganisation is under consideration. This will necessitate close consultation with the stall interests, and it would be advisable to preserve the established channels of communication in this important period. In the second place, the shape of the negotiating machinery for the reorganised National Health Service should match the new management structure which is still under consideration. In the third place, the existing Whitley machinery is based on voluntary agreement. Any new machinery should recognise the principle of collective bargaining and any changes would most appropriately be achieved through direct discussion between management and staff. That, I think, meets the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy.
In due course, we shall wish to consult the new authorities and the wider staff interests that will be involved in a reorganised service. Meantime, may I repeat how much we value the views expressed by existing management and staff bodies and by those of your Lordships who have spoken to-day and who have been so closely concerned and interested in the efficiency of the Service and the welfare of its staff.