Lords Sitting of 21 November 1972

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.
The Lord Martonmere—Took the Oath.

E.E.C.: BRITISH ENTRY AND MILITARY SERVICE
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give an assurance that entry into the European Community will not involve the imposition of the compulsory military service practised by European Governments.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): Yes, my Lords.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in welcoming that reply may I ask the Minister whether, in view of the developments towards a coordinated defence policy in the European Community, he can give us an assurance that compulsory military service will not be introduced in this country except with the consent of Parliament?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I know of no movement towards a coordinated defence policy in the E.E.C. at the present time, and therefore the question does not arise.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is that really so? Is the noble Lord saying that he knows of no reference to a coordinated defence policy? Did he not suggest it himself in a speech quite recently when he talked about NATO defence and European Community defence? Is he running away from what he said?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I know of a reference to it, but I know of no movement towards it.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, very well; but if that is so does the noble Lord suggest that it is possible to have economic unity, and proceed in the direction, as is the intention, of political unity, yet impossible to have unity as regards defence?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, that seems to be rather far removed from the Question on the Order Paper.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I take it that references made by the noble Lord at the Conservative Party Conference are something of which we need to take no account at all?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if all the references I made to subjects of every sort and kind bore fruit, I should be very happy; but in some cases this takes longer than in others.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting then that this particular reference is one which he hopes will bear fruit?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I happen to agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has said, but, as I said, it seems to be rather far removed from the Question.

MAXILLO-FACIAL TECHNICIANS: SALARY SCALES
2.40 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the discontent of maxillo-facial technicians in hospitals because of the poor salary scales of these highly trained people, as compared with the salary scales of other hospital technicians; and whether they are further aware that these inadequate scales of pay are such that there could be a complete breakdown in the treatment of patients requiring reconstructive prosthesis for cancer, road accidents and other deformities due to trauma or disease.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, the pay of dental technicians, including maxillo-facial technicians, is a matter for the National Health Service Whitley Council. In 1971 the Council set up a joint working party of the staff and management sides to revalue the work of dental technicians, following which the Whitley Council reached an agreement on November 3 for increased pay effective from April 1, 1972. This is now being implemented. As to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, I can assure him that the situation is kept under review by the Whitley Council.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer, but may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that apparently there is now a growing understanding of the meticulous and important professional and technical work that the maxillo-facial dental technician performs? These people are on call night and day for prosthetic and other types of work in cancerous and other conditions. Will the noble Lord help to break down the misunderstanding that has existed about the qualifications of these highly technical people who work in our hospitals and for which many of us, who know of their work, are grateful? I appreciate the nature of his reply and hope that it will be kept in view that these people are worthy of a higher scale of salary.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not think that there has been any misunderstanding of the value of these technicians. They are rated on the same grade as senior dental technicians, and as well as the increase in pay which I have mentioned there is also an increased allowance for being on call for emergency duty out of hours.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I thank the noble Lord.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, what is the highest salary scale available to the best qualified person as described in the Question?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it was £1,587, and it is now £1,800.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I am grateful for the interrogation from
912
the other side of the House. That is exactly my point; I still think that they are worthy of a higher salary scale.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I am grateful for that advice. Is the noble Lord aware that I still think they are worthy of a higher salary scale?

EUROPEAN SECURITY CONFERENCE
LORD SHINWELL: 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 which countries of Western Europe are to be represented at the European Security Conference on November 22.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, all Western European countries are expected to be represented at the Preparatory Talks for the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe which will begin in Helsinki on November 22. A complete list of those countries which have been invited will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the List referred to:
COUNTRIES INVITED TO THE PREPARATORY TALKS FOR THE CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE.
Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czechoslavakia, Denmark, Eire, Federal Republic of Germany, Finland, France, German Democratic Republic, Greece, the Holy See, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Marquess for that information and I shall read the OFFICIAL REPORT in order to illuminate my mind on the subject. Can the noble Marquess say whether the agenda has been prepared for this Conference, and can he also furnish some information as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government? What do they intend is likely to result from this Conference—and will he be good enough not merely to tell me "security"?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the Conference, it is hoped, certainly on the part of Her Majesty's Government, will go wider than the question of security. We hope it will deal with such matters as economic and technical cooperation and questions concerning the movement of peoples and ideas in Europe. The agenda for this particular preparatory Conference is, I understand, concerned with these matters, and it will be for this Conference to plan the substantive Conference which we hope will take place next summer.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Marquess is suggesting to your Lordships' House that this is something he understands. Is it possible for Members of your Lordships' House to have a glance at the agenda in order to satisfy themselves that there is something substantial in it, or is it simply going to be a lot of vapouring and nothing more, a kind of amorphous discussion?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No, my Lords, I would not agree at all that it will be an amorphous discussion. It is a preparatory Conference to decide on a specific agenda for the substantive Conference, which, as I say, we hope will be held next summer.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that this Conference might be the beginning of something which almost everyone in Europe believes in: the coming together of Eastern and Western Europe?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, and I entirely agree.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, reverting to the Minister's original reply when he referred to Western European countries, may I ask whether that includes the neutral countries of Europe? And does it include other NATO Powers, such as the United States of America and Canada?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords, it includes both those categories.

E.E.C. INSTRUMENTS AND UNITED KINGDOM PARLIAMENT
2.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: 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 they propose to inform Parliament both of the text of the E.E.C. Corn-mission's Draft Directive on the Collective Dismissal of Workers, and of their own views upon it, other than placing a few copies of the relevant text in the Libraries of the two Houses.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the Government's proposal for an ad hoc Select Committee to consider arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny and control of Community instruments is at present under discussion through the usual channels. The House will not, therefore, wish me to comment on these matters at this stage.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that this is one of a number of examples raising a serious question; namely, how we can know what goes on. Will the Government at least put copies of these documents in the Library, and will they make available sufficient copies so that the one thousand or so working Members of the two Houses can have a chance to look at them, and look at them in English?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, my noble friend has touched on a very important point, and I think I can assure him on this matter. As he is probably aware, this particuler Directive has not yet been published in the Official Journal. A copy has been received in the Department of the Environment, and I shall be very glad to arrange for a copy of this to be made available in the Library. So far as the Official Journal is concerned, as from January 1, when it is published in the English language, copies will, of course, be available in the Printed Paper Office for any noble Lord who wishes to obtain one.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, thanking my noble friend, I appreciate, of course, that we are to get the Official Journal from January 1. In the meantime, these documents are being produced and they are reported in the Press. It is reasonable that those of us from this side who propose to try to take a constructive part in what is going on in Europe should know what is happening. While I appreciate my noble friend's readiness to give me a copy, is one copy sufficient for the whole of Parliament? I think not.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly take note of what the noble Earl has said. Though I refer to "a copy", I have no doubt that copies of that copy could be made.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess this question? As it is not unlikely that Members of your Lordships' House will have some difficulty in obtaining information about the various transactions at the E.E.C.? If and when your Lordships' House decides that a number of Peers will represent the United Kingdom at Strasbourg, will those noble Lords be instructed to report to your Lordships' House from time to time so that we can ask them questions about what is going on there?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that is a little wide of the original Question, but I am certain that my noble friend the Leader of the House will take note of what the noble Lord has said.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Merthyr, the Lord Airedale, the Lord Douglas of Barloch, the Lord Strang, the Lord Grenfell, the Baroness Wootton of Abinger, the Lord Jessel, the Lord Champion, the Lord St. Helens, the Lord Royle, the Baroness Emmet of Amberley, the Earl of Shannon, the Lord Henley, the Lord Ferrier, the Lord Derwent, the
916
Lord Alport, the Viscount Hood, the Viscount Goschen and the Lord Maybray-King be appointed the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE (PRIVATE BILLS)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on Standing Orders be appointed, and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

E. Lauderdale,

L. Airedale,

L. Alport,

B. Bacon,

L. Cawley,

L. Crook,

L. Derwent,

L. Douglas of Barloch,

L. Terrington;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, pursuant to Standing Order No. 49, the Lords following be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:

E. Mansfield,

V. Brentford,

L. Rathcreedan,

L. Cawley,

L. Clwyd,

L. Meston,

L. Guest,

L. Ilford,

L. Wells-Pestell,

L. Lloyd of Hampstead,

L. Janner,

L. Simon of Glaisdale;

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and ordered accordingly; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

COUNTER-INFLATION (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS)BILL
Brought from the Commons yesterday and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 48); read 1a.
ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACTS (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1972
2.49 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON rose to move, That the Draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1972, laid before the House on October 31, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will have noted that for the first time the House is being invited to approve a single annual Order which provides for the continuation of all three Service Discipline Acts. Until the Armed Forces Act 1971 came into force this year, the Navy was governed by a permanent Statute, the Naval Discipline Act. By contrast, the Army and Air Force Acts have, since 1955, been quinquennial Acts which have to be renewed annually by Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. When the 1966 Armed Forces Bill was considered this arrangement led to some criticism on the score of inconsistency of treatment as between the three Services, and we decided to bring the Naval Discipline Act into line with the Acts for the other two Services. The necessary provision was made in the 1971 Armed Forces Act. The result is the single Order covering all three Acts which is now before the House. The tradition in your Lordships' House on these occasions is to spend a few moments on Service personnel matters, and perhaps I might say something very briefly about each of the Services in turn before going on to one or two more general issues.
When we think of the Army to-day it is inevitably its role in Northern Ireland that comes first to mind. We have had all too many occasions in recent years, in debates and Questions, to discuss this, but I do not think I ought to let pass this opportunity of assuring your Lordships that in spite of the problems of turbulence and family separation that arise from service in Northern Ireland, the Army's standards of discipline and morale remain impressively high. Your Lordships will, I am sure, be interested to know that the rate of disciplinary offences has dropped appreciably since the middle of last year. The conduct and morale of the troops is deserving of the highest praise. We are very conscious of the importance of the welfare of the troops in Northern Ireland, and the measures we have taken have gone a long way to make more tolerable what, all too often, is a distasteful job that the troops in the Province have to do.
My Lords, during our debate last week on the Atomic Energy Authority (Weapons Group) Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, spoke of the pressures on the Defence Budget and the problem of the competing claims on our financial resources of equipment on the one hand and manpower on the other. Perhaps your Lordships might be interested if I were to illustrate this in terms of the Royal Air Force. The Royal Air Force is unique in that its raison d'être is to be able, if necessary, to send into battle only a tiny proportion of its men. If we can increase that proportion by a number which would barely man an extra infantry company, we increase the hitting or defensive power of the R.A.F. by a really significant amount.
But we can do this in only two ways: by spending very much more money or by cutting very heavily the ratio of men on the ground to men in the air. We cannot do the former; but we arc having considerable success with The latter. Under a manpower economy programme launched last year we have disestablished, or planned to disestablish, at least 6,000 R.A.F. officer and airman posts. This represents 6 per cent. of the total trained strength of the Force, and is a remarkable achievement, calling for imagination, enthusiasm and goodwill from all concerned. I do not want to give the impression that fighting power can be increased

919
overnight. The provision of extra aircraft and the training of men to fly them is a lengthy business.
But there is an even more important reason why this cannot be rushed. We are, in reducing the size of the Royal Air Force, dealing, not just with personnel statistics but with human beings who have rendered their country good service. This we must recognise in the way we go about the task. To the greatest possible extent we are bringing the numbers down by slowing the rate of recruitment and by more discrimination in allowing extensions of service. We cannot, however, eliminate redundancy altogether by these means without creating an unbalanced force in which some specialities would be so heavily overmanned that both morale and efficiency would suffer.
This problem arises particularly with officers, and we arc therefore instituting an officer redundancy programme, to take effect next year, under which we hope that about 500 will volunteer to leave before their normal retirement date. We must keep the power of compulsion in reserve, but if previous experience is any guide we should have to exercise it only in exceptional cases. And so it will be many months before we can make the major switch of resources which has been our object from the start. But I do not think that is necessarily a cause for disappointment. There has been much arbitrary disruption in the past. I do not mean to have change in the Services unless change means improvement; and we shall not, in improving the Services, forget our obligations to those who serve.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Can he say whether those members of the Royal Air Force, officers and also other ranks, will have a reserve liability, so that in the event of an emergency trained men can be immediately called up?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think they will, but if I am wrong I will certainly let the noble Lord know.
As I explained at the outset, the Royal Navy now comes within the scope of this particular type of debate for the first time. Your Lordships will be aware that in some respects the Navy has its special problems, different—because it operates in a different element—from
920
those of the other two Services. The welfare of the families is a case in point. This is something that we have not neglected; and we set up a Committee on Naval Welfare under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, to review welfare provision for Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel and their families, including, in the light of the problems created by Service conditions, ways of anticipating and preventing social difficulties. The Committee have had a full programme of visits and have taken evidence from many Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel and their families, as well as from a wide range of independent organisations and individuals. The existing Naval Family Welfare Organisation provides an excellent welfare service for naval personnel and their families, but I am confident that this review will result in further improvement.
I think that perhaps your Lordships will expect me at this juncture to say something about the recent catering fraud cases. As my honourable friend the Minister of State said in another place yesterday, we recognise—and share—the concern about these cases. From the time the frauds were first brought to our notice interim remedial measures have been taken. These measures have included the tightening-up of accounting controls to prevent the manipulation of stocks, and there has been a significant reduction in the amount of messing allowance which United Kingdom shore establishments and Her Majesty's ships in Home Waters can spend with local contractors. We are in the process of setting up an independent inquiry into the financial control of catering in all three Services, and I shall be making a further announcement as soon as I am in a position to do so. I hope your Lordships will understand that I cannot go into further details now, except to say that we intend this to be a thorough-going inquiry with experts in catering and accountancy sitting under an independent chairman.
My Lords, I should like now to turn to the question of recruiting. During the early part of this year recruiting continued at a very high level but, as foreseen in the Statement on the Defence Estimates, we are now beginning to see some signs of a decline, particularly in Army adult soldier recruiting.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does the Secretary of State realise what he is saying? He is saying that when unemployment is decreasing recruitment is also decreasing; when unemployment is rising recruitment is rising.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will do me the honour of supposing that I know what I am saying; and I certainly was not saying that, because it is not true. In the nature of things, it was unlikely that the exceptional recruiting achievements of the past two years could be maintained, but the Services are, in general, still recruiting the manpower they need. However, next year the Services will be faced with the problem of the raising of the school-leaving age. There will be a sharp reduction of over 100,000 in the number of school leavers next spring and summer, and, in common with all other employers, we shall be competing for a much smaller pool of manpower.
Careers in the Services will continue to compare well with the opportunities available in civilian life. This fact is, I believe, recognised by those who must be the best judges of it; namely, the men and women in the Services themselves. The rates of other rank re-engagement in all three Services continue to be satisfactory and, indeed, in the Royal Navy and the Army have shown a substantial improvement. As for officer recruiting, the position is generally satisfactory, although the Army is not getting quite the number of entrants to Sandhurst that it would like and there are still imbalances in certain areas. We hope that the new pattern of young officer training in the Army will help to put this right.
The factors which influence both recruiting and re-engagement are complex, but one of the most important of them is what people think is the Government's attitude towards the Services; and so it is surely significant that satisfactory levels of recruiting and re-engagement have been achieved in the context of the stable Defence policy which we have pursued. And, my Lords, we must also continue to see that members of the Armed Services are properly paid. Your Lordships will be aware of the improvements that have been made this year, in both pay and pensions. I believe it is
922
now generally acknowledged, by those in the Services as well as by those outside, that rates of Service pay are fair and reasonable. However, the Armed Forces Pay Review Body is currently engaged in a number of studies relating to the structure of Service pay, and to food and accommodation charges, and there is no reason why, because of the standstill, these studies should not continue. In due course, the Government's long-term policy following the standstill will obviously have a bearing on these matters.
My Lords, the theme that has been running through my remarks this afternoon—the importance we attach to the well-being of the Serviceman—is something which we must never lose sight of, and I am glad to have had this opportunity of letting the House know what the Government have been seeking to do in this all-important area. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1972, laid before the House on October 31, be approved.—(Lord Carrington.)
3.3 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I personally have found the Secretary of State's important discussion of the Armed Forces Act 1971 an extremely interesting if somewhat complex matter. But it is satisfactory to see how that Act is now working out with the much simplified placing of an Order to regulate discipline and other elements of the activities of the Armed Forces. I do not propose to make a major speech this afternoon. The Secretary of State was good enough to note one of my remarks during our debate last week, and I feel that the very important subject which must concern everyone in your Lordships' House—namely, the financing of Defence in an age of increasingly expensive technology and rising individual expectations—must be debated by this House. The Defence Estimates, which will be laid before us, and the White Paper will provide an excellent opportunity to have a close look at this subject. The time is right for it.
May I now follow the various points which the Secretary of State made? I can only congratulate him—although I hardly need to do so—on bringing to

923
your Lordships' notice the exemplary discipline which is being shown by our Forces in Northern Ireland. Whatever may be said to the contrary by a group of interested persons, the tolerance and self-control shown by our Forces in that very difficult area of operations, which I and a number of other noble Lords have seen, is remarkable. It is to the credit of the Armed Forces that the rate of disciplinary offences has dropped during this difficult and critical period. Of course those of us who are experienced in the affairs of the Armed Forces would have expected this. The time when troops get into trouble is when they are kicking their heels in barracks and are not performing their very important social function. The Duke of Wellington said after the Battle of Vitoria, when the Household Cavalry omitted to capture the paywagons of the French Army but galloped on after the retreating foe, "It is conduct to be expected of the Household Brigade ". This is conduct to be expected from Her Majesty's Forces, and our expectations have not been disappointed.
The Secretary of State then turned to the Royal Air Force and gave us a most interesting clarification of the position. If one looks at the recruitment figures alone, the position of the Royal Air Force appears to be rather gloomy; but what the noble Lord said is correct. We have observed an important series of steps towards greater rationalisation. The merger of Support Command and Strike Command, bringing about substantial savings in manpower, is a case in point. I think everyone will realise that although the recruiting figures of the Royal Air Force seem to have dropped substantially, this is part of a planned process. I think we may assume that although the numbers have dropped the quality of recruit is rising; because I recollect from my days with the Royal Air Force that we always had abundant applications for positions and it was merely a question of sifting those individuals who we thought could serve most effectively. I think we may assume that we can see in the Royal Air Force a rising quality in the standard of citizens whom we recruit into that important arm of our Services.
One thing I think the Secretary of State did not say, regarding the premature
924
retirement of 500 officers, was that their pension rights (I hope I am correct), if they opt to retire, are unaltered, so that although they may leave the service somewhat prematurely, they will not lose out on their pension rights as a result.
Turning to the Navy, one knows the great care which the Navy takes of its personnel because of the long periods of separation from families, and it is good to know that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, is leading a Committee to see what further improvements can be achieved. The Secretary of State was right to tell the House of the Government's view about the very regrettable cases of fraud which have been uncovered. The most important point of all is that they have been uncovered and are not continuing. I am afraid that when I first heard of them my somewhat flippant mind went back to Mr. Pepys, who did not do so badly out of his appointment. But that is not to condone anything that has happened three centuries later.
May I turn for a moment to the question of recruitment? I should like to answer the noble Lord, Lord Balogh—who is not now in his place—somewhat more firmly than did the Secretary of State. If the noble Lord is to comment upon Defence matters, he really should understand the psychology of recruitment. There is abundant evidence to show that if an individual decides to join the Armed Forces and accept their challenges he must be in a high state of morale. Recruitment tends to rise when national morale is high, or when the demands on the individual who is willing to serve are great. It is much more probable that an individual will escape from life into the universities than into the Armed Forces.
May I now turn to the question of the impact of the school-leaving age on recruitment in the future? I touched upon this question when we debated the Defence White Paper last year, but I think it is worth while saying it again. Is it not possible, my Lords, that training in some of the excellent training establishments of the Armed Forces—such as, for instance. the apprentice school at Halton—should in fact count as continuing education? Last year, I seem to remember (I am speaking without consulting my notes) that the Secretary of State said

925
that this presented difficulties. Nevertheless, the continued education that young men receive in these specialised training establishments for the Armed Forces should, I think, be allowed to count as a continuation of their education. The training at Halton, for instance, in the whole of the range of skills required for the Royal Air Force, is outstanding—and I am selecting only one such establishment of which I know something.
It is good to know, too, that there is a continuing study of the pay requirements of the Armed Forces under the new Armed Forces Pay Review Body. The comparability of service in the Armed Forces with civilian life does not remain constant. The balance of skills changes; and I think we can expect that periodical reviews, which I understand in any case take place biennially, will continue because things never stand still. The fact that pay is out of step with civilian life will show in the recruitment figures, but at the moment these figures seem reasonably satisfactory—in fact very satisfactory, all things considered. I have every confidence that the intelligent application of the findings of these various skilled bodies will enable the Armed Forces to keep the requirements of the Armed Services as a whole in balance with the requirements of society as a whole, thus enabling us to keep in being the whole professional Armed Forces which we possess to-day and which I think are absolutely necessary for operating successfully in a very difficult world, politically troubled as it is.
3.13 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, nowadays, the submission of an Order relating to the Armed Forces seldom gives rise to an animated debate. It was otherwise a few years ago. I do not know what happened in your Lordships' House because I was not here, but in the other place there was more animation about an Order of this kind than there was about even the subjects of unemployment or slum conditions. But now we speak in muted tones about these matters. I have no complaint at all about the submissions which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I do not know that it is necessary to congratulate him about anything. After all, what does that matter, anyhow—because he is up to-day and down tomor-
926
row: that is what happens to Ministers of Defence. I know all about it. One can be very popular on some occasions and then be kicked in the pants the next day. It is all in a day's work, so to speak. So I am not going to congratulate him: I am going to offer a few suggestions. After all, in a debate of this kind (it is hardly a debate, but in a sort of desultory talk of this character) it might be useful to offer a few constructive suggestions.
First of all, I am very pleased indeed, having had some experience of these matters, that at last the noble Lord has included the Navy. For years and years we made every possible endeavour to put an end to their isolation. The Navy was a law unto itself. They would not come into anything. For example—it is just an illustration—in the matter of the women's Services we had the Wrens, and at a conference which I convened for some reason or other, but which was related to military matters, I discovered to my astonishment that the Wrens were unofficial. The ladies associated with the Army and the ladies associated with the R.A.F. were official, but the Wrens were not. I suggested on one occasion that we ought to make honest women of them and bring them in, and that was done eventually. But we never could persuade the Lords of the Admiralty to cease from adopting this isolated and superior attitude, and join with the Army and the R.A.F. in relation to matters of mutual concern. The noble Lord has succeeded where many of us failed.
VISCOUNT DAVENTRY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, may I say that I found during my forty years in the Navy that everything that was popular in the Navy, everything that was good, was altered, and it was nearly always done in order to put it in line with the Army. I always thought that that was a great mistake, and I am sure the noble Lord is making the same mistake now.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I do not want to enter into an argument with the noble Viscount on this or any other matter. After all, this not not an occasion for controversy. In any event, I really did not hear what he said. But let me proceed. If I may use an old cliché, the

927
thread of my discourse has been interrupted, but I was speaking about the Navy. Now I come to something which is rather more important, I think, and that is the situation of the officers and other ranks associated with the R.A.F. who are likely to become redundant. I am surprised at the numbers mentioned by the noble Lord. From the Press report this morning I learned that a matter of 500 or so were involved, but the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke in terms of thousands. I am not sure—
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, perhaps I may clear that point up before the noble Lord moves on. It was 500 officers who were referred to in the papers this morning, for whom there is this particular scheme.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that information. But whatever the number is, it is a very grave matter indeed for men who have entered the R.A.F. and who have regarded it as a career—for it is a career—and who have been trained in matters mechanical, scientific and the like, then to find themselves, perhaps at an age between 40 and 50, so to speak thrown on the scrap heap. That was why I asked the question. I ventured to interject to ask whether there was a Reserve liability. The noble Lord said that he would look into the matter but he thought there was a Reserve liability. This is extremely important. If, for example, there was a decline in recruitment, whether in the Navy, the R.A.F. or in the Army; or if, for some reason or other—a matter of economy, or for some other reason—we had to reduce the numbers, then we should have to consider whether we were in a position of strength. I use that term in a relative sense, because in peace time we can never have the strength that is necessary to meet an emergency; but if the strength of the Services is in any way impaired it is a very serious matter indeed.
I come now to a point which I have ventured to raise in previous Defence debates—it is perhaps my King Charles's head—and that is the matter of reserves; and, of course, it has nothing to do with unemployment. This is an old argument: that when there is vast unemployment men flock into the Services. They do
928
nothing of the sort. Indeed, we have found over the years that recruitment is intensified in periods of normality, when employment is at a fairly high level. The question is this: are we to maintain the strength of the Services in one form or another, if not Regular service then in Reserve service, so that in the event of an emergency we are in a position to co-ordinate our Forces to deal with whatever situation may arise?
I should like the noble Lord to consider the matter. I do not expect an answer to-day; but on a future debate, perhaps on the Defence debate, I ask him to be kind enough to develop this line of thought. Perhaps it is an idle prophecy and an ill-founded one, but I am inclined to think that as time passes fewer men will wish, for one reason or another, to join the Forces. We shall then have to rely on one of two expedients: a high level of Reserves, a large number of Reserves trained from time to time and available in case of emergency; or, alternatively—a very dread alternative, but it may be imposed upon us—conscription. This has been advocated; colleagues of mine in the past, in the War Office and in the Ministry of Defence, have advocated conscription as the only way out. The matter was mentioned in the course of Questions to-day but in only a very perfunctory fashion. It has been suggested that since every other NATO country has accepted the policy of conscription there is no reason why we should not accept it also. I am not sure that that is a valid argument; but conscription may be forced upon us if there is a decline in recruitment and unless—and I emphasise this—we have available Reserves.
3.22 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said that he was struck by how little animation there was nowadays, as compared with a few years ago, in the debates on this subject in your Lordships' House. Dare I suppose that it might be because the House generally and the country generally are satisfied with the Defence policy that Her Majesty's Government are pursuing? I was a little disappointed in the noble Lord when he said that because Ministers of Defence had their

929
"ups and downs", there was therefore no need to congratulate them when things went right. I should have thought that this proved conclusively that there was a need to congratulate them when things went right—because they will be blamed soon enough when things go wrong. But the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, who probably knows as much as anybody in the House about the subject of personnel in the Services, and who, if I may say so, is certainly a good friend of the Services and interested in them, I thought welcomed what I had to say and was not unduly critical.
He asked two questions: first, whether the pension rights of those who accept redundancy and who leave the R.A.F. will be unaltered. They will be unaltered; the pensions will be smaller because of their shorter length of service; but they will get pensions. He suggested, possibly not, I imagine, only at Halton but at other Army, Navy and R.A.F. colleges and schools, that it might be possible to treat a year there as the last year at school. It would be disingenuous of me to say that I do not find that suggestion very attractive. I do. From the point of view of the Services, this has almost everything to be said for it, but I think there are real difficulties from other points of view—not least from that of the Secretary of State for Education: the organisation of the curriculum at schools and the precedent which it would create if one group of people were allowed to be treated differently from others. I should also expect there to be considerable administrative difficulties. Consequently, rather regretfully, I have had to abandon the idea; but I do not seek to disguise from the noble Lord that it was with very great regret that I had to do so.
Both Lord Winterbottom and Lord Shinwell turned even more savagely on the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, than I did on the connection between recruitment and unemployment. I think that it is exceedingly difficult to know what is the connection; there may be one but it is not the direct connection which Lord Balogh supposed it to be. If he had pursued the subject I had some figures which I could have quoted to him (and I will quote them to your Lordships
930
instead) which showed that, curiously enough, in 1966 when there was quite a considerable rise in unemployment, a rise of some 200,000, there was a very dramatic decrease in recruitment. Although I could suggest why that was, I will not do so, because it is rather a Party political point and I do not wish to be Party political this afternoon. I have not been Party political so far; but I will be so willingly if noble Lords opposite encourage me. But the illustration proves that there is no connection, or very little connection, between unemployment and recruiting in the direct sense that the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, was seeking to prove.
I will look at what Lord Shinwell said about the reserves, and I am ready to debate this with him on another occasion when we can go into it more fully. One of the difficulties about the whole question of the size of the reserves and the size of the Territorial Army, apart from recruitment, is the amount of money that you can afford to put towards this particular object when you have a tight Defence budget and when, as Lord Winterbottom said the other day, so much more of that Defence budget is already going on personnel and less, in proportion, on re-equipment. One must think carefully about the balance of advantage as between spending on more reserves or spending on more re-equipping of the Regular Forces in the best way possible. But by all means let us debate that at a later date.
As for conscription, he and I are at one in being opposed to it. I do not believe that the Army was as efficient in the days when there was conscription as it is now. I think that far too much time was spent in training men who had a comparatively short period of service and that all the Regulars were doing that at the expense of the efficiency of the units in the front line. Therefore, I, like the noble Lord, would be opposed to this, and what I shall seek to do is to make certain that the conditions of service in the three Services are attractive enough to ensure that recruitment is kept up so that we may avoid any possibility in the future of a return to conscription.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DESIGNATION) ORDER 1972
3.28 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE) rose to move, That the Draft European Communities (Designation) Order 1972, laid before the House on October 31, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will doubtless recall with more than a touch of nostalgia our long debates on the European Communities Act this summer. Recalling those debates you will remember that Section 2 of the Act enables provision to be made for the purposes of meeting Community obligations either by Order in Council or by regulations made by Ministers or Departments designated in an Order in Council. The Order now before your Lordships' House designates those Ministers and Departments which may exercise powers to make regulations under Section 2(2) of the Act and specifies in the Schedule the matters in relation to which Ministers or Departments may exercise these powers.
Broadly speaking, I should perhaps remind your Lordships, the need for subordinate legislation arises under the Community Treaties, under the obligations which we assume under them, in two ways. First, the institutions of the Community, the Commission and more normally the Council, issue Directives. These lay down objectives to be achieved by all the Member States, while leaving it to each Member State to choose the method within its own legislative and administrative framework by which they are achieved. This can be done in a number of ways: by new primary legislation, by Order in Council under Section 2 of the Act, by regulations or indeed by administrative action. Secondly, the Treaties and the regulations issued by the Community institutions lay down rules which themselves are to operate as law in the Member States but which frequently need to be supplemented in national law for their satisfactory operation. Again for this purpose, my Lords, regulations may need to be made by Ministers of Departments under the umbrella of a designation Order such as this one provided for in Section 2(2) of the Act.
The purpose of this Order is to make clear to Parliament the area in which the
932
various Ministers will operate in the exercise of their regulation-making powers. It also limits and specifies their particular fields of operation. In this way both Houses of Parliament are given a double opportunity to scrutinise the exercise of delegated powers, first in this Order as to the extent of those powers, and subsequently when the designated Minister exercises his or her particular powers. I should perhaps remind your Lordships that I gave an assurance that there would be this double safeguard, and I repeated that assurance at our Report stage in September. I made it clear on both occasions that, rather than use the general power to legislate by Order in Council, we would normally specify particular Ministers for particular purposes. That is what this Order does.
Your Lordships will also recall that under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2 to the Act a designating Order in Council before Parliament—such as this one—can be made subject to either the Affirmative or the Negative Resolution procedure. On this occasion the Government have decided to proceed down the Affirmative road. Since this designating Order is the first of its kind we felt it right at the outset that Parliament should have an opportunity to assess the range of the powers which the Government propose to confer on Ministers and the extent to which these powers are delimited in each case.
I do not think that the inherent importance of the Order itself would necessarily call for the Affirmative procedure for approval in draft and it may be that as successive Orders come to be submitted from time to time it will not always be necessary to take up the time of Parliament with Motions for their approval. However in this case, the first instance, I hope your Lordships will agree not only that the Order is worthy of the approval of the House but also that it was right to take up a little of the time of the House with a discussion on its substance and merits, which I am now outlining, even though we have a rather special reason to-day for wishing to clear the decks in this House comparatively early in the afternoon. With that in mind I shall not weary your Lordships with a detailed description of each of the powers conferred in the Schedule to the Order. But a glance at the

933
Schedule makes it clear, I think, in the light of the specific detail with which the matters covered in it are described, that in general only the type of revision normally found in Statutory Instruments as opposed to primary legislation are intended to be covered.
Let me illustrate this by drawing your Lordships' attention to the list of articles about halfway down in the Schedule in respect of which subordinate legislation is authorised; covering measures for safety and consumer protection, labelling, marketing, classification, description and so on. The type of provision there covered is not at all dissimilar to the kind of thing one would expect to see dealt with in regulations made under the Consumer Protection Act 1961 or the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. However, my Lords, it is not always possible, or indeed desirable, to specify the subject matter of the delegated powers so very precisely and particularly. And this is especially true so far as the Common Agricultural Policy of the Community is concerned. Whether we like the C.A.P. or not (and I think there are those of us, even those who support our entry, who may have their doubts about C.A.P. as it stands at present), we know that for the most part it operates by regulations taking direct effect and leaving little discretion to the Member States as to the method of implementation.
The range of products and activities embraced by the policy is indeed vast and will require quite a few ancillary provisions for its satisfactory operation in this country; that is, regulations. Already we see that these will range from provisions for marketing eggs and registering hatcheries to financial aid for farmers who give up their land. With so wide and varied a range of matters to be covered, flexibility becomes essential and calls for a broad specification. The Schedule, in following this rather broader approach, will (I hope) avoid the need for any further designation in the agricultural field for a considerable time to come.
I should perhaps mention here one rather technical matter. The Special Orders Committee of the House, in their First Report of this Session, which is before your Lordships, have commented that in following the traditional use of the term "the Secretary of State" the
934
Schedule does not indicate which of the several Departments presided over by a Secretary of State will in fact be responsible for particular matters. As your Lordships know, it is a long-standing practice for duties intended to be performed by a Government Department in the charge of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State to be entrusted to "the Secretary of State" as such, without specifying a particular Department. This is because the office of the Secretaries of State is constitutionally one, and each Secretary is capable, at least in law, of performing the duties of all or any of the others. That at least is the constitutional theory as I understand it.
In the case of the present Order it seems to the Government that the advantage of following the traditional methods are indeed overwhelming. I see three or four. In the first place, there is always the practical convenience of interchangeability, of one Minister being able to deputise, if need be, for another. The second is that in this case the Order itself would become extremely unwieldy if it were drafted in other than the way in which it is drafted: in relation to nearly every item more than one Minister would need to be designated. For example, the Secretaries for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will all be necessarily involved with practically all agricultural matters, in addition to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If the Ministers were specifically listed in the alternative, the reader might be no wiser about who is going to exercise the powers than he is now. Thirdly, the Order is intended to operate for some time to come, and with several Ministers designated for nearly every purpose any one of whose functions could possibly be transferred, the position could soon become highly confusing.
The primary objective of the Order is not so much to specify particular Ministers who are to exercise the powers conferred by this section of the Act as to limit the scope of these powers in relation to particular subjects. After all, Section 2(2), subject to the qualification in Schedule 2 to the Act confers powers on Her Majesty to enact by Order in Council almost anything that can be done by Act of Parliament, and proposals to that end could be submitted to Her Majesty by any Minister. The primary object of the

935
Order is to give effect to ministerial undertakings that the very wide powers conferred by the section would normally be used only for limited purposes.
My Lords, I think it might be helpful if, in conclusion, I gave your Lordships some indication, or such indication as I can, of the amount of Community subordinate legislation, flowing either from this designation Order or from elsewhere in the Act, with which Parliament is likely to be faced in this Session. First of all, I can repeat the assurance which your Lordships received from the Joint Select Committee on Delegated Legislation, chaired by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that Parliament will not be swamped by a flood of subordinate Community legislation. With a few exceptions—and I shall come to them in a moment—this Order is designed to cover all the subordinate legislation that we think will be necessary this Session in order to enable us to fulfil either our existing Community obligations or those that we are likely to incur within the next twelve months or so. Our present estimate, though I hope that I shall not be held to this within one or two, one way or the other, is that under the powers conferred by this Order something like 35 Instruments may be needed. This is the best calculation we can make at present, and we have taken account of all those matters which are now in draft or which we know are under serious consideration and in an advanced state of preparation.
In addition, as I have mentioned, there are a few matters which, on account of their intrinsic importance or precedence, are more appropriately dealt with by Order in Council. Here again, there is no prospect of a flood of Orders. Your Lordships will have noticed that three Orders in Council were in fact laid before Parliament on October 31 under Section 2 of the Act. They relate to the effect of Community decisions and judgments in the United Kingdom, to immunities of the European schools and to the tax treatment of loan stock issued by some European institutions. I think there is a further Order laid under Section 6 of the Act which relates to the constitution of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Production. I understand that no further Orders in Council under these
936
sections are contemplated at the present time. Finally, there will be a certain number of Statutory Instruments made under specific powers contained elsewhere in the Act, or under existing powers of subordinate legislation, which can be exercised in connection with the various Treaty obligations which we are or shall be assuming. On present information, we do not expect these to exceed 100 in the course of this year and next.
My Lords, I have gone into some detail in this matter, particularly to try to give your Lordships some estimate of the subordinate legislation coming before Parliament. With these explanations, I hope your Lordships will agree that the Order before this House is a satisfactory means of delimiting the field of subordinate legislation and of designating Ministers to exercise the appropriate delegated powers under Section 2(2) of the Act which your Lordships approved a month or so ago. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft European Communities (Designation) Order 1972, laid before the House on October 31, be approved.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
3.42 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl said that it was with a sense of nostalgia that we return to Section 2 of the Act. I am bound to say that it was in a mood of the utmost gloom that I found myself looking at Section 2, which was so gallantly explained by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, his noble friend Lord Limerick and others who had to deal with this Bill. Once again I found it difficult to follow. I am grateful, however, to the noble Earl for explaining the purpose of this new Order. He said that it made clear who was responsible for (I did not actually write it down, but I think it was something like) making Orders under Section 2(2). But of course that is precisely what this Order does not do. The noble Earl explained that the phrase "Secretary of State" was a generic term. Certainly it is a useful thing when one Secretary of State is away that another Secretary of State can sign an Order. Lesser Ministers sometimes have to go to another Department to have this done. But it does not designate which Department is going to do this.

937
The noble Earl attempted the defence, like many of the defences that he made during the passage of the Act, that it was really rather convenient, and that it would be misleading to attempt to say which Department was involved. In that case, if the Order is not to tell us which Department is involved, I do not really know why we have Orders. If the noble Earl says that this is convenient, we might just as well substitute the word "Government" for "Secretary of State ", in which case we need not have had Orders at all. I would ask the noble Earl to think again. He knows well that Parliament has long struggled with the Executive in seeking to get more explanatory information into Orders. I remember the tremendous reform when it was provided that an Order which otherwise might be unintelligible should have a short paragraph at the end saying what it was all about. I am suggesting now that the Government might go a little further and might help us to know which Secretary of State it would be. I understand that where it talks about for instance, "the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State", this may mean at least two, and possibly three, Secretaries of State. But when it comes to the medicinal products, it is "the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food". I am sure there is a logical reason for this—that one is likely to do more of the work. But would the noble Earl consider whether there is not a way to indicate this?
Looking at the Order, I conclude that something like six Secretaries of State are involved. There is, first of all, the Secretary of State for, I think, the Environment who is concerned with transport. There is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. There are the Scottish and Welsh Secretaries of State. And there is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. At present there are only five. If the noble Earl is saying that it is too difficult to say because they do not know, or it might change, I would say that of course it will change. Powers to make Orders change as Departments change and there are provisions enabling this to be done. But the important thing is to know the position at the time of the passing of the Order. The noble Earl has not vouch
938
safed anything to us, though I hope that I have informed the House by, as it were, deduction what Secretaries of State are involved. It would be helpful, especially in the light of the fact that the Special Orders Committee has, rather exceptionally, drawn attention to this point, if a way could be found of explaining it, possibly with an appendix to the Order. Otherwise, we might just as well have the list of subjects in relation to which Orders can be made.
My Lords, this is an important Order. The Government take some credit for moving by the Affirmative procedure. It would have been quite intolerable if they had not done so. I give them the credit, but I should have been shocked if they had thought of anything else. The noble Earl, in a rather light and friendly way, said, "We shall not necessarily always do this. We might otherwise use the Negative procedure." I am not clear whether these are Orders of the category under the Act which will automatically, even if they are not strictly Affirmative Orders, go to the Special Orders Committee under the arrangements which the House approved, and of which the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees informed us, or whether these Orders are outside that category and therefore may not be subject to scrutiny by the Special Orders Committee. I must admit that I have had thought on this point only while I have been on my feet, and it may be that the noble Earl does not know the answer. However, it is important, because once again we are moving into this area, and we took up a good deal of time in trying to understand how Parliamentary control would be exercised.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to get this matter clear. Is the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asking me whether any further designation Orders will automatically go to the Special Orders Committee, or whether regulations made under this or further designation Orders will do so?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I might as well ask both, but I had in mind any more Designation Orders, which might be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. If I understood the noble Earl correctly, he might say: "Now we have set a good example and

939
told you how we do it, but in future we may well do it by the Negative procedure. "It is very difficult at this stage for Parliament, which is having to learn all about this subject, to keep in touch. I think there is a lot to be said for the Government, until further notice at any rate, proceeding by the Affirmative procedure in the case of any designation Order. In due course we may all get accustomed to it and may be content with what is being done; but there is no doubt that there are many anxieties, whether one is for or against entry into the Common Market, and we are anxious to monitor very carefully. The Government have deliberately put into the Act provision for monitoring of this kind and now we are beginning to see how it is working and we should like to continue in this way.
Perhaps the noble Earl can help me on this point. It is conceivable that occasionally there might be a regulation—I take it this does not apply to a treaty, which is dealt with in Section 1 of the Act—of such importance that it was desirable to do it by primary legislation. I take it that we might even have an Order made following a directive which it might be better to do by primary legislation. If I am right, the noble Earl and the Government have recognised that there may be some developments which are of such importance, especially arising from a directive, and I take it this could apply to some regulation made to implement a directive. We are not talking about "directly applicable legislation"—it is terrible to be back in this language again!—we are talking about material where the Government have to take steps to implement it. There might be something of such importance that it would give rise to primary legislation. This is another reason why I hope that the Government, in listing the sort of subjects on which they are taking powers for the Secretary of State and/or Departments, will proceed by the Affirmative procedure until further notice, so that we can keep an eye on it.
I do not think it would be appropriate, nor would there be time, to discuss the particular powers to which the noble Earl has referred, because these are matters which will come before Parliament when an Order is made. I take it that this is
940
correct. We know that the whole of the Common Agricultural Policy is mopped up in one sentence, and the noble Earl was very cautious about that, but this is one area where obviously we expected it and Parliament will have to keep an eye on it.
There is one other aspect which bothers me. This is one with which we dealt when we were in Committee, and indeed on Report of the Bill, and I am glad to see that in every case the designating Ministers are either the Minister of Agriculture or this collective noun, "the Secretary of State". But when we come to Northern Ireland it becomes
"any Minister or Department of the Government of Northern Ireland."
This is not an amendable Order. This is the difficulty we are always in; but I should much prefer to see the words again, "Secretary of State". We were concerned that Orders were going to be made by Departments and we felt in these early stages that they ought to be made by Ministers. Now we understand that a number of Orders are made perhaps by the Customs or certain Departments that have Order-making powers, and that ultimately the Minister is responsible. We are always a bit nervous about what happens in Northern Ireland, in the sense that we are legislating in an area about which we are singularly ignorant. We have not as yet any procedure for discharging our duties properly, and I would ask the noble Earl not to seek to withdraw the Order but to give consideration in future, particularly with regard to Northern Ireland, for the Secretary of State to be designated. He may say that it makes very little difference, but I think it has a significance in terms of confidence. The present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland enjoys a great deal of confidence, at least in this country, but just to use the vague expression "any Department of Northern Ireland", even though a Minister may ultimately be responsible, seems to me unsatisfactory and emphasises the doubts we were raising when we tried to delete the word "Department".
I am sorry to launch into this rather technical exposition on this matter. I shall be grateful for any help that the noble Earl can give. No doubt we shall continue to watch, lynx-like, what the Government are doing, pointing out that

941
if there are 35 Orders to be made in the next few months, and if, as my noble friend Lord Hoy pointed out, we take a day on each of those, that will be 12 weeks' business. No wonder the Government Chief Whip looks so depressed!
3.56 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for explaining this Order. Until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I thought it was comparatively straightforward. It is not my task this afternoon to answer the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, but I have one or two comments I should like to make. First, we are indebted to the Special Orders Committee for drawing the attention of the House to Orders of this nature laid before Parliament. As for the future, I imagine that we shall have to consider very seriously what method will be adopted for studying this delegated legislation arising from the European Communities Act, and we shall have to decide how best to co-operate with another House in that respect. But that is for the future.
I am glad that the Government have followed the Affirmative Resolution procedure in this case, and I hope that it will be a precedent; but no doubt we must see how things work out. The noble Earl has pointed out that these Orders are not in the nature of primary legislation, and he justifies the procedure on those grounds. But there may well be some matters arising that are of considerable importance. I notice that in the Schedule there is the item "Collection of Information about the Carriage of Goods by Road". I do not know for certain at the moment whether that brings in the whole controversial subject of the very large container lorries that may be coming on to our roads. If it does, then even though it is not primary legislation it is a matter of some importance.
As to the designation of "the Secretary of State", I appreciate the constitutional point, but I hope that at some stage we may know the particular Department to which the matter is to be referred. The noble Earl very kindly referred to the Committee known as "Lord Brooke's Committee", and I
942
welcome his remarks, as I happen to be a member of that Committee. It certainly appears from the Committee's Report that the amount of subordinate legislation will not be as large as was at one time anticipated in some quarters. I gather from what the noble Earl said (I am not sure whether I heard him correctly) that this Order we are now discussing covers all the subordinate legislation for this coming Session. Of course, what is going to be more serious in the future is—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord Lord Wade, just to settle that point. If I was unclear I apologise. This Order covers, I believe, 35 of the Instruments, but there will be other regulations, flowing from other sections of the Act, which the House will be asked to approve. I may say that there might be up to 100 Instruments there. There were also three or four Orders-in-Council which I particularly itemised: otherwise, so far as I understand it, this Order covers the waterfront.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl. I was about to say that in future the most serious problem is going to be the examination of draft instruments before they come to this stage; but that is another matter and is outside the purview of the debate to-day.
Finally, returning to the subject of the reference to "the Secretary of State", the noble Earl will know that the Explanatory Note on this Order says:
"This Order designates Ministers who may exercise powers to make regulations…"
The Explanatory Note is not entirely accurate in saying
"This Order designates Ministers…",
for there is reference throughout the Order to "the Secretary of State". So long as we know in due course which Department is going to deal with the particular Order, that will, I hope, satisfy the House. Those are the only points that I have to raise, and I should like to thank the noble Earl for introducing the Order.
4.1 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I intervene because I served for many years on a Statutory Instruments Committee. Whenever we had an Order put

943
before us in another place (and sometimes we dealt with hundreds of them) we had the power to call before us the civil servants and others who had drafted the Order. Will such a power exist so far as this place is concerned, when we get this type of Order from another place? If the power does not exist, then it is an increase of delegated powers by a body outside the United Kingdom over which, despite the facade of appointing a number of Members of Parliament to go there, we shall have no real power. That is how I feel about that matter.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, pointed out the ambiguity of the verbiage. The Explanatory Note does not explain anything. It say that the Order designates Ministers, but it talks about "the Secretary of State". We have the word "Minister" inserted in two places. Either that is looseness or it is a kind of technical shadow boxing with this House. I believe that there should have been much more information in the Explanatory Note. I should like to declare an interest in medicinal products, because I am concerned with a drug company that has won the Queen's Award for a technological breakthrough in gastroenterology. We are now particularly concerned in Britain about the qualifications of those people serving in medicine and in hospitals throughout Europe. All I am told in this Order is that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is going to deal with medicinal products. I can understand this with veterinary surgeons. For instance, foot-and-mouth disease is dealt with completely differently in England compared with most of Europe. You do not cure foot-and-mouth disease by pouring coal tar over the feet of the cows. We did not do that even on the crude little farm that my ancestors had in Wales. We know more about agriculture than that. Are we going to have the first-class technological progress in agriculture and the same standards in medicine, and in qualifications for practising medicine, as we have had in this country? If regulations and Orders are made, can the Minister of Health, the B.M.A. and other bodies of similar status be consulted?
Finally—I do not want to delay your Lordships—I regret that there seems to be no power similar to that of the Statu
944
tory Instruments Committee in another place; namely, to bring the civil servants before them. I could give examples galore, historic cases in my 25 years or so in Parliament, where we brought civil servants and the drafters of the Orders before the Committee to explain clearly why the Explanatory Note did not explain all that was contained in the Orders. I apologise to the House for intervening, but I have been speaking for only three minutes, and I think the questions I have asked the noble Earl are relevant. My Lords, I have spoken now, I notice, for four minutes.
4.5 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that all the questions that have been asked of me are relevant. Having heard the questions, I am not certain that I do not, for once, agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that it is not only with nostalgia but also with feelings short of nostalgia that I find myself again in this particular field. It is, as he has said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, intimated, a highly technical matter. There has been some criticism voiced by noble Lords opposite of the fact that Ministers under this Designation Order, with the exception of the Minister of Agriculture, are not to be designated by name. All I can say, not by way of defence as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, suggested I was doing, but by way of explanation, is that this is following the traditional procedure. It may well be that in this sphere we may over a period of time find it best to depart from our traditional procedures. This is a matter which is open to us. In this case we are certainly following the route which we have always followed in the past. I sought to explain why that was so, and the advantages of it.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? I am grateful for his explanation. I think I am right in saying that powers to make Orders are usually given in primary legislation, when one is discussing a Bill and can argue round it, and one knows who the Minister is. Here we are giving powers to make these Orders in subordinate legislation where that is not so apparent. Normally with legislation one knows at least the Minister who is presenting it to Parliament. There is quite

945
an important difference. I accept the argument on precedent which the noble Earl has given; but precedent does not entirely meet the present situation. I do not say this to harass him, but just to give him another argument when he thinks further about it.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am always grateful to the noble Lord for his bounty in giving me further arguments in this way. This is an area which we wish to explore, and I would not wish to be dogmatic here. All I will say is that when the actual regulations come to be laid it will be made clear which Ministers are laying them. Perhaps it would be right if I left that point at this moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, surmised that there were five Ministers concerned under this particular Designation Order covering an anticipated 30 to 35 Instruments. Broadly speaking, the noble Lord is right. I have been through the list of the 35. The total may be marginally more; I think probably it will be marginally less. There will be the three Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There will be the Minister of Agriculture, in the case of at least one Instrument—no more than one. I see—there will be the Home Secretary. He will be involved in the laying of the regulations for safety requirements for aerosols, I notice. There will be the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and the Secretary of State for the Environment. In this first clutch it looks as if the list will amount to seven Ministers.
So far as the Special Orders Committee's being seined of this is concerned, it is my understanding that, according to our present procedure, it is only those regulations which are subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure that go to the Committee. I note what the noble Lord has said in that regard.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Perhaps we could ask the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees to look at one point. Orders made under this Order will, if I understand it correctly, go to the Special Orders Committee regardless. But I may have misunderstood this. This was a decision taken by the House only about a
946
fortnight ago. I was asking whether similar Orders to this, but taking the Negative Resolution procedure, would go to the Special Orders Committee. If not, then this is a further argument in favour of following the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it is my understanding that if they were subject only to the Negative Resolution procedure they would not. But I take the noble Lord's point. On the question of whether in certain instances it will be necessary or desirable for us to meet our obligations under Commission Directives by primary legislation, I think I made it clear in my opening remarks that certainly the Government have not a closed mind. There may well be instances where primary legislation will be required.
There was the particular difficulty and situation regarding Northern Ireland, to which certainly the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred, and it may have been touched on by other noble Lords. I agree with Lord Shackleton that in these areas touching Northern Ireland it is highly necessary for us to proceed as cautiously and scrupulously as possible. My understanding of the position—and here I will stick close to my brief, as these are difficult waters—is that it is the common constitutional practice in Northern Ireland for Departments to be empowered to make subordinate legislation. For example, Section 8 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which deals with Executive powers, is drafted in terms of such powers being exercised by Departments; and both United Kingdom and Northern Ireland legislation which delegates powers of subordinate legislation normally refers to Northern Ireland Departments, rather than to Northern Ireland Ministers. That is my understanding of the present position, and that is the explanation why Northern Ireland Minister or Department—I am speaking from memory—is shown as such in this Designation Order. So far as one of the specific questions which were put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is concerned, I can straight away inform him (I hope he will regard this as an assurance) that the collection of information about the carriage of goods, which is referred to in the Schedule, does not cover the axle weight of heavy lorries.

947
My Lords, in asking your Lordships to approve this Order I would make something on which I have already touched very clear. We are, as I have said, entering on a very new phase of our national life and of our legislative life in the area, the territory, which we are now beginning to traverse. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said that it would be the duty of Parliament to watch lynx-like, I think, the progress of subordinate legislation following our entry into the Communities and our assumption of obligations under Community law, through Parliament. I would not dissent from that. It was a theme running right through those debates, to which I referred with perhaps mistaken nostalgia, on the European Communities Act earlier this year. I certainly do not dissent from what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said. Also, I do not dissent from what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said: that it is very important here that we should get our articulation of our processes with another place as right as may be. This is an important area and maybe we shall need to change our procedures and modify them. We should be flexible here—this is certainly my own view—and, if need be, from time to time a little experimental.
Again I should like to say (and I do not say this in any Party political sense) that we should do this better with the understanding and co-operation, and in the knowledge of procedures, of another place. Also, I think we should all gain if we were to do it with the full cooperation of all the main Parties in this country. I very much hope that, whatever we may feel about our entry on January 1 into the European Communities, we can together try to work out the best ways in which Parliament should be involved in the supervision of this whole area: because, certainly as I see it, this is a matter of vital concern. I hope that I have dealt with at least some of the googlies which have come my way in the course of this debate, and I hope that your Lordships will now approve this Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.