Lords Sitting of 24 February 1972

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.

ART COLLECTIONS: CONTROL OF LOANS AND SALES
LORD STRABOLGI: 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 intend in future to assume the direct responsibility for the lending or disposal of works of art from the national collections.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, no.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Following it, may I ask why in that case his letter to the Trustees last December, as quoted in the Press, said that the freedom to dispose or lend from the collections is one of the strategic areas within the control of the Government? Is he proposing to usurp the Trustees' powers? Is he not aware that in the case of the British Museum, lending and disposal are matters for the Trustees and not for the Department, and that in the case of the National Gallery the right to sell from the collections was abrogated in the 1954 Act?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I wrote in confidence to the Chairmen of the Trustees of certain of the national museums and galleries inviting them to discuss ways in which the Government could hand over to them more responsibility in the management of their affairs. They are all well aware that this is our intention. As regards the powers to lend or sell objects, these vary very widely from one museum to another. Clearly, in those cases where these powers are not already defined by Statute we shall, when
666
devolution takes place, have to be sure what the powers are. The exercise of those powers will, as now, remain with the Trustees.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which I am sure will give great relief.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it would be a great relief to everyone seriously concerned with the Arts if there were a clearer demarcation between the responsibilities of the Minister and the responsibilities of the Trustees? Is he aware that his Ministry appoints the Trustees and there is then the arduous task of raising the maximum amount of financial support from every source? Would it therefore not be better if there were fewer of those instances where Trustees were either resentful or bewildered? Would it not be better if there were a clearer demarcation of duties, the Minister not interfering in the way that I am afraid has happened recently?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, when I was Chairman of the Trustees of the British Museum that is exactly what I wanted. The noble Baroness was then the Minister. Now I am in a position to make this demarcation. It has always been my view—it was so long before I came back to Government—that the Department's interference with our great institutions over small matters promotes inefficiency. Therefore we are now going to discuss together such topics as a three-year budget, the employment and use of the people on their staff and many other matters which will make for more efficiency inside these great institutions. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for pointing out how necessary this is.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, may I respectfully disagree with the Minister? Does he not remember that when his Trustees did him the honour of suggesting that he should be Chairman I at once agreed, because I knew of his great interest in the affairs of the museums? But may I repeat that there has been resentment and confusion about the lack of clarity in the respective duties of the political Minister and of the Trustees which did not occur before and which I do not believe to be in the interests either of the museums or of the Minister?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I am glad to have the support of the noble Baroness thus late in the day.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, when the Minister answers Questions on these subjects, will he differentiate between cases in which the Trustees have freedom to act and cases in which they have freedom to act but will always act in a particular way because the Government pay them the money, as in entrance charges to museums and galleries?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, it is exactly that that I wish to do: to get some uniform system which is clearly understood by the Trustees of all these museums.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, since the noble Viscount referred to a confidential letter which I have not seen but which clearly the newspapers have seen, may I ask whether his Answer, which was "No", was consistent with the reported version? Can he say whether it is correct that the Government will retain control in strategic areas, with the basic conditions, and so on, for disposal? Or is this newspaper report a false one?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: No, my Lords, the report is correct. In the case of certain museums the power to lend or dispose is already laid down by Statute. In the case of others it is not, but they are so much controlled by the Department that in fact it comes to the same thing. When we give devolution of power to these other museums we must surely, in the public interest, define whether or not they have the right to sell objects in their collections. I cannot imagine that any noble Lord would wish the Government to hand over to Trustees the absolute right to sell anything from their collection. It is therefore necessary to define the position in one way or the other, and that is what we intend to do.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the concern is that the Government should be taking this over when in most cases, in fact in every case, they have not the power, except in the case of Departmental museums? With the others, particularly the British Museum and the National Gallery, this is a matter for Trustees or for Parliament,
668
and not for the noble Viscount's Department.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I wish I could make this point clear. These negotiations are concerned solely with giving more power and more responsibility to Trustees. No power which they have to-day will be taken away from them. In fact, in respect of certain of these museums they will enter on a new regime of liberty.

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT PROSECUTIONS
3.13 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: 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 how many persons have been proceeded against under the Official Secrets Act as a result of the defection of Mr. Lyalin; what their professions were; and, if civil servants, their rank.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, it is not the practice to disclose the source of information which leads to criminal proceedings, particularly in cases which involve national security.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his characteristic Answer. Does he believe that the cost/benefit ratio in prosecutions as against expulsion works out in the interests of this country?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to members of diplomatic missions in this country who are asked to leave, I do not think that that subject arises on this Question.

HOUSE PRICES
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what they intend to do to curb the continued and exorbitant increases in the price of houses offered for sale.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, the best hope for an easier market lies in increasing the supply of houses for sale. In 1971 completions in the private sector were nearly 13 per cent. up and starts about 26 per cent. up on 1970. There is every reason to hope for continuation of this rising trend.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that prices should have risen in 1971 by 21 per cent.? Do they think that this helps in the fight against inflation?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, my information is that prices of new houses rose by 12·6 per cent. and that the increase in earnings was 11·2 per cent.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report by the Nationwide Building Society which was issued, I think, at the beginning of this month? Do the Government accept the forecast by Mr. Stanley Morton that a three-bedroom semi-detached house now costing £8,500 could be worth £18,000 in five years?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to look into that matter and write to the noble Lord.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would the noble Lord analyse the figures a little more and tell us what the rise would be in the so-called more desirable areas in the South-East as against the more depressed areas of the country?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, perhaps it would be best if the noble Lord would write to me and say exactly what questions he wants answered, and I will then do my best to supply the answers.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what proportion of the increase in the price of houses we may attribute to the rise in the price of land?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, but not without notice. I will write to the noble Lord.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Question asked the noble Lord what the Government intend to do to curb this trend of increasing prices. Are we to
670
understand that the answer is, "Nothing"?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords, the answer is that we intend to encourage the supply of more houses for sale.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, does not the Minister consider that the so-called "fair rents" Bill, the Housing Finance Bill, is likely to exacerbate the position rather than improve it?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords. The purpose of the Housing Finance Bill is to introduce fair rents as between landlord and tenant and at the same time to apply housing subsidies to the tenants who need them most and in the housing areas where they are most needed. A side-effect may be to increase the demand for owner occupation, but that is a trend which both the noble Lord's Party and mine want to see encouraged.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the price of land in the North-East has shot up, and that it started to do so at the time of the establishment of the Land Commission?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that may well be so.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the undoubted rise in the price of houses is to be regarded principally as a consequence and not a cause of inflation?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think that is very likely so.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, if the noble Lord agrees with his noble friend that the price of land shot up when the Land Commission was established, why has not the price gone down in the same measure now that the Land Commission has been abolished?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, there are no doubt several reasons, but I think one of the most significant is the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, can the Government really sustain their norm of an incomes policy when outgoings in respect of housing are rising, as a result of their policy, as rapidly as they are at the present time?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that takes us into wider matters which do not arise on the original Question.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most noble Lords do not appear to have heard him say in his Answer that the rise in earnings was 11·2 per cent. in the same period?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, is it not a fact that the price of land has risen more steeply since the Land Commission was abolished than before?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that may be so, but there are a number of factors at work, and one of the most significant is the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: The only factor not at work, my Lords, is Her Majesty's Government.

PARLIAMENT: CONTROL OF MASS LOBBIES
3.20 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: 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 is the law controlling assemblies of persons in the vicinity of the Houses of Parliament while Parliament is sitting; and whether the law is being enforced.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the Sessional Order of your Lordships' House and of another place requires the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to facilitate the passage of Members to and from both Houses during the Sittings of Parliament. The Commissioner has been in communication with Black Rod and with the authorities in another place about the control of mass lobbies, and consultations are continuing.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble Leader for going so far as he has, but is not the Sessional Order only part of the story? Has not Parliament in fact passed two Acts of Parliament, both of which I think I am right in saying are still in force, which
672
lay down very strictly the control of assemblies near the Houses of Parliament? The two Acts to which I refer are the Tumultuous Petitioning Act 1661 and the Seditious Meetings Act 1817. Under these two Acts, which, as I say, are still in force, the Commissioner of Police has no discretion whatsoever.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not sure that I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for that supplementary question. I am afraid I must add to his two Acts the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, which is also relevant in this connection. More seriously, I think we should all recognise that there are occasions when there is a conflict between the Commissioner's duty to ensure free access and the natural and understandable desire of large numbers of people to lobby Members. Recently there was a considerable mass lobby, on February 15, by the National Union of Mineworkers when, without any real disorder, some 3,400 persons were admitted to the Palace of Westminster in small groups in order to be able to speak to their Members of Parliament. But there are practical problems here. All I can do is to assure your Lordships that both in another place and here this matter is under earnest consideration at the present time.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I ask my noble Leader this final question? If the two Acts I have mentioned are not enforceable under modern conditions, would it not be better to have them repealed?
EARL JELLLICOE: My Lords, I think that my noble friend might conceivably have a point there.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that whatever consultations take place the right of the populace to demonstrate and see their M.P.s will not be abolished?—because when we get into the Common Market they cannot go to Brussels; they will still have to come here.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I must congratulate the noble Lord on his ingenuity.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that we are grateful for his Answer concerning the National Union of Mineworkers, especially in view of an article which appeared

673
in a widely read American magazine this week and which gave a completely different impression; namely, that there was disorder and anger and irritability on the part of the police?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have no responsibility for what may appear in English magazines, and I have even less responsibility for what may appear in American magazines. However, this matter is being examined by the Services Committee in another place, and it will shortly be looked into by our own Administration Committee. I can once again assure noble Lords that it is the desire of everyone who is looking into this question to try to balance these two factors. It is not easy to do so.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Earl the Leader of the House aware that the moderate and practical approach he has referred to is one that I am sure commends itself fully to Members of both Houses of Parliament? The degree of control that may be necessary, while as little as possible, none the less does occasionally have to take into account some extremist factions which join in these marches.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would say in reply to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that I always agree with him when he says such agreeable things.

BUSINESS
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the proposed relaxation of electricity restrictions at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. It may also be convenient to your Lordships to know that snacks will be available to-night.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Heavy?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am told that, in new of the extremely good effort of the Refreshment Department last night at short notice, the snacks may not be quite so heavy as your Lordships may wish.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his Statement, I should like to echo the gratitude
674
of the House—or at least those Members of the House who were here at a quarter past two this morning.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition.

OXFORDSHIRE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
SAINT ANDREW'S, HOVE, CHURCH YARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

IRON AND STEEL BILL
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment, or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be dscharged.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Social Work (Scotland) Act was brought in by the previous Government in 1968 and has since been carried on by the present Government, and with local authorities throughout Scotland. I think it is a very good Act of Parliament, and as Chairman of the Social Work Committee for the County of Roxburgh I strongly approve of the Act and what it has done both in dealing with juvenile delinquency and with general social work.
There is however a matter which is causing some concern, and the Bill which

675
I am introducing to-day is designed to deal with it. In April of last year Part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act came into operation abolishing the juvenile courts in Scotland and setting up in their place a system of children's hearings. From then on all children under the age of 16 (with some minor exceptions) who may be in need of compulsory measures of care have been referred to an official in each local authority known as a reporter. His duty is to decide on the facts available to him whether a child should be brought before a children's hearing for consideration of his case. The function of the hearing is to decide what should be done in the best interests of the child. The hearing has no powers to adjudicate on the grounds on which the case has been referred to them. If there is any dispute about the grounds of referral, the child and his parents have the right to ask for these grounds to be established by the sheriff. Once the grounds of referral have either been accepted by the child and his parents, or established by the sheriff, the hearing then decides whether the child should be made subject to a supervision requirement or whether his case should be discharged.
Most cases brought to a hearing are disposed of within a month of being notified to the reporter; but if a case has to go to the sheriff, this will of course protract the proceedings, and occasionally it may take up to three months before a case can be disposed of by a hearing. When such a delay arises in the case of a child who is approaching his sixteenth birthday, there is a possibility that the hearing may not be able to dispose of the case before the child attains the age of 16, and this is where the difficulty has arisen which the present Bill is intended to remedy.
As the 1968 Act stands, a children's hearing has no power to impose a supervision requirement on someone who is over the age of 16 unless he is already subject to a previous supervision requirement. In this event he is regarded as a child until he reaches the age of 18 at which point any supervision requirement ceases to have effect. If, for example, a child of 15 years 11 months who is not already under supervision is charged with committing an offence and is brought before a children's hearing, he or his
676
parents have the right to ask that the alleged offence with which he is charged shall be proved against him before the sheriff. The case must therefore be sent to the sheriff, who will decide whether the facts are as alleged. By the time the sheriff has established the facts and the child has been brought back to a fresh children's hearing he may well have passed his sixteenth birthday, and the hearing has no power to impose a supervision requirement on him. The child could not therefore be dealt with for the offence. This is clearly an unsatisfactory situation and it has been necessary to make an administrative arrangement, which my noble friend the Minister of State for the Scottish Office may wish to describe, to deal with such cases until the 1968 Act can be amended.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this is an unsatisfactory situation, and the Bill which I am at the moment introducing will remedy this defect that has come to light since Part III of the 1968 Act was brought into operation last year. It continues the jurisdiction of a children's hearing over a child whose case has been referred to them and who is not already under supervision until they have disposed of his case, even though he may have passed his sixteenth birthday before the conclusion of the proceedings. I think your Lordships will agree that it is unsatisfactory if this axe, as it were, comes down at the age of 16 while the case is still under jurisdiction. I therefore beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
3.32 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I should like to extend our support to the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness. This is the second day in succession on which your Lordships have been engaged in correcting defects in the law. The only difference between to-day and yesterday is that it has not taken the Scots fifty years to find out where the mistake was made, and for this we are grateful to the noble Baroness. I think that the case she has made is absolutely unanswerable and we are delighted to be able to support it.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, on behalf of the Government I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood on introducing this very useful measure, which will remedy the defect which she has so ably described to the House. I would only say that I think it is a little early yet to see the result of the hearing, but I understand that a great many parents and children do feel that much time and study is being given to their problems. I think the House would wish to join me in paying tribute to all those who give up their time voluntarily to serve on these panels, and I have very much pleasure in supporting my noble friend.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for his support from the Opposition Benches and also my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir. I trust that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—[Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1. [General duty of Secretary of State.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I took this opportunity, which seems to be
678
the right moment on whether the clause shall stand part, particularly having regard to the words
"effective provision of an integrated health service",
to make a brief statement about a Health Service Commissioner in Scotland, because, as has been made clear in a Statement by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in another place and my noble friend the Minister of State here to your Lordships, the Government have decided that there should be a Health Service Commissioner as part of the arrangements for dealing with complaints in the National Health Service. So far as Scotland is concerned, the present Bill provides a suitable opportunity to include the necessary provisions. These will take a little time to prepare and it will therefore be our intention to introduce new clauses when the Bill reaches another place.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful that the noble Baroness has taken this early opportunity to make that statement, because, as she will recollect, it deals with one of the points I raised on Second Reading. Having read only Press reports of what was said about this subject, I cannot say that I am happy about the way in which the references to the Commissioner are being circumscribed. But I have no doubt that if these clauses are to he introduced in another place we shall hear a great deal more about them and shall have something to work on when they come back to us for reconsideration in due course. I am glad that, in whatever form the Health Commissioner's function may be carried out, the Government have reached this decision in time for it to be incorporated in the Bill.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2. [Provision of accommodation and medical, etc., services]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 25, leave out ("or") and insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: My first Amendment refers to Clause 2(c) which reads:
"medical, nursing or other services, …"
In the 1947 Act the reference was:
"medical, nursing and other services …"

679
This may seem a small point, but Parliament and its draftsmen are very particular about the meaning of "and" and "or" and I wondered whether there was any significance in the change of wording on this occasion. I must say that the use of the word "and" in this connection is preferable, because there can be cases when all the services are needed. The use of the word "or" almost connotes that there would be a choice and that one might be provided instead of another—a nursing service might be provided instead of a medical service or some other service might be provided instead of a medical or nursing service. It ought to be made perfectly clear that the duty of the Secretary of State is to cover the whole range: I think there is no doubt on that point. May I say at this early stage that in putting down Amendments to this Bill I have not, with one solitary exception to which I shall refer in due course, sought to make any political points whatever. All the Amendments are Amendments which can be discussed on their merit and for which support will not necessarily fall upon one side of the House or the other. This is a typical example, and in moving this Amendment I should be glad to hear what the noble Baroness has to say in reply.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Perhaps the noble Lord will be glad to hear that I think his Amendment is an improvement on the present situation, and I am very glad to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.40 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 5, leave out from ("as") to end of line 5 and insert ("may be prescribed").
The noble Lord said: That is a very good start, but I am very suspicious of good starts. It is much better to get a "No" on the little things and to get a good answer on the things that really matter. I hope the noble Baroness will continue with the good work. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I spoke to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together. This Amendment is that in page 2 we should leave out from "as" in line 5 and insert the words,
680
"may be prescribed". Subsection (2) concludes:
"… shall be made available for those services on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State may determine."
The Amendment which I am moving would make that subsection read:
"shall be made available … on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed."
Noble Lords will recollect that on Second Reading I referred to the fact that this Bill was largely a skeleton and that in due course there would follow many regulations and orders. All the regulations which are made will be subject to Parliamentary procedure, mostly by Negative Resolution procedure but, in a few cases, by the Affirmative Resolution procedure; and some of the orders will be subject to Negative Resolution procedure. The great majority of the orders which are to be made under the Bill will not be subject even to the Negative Resolution procedure.
When I queried this position, I was informed—and I did not disagree with what the noble Baroness said—that the Parliamentary procedure was being reserved for what could be regarded as the more important of the orders. The benefit of orders being made, even though they are not subject to Parliamentary approval one way or another, is that Members of both Houses can be made aware of what is taking place. I am not certain that it is nearly so easy for Members either of another place or of your Lordships' House to become aware of things which the Secretary of State may determine. My reason for moving this Amendment is that these are important decisions which may be made. It is right that Parliament should be made aware of what is being done so that if someone is not satisfied, or does not have sufficient knowledge about the position, they will be in a position to ask a question in Parliament about it, although they will not be able to debate the order itself; whereas, if it is as laid down in the Bill at the present time that the Secretary of State may determine it, quite a long time might elapse before any Member of either House of Parliament knew anything about it.
These are important points and it is right that when we legislate in this skeleton form as much as possible of the subsequent decisions should come automatically to the attention of any Member

681
of either House who is interested in the matter, and he should not have to go ferreting out what the Secretary of State might quite legitimately have determined but which, in the ordinary course of events, would not come to the notice of Parliament. The next Amendment follows exactly the same lines. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I appreciate the point which was made by the noble Lord on Second Reading. I am afraid that he was right in that I cannot accept all his Amendments. I suggest to the House that the reasons why these two Amendments are not suitable for the Parliamentary procedure which the noble Lord had in mind are these. The provision by means of a determination for charging for the use of National Health Service premises has already been precedented in Section 15(5) of the 1947 Act. This deals with the availability of facilities at health centres for family practitioners to carry out Part IV services. It provides for charges to be fixed by the determination of the Secretary of State. The same arrangements apply under Section 15(6) of the 1947 Act which deals with the use by practitioners of health centre facilities for private practice. Over the years—and it is a long time now—these provisions have not given rise to any difficulty. There are a considerable number both of regulations and orders in this Bill as a whole which are subject to Parliamentary procedure; but we feel that the purpose of the Bill overall is to simplify the administration. The terms and conditions which have already arisen for use by general practitioners of particular premises which have not already been subject to any difficulty in the previous Act, and where there is no issue of principle, would only add to the complexity of the Bill. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will feel that this is so.
LORD HUGHES: I cannot say that I am absolutely convinced on this matter at the moment. I should prefer to study what the noble Baroness has said when I read it in due course in the Report of these proceedings. In view of what I have said, I do not want to add needlessly to the complexities of the legislation, but I want Parliament to have the
682
fullest opportunity of considering important matters. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment but I may come back to it at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Provision of medical, dental, etc., services]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: Clause 3 is a simple and short clause about which my noble friend Lord Hoy commented on Second Reading. I have a number of points to raise and it will become apparent to members of the Committee that I have come under the influence of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, because I am querying points of language rather than points of law. This matter might well come into this category. The clause reads:
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to secure the provision of general medical, general dental, pharmaceutical and general ophthalmic services …"
Reading this, the thought occurred to me why the word "general" should be used in regard to three of the services but not of the fourth. I have no doubt at all that this will be precedented in the 1947 Act, and I have no doubt at all that there is a sound reason for it, but quite honestly I do not know what it is.
It will be perhaps for the convenience not of the Committee but the noble Baroness if I continue my remarks for a few minutes longer so that her colleague may furnish her with material which will enable her to make a suitable reply, provided that it does not take too long to work out the answer. The longer it takes to find the answer the more doubtful I shall be about the reason for it being there at all. I must apologise to the noble Baroness, I cannot keep speaking any longer; but I see that the noble Lord is on his way back.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Happily I can observe that under Part IV of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, from which this particular clause is modelled, it is described as "general medical and dental services, etc."
LORD HUGHES: That I have no doubt about. What I want to know is why it is not necessary to talk about "general pharmaceutical services". I thought that that was the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would be bringing back to the noble Baroness.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: If I may speak again, I suppose that the noble Lord is correct. One could say—and it may be better language—"medical, dental, pharmaceutical and ophthalmic services". The only reason why "general" is in the Bill is, as I have said, because it is modelled on the 1947 Act which, if I remember rightly, was the responsibility of the Party opposite.
LORD HUGHES: But we are discussing a Bill after 25 years of operation of the Act and we are agreed that there are certain ways in which even that wonderful Act can be improved by 1972. I cannot therefore accept that in those cases where an answer is not readily forthcoming the obvious one is that in 1947 perfection was achieved and we cannot do better. I will let the point rest at that, but it makes better sense—or it removes undue suspicion—if there is not an apparent differentiation against the pharmaceutical services; and I shall put down an Amendment for the next stage, which I hope the noble Baroness will either accept or give good reasons for rejecting.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Care of mothers and young children]:
3.51 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("to meet all reasonable requirements").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment. The clause as it stands says:
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make arrangements, to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements …"
and so on. I do not think words should be in legislation unless they serve some useful purpose and, quite frankly, I cannot see what is gained by adding the
684
words "to meet all reasonable requirements", particularly as that phrase follows the words "as he considers necessary". Presumably if the Secretary of State, having looked at the matter in his nice room in St. Andrew's House, or in his equally nice room in Dover House, has come to the conclusion that it is necessary to do something, no one, in Scotland at any rate, would suggest that the Secretary of State was considering it necessary to do something which was not reasonable or was intended to meet unreasonable requirements. For that reason, it seems to me that the words are quite needless, and if there are fewer words to print it must at the end of the day contribute to a certain amount of economy in all the subsequent reprinting. I therefore beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: This particular form of words is used elsewhere in the Bill and is precedented. However, I am always anxious to try to improve the English of Bills and am therefore glad to thank the noble Lord for his contribution and shall be glad to accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Medical and dental inspection, supervision and treatment of pupils and young persons]:
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: On Clause 6 I wish to raise two points which might be termed "Conesford points". The noble Baroness will probably be able to give a satisfactory explanation on the first. The Bill refers to:
"medical and dental inspection, at appropriate intervals, and for the medical and dental supervision …".
I am wondering exactly what are the differences between "inspection" and "supervision". It seems to me that in the ordinary use of language either of these words would cover the whole field. One possibility of course is that "inspection" refers to the actual work on an individual child or a number of children, whereas "supervision" might be general overseeing arrangements. If an explanation of that kind applies, then I am not unhappy about it.

685
With regard to trying to put into Bills language of the kind people will understand when they read them, I wonder why, when we read the proviso, we find this language:
"if the parent of any child or young person gives to the authority notice …".
Who on earth would ever speak or write like that—"gives to the authority notice"? Why cannot it be the more simple, ordinary, everyday language: "gives notice to the authority"? It does not make a ha'penny worth of difference which way it is done, but over and over in the Bill we find phrases such as this. I know that it is not always possible in legislation to put matters in ways which are immediately understood by people: a matter may be complicated and some form of legal wording may be necessary. But this seems to me to be a case of being awkward for the sake of being awkward. Perhaps the noble Baroness will tell me what she thinks of these two points.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I would agree with the noble Lord on the second point concerning the words "gives to the authority notice", which I must confess I had not particularly picked up. But the phrase is copied from Section 61 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962. On the noble Lord's first question regarding the difference between "inspection" and "supervision", this wording also is used merely because it replaces the relevant provisions, Section 58(1) and (2), of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962.
LORD HUGHES: I take it that if at the next stage I seek to tidy up the language relating to the second point the noble Baroness will be able to make another early start in accepting an Amendment from me. On the first point, it seems to me that it is not necessarily the best way of going about things just to go to the old Act with a pair of scissors and a pot of gum, and to cut out the bits and paste them into new legislation and say, "Well, we now have the start of a new Act." There is something to be said for trying to achieve the results in fewer words. However, I am not certain in my own mind that "supervision" and "inspection" are in every case identical, so I will not come back on that point. But I will put down an Amendment on the other point, and I am
686
grateful to the noble Baroness for her indication.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Educational and research facilities]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: I have another point in connection with language. Clause 9 states:
"It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make available such facilities, in any premises provided by him under the Health Service Acts, as appear to him to be reasonably required for undergraduate and postgraduate clinical teaching and research and for the education and training of persons providing or having it in contemplation to provide …".
Who on earth thought up that phrase, "having it in contemplation"? First of all, what is "it"? Why cannot the phrase be "providing or comtemplating to provide services under those Acts"? It seems to be an absolute nonsense to use a phrase such as that in the Bill, and I am quite certain that if I put down an Amendment to alter the words here, or if the noble Baroness herself will do so, the Committee will be happier about Clause 9.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: May I say to the noble Lord that I am most grateful to him for his points concerning the English language. Perhaps we can get together afterwards and see whether we can improve it.
Clause 9 agreed to.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: May I move that the House do now resume, to hear a Statement.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

COAL STRIKE: ELECTRICITY SUPPLIES
4.0 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if it is for the convenience of your Lordships I should like now to repeat a Statement

687
that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the House on Monday last that the situation on electricity supplies had improved as a result of a number of factors, particularly the withdrawal of pickets from the power stations. He added that the immediate priority would be to get industry back into full production as soon as possible. Since then the recovery programme for getting fuel supplies to power stations has made very good progress and substantial quantities of coal and essential supplies have been delivered and much more is on the way.
"On the assumption that there is a favourable outcome to the miners' ballot, it is my intention to revoke with effect from midnight Sunday the directions prohibiting the use of electricity by industry on certain specified days. I must, however, point out that on their two high risk days they will still be subject to rota disconnections. Those large consumers who have received directions to restrict their demand and consumption to 60 per cent. of normal will be permitted to increase their consumption to 85 per cent. of normal.
"There are some points which I must emphasise. The most important is that this relaxation, which will only be made if there is a favourable outcome of the miners' ballot, assumes there will be a full and rapid return to work in the pits. It assumes, too, that all classes of consumers will co-operate to exercise maximum economy in the use of electricity. If consumers do not exercise economy, and of course if weather conditions are abnormally bad, the resulting overload on the generating system could lead to disconnections on what are at present medium risk days. There is, therefore, an element of risk in the proposed relaxation, but against the background of heavy unemployment and the full co-operation from the public so far the Government think this risk should be accepted. Following discussions with the C.B.I., this particular measure
688
of relaxation has been chosen in order to enable industry to begin getting back towards full-time working as soon as possible.
"For the time being the other restrictions must remain. But I have the position under constant review and shall introduce further relaxations as soon as circumstances permit."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for making that Statement. And as I think this is the first official occasion since his new important appointment was made, may I offer him the congratulations of your Lordships' House and, in all sincerity, wish him Godspeed in the really important task which rests on his shoulders? Whatever the circumstances have been, we are at one in wanting the fullest employment by industry and by employees at the earliest possible opportunity.
Arising out of the Statement, I should like to ask the noble Earl one or two questions. Having regard to the statement which was made publicly, I think to-day, by the Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers that they would co-operate in any way in providing extra working in order to restore normal conditions as soon as possible (that was the spirit of Mr. Daly's statement, although I have not the exact wording), and also having regard to the very reasonable assumption which is made in the Minister's Statement that the ballot is likely to be favourable in its conclusion, can the noble Earl tell us when he expects full working to be resumed by industry? Can he also tell us when, if things go reasonably well, normal conditions are likely to be restored on the domestic front?
Finally, inasmuch as the Statement refers to consultations and discussions with the C.B.I., may I ask the noble Earl whether any discussions have taken place with either the T.U.C. or the National Union of Mineworkers, and whether it is his intention (as I very much hope it is in pursuit of repairing fences with the maximum rapidity) to resume consultations with the National Union of Mineworkers as soon as the ballot is over?
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl for

689
making the Statement and at the same time to express to him my congratulations and those of my noble friends on these Benches on the new and important appointment which he holds and in which we all wish him success. I am sure that everybody will do his best to help him towards achieving that success. I am interested in what has been said about the future supplies of electricity to industry, but I wonder whether the noble Earl can tell us anything more about the supplies to domestic users than is said in the Statement?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for what they have said about me personally, which I very much appreciate. I also recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has done—and I appreciate it—that, whatever our feelings may be about the origins of this dispute, there is an assential unity of purpose which I am sure we all share at the present moment.
Secondly, in answer to the question put to me by both noble Lords opposite in regard to time factors, a number of imponderables are involved here. The first imponderable is the result of the ballot, but I agree that we are all optimistic in that respect. The second imponderable involves the expectation of a good return to work on Monday in the mines, and here again I think we all have a reasonable degree of optimism on that score. The third imponderable is the as yet unknown factor: the degree of damage that has been incurred in the mines as a result of the strike. In that connection, I have not seen the full text of the statement made by the Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, to which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, referred, but I have seen a short "potted" version and I very much appreciate the terms of that statement. The fourth imponderable is our old friend the British weather, and that is something that none of us can really adequately predict. The fifth is a very important imponderable which I hope in practice is not an imponderable, and that is the degree of self-restraint and economy which the domestic consumers, including
690
noble Lords opposite and noble Lords on this side of the House, will exercise from now onwards. This is a very important factor indeed.
But, my Lords, given a reasonable run, given a reasonable break with those imponderables—to use the jargon, if I may—it is our expectation that normal supplies to both the industrial consumer and the domestic consumer should be available within a period of two to three weeks. I am deliberately being vague because we are updating the position almost from moment to moment, and there are these imponderables. I think that is the best indication that I can give noble Lords at the moment. In response to the third question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I hope to see Mr. Victor Feather this afternoon and I have noted what the noble Lord has said about consultations with representatives of the N.U.M.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is there not another imponderable; namely, the extent of the damage that may be found when the mines are actually opened? May I ask the noble Earl whether, within his new authority, he will have some powers of activity in the provision from industry of the spare parts and engineering equipment needed in order to put the mines into full operation?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the matter to which the noble Lord has referred was in fact my third imponderable. I note the suggestion which he has made, and so far as my own responsibilities are concerned I should like to make one thing quite clear. I must say that I was rather flattered to see myself described in a famous organ of the Press to-day as a "Supremo". It is very nice to live just for a moment in the company of the "Monties" and the "Mount-battens" of this world. But may I say that I visualise my task as being somewhat different, which is to give what assistance and what back-up I possibly can to those Departments and Ministers and organisations who are grappling, and grappling with a very real measure of success, with the present situation.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Health Boards]:
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: There are a number of questions that I should like to ask about this clause on which I think it would be appropriate for the noble Baroness to elaborate. This is the clause setting up Health Boards. The White Paper gave certain indications as to what the Secretary of State's thinking was in this matter, the number of Boards which might be set up and the size of the Boards. I wonder whether the noble Baroness is in a position to tell the Committee if it is still the Secretary of State's intention to set up the number of Boards with, roughly speaking, the boundaries which were indicated in the White Paper last year?
Secondly, there has been a certain amount of disquiet about the proposed size of the Boards. I recognise that in this matter there are difficulties in both directions. If you make a Board with the wide range of responsibilities that these Boards are going to have sufficiently wide to enable all the sorts of interests that might reasonably expect to have a right to be included in the membership of the Boards, there is a danger that they may be too unwieldy. On the other hand, if you want to make them very workable Boards with a number that makes for smooth working in what will be a very important and sometimes difficult task, then it becomes terribly difficult to give the breadth of experience that is desirable on the Boards. I think a figure of a possible membership of 15 was mentioned. Having looked at the proposed areas in the White Paper, with some of the Boards I think a membership of 15 would be very suitable looked at from almost any point of view. But there will be others, particularly in some of the more populous areas, where a Board of
692
15 would be unduly small. I would like the Minister, if she finds it possible, to give us some indication of the kind of variation in size of the Boards that the Secretary of State might have in mind.
Finally on Clause 13, subsection (6) reads:
"Regulations … may make provision requiring Health Boards to submit to the Secretary of State a scheme for the exercise of their functions, and enabling the Secretary of State to approve, with or without modifications, any such scheme and to make such a scheme in the event of the failure of any Health Board so to do."
Can the noble Baroness give us some idea of what kind of scheme the Secretary of State has in mind should be put forward by the Health Boards, the kind of things which these schemes would cover? I have put down no Amendments to this clause because on the face of it it seems to be reasonable, but whether or not anything needs to be done would depend to a certain extent on what the noble Baroness has to say in reply to the questions that I have put forward.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: In answer to the noble Lord's first question, if he will look at the Appendix to the White Paper he will see that the 14 proposed Health Boards there set out give an estimated population in thousands in each area, and they are also compared with the corresponding local government regions and districts. The noble Lord spoke particularly of the very populous areas. Taking Argyll and the Clyde, Glasgow, Lanarkshire and Ayrshire and Arran, those four Board areas are part of the proposed West Region in local government. We have tried in this very populous area to divide up the numbers more than was proposed under local government, and I will not go into the reasons why the Western area under local government is so very large.
But I would take this opportunity to say that we propose now to have a fifteenth Health Board and this will be in the Western Isles. This is because since the White Paper on Local Government was issued—and we had considerable consultations, as the noble Lord will remember—we announced last December that for local government purposes the Western Isles would be given "most-purpose" status, and for these reasons we feel that the balance of advantage lies in giving an extra completely separate

693
Health Board to the Western Isles. We have already proposed that there should be a separate Health Board for the Orkneys and Shetland, and both those and the proposed Board for the Western Isles will have smaller populations and Health Services resources; a Western Isles Health Board will need to keep close links, like the Orkney and Shetland area, with a large mainland Health Board. From comments received on the White Paper, this decision to create a fifteenth Health Board is, I understand, likely to be very acceptable to local interests.
On the second point which the noble Lord raised, subsection (6) of Clause 13, we have recently circulated discussion papers—and I think he has received a copy—to all those concerned on area and district management structures, and until we have had comments on those papers I do not feel I can say more here. They are very long and considerably detailed, and we feel that we should have the advice of those who are likely to have to manage these particular schemes.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Baroness has, I think, jumped from point one to point three; she referred to my point three as the second point. My second point was the number of members on the Boards. May I take it that her reference to the creation of a fifteenth Board for the Western Isles means that as at present advised it is the Secretary of State's intention to proceed with Boards along the lines indicated in the White Paper, because there is nothing in the Bill to indicate that? I take it that this means that the scheme which will go forward in due course will be for 14 Boards, plus one, with the necessary amendment, the creation of that fifteenth Board.
I should like to have some information about the range of members, because in the case of the last Board, for instance, it might be a little difficult to find 15 suitable members for a Board for the Western Isles. I hope that remark does not get undue prominence in any paper circulating in the Western Isles or I shall be in difficulty. However, finding 15 members could be a very different proposition in one of the four Boards in the Western Region. Therefore, could the noble Baroness say something about that?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I regret that I did not
694
refer to the second point that the noble Lord raised on the number of members; I was concentrating on the number of Health Boards. We said in the White Paper that so far as the number of members on the Health Boards is concerned we would propose that it should be of the order of 15, but I believe I also said on Second Reading that the number would obviously vary according to areas. As the noble Lord rightly said, in the Western Isles, for example, there would probably be fewer, while in a highly populated district there could be more. "Of the order of 15"as to give some kind of indication.
LORD HOY: May I raise one point with the noble Baroness in regard to subsection (6), under which Health Boards have to submit schemes to the Secretary of State who may approve them with or without modification? In the concluding lines it says:
"and to make such a scheme in the event of the failure of any Health Board so to do."
Could the noble Baroness tell us why this is necessary? I have no doubt that she will say that this provision was included in the 1947 Act or the 1962 Act, but if that is so then she will be able to tell us on how many occasions the Secretary of State had to resort to these powers. There may be some good reason for it, but I simply cannot see it, because I cannot imagine that any Board would refuse to submit to the Secretary of State a scheme with regard to their functions, and carry their refusal to such an extent that the Secretary of State had to impose a scheme on them. I should be grateful to know the reason for this provision's inclusion in the Bill.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: It is really only what one would call a "default power". I should think it would be very rare indeed—in fact, probably never—that a Health Board would not produce a scheme. As the noble Lord rightly said, it is based on previous legislation about these schemes. I think it is merely a default power, and if it were not included it would probably not be necessary, but it is put there just to make it sure and definite that under the Bill a scheme must be submitted.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Local Health Councils]:
4.23 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 7, line 25, after ("with") insert ("a local authorities in or for the area or district concerned and")
The noble Lord said: The Bill brings forward this concept of local health councils, something which is new to the National Health Service and which is perhaps a necessary thing in view of the concentrating of executive control in these new bodies called Health Boards. It seems to me that in the concept of these local health councils the Government, in the way the Bill is framed, appreciate the fact that local authorities are the sort of bodies who are going to be particularly interested in membership of these local health councils.
The first Amendment on the clause which I make is at line 25, and if my Amendment were incorporated it would read:
"Where, on representations made to him by a Health Board, the Secretary of State is satisfied, after consultation with local authorities in or for the area or district concerned and with such interests as appear to him to be concerned, …"
It seems to me to be of particular importance that if the Secretary of State is going to accept the position that in any particular Board it is not necessary to have a health council, he should be under a particular obligation to have asertained the opinion of the local authorities in the area, because I am quite certain that if they are concurring in the arrangements, whatever form they may take, which would make it unnecessary to have a health council, he will not be in any difficulties with anybody else in the area. But if he accepted that there was not a scheme and the local authorities had not in fact been consulted, it might cause a lot of needless trouble. I am quite certain that the Secretary of State would not deliberately fail to consult all or any of the local authorities in the area, but it has been known to happen that when somebody is looking at a piece of legislation, by mistake someone can be omitted. I do not say that if my Amendment were inserted it would ensure that everybody who ought to be consulted would be, but it would at least make it certain
696
that none of the local authorities concerned would be omitted.
While this Amendment is going against the general trend of my Amendments so far, which has been to exclude unnecessary words, I do think that it is a useful inclusion. If it did not do anything else, it would at least get the health council off to a good start with the local authorities concerned, because by putting it in the Bill the fact that it was the intention of Parliament that local authorities in the area should have a special interest in these health councils would be emphasised. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that it is most important that the local authorities should be brought into consultation on these matters. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to ensure that local authorities were always consulted. If he looks at the following subsection he will see that as some of the members of the local health councils will be appointed by the local authorities, it is difficult to conceive of the present obligation to consult not being held to apply to those authorities. On the other hand, I agree with him that it is very important, and perhaps is reassuring to people, that they should know that this really is the intention of Parliament. Therefore I have great pleasure in accepting his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.28 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 34, after ("prescribed") insert ("such number being not less than two thirds of the total membership,").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to the next subsection to which the noble Baroness has just referred. The subsection which we have just amended deals with the situation where a local health council was not to be appointed. This subsection (3) deals with the case where local health councils are to be appointed. I have stressed the importance of local authorities in this field. The difficulty is that the way in which the Government have decided to go ahead with these bodies means that they are not elected bodies. None of these bodies is

697
elected. The Health Boards themselves are going to be creatures of the Secretary of State and will all be appointed by him. On the other hand, the health councils are going to include people who, though not elected and not chosen by the consumers, in so far as they are local authority members are the next best thing; they will be members chosen by the elected representatives in the area. I think it was the position in previous legislation that in certain directions a minimum number was laid down, and a maximum number laid down in others. In regard to the Regional Hospital Boards, for instance, I remember that it was laid down that the number of medical practitioners should not exceed a certain part of the total membership of the Board. I have suggested that it would be reasonable to include a minimum proportion in the composition of these Boards and my Amendment calls for two-thirds. I would not necessarily die in the last ditch for two-thirds, but it is perhaps reasonable that at least half of the membership of these councils should he chosen by local authorities in the area. But in the context of the job that these councils will have to do, I think that two-thirds is perhaps the reasonable figure. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I regret having to say to the noble Lord that I do not really feel that I can accept this Amendment. The effect of it would be to limit the freedom of tile Health Board in appointing other members of the local health council; for instance, after consulting voluntary bodies such as patients' organisations, the Red Cross, the W.R.V.S. and groups which represent special interests in a certain area. Under the Amendment, membership reflecting such interests would need to be outnumbered at least two to one by local authority appointees. I accept what the noble Lord said about two-thirds perhaps being too high but, as I tried to make clear on the previous Amendment, the importance of local authority appointment of some members is simply not in question. That is why subsection (3) states that local authorities, as elected bodies, will have an obvious job to do in providing members who are in touch with local opinion. It is for that reason, and because it is necessary to recognise the interests of both
698
regional and district authorities when a local health council is formed, that the number of places to be filled by them will be given formal expression in regulations, but will not necessarily be tied to a certain proportion. But of course their importance in nominating is without question, and in order to leave them with some freedom of action I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: I should like to make it quite clear that this is a field of activity where we ought to be trying to proceed as much as possible by agreement, and it is certainly not my intention to-day to divide the Committee on any of the Amendments which I have put forward. I should be content to withdraw this Amendment if I could get an assurance from the noble Baroness, not on any figure of membership, but that the Secretary of State accepts that a major part, or perhaps I should say an important part, of the membership of these councils would come from the local authorities. It is reasonable that such members should be in a majority, but there might be cases where bodies are small and even to give them a majority might be to exclude somebody from the Red Cross, the W.R.V.S. or some such organisation, who could serve a very useful purpose in a certain area, not merely because of the body from which he comes but because of his own suitable qualifications for being on a council of that kind. If the noble Baroness will assure me that the Secretary of State accepts that, in the ordinary course of events, the local authority field is the most important to which he would look for membership of these health councils, I shall be content and will not only withdraw the Amendment but will not feel it necessary to come back to it.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I always hesitate to use words like "major" or "important" because that often leads to a considerable debate on their interpretation. But I can certainly give the noble Lord an assurance that it is quite clear, as indeed is stated in subsection (3), that the local authorities will have very important work to do. But I think we want to leave freedom to vary the membership of these councils from area to area for the reason which he himself gave; that in some

699
areas there might be more voluntary workers with much to contribute, while in other areas there might not be such people. But certainly local authorities are very important.
LORD HUGHES: I can envisage the noble Baroness moving the Amendment which I have moved if the Election had gone the other way, and I can equally envisage myself giving the answer which she has just given. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.36 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 8, line 1, after ("for") insert ("additional expenditure incurred or").
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, and my noble friend Lady White raised the question of women serving on committees, and mentioned the difficulties in which they might find themselves because they were not entitled to compensation for loss of remunerative time. This Amendment proposes to make subsection (6) read:
"… including compensation for additional expenditure incurred or loss of remunerative time".
I believe that this is a form of words which exists in relation to local government. It does not go so far as the noble Earl or my noble friend wanted, but at least it goes a little further forward and by using a form which is similar or identical to local government procedure it at least keeps in step. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: While I naturally wish to see as many married or single women as possible taking their part in the National Health Service, I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment for the very good reason that it is unnecessary. If the noble Lord will look at the words in subsection (6) immediately preceding those which he wishes to amend, he will see that they make possible the payment of "other allowances", of which compensation for loss of remunerative time is only one example. This wording is precedented in Section 37 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968,
700
which provides for the payment of allowances to members of the present health authorities. It also provides for
"… any additional expenses to which he"—
or, in this case, she—
"would not otherwise have been subject being … incurred by the member for the purpose of enabling him"—
or her—
"to perform his duties".
I am glad to say that the power would cover—as it does in the Local Government (Scotland) Act—expenses for baby sitters and, where absolutely necessary, for home helps. Therefore the same arrangements would continue in the future. Because of the way subsection (6) is drafted, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: I find that a completely satisfactory explanation, and I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [University Liaison Committees]:
On Question, Whether Clause 15 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HOY: May I ask one question in connection with Clause 15? Under present legislation we have medical education committees, but under the proposals in this Bill these committees will go out of existence and will be replaced by university liaison committees. I understand that with this change the terms of reference of the new committees will be somewhat wider. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could explain to us just why the change has to take place and what in fact the widening of the terms of reference really means.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: There was a Working Party which recommended the procedure which is set out in Clause 15. This clause should also be read with Part II of Schedule I to the Bill, which perhaps gives a rather better idea of the sort of members who would be appointed to these committees. They will concern not only those who are in the medical schools but also, for instance,

701
Strathclyde University, which is bioengineering. For that reason, the arrangements which now exist are, of course, widened.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16. [Local Consultative Committees.]:
4.42 p.m.
LORD PLATT LORD PLATT moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 10, line 2, leave out from ("Committees") in line 2 to end of line 3.
The noble Lord said: In proposing this Amendment I should like to assure your Lordships that there is nothing particularly sinister about it. It is not the thin edge of any wedge, or an attempt to have the Health Service ruled by the medical profession. But it seems to me that the words on page 10, in lines 2 and 3, which I suggest should be omitted, are unnecessarily restrictive, have no particular purpose and could be a considerable nuisance. Your Lordships will know, of course, that Clause 16 deals with the recognition by the Secretary of State of certain area committees, of which one, of course, is the medical committee, though others are no doubt of equal importance. It seems to some of us that the area medical committee might, for instance, consist of seven or eight doctors of different kinds—perhaps from health services, from preventive medicine and public health, and from general practice—and that it might be wise for such a committee to have a sub-committee on, shall we say, general practice. Subsection (8) allows such a sub-committee to be formed, but then says that this subcommittee should be
"composed as to a majority of members of the committee".
That is of the main committee. That seems to me unnecessary. As I say, it might be a fairly small committee on which there are only perhaps three general practitioners, and if you want a sub-committee of general practitioners containing perhaps seven or eight you are not allowed to do it because of these rather unnecessary words. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that we have had
702
representations on this matter. In fact, only last week the reservations which the noble Lord has put before your Lordships' Committee were given to us very explicitly. On further consideration of the matter I think that perhaps there is substance in what the noble Lord says, and I would be glad to accept the Amendment.
LORD PLATT: I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 16, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: Subsections (1) and (2) of this clause deal with the setting up of five different consultative committees, and then subsection (3) goes on to say:
"Where, after consultation … a committee formed … is representative of any other profession engaged in the provision of care …"
I do not see a definition of "profession" anywhere in the Bill. I think noble Lords will be aware that the use of this word "profession" is more widespread now than it used to be. The word "profess-fession" was once used within a comparatively narrow range. Shall I say that 20 or 30 years ago it would not have been accepted that nursing was a profession, whereas no one would dare to dispute that to-day. The committees listed—the medical committee, the dental committee, the nursing and midwifery committee, the pharmaceutical committee and the optical committee—seem to cover all the very obvious professions, and it may be that the Secretary of State is just playing safe when he talks about the possibility of "any other profession". But if there is not some sort of indication of what is meant by "profession" we might get into certain difficulties. For instance, I am quite certain that, say, the domestic or catering staff could make out a very strong case that they have interests which might be represented. But would anyone suggest that the domestic staff was a profession? It might be argued that the catering staff was. It might even be argued that the domestic staff was a profession. But either we ought to have some indication of what other possibilities are in mind or, alternatively, we ought to have some attempt to define a profession.
BARONESS TWEE DSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: If the noble Lord will look at the subsection (3), he will see that it says that the persons concerned must be
"engaged in the provision of care or treatment under the Health Service Acts …"
That is designed to narrow the definition down to such professions, as I think one would now call them, as radiographers or physiotherapists, but it would in fact exclude, for example, the engineers in a hospital. It is those who are engaged directly in the provision of care or treatment, and the two particular professions of radiography and physiotherapy were what we had in mind.
LORD HUGHES: I am rather surprised that at this particular period of history the noble Baroness should use that one. We are all very conscious of how uncared for we are during periods of electricity cuts, when we have no heating. It cannot he said that the engineers responsible for the heating of a hospital have nothing to do with the care of the patients. In fact, if they made a mess of their job everybody else might be wasting their time completely. One of the things which was so often raised during the miners' strike was the special problems of hospitals, and the need to ensure that they were adequately heated, and so on. But I did not have those particular people in mind. I was thinking of those people who assist when there is a shortage of nurses. There are so many duties which fall on other people now who are in the category of assistants, and so on. It may be that that counts as part of the nursing profession; I do not know. But take, for example, the people who keep the hospitals clean. It certainly could not be said that they are not concerned with the care of the patients, because if the places were not kept clean the patients would very soon be uncared for. This, I think, points to the very difficulty that I have been referring to: the absence of some sort of guidance does not automatically limit it to people like physiotherapists and the like.
I will not press the matter because I know that perhaps the unfairest way in which one can deal with a Minister is by raising points on the Question, Whether the Clause shall stand part?, when they have had no previous oppor-
704
tunity to investigate the matter; and there is a limit to the comings and goings from one part of the House to another in the transmission of information. I would be content to leave it that the noble Baroness might have a look at the matter. In the interval before the next stage she might care to drop me a note on this point. I am not quite happy about the way it stands. If she were not going further than she is at the present time, I might find it necessary to put down an Amendment at the next stage. But I do not want to do this if it can be avoided.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: May I perhaps clarify another point on subsection (3). I agree with the noble Lord that anybody engaged in the hospital is helping in the "care or treatment". Where does one draw the line? This is the point that he was putting before the Committee. But subsection (3) begins:
"Where, after consultation with the Health Board concerned, the Secretary of State is satisfied …"
The Health Board may say, for example: "We feel that radiographers should come into this category." So there is, in the subsection, a kind of double check that the people concerned are directly, absolutely directly, concerned in the "care or treatment".
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Scottish Health Service Planning Council]:
4.52 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 10, line 26, leave out ("after consultation with") and insert ("with the agreement of")
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 stand together and I attach perhaps a little more importance to these than to some other Amendments. This clause deals with the Scottish Health Service Planning Council and, as so often is the case with bodies of this kind, it lays down that they shall produce an annual report which the Secretary of State will lay before Parliament. The clause makes provision for the Secretary of State to exclude part of such a report when he lays it before Parliament. A question on this point was posed by Lord I Hoy and in answer the noble Baroness

705
said that there may be subjects referred to in the report which it was not in the public interest to disclose—for example, a dispute with a contractor (which is the sort of thing that one sees at the present time) details of which it might not be in the public interest to disclose. That, I think, could well justify the exclusion of references of that kind from what is placed before Parliament. But I cannot envisage any circumstances in which it could be considered reasonable that a report annually placed before the Secretary of State by such a body should be suppressed in its entirety. I cannot accept that that is a reasonable thing to do.
So far as exclusion of part of the report is concerned, the Bill as it stands provides that the Secretary of State may suppress the whole or part of the report after consultation with the body which has made the report in the first place. I do not think that that goes far enough. I am conscious of the fact that I am using an emotive word in "suppressed" rather than "deleted" or "not published"; because once a report which is ordinarily published is made, and once you decide that part of it should not be published, then you are deliberately deciding to suppress—though perhaps for excellent reasons in certain cases.
The Amendments oblige the Secretary of State not merely to consult with the Scottish Health Service Planning Council about the deletion of part of the report but also oblige him to get their consent. After all, it is their report. I do not think that it is good enough for the Secretary of State to say, "No, I am not going to let Parliament know that you have said such and such a thing." I am quite sure that a body of this kind would never refuse to delete from the published version of their report something which it would not be in their interests or in the public interests to have published; but I cannot believe that any self-respecting body of this kind would ever agree that it was in the public interest to suppress the whole of their report. In circumstances of that kind they should never have made a report of that nature in the first instance; they should have written a letter marked "Confidential" and then have produced a lot of innocuous material for the annual report. The three Amendments therefore serve the double purpose of obliging the Secretary
706
of State to get the consent of the Council to the deletion of part of the report and so to make it possible for part of the report to be left out, but to make it impossible for the whole of the annual report to be suppressed.
LORD PLATT: Before the noble Baroness replies, may I say that I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, very strongly on this Amendment. I was going to ask what was the purpose of the lines and whether there was a very important reason for leaving them in; and even to suggest that they might be looked at again and deleted. But I think Lord Hughes has suggested a way round which is wiser than either leaving the words in as they are or deleting them altogether, which is what I might have suggested. I think that his wording, "with the agreement of", is very wise and I hope that the noble Baroness will accept his Amendment.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I understand that we are discussing Amendments 9, 10 and 11 together. Both noble Lords have asked me why these words are here at all. Once again the explanation is that they have been copied from the National Health Service Scotland Act 1947, Section 2(5). Over all these years, these words have never caused any difficulty; but I must say that so far as we are aware the powers of the Secretary of State have never been used. I have given some considerable thought to these questions and I should like to say to the Committee that I do not feel I can accept Amendment No. 9, because the Secretary of State who has the final responsibility must himself take that responsibility and of course must he prepared to justify it subsequently in Parliament.
On the other hand, I should like to accept the following Amendments, Nos. 10 and I, which make it quite clear that the report must be laid before Parliament but that the Secretary of State may himself take the decision that a part of the report should not be laid before Parliament. This is for the reason I gave on Second Reading. It is true that such instances are rare, but there might, for example, be a case that was the subject of litigation and it would not be advisable to publish it. I feel that the final responsibility must lie on the Secretary of State because he must justify it.

707
I am glad to accept the last two Amendments.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She has accepted the most important part of the Amendments. I am quite satisfied in my own mind that if the Secretary of State did consult the Council about leaving out a part of its report which they felt strongly should be kept in and if, nevertheless, he went ahead with the publication omitting that part, it would be a very strange world and very strange circumstances in Scotland if it did not leak out that there had been disagreement of this kind. I am prepared to accept that the first few words should remain, and therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment No. 9.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("any such report or").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 30, leave out ("report or").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [National Consultative Committees]:
5.0 p.m.
LORD PLATT LORD PLATT moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 11, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: Clause 18 deals with consultative professional committees, and again they are not executive committees. As we see in subsection (1), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that a committee which has been formed is representative of
"some or all of the professions engaged in the provision of care or treatment under the Health Service Acts, and that it is in the interests of the health service to recognise the committee…"
It would seem to be quite reasonable that, having been so satisfied, he should
708
accept the committee and that there should not be appended a sort of postscript, which is subsection (3), saying that he can appoint additional persons, unnumbered—they may number twice as many as are already on the committee—if he so wishes. A good many acts of faith are required in this Bill on behalf of the professions. A great deal of power is left in the hands of the Secretary of State. A great many decisions are left to him, and I think this is a case where a little faith should be displayed on the other side; and that a committee of reasonable people whom the Minister has accepted as representative of their profession might be allowed to elect their own members. This would not in any way preclude a friendly Secretary of State from saying to such a committee, "Would it not strengthen your commitee to have so-and-so or such-and-such added to it?" But, as I say, to add this kind of postscript seems to me undesirable and unnecessary.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I was aware before the noble Lord, Lord Platt, put down his Amendment of the feelings of members of his profession on this matter, as they had made representations. Perhaps I should explain why subsection (3) appears in the Bill in this form. It is left to the profession to decide whom they wish to have on this committee, but it might be helpful if the Secretary of State had the power to appoint, for example, someone—for whom I personally would have great sympathy—such as a member of the nursing profession or a consultant for a particular issue. I should have thought the power would be rarely used. I do not feel able to accept the Amendment to delete the whole of subsection (3), because I think it would be valuable to the committee were it possible for the Secretary of State to have the power to appoint one or two members. On the other hand, if the noble Lord will leave the matter with me, I should like to consider whether we could redraft the subsection and include the words, "after consultation with the profession" or something of that nature. I understand what the noble Lord has in mind, and I hope that he will understand what the Government have in mind. If he will leave it like that, I will reconsider the matter.
LORD PLATT: I think that will go a long way towards meeting the difficulties of the profession. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 18 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: We have had Clause 11 dealing with local consultative committees and Clause 18 dealing with national consultative committees. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could give us some further information about these committees. To a certain extent there is a possibility that the same sort of things may be discussed at local and also at national level. What sort of field of activity is contemplated? Is there some automatic way of saying that one matter shall be discussed locally and another nationally? Obviously, certain things have only a local connotation. They may refer to a particular hospital or to services in a particular area, which would be a matter to be discussed at a local committee. There are other matters which are obviously of a national character and would be for consideration at a national consultative committee. But there are so many things which do not fall neatly into either one category or the other. Is it to be left to the good sense of these committees at local and national level to work out the way to do things? Or does the Secretary of State have in mind giving some sort of guidance, particularly to local committees, about the field of their activities?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Regarding national consultative committees, the idea was on the lines of a report of a working party on medical integration which was called Doctors in an Integrated Health Service and which was published in July, 1971. I prefer to call it a united Health Service. The working party considered the means whereby a national structure could be evolved apart from the local professional committees. The functions of a national committee would be to advise the Scottish Health Service Planning Council on the provision of health services with which that Committee was concerned, but it would not concern itself with questions of remuneration or conditions of service. The Council, on its part, would be obliged to consult the committee. There are
710
some matters which I think are much better described in the national context than they are locally, and it is because the Secretary of State is most anxious to have professional advice that we have created both local and national committees.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Common Services Agency]:
5.10 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 11, line 34, leave out ("shall have power to") and insert ("may by order").
The noble Lord said: This clause, setting up a Common Services Agency, is a major departure from the present system. I incline to the view that it will be a change which, generally speaking, will be advantageous for the working of the Health Service in Scotland and I do not dissent from it at all. But just because it is such a major change I think it absolutely essential that Parliament should be made aware of what has taken place. This Amendment and the succeeding Amendments to the clause merely have the effect of ensuring that Parliament is made aware of it; because they require that the orders should be made. I do not even suggest that these orders should be included in those which should be subject to Negative Resolution procedure. They will be in the category of those which Members of Parliament or noble Lords can follow up if they feel inclined to, but they will not automatically be brought before them for consideration.
The one thing I was not quite certain about on Amendment No. 13 was whether it was the right procedure. I know it is perfectly correct for the Secretary of State to make an order when he is referring to functions that are carried out by other people. I am not certain whether it is correct Parliamentary procedure for the Secretary of State to make an order when it is his own functions that are involved. The first Amendment refers to the fact that the Secretary of State may transfer to the Common Services Agency certain functions which are carried out by him in a central department and controlled by his own civil servants. If it is not a permissible procedure, then we are stuck with the way it is in the Bill: "shall have power". But if it is possible to make an order on this particular part of

711
it, then this case is particularly important, because there are certain services for which the Secretary of State has been responsible and which he has operated out of monies provided by Parliament. In that case, in one way or another Members of another place in particular have a direct opportunity at different times of the year of querying what may be done. Once the functions are transferred to an outside body such as the Common Services Agency, it is not quite the same thing. I think it would be better to have an order made by the Secretary of State rather than for the Secretary of State just to take a decision. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I think the noble Lord is addressing himself only to the first Amendment, No. 13, and not to all of them together.
LORD HUGHES: I can assure the noble Baroness that I will talk to Amendments Nos. 14 to 23 together.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I thank the noble Lord. Therefore, while Amendment No. 13 has been moved, we are in fact discussing the principle behind Amendments Nos. 13 to 23 inclusive.
LORD HUGHES: No, not really. I deliberately addressed myself only to Amendment No. 13 because that referred to the Secretary of State's functions. The other Amendments relate to functions which are carried out by Regional Hospital Boards, boards of management and so on. The doubts that I expressed about the correctness of the procedure certainly cannot arise in connection with the other Amendments, and I should like to talk to them separately.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I thank the noble Lord for clarifying the situation. I can quite understand his wishing that Parliament should be aware of the actions of the Secretary of State in delegating to the Agency some of the functions under the Health Service Acts, but I think it is more suitable that the Secretary of State should have power to delegate than that he should do it by order. Perhaps I should say what kind of function it is thought that he might delegate. Under
712
subsection (2) there would be, for example, those matters which come under health education. It is not a fact that just because a matter is not brought before the House by order, even without the Parliamentary procedure of the Negative Resolution, Parliament is not aware of what is happening, because of course there is the annual report, and the Secretary of State has to be accountable to Parliament for his actions in this respect. I should have thought, therefore, in view of the large number of regulations and orders that there are already, that in this Bill we should consider it wise not to tie the Secretary of State down to take this action by another order.
LORD HUGHES: I should like the noble Baroness to have another look at this matter. It is an important part of a new procedure. While it is undoubtedly quite correct that the Secretary of State could be questioned in Parliament about it, it would be after an interval of perhaps more than a year, whereas if the order were made the subject might be raised in Parliament, not when it was old but when it was fresh. Having regard to the enormous number of regulations and orders which are going to be made under this Bill once it becomes an Act, I would very gently suggest to the noble Baroness that if she can swallow the camel that she herself is creating my few little gnats are not going to cause her much inconvenience. When one thinks of the number of orders and regulations required by the Bill, there is really no comparison between them and what I am suggesting.
I feel quite strongly on this subject. I do not propose to divide on the Amendment; I prefer to act on the basis that Divisions should be left to another place if we cannot reach accommodation with each other on these matters in this House. But I am quite certain in my own mind that in another place they would not be content to let the matter go on the basis that an order should not be made on an important matter of this kind just because the Secretary of State was already making a number of orders in other directions. It might well be that we could suggest other places where he could better do without them than in this case. I think it is right that at this stage I should withdraw the Amendment, but I intend to re-table it at the next stage of the Bill,

713
and I ask the noble Baroness to consider the matter further in the interval because, as I say, I attach importance to it. If I do not get a satisfactory answer on the next stage I may think it appropriate to register disagreement then, but not today.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Perhaps I can assist the noble Lord in his consideration of this matter before the next stage. I suggest to the Committee that when we are considering whether to make new procedures under this Bill subject to order we should also consider those matters which are not subject to order. I hope that this will not give the noble Lord ideas, but if he will look back to Clause 13 (1), for example, he will see that the Secretary of State has to determine by order a considerable number of matters concerning the Health Services, and that the Common Services Agency is really acting collectively. If the noble Lord has accepted that the Secretary of State is entitled to determine without a formal statutory instrument what functions may be handled by a Board, I should have thought that he would also be entitled to determine, after consultation of course, what functions could be conferred not on individual Boards, but on the Agency which acts for them in a collective capacity. I think that this perhaps might be borne in mind when the noble Lord is considering this matter later.
LORD HUGHES: Yes, I certainly will take that into account, but I am afraid that what the noble Baroness is accusing me of is an error of omission rather than commission. I will certainly look at the point to which she was drawing my attention. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.21 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 11, line 39, leave out ("may")
The noble Lord said: There are three sets of Amendments which are identical: 14, 15 and 16; 17, 18 and 19; and 20, 21 and 22. The form of wording gives what is necessary to ensure that the Secretary of State proceeds by making an order rather than that he may direct. I feel that this Amendment is just as
714
important as the previous one and if I may just talk generally about my ideas on this it will save my making another statement at the end on the Question, That the Clause stand part.
We have not had a really exhaustive statement on the kind of services which may be transferred to this central agency. Sonic things have been mentioned, for instance, the Blood Transfusion Service and the Drug Accounts Committee: those are obvious matters for handing over to the agency. There was reference to major building projects. This is a field where it is terribly important that everybody should have the best knowledge at the earliest opportunity of what is envisaged. Each of the hospital boards at the present time has its own architectural and engineering staffs and these staffs are sufficiently highly qualified to undertake a very wide range of services for their boards and for the hoards of management at, I think it almost goes without saying, a great deal less cost in fees than if the services had always to be put out to private consultants. There are a number of projects where they do not do the whole work (for instance, the Ninewells hospital project at Dundee was put out to a very distinguished architect), but even so there were very considerable functions falling to the regional architect, the regional engineer, and so on, in these matters.
If everything of importance in this direction is going to be handled by the Common Services Agency, the matters which are left may be of such comparatively trifling importance that it would be almost impossible for the Health Board to recruit staff that would serve any useful purpose. Yet it is quite obvious that the whole of the activities to be carried out which would require architectural or engineering supervision are not going to be carried out by the Common Services Agency. These are two examples: one where it is obvious that the services will go to the central body, and the other the extent to which they would be taking over functions which have been carried out over the last twenty-five years by the staffs of the Regional Hospital Boards and boards of management and also, in the same way, by the staffs of local authorities in so far as they relate to the health functions of local authorities which will be taken

715
over. I think that public opinion, and certainly Parliamentary opinion, would be happier about this clause of the Bill if it was quite clear from the beginning that whatever was decided was going to be put in an order which could be placed before Parliament. I toyed with the idea of putting in another Amendment on this point and I have not finally made up my mind on the matter. But this should be one of the orders which should be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, because I do think it is a very important part of the Act. At the moment, I am certainly confining my attention to suggesting that it should be an order instead of just directions. If I may offer a little bait to the noble Baroness, it may well be that if it were accepted in this form here, it might be found acceptable when it gets to another place. But if it leaves here in the form in which it appears in the Bill I doubt very much whether my colleagues in another place would proceed in the modest way which I am doing in these matters. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I hardly dare to speak after having given the noble Lord ideas on Clause 13(1). I have listened with care to what he said about this question of orders. I think that what he said about Clause 13(1) is relevant because in fact the Agency will derive its functions from a very wide range of sources such as the Health Service central bodies, Regional Hospital Boards and the Scottish Home and Health Department. It will need to be available, as necessary, to help the new Health Boards which themselves will have very different levels of resources in specialised management skills such as work study. We know that from the earlier discussion we had on the range and size of Health Boards; and I would suggest to the noble Lord that we really need a great deal of flexibility here.
Paragraphs 33 to 38 in the White Paper, which concern the Common Services Agency, contain I think a pretty clear description of the kinds of matters which will become in fact the responsibility of the Common Services Agency. Now if we were to give a rigid definition of the functions—because it would be more rigid if you have an order, and even more so if it were subject to Negative
716
Resolution procedure—I think that Health Boards would tend to undermine what is perhaps one of the main objects of the Agency, which is to make it possible to vest substantial local authority management in Health Boards which need not themselves be self-sufficient in all management matters.
The Committee might be interested to know that we are about to circulate a discussion paper on the functions and organisation of the Agency and also that there will be a separate discussion paper on the building division of the Agency. As I think I explained on Second Reading, there will be such matters, as is made clear in the White Paper, as the Dental Estimates Board, the Drug Accounts Committee, the Central Legal Office for the Hospital Service and some of the functions of the ambulance and blood transfusion services. There might be most of the work of the Department's Research and Intelligence Unit, for example. I therefore feel, as I expect the noble Lord has gathered from the tenor of my remarks, not very anxious to accept his Amendments because we need a great deal more flexibility. I did not entirely accept what he said earlier, that one had only to wait for an annual report, for example, for Parliament to discover what was happening. I think all of us know the ease with which Members of another place are able to put down Parliamentary Questions, and indeed very up-to-date Parliamentary Questions. Therefore there is always recourse to Parliament to try to find out the extent of what is happening. However, I think that if we are to make the best of the Common Services Agency—which I am sure is what the noble Lord wishes to do—I suggest to him that we do not want to tie it down too much to have everything done by Order.
LORD HUGHES: I must confess that I do not at all follow the reasoning of the noble Baroness. It is too early nowadays to talk about "this late hour", so I cannot give that as an excuse. There is no question about making an Order requiring less flexibility. Let us look at what is contemplated in the Bill. The Secretary of State may direct that certain things may be done. Surely it is not being suggested that the Secretary of State flips lightheartedly into the office one day and says, "We had a brief talk

717
yesterday about the Common Services Agency doing certain architectural works. Let us issue a direction about it". If the requirement was for an Order, the Secretary of State would say, "We have to consider this matter seriously over the next two or three months to decide what we are going to put into the Order". I suggest that there is nothing in an Order-making procedure that in any way inhibits the Secretary of State's need for flexibility in these matters. I accept that there is need for flexibility. What from the Parliamentarian's point of view the noble Baroness says in defence, is that if it is done in the way suggested in the Bill there is nothing to prevent the Member of Parliament, by stealth or cunning, finding out what has taken place instead of it being directed to his notice by the publication of an Order.
It seems to me that this is not a matter in which we should rely on the leakage, proper or improper, of information to Members of either House of Parliament, but that it should be openly dealt with. Therefore I cannot accept the argument of the noble Baroness. She has been helpful in certain directions and has persuaded me in others; but I am afraid in this case she fails most lamentably. I hope she will give the matter consideration. Unless she does so I am afraid I will have to pursue it further.
LORD BALERNO: I find it difficult to follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. The whole tendency of modern legislation is to have too many Papers and too much bureaucracy arising from the time taken for the consideration and the drafting of Papers. When these Orders come to Parliament whoever reads them? Whoever discovers what they have in front of them? How many of your Lordships study the lists of the Orders as they are issued? If they see something about Scottish health, and they are interested in Scottish health, how often do they remember to ask for the Order at the Printed Paper Office? If they were to get the Order, because it was written in "orderese", they would find it rather difficult from the jargon of the Order to discover what the Order was all about. I am all for a simple approach so that alterations are carried out on the initiative of the Secretary of State, who can be trusted not to suddenly think up an idea such as, "Let us have a change in the plan to-day and issue an
718
edict of some kind", but who would ensure that it would come up through the Department. I am all for making the simple approach and having the maximum flexibility that comes from it.
LORD HUGHES: I do not understand hat for one moment—this must be my dim afternoon. What the noble Lord is saying is that because some noble Lords may not read the Orders and, when they do read them some noble Lords may not understand them, that this is a good reason for simplifying things. The best way of simplifying things is not to tell anybody anything. That is a very good reason for not coming here at all. We could simplify the whole matter in its entirety by staying at home and leaving it to half a dozen people on the Government Front Bench to rush things through. Instead of yesterday being the extraordinary procedure, it could become the normal procedure of Parliament. The Front Bench opposite could sit for three weeks and then rise for the rest of the year. I have never previously heard such a suggestion ever being made: "Let us simplify things by not letting people know what is happening, because if we let them know they will not read it, and if they do read it they will not understand it." I am quite certain that the noble Lord has not consulted his son in another place, because when he was in Opposition he did not treat Orders made by the previous Government in the lighthearted way that the noble Lord is prepared to deal with them here. I think I will let the matter rest at that.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER): The Question is, That this Amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Contents have it. Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the Contents not having been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 51, a Division cannot take place. I therefore declare that the Not-Contents have it.
Amendment negatived.
5.39 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: May I say that it is not my intention to move Amendments Nos. 15 to 23, and it was not my intention to have a Division.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Co-operation between Health Boards and local authorities]:
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 12, line 36, after ("another") insert ("and with adjacent authorities in England").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who is not here. I do so because I live absolutely on the edge of the Border and on many occasions I have noticed in connection with health services that if one lives, as I do, in Roxburghshire, or in, say, Dumfriesshire, it is important that there should be some co-operation across the Border with, perhaps, Carlisle or Northumberland. This question covers the use of hospitals, ambulance services, accident services, infectious diseases and so on. I hope that we may somehow or other get into this Bill a phrase—I do not know whether the noble Baroness can accept the wording of Lord Inglewood's Amendment—to cover a method of cooperation between the Border counties and the English counties. Often events take place which have a bearing on both, and if there are water-tight compartments and a frontier which is never crossed a lot of time can be wasted and occasionally the result can be very unsatisfactory. Therefore I should like to see the words, "and with adjacent authorities in England" added to Clause 20 in Part IV of the Bill.
LORD FERRIER: I should like to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, has said. Had she not spoken for my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who is engaged up in Cumberland, I would have done so instead, and would have been referring to the Second Reading debate, which the noble Baroness on the Front Bench will recollect. I believe there is good substance in this proposal and I hope that she will give it favourable consideration.
LORD HOY: I should like to say a word on this particular Amendment. I had some discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, about a similar proposal which dealt with animals in relation to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and the treatment of the disease of brucellosis. It was accepted there that of course there should
720
be cross-Border consultation as between counties North and South of the Border. I do not know, however, that this Amendment puts the matter in quite the right way, and that is why I should like an explanation. The clause reads:
"In exercising their respective functions, Health Boards, local authorities and education authorities shall co-operate with one another"—
and then if we put in the words of the Amendment the provision will continue:
"and with adjacent authorities in England in order to secure and advance the health of the people of Scotland."
I should have thought that that was rather strange wording and that it was obvious that this Amendment did not fit into this Bill. But I thought it only right to say that I see the intention behind what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was attempting to achieve; and it may well be that, even without having such an Amendment in the Bill at all, the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, can give us an assurance that what is sought by the Amendment is in fact taking place.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: For the exact reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has adduced from reading the Bill, I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment, although I certainly accept the spirit behind it and the reasoning of both my noble friends Lady Elliot of Harwood and Lord Ferrier. Happily this Amendment is unnecessary, because in fact co-operation between health authorities over the Borders takes place quite considerably. It is really a matter of administration. If there was ever any real difficulty the Secretary of State could in the last resort use his powers of direction. However, to give some examples, there is a co-ordinating committee covering the relevant areas of the Newcastle region and Dumfries, and the senior administrative medical officer of the Western Regional Hospital Board is a member of this committee. In 1969, the last year for which figures are available, around 400 persons from Cumberland and Northumberland received in-patient treatment in Scottish hospitals. Therefore, there is co-operation. It is for this reason, and because Clause 20 is specifically designed, as the noble Lord said, to advance the health of the people in

721
Scotland, that I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, will withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I have much pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment. I am glad to hear that the noble Baroness believes in co-operation over the Borders.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: I do not intend to say very much about this clause. It seems to me. however, that this is just one of these pious declarations which do not mean anything at the end of the day. The clause says:
"In exercising their respective functions, Health Boards, local authorities and education authorities shall co-operate with one another in order to secure and advance the health of the people of Scotland."
No machinery of any kind is laid down for co-operation and there are no penalties. If any local authority does not pay any attention to this provision it does not make the slightest difference, unless we can be told that the Secretary of State would direct. What was said in relation to the Amendment which was withdrawn was helpful, because the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, was able to point out the degree to which co-operation existed and the extent to which the Secretary of State might exercise powers if necessary. But there is no question, apparently, of any powers in relation to this provision. It is just an expression of something which is right. It is right to say that people should co-operate with each other in order to further the health of the people of Scotland. But will it go any further than that, or is there any means of ensuring that this provision becomes operative, rather than being simply something which ought to be operative?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: This provision is put in the legislation in order to draw attention to the imperative need for co-operation. We have a joint Working Party comprising officials of the Scottish Office and members who are nominated by the local authority associations, dealing with three main areas in which co-operation is necessary: public health, social work, and
722
school health. The Working Party were glad that this particular provision was put in the Bill because it lays a duty on those concerned to co-operate and it is not just left to practice, although it is true that the relationship between those concerned is usually very good. This provision does make it a statutory duty.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Designated medical officers]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 13, line 2, leave out ("designated").
The noble Lord said: At the last stage the noble Baroness referred to the fact that one of the unfortunate factors about this co-ordination and joining together of services was that the long-established and highly respected title of "medical officer of health" would disappear. I cannot say that I am happy with what the Government propose to put in its place. In Clause 21 there are a number of references to the man who will be the successor to the medical officer of health, and he is to be known as the "designated medical officer". It is only a year since the Government brought in another piece of legislation to get rid of the nonsense which had persisted for half a century or more of having a sheriff called a "sheriff substitute", and in the end they took out the word "substitute" and the sheriff is now known legally, as everybody has regarded him as being throughout the years, as "sheriff". To call a man a "designated medical officer" is just to introduce another of these terms. It is almost as if one were saying, "He is not the real thing. We do not have it now, but he is a man whom we shall call a medical officer. He is the 'designated medical officer'." I do not think that that would be proper. My first intention was to table an Amendment along the lines that any such medical officer shall be known in any enactment as "the medical officer of health", just to preserve the old title; but it seemed to me that perhaps it was wrong because the job is not the same as it was before and the medical officer of health at the present time has duties which hear no relationship to what the medical officer of health might have done 25 or 50 years ago. However this is a major change and I

723
think it is perhaps regrettably necessary that the title should be dropped, but I can see no reason for giving the man what in effect is an insulting title and calling him the "designated medical officer of health". My Amendments numbered 25 to 29 and a subsequent consequential Amendment are designed just to leave out the word "designated" so that this officer shall be known as the "medical officer". I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: If only the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, had known, I seized on the word "designated" very early on because I agree with him that it is an unlovely word and I asked why it was used here. As the noble Lord has rightly said, the traditional medical officer of health will alas! disappear under this Bill and the reason why the words "designated medical officer" are used to identify clearly the officer concerned is not only because of this Bill but, as subsection (2) of Clause 21 makes clear, for the purpose of any enactment, and Part II of Schedule 5 of the Bill inserts references to the "designated medical officer" in a variety of Statutes which are mainly in the field of public health; and merely to leave the term "medical officer" I suggest would cause a great deal of confusion. For instance, a medical officer is defined in the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 as "any duly qualified medical practitioner employed by an education authority". Therefore we need a precise definition.
While I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendments at the moment because they merely delete the word "designated" and leave the words "medical officer", if he or any other member of the Committee can suggest a better name I would consider such an Amendment because I think it would be a big improvement. I cannot accept the Amendment as it is now.
LORD HUGHES: I think I can offer right away in manuscript form a simple alteration which would meet the purpose; namely, to leave out the word "designated" and move the inverted commas from in front of the word "medical" to in front of the word "the". There is quite a difference between
724
"the" medical officer and any medical officer, because this specialises him. If that is not acceptable then I would submit that the noble Baroness has conceded the point that the title suggested in the Bill is objectionable and ought not to persist. She has at her disposal resources very much greater than mine. Their imagination is just as fertile as mine and I would suggest that in this case they apply their fertility to an effort to produce something lovely instead of something which is the very reverse. If the noble Baroness will give me an undertaking that she will find an alternative I should be quite content if she tables an Amendment at the next stage. But if she comes along to me two or three days before the next stage of the Bill and says, "We are at our wit's end; we have not been able to think of a suitable alternative", then I will endeavour to assist her.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I think that is a very fair offer, but I must leave the word "designated" in the Bill at the moment because I must have a precise definition of this particular medical officer and of the duties that he will have to perform. I will certainly look into the matter because I do not like the name myself. I do not say that it is wrong because in fact it achieves its purpose. I will "have another think", but I cannot promise to be successful.
LORD HUGHES: May I make another suggestion for consideration? While it may be that in any enactment he should be known as the "designated medical officer" could there not be added some other forms of words for the purposes of the Health Boards, or whatever it may be, such as "the such-and-such medical officer" or simply "medical officer"? I can see the need for this wording in relation to other Acts, and that I do not mind because people will not go round with copies of the Act showing that they are called "designated medical officers". What is important is that they should have a title which would be in every day use and would be recognised by the Statutes. However, I now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Supply of goods and services to local authorities, etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: In subsection (1)(a) of Clause 22 there is provision for purchasing and storing, and so on,
"such equipment, goods or materials as may be prescribed".
The first question I want to ask is whether the Minister can give some indication as to what sort of equipment, goods or materials are contemplated as having been provided under the law as it stands at the present time and pressumably would be continued, and to whom they are to be supplied?
Secondly, coming back to a "Conesford" type of point, what is the need to talk about "goods or materials"? In what way do they differ from each other? I should have thought either one of these words would serve the same purpose. Having started on this track my curiosity led me into this clause and I wondered why it was necessary to put it in three words instead of in one.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: The equipment, goods or materials described in paragraph (b) of Clause 22(1) are such things as disposable sterile syringes, needles (which must continue to be supplied to family doctors) or any other item where central purchasing may save expense. This is where "equipment" has been added to this provision and I should perhaps say that only prescribed items can be supplied and the regulations here would, in terms of Clause 53, be subject to Negative Resolution.
LORD HUGHES: What about the goods and materials?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Materials, for example, would consist of bedding; and goods would consist of needles or disposable syringes.
LORD HUGHES: Could not the noble Baroness just as easily put it the other way round? I do not think it matters. Could not all the items which she has described be classified as goods or materials? Presumably none of them comes into the category of being spiritual.
LORD CAWLEY: I think the noble Baroness has forgotten the Mechandise Marks Act, where all those items are defined as goods.
LORD HUGHES: I doubt whether the noble Baroness has ever even heard of it.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I really must refute that suggestion.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Assistance to voluntary organizations]:
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: Clause 23 deals with assistance to voluntary organisations, and I think was generally welcomed at Second Reading. It makes provision for assistance,
"by making available furniture, vehicles or equipment (whether by way of gift, loan or otherwise)".
The thought occurred to me why does it not go the whole hog? Why are the voluntary organisations not given the opportunity, which might well be a useful way of assistance, of being given goods, and even materials?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIE: This is exactly what this clause is designed to do. For instance, the W.R.V.S. would be a particular voluntary organisation that could have furniture, vehicles or equipment, either by gift, loan or otherwise—"otherwise" being a commercial transaction—and it is in order to help the voluntary organisations that this clause is here.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Baroness has missed my point. Why should they not be eligible also to receive by way of gift, loan and so on, goods and materials? Furniture is a special type of thing; vehicles are a special type of thing. "Equipment" is not intended to include goods and materials, because in the previous clause equipment is mentioned in addition to goods and materials. It seems that as Clause 23 stands an organisation can be given furniture, vehicles or equipment; but it might well be that the best way of helping a voluntary organisation at a particular time would be to give them certain articles which could not come into any of these

727
three named categories. It seems to me this may have been an accidental omission, rather than a deliberate intention to confine assistance to those particular items. I wonder whether the noble Baroness would like to have a look at this point, if she is not in a position to answer to-day.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I can say why the goods and materials in which the noble Lord is interested are not included here. It was because it was thought unlikely that there would be any need for the Secretary of State to have a general power to supply goods and materials for voluntary organisations. But he has power under Section 32 of the 1968 Act, as amended by paragraph 36 of Schedule 5 to this Bill, to supply generally goods produced by him in the course of providing health services. He could do it, but not actually under this clause.
LORD HUGHES: On that basis he could provide them with the furniture and vehicles and equipment also. Why, if he can do this under the other power referred to is it necessary to specify them here? It seems to me that it is not going to mean a general supply of furniture, vehicles and equipment to voluntary organisations; some of these organisations will get nothing of this kind. It is only an enabling power that may be exercised, and it seemed to me there was no reason why goods and materials should not be included. I shall probably put down an Amendment at the next stage along those lines, because I cannot imagine that the Secretary of State would not want to have this power. There is nothing to compel him to exercise it. An Amendment to this effect would carry what is otherwise a very admirable clause in relation to voluntary organisations the whole way along the road instead of stopping when 90 per cent. of the journey has been accomplished.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Dissolution of Boards, etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.4 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: Clause 24 deals with the dissolution of existing bodies, and I
728
will read a note on the point which has been drawn to my attention:
"Executive Councils concerned with general practitioner services are to be dissolved and the powers transferred to the Health Boards. In earlier consultations the Regional Hospital Boards were given to understand that it was unlikely that the same procedure would be followed as proposed in England; that is, that a separate committee for the purpose of considering general practitioner matters would be set up within the Health Boards. There is little or no reference to this in the Bill as it stands, but the adjustments and amendments referred to in the Schedules do not make it clear that the provisions in the 1947 Scottish Act dealing with the affairs of general practioners are being repealed. Consequently, it would still be possible under regulations for a General Practices Committee to be instituted."
I must admit that I do not know anything about this subject. This is a representation which has been made to me. I wonder whether the noble Baroness would care to comment on that extract I have read from a letter which I have received.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: In actual fact the Scottish Medical Practices Committee will remain as an independent body, and that is why it is not referred to in Clause 24, which concerns the dissolution of various bodies that are named. Perhaps I should also mention, to clarify the matter, that the Scottish Dental Estimates Board will also remain, as will the National Health Service Tribunal.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Rights and liabilities of Regional Hospital Boards and Boards of Management]:
On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: This clause deals with transfer of property rights and so on. I am also looking at Clause 26, and I am seeking information. Clause 25 transfers the rights and liabilities of a Regional Hospital Board or Board of Management to the Health Board. Clause 26 transfers all interests in property, heritable or moveable, and all rights and liabilities of Executive Councils to the Secretary of State. I wondered about the omission of property from Clause 25. Is it the case that the Regional Hospital Boards and the Boards of Management do not in fact exist as owners of any property? Is the property at the present

729
time of Regional Hospital Boards and Boards of Management in its entirety already the possession of the Secretary of State? Is that the position?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: The position is that all hospital property is already vested in the Secretary of State, and that is why it is not included.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Staff Commission]:
On Question, Whether Clause 28 shall be agreed to?
LORD HUGHES: Clause 28 refers to the setting up of the Staff Commission, and this follows the practice that has already been followed in connection with other Acts of Parliament. May I have some information as to the sort of body which this Staff Commission will be? From what sort of people will its membership be drawn; and what size of body is contemplated here? I must admit that if I had more time I probably could have obtained the answer by finding out about other Staff Commissions, but time did not permit. I thought that many people would be interested in this point, and perhaps the noble Baroness can answer it. It would be useful to have it on the Record.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: It is thought that the body, like other similar bodies, would be quite small, probably with about three persons. As we are discussing it on the Motion, That the clause stand part, I should like to take this opportunity to say that the great majority of staff will continue to perform the same duties as before in the same place, and that the united service (or integrated service, to give it its correct name) will, I think, also give a chance for many officers to develop and perhaps to hold more senior posts later on. I wanted to say this because I did not want there to be any feeling of unease. We are taking a great deal of care over the whole question of the position of staff, and this is why the Staff Commission is being established.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clauses 29 to 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Transfer of staff employed for purposes of public health]:
On Question, Whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: In Clause 32(5) we read:
"In this section, 'public health functions' means the functions specified in Schedule 4 to this Act, and 'local authority' means a county council, a town council or a port local authority."
In other clauses of the Bill there is a reference to
"a local authority in or for the area or district concerned",
which seemed to me to be a rather useful way of referring to local authorities, because it could cover the authorities that exist at the present time, such as county councils or town councils, but it would equally cover the new authorities which may be set up if the legislation for the reorganisation of local government takes effect. It would cover a regional council, or a district council, under whatever name they may become known, and there would not need to be any subsequent amendment. I wondered why in this particular connection a local authority is defined in terms which can apply only to an existing one. The answer that has occurred to me is that this is a once-for-all thing. This transfer will take place before reorganisation comes about, and therefore any change in local government that may take place in the future has no effect on this clause at all. Am I right in assuming that that is the way it has been done? Having said that, I now know I am right, because of the nodding in the Box as I was asking the question.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: The brief answer to that is that the noble Lord is correct.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Supplementary order making powers]:
6.13 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 21, line 1, after ("Any") insert ("direction or").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 31. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we could discuss Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 together. These are drafting Amendments to Clause 35, which empowers the Secretary of State to make supplementary provision for various matters in connection with the transfer of staff from existing health authorities to the employment of Health Boards or the Common Services Agency. Matters of this kind are the determination of questions about the work on which a member of staff is wholly or mainly employed in the preservation and continuity of service for pension and other purposes. As at present drafted, such supplementary matters are to he covered in an order made under Clauses 29 to 34. There is, however, no order-making power under Clause 29, which provides for the transfer of hospital staff, or Clause 30 which provides for the transfer of Executive Council staff. In both cases the Secretary of State's relationship with the authorities concerned seemed to make it better to confer a direction-making power. That being so, the supplementary matters for which Clause 35 makes provision will, in these cases, be dealt with by a direction. It is therefore for this reason that it is necessary to refer to "direction or order" in Clause 35, and the Amendments add references to direction at the correct points in the clause. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Baroness has been helpful from time to time, and I look forward to favours yet to come, so I will not be awkward on this.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 21, line 6, after ("the") insert ("direction or").
Page 21, line 7, ("Any") insert ("direction or").
Page 21, line 8, at end insert ("direction or").
Page 21, line 12, after ("any such") insert ("direction or").
Page 21, line 16, after ("the") insert ("direction or").—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Compensation for loss of employment, etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 36 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.18 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: Another part of the letter which I have received from the Regional Board refers to Clause 36, the compensation arrangements. I think it would better serve the purpose if I were to read the relevant part of the letter.
"An invitation has been extended to Regional Boards to comment on the proposed compensation arrangements to he utilized in connection with the National Health Service reorganisation, which it is understood is to be dealt with under the conditions of the Crombie Code.
"The Crombie Code is applied generally to public service bodies in matters of compensation, but the Regional Board is representing to the Secretary of State that while such a Code may be reasonable in application to persons found redundant in a specified sphere of occupation, it may be unfair to certain employees in the National Health Service where they may be called upon to accept a post elsewhere than in their present Region, failing which they may jeopardise their entitlement to compensation.
"This may particularly be so in the case of architectural and engineering staff whom it is at present proposed to place under the Central Services Agency sited in Edinburgh. Although some of the staff may well remain in their present locality others may be offered posts elsewhere beyond their present Region and if, for their own good reasons they do not accept, their rights to compensation may be prejudiced. It is contended that such officers entered into a contract of service providing for their employment within a Region, whereas they may now be required to enter into a National Service with employment beyond their present boundaries. The Regional Board feels that special consideration should be given to officers placed in this position."
I wonder whether the noble Baroness would care to comment on that.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: We hope that Clause 36 makes it clear that we are being very careful over the whole question of compensation. The regulations which on compensation will be made will be subject first of all to the Negative Resolution procedure. Perhaps I should say here that in practice most staff will be transferred with their present jobs, and we hope there will be hardly any redundancy at all. It is true that some people, particularly in the administrative posts, may have alterations, either upwards or downwards, in their duties or in their grading.

733
That is why this clause makes provision for compensation, and it follows the provision made by Section 35 of the 1968 Act for persons affected by executive council or hospital board reorganisations within the present structure. It is not possible to fix the final staff establishments or to assess compensation by the appointed day, and that is why power is given to make the regulations retrospective, because we are determined that no individual shall suffer adversely. I hope that that assurance will give some assurance.
LORD HUGHES: So it would be possible for full consideration to be given to the position of an individual who, for reasons which were very good from his personal point of view, did not wish to accept a post which meant his travelling to another area altogether. He would not necessarily suffer in his compensation terms, through leaving the Service rather than taking that other appointment. It that the posiion?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Transfer of Rights held under the Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Act 1971]:
6.21 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 23, line 11, after ("of") insert ("rights in relevant").
The noble Baroness said: This is a drafting Amendment. Clause 39 is concerned with the transfer of rights in certain endowments from existing hospital authorities to Health Boards. These endowments were transferred by virtue of the Hospital Endowments (Scotland) Act 1971 to the Scottish Hospital Trust which will manage the capital and distribute the income to hospital authorities. Existing hospital authorities technically therefore hold rights in such endowments but not in the endowments themselves, and the opening words of Clause 39(1) recognise this fact. However, subsection (2),
734
which deals with the case where areas of existing hospital authorities are divided between one or more Health Boards, ought to refer similarly to "rights in relevant endowments". The reference to "income" is however correct, because income (including accumulated income) becomes the property of the hospital authority. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 40 to 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Extension of definition of infectious disease]:
On Question, Whether Clause 45 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: The rubric to this clause is, "Extension of definition of infectious disease. 1889 c. 72." It seems a wholly unexceptionable clause apart from its length, which is probably necessary, but I wonder whether we can be told what it means. What is the extension?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Clause 45 substitutes a new provision for the present Section 7 of the Infectious Disease (Notification) Act 1889. This enabled a local authority in their area to apply the Act to a disease other than those which are specifically listed in the Act as infectious diseases. As local health authorities will disappear with this Bill, it is necessary to re-allocate the function of adding to the list of infectious diseases. That is the aim of this clause.
LORD HUGHES: It has arisen only from the creation of the new bodies? The title appeared to mean that some diseases which at the present time are not regarded as infectious are going to become so. But I understand that that is not the position, and that it is simply a question of the new structure.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: That is correct.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Power of Secretary of State in an emergency]:
On Question, Whether Clause 46 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: Clause 46 seems to be giving a very extensive power to the Secretary of State, although it may be a very necessary power. It states:
"If the Secretary of State is of the opinion that an emergency exists, and thinks it necessary in order to secure the effective continuance of any service under the Health Service Acts, he shall have power to direct that any function conferred by or under those Acts on any body or person shall, during the period of the emergency, be performed by such other body or person as he may specify in the direction."
That is a very wide power indeed. It enables him to supersede any of the arrangements which are being made in the Bill for the carrying out of the health services. I am not prepared to say that it is not an essential part of a Bill such as this, but I should like to ask what sort of emergency might call into being the exercise of a power of this description?
LORD PLATT: Before the noble Baroness replies, may I say that I was going to ask whether this clause is really necessary, because I suppose that any Secretary of State has powers for a time of emergency and that they can be very widely used. I assure your Lordships that, with slight reservations, I have implicit faith in the wisdom of the Secretary of State, but I do not like giving my assent to what I think is absolute nonsense. Speaking as a legal layman, it appears that the Secretary of State can direct an engineer to perform an operation for a hernia or something of that kind. I do not think that is really what it means, but if that is what it means I do not want to vote for it. That is all.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: The reason for this clause is to try to fill what is at present a gap in the powers of the Secretary of State. Under Section 56 of the 1947 Act, which is being kept with some modification, he has power after an inquiry to declare a Health Service body to be in default or to authorise any person to act in its place until a new body is appointed. We felt that this was really much too blunt and unnecessary, and in that respect I have sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Platt. But the Secretary of State has no power, for example—and this is the reason behind the clause—to take quick action where health services are temporarily in danger of break
736
ing down. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, asked me to give an example. It is very difficult to foresee a certain kind of emergency, but, alas!, one which comes to us sometimes is a major civil emergency caused by widespread flooding, which we have had in Scotland. In such a case it might be necessary to put all the National Health Service rescue services under the control of a particular body or persons, or to put some of the services run by a small Health Board under the control of a larger one. Or following a breakdown in communications, perhaps after a serious fire with destruction of buildings, it might be necessary to transfer control of an ambulance depot from a common services agency to a Health Board. Obviously, we hope that this power will never need to be used, but we feel it is necessary that the Secretary of State in a reformed National Health structure should have this power only for an emergency.
LORD PLATT: Is it not a fact that, under conditions of emergency, the Secretary of State could act in that way without Clause 46? If it is not a fact and if some such clause must be put in the Bill, may I make a plea that it should be re-worded, so as to make it mean some sense instead of nonsense?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I shall look to see whether it needs rewording. It seemed to me that it was fairly clear, but I will take into account what the noble Lord has said.
LORD HUGHES: May I ask one other question in connection with this matter? Assuming that a situation arose of, say, the kind which unfortunately we have had on at least two occasions in the North of Scotland, of extensive flooding which has interfered with the ordinary and smooth operation of services, presumably the cause would be of such a nature that the Secretary of State would be making a Statement about it anyway in Parliament, and if this were the case he would presumably be making a reference to any such action that he was taking under this clause. I would prefer, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt said, if it were worded a little better than it is. Perhaps it is rather unfortunate that we should be considering this at a time when we have been invoking the awesome machinery of

737
Regulations under the Emergency Powers Act 1920. Obviously it is not that kind of thing which is in mind, but something which is perhaps a halfway house towards it, perhaps with the same seriousness but only in a particular area. I would prefer a better form of wording if it were possible to make it a little clearer what is meant, rather than the suggestion of a wholesale collapse, or even the dreadful thought which occurred to the noble Lord, Lord Platt. What did not occur to him and what might be even worse is if a surgeon had the job of trying to stoke the boilers. The results might then be even more disastrous. In any event, I assume that the least we can expect is that there will be confirmation of the fact that, if such powers were exercised, it would not be done by stealth but would he the subject of part of a Statement which would be made, in the course of which the Secretary of State would refer to what he was doing by virtue of the powers given by Clause 46.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Clauses 47 to 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Regulations, orders and local enactments]:
6.33 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: This Amendment is to correct a minor misprint in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 30, leave out ("39(1)") and insert ("39(2)").—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belihelvie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 53, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: I have a feeling that I ought not to be asking this question because, as a former Minister, I ought to know the answer—but I do not. I have often wondered about it, but have never asked it before. Subsection (5) of the clause reads:
"Any power to make regulations under this Act shall, if the Treasury so direct, not be exercisable except in conjunction with the Treasury"—
the sort of thing which is the bane of all Ministers' lives. What exactly does "the Treasury" mean in this connection? Does it mean tile Chancellor of the
738
Exchequer or a financial official? Or does it mean the denizens of some building who issue instructions, and more frequently embargos, from time to time? Who are "the Treasury" in legislation?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I think that everybody would like to know who are "the Treasury", but in actual fact this is an exactly similar provision to that which is contained in Section 73(3) of the 1947 Act, which was of course designed by the noble Lord opposite. It is a formal expression which is always used in such a Bill.
LORD HUGHES: I know. It has appeared in hundreds of thousands of Bills: but what does it mean? Are they Ministers or are they officials? We all take it for granted. Every time it appears we say, "Yes, it is always there; we have seen this before, and we shall see it again and again". But I have never spoken to anybody who could tell me exactly what it means. Perhaps it is unfortunate that my noble friend Lord Diamond has gone, although I did not tell him that I was going to ask about this.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: As I understand it, when it says that it must be exercisable in conjunction with the Treasury it is perfectly clear that it could not be just officials, because the decision as to whether these shall be public expenditure is of course a decision made by Ministers. Therefore, virtually it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or his Ministers acting on his behalf.
LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I wonder whether she would carry it a little further. Would she in due course write to me, giving a very nice explanation of the answer to this point in writing so that in due course, when other people ask me, I shall be the only person other than herself who can give the answer?
LORD CAWLEY: I think I must call attention to this subsection. It is the most terrible piece of "gobbledygook". What it ought to have said is:
"Any power to make regulations under this Act shall not be exercisable except with the leave of the Treasury."

739
What on earth this is all about—"if the Treasury so direct"; "not be exercisable"—I do not know. It seem to me that you could say it in half the number of words.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I am always willing to listen to an improvement of English, but this was in fact taken out of the 1947 Act, as I think I explained.
LORD HUGHES: That does not alter the fact that it might have been wrong and bad in 1946.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Health Boards and University Liaison Committees]:
6.37 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 33, line 10, at end insert ("and of these other members not less than one third shall be members of local authorities in or for the area or district concerned and not more than one third shall be medical practitioners").
The noble Lord said: If we insert the words printed in this Amendment, it would mean that the paragraph would read:
"A Health Board shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State and such number of other members so appointed as the Secretary of State thinks fit and of these other members not less than one third shall be members of local authorities in or for the area or district concerned and not more than one third shall be medical practitioners".
It was laid down in the 1947 Act that not more than a certain proportion of the members of a Regional Hospital Board should be medical practitioners, and that is the reason why I have included that particular provision, but I must admit that my main object was to ensure that a specified part of a Health Board should be members of local authorities. There have been very considerable representations (as the noble Baroness will know because she met the local authority associations there) that should have the right to nominate members of Health Boards. This I think was the second line of attack or approach from the local authorities, because the first idea was that Health Boards should be elected bodies. For reasons that I need not go into, I do not think any-
740
body regarded that as a point seriously to be pursued having regard to the other bodies being elected and other bodies which may fall to be elected if reorganisation takes place.
The second point—and this was particularly stressed, I think, when she met the Counties of Cities Association—is that the four cities were all strongly of the view that they should have the right to name a member or members of the appropriate Health Boards. I have never disguised the fact that I do not agree that the Secretary of State should be obliged to accept nominations of membership from particular bodies. These Boards in some cases will cover wide areas and may include in their memberships a large authority and a number of smaller authorities. All the experience of the past goes to show that where there are rights of appointment to bodies, they nearly all fall to the big authorities, with the smaller ones either getting no share or figuring in the list only once in a very long time. Yet the noble Baroness knows as well as I—and it would be invidious to mention names—that some of the most effective members of the present Regional Hospital Boards come from small authorities. They are there really by virtue of the service they have given to small local authorities; and this is what has brought them to the notice of the Secretary of State in the first place. If they had had to depend upon getting a nomination from the Local Authorities Association then almost certainly they would not be members of the Regional Hospital Board.
I think it better that the Secretary of State should receive from local authorities nominations to be considered for membership of these Health Boards so that he should have the widest possible choice. But I think that we can go a certain way to meet what I believe the local authorities undoubtedly regard as a legitimate position for them to adopt. If we do not give them the right to name the actual members we should make it quite certain that a specified part of the membership will come from local authority nominations. I have suggested one-third. I am certain that if I had consulted the local authorities about this matter they would probably have argued for a much higher proportion. While my own experience shows

741
that some of the most effective members on a body of this kind are undoubtedly those with local authority experience, the fact remains that there are also some exceedingly good members from other bodies.
I should not like to tie down the Secretary of State to the position that even a half of the membership should come from local authorities; but considering that a membership of fifteen may be the average for these Boards (the figure might be between ten and twenty) this means that from four to six members would be local authority members. Almost all the organisations cover an area with a fair number of local authorities in them, county councils and town councils, at the present time, regional councils and a number of district councils; so it would be difficult to stipulate what would be considered an adequate membership from the local authorities. I do not want to use the phrase "adequate representation" for they are not there as representatives of their local authorities. A figure of less than one-half does not circumscribe the activities of the Secretary of State in any unreasonable way; but I think that it will give an assurance to the local authorities which they at present do not have. We must remember that this is not just a case of switching from Regional Boards, boards of management and executive councils to the new Health Boards but also of transferring some of the oldest functions, and some comparatively new ones, of local authorities to these bodies. I think it would be helpful if they could be satisfied that when the new bodies were set up, while they would not know who the members were going to he and had no right to say that "X", "Y" or "Z" should be a member, they should know that a given proportion of the membership would be people elected to public office in the area; so that, indirectly perhaps there would be people who in some way might be held to be in the public eye. It does not always work like that; people do not always associate Councillor "X" with membership of another body; but sometimes they do.
For that reason I want the first part of this Amendment to be accepted. The second part is just a continuation of the existing procedure; because these bodies
742
are engaged in so wide a field of activity concerning the general public. One speaker during the Committee stage said that one of the extraordinary things about this Bill is that nowhere in it does the word "patient" occur. After all, the Bill is for the purpose of the patients; not for the doctors and the nurses. If the patients were not there we should not be needing the legislation. It was felt in 1947 that these bodies (the Regional Hospital Boards, for instance) should not be dominated by the medical profession. It should be made equally clear in this case that the same position exists. A Bill of this length may possibly contain a restriction to that effect which perhaps is carried over from the old Act. If so, I apologise for having raised the matter; but I have not seen it. I think it desirable that there should be these two figures, one laying down the number of local authority people who should be in and the other restricting the number of medical people who should be in.
LORD SEGAL: Before the noble Baroness replies, can she clarify the position where one of the elected members of the local authority happens to be a general practitioner? It has occurred quite often. One hopes that it will not entail his prior removal from the medical register. Would it not be more in keeping with the intention of the Amendment if it stated that not more than one-third shall be nominated medical practitioners?
LORD PLATT: I hope that we shall not agree with this Amendment. I am sorry to say this to Lord Hughes. On principle, I am against all this laying down that "there shall be three" or "there shall be four" or "there shall be two-thirds". What about half the Health Board being women?—nobody has suggested that yet. If we go on from Paragraph 2 to Paragraph 3 of the Schedule we see that the Secretary of State makes these appointments after consultation with the county councils, the town councils, the universities, the nurses' profession and other professions that he considers appropriate and such other organisations. If at the end of those consultations he has to fill at least one-third of the places with local authority people, his hands are being tied. What is more—I do not know what happens in Scotland and perhaps I have no right to

743
talk about; but I do know something about what happens in England—most prominent citizens in many English towns are not members of local authorities at all but are citizens in various walks of life—in the law or, for that matter, in medicine.
As to the second part of the noble Lord's Amendment, in general I would hope that a Health Board would have no more than one-third of its members as medical practitioners. I do not think it is the intention behind the Bill or the original National Health Act that a Health Board should consist largely of medical men. For the same reason as I am against saying that at least one-third of the members should be local authority people I am against saying that not more than one-third should be medical men. If we leave this to the Secretary of State I think that we shall get a much better result. Having read this clause and found that there is no duty on the Secretary of State to appoint a single medical man to a Health Board I would ask the noble Baroness for some assurance that there will be some likelihood of adequate medical representation; and that is almost the opposite of what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, seems to desire.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I am very grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, exactly described the reason why I fear that I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. Our White Paper on The Reorganisation of the Scottish Health Services stated in paragraph 17—this specifically refers to our thinking on the appointment of members of the Health Boards:
"Although members will be appointed for their personal qualities and not in a representative capacity, it is clearly desirable that they should be drawn from a wide range of experience including the health professions and local government." Therefore I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that certainly there will be representatives from the health professions and from local government. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in a discussion on an earlier Amendment, said that he realised that in certain parts of the country there would be difficulty in getting
744
sufficient members from, for example, local government. But we have made a firm commitment to include as members persons with experience in local government and with the right personal qualities for this job. I suggest to the Committee that we should leave the flexibility as it is now in Schedule 1, because I am sure that in the end it would be in the interest both of the local authorities and also those representing the professions.
LORD HUGHES: I must admit that I am disappointed, particularly as in this case the Government are leaving out of the new Bill something which is in the present legislation. There is a limit on the number of medical practitioners who may be members of a Regional Hospital Board. I think it equally important that they should not even begin to give the impression of being professionally dominated bodies. Obviously, I must agree that it is inconceivable that any of these Boards would he appointed without a medical man on them, and even more inconceivable that they should be appointed without any members of local authorities on them. That was not the situation I sought to guard against. I wanted by the Amendment to ensure that every Board would include a reasonable number of local authority people as members. We expect that just as a Member of Parliament is the person most in touch with what is going on in national affairs—and a good Member of Parliament is also in touch with opinion in his constituency—the elected member of a local authority is generally the person in the best position to know about the feelings of the general public in matters of this kind. It does not follow that he will always do what the public want. Sometimes what is being proposed is the best thing to be done, but not the popular thing. Sometimes these Boards will do things which the general public may not want done at that time, and it would, I think, be more helpful if there was a fair sprinkling of local authority people in the membership.
I have no intention of pressing this Amendment any further, either at this or the next stage in the progress of the Bill in your Lordships' House. But because of the many representations made on this point—and undoubtedly they will continue to be made—and as I did not agree with the main point that local

745
authorities should have the direct right of naming members of the Boards, I felt that I should state the extent to which I think it reasonable that the Secretary of State should be bound. The noble Baroness will not be surprised if I say that although I am not pursuing the matter further in your Lordships' House, that does not mean the end of the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.57 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 33, line 22, leave out ("and") and insert—
("( ) the Scottish Trades Union Congress and").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment. Page 33 of the Bill gives a list of bodies which should be consulted. It includes local authorities, universities and various professions and
"such other organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to be concerned."
I have suggested the inclusion of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. The other bodies are national bodies or types of bodies which appear throughout the whole country, such as county councils, universities and the professional bodies. The S.T.U.C. is always consulted. I want to make that perfectly clear. I know that even if this Amendment is not made it is most unlikely that the Secretary of State would fail to consult the S.T.U.C.; but because it is a body so representative of a very large section of the organised community, I think it would be a good and a right thing specifically to include it among the bodies which must be consulted. I readily concede that I do not expect that the omission of the name would stop the S.T.U.C. from being consulted if past experience is a guide, even though I would not go so far as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, who said that he would not disagree with the wisdom of the Secretary of State except in a very modest way. I would enter a heavier reservation in that matter, but it would be a political point and the noble Lord. Lord Platt, was not expressing a political point of view. I have no reason to believe that a future Secretary of State would not consult the Congress. But after all, we have known previous Secretaries of State; we do not know who are
746
to be Secretaries of State. It may be that the worst may lie ahead rather than in the past. I hope therefore that the Minister will accept the Amendment.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I am afraid that I must disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I do not think it would be wise to accept this Amendment, nor do I think it necessary to do so. I suggest that it would not be wise, because if you include yet another interest (if one may put it that way) there could be endless demands for further interests to be included formally in the body of the Bill. But as the noble Lord himself recognised, the Amendment is unnecessary because the S.T.U.C. is among those organisations which are at present consulted in connection with appointments to Regional Hospital Boards. They would qualify, in particular, under paragraph 3(d) of Schedule 1, which is now under discussion, as among
"such other organisations as appear to the Secretary of State to be concerned".
I should like to give a definite assurance from this Dispatch Box that it is certainly intended that the S.T.U.C. will be among the bodies to be consulted about Health Board appointments, as indeed they have been in a different capacity up until now.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Baroness undoubtedly disappoints me, but I will give her the consolation of saying that she does not surprise me. I am happy to accept the assurance that has been given, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.2 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 33, line 34, after ("chairman") insert ("and members").
The noble Lord said: The schedule as it stands gives the Secretary of State discretion to pay the chairman of the Board. It says:
"The Secretary of State may pay to the chairman of a Health Board such remuneration as he may, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service, from time to time determine."
This is not a mandatory thing. As the noble Baroness said on Second Reading,

747
while it has not yet been finally determined that the chairman of the Health Board should be paid, having regard to the nature of the duties it was felt right to take the power to pay him if it should ultimately be determined that that was the right thing to do. In my opinion there is no doubt at all that the decision will have to be taken to pay the chairman of a Health Board, who undoubtedly will be carrying out functions at least as onerous, and perhaps even more so and more responsible than, say, the chairman of a New Town development corporation or the chairman of a nationalised organisation in Scotland, such as the Electricity Board or the Gas Board.
In view of the fact that this is merely a power which is being taken, I think it would be right that the power should be taken to pay the members of these Boards as well as the chairman. I think it will speedily be found that membership of these Boards will make a much greater claim upon the time of the members than has been found in any of the bodies presently functioning under the Health Service. The noble Baroness on Second Reading listed the numbers of bodies that are going to be replaced by these 14, now 15, area Boards: five Regional Boards, a large number of boards of management, a considerable number of executive councils and the health functions of some 30-odd local authorities—to be carried out by 15 people, more or less. I know that matters of this kind will be governed by whatever decisions are ultimately to be made in connection with the reorganisation of local government. One could not divorce the one from the other. It may well be that the same arguments could apply to the development of a new regional authority.
I certainly should not be prepared to move that the members of these Boards must be paid, any more than I should be prepared to move at this stage that the chairman of the Board must be paid. I am quite certain that the chairman will be paid, and am almost certain that the time will arise when the members of the Boards also will be paid. As it is a permissive power, I wish to extend it so that the Secretary of State should have power, in consultation with the Minister for the Civil Service, to pay all the mem-
748
bers of the Board, if that should be found to be desirable. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I quite appreciate that these Amendments are designed merely to give the power, and cannot confer payment on the members of the Board as well as the chairman, but I fear that I cannot accept the Amendment because, although I agree that the work of a member of a Health Board will certainly be important, if the Boards are to be effective it will be necessary for members to leave a good deal of the detail to officers and to concentrate on the important matters of policy and planning. If they are to do this, it seems that it will not be necessary for them to spend a sufficient amount of time on the work to justify the payment of a salary. This does not apply to a chairman, and that is why, after further thought, we have taken power to pay a chairman, if necessary. No doubt the noble Lord will have noticed that under paragraph 3 of Part III of the Schedule members will be eligible under the Bill for travelling and other allowances, including allowances for loss of remunerative time, which I suggest is important. There is another matter which is of importance; namely, that if these members of a Board were paid like the chairman, it would disqualify about 200 prominent people in Scotland from standing for the House of Commons. Surely the noble Lord cannot wish that.
LORD HUGHES: I do not know why the noble Baroness should have any fears about my wishing to disqualify certain people. I can think of a lot of people in Scotland whom I should cheerfully wish not to have the right to stand for the House of Commons. But that was not the purpose of the Amendment, although it might be an incidental by-product of it. The noble Baroness said that she did not think that the duties undertaken by members would justify payment because so much of the work would be done by officials. But I have been a chairman of a New Town development corporation; and I have been a member of a board of a nationalised undertaking. No one can argue that in these bodies the work is done by the members and that they are not served by an efficient and extensive body of officials, who give them the necessary help

749
when they need it in exactly the same way as it will be given to the membership of a Health Board.
Looking back on my own experience, I cannot imagine for one moment that the work of a member of a New Town development corporation, which carries a salary, could possibly be regarded as more onerous and more worthy of remuneration than membership of a Health Board. It was never regarded as an argument against paying members of New Town development corporations that it would disqualify them from membership of the House of Commons. That seems to me to be a facetious remark, thrown in for good measure. If the noble Baroness cares to look at it, I am certain that she cannot possibly argue that the work to be done by members of these Health Boards is going to be less onerous, less important, or to call for less time than the work of some of the bodies which have had paid membership ever since their inception.
However, I do not intend to pursue the matter. This is the sort of Amendment which obviously involves the expenditure of public money and can be more appropriately pursued in another place. But I want to emphasise as strongly as I can that the Government are mistaken if they feel that they will get the sort of service they need by the repayment of travelling expenses and compensation for lost working time, which, from experience, I know always falls far short of what many people have to undergo in actual loss. Having said that, and in the confident expectation that this is not by any means the last that will be heard of proposals of this kind, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.10 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 34, line 11, leave out paragraph 10.
The noble Lord said: When I was speaking to the first Amendment I said that with one exception I did not think that any of the Amendments I was proposing would be regarded as in any way political. This exception is the one that I am now moving, and it is to leave out paragraph 10 on page 34 which reads:
750
"Regulations under paragraph 8 above shall not contain a requirement that all consultants employed for the purpose of hospitals shall be employed whole-time."
The Health Service has been in existence for 25 years, and at no time during that period has any attempt been made to require the service to be a full-time service. But if this Bill, when it becomes an Act, serves as useful a purpose as the 1947 Act, we should not be having anything other than an incidental amendment of the Health Service for some years ahead. I think it would be wrong for an embargo of this kind to be laid down for the future.
I do not expect, if this paragraph were taken out, that there would be in the immediate or even the foreseeable future any provision to make the consultancy service a whole-time one. There are still a fair number of people who work on the 10/11ths basis, which is virtually whole-time but which protects their right to private practice. I am not moving the deletion of this paragraph in the expectation that there will be any desire to make a change in the immediate future, but if we are in fact legislating for twenty years or so then I think it is wrong to have such a restriction in the Bill. I therefore beg to move that this paragraph be omitted.
LORD PLATT: May I say a word about this matter? Here again I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I should like this paragraph left in. I may say that I have not discussed this with any member of my profession. I have always believed that there should be some people who do not spend their whole time in hospital practice and who have the wide and enormously valuable experience of private practice, perhaps in all parts of the world and with people from all parts of the world. If my memory serves me aright—and I have not looked this up at all—the profession was very keen that a paragraph of this kind should be inserted in the original Act so that the principle that one need not be entirely whole-time in the Health Service could not be swept aside by some subsequent Government without the matter coming again for debate before Parliament. I think that is the reason for this paragraph and I would vote for its inclusion.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, because I understand that this particular provision is one which means a very great deal to the profession, and that is why I cannot accept the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. This provision is based on the terms of Section 12 of the National Health Service (Amendment) Act 1949. It was inserted by the then Labour Government because of fears of the medical profession that a full-time salaried service would be introduced by regulations made under the National Health Service Acts; and the 1949 Act contained an exactly similar assurance in respect of general practitioners. I may say also that the provision was inserted after long negotiations with the profession following a pledge given by the then Minister of Health, Mr. Bevan, that a full-time salaried Service was not contemplated. It is of course no part of this Bill to change what are really very long-standing arrangements. A proposal to delete this provision was not put forward either in the late Government's Green Paper or in our White Paper: and as a matter of fact even if one did delete paragraph 10 it would not prevent the Secretary of State from continuing the present agreement with the profession but it would remove the statutory assurance. As I know that the profession attach great importance to this, I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: I did indicate that I regarded this as a political Amendment, and therefore I am not surprised that the noble Baroness has not accepted it. Before withdrawing the Amendment I wish to say a few words more. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, said that it had always been accepted as desirable that a number of people in the Service should be on a part-time basis. I agree that it is desirable and that it has been found very aceptable. I do not expect, as I said earlier, that in the immediate or even the foreseeable future there will be any need for change; but I am not prepared to say that this position will remain for all time. This is what the profession want, and there would have to
752
be an Act of Parliament to change the position.
If we were legislating for only a few years, then I would not quarrel with that, but I do not think it is right that we should continue to act on the basis that it was very necessary in 1949. At that time there was a completely new Service being introduced. The medical profession generally were exceedingly suspicious of it in many ways and there were many things which had to be done in order to ensure their co-operation. But I know that many of the fears which were very genuinely held in 1947, 1948 and 1949 are not held to-day, after 25 years' experience of the Health Service, and what was then a very necessary safeguard from the profession's point of view is not necessarily of the same essence to-day. However it is obviously a point upon which there would be major disagreement, and having expressed these views, I do not feel that it would be right to do anything other than ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD PLATT: Have I the right to say something since I have been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes? I should like it recorded for historical purposes that I disagreed with most of the medical profession on their strictures at the time of the introduction of the Health Service.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Scottish Health Service Planning Council]:
7.20 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 35, line 35, leave out ("such") and insert ("six").
The noble Lord said: There are two Amendments of this kind, one to Schedule 2 and one to Schedule 3. I should like to speak briefly to both of them. The first one concerns page 35, line 35 and refers to the membership of the Scottish Health Service Planning Council. The Bill says that one member should be appointed by each Health Board, one member by each university in Scotland which has a medical school and not more than six officers of the Secretary of State appointed by him and such other members, not being officers of

753
the Secretary of State, as may be appointed by him. I have suggested that instead of the word "such" in this and in the succeeding Schedule, there should be the word "six". This seems a reasonable Amendment; it is one which was suggested to me and I am happy to adopt it. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: The present provision in the Bill which refers to such other members as may be appointed by the Secretary of State has deliberately been left unspecific because it may be useful from time to time to add to the Council one or two members from industry with management and commercial experience, or at some future date there may be other special kinds of experience which might be valuable. It is unlikely that one would want to add as many as six extra members. Therefore while it would be possible to add six members in the terms of the Schedule as it now stands, I suggest to the noble Lord that one may only want to add one or two members, and perhaps he would think that it is better to leave the Schedule as it is at present drafted.
LORD HUGHES: I do not say that it is necessarily better to leave it, but I do not feel all that strongly about it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 49:
Page 36, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State must pay to the Chairman of the Council such remuneration as he may, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service, from time to time determine.").
The noble Lord said: I will not move this Amendment, but may I briefly say that for the reasons which I mentioned in connection with the payment of membership of the other bodies it will prove in practice to be reasonable to pay the Chairmen both of the Planning Council and the Common Services Agency and to make provision that they may be paid in the same way as is being done for the Chairmen of the Boards. I should think that the reasons which the noble Baroness advanced against payments to members of the Health Board will be the ones that she will equally advance against the pay-
754
ment to the Chairmen of either of these two bodies. Suffice it to say that I think that in due course the Government will prove to have been wrong and will probably return to this point in future legislation.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY): Amendment No. 49 is not moved.
LORD DENHAM: That is out of order.
LORD HUGHES: Then I beg leave to move the Amendment, and if the noble Baroness does not wish to reply, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: I have one point to raise on this part of the Bill. It arises from the letter which I received from a Regional Hospital Board. I believe that the noble Baroness will be able to give a satisfactory answer to this point. The Schedule talks about one member being appointed by each Health Board. I have no doubt that that reference is to the member of the Planning Council—one member of the Planning Council to be appointed by each Health Board. But the fear has been expressed that this may be interpreted as meaning that only the members of a Health Board would be eligible for appointment and that an official could not be appointed. I do not think that that is what is intended, but is it possible that this present wording could be interpreted as precluding an official of a Health Board from being the appointee of the Health Board?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: It would not be possible. One member could be appointed and it could include such an official.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedules 3 and 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential Amendments of Enactments]:
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 56, line 36, after (""Board") insert "or a joint committee of Health Boards."").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment to paragraph 154 of Schedule 5 brings under the supervision of the Scottish Committee of the Council on Tribunals service committees of joint committees of Health Boards. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
7.29 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE):
My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee.
At this point I must inform your Lordships that this is a Bill to consolidate the law with amendments recommended by the Law Commissioners. The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills were of the opinion that the recommendations of the Law Commissioners were for the purpose of producing a satisfactory consolidation of the law and they approved the recommendations without amendment. They made 50 other Amendments to the Bill to improve its form and to bring it into conformity with the existing law. The Committee state in their Report that in their opinion there is no further point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. Therefore, unless any noble Lord Objects, I beg to move that the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Re-Commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRANSPORT HOLDING COMPANY BILL
7.30 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT GOSCHEN in the Chair.]
Clause 1[Disposal of assets by, dissolution of and grants to the Transport Holding Company etc.]:
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, after ("power") insert ("otherwise than to a public corporation").
The noble Lord said: May I make two short prefatory comments? The first is that I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I speak very shortly on these Amendments because I take it that the wish of your Lordships is that, as it is a Thursday, we should finish a minute or two earlier than we did this morning. The second comment is that these Amendments are put forward at a stage when it is really more important to decide the meaning than the wording, and there will be ample opportunity at later stages of the Bill, if necessary, to make the wording precise. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will forgive us if our Amendments do not subscribe to the best and highest standards of draftsmanship.
The first Amendment, which I beg to move, is really very moderate. It seeks to give power to the Transport Holding Company to dispose of the assets with which the Bill is concerned to a nationalised industry or a public corporation, without troubling the Minister. I have carefully read the contents of the Bill, the main clause and the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, and it is perfectly clear that the main purpose of the Bill is to make sure that the Transport Holding Company is enabled to dispose of its assets—all of them. Nowhere in the Bill or in the Explanatory and

757
Financial Memorandum is there any indication of any limitation on the—I do not know the correct title; would it be the "disposee"?—person to whom the assets are disposed. Therefore I am assuming that it would be within the objects of the Bill that these assets, which are assets of a nationalised corporation and which fit very naturally and suitably within the complex of nationalised corporations which deal with transport, should presumably in the first place be transferred to another nationalised corporation within this field, if the Transport Holding Company so thinks fit. But being very moderate, as we always are on this side, we do not seek to place this as an instruction but merely as an opportunity, an option, which the Company should have. I therefore beg to move, in the hope that the Government will make it clear that this is something which is within the intention of the Bill.
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to respond to the noble Lord's suggestion that we should at this stage deal with this Bill briefly, and I am sure we can. I was not sure when I saw the noble Lord's Amendment whether it was a paving or a wrecking Amendment. I felt fairly sure that it was defective, and fairly certain that it needs to be resisted. I am now quite clear that it is in effect a wrecking Amendment, because, as the noble Lord knows perfectly well from the Second Reading, the intention behind the Bill is to make quite certain that the Transport Holding Company, with the agreement of the Secretary of State, has the powers to arrange for the sale of the remaining assets of the Transport Holding Company, namely, Thomas Cook and Company, into the private sector. I do not think any of your Lordships on this Committee would consider it otherwise than moving in exactly the opposite direction to that which we intend, if we were to amend the Bill so that the Transport Holding Company could, without the agreement of the Secretary of State, dispose of its assets to the public sector. As the Committee knows, the intention of the Bill is to secure that the Transport Holding Company has the necessary powers, with the agreement of the Secretary of State, to dispose of its assets into the private sector. For this reason I can-
758
not do other than advise the Committee to reject this Amendment, if the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, decides to press it.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful to the noble Lord for a very clear answer. I regretted it extremely, but it was a very clear answer. I do not think the noble Lord was absolutely accurate in indicating to the extent he did that this puts any compulsion upon the Transport Holding Company to sell to another nationalised industry or to a public corporation. But I am grateful to him for making it absolutely clear that at this time in our affairs, when we are faced with great difficulties—to-day we had, for example, a special Statement on the development of restrictions in connection with electricity supply; we are much concerned with the problem of over a million unemployed and all those who are out of work because of the after effects (as I hope I may describe them) of the coal strike—the Government think it proper to devote the time of Parliament to a diversion of the assets of a business, big in itself but not large in relation to nationalised industries, from the public sector to the private sector, without one word—not one word—of justification in terms of the interests of the public, in terms of the interests of the taxpayer or in terms of the interests of the employees, some 5,000 of them, of Thomas Cook and Company, which is the asset in question.
All that was said on Second Reading was that the Government did not think it right to concern themselves with running this kind of business. The fact is that it has been run as a public corporation for 25 years very satisfactorily and profitably—during the whole of the period, for example, that the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, was such an adornment to the Conservative Government. He did not spend, I hope, one moment of his valuable time in considering whether it was right for Thomas Cook and Company to be in the public sector or in the private sector. He got on with matters which engaged his time much more usefully and profitably in the interests of the nation. So I am sorry that we find ourselves in the situation where the Government have introduced this Bill which does not say one word about transferring this asset to the private sector. I should hardly call this lack of candour; I

759
should call it, if I may say so, misdirecting the attention of both Houses as to the true purposes of the Bill.
It is perfectly true that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, whom I acquit of any such suggestion, made fairly clear in his Second Reading speech how he interpreted and how the Government interpreted the Bill. However, there is not a word in the Bill which says that. The Government are going to achieve their purpose only by tying the sale of the assets to the consent of the Secretary of State, and the noble Lord is telling us that the Secretary of State will not agree to the sale unless it is a sale to the private sector. Not one word of justification has been produced. It is not in the Bill. I regret it extremely. That is all I can do about it.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw the Amendment?
LORD DIAMOND: Certainly not.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
7.40 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert ("which consent shall not be given in any case where such disposal is likely to lead to the lessening of competition in the travel industry").
The noble Lord said: When I look at the wording of this Amendment I see that there is a possibility of misunderstanding in that the "travel industry" is a short description of the "travel agency business", but I hope that the intention of the Amendment is perfectly clear.
In Committee we cannot alter the main purpose of the Bill but we can hope to improve it within the philosophy of the Government; and the philosophy of the Government, as has been made clear by the very fact that this is to be taken out of the public sector and put into the private sector, is that competition is what produces efficiency and the best result, and various Government Ministers have made many speeches to that end. If that is the case, I think it would be helpful to make it clear in the Bill that the Minister is to be restricted to giving consent to these cases where disposal is not likely to lead to the
760
lessening of competition. This is most important because great anxiety has been expressed throughout the travel agency business as to the hands into which this uniquely large travel agency business of Thomas Cook and Sons is going to fall. It is extremely large, as everybody in your Lordships' House understands. Not only has it 5,000 employees; not only a very large turnover running into something like £300 million, taking all the aspects of the business into consideration (having something like 500 different establishments in something like 50 countries); not only is it very large and very international, it is uniquely large in that there is no other travel agency business of remotely the same size. Therefore, if this business were to go to another travel agency business and thereby lessen competition, it would be a mammoth organisation among a number of much smaller organisations, all of whom are very anxious as to how this giant would exercise its powers. Would it exercise them with care or would it exercise them brutally?
Therefore, I thought it right to table an Amendment to give the Government an opportunity of explaining, as I hope the noble Lord will be able to explain, that it is their intention to see to it that, according to their philosophy, competition in the travel agency industry is not reduced and that therefore there will be no question of allowing Thomas Cook & Sons to fall into other hands in the manner I have described. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to say that here, certainly in broad intention, there is no difference between the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the policy of Her Majesty's Government. It is certainly not our intention that Thomas Cook and Sons should be sold to anybody in such a way as materially to reduce competition in the travel industry. On the other hand, to accept this Amendment and to include it in the Bill would put too great a constraint on my right honourable friend in coming to his decision as to which bidders to allow to bid for this company, because it may well be that in order to secure the other criteria which we are coming to in the next Amendment, some slight reduction in competition in the travel agency business ought to be accepted in order to secure that Thomas Cook and Sons

761
should be taken over and should continue to run as a going concern. Another factor is that Thomas Cook and Sons could not be sold, for instance, to one of the Air Corporations, which I understand to be one of the preferred solutions of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, without there being a lessening in competition in the travel agency business.
So the precise form of this Amendment incorporated into the Bill would involve too much constraint on my right honourable friend's discretion. But I am glad to put on record that it is his intention so to arrange the sale that there is no undue reduction in competition in the travel agency business; and of course as a fall-back position there is the Monopolies Commission and the legislation relating to monopolies which would come into play were the reduction of competition to be on a serious scale. I hope that with those assurances the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. It may be proper to add a word or two on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill, but now with the permission of your Lordships I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.47 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert ("provided that the Secretary of State shall not give his consent to the disposal of any such securities unless he is satisfied that those to whom disposal of such shares is proposed intend to maintain the business of Thos. Cook and Sons as a going concern").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment provides that the Secretary of State shall not give his consent to the disposal of these securities unless he is satisfied that those to whom disposal is proposed intend to maintain the business of Thomas Cook and Sons. There is the technical problem, to which I referred at the outset, that of course the assets are shares and what we are really talking about is the underlying business of Thomas Cook and Sons. Therefore, I hope that instead of going into a long and detailed Amendment which could have been phrased to give the precise
762
meaning, the Government have understood what the intention is behind this Amendment.
From what has been said previously and what the noble Lord indicated on the previous Amendment, we are not very far apart in the purpose of this Amendment. This Amendment is designed to make it clear to those who have anxiety about the future of Thomas Cook and Sons (and they are many) that this is not a stripping operation but is a transfer of a business, regrettably as we think, out of the public sector into the private sector, but nevertheless the transfer of a business with a view to maintaining and running that business.
The reason why we are bound to put stress on this is that the business of Thomas Cook and Sons is quite a varied business and consists of really severable businesses. The financial side is fairly distinct from the travel side, although in my view, and I hope in your Lordships' view, they are complementary to one another. But it is conceivable that a finance house or a group of finance houses which are concerned solely with the financial side of Thomas Cook and Sons might acquire the business solely with a view to retaining the financial side and hiving off, stripping or whatever other phrase might be appropriate, the rest of the business, ignoring the benefits of a balanced and combined business of the kind that exists already, and ignoring the proper concern of the staff. Therefore this Amendment has been tabled in the hope that the Government, if they are not able to incorporate it in the Bill itself, will be able to affirm that it is their intention, so far as they reasonably can—and one has not included here a period of years because I think that is a difficult thing to do—to ensure that the Minister, who is the responsible person, is satisfied that before he consents to the disposal of the business of Thomas Cook and Sons it is established that those who are going to acquire that business are acqiuring it with a view to running it as a whole, and for as long as they can reasonably foresee at that time in all good faith. I hope the Government will be able to confirm that that is their view. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to do what he asks, namely, to

763
confirm that it is the Government's intention that Cook's will only be sold as a going concern to somebody who will maintain the business. That is the first factor on which any potential purchaser will have to satisfy my right honourable friend. To obtain this assurance purchasers are being asked two specific questions: the minimum period for which they are willing to undertake to hold the shares of the company; and whether it would be intended to dispose of any major assets, activities or companies or to close down any major part of the Group's undertaking. They have to answer those specific questions in the course of their negotiations. But once again I think the noble Lord would agree that the matter on which he has invited me to give this assurance is one for commercial judgment rather than statutory control. It may well be that in order to keep Cook's as a going concern and to comply with monopolies legislation—not perhaps in this country but in some other country—it will be necessary to make some small adjustments to the wide spectrum which at present comprises Thomas Cook's. It is conceivable that there would be small adjustments of that kind, and that is the reason why one cannot accept an Amendment as precise as this and the reason why this kind of assurance cannot be incorporated in statutory form. But I am glad of this opportunity to repeat the assurances which have been given all along in the course of the passage of this Bill.
LORD DIAMOND: That is a very clear assurance indeed, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: There are two matters which arise on Clause 1. The first is not a question, but a criticism. It has now become absolutely clear that the purpose of the Bill is not the purpose described in the Bill, and I am bound to say that this is an unfortunate and un-candid way of legislating. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has made it absolutely clear that it is the Government's intention—and the Government are entitled to have their way so long as the Opposition
764
have their say—to transfer Cook's from the public sector to the private sector. If that is so the Government should stand on their philosophical beliefs and say so in the Bill. There is not one word in the Bill which says that. So I regret that the Bill is as lacking in candour as it appears to a layman like myself to be. That is the comment.
The question to the noble Lord is, can we have his view, and I hope his assurance, that the transferee of the shares will be a body or individual which is British? I hope I am not giving the wrong impression. It is very important indeed, where you have a business which handles something between £90 million and £100 million a year in travellers' cheques, which is of such interest to our balance of payments, which is so essentially a matter of credit and good faith, that it should remain, if not in 100 per cent. British hands, completely and undeniably under British control. There are already provisions and regulations under our Statutes which would ensure its continuance in that way. I hope the noble Lord can give that assurance.
LORD SANDFORD: I think the noble Lord will recall that at Second Reading I virtually gave that assurance. It certainly will be the intention that Thomas Cook's will remain in British hands. I do not rule out the possibility that among the bidders there might be a consortium which would contain foreign elements, and that might in all the circumstances be better. But I am certainly glad to give the assurance that it is the hope and intention of my right honourable friend that Thomas Cook's should remain in British hands and British control.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment; Report received.

WHYTELEAFE COUNTY SCHOOL FOR GIRLS
7.57 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I rise to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the full consequences of the action by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in disapproving the proposal of Surrey

765
County Council to cease to maintain Whyteleafe County School for Girls as a separatist establishment, a decision which is of much more than local interest and importance. It betokens a determination by the Secretary of State to interfere with local education authorities' plans for educational development to a point which threatens the very principles on which those plans are based. I am not at all sure who is going to reply to the debate. I notice that the Minister who replied to my Question last week is not present. I shall be addressing a number of quite specific points to him, and I hope I shall get some reply.
I am myself a member of the Surrey County Council and of its education committee; also I am a member of that authority's south eastern division education executive and chairman of that executive's development committee. Perhaps I should say that the County Council is overwhelmingly Conservative in its membership. At divisional level Party political affiliations are not so pronounced. I have a further general interest in that I seek for all children the educational opportunities such as the best and wisest parents desire for their own children, and I have no hesitation in saying that the maintenance of an élitist system based on selection and separatism is a denial of that aim. I sought in a Starred Question a week ago to get a simple answer to what I thought was a straightforward question. The Question then was to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend that Surrey County Council shall continue to select pupils for this school, having regard to the decision of the Secretary of State for Education and Science not to approve Surrey's proposal to cease to maintain it as a separatist establishment within a scheme for comprehensive reorganisation of secondary education. I have studied the replies given then pretty closely and there seems to me to be a need for further probing to ascertain whether the full implications of that disapproval are understood, and certainly to get more of the story on the record.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said in reply to a supplementary question from my noble friend Lord Shepherd:
"The arrangements for admissions to a voluntary school are entirely up to either the County Council or its managers or governors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17/2/72, col. 306.]
766
It is only a small point, but this is not a voluntary school, it is a State-maintained school. What I really found puzzling is that I had earlier been told by the Minister at col. 303:
"the effect of my right honourable friend's decision is that the Whyteleafe County School for Girls remains a school that admits pupils by reference to their ability."
Can we have this discrepancy cleared up this evening? How can admission be made according to ability without some form of selection? Here it may be pertinent if I ask the Minister to state in quite unequivocal terms whether this Government believe in a system of selection for admission to secondary schools or not? Or is this a matter, will he tell us, that they intend should be left to the local authority? If this latter attitude obtains, how is the action of the Secretary of State defensible since Surrey propose to abolish selection in this part of the county, and that was one of the reasons for the Section 13 notice for Whyteleafe County School for Girls?
I now turn to the statement made by the Minister last week that out of 22 proposals submitted by the County Council for primary and secondary reorganisation in the area concerned—that is to say, Warlingham, Whyteleafe, Caterham and Oxted—on Plowden and comprehensive lines respectively, 21 had been approved. That left only one not approved, and it sounded so very reasonable. It gave no idea of the fact that the one proposal that was disapproved was an integral part of the whole scheme, and without it the scheme was placed in jeopardy.
First, the proposal to close Whyteleafe, which is a girls' grammar school, went hand in hand with a proposal to close De Stafford, a mixed bilateral secondary school. The resources of the two schools were to be combined in a new school in buildings already on the De Stafford site. Proceeding in this way meant that the staffs of the two schools would be given equal treatment and equal chances in the new situation. Indeed, the headmistress of the Whyteleafe School had been selected as head designate of the proposed new school, but disapproval of the proposal for Whyteleafe really means there is to be no new school, and the decision to approve the closure of De Stafford is therefore a pretty meaningless operation—unless it is thought that

767
a mere change in the label on a school could be meaningful. The approvals for change in the character of Warlingham Secondary School and Oxted County School are also of little value if selection is to be continued in the area, and this accounts for four out of the 22 proposals. One was disapproved, and by that disapproval the approvals for the other three are quite meaningless. The other 18 proposals were for primary schools.
Here arises another serious consequence. The Whyteleafe school buildings are needed—and I am saying "are needed" not "were needed"—to accommodate a new middle school to serve Whyteleafe and North Caterham, to provide accommodation for over 400 children in the 8 to 12 age range. The disapproval of the proposal to combine Whyteleafe and De Stafford denies the local education authority the opportunity to use those buildings for that purpose. To build a new middle school to cater for such a number of children as I have mentioned would cost, shall we say, to build the building alone, a figure of somewhere between £150,000 to £200,000—and on a new site that has yet to be acquired. That means an addition to the building programme of that amount of money, or it means deferring some other very urgent work. The County Council has been quite unable to find an alternative site to date. Even if it could find one—and I am reliably informed that the prospects are very bleak indeed—and even if it got permission to increase its building programme, it could not build that new school in five minutes. The date set for Plowden reorganisation of primary education in that area is September 1973.
Progress to date, then, for the new middle school is no site, no approved figure in the building programme, no plans, and little prospect indeed of getting a site. Even if all could be secured, it is anybody's guess how long before the school could be ready for occupation—1974, 1975, 1976? Perhaps the Minister would care to give us his idea as to when we might expect to get something.
One gets the impression that the Secretary of State has not really looked at the proposals as a whole. It seems that she looks at each individual school and, in doing so in this case, she has not realised that each proposal fitted into an
768
overall plan. I ask the Minister to tell us what consideration was given to the overall plan, and what attention was given to the integral importance of the Whyteleafe proposal. Further, will he say what the Secretary of State's attitude was to ending selection in the area, because the County Council sought, when it drew up these plans, to honour its 1967 declaration of intent to abolish selection, to end separatism and to reorganise on comprehensive lines? The Minister referred last week to what he thought, as he put it, were not very many refusals to approve proposals for a change in character, or for the establishment or closure of schools. I think I am right in saying that no Secretary of State for Education has ever before in a like period refused 35 proposals in respect of secondary schools. I think I am right in saying that the scale of refusal is unprecedented.
Reference was made a week ago by the Minister to 7,000 objections that were sent in in regard to the Section 13 notice for Whyteleafe. I think the figure was probably nearer 8,000. A very interesting campaign indeed was mounted to secure these signatures. I should like the Minister when he replies to tell us a little more about the stereotyped objections to which he referred—at least, if he did not refer to them, they have been referred to in correspondence from his Department. How many of these 7,000-odd objections were stereotyped? How many were like the copy I hold in my hand, which does not even mention the Whyteleafe School? If the Minister is unaware of what that is he can look at it. I should like him, when he replies this evening, to tell us how many of the objections submitted were in that form—a form which makes no reference at all to the Whyteleafe School.
Since Whyteleafe is only a two-form entry school—that is to say, 60 pupils are admitted a year—it is truly remarkable, is it not, that nearly 8,000 people are said to have objected? I should like to know how many of them were residents within the new Surrey, and how many of them were residents of Croydon, which has already decided to go comprehensive.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I think

769
he ought to know this. So far as we know, the objections which we took into account were from statutory objectors; that is, local government electors.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I accept that from the noble Lord. I hope he will give me equally explicit and firm information with regard to the question which I addressed to him about stereotyped objections. I raised the point about Croydon residents, because I have very good reason to know that a very large proportion of the children at Whyteleafe are the children of Croydon residents. The County Council recently had difficulty with the Secretary of State in regard to a Section 13 notice at Merstham. I think there was then reference to a large number of objections. Perhaps many people would feel that the reactions locally to the Secretary of State's decision should have persuaded her that she had been badly misled in her assessment of the situation. Other local education authorities have had some difficulty with the Secretary of State; I think Worcestershire is a recent casualty.
The proposals which the Surrey County Council submitted for this part of the country were part of an overall plan which sought to make wise use of resources, meeting local needs and wishes. I am telling the Minister from my own experience, because I was involved in a great many of the meetings, that there was probably more local consultation in this area in regard to these proposals than in almost any other part of the country. I doubt whether so many meetings and consultations have been held in many other parts of the country. I ask: why should L.E.A.s be so treated and denied the greater freedom that was promised them in Circular 10/70? The Minister made some reference last week to Circular 10/65. When my right honourable friend Anthony Crosland sent out Circular 10/65, he had taken the precaution of consulting the appropriate organisations within the service of education and he sought to persuade. The present Secretary of State for Education and Science does not have an unblemished record in the matter of issuing circulars without consultation. She fulfils a boast by a diehard Tory supporter of hers in Surrey, when he declared, not only in my hearing but in
770
the hearing of all the members of the Education Committee:
"She's the boss now and can do what she likes."
That is how she seems to be behaving, and there is a great deal of unhappiness throughout the service of education.
A reading of the national and local Press shows that she is constantly under criticism because of the manner in which she is riding roughshod when she has made up her mind what she intends to happen. No, my Lords. I know that that kind of thing suits some people in Surrey, such as the individual who made the remark which I have quoted. But it would be a useful exercise—and I would urge this—to give attention to the statement made by the Chairman of Surrey Education Committee on February 4 at the last meeting of the County Education Committee. He is a very good Tory. He is one of the best Tories, with a very considerable interest in, and service to, the cause of education. This is how he concluded his statement to the Education Committee dealing with this matter. He said:
"In a matter which so directly affects the educational policy of the County Council, it is unfortunate that the Secretary of State was not able to hold discussions with the County Council before reaching her decision which seems to be inconsistent with Circular 10/70, in which an assurance was given that authorities would be freer to determine the shape of secondary provision in their areas. The decision is particularly unfortunate in that it has been taken in respect of an area adjoining the areas of three neighbouring authorities, all of which have introduced completely comprehensive arrangements in their maintained systems of education."
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the issue involved here is of importance far beyond the County of Surrey, as evidenced by the attention that has been given to it in the Press, both nationally and locally.
8.16 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I hope that I shall not detain your Lordships very long, having regard to the lateness of the hour, but there were certain remarks made on the occasion of the other Question being asked which might be expanded a little. For instance, at column 306 of Hansard for February 17, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in reply to some remarks of mine which were

771
perhaps somewhat derogatory of the Minister, is quoted as saying that he thought on the figures that the Minister had been eminently reasonable. He referred to the fact that 3,700 proposals had been submitted and that she had refused only 57; that is, a ratio of one in 65. He went on to give us figures of 1,400 for secondary education, and said that 35 of the 57 refusals related to secondary education; that is, a ratio of one in 40. But the ratio of one in 40 for secondary education becomes one in 105 in the case of the remaining 2,300. In other words, it is apparently much easier for the Minister to approve proposals relating to primary education than it is for her to approve proposals for secondary education. In the case of the 35, it would he interesting to know in how many a grammar school of some form or other was involved.
My noble friend has already mentioned the 7,000 objections. It would be interesting to know how they were obtained. I live in the area; hence, my interest in this matter. Someone knocked at my door and asked me to sign a petition against the closing of Whyteleafe County School for Girls. I said that I would not do so, but I was not told why I was being asked to sign. Evidently, I was regarded as hostile and that person did not waste much time on me. But I probably knew more about the matter than the person who was trying to get my signature. I should like to know precisely how the Department deals with those 7,000 objections. I was a member of the Public Petitions Committee in another place, and for one period was Chairman of it. We examined petitions and threw out those signatures which did not appear to conform to the requirements of the petition, or to the law with relation to the submission of petitions.
The document which my noble friend mentioned states:
"In particular, I object to the fact that the poposals will have as a general objective that Caterham School (direct grant) …"
Caterham School, a direct grant school, has nothing at all to do with Section 13. It says that they believe in the special value of this type of school,
"but it is clear that the intention that pupils in that area will not be given the option of
772
undergoing selection for a place in a grammar school will mean that local boys will no longer be able to obtain free county day places in Caterham."
That, again, is not a statement of fact.
"This in turn will almost certainly lead to the loss of the school's direct grant status."
What authority has anybody for saying that? Certainly they have not the authority of the school to say this. What authority has anybody to say this sort of thing and to put it up to the Minister as a valid objection to the closing of Whyteleafe Girls' Grammar School? As I say, the school is not even mentioned here. Now according to what the noble Lord said, the 7,000 objectors were on this particular aspect of the matter. If that is so, just how is this reconciled? Were there 7,000 other than these people who signed this form? Have all those that did not refer specifically to Whyteleafe Grammar School been rejected?
Another factor is this. How does the thing square up? I appreciate that every local government elector has a right. Let us put this against what the county council itself did. It sought meetings with parents, and it sought to explain the proposals to them. If one takes the opposite point of view, some 6,000 parents were opposed—parents, mark you; not the local government electors in general, who might be anybody. It might be me, for instance, and at my age I have no further interest in education from a personal point of view, or from the point of view of children or grandchildren or anything else. My interest, to say the least of it, would be academic. So there is to be set against this the wishes of 6,000 parents. And how many of the 7,000 were in fact parents, either of girls at the grammar school or potential pupils, those who might go to the grammar school? These are the people whose objections are valid, and I recognise them as being valid. But I do not recognise, generally speaking, that an overall objection to comprehensive education, which is the basis of this objection, should be used in this particular case in order to bolster the Minister's decision—a decision which she obviously likes to take—that a grammar school, irrespective of the merits of the case, shall be kept in operation. That I honestly believe is what she has done in this particular case, against the whole weight of evidence.

773
Now what does the Minister propose to do? How does the Minister propose that primary education shall be reorganised? Of course, this is now allowed to go by the board. The Minister did not call the county council into consultation and say to them, "Look, I have had many objections; I am not inclined to approve the whole of your proposals", and go into it with the county council as to what might be done as alternatives. Not in the least! It is just a plain, blank refusal under Section 13; and the effect of a refusal under this section really means that the whole scheme goes by the board. The reorganisation of Warlingham goes by the board because you really cannot organise comprehensive education so long as yon have selection, and so long as you maintain selection you do not get comprehensive schools. There used to be a phrase which we used in the education world years ago though we do not hear so much about it now. We called it "parity of esteem". Obviously, parity of esteem is of vital importance, and there will be no parity of esteem in this area so long as there is selection. That is the reason why comprehensive education has become so much more popular in the country as a whole. Once you get rid of the political bias on either one side or the other, it is accepted in most parts of the country now as being the means by which parity of esteem is obtained in secondary education.
There is another factor in this, too. It does not appear so very much at the moment, but it will. Take staffing ratios. Staffing ratios, on the unitary basis, give a higher staffing ratio to those schools which have a higher proportion of children above the age of 16. By the very nature of things, Whyteleafe Girls' Grammar School will be entitled to the extra benefit of that staffing ratio. I am not saying that the staffing ratio itself is wrong, but you see the effect of it when that school is used for a two-form entry grammar school. The staffing could be spread and employed much better and there could be more qualified teachers, both in the Warlingham and in the De Stafford schools, and a better balance provided. It is not even that there is much particular gain in this action by the Secretary of State, because, if I may mention this very briefly, at the Whyte-
774
leafe Girls' School 20 "O" level courses are available and 16 "A" level courses. At the Stafford school, there are 30 "O" level courses available and 17 "A" level courses. Again, in the Warlingham School there are 22 "O" levels and 14 "A" levels. Consequently, the fact that it is a bigger school gives a wider variety of opportunities to all the children than could be obtained in a narrow two-form entry school.
This ought to be something which should weigh with the Minister. If she would put aside the prejudice which she has in favour of grammar schools at all costs and deal with this on its merits, something could be done; because unless this is done there is no question about any reorganisation of primary education. There is no reorganisation of primary education until a middle school can be provided; and now the middle school has to start de novo. It so happens that this school. Whyteleafe Girls' Grammar School fitted beautifully into the picture. It is just a shade larger than was required for the purposes of a middle school not too small, but just a shade larger—and that is not a bad fault, I should have thought. But now it has to start off de novo. It has to find a site, and get the planning authority to agree to it. I must say that in my experience of the local planning authority they will not very readily approve any sort of site with regard to the provision of a school. It will take quite some time to do this. In the meantime, education in this part of Surrey stands still, and it stands still purely because of the prejudice of the Minister.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, if the House will allow me, I should like to make a correction. I said that the Minister referred last week to Circular 10/65. He in point of fact referred to Circular 10/66. I am sorry that I made the mistake: I had no wish to do him an injustice.
8.27 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, I must apologise for not being in my place when the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, began speaking. It was extremely discourteous of me, and not intended; but I think I

775
am right in saying that the noble Lord only spoke of something which I know very well, which is his position in the affairs of local government in Surrey. I would recognise at once that, although we do not agree on the subject of the noble Lord's Unstarred Question this evening, one thing on which we do agree (I know of it and recognise it) is the selfless work which the noble Lord does; and I know also of the great interest which the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, takes in the affairs of the county in which those noble Lords live.
My Lords, may I turn immediately to the statutory proposals which were submitted to my right honourable friend for changes in the school provision in South East Surrey? These, under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944, as both noble Lords have said, provided for the establishment of three comprehensive schools—one at Caterham, one at Warlingham and one at Oxted—and a system of first and middle schools in the Caterham and Warlingham area. A system of this sort has already been established, I think, in the Oxted catchment area. There were, as the noble Lord said, twenty-two proposals, and twenty-one, including those for the three comprehensive schools, were approved on February 1. It was the proposed closure of Whyteleafe County School for Girls, a two-form entry grammar school, which was rejected.
I put it to the House that it is essential to emphasise at the very beginning of any discussion on this subject that any Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be, has a clear statutory responsibility to examine on its own merits and in the light of any objections each individual proposal which a local education authority submits. Of course individual proposals are frequently associated with others in the same area; and we examine very carefully the various aspects and implications of what may be called a set of proposals—in this case 22. But nothing can in any way diminish the statutory responsibility for an individual proposal, to which I have just referred.
Now in the case of the Whyteleafe School, objections to the closure were received, as the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, himself said, from about 7,000
776
people. That number did not include any objections (there were over 1,000, I think) which were put on the direct grant point. It was clear that there was a wide measure of opposition to the disappearance of this respected grammar school; and by "disappearance" I mean that the effect of the proposals was that for the existing pupils and existing age range, Whyteleafe School would have ceased to exist. My right honourable friend regards it as very important that parents should have as wide a choice as possible, and although she recognises that it may not always be possible to retain particular schools when reorganisation takes place, she concluded here, having very carefully considered all the evidence available to her, that there was no adequate reason why the Whyteleafe School should not continue in its present form. If it is the authority's wish, she would of course be ready to consider a proposal that the age of entry to the school should be changed to fit in with the arrangements elsewhere in the area.
My right honourable friend is aware that as the Whyteleafe School remains one which admits pupils by reference to ability, some method of selection will continue to be necessary. The form which this should take is entirely a matter for the authority. In the past the Government, in Opposition and in office, have made their view clear that 11-plus may well be too early to make final decisions about a pupil's educational future, and in this case I would point out that the approval of the three comprehensive schools means that there is no need for any girl to take part in selection procedures unless the parents so wish.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I intervene? There is at present no need for parents to subject their children to this selection procedure if they wish to opt out; so this involves no change at all. I should like to get this clear while the Minister is speaking. I assure him that within the county there is very great concern—I am probably in some danger—but there is no change likely to take place at Oxted, De Stafford or Warlingham. They are already taking and catering for children up to the age of 18. I want to be under no illusion. Is the Minister saying quite clearly that the Government recognise that selection

777
will have to continue if Whyteleafe is maintained?
LORD BELSTEAD: Yes, my Lords, that is so. I wonder whether I might cover the other points raised by the noble Lord in a moment. I will indicate when.
Last week in this House the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, complained of my right honourable friend's decision on the grounds that there is no maintained grammar school for boys in the area. Of course this has been the case for a long time, and boys who qualify for grammar school places have been provided for outside the area. But it cannot logically be claimed that the absence of a local grammar school for boys justifies the closure of the girls' grammar school. Surely the noble Lord would not argue that because the boys do not enjoy this facility, it must be taken away from the girls.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords the position was that there was provision for boys by arrangement between Surrey and the adjoining authorities; but the two adjoining authorities, East Sussex and Croydon, are now comprehensive and therefore the grammar school type of education which was formally available for boys, say at Purley, is no longer available. That is the difference.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I understand that the authority have made arrangements, certainly for the forthcoming year, to continue to take up places in one of the schools the noble Lord mentioned. It is a direct grant school in which Surrey have taken up places in the past and my information is it will continue to take them up. I am glad of that. But here again, the approval of three comprehensive schools will mean that no boy, whatever his academic ability may be, will need to travel outside the area if his parents do not wish him to do so.
Noble Lords opposite have expressed themselves as perplexed. I join them. I do not understand why the two noble Lords hold that the presence of a small girls' grammar school in the same area as three comprehensive schools (which are going to consist of 1,200 pupils and will have sixth forms of the size indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter) should be something which cannot work.
778
Before coming to the House this evening, I turned up the results of the 1969/70 G.C.E. "O" level passes obtained in Surrey. They make remarkable reading. I know that the noble Lords opposite will be proud of their county. What they also showed, if one looked broadly at the sort of level of selection that there has been over the last six or eight years in Surrey, is that about half the pupils who gain four or more G.C.E. "O" levels in Surrey schools do not come from grammar schools at all. For this reason I welcome this opportunity to point out that comprehensive and grammar schools can be run in the same locality, and particularly in Surrey where the population is reasonably concentrated and growing, and where the level of ability and the voluntary staying on rate are both above the national average.
One purely practical criticism of the decision is that the retention of the girls' grammar school will deny the authority the use of the buildings needed to house one of the middle schools. Approval has been given to the authority's proposal to establish a middle school to serve Whyteleafe and North Caterham; but it is true that, before this proposal can be implemented, it may well be necessary to wait for the inclusion of a project in a building programme. However, it is for the authority itself to review the situation in the light of my right honourable friend's decision to consider whether there are any alternative ways of proceeding. As I made it clear last week we, of course, are ready to consider any proposals or suggestions which the authority may formulate. I have indicated that although there must be regard to the implications of a "set" of proposals, nevertheless under Section 13(4) of the 1944 Act the Secretary of State's inescapable function is to accept or reject the individual proposals put forward by local authorities. It would be quite wrong to assume that a proposal must be approved regardless of merit, simply because rejection had implications elsewhere. I am certain that such a substantial and experienced authority as Surrey would not make this assumption, and that the noble Lord will appreciate that the factors which should weigh in Section 13 decisions are the merits or defects of each proposal.
In the case of Whyteleafe School the large volume of objectors put forward a

779
variety of reasons, educational and social, why this school should remain. Bearing in mind the factors I have submitted to the House, and bearing in mind that the proposals would have destroyed the school and removed the pupils to a different location, the Department wrote to the authority on February 1, including these words:
"The Secretary of State has reached this decision after very careful consideration of all the relevant facts, the views expressed by local government electors and the authority's observations on the objections received. She has had regard to the desirability of preserving wherever possible existing opportunities open to parents and children. In her view the balance of educational advantage lies in enabling this school to continue to make its contribution to the provision available in the area".
I respect the responsibility which Lord Garnsworthy feels towards the authority in which he holds an official position; but I must say that I am surprised that he can pitch his Question this evening as though my right honourable friend's decision does not command majority support when, in another place, the Member of Parliament for the constituency went out of his way at Question Time to welcome this decision. I am surprised that the noble Lord can demon-state that responsibility in an Unstarred Question of this nature against the background of his Party's record in secondary education over a period of six years, for it was, as the noble Lord was good enough to say, the Labour Party which sought to enforce its will by Circular 10/66 which made clear that no major allocation would be forthcoming for secondary projects incompatible with comprehensive schools. And in 1970 the Labour Party introduced the Bill threatening to do by legislation what it could not otherwise do namely, forbid maintained schools unless they were comprehensive. I put it to noble Lords that it is hardly surprising that this Government were able to claim in their Circular 10/70 that authorities would now be freer to determine the shape of secondary provision in their area. My right honourable friend has been true to that pledge.
I gave the figures to your Lordships' House last week: 1,400 proposals for secondary schools since July 1970 and only 35 refusals. In my opinion that is
780
a record which speaks for itself, when authorities are not under any duress not to put forward proposals, or to put forward proposals. That is a situation very different from that in the previous six years. These decisions are taken after examining each case on its merits, which indeed, my Lords, is nothing more nor less than the requirements of the law. To make these judgments is the proper function of any Secretary of State, and this is what my right honourable friend will continue to do.
UNITED REFORMED CHURCH BILL [H.L.]
UPPER AVON NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.]
Examiners' Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with, received, and Bills committed to a Select Committee.