Lords Sitting of 12 July 1973

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

POSTAGE STAMP ADHESIVE
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: 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, in view of the inconvenience and possible danger to health of licking stamps, they will encourage the Post Office to introduce some form of self-sticking stamps.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, this is a matter for the Post Office, but I am told that it has on several occasions sought medical opinion on this point and has consistently been advised that the practice of licking stamps entails little or no risk to health.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is in existence a process whereby minute globules of plastic containing sticking stuff are put on the back of stamps, and if you press it between finger and thumb it automatically sticks? Would that not be more convenient, quite apart from the health hazard? No matter what the noble Lord has been informed, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that many of the virus and bacteriological diseases can be spread in this way, particularly hepatitis A and B—B being the Australian one and therefore the most obnoxious?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it is quite possible to use a sponge instead of licking stamps; indeed, every post office provides one for the use of its customers. With regard to the convenience of the stamps. I understand that self-adhesive ones would cause a great deal more inconvenience. They would be very much
822
more bulky to store and it would be rather more difficult to put a number of stamps on letters, because it would be necessary to peel off the adhesive backing. I understand that no major postal administration uses self-adhesive stamps. There have been such stamps issued in Tonga and Bhutan, but I understand that in both cases they were sold as philatelic curiosities rather than as a means of prepaying postage.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, is it true that these self-adhesive stamps are three times as costly to produce?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I believe that they are one and a half times as costly.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, what medical opinion has been offered to the Minister to suggest that loose stamps, which may be handled by a number of postal assistants and handed over a counter that may not be very clean, and which are then licked by the purchaser, are free from bacteria?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, of course it entirely depends upon who handles the stamps and where they have been. If you drop a stamp in the road and then pick it up and lick it, it will no doubt cause harm.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the Government consider reducing the potential risk to Members of this House by providing official paid envelopes for official correspondence?
LORD DENHAM: That is a wider question, my Lords.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is any medical evidence at all that any sickness has been caused to anybody by the licking of stamps?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, certainly not from the actual process of licking the gum. I suppose there is a possibility that if stamps are badly handled, or mishandled, germs can pass in that way.
LORD HALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to recall that many of those who said they would not lick Lloyd George's stamps still happily survive, and are calling to collect benefit?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, will the Minister agree that he has a good story and that he ought to stick to it?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the worst case of gingivitis that I have ever seen was in a woman who had licked all the stamps for her Christmas mail?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that information.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Chinese people solved this problem by producing stamps which are neither self-adhesive nor equipped with gum, with the result that a person wishing to send a letter or a postcard has to provide his own gum, with the further consequence that there is a very strong probability that letters will get stuck together since the gum spreads around the edges? Would he like to recommend that to the Post Office?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I do not think any of your Lordships would be glad if I recommended that to the Post Office.

PETROL SUPPLIES
3.12 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: 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 warning being given to small country filling stations by oil companies that due to the increasing shortage of petrol they will be unable to supply them from September, and whether this is connected with a proposed system of rationing which the national Press has stated that the Government are considering.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): No, my Lords; but I have heard that one small independent distributor is ceasing distribution because he finds it uneconomic. I believe that one major oil company is reorganising its distribution system and
824
another has advised some of its non-contractual wholesale customers that if the supply position deteriorates it may not be able to continue to supply them. However, I understand from some major suppliers that there is at present no shortage of petrol for filling stations. The Government's long-standing plans for rationing supplies in an emergency form part of our normal contingency planning.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he is quite certain that during the course of the next few months we shall not reach the situation which they have reached in America and, I now understand, in Italy?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, one is never quite certain in this life, but I think it is highly improbable that we shall. The situation in the United States of America is rather different, for reasons that do not affect this country. The main point is that they have a lack of refinery capacity to process enough imparts to fill the gap left by the falling off of their indigenous output of oil.
LORD HALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that it has been widely reported in the United States that the present shortage may be exploited by the oil companies' withholding supplies from independent vendors of petrol, with the intention of acquiring a monopoly and buying them up cheaply? Will he make sure that there is an equality and a fairness of supply if these steps have to be taken here?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will remember that there was a Report of the Monopolies Commission in 1965, following upon which voluntary undertakings were obtained from suppliers designed to give retailers greater protection. I can also inform your Lordships that a Monopolies Commission Report on parallel pricing was due to be published at 2.30 p.m. to-day, and should be available in the House of Commons Library now.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the implication of the Question put by the noble Lord opposite is one that should make all of us, and particularly the Government, alert to the fact that now more than ever

825
research should be undertaken into alternative methods of transport, other than by means of the internal combustion engine? Are we supporting any possibilities of an advancement in the electric motor for travel at least in congested cities like London? Such a thing, if we could get it, would be a Godsend.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to look into that question, but it seems to me rather a different one from that on the Order Paper.

TAX AVOIDANCE BY LUXEMBOURG-REGISTERED COMPANIES
LORD BESWICK: 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 steps they are taking to prevent tax evasion by United Kingdom companies with holding companies registered in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, there is no evidence at present that widespread use is being made of Luxembourg holding companies to avoid United Kingdom tax. The matter will, however, be kept under very careful review. There are provisions in the taxation laws of the United Kingdom to prevent tax avoidance, and these can be applied to United Kingdom companies with holding companies registered in the Grand Duchy in just the same way as they can be applied to other companies.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged for the noble Lord's Answer. Whilst we know that there are so-called tax havens elsewhere—in Switzerland, for example—the position with the Grand Duchy is somewhat different; and as we are now talking about the free movement of capital, and indeed a common currency, within the E.E.C., is it not essential that the Grand Duchy comes into line with us so far as taxation is concerned?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this country has a highly developed sys-
826
tem of legal restraints designed to counter tax avoidance, and the United Kingdom is quite ready to join with its E.E.C. partners in any further examination of tax havens, both within and outside the E.E.C.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as it is now a fact that the Grand Duchy has, so far as its present legislation goes, exemption for dividends, capital gains, interest and royalties, is it not essential, as I say, that something more is done? And may I take it that Her Majesty's Government have taken the initiative in a further inquiry?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I understand that a report was published by the European Commission last month recommending joint action to be taken against tax havens. The United Kingdom is equally concerned to prevent companies from avoiding their proper tax liabilities.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I was aware of that report, which is the reason why I put the Question down. I am asking, however, whether Her Majesty's Government will take an initiative in this matter, as we have more to lose than the other countries.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, an initiative has already been taken. What is now required is follow-up action.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House could enlighten me a little. Is he aware that on June 6 a Commissioner of the Common Market explained to the European Parliament that the Commission was going to send a report to the Council of Ministers by the 1st of this month? Could he say what position Her Majesty's Government take on this report, which dealt with the special tax position of the Grand Duchy?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, speaks with great experience as a member of the European Parliament, but he is going a great deal wider than the Question on the Order Paper. If he would like to put down another Question I should be happy to answer it.

MAPLIN PROJECT: COMMUNICATION ROUTES
3.18 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: 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 now publish the proposed rail and road routes from Maplin Airport, showing in detail whether any damage will be caused to established communities.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, a consultation document illustrating possible road and rail routes to Maplin will be published quite soon. The Government will not take a decision on a route for more detailed survey until they have received the views of the public and local authorities on the various possible routes.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. Is she aware that thousands of people, right across Essex, are very worried about the effect which the roads, railways and new towns may have on their homes and amenities, and does she think it is fair that they should be kept in the dark on this very important question? Secondly, is she aware of the fact that a number of leaks, official or otherwise, have appeared in certain privileged newspapers lately, and that these, giving maps purporting to indicate the routes, are only adding to the confusion? Thirdly, is she aware of the fact that one of the Ministers of the appropriate Department recently said that no bridge would be built across the River Crouch, only to contradict himself a few days later and say that a bridge would be built? Is she also aware of the fact—this is my last question—that many people who are looking twenty years ahead, and who are fundamentally in favour of the Maplin project, are likely to change their minds unless the Government indulge in more open government on this question?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, on the first part of that supplementary question,
828
I should like to remind the noble Lord that this consultation document is an extra procedure in public consultation, and the Government will issue it as soon as they can. I will give an assurance that it is our intention that this shall be available in time for the Committee stage of the Maplin Development Bill in this House. It is for precisely the reasons outlined by the noble Lord that we wish to undertake this extra process of consultation. So far as newspaper reports are concerned, I am afraid that I cannot comment on where the newspapers got their information: I simply do not know. The observations of my honourable friend are, I think, a matter for the Record.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what she means when she says that we shall have this consultation document before completing the Maplin Development Bill? We had the Maplin Development Bill some little time ago.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I thought that I said, "before the Committee stage of the Bill".
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, in preparing this consultation document, the possibility is being examined of more massive reclamation of Maplin Sands and an Eastern orbital highway for London, connecting Essex with Kent, Heathrow and Gatwick?
EARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend would expect me to anticipate what is in the consultation document, which will be available in the Printed Paper Office as soon as possible.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that some of us would like more information about Maplin, in addition to rail and road routes? Can we have information about the number of large aircraft which may be operating in the 1980s? And in view of what has been published since my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing asked about "hush-kits" the other day, could we be told—since the Americans are now doing considerable research—how many aircraft might be fitted with

829
these silencers which will have a considerable bearing on the use of the alternative airport?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper referred to the consultation document on roads and rail routes. I think that the additional information for which my noble friend is asking is really another subject.

SUMMER RECESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Report of the Security Commission at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
It may be to the convenience of the House if I inform your Lordships that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Summer Recess at the end of the week after next and will resume on Tuesday, October 16.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended until the House rises for the Summer Recess for the purpose of giving Government Business, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other Business; and that Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended during the same period.—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROTECIION OF AIRCRAFT BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PAKISTAN BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
3.25 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Social Security Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest as far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 49 [The basic scheme in Northern Ireland]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 63, line 11, after ("8") insert ("36").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment adds Clause 36 to the list of clauses in Part I of the Bill which do not extend to Northern Ireland. Clause 36 deals with the requirement for the Secretary of State to present a report to Parliament on the needs of chronically sick and disabled persons and is a new clause moved into the Bill by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The review referred to in Clause 36 is for the Secretary of State and must therefore relate to Great Britain, since his powers in relation to the operation of the basic scheme are except where constitutional requirements of taxation or foreign policy prevent it, confined to Great Britain and do not extend to Northern Ireland. The basic scheme in Northern Ireland is for the responsible authorities there and they make parallel

831
provisions to those in Great Britain and operate those provisions. The Northern Ireland authorities have power to match there whatever the Secretary of State decides, in the light of his review, to do for Great Britain. I beg to move.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4:
Page 63, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("power") in line 40 and insert—
"(4) The Joint Authority constituted under section 104 of the former principal Act (arrangements with Northern Ireland for unified system), consisting of the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Minister, shall continue in being for the purposes also of this Part of this Act and is referred to in this Act as "the Joint Authority"; and Shedule 14 of this Act reproducing Schedule 10 to the former principal Act) shall have effect with respect to the Authority.
(4A)The responsibility of the Joint Authority shall include that of giving effect to the joint arrangements, with").
Page 64, leave out lines 3 and 4.
Clause 99, page 133, line 2, at end insert—(""the Joint Authority" means the Authority continued in being by section 49(4) of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 together and to speak also to Amendment 12. These Amendments secure that the joint authority, which consists of the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Minister, continues in effect on the transition of present arrangements to the new arrangements in 1975. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 21 [Part IV of National Insurance Act 1965]:
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together. These Amendments insert the full title of the National Insurance Act 1946, because "the Act of 1946" is not defined.
Amendments moved—
Page 194, line 42, leave out ("Act of") and insert ("National Insurance Act").
Page 199, line 38, leave out ("Act of") and insert ("National Insurance Act").—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 27 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together. These Amendments substitute new paragraphs amending the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children's Act 1948 because the paragraphs inserted at Report stage have been found not to permit, for purely technical reasons, the repeal of the National Insurance Act 1957, which appears in Schedule 28.
Amendments moved—
Page 249, leave out line 12 and insert ("the words from "of this section" onwards substitute "of this section, less any amount received by the authority by way of death grant in respect of that death under").
Page 250, line 2, leave out from ("for") to ("section") in line 3 and insert ("the words from" the said subsection (1)" onwards substitute "the said subsection (1), less any amount received by the authority by way of death grant in respect of that death under").(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this Amendment substitutes a corrected reference to the Northern Ireland legislation in the House of Commons Disqualification Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 251, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert ("Ireland, for the corresponding entry substitute—
"Chairman of a Local Tribunal constituted under section 76 of the National Insurance Act (Northern Ireland) 1966"").—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, Amendment No. 10 inserts additional words which are needed to remove an ambiguity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 263, line 4, after ("pension") insert ("payable to the wife").—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, Amendment 11 also inserts additional words to correct an error. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 264, line 9, after ("wife") insert ("otherwise than").—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
Amendment moved—
Page 266, leave out lines 35 to 39.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 28 [Repeals]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 282. line 30, in column 3, leave out ("Section 51(2)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment omits a repeal to the Post Office Act inserted at Report stage which has been found to be unnecessary in view of the repeal of the whole of Section 51 of that Act by the National Insurance and Supplementary Benefits Bill 1973. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. May I, very briefly, express my gratitude to those Members of your Lordships' House who have taken an interest in this Bill. It is a major Bill; it recasts the whole of our pension arrangements. It is, necessarily, very technical and complicated and therefore there has been only a fairly small, but loyal, band of your Lordships who have taken an interest in it. I know that it has been an exceedingly difficult Bill to follow, and I should like to express my gratitude to them. In this House we have been especially interested in the needs of the disabled and I hope that we have gone some way to meet what has been asked of us by accepting the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. It was forced upon us in the first instance but the noble Baroness kindly changed the Amendment slightly, to put a time limit on the very thorough Government review of social security benefits for the disabled which we now have in hand. May I, in particular, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. They have been most helpful to me.
Mover, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord A herdare.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his kind words and also to compliment him on his patience and the skill with which
834
he piloted this Bill through your Lordships' House. Only those who have had to suffer—if I may use that word—the piloting of a Bill of this size through the House can appreciate what is involved. As we all recognise, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is not only one of the most active Members of the Government Front Bench, but also one of the best attenders on the Government side. He is always present on the Front Bench, listening and watching. Certainly he has had a busy time during this Session; and I do not think that busy time is yet over as there appear to be one or two more small Bills with which he will deal.
Having said that, my Lords, I should like also to say that I cannot allow this Bill to pass without expressing my profound disappointment with it. In 1971 the Government presented the White Paper Strategy for Pensions, and in the Introduction we read these words, referring to the aims of the Government:
"…there must be time for people to consider and discuss the proposed ways of achieving them. In the months ahead the Government will welcome constructive criticism from any source and they will be consulting a wide range of organisations representing employers and employees and the occupational pensions movement on the details of the proposals."
I do not speak in any Party sense on this matter. I am the secretary of a women's organisation and we took those words literally. We arranged groups in which we discussed every section of this very complicated White Paper. We prepared papers which were submitted to the Women's National Commission, and they have been brought forward, first in the debate on the White Paper and subsequently in the debate on the Bill. So far as I can see, the Government have not accepted one recommendation or made one concession in relation to the situation of women. So now we shall have an Act which will incorporate all the old inequalities. There will still be different retirement ages for men and women. The iniquitous cohabitation rule will still be included in a widow's pension book. I have evidence to show that in one year it cost £400,000 to make investigations, so there seems to be no reason why we should still retain the old type of legislation. This Bill is for the future, but not one small point has been altered as a result of the study given to the matter by citizens.

835
We have the strange question of the tax in the State Reserve Scheme and the occupational pension scheme. We have the iniquitous earnings rule for retirement pensioners and for the disabled. I cannot do other than express my profound disappointment that the Government have not seen fit to introduce some new and exciting legislation which would take account of the future. There is no provision in this Bill for the man or woman now retired. When we see the plight of those who are working for higher wages we may ask how much further behind are retirement pensioners to fall in this terrible struggle. We have seen this Bill corrected at every stage. Even at this late stage, after a period of about nine months, it has been found that there were what were described as "errors" in the Bill. I am sorry to say this to the Minister, after having praised him personally, but I hope that perhaps in the future we shall have the opportunity to elect a Government which will introduce a much more exciting and rewarding piece of legislation.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for the kind remarks in the first part of her speech. I know that she will not expect me to agree with anything that she said in the second part. This is a framework Bill, my Lords. It sets up the framework for new pensions in 1975. That is why the noble Baroness may say that it does not do anything for the pensioner at the present time. That will be done by the uprating Bill to which we shall come later this evening. My Lords, we believe this to be useful Bill. We have looked with sympathy on many of the Amendments which were moved, but there is the matter of finding the money. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips has ever worked out the full cost of the proposals which she put before us.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, a question before he sits down? How can be reconcile what was said by my noble friend Lady Phillips, about the failure of the Government to recognise the grievances which women have put forward, with the fact that the Government
836
told us that they are going to remove the discrimination against women?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, if I may speak for a third time, I would say that we have looked with great sympathy on the position of women—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But that is all!
LORD ABERDARE: —and we are giving women the freedom in the future as they have at present, either to subscribe as individuals to the pension scheme or to depend on their husbands.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, I agree with much of the criticism of the Bill voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I should also like to thank the Minister for his approach to the Amendment relating to disabled persons. I look forward to a really constructive piece of legislation following the Reports next year.
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL
3.37 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords. I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Establishment of Commission and Agencies]:
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("ten") and insert ("twelve").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like with this Amendment to discuss Amendment No. 3 to which it is obviously related. Your Lordships may remember that on Committee I moved a somewhat similar Amendment to this clause. It was defeated after a Division but it received a considerable amount of support from both sides of the House. I have revised the Amendment and now return to the attack. The reason for this

837
Amendment is the very great need, as I see it—and I think this view is widely supported—to ensure that on the Commission there are people who have professional experience in the training field. During the debates on the Bill a number of people have made the point that representatives nominated by the organisations listed in the Bill to serve on the Commission would not necessarily include people with detailed professional knowledge. It is vital that there should be such people on the Commission if it is to be a powerful and effective body. There is a great need to have a Commission which is well-informed and able to take a line of its own vis-à-vis the Minister, the training boards and other organisations in the country. Unless the Commission is composed of strong professional people I do not see how it will be able to do its job.
The Amendment I am now moving is part of a general criticism which is reflected in all the Amendments that I moved during the Committee stage. We believed that in the National Manpower Commission we were going to get an organisation which would have a great deal of freedom of action; which would have power and authority to get things done quickly with the minimum of red tape; which would know what it was doing and which would get on and do it. Unless the Commission has people of the calibre and with the experience that it needs, this will not happen. It seems that the Commission is not going to be of that order. We have vet to know the personnel of the Commission; we have yet to know who the chairman is going to be. It needs to be a very strong and experienced person, supported by strong colleagues, if the Commission is to be anything other than a figurehead. But if the Commission is to be merely a figurehead, then we shall have been grievously misled and we shall return to the attack.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, these Amendments go rather further than the Amendment the noble Baroness moved in Committee, for they seek to enlarge the size of the Manpower Services Committee by two, and they also require those two members to be appointed after consultation with
"organisations whose membership is directly involved in training in industry or commerce."
838
Noble Lords will have noticed that the Amendments rather destroy the symmetry of the Commission in two respects. First of all, they alter the balance between the people with trade union knowledge and people with employer knowledge. The Manpower Services Commission has been carefully designed to preserve that balance. There are, in addition, local authority representatives, and one from education.
The other point is that the balance is also altered in the respect that the pattern of consultation is different. In the one case the text says that
"The said Commission…shall consist of ten persons appointed by the Secretary of State…after consultation with such of the organisations mentioned in that paragraph as he considers appropriate…"
Then it goes on to say:

"(a) as to the three members, organisations representing employers;

(b) as to three other members, organisations representing employees ".

Here we say:
"as to two members representing organisations whose membership is directly involved in training in industry or commerce".
Noble Lords will see that this is not in the same pattern as the other two.
I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendments. In the first place, in the Government's view it is essential that if the Commission is to be effective it must be kept small. I certainly realise that the difference between 10 and 12 members is not in itself necessarily critical in that context, but the whole point is that an increase of the kind proposed is not just an increase in members; it also affects the balance of interest in the Commission—indeed, that is precisely what the noble Baroness wants—and it follows that it is very likely to lead to pressure from other interests not represented on the Commission that they should be represented. It is also almost certain to lead to pressure from those interests which are already on the Commission that their representation should be increased so that their relative position is not worsened.
The organisations which I think the noble Baroness has in mind are organisations such as the Institute of Personnel Management and the Institution of Training Officers. Membership of these organisations is drawn from the

839
management side of industry and commerce, and it is probable that giving the members of such organisations two new places on the Commission would lead to pressure for additional workers' representation, and this, in turn, to pressure from other interests and so on. Secondly, I think it is right that, while people appointed to the Commission are likely in practice to have had experience of employment and trading, as I pointed out in the Committee stage, it is not desirable in the Bill to lay down that a separate category of persons should be appointed because of their membership of particular organisations whose members are drawn from people with such experience.
The noble Baroness said in Committee —and I think she repeated it to-day—that membership of such an organisation and the ability to take a broad view (an ability which will be essential for members of the Commission) are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I entirely agree with that. But it does not follow that one should specify that people with this particular experience, and in their capacity as such, should have two places reserved for them on the Committee. In my view and in that of my right honourable friend, it is the ability to take the broad view, as the noble Baroness has said, that is the first essential: that is what we should look for first and foremost, and we ought not to restrict our field of choice by requiring the membership of a particular category of organisations as a condition of membership. No doubt it will be difficult enough to find the right people to be members, anyway. I pointed out to the noble Baroness that it was virtually certain (I think in her previous Amendment she had required rather more—three, I believe—with these special qualifications, and she now has modified that to two) that there will be people with this particular experience coming up as a result of discussions with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C.
To sum up, my Lords, I think it is undesirable, in terms of the balance of interest in the Commission and the possible effect upon its size, that two extra places should be created and specially reserved for members of organisations specified in the amendment.
840
I can only say to the noble Baroness that I believe that when we finally arrive at this difficult task of selecting the people who we think will take this broad view she will not be dissatisfied.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, this is not a big issue, and I realise that it is unlikely that this point of view will be incorporated in the Bill. However, I should like to make the point that very often it is assumed that people nominated by the employers are the same as the professional managers. The professional managers have a great deal to contribute. They know how to take the broad view and they are not "tapped" to the existing machinery to the extent that they should be. However, as I say, I realise that this provision will not be incorporated at this stage, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SECURITY COMMISSION AND MINISTERS' CONDUCT
3.48 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"I told the House on the 14th of June that the Security Commission had been invited to verify that security was not endangered as a result of the incidents referred to in my Statement on the 24th of May or by the actions of the persons involved.
"The Commission has now submitted its report to me. It is being published in full this afternoon. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
"As a result of its inquiries the Commission concludes categorically that no classified information was in fact communicated directly or indirectly to the intelligence service of any potentially hostile Power as a result of the incidents in question. It concludes that, in the case of the right honourable and noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, there was no potential danger to security that would have justified denying him further access to highly classified information, had he continued in office. In the case of the

841
former hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, the Commission would have felt compelled to recommend that he should be denied access to classified information.
"The Commission has come across no evidence worthy of credence that any Minister other than the former honourable Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was involved with Norma Levy or other members of that ring.
"The Commission has found no related failure of security arrangements as they existed at the time in the Civil Service Department, the Ministry of Defence or elsewhere. It does, however, make a number of suggestions for ways in which the existing security procedures could be improved.
"The Commission concludes that the practical difficulties involved in trying to apply the process of positive vetting for Ministers are insuperable, but it does make the following recommendations:

(i) Any Minister appointed to a post in which he will handle more sensitive information than he has been used to handling in his previous appointments should be given a supplementary briefing by the Security Service additional to that which he receives on his first appointment.

(ii) Security containers are already provided in the homes of those Ministers who request them because they take secret documents home more than occasionally. In future security containers should be provided in the homes of all Cabinet Ministers. They should also be provided in the homes of other Ministers who handle any substantial volume of sensitive material. There should be a careful re-examination of the need for this precaution in the homes of all Ministers not in the Cabinet.

(iii) Permanent Secretaries should ensure that the attention of Ministers who do not have such containers should be drawn to any significant increase in the number of secret papers that they take home, and that all Ministers should receive all possible help in fulfilling their personal security responsibilities.

842

(iv) For Ministers in some appointments, Security Service briefing on arrangements for personal and physical security should be expanded or supplemented.

(v) Whenever a new Minister joins a Department, the Permanent Secretary should ensure that that Minister is appropriately briefed on departmental security arrangements, and is content with the adequacy of the security briefings provided.

(vi) When a Minister is first appointed he is already briefed by the Security Service on the basic threat to our security and the system of protective security, and his attention is drawn to the standing instructions on precautions against unauthorised disclosures of information. The Prime Minister should additionally issue guidance for Ministers on the potential security implications of scandalous behaviour and of other circumstances which might expose them to pressure by hostile intelligence agents; and Ministers should be required to refer to such guidance on appointment and from time to time subsequently.

"The Commission also suggests that any Prime Minister contemplating the appointment as a Minister of someone who was not until recently a member of either House, and who may not therefore be well known to him or his senior political colleagues, should bear in mind the desirability of satisfying himself that there is no character defect or other circumstance which would mean that the appointment of that person would endanger security.
"I have accepted all these recommendations and suggestions. I am also arranging for the attention of all Ministers to be recalled regularly to the standing instructions and guidance on security matters."
My Lords, that concludes the Prime Minister's Statement.
3.54 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for having repeated this Statement, and we are also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and the members of the Commission. I do not think your Lordships

843
will wish to debate this matter at any great length to-day. We note that a distinction is drawn between the two individuals who were affected in regard to their liability to access to security information. I would make only one comment. Naturally, we are glad that the Prime Minister has accepted the recommendations; but I am a little surprised that it is necessary for them to be re-stated in this form. Without wishing to go into detail on the security arrangements of a previous Government, I am bound to say that a great deal of trouble was taken, even at the risk of some Ministers being slightly resistant to it. None the less it was taken, not simply by officials and Permanent Secretaries (and there is of course no discredit on Permanent Secretaries) but by a Minister specially appointed for the job; namely, my noble friend Lord Wigg.
Regarding the proposal that Ministers in some appointments should have a special Security Service briefing for personnel and physical security and that these briefings should be expanded or supplemented, I should like to suggest that perhaps the Government may wish to consider who in fact in the Government is carrying this responsibility. It is presumably the Prime Minister, but I am bound to say that throughout my tenure of a sensitive Department I was made very aware of the security aspect; and it suggests to me that there has been some falling off in this matter of security. I do not press this in order to make Party political points, but it is a matter which some people are apt on occasions to take rather more lightly than they should and therefore there is a need for a very serious degree of concentration. I do not think there is anything more I can usefully say on this matter, but no doubt when we have had a chance to study the actual Report of the Security Commission we may wish to go into it a little further.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, from these Benches we should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and his Commission for the speed with which they have completed their inquiries and for the good sense in the conclusions which they have put forward. Of course, we must read the Report but, on a personal note, I would hope that this
844
Report might signal the end of a very unhappy and unfortunate episode.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should also like to re-echo the thanks expressed by the two noble Lords to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and his colleagues, who have carried out this work and produced the Report so quickly. I can assure the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that there is no question whatever of the Government not giving the very highest priority to this matter. The Prime Minister, as he rightly said, has an overriding responsibility for security; but within each Department the Minister also should bear responsibility for security matters.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I do not know whether I shall be in order if I make a short speech or whether I should put what I have to say in an interrogative form.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think it would be more in accordance with the practice of the House if the noble Lord would be kind enough to put it in the form of a question.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may intervene before my noble friend speaks, I think the latest version of the Companion referring to this matter says that there is no differentiation between Front Bench and Back Benches and that short comments rather than speeches are in order—in other words, they do not have to be wholly interrogative.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am sure that the House is looking forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, on this matter, knowing his interest, whether he puts his remarks in the form of a question or not.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, in the circumstances I must not disappoint them. The first point I should like to put to the noble Lord is that it would be wholly unfortunate if the House, or indeed the country, were to follow the absurd advice of the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party and, just because he thinks it is convenient to him, sweep everything under the carpet. I am sure the House will agree that these matters are of transcendental importance.

845
The second point I should like to put is this. Would the noble Lord be kind enough to explain to the House how comes it that, while this White Paper is of such a character that repeated applications of mine for a copy are refused, there is a pretty close synopsis of the Commission's findings on the Table? That seems to be a question that requires answering. The third point—and I can hardly put it in interrogative form—is that I should like to say how pleased I am, as indeed are the other noble Lords who have spoken, that the Security Commission have reported so quickly, having in mind that in the case of the Report which appeared last weekend it took them just on a year to make the Report—so it seems that there are none so quick as those who want to be quick!;
The next point is this. It is a fact that in 1964, when the Labour Government took office, particularly in the Service Departments, they found that in two of the Services the security arrangements were, for practical purposes, nonexistent. The White Paper that was published last weekend—and I am sure the noble Lord will take this in interrogatory form—disclosed (would he not agree?) the most serious shortcomings on a fundamental point: that each Department must be responsible for its own security. The Secretary of State for Defence, or the Head of any other Department, cannot shuffle it off on to his Permanent Secretary any more than the Prime Minister can escape from his responsibility. That excellent Report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, a decade ago revealed the fact that there was a breakdown in Ministerial responsibility. While we have not had the opportunity of reading the Diplock Report in detail, would the noble Lord agree that the White Paper last week and the one to-day reveals clearly the Prime Minister was guilty, perhaps in a minor degree, of neglect of duty and the Secretary of State certainly was guilty? Would the Minister be good enough to explain how it came about that in a serious matter of this kind Lord Lambton was not seen by the Chief Whip, by the Head of his Department, but that the unpleasant task of telling him that he was under surveillance was left to the Permanent Secretary?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as to the availability of the Report, the normal practice is that Reports are available in the Printed Paper Office when a Statement is being made. I have checked and I understand that copies are available to noble Lords. I do not think that it would be right for me to comment on any previous Reports of the Security Commission. What I am doing is to repeat a Statement made by the Prime Minister on the publication to-day of this Report. I can assure the noble Lord, whose deep interest in this matter I well appreciate and understand, that there is no question of anyone in this Government seeking to escape from his responsibility for security, from the Prime Minister down. The Prime Minister has a responsibility; the Departmental Minister has a responsibility within his own Department. We are all conscious of that, and we will try to do everything we can to live up to our responsibilities.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware what great pleasure his Statement 'has given to many Members of this House that the noble Lord's predecessor has been cleared? May I say, in addition, speaking entirely for myself but, I feel sure, expressing the view of many Members of this House, with what gratitude we have heard this and how we should welcome him back to our deliberations at any time he feels ready to return to this noble House.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I, as an ex-Service Minister, put a simple question to the Leader of the House? In view of the fact that the conclusions of the Commission were to the effect that neither of the parties mentioned recently in this affair was involved in anything associated with security, why was it necessary to appoint the Commission, and why have these recommendations been made? Is it not a fact that over a long period of years the only persons who have been involved in espionage in the United Kingdom, citizens of the United Kingdom in particular, were officials or junior servants in some of the Services, but never Ministers? Not even in the Profumo case did this happen. In those circumstances, why are there all these recommendations and a kind of suspicion generated that Ministers might be involved? Is the

847
Leader of the House aware that when I occupied the positions of Financial Secretary to the War Office, Secretary of State for War and Minister of Defence, it never occurred to me—and I was never vetted or briefed—that there was the slightest suggestion of espionage in the Department?
Is not the matter that is before the Government—and this comes in one of the conclusions a matter of misbehaviour on the part of the Ministers? It is not a matter of security at all. I never believed that either Lord Lambton or the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, were involved in security. Nor do I believe it is possible for junior Ministers to gain a great deal of information which would be of any value to a potential aggressor. Therefore it is only a question of the behaviour of Ministers, and that is a matter of considerable importance from an ordinary standpoint. But, as regards security, I do not know why these recommendations were necessary. I hope that it is clearly understood that, generally speaking, those persons who are appointed Ministers in any Government, whatever its complexion, are not persons who are likely to indulge in espionage.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Prime Minister made his own inquiries before making his Statement in another place on May 24. He invited the Security Commission to verify that security was not endangered as a result of the incidents to which he referred. There is in this matter a public responsibility; there is a need to be vigilant all the time. If the Security Commission make recommendations, as they have done, for the tightening up of security in a number of respects which were itemised in the Statement I have just repeated, it is for the Government to accept these and see that they are fully implemented.
4.7 p.m.
Loan GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, would the noble Lord pay great attention to the point put by my noble friend earlier about the availability of this White Paper? One of the problems of discussing it now—and my noble friend Lord Shinwell will, when he has read the Report, see the point—is that those of us who saw the "ticker tape" before lunch know why the Diplock Commission drew
848
the distinction between the former Member for Berwick-on-Tweed and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe; why they have said that they would have felt it necessary to exclude him from any access to certain information and went on to say—and this was on the tape this morning; I saw it when I came into the building—that because of the nature of the acts in which he engaged, and the people with whom he engaged in them, he had laid himself wide open to blackmail. We are discussing this matter to-day when none of us has formerly seen the Diplock Report. Yet if it was on our "ticker tape" this morning, it must have been on the tapes of every other recipient of the service. Therefore we are the only people who are discussing it blind. I hope, therefore, we shall not have any more discussion until noble friends have had a chance to read it so that we are all in possession of the full information.
With respect, the noble Lord the Leader of the House should find out how this Report came to be so widely circulated during the morning, even though it was embargoed, so it said—not for publication before 3.30 this afternoon. If the appearance of it on every "ticker tape" in the whole of London is not in effect publication, it is difficult to know what is.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the House has listened with great interest to several noble Lords who have spoken in this short discussion, especially since a number have on previous occasions held high Ministerial office—in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, with particular responsibility for security. I will certainly look into whether there was any leak. The time of publication, as I understand it, was 3.30 in both Houses in the normal way. The advice of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, I am sure was wise: that we should now study the Report, which is available at the Printed Paper Office, and digest its implications.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not wish to turn this into a debate, but may I ask the noble Lord to bear two points in mind? He has now said that he will investigate this matter—though I do not suggest it should go to the Diplock Commission—as to how there has been this advance breach of information. None the less it is important and we

849
should have an answer which we do not necessarily expect him to be able to give to-day. May I ask the noble Lord also whether he would consider the point that I and my noble friend Lord Wigg made, which is an important point from a security point of view. I am not raising this in order to prolong the discussion, but it is not just enough to assume that, because Ministers vary in their relations with Permanent Secretaries, the Permanent Secretary can undertake this responsibility. The responsibility has either to be that of the Prime Minister or of a Minister, and, with all the strength at my command, as someone who has seen this operating, I urge this as a serious point. It is easy to say that Ministers are responsible, but somebody has to see that they in fact act responsibly. Perhaps the noble Lord could bear that point in mind.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, in ending this discussion I can say to the noble Lord that I will certainly make sure that all the points that have been raised will be given the fullest consideration.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I will not tax the patience of the House for more than a second. I am loath to disagree with my noble friend Lord Shinwell publicly, although we do privately continuously. He made a point about security which touches on the point made by the noble Lord who paid his tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. The trouble here arises from the White Paper following the conference at which Privy Counsellors laid down a standard which in fact only bordered on the line between security and personal behaviour. In my opinion, and I think it is a fact, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was sacrificed not in the name of security but of the earlier White Paper, and I hold strongly the view that the standard of conduct that was imposed and was accepted publicly in 1956—nearly 20 years ago—has changed, and therefore the findings of the conference of Privy Counsellors might brought up to date after further consideration by the Government, or by calling another conference of Privy Counsellors.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like to take that point into consideration.

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL
4.13 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 4, after ("employers") insert ("in particular the Confederation of British Industries and the Retail Consortium").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I moved a similar Amendment at the Committee stage. The purpose was to get an undertaking from the Minister that the Government would consult the Retail Consortium, which represents employers and distribution, as well as the C.B.I., which represents employers in basic and manufacturing industry. I argued the case in detail and I was given an assurance, without commitment, that the case argued would be considered. The purpose of this Amendment is to get the noble Lord's reply after the consideration.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the brevity with which he has moved his Amendment. I have done as I said I would, but I am still afraid that I cannot go any further on this occasion than I did on the last occasion. My Lords, the difficulty is that such an undertaking cannot be given—I am sure the noble Lord would agree with this—without some implication being conveyed that at least one of the employer members will be someone put forward by the consortium representing distribution. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, made the very fair point in Committee that he was seeking only an undertaking that the Retail Consortium would be consulted, and not that distribution should be specifically represented on the Commission or for that matter any other part of industry or commerce. I accept that, but I do not think it would be right for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to give an undertaking that he would consult the consortium unless it was likely, to put it at the lowest, that he would appoint at least one member in the light of that consultation. I regret that I cannot give such an assurance as I do not think it would be right for me to give such an impression.

851
I also feel that if I did give such an assurance other interests would feel that they had an equal right—possibly an even better one—to similar treatment. I also suggest to the noble Lord that it would be wrong to set about the selection of the members of the Commission in that way. We have already said to-day that we need as members people with knowledge and experience so as to survey the country's manpower needs as a whole. Obviously, it would not be, possible for every interested group to be represented, but what matters is the general calibre of members and their ability to provide effective leadership for the development of the employment and training purposes. I am not saying for one minute that the Retail Consortium could not offer anyone of the right calibre; I am only saying that for the reasons I have given it would not be right to give this assurance that the Retail Consortium will be consulted. All I can do is to repeat, which I do gladly, the assurance I gave last time, that if the consortium wish to put their views to the Secretary of State about membership of the Commission he will, of course, take the fullest account of them. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to rest on that, and that in that way he, as no doubt will many others, will be sending their views to the Secretary of State.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Functions of the Commission and Agencies]:
4.17 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 15, after ("persons") insert ("other than school leavers").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I suggest to your Lordships that it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 11. I beg to move the first of those Amendments and will, during the course of my remarks, explain why I think it would be helpful if we took these Amendments together.
My Lords, the theme of these Amendments is, in fact, the happiness and satis-
852
faction at work of the whole of the working population—no less than that. In my view, every human being can make a useful contribution to the community and one that will give her or him great satisfaction and happiness throughout the majority of their waking hours. We must remember that the greater part of most people's waking hours is spent at work. We have discussed this matter on a previous occasion, and I was most moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, had to say then, with great depth of understanding and great felicity of expression. He said,
"The really important division in life is between those whose work is part of their life and those whose work is a hostile and evil intrusion into their lives."
That is a very moving statement. It impinges precisely on these Amendments.
As to the suggested Amendment to Clause 8, I am privileged to say that I am by no means alone. What I am seeking here is to promote the best possible machinery for enabling a human being to find, through the right job, a unity between life and work. How is one to perform this enormously important and valuable task? I suggest that it can only be done by the truly sympathetic understanding and skilled advice of fully trained and experienced careers advisers of the kind that are provided by the local education authorities. It is in that way that the long-term benefit to the individual is given priority over the immediate cash gain. It is through that kind of service that the emphasis is placed on guidance rather than on immediate placement. It is the Youth Employment Service which provides the former; it is the employment services under the Manpower Commission which provides the latter.
I do not think there is any difference between the Government and those of us who would like to see the Bill amended in this way as to the kind of service that the local education authorities give through their careers officers, or the value of it. Our difference with the Government is that they believe that a choice should be given for a young person either to take the advice or consult the local education authority or to go to a job placement centre and be placed in a job which is no doubt needed. One can imagine at the moment, for example,

853
great pressure being put on an employment centre to fill vacancies in the digging of the necessary early work foundations of some building that is urgently required—it may even be required for a Government Department. One can well imagine the kind of pressure that will be put on the employment centre to find healthy young people to take their jackets off, roll up their sleeves and get on with the job, and, incidentally, earn a very substantial monetary reward immediately. One can well understand that. Whether that is in the best long-term interest of the happiness of the individual is an entirely different matter. One ought to be free of that pressure. One ought to be able to consider solely the long-term benefit and happiness of the young person concerned.
That is why I am saying in these Amendments that we ought not to have that kind of choice, an unreal choice, because one knows what kind of choice will be made; it is too easy. So I am suggesting a series of Amendments because we are now at the Report stage and I am anxious to do business with the Government; not to go on making speeches or indeed to go on winning Divisions in the Division Lobby, but to do business. We are getting very near the final stage and I want to try to find something that the Government will accept. Therefore, I thought it wise to put down alternative Amendments in ascending order of preferability, so far as I am concerned, and descending order of acceptability, I imagine, so far as the Government are concerned.
The first Amendment removes the choice by restricting the Manpower Services Commission in their work in respect of school leavers alone. Surely the Government would not want to duplicate their services so far as school leavers are concerned. They are at school; they have already no doubt been consulting careers masters, and are in the general ambience of school activities. So I repeat that there can be no administrative reason why that service should be duplicated so far as school leavers are concerned. Surely for them at least the best longterm advice is the only one that ought to be available, and not alternative short-term advice. But, if the Government would be willing to go one step further, I would prefer that we should exclude
854
from the Manpower Services Commission those persons who are looked after by the local education authorities in the Bill. In the Bill under Clause 8(1)(a) we find the services which the education authorities shall provide, and they make arrangements for persons
"who are attending, either full-time or part-time, educational institutions";
and those are the persons who therefore should be looked after by the careers services of education authorities, not duplicated by the Manpower Commission.
If, however, the Government were prepared to go one step further to the ideal solution, that would be that the choice should be withdrawn from the categories of persons whom we have just discussed, and in addition from persons under the age of 18 who have been in full-time employment for less than twelve months. The argument there is simple and straightforward: if you have recently left school or some educational institution and you have obtained a job and it has not proved satisfactory—you have been in it for three, four or five months—and you are still under 18, you cannot, by virtue of having been in employment for such a short period, be able to know enough about your own qualities, about the opportunities of the world, about the long-term benefit, to make your choice unaided. Therefore, it is sensible that those persons as well should consult the careers officers of the local education authority alone; and in that case we should need Amendment No. 11 in order to add those responsibilities to the local education authorities. That is why I have offered the Government alternative ways, I repeat, in ascending order of preferability so far as I am concerned. I very much hope that the Government will accept, if not the third, then the second, and if not the second then at least the first of these Amendments.
There is no need for me to remind your Lordships that this matter was discussed on a previous occasion and that there was an equality of votes. The Amendment was not therefore made. But to an intelligent Government, such as we have, equality of votes means that there are wide feelings of all kinds in your Lordships' House, and of course there is very strong feeling outside your Lordships'

855
House. I understand that this exclusion of choice—in other words, that the responsibility should be that of the local education authorities alone—has recently been supported again by resolutions of the local authority associations and of the Education Committees Association, and by the National Youth Employment Council. I would remind your Lordships that the Bill as at present drafted provides the sole example in all our administration of a service's being duplicated at local level and at national level—so far as I know the only one: a most curious and wasteful and extravagant duplication. So I repeat: we have been over this ground before and I do not need to delay your Lordships further. It is a most important matter. It is clearly not a Party political matter. It is a matter affecting the happiness of all young people. I hope the Government will reconsider the position, and I beg to move.
4.29 p.m.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, I should like to support these Amendments because they assure that young people will have the very best service possible. I think that one really good youth service, which has people working for it who have a special interest and dedication for young people, is better than two services which, as I said at the Committee stage, will only confuse the less able people who will not know which to attend. Because no Hansard is available to read the answer the Government gave at the Committee stage, I now cannot recall whether they gave one to this question. I should like to ask the Minister what extra cost will be involved if careers officers are employed for both Agencies, the Manpower Commission and the Youth Employment Agency; also, what will be the extra cost of the duplication of files and information and telephone calls between the two Agencies.
In the Red Cross Society, to which I belong, we have always had difficulty in the transition of cadets to the senior members. Those branches which have good active youth officers are the most successful. I think I am right in saying that Britain is the only country in Europe which does not have national service.
856
This is a period during which young people can think what they are going to do with their lives when they return home. Also, while in most other European countries many young people stay at school longer, we seem to want to push our young people out into adult life in too great a hurry. Growing up will always be a difficult time. The Youth Employment Service is by no means their only way of obtaining jobs; they may answer advertisements and apply by private contact. Therefore I see even less cause for two Government agencies.
4.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I too wish to support these Amendments, although my name is linked with Amendment No. 11. There is little that I wish to add at this stage; I spoke at length during the Committee stage, and I am sure that if Hansard had been available all noble Lords would have been convinced by the argument put up by those who supported the Amendment, just as I am afraid I was not convinced by the argument adduced by my noble friend Lord Gowrie. So far as I recollect, he never answered my point about the dual provision of resources, and I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government are so keen to spend money twice over. Goodness knows! they were in a state last week when the question of spending £3 million on free contraceptives was raised, and I imagine that the dual services will cost a little more than that.
Much argument was made, as I thought it would be, about the question of freedom of choice. My noble friend, Lord Gowrie, went on about this at length. I am afraid I cannot see why there should be this choice for a tiny minority. We are speaking only about the age group, 16 to 18. There is certainly no choice before the age of 16, because we do not say to young people, "You may go to school, or you may not go to school, as you wish." Nor do I think there is a great deal of choice later in life: they will either have to go to the Manpower Services Commission or they will not. So I cannot see why for these two years there should be so much emphasis on the costly doubling of provisions.
There is one other thing that worries me. I agree entirely with what has been

857
said by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, about the actual effect this will have on the young people, and also the effect it will have on the Youth Employment Service. I am sure it will weaken that Service, and I imagine that this may be one of the reasons for the Bill. I cannot believe that an employer will bother to go to two different agencies. If he is going to an agency I should have thought he was much more likely to go to the Manpower Services Commission than to the local authority agency. I also feel that there is bound to be a lack of feedback of information about young people who would leave the Youth Employment Service and go to the Manpower Services Commission. I do not think those records will get back to the Youth Employment Service, yet it is most important that such records are available—records of success and of failure in the placement of young people—because after all, it is only by knowing how young people get on that a better service can be provided for those who will be placed in the future. I hope the Government will give way on at least one of these Amendments, although I should like to see them give way on them all.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, may I first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for not being in my place when he moved the Amendment; I was under an irresistible physical compulsion to leave the Chamber for a few moments and during those few moments Lord Diamond rose to his feet so I missed his introductory remarks. I rather gather that he has put before the House a kind of Dutch auction, and I should like to associate myself with my noble friend Lord Swinton, who has just spoken. I very much hope that the Government can be persuaded to pay the higher price rather than the lower price and to accept the Amendment to Clause 8, rather than an earlier one. I very much hope that they will be able to meet in some measure the very cogent arguments that were put to them during the previous stage of the Bill.
It is not my intention, any more than it is of any other noble Lord or noble Baroness to repeat the arguments that were used at the Committee stage, except in this one respect. Two things seem to me to be apparent as a result of my experience as chairman of the Youth
858
Employment Council for five or six years. The first is that young people fresh from school need some help other than the help they can get from what used to be called the employment exchange. They need help from people who know their background, who know their circumstances and who know their families; and that is what the Youth Employment Service has provided until now.
The second point I wish to make is this. On the whole, the people about whom we are thinking to-day are those less well equipped to face the world. The abler children find a job and stick to it. It is the children who are less able who may encounter difficulties. They probably make a mistake in their first job: as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, they go into a highly paid job, which in the long run will end only in their unhappiness. But it is these jobs which, unless special attention is given to them, can make a youngster into a sort of shuttlecock between one dead-end job and another. In such cases there is no chance for children to have socially satisfactory and happy lives, unless at this particular age they get special treatment.
The position to-day is that these boys and girls are going to a job; they lose that job, and they go for their unemployment benefit to the careers office under the local education authority. There they are dealt with by somebody they have always known from their school days. Under this proposal they will go to the employment exchange (or whatever it is now called) and get their benefit and will be sucked into the general stream of unemployment, as I am afraid in many cases it is. I think that all of us who have experience of the Youth Employment Service know what a very real job it has done. As my noble friend Lord Swinton said, the cost of maintaining it as it is to-day can be only infinitesimal, and it seems to me that to achieve a certain tidiness of bureaucracy—though in fact it is not so tidy after all—and to achieve probably a minimum of economy, we are throwing away an instrument which has in the past proved of tremendous value. If we do that, we shall be doing something that is both foolish and inhuman.
4.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, your Lordships have set an admirable

859
example of brevity at this Report stage and it rather embarrasses me that I am about to break this and make a speech which is a little longer than I should like. The reason for this is that obviously I failed to convince noble Lords in Committee—indeed, my noble friend Lord Swinton has mentioned this. I have gone over what I said during the Committee stage: I have tried to extend it, to make it more forcible and clearer, but I must tell noble Lords that I am convinced that these Amendments are misconceived. I believe that the Government's case in resisting them is altogether a case of merit rather than of policy commitment as such. I hope the House will bear with me if I try to justify this belief through careful argument. I just say at this preliminary stage that of course I share altogether the sentiments expresed by my noble friend Lord Coleraine in Committee and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, this afternoon. Indeed, I expressed the same sentiments myself rather less elegantly on Second Reading.
Perhaps I may touch first of all on the fourth of this group of Amendments which gives local education authorities a specific duty to provide a career service to all those under 18 years of age who have been in full-time employment for less than 12 months. This is identical with one of the Amendments we discussed in Committee. To recall briefly what I said then—I will try not to repeat myself—the Bill already gives local education authorities the power and duty, as far as the Secretary of State directs, to provide a service to these young people. No one, I think, has suggested that local education authorities will in fact fail to provide a service to young people, and the Government have made quite clear their intention that L.E.A.s should provide this service so that in the unlikely event of any L.E.A. choosing not to provide such a service, the Secretary of State would certainly use his power of direction to require it to do so.
It follows—and I do not think any noble Lord disputed this in Committee—that the Amendment would make little or no change in the effect of the Bill as regards the scope of the local education authority service. If I may say so, I think that my noble friend Lord Coleraine
860
came perilously close to suggesting this a few moments ago. I can assure him that that is not the case.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend who is always so courteous, but if I did come perilously close to that danger which he described, it is simply because I disputed in Committee, and I still dispute, the theory that school-leavers, people within this age group, have freedom of choice. If one maintains the L.E.A. service, and at the same time makes such arrangements as will ensure in my opinion that it will never be used, this is not maintaining an L.E.A. service in any real sense.
THE EARL or GOWRIE: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware, so far as this side of the House is concerned, that the Government rest a lot of their case, or a considerable part of their case, on the issue of choice; but it would be quite wrong to think that this is the only consideration that we have been bearing in mind. Perhaps as I develop my argument the other, equally important considerations will come to the fore.
We feel that these Amendments have a quite different effect. They are directed against the proposed Commission; the purpose is to prevent the Commission from providing a service to certain groups of young people. The first three of this group of Amendments each seeks to exclude a different group of young people, and I should like to say a little more in a few moments about the differences between the three, particularly the one about excluding school-leavers. On reading the Amendment I was not initially quite sure what the intention was. But I should like to comment on the general question of excluding certain groups of young people from the Commission's services, and to explain why I cannot advise your Lordships' House to accept that approach which is implicit in the Amendment.
This Bill does not in any way restrict the activities which the local education authority service carries out at present. Indeed, as I have said, it extends the scope of the service by making it mandatory on all L.E.A.s, whereas at present there are some who do not provide it, and by enabling the service to deal with young people of 18 years old or over who are in

861
further or higher education or who have entered employment, whereas these categories are excluded at present. I hope noble Lords, and my noble friend particularly, will accept that extension. I will not repeat all I said in Committee about the present situation and the way this legislation proposes to change it; but I want to emphasise once again that the Bill does not place any restriction at all on the present scope of the L.E.A. service, just in case there is any lingering misapprehension that a young person who has entered employment will be denied the opportunity of continuing to be advised by the local education authority careers officer who advised him before he left education. He will have this opportunity. Under the Bill the L.E.A. has full power to provide such a service, and if it did not do so the Secretary of State could and would direct it to do so.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend, but surely the crux of the matter is tins. He has the opportunity to avail himself of the L.E.A. service but is under no obligation to take that opportunity; but if he does not have that opportunity, surely the L.E.A. service does not exist so far as he is concerned.
TIM EARL OF COWRIE: My Lords, I cannot but agree with my noble friend; but the issue here is that he is not obliged to use the L.E.A. service in any case. Surely the issue is whether young people who have left education should have the alternative, if they do not wish to continue to use the L.E.A. service, of going into the service provided by the Commission, or whether some of these young people should be prevented from using the Commission services at all. I think that covers the objection made by the noble Lord. I know that a number of your Lordships feel strongly that young people in employment should go on using the L.E.A. careers service. They feel that the L.E.A. careers officer knows the young person, knows his educational background, perhaps even knows his family background, and all his other circumstances. They feel the careers officer can give invaluable help, particularly to the immature young person who might otherwise fail to settle in employment or drift into a dead-end job—even a dead-end job, as the noble Lord, Lord
862
Diamond, implied, that was initially temptingly lucrative.
I do not for a minute disagree with this view, and that is why it distresses me to have to argue with my noble friends on this matter. We fully recognise the very great value of the work done by the L.E.A. careers officers and the importance of their guidance to the young people who receive it, whether they are in education or in employment. That is one of the reasons why we want to extend the scope of their service in this Bill. But these Amendments do not require young people who have left education to continue to use the L.E.A. service. All they do is to prevent some of them from using the Commission service. If we stop a young person from going to the Commission, it does not by any means follow that he will go to the L.E.A. service instead.
My Lords, I do not believe that those experienced in this field, including many of your Lordships, would really deny that there are many young people, particularly in the lower groups where intelligence or application or a general level of motivation is concerned—the groups which noble Lords have mentioned with concern many times—who are not willing to use the L.E.A. service. If they are not willing to use the L.E.A. service there are plenty of other ways of getting a job; they can turn to the jobs column of the evening newspaper, they can go to a private employment agency or go after vacancies which they have heard about from a friend.
My Lords, because of the powerful, if slightly emotional, arguments we have heard to-day, I think it is fair for me to imagine the situation that would occur if, as noble Lords would like, we accepted these Amendments. What would happen, surely, is this. Those young men and women who are not willing to go back to the L.E.A. service would not get advice and guidance from any public service at all. I really do not feel that that is what noble Lords, even noble Lords who have been critical of me in this respect, would really want.
One of the reasons why young people may be suspicious of using the local education authority service is that they want to be regarded as adult, and they feel that the L.E.A. service is associated with their

863
school days, where they first encountered the service. There are probably other reasons, but I think this one plays a big part, particularly in connection with the less favourably motivated groups I mentioned earlier. I am not saying that these young people are right in such a view; I think myself that it is a great pity that such an attitude should exist. But we must deal with the facts of the situation, and the fact is that the attitude does exist and nothing we can do or try to do in this Bill will change it. Surely it cannot be in the best interests of these young people who are not willing to use the L.E.A. service to deny them the alternative of using the adult service provided by the Commission instead. Undoubtedly the result would be that they would not obtain advice or guidance on employment matters from any public service at all, and surely that is not what we want.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but just to get one fact right which is very material to the argument he is making, could he refresh our memories about the present position? In the present position is the school leaver able to consult either the employment exchange or the Youth Employment Service, or does he consult only the Youth Employment Service?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the noble Lord has often pointed out to me that he does not usually ask questions to which he does not know the answer. The present position is that we want to extend the opportunities and the choices open to young people, both under the local education authority service and under the adult service. The noble Lord has not convinced me that it would be right to preclude young people from using the greatly increased and greatly modernised new adult service which the Bill proposes and which he himself has broadly welcomed on many occasions. It has been suggested that young people, particularly the less mature whom I mentioned, will be confused by having the choice between the L.E.A. service and the Commission service, but as I have said, they have a wider range of choice than that already; the choice between the L.E.A. service and such methods of finding jobs as private employment agencies, Press advertisements, word of
864
mouth and so on. And noble Lords, so far as I know, are not anxious to limit that area of choice. The option of going to the Commission, on the other hand, will give young people in employment the chance of getting vocational advice which otherwise they might not have obtained.
It was argued in Committee and here to-day that if both the L.E.A.s and the Commission offer services to these young people this will cause wasteful duplication. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, certainly made much of this. But we have to remember that both these employment services will exist anyway. The Employment Service Agency under the Commission will be there to provide a general employment service, and the local education authority service will be there to advise young people attending or leaving education institutions. So it is really only a question of making these facilities which will exist anyway available to young people in employment who want to use them. There will be no duplication of staffing. Each service will be staffed to meet the actual demands made on it in practice, which is, of course, the basis on which both are staffed at present.
Nor will employers have to notify their vacancies for young people to both services; there will be arrangements for the circulation of vacancies so that suitable vacancies notified to one service will be circulated to the other. It is true that the Employment Service Agency will need to train some of its staff in the special problems of young people, but of course it already has staff with ample experience in this field in areas where the Department of Employment provide the Youth Employment Service now. I would remind noble Lords that the L.E.A. service is not universally available at present. In any case, I think that the additional training which will he needed is a very small price to pay for the chance to help some young people who otherwise might not get help at all with their employment problems. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that I think the extra cost of providing this alternative will be extremely small, if any cost at all, though I cannot in fact put a figure on it.
May I now say a few quick words about the differences between the first three of this group of Amendments. The

865
most thorough-going of the three is identical in its effect with the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, which we discussed in Committee. It would exclude from the Commission's service, first, young people under 18 who have been in full-time employment for less than 12 months. That clearly represents a significant group of young people who have entered employment. Secondly, it also excludes, if I understand the intention correctly, all those attending educational institutions other than universities, either full time or part time. Most of these are, of course, young people attending school or institutions of further or higher education part time. Let me make it clear that the Commission will not be going into these schools or other institutions to provide a vocational guidance and employment service. That is the duty of the L.E.A.s under the Bill, and in the most unlikely event of the Commission attempting to do this the Secretary of State certainly could and would use his powers to put a stop to it.
But the Amendment would also cover a great many people attending further education institutions part time, whether in employment—for example, young people on day release—or people seeking employment and taking a part-time course in the meantime. I do not think that there is any good reason why all these (and, incidentally, by no means all of them would be young people) should be prevented from using the Commission's services. For example, a young man of 28 taking a part-time course in work studies at an institution of further education would find it very odd to be debarred statutorily from the Commission's services, and surely he would be quite right.
The second of the three Amendments seeks to exclude this same group, those attending educational institutions other than universities, full time or part time, and the same arguments apply. The first of the three Amendments simply seeks to exclude school leavers. Reading the Amendment, I was not entirely sure of the intention here, and I am still not entirely clear. As I have said, the Commission's service will not go into schools. But I am still not clear at what point the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, wishes the service to come to an end. Would it be on the last day of the last term? Surely
866
that would achieve rather little. Perhaps the intention is to exclude school leavers broadly up to the time of their first placing in employment; until then they would be the exclusive preserve of the L.E.A. service. It is very likely that that is what will happen in most cases in practice. Young people will be advised by the L.E.A. service while still in school, and on leaving school many will go into jobs which the service has helped them to find, though, of course, others will find their jobs themselves in the light of the advice which the service has given them.
In other cases, if we wrote this into the Bill I think it could prove an undesirable restriction. A young person may have to wait a long time, perhaps a month, for his first placing, particularly in an area of high unemployment. If he happens to be one of those I mentioned earlier who are not willing to go back to the L.E.A. service once they have left school, where is the point of debarring him from using the Commission's services during this period? I stress that he may not wish to use the Commission's services either, but he should not be debarred from doing so. The effect would be simply to reduce the chance of his finding satisfactory employment at all.
There is one final comment that I must make on these three Amendments. I have concentrated on their exclusion of young people from the Commission's employment services because I think that is what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has chiefly in mind. But as these are Amendments to the Commission's main duty under Clause 2(1), the effect is that the young people concerned are excluded not only from the Commission's employment service but from all its services. For example, they would not be able to benefit from a course at an industrial rehabilitation unit, or from the limited skill courses which are provided for young people under the training opportunities scheme. I bow to the very considerable experience in this field in this House, but I have myself visited some of the new training opportunity schemes, and I assure noble Lords that they are full of young people who look very fulfilled and very well served by them.
There might also be difficulties over careers information produced by the Commission which might be useful to

867
young people concerned, including school leavers, even if it were not specifically produced with them in mind. If these young people were excluded from the Commission's duty under Clause 2(1) we might find that the Commission have no power to make such careers information available to the L.E.A. service for the use of the young people. I do not rest my case on these points because I doubt whether these effects were intended by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. If so, it might be possible to avoid them in a revised Amendment, but I think they illustrate the difficulties which would certainly arise if we decided to limit the Commission's duty under Clause 2(1).
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, the noble Earl has raised an extremely important point Here perhaps I am stealing Lord Diamond's thunder. Is the noble Earl saying that if a youngster is advised by a local education authority to take a new opportunities course run by the Commission, he should not be able to do so? That is what I understood to be the implication of what the noble Earl said. If that is so, it is a most extraordinary state of affairs, because it will mean that those who have chosen to go to the L.E.A. and said that they are free to go to the L.E.A., will be debarred from using their services. That surely cannot be the noble Earl's intention, but that is what I understood him to say.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, that is not the case. The point I was trying to make is that under the Amendment it would be difficult for the young person to go direct. Of course I accept the point that it would be possible to go under the advice of the local education authority, but I do not see why a young person who for some reason or other, and probably a bad reason, did not wish to make use of the local education authority, should not at some stage of his life make use of the services we are providing and plan to provide them. That is the issue of contention between us.
I must make an end. I cannot accept the Amendments, but in not accepting them I would finally emphasise three points. First, as I have said, the Bill does not in any way restrict the presents
868
cope of the L.E.A. careers service, and we welcome and endorse the tributes paid to it. Quite the contrary; it extends the service, and it distresses me that noble Lords, and my noble friends in particular, seem unwilling to recognise this point. Secondly, if we exclude any category of young people who have left education from using the Commission's services, that does not mean that they will use the L.E.A. service instead—however much it might be in their interests to do so—and these Amendments do not serve that effect. Those who do not wish to do so will simply use other channels or drift. Finally, it is surely wrong to deny to young people who have left education, and who are not willing to use the L.E.A. service, the alternative of using the Commission's services. To do so would be to remove one chance at least for them to receive the advice and guidance in this area crucial to their future lives, which we all agree that they should have.
5.4 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Earl has certainly gone to great pains to explain the Government's point of view and to put it with courtesy and clarity. I hope that he will excuse me from going on to say that he put it with persuasion, because that is not the case. I think that the shortest way of dealing with his major points would be to go over them in the order in which he put them. First of all, he said that Amendment No. 11 added little to the Bill. That is absolutely right. The powers are there without Amendment No. 11, but it does emphasise—and that was the purpose of putting it there—that this particular responsibility will in future be a responsibility of the local education authority. But that, as the noble Earl said, is a minor point.
The essential point is whether or not young people are going to get the best possible advice. His argument about nobody being compelled to use the L.E.A. service does not persuade me in the slightest. The Bill is not about compelling individuals to seek advice in one particular area or another; it is about encouraging young people to go to the best place for the best possible advice. There can be no doubt what the view of the majority of your Lordships is about that; there can be no doubt about the

869
view of the most experienced people in this field; namely, the careers officers and the local education authorities. We all speak with one voice; we are anxious that this good service should continue. We are very fearful of what would happen if the choice were newly opened and young people without experience, without knowledge, went to what was the most immediately enticing opportunity, which is undoubtedly what would happen.
I am afraid that I must say that the argument about lack of compulsion does not affect the issue in the slightest. What we are concerned with, as the noble Earl rightly said later on, is the exclusion of the choice. I am grateful to him for what he indicated on my intervention, because, as I understand it—and I was not absolutely sure in my recollection—the present position is that there is no such choice for young people at school or in education. The Government's Bill proposes to extend that choice; that is to say, it says, "Do you want to go to somebody who will give you a good answer, the best answer, or do you want to go to somebody who will give you a much more acceptable bad answer?" I must be quite precise about it. The Manpower Commission is not trained to do this job. I will give way to the noble Lord in one moment. The Manpower Commission will be concerned with placement. The Manpower Commission will have one criterion for whether it has been successful or not, and that will be, "How many jobs have we placed at this branch". That will be the statistic that will be available to everybody; that, and that alone. Quality will not enter into the Ministry of Labour's statistics. I forget what they are called now, but they used to be called by that name. Quality will not enter into it and that is what we are concerned with. And what will be the effect on the local education authorities who are struggling in competition with the Manpower Services Commission to keep up their numbers? They will then be encouraged, as one noble Lord said, to go in for body-snatching. Of course that is what will happen. They will be encouraged to do that, and there will be competition for placing the maximum number of young persons, irrespective of where they are
870
placed. That is what the argument is about.
From the experience of the people in the field we are satisfied with the present position, under which the Government gives no choice as to whether you should go to school or not go to school, or as to whether you should get the right advice, if you are at school, as to your future career. The present system is the wise one, and that system should not be withdrawn. The noble Lord wanted to interrupt.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not quite certain whether I should interrupt at this moment, because the noble Lord has rather gone past the point. It might be more convenient if I came in after him.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I was, as would be apparent, in full flow, and I did not want to stop at that particular moment. There is little more to be said about the points which the noble Earl put to us. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who raised the point which put a red neon question mark in my mind the moment the noble Earl said it. It seemed to me quite absurd that any Amendment I could be capable of drafting would produce that extraordinary result. All the noble Earl is saying—and it is a pity that he overstated the argument because that always weakens the case; one does not have to overstate an argument if one has a good case and, I might say in this case, if you have a case at all—is that there will be two doors through which one can go for top training. One door will be the local education authority, and that is no bad door. The other door will be the Manpower Services Commission. So I do not think that that is a problem. If there is a problem, it is over the drafting. Nobody claims to draft better than the Government draftsmen, and the Government have a responsibility at this stage to say, "We agree the principle and we can produce our own draft at a later stage" If they do not say that, it is because they do not agree the principle.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, with leave, I did say that.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Earl went on to say something

871
which I thought was similar to that, but he started by putting his argument about the number of defects that would arise from the drafting. That did not appeal to me, because the Government have the drafting facilities and the responsibility of governing. We think this is bad government and we have to decide now what is the wise course to take. As the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, said, I offered an alternative, because before he was able to come into the Chamber I explained—in addition to quoting with great appreciation exactly what the noble Lord said on an earlier occasion, because it seemed to me to put the matter so beautifully and in a nutshell—that at this stage we want to do business with the Government, and we want to get something which is acceptable to the Government.
I do not think that the first Amendment goes anything like far enough. On the other hand, the third Amendment involves the further Amendment, No. 11, which, as the noble Earl said, adds little to the Bill because the powers are there; the Amendment merely adds emphasis and declaration. But the second Amendment merely states that those people who are specifically described in Clause 8 shall be the sole responsibility of the local education authority, and we shall not have this duplication of services or this absurd choice between good advice and bad advice. We shall continue to concern ourselves with the happiness and satisfaction in work of young people, rather than with the immediate filling of an urgent vacancy. That is an Amendment which the Government ought to accept and I invite the House to show its feelings about it.
5.24 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before the House makes up its mind, there are one or two points which ought to be clarified. The noble Lord spoke as if at present there were only local education authorities in this field. But he must know that at the present time, under the Employment and Training Act 1948, there is no duty on local education authorities to provide a careers service; there is simply an option to provide a service. There are some 31 education authorities in England and Wales, and a much higher proportion in Scotland,
872
which do not provide this service at the moment. So it is wrong to say that the Employment Service Agency has no experience in this field, because it has. It has experience in this field in those areas where the local education authority does not provide a service.
After this Bill becomes an Act there will be a duty on the local authorities to provide services in every area. They will be taking over the duties from the Employment Service Agency for those who are leaving school. As my noble friend said, they will have a virtual monopoly and they will be the sole people providing a careers service for youngsters leaving school, or any educational institutions other than the universities. As I said, it is now to be mandatory on the local education authorities to set up these services. Once a person has left school the Employment Service Agency will be in the field as well, and, quite rightly, the choice will then be open to the individual, with no age limit, to go to the local education authority service or to the Employment Service Agency.
Where the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was perhaps a little unfair (I know that he does not mean to be unfair and he tries not to be) was in his bold assumption that the local education authority service is good and the Employment Agency Service is bad. That was extremely unfair. In the nature of things, the services must vary from area to area, and I have no doubt that in some places the Employment Service Agency will be excellent and the local education authority service will not be so good. But the fact is that some people in the Employment Service Agency already have experience of handling a careers service and they can be used for developing the service. The second point is that there is a transformation going on in employment services at the present time in this country. They are becoming much more human and much more oriented to giving advice, where advice is necessary, and leaving people to select their own jobs, from charts and so on, where appropriate.
So noble Lords ought not to make up their minds on the basis that local education authorities alone provide a special service. We all know that they do a splendid job, but they are not the only people who do a good job, whatever

873
may have been the case a few years ago. So far as the Employment Service Agency is concerned, it is not now the case that it is just providing statistics on the number of employed or unemployed. That is not its purpose. The Agency sets out to consider the interests of the person whom it is advising about the career which he ought to adopt. It is doing that in the interests of the person, and not just in the interests of the firm that is asking for an employee. Of course it is a question of matching the person to the job, as well as matching the job to the person; but I would ask your Lordships not to adopt the attitude on this Amendment that there is only one right course for our young people when they want to get advice and guidance about the appropriate training and so on. That is not the position now and it will not be in the future. The Employment Service Agency will be building up its services and meeting its responsibilities.
The duty is placed on the Commission under Clause 2 to enable people to select their jobs, to train for them and to find them, and this personal approach is extremely important. So I hope these two services will work in concert. There is no reason whatsoever why they should not. If a person indicates that he is looking for a particular job, his record and desires will be passed on from one Agency to another. In the same way, the notifications of jobs vacant that are given by employers will also be made
available to both the local education authority service and the Youth Employment Service in the employment agency services.
I hope, my Lords, that I have dispelled at least some of the missapprehensions that seem to be prevailing. The first was that the local education authorities are at present alone in the field so far as the young people are concerned; and the second was that there will be a sort of invasion of their present preserves by the employment agencies. I believe that the House would be very greatly underrating the capacity of the existing employment agencies if it were to write them off as inferior, and as not the sort of places to which young people should go.
LORD DIAMOND: With permission, my Lords, I would seek leave to withdraw Amendment No. 4.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 15, after ("persons") insert ("other than the persons described in section 8(1)(a)").—(Lord Diamond.)
5.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 75.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Henderson, L.

Royle, L.

Amulree, L.

Henley, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Archibald, L.

Hurcomb, L.

St. Davids, V.

Avebury, L.

Jacques, L.

St. Just, L.

Bacon, B.

Leatherland, L.

Samuel, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Secar, B.

Beswick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Segal, L.

Brockway, L.

Loudoun, C.

Serota, B.

Byers, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

McLeavy, L,

Shinwell, L.

Chorley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Snow, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Southwark, Bp.

Diamond, L.

Norwich, V.

Stamp, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Ogmore, L.

Summerskill, B.

Faringdon, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Swinton. E.

Gaitskell, B.

Peddie, L.

White, B.

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Garnsworthy,L. [Teller.]

Plait, L.

Wise, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hall, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northchurch, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ferrier, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Allerton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gage, V.

Reigate, L.

Auckland, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rochdale, V.

Balfour, E.

Grenfell, L.

Rockley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Berkeley, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Sandford, L.

Erooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hanworth, V.

Selkirk, E.

Caccia, L.

Harris, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Carrington, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Sharpies, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Howe, E.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strange of Knokin, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ironside, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Courtown, E.

Jessel, L.

Strathspey, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sudeley, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Limerick, E.

Tenby, V.

Daventry, V.

Mancroft, L.

Teviot, L.

Davidson, V.

Margadale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vernon, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Dulverton, L.

Monck, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Elles, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Wynford, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Netherthorpe, L.

Young, B.

On Question Motion agreed to.

5.31 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 18, leave out from ("associates)") to end of line 20.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and your Lordships agree, it may be convenient to discuss this Amendment and Amendment No. 13, which stands in his name, at the same time. As the Bill came to the House originally, Clause 2(1) laid a duty on the Commission to make such arrangements as it considered appropriate for the purpose of assisting persons to select, train, obtain and retain employment suitable for their ages and capacities and of assisting persons to obtain suitable employees, a term defined so as to include anyone engaged under a contract of service—for example, partners. This duty covers the responsibility for planning, developing and operating the public employment services and for promoting training for employment and running the training opportunities scheme. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, moved a very persuasive Amendment to add to this subsection a duty to make such arrangements as the Commission considered appropriate for the purpose of securing the implementation of Sections 6 to 12 of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1954. The
876
Amendment was carried by the narrowest possible of margins. It is those words that the Amendment I am now moving seeks to remove from the Bill.
If I understood his main argument, it was that Sections 6 to 12 of the Disabled Persons Act were not being satisfactorily implemented. He felt—and I think it was a genuine feeling of compassion—that their implementation would be secured better if the responsibility laid on the Secretary of State in those sections were to be transferred and laid squarely upon a new and more expert body and that this would improve the employment prospects of disabled persons. I hope I am summarising his arguments fairly. I think I should explain the purpose of Sections 6 to 12 because at an earlier stage it was rather a mistake that their purpose was not made sufficiently clear. These are the sections that require the Minister to maintain a register of disabled people who are considered capable of employment—a register which disabled people may, if they wish, apply to be put on—and to lay on employers employing 20 people or more a duty to employ a quota of those registered disabled people. It is not an offence for an employer not to fulfil his quota. It is an offence for an employer who is below his quota to recruit someone who is not a registered disabled person without having first received a permit from the Department, which is given if there is no suitable registered dis-

877
abled person available to fill the job. It is also an offence for an employer below quota to dismiss a registered disabled person without reasonable cause. Section 12 empowers the Secretary of State to reserve classes of employment for registered disabled if available.
Section 15 of the Act provides that proceedings for an offence under the Act shall not be instituted except by the Secretary of State or with his consent, or by an officer authorised by him. I mention that because the Amendment carried in Committee would not transfer this duty of enforcement to the Commission and because there was a great deal of criticism in the debate directed towards the fact that very few prosecutions had been instituted since the Act came into operation. Since the Committee stage we have been considering with the utmost care whether the Amendment which the Committee made should stand—or at any rate, something on the lines of that Amendment—and the noble Lord has just virtually said that it is the spirit of the Amendment rather than the exact wording to which he attaches importance. He said that of the last Amendment, and I am sure it is the case with this. I believe that what the Committee wanted in carrying this Amendment was a much more active and vigorous approach. What I shall try to do is to persuade your Lordships that that is precisely what we have been seeking to achieve, bearing in mind the very great changes that have taken place in the structure of industry, in the labour market and, in particular, in the provisions of the disabled since 1944 when there were a very large number of people disabled in two wars.
The problem to-day is very different. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, that in May, 1972, nearly 60 per cent. of employers—about 58 per cent.—with quota obligations were not fulfilling their quota. The fact is that there are not enough registered disabled people for all employers to comply with their quota obligations—certainly not enough in the right places. On the other hand, there are many unregistered disabled people in employment. They do not have to register; nor do they count against the quota. Moreover, a great majority of employers who are below quota are not infringing the scheme because they have received a permit from
878
the Department to recruit able-bodied workers—which they may do only if there is not available a suitable disabled person for the job. Nevertheless, there are 9,000 firms who are below quota and have not applied for permits. They might get them if they were to apply.
It is because the situation was unsatisfactory that since 1971 the inspection procedures have been tightened up. Inspection has been transferred to the wage inspectorate and there has been an increase in random inspections and not just where doubts were held about an employer's quota position.
The main point is that the Department are at present right in the middle of a period of consultation on the whole question of the quota scheme. As I said in Committee, the Government published on May 22 a consultative document on the quota scheme, asking for comments by the end of the year. Altogether some 70,000 copies of this document have been distributed, and copies are available in your Lordships' House. This document is one of a series of discussion papers issued on the employment and training services for disabled people. The first, on the disablement resettlement service, came out in July last year. A consultative document on the future of sheltered employment is being prepared, and it is hoped that it will be published later this year. The final stage of consultation will cover industrial rehabilitation and vocational training for disabled people. These discussion papers arise out of a wide-ranging review of the arrangements for helping disabled people with their employment and training problems. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the fact that the Government have held this review and have embarked on this series of consultative documents shows that we are well aware of the importance of the problems that need to be solved.
We recognise that the present position is by no means satisfactory and we ate determined to find the right way to improve it. This is something which needs to be worked out in the fullest possible consultation with those concerned, the National Advisory Council for the Employment of the Disabled, and all the many organisations concerned with disabled people: the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and many others. Surely this is the right way

879
to settle future policy on these important and difficult issues; to have full consultation with all those concerned on the basis of published consultative documents and to give a chance to all those who wish to make their views known; and then, in the light of this consultation, to take firm decisions. When the time comes to take those decisions, the views expressed in your Lordships' House on Sections 6 to 12 of the 1944 Act will most certainly be given full weight. But surely the time to take the decisions is at the end of the consultative process and not in the middle of it. That is why I am sure it would be wrong to write into this Bill that the Commission must implement these sections. If we settle that now, long before the end of our consultations, and in isolation from all the other connected questions about the future of the quota scheme, it may well be that we should find later that it was not the ideal solution; but by that time it would be enshrined in legislation and too late to make a change.
Further, my Lords, we must remember that the Commission has not yet been set up. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State hopes to bring it into existence at the beginning of 1974 and to bring the prospective members into consultation on an informal basis before that. Surely the Commission should be consulted before taking a final decision to give it responsibility for implementing, or securing the implementation of, Sections 6 to 12 of the 1944 Act. After all, the Commission will be a major body of high standing and will have major responsibilities for disabled people for the provision of employment and training services for them. The members may well have views on whether or not these responsibilities, or any particular responsibility, may be combined with that of enforcing the 1944 Act.
My Lords, if it is decided that the Commission should be responsible for enforcing on employers their obligations under the 1944 Act—I want to make this point very clear—there is already full power under the Bill to give the Commission this function without any need for the Amendment made in Committee which I am asking your Lordships to remove. Clause 2(2)(a) of the Bill gives full power for the making of
880
"agreements between the Commission and a Minister of the Crown for the Commission to perform, on behalf of the Minister, functions exercisable by the Minister … which are connected with employment",
excluding the making of regulations or other instruments having the force of law. I am advised that under this provision the Commission could perform any of the Secretary of State's functions under the 1944 Act, including the function of prosecuting employers for offences under the quota provision. The only exception is his power to make regulations or other instruments having the force of law. Since these regulations or order-making powers are matters on which a Minister must clearly remain fully accountable to Parliament, I doubt whether anyone would argue that they should be transferred to the Commission. So I can give your Lordships a categorical assurance that if, after the necessary consultation, the decision is that any or all of the Secretary of State's functions under the 1944 Act should go to the Commission, other than regulation-making functions, this can be achieved under Clause 2(2)(a) of the Bill, and the Amendment made in Committee is not necessary for the purpose.
My noble friend Lord Gowrie made clear in Committee that it is the intention that the Commission shall be invited to maintain a register of disabled people and to provide services for the district disabled advisory committees which are closely involved in the administration of the quota scheme. But the Act of 1944 lays these obligations on the Secretary of State, and it is therefore right that so long as that Act remains in force the Commission should act as the agent of the Secretary of State in performing these functions. It may be that, as a consequence of the consultative process already initiated, legislation may be required to improve the Act and to bring it up to date. But meantime, the statutory responsibility to Parliament should rest with the Secretary of State. It will be the duty of the Commission, as one of its own functions, to operate the Disabled Resettlement Officer Service and, through it, to keep in the closest touch with employers, and to obtain the maximum co-operation with them in fulfilling their quota obligations. My Lords, these are the officers who provide specialised employment services for disabled people

881
just as the blind person's resettlement officers do for the blind. The services will continue to operate within the framework of the general employment services; that is, through the Employment Service Agency and the Training Services Agency, so that disabled people will continue to be trained alongside the able bodied wherever possible and share the benefits of the Expanding Trading Opportunity Scheme.
My Lords, there are other points which I could make against the Amendment which was made in Committee. One which perhaps I should mention is that the Secretary of State has a number of duties under Sections 6 to 12 of the 1944 Act, so that if the Commission were to be given a duty to secure the implementation of those sections, one of the things which it would have to do would be to make sure that the Secretary of State carried out his duties. But the Commission will have no power to do that nor do I think that it would be constitutionally appropriate that it should have. I do not dwell on this or other technical points, which are matters which no doubt could be tidied up in a revised Amendment if the principle were acceptable. It is on the issue of principle that I ask your Lordships to approve the Amendment in my name. We really ought not to pre-judge the question of whom should be responsible for enforcing Sections 6 to 12 of the 1944 Act before the consultative process on the future quota scheme has taken place, and before the Commission had been set up. We should wait until the beginning of next year when it would be possible to take fully informed decisions on all these matters and not just this one aspect in isolation. If we decide to give the Commission this responsibility, the Bill, as altered by my Amendment, will give full power for this to be done.
I fully understand the deep feelings which caused noble Lords to support Lord Diamond's Amendment in Committee. I hope very much that I have succeeded in convincing your Lordships that there is no question of the Government being complacent and inactive in their attitude to the employment and training of the disabled, but that on the contrary we are tackling the problem vigorously. But we want to carry public opinion with us, particularly the opinion of those most deeply concerned, before making a final
882
decision. Therefore I strongly urge your Lordships not to insist on transferring the responsibility to the Commission now, but to allow time to work out how best the responsibility may be discharged.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, started off by reminding us that we had a vote on this during the Committee stage where, he said, the Amendment was carried by the narrowest possible margin.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The narrowest margin by which an Amendment could be carried.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, according to my figures the Amendment was carried by 64 to 70—or perhaps I have got it wrong. Was it 64 to 65? If so, we will not dwell on the point. I was merely going to make the point that there was a substantial margin. Possibly I have got the wrong figures or the wrong Amendment; yes, my Lords, the figures of 64 to 70 relate to the Amendment regarding women and girls, and I apologise to your Lordships.
I am not surprised that the Government wish to alter, to reverse, the decision of the Committee; because, as I explained at that time, the Amendment was not very happily placed, and it was because it would not achieve what I intended on second thoughts to achieve that I put down Amendment No. 13 which deals with the same point but, I hope, in a more effective way. The noble Lord devoted a good deal of his speech to demonstrating why it is right that that should be in the Bill because that is exactly what the Government are going to do. But he went on to say something very different of which I had to take note and which amounts to this: that when the consultations are completed and the Manpower Services Commission has had a chance to consider what is the best way of serving the purposes of the Act, it may be that Clauses 6 to 12 will not be thought to be the best method by which to do it. I recognise, therefore, that it would be a little unhappy if this were written into the Statute at this stage. So I am not pressing the point.
The noble Lord has, I think, taken the general sense of the anxiety of the Committee as to the amount of unemployment that exists among the disabled. I was

883
surprised to hear him say that there are areas where there is simply no disabled applicant suitable for the vacancies which employers seek to fill. There must, on the other hand, be other areas where there are at least twice the average, because over the country as a whole unemployment figures for the disabled are nearly double those of able persons. So there is still a need, although it is perhaps not satisfactorily disposed of by the very broad provisions of Clauses 6 to 12.
Bearing in mind that the Government have now given the matter careful thought—and the proceedings in Committee were very helpful in enabling the Government to concentrate their mind on this issue—the best advice I can offer to your Lordships' House and certainly to noble Lords on this side, is that we should give the Government the opportunity they seek of completing their inquiries and consulting the bodies which will be charged with the general responsibility of finding employment in this country. As I have often said, we welcome the Bill and the setting-up of the Commission, and we want to do nothing to hamper it unduly. All our anxiety is to see that there is a change in the unsatisfactory situation with regard to the number of unemployed disabled persons. That being so, especially having regard to the assurance from the Front Bench, which the noble Lord was good enough to say was a categorical assurance and which is very clear language indeed, and in view of the fact that the Secretary of State will retain responsibility and will therefore continue to be liable to be harassed by any Member of Parliament who is not satisfied about the way in which the quota is being kept, I think that the wisest course would be to allow the Amendment to be agreed—that is to say for the earlier decision to be reversed—as what we shall be doing is enabling the Government to achieve in their own way what we desire to be achieved.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I hope we shall make the best use of the opportunities he has given us.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 29, at end insert—
("(aa) include arrangements for encouraging increases in the opportunities to women and girls for employment and training").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8. In Committee, a similar Amendment was defeated by 70 to 64 votes. The present Amendment, which is at a different place, is nothing like so drastic as the earlier one but it does make the point. The point is of course that, although one would not normally wish in tidy drafting to refer to a particular category, the situation with regard to the employment opportunities and training opportunities for women and girls is such that it needs to be mentioned. Women and girls are half of the population and, as I said in Committee, the fact is that, apart from hairdressing, so far as I recollect the figures, the proportion of young girls leaving school who go into apprenticeship is only 2 per cent., compared with something like 50 per cent. of boys. It shows that opportunities are not being taken. I hope that, as we have now moved the Amendment to a very different place, where it merely refers to arrangements that may be made, the Government will feel we are not embarrassing them, or embarrassing those who have the responsibility of carrying out the provisions of the Bill—that is to say, the Commission and the Agencies—but are underlining a need which is a powerful and clamant one.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the Government have considered this matter further since the Committee stage, and I am happy to say that we are now prepared to accept that it is desirable for women and girls to be specifically mentioned in the legislation.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: Music to my ears! There was no disagreement at all in Committee that the present situation as regards the employment and training opportunities open to women and girls is unsatisfactory; and I certainly expressed my own agreement with noble Lords opposite, and some noble Lords behind me, that the position was

885
unsatisfactory. I do not think I need repeat what I said then about the Government's intention, for precisely that reason, to introduce legislation to help to remove unfair discrimination on the ground of sex and to promote opportunities for women.
Our only difference in Committee was over whether it would be desirable to make a specific reference in this Bill to women and girls. I drew attention at the time to the potential danger of listing in legislation things which the Commission may do, as this could lead to the presumption that anything not listed might be excluded. As against this, noble Lords put forward the argument that adding this to the Bill would not do any harm. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said:
"We are proposing to add nothing to the powers and responsibilities."—
that is to say, of the Commission—
We are proposing to let the world know that Parliament thinks it is not adequate that these responsibilities "—
that is to say, the Commission's responsibilities to women and girls—
"should be hidden and tucked away in general, albeit neat, draftsmanship, but that they should be picked out and explicitly stated for the benefit of public opinion generally."
On reconsideration, we are prepared to accept this Amendment. It does not add to the powers and duties of the Commission. What it does is to make sure that the Commission's responsibility to help women and girls to obtain training and to find employment cannot possibly be overlooked, because they are mentioned specifically in the Bill.
Moreover, the Amendment does so in terms which are not likely to encourage any interpretation that action to help other groups, who are not listed, is excluded. For example, it will certainly be part of the Commission's duty to encourage increases in the opportunities available to boys for training in industries where more training is desirable, as well as for women and girls. No one, I think, would suppose that this was precluded by the fact that this Amendment specifically mentions increasing training opportunities for women and girls but not for boys. So I hope it will be clear to all concerned that this provision does not imply any limitation to the Commission's duties and powers in respect
886
of other groups of people. I am glad to be able to advise your Lordships, in the spirit of the age, to accept the Amendment.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to have the honour of thanking the noble Earl, and I feel that I speak on behalf of all women workers in the country. This of course was a piece of discrimination which the Select Committee which has been sitting here and in another place carefully examined, and we were unanimous in feeling that any obstacle to the use of women's labour should be removed. Therefore I feel very happy that the Government have seen fit to accept this Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, may I echo those thanks? We are very grateful to the Government for doing what I fully recognise is unusual, but what I think is justified in the circumstances. It is most important. It will do the Government no harm; it will do the Manpower Services Commission no harm; it will do the Conservative Party politically a lot of good, and I congratulate them.
Clause 3 [Control of the Commission by Secretary of State]:
6.0 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 23, leave out from beginning to ("make") in line 24 and insert ("he may, after such action has been proposed to the Commission and the Commission has declared themselves unable or unwilling to authorise such action,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I am more concerned with the spirit of this Amendment than with the actual wording. I am all the more of that frame of mind because during the last ten minutes I have been looking again at the Amendment, and I realise that, owing solely, I am sure, to the horrible nature of my handwriting, one word is not correct in the Amendment as printed. The mistake quite seriously alters the intention and explains a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. The word "authorised" should in fact be "undertake". The only resemblance between those words is that they both contain the same number of letters. I take full responsibility for this error. I cannot

887
always read my own writing, so I cannot really expect other people to do so. It was never my intention that the Commission should be "authorised" to do anything. It was, and remains, my serious intention that if there is work to be undertaken in the field for which the Commission has an overall responsibility under the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State should not be able to launch into that activity without the Commission's first having had the opportunity to do it if it felt itself in a position so to do. Therefore, the final words of the Amendment should read:
"… and the Commission has declared themselves unable or unwilling to undertake such action,".
Since I moved this Amendment, I have had a most courteous letter from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—partly confused, understandably, by the mistake already made. I am sure we can be in absolute agreement on one point: that there was never any intention that the Commission should "authorise" anything that the Secretary of State (who must be the absolute ultimate authority) should in fact be doing. But I am afraid that the noble Lord's letter has not convinced me about the main point of my Amendment and what I said then. Incidentally, I appear to have so confused the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that in his letter to me he said:
"I do think that it would be acceptable to the Secretary of State to have to get permission from the Commission to carry out functions"
et cetera. I am certain that he really meant to say that it would not be acceptable to the Secretary of State—so I think we are "quits" on that particular misunderstanding.
What we thought we were getting, with the establishment of the Manpower Services Commission, was a new piece of machinery of the greatest importance—a piece of machinery free from red tape and, as far as possible, free from bureaucratic control, able to take action quickly and not subject to the usual interference that is inevitable when matters are handled by a Government Department. It is surely essential that the Commission should have the maximum amount of autonomy. I cannot see that it can be said that the Commission has the neces-
888
sary autonomy to do the job—it is a new structure that we are wanting: I cannot underline that enough—if the Secretary of State is free to intervene and do certain things with which the Commission is really charged. The noble Lord explains in his letter that the Secretary of State has residual responsibilities in the field of employment, resulting from the fact that the Employment and Training Act 1948 has been repealed; but surely it is possible to make clear in advance what the responsibilities of the Secretary of State are as a result of the repeal of the 1948 Act, and what the responsibilities of the Commission would be.
It seems intolerable that the responsibilities of the two should be in any way confused and for responsibility not to be clearly laid on the Commission so that it can get on with the job with which it is charged. It is important that the Secretary of State should not interfere or take on himself any of the functions with which the Commission is charged unless and until there is a real dereliction of duty on the part of the Commission. We shall only get the new-style service that we want when we have this degree of autonomy and responsibility on the part of the Commission. It seems to me that there is a real organisational confusion embedded in this clause, and that is why I shall not press this Amendment—obviously it contains this error, but I had not intended to press the Amendment at this stage anyway.
I implore the Minister to look again at the division of responsibility between the Secretary of State and the National Manpower Commission and to reassure us that, having pressed so hard for a Manpower Services Commission with new-style powers, we are not getting—and I am becoming quite anxious about this—simply the old employment services dressed up again, with the responsibility resting where it always was in reality. We want the Commission to have power to get on and do the job, and we want the Secretary of State only to have ultimate reserve powers; because it is only in this way, in our view, that the vital work that needs to be done can be done. We do not think, frankly, that this is work for a Government Department. We want a different kind of organisation to do it. I am quite unconvinced that we are

889
getting it as long as we have this clause standing here which quite clearly gives the Secretary of State the power to intervene in a way which undermines the responsibilities of the Commission. My Lords, in view of what I have just said, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Restriction on charging persons seeking employment, etc.]:
6.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE THE EARL OF GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 8, line 37, leave out ("and 12") and insert (", 12 and 14(1)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if we were to discuss Amendments Nos. 10, 16, 18 and 19 together. The main Amendments are those to Schedule 2, Parts I and III. The others are consequential.
In discussion in Committee of Section 14 of the Industrial Training Act 1964, I said I was prepared to consider tabling an Amendment on Report to provide that the initiative for training trainees from overseas temporarily in Great Britain could in fact come from a board, subject to the consent of the Commission and the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was good enough to indicate in Committee that such an Amendment, while not going quite as far as the Amendment he put down in Committee, would be acceptable to him. These Amendments achieve this effect, while also preserving the present position that money raised by a levy on industry may not be used for the purposes of Section 14. This, in our view, would be quite wrong.
The Amendment to Part III of Schedule 2 achieves the same effect in the case of the Agricultural Training Board, except that it will need to get the consent of the agricultural Ministers, rather than that of the Commission and of the Secretary of State. This is in line with the other provisions in the Bill which transfer responsibility for that Board to the agricultural Ministers. It has also been suggested—and I think there were some words on this point in the Amendment first tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, though not in his revised Amendment which was discussed in Committee—that it is unnecessary to restrict
890
board activities under Section 14 of the 1964 Act to "industry and commerce". It seems to me there is force in this and that the present Section 14 of the 1964 Act is probably a little unduly restrictive of possible action in respect of overseas trainees. The boundaries of what is technically "commercial" may be different in another country from those here, but that does not seem to be a good reason why a training board should not be empowered to provide or arrange for the training in this country of people intending to work overseas in "noncommercial activities, if the board or its industry has the necessary expertise. The Amendments therefore seek to remove this limitation.
So far as the provision of funds from the British aid programme is concerned, as the House may know, the Government reserve a considerable sum for training nationals of developing countries in a variety of ways. This means that we are able to offer a stated number of training places to individual overseas Governments; and we rely on them, in consultation with our overseas posts, to decide on their training priorities. This is in line with our general policy on aid matters, which must take account of the priorities of the overseas Governments. They have in fact so far put forward rather few candidates for industrial training, but we have been very successful in placing these. A number of other industrial trainees in this country are financed by the firms which employ them. The Government have not hitherto sought to use Section 14 of the 1964 Act for un-sponsored trainees, because it would involve us in an unknown commitment outside the normal scope of Government-to-Government aid. However, the question of increasing help for industrial training of overseas nationals will be further reviewed in the near future by the O.D.A. I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Clause 8 [Provision of services by education authorities]:
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 12, line 34, at end insert ("except that the said reference does include part-time attendance by persons who satisfy the local education authority in question that their attendance is with a view to employment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12, and I think I can move it fairly shortly. This gives me the opportunity of apologising to your Lordships for the fact that I have an aeroplane to catch which will not permit me to listen to the whole of the rest of the discussion. My noble friend Lord Jacques will be looking after our interests.
This Amendment again refers to an Amendment which we dealt with at the Committee stage, where I felt I had impressed the Government with the fact that the Bill, as drafted, draws an invidious distinction, although they did not wish it to appear invidious. It was made clear that if a man had to earn his living and could not go to an educational institute until after 5 o'clock he was not to be put in the same category as those who could go at 4.30 p.m. because they did not have to earn their living. The difficulty is that if a man is going to an evening class after 5 o'clock how does one know whether—and the Minister asked me this —the purpose of the class attended is to improve the capacity to be employed and make a contribution to the nation rather than to indulge in a perfectly pleasant and innocuous hobby? The answer I suggested at the time was: let us satisfy the local authority. If they are satisfied then surely everybody should be happy.
It would be very unfortunate if a young person was excluded from the services to which he would otherwise be entitled merely by the fact that he could not get to the classes until after 5 o'clock. This Amendment seeks to put in the kind of satisfaction which is really the maximum satisfaction. It says that if the local education authority are satisfied that the attendance at the classes is with a view to employment then the young person qualifies. If that is not so, then the young person does not qualify. The Government ought to accept that kind of Amendment which does nothing but improve the Bill. It removes a very unpleasant and invidious distinction.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I said at the Committee stage, when the noble Lord moved a comparable Amendment, that I thought there were powers for local authorities to provide a service to a young person attending an evening
892
class for vocational reasons which they could exercise, and I thought they would in all normal cases exercise them. I see the noble Lord's point that it might be felt invidious that the local education authorities' duty should not extend to these young people attending classes beginning after 5 o'clock. I promised on the previous occasion to consider further whether local authorities should have a specific duty to make arrangements for careers guidance in respect of people attending evening classes with a vocational purpose. My Lords, I am very happy to accept the Amendment that the noble Lord has moved. It may serve to avoid any misunderstandings and it makes the Bill a little clearer.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the Government for doing what they have done, which is extremely valuable and improves the Bill. I am most grateful.
Schedule 1 [Additional provisions relating to the constitution etc. of the Commission and Agencies]:
6.17 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 20, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 and insert—
("(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission, before such date as the Secretary of State may determine, to select such staff as it requires who shall be chosen from a list of names notified to the Commission by the Secretary of State and also from candidates with considerable industrial and commercial experience in the field of employment and training; and the terms of the offer of employment shall be such that in the opinion of the Secretary of State they are, taken as a whole, not less favourable to the person to whom the offer is made than the terms under which he is employed by the Secretary of State on the date at which the offer is made and such terms will also have full regard to the desirability of movement of staff between the Commission and industry and commerce:
Provided that not less than one quarter of the staff (excluding non-clerical and manual employees of the Commission) shall be persons who possess the industrial and commercial experience referred to in this subparagraph.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is in some ways a continuation of the previous Amendment which I moved. It is the same subject moved from a different angle, an Amendment which I

893
withdrew too swiftly before the noble Lord the Minister could reply. I raised this matter at the Committee stage and I had a courteous letter from the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, in reply to the points I then raised. I am afraid that the noble Earl confirmed my worst fears: as this House will now be all too well aware, my worst fears are that we are getting very much the mixture as before. Regarding the staffing of the Manpower Commission, it is required in the Bill that the Commission must take on the persons already employed in the Department of Employment whom the Secretary of State tells the Commission they must employ. The staff of the Commission are largely predetermined by the Secretary of State. That is not the way in which to get a new styled organisation going. This is going to be very largely manned—and it says so both in the Preamble and in the Bill —by existing civil servants. The noble Earl replied that Civil Service terms and conditions should continue to apply on the Staff Commission and Agencies in order to facilitate free movement of staff between the Department of Employment and other Civil Service Departments. He went on to say that it will be possible to take on people from outside on long or short-term contracts. It leaves no doubt at all that to a large extent the Commission is going to be run by civil servants.
I do not wish to be discourteous, but one cannot put too fine a point on this. The employment services in this country have been run by civil servants ever since the Department of Employment, the then Ministry of Labour, was set up. It has not been a success. The House must know that the labour exchanges up and down this country have been used to a small extent. They have been white elephants in many areas so far as meeting labour market conditions and helping people to find employment are concerned. The manpower forecasting exercise of the Department of Employment was admittedly a failure. Although much good work has been done in Government training centres, it has been on far too small a scale to begin to meet the country's needs. This has gone on for three generations. It is not unreasonable to say that what we need is something basically different. I said on the previous Amendment that the organisation
894
and the control needed to be different. In this Amendment I am asking that, to a large extent, the personnel should be different. So far as clerical staff and that level of employees is concerned, there is no reason why they should not be civil servants, but the people Who are going to make decisions, who are going to be executives in this field, should not be civil servants. We should not have the amateur approach that we have had for three generations. We should have a far more expert approach to this problem, which seems to me to be absolutely vital if this change in the Bill is to mean anything at all.
Can we have from the Minister a clear remit that it is not intended that the Commission should be run by the Civil Service as in the past, largely on the same lines with a little window-dressing to make it look like something different. On all sides I get clues that this is what is going to happen and that it is very largely a waste of time in bringing this Bill in.
It is not exchangeability with the Civil Service and the Department of the Employment and with other Departments of the Civil Service; it is interchangeability with people in industry. And, let me add, we shall not get interchangeability with the people we need if we pay Civil Service rates, for the simple reason not that the Civil Service is underpaid but that the people you want to get are people who take heavy responsibility, take risks and, if they fail, can carry the can. That is not true within the Civil Service. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, in consideration in Committee of the subject of the staff of the Commission and Agencies, I said that I would compare carefully the Bill and the White Paper; that is to say, the White Paper, Employment and Training Government Proposals, Cmnd. No. 5250, and that I would try to make sure that there was no divergence between them. I have done this and satisfied myself that there is not. As she has said, I have also written to the noble Baroness about this. It would be wrong for me to get into a general debate about this. The noble Baroness knows my views as I, if I may say so, know hers, but I should like to say something to her. The Commission is not going to be run by civil servants. The

895
Manpower Services Commission's executive arms, the Training Services Agency and the Employment Service Agency may, and most likely will, contain many people who either are civil servants now, are members of my right honourable friend's Department or who have been brought in from outside, but the Commission, which the noble Baroness has on so many occasions told us she welcomes, will be in charge. They will also be correlating the work of the Industrial Training Boards and other bodies, so I cannot accept that this is the old matter as before with a little window-dressing.
The other point I would make is that the Civil Service itself is not static; it is open to change and innovation under successive Ministers. As I think I said to the noble Baroness in Committee and certainly on Second Reading, I beg her to look for herself at some of the innovations which the Department are at present bringing in under the Employment Service Agency, the new job shops and the like, and also under the Training Services Agency with the training opportunity schemes, the Government training centres and the like. Her argument rests on the mixture as before. I have already dealt with the fact that I do not think that is right but, in addition, the mixture as before has itself changed.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, suggested in Committee that the Bill makes it mandatory for the Commission initially to appoint only people currently employed by the Secretary of State. This is not so. It is true that initially the Commission and Agencies must offer employment to existing staff of the Secretary of State nominated by him, and I think this is right. There is no evidence that the performance of such large-scale redundancies is deserved or would be welcome. But in spite of this, nothing in the Bill requires the Commission and the Agencies, even requires them initially, only to employ those nominated by the Secretary of State. I would also add my point that the existing staff liable to be transferred also contain many men and women with valuable outside experience, so I do not think the noble Baroness and I really disagree about this and I hope that she will withdraw her Amendment.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Modifications of Industrial Training Act, 1964]:
6.27 p.m.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 26, line 9, leave out ("one") and insert ("one and a half").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we on this side of the House attach a great deal of importance to training. We believe that the economic future of this country depends substantially on the training programme. We are dismayed to find that there is a ceiling of 1 per cent. We believe that this is wrong in principle and wrong in amount. It is wrong in principle because it invites firms in industry to assume that training is all right provided they do not spend more than 1 per cent. on it. It is wrong in amount because substantial industries are already spending more than 1 per cent. on training. That is so in the case of engineering, which is an important exporting industry. We believe that the very minimum that is required is an increase of this maximum from 1 per cent. to 1½ per cent. We realise that in a later paragraph in the Bill the Secretary of State has powers, in exceptional cases, to authorise an amount of levy in excess of the ceiling. We feel that that by itself is not enough and that the maximum ceiling should be increased from 1 to 1½ per cent. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, indicated that in his view the imposition of a normal levy limit of 1 per cent. suggested that the Government do not attach sufficient importance to training. I must say that I wholeheartedly reject this suggestion, and I think I can fairly say that what we are doing in this Bill is clear evidence that the Government do attach considerable importance to training. We do not believe that a normal levy of 1 per cent. will result in a diminution or scaling-down of the activities of training boards. It is certainly not the Government's intention that that should happen; this is not

897
how we see things working out under the new arrangements, and I will say why.
To substantiate the Government's view that the new arrangements in general, and the 1 per cent. limit in particular, will not have an adverse effect on the Board's influence or scale of effort I should like to make two points. The first is that at the present time only a small number of boards have a levy of more than 1 per cent.—and this number will be reduced even further in the period of the run-up to the introduction of the new arrangement. Out of 28 Boards—because the Foundry Committee counts as a board—only six boards including the Foundry Committee have rates of over 1 per cent. at present, although I admit that those six do include the largest body, the engineering training board, and I quite agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said on Second Reading about the importance to the economy and the country of that board. The second, and perhaps rather more important, point is that when the new arrangements come into full operation, up to £35 million in a full year will be made available to the Commission to cover the administrative costs to the boards of the training grants and to promote training in the non-board sector. This will be a very substantial new contribution from the Exchequer.
It really is wrong to assume that reducing the levy in itself reduces the amount that firms spend on training. Levy does not by any means cover the full cost of training in industry. I think most firms which take training at all seriously spend much more on training than they are assessed at for levy purposes, even without taking into account the grants they may earn which can be offset against levy. Many people in the training world would argue that the purpose of levy is rather to make firms aware of the importance of training and stimulate them to do something about it. Most boards have found a levy rate of 1 per cent. or less is adequate for this purpose.
It is true that the total assessments for levy amounted to about £200 million, but only about £40 million of this was actually received by boards, because grant is set off against levy due. Nobody can tell what the levies will be in future, since we cannot forecast the extent of exemption and exclusions. It is true that
898
the boards which have to reduce their levies to come within the 1 per cent. limit will have less money available for their activities and for grants to stimulate good training, but that is where the Exchequer contribution of up to £35 million a year will come in. It is going to pay their administrative expenses and provide the key training grants. The introduction of levy exemption will also tend to reduce the hoard's funds, but levy exemption will also be a means of giving firms an incentive to maintain good standards of training.
It simply is not part of the Government's policy that boards should exempt from levy firms whose training is not adequate. Levy exemption is intended to be a method of enabling boards to fulfil their responsibilities for securing and improving standards of training in their industries, and of doing so in a way which enables firms which have sound training arrangements to avoid the administrative complexities which have become associated with the levy grant system. The general principle of exemption should be that boards will grant exemption to employers if they are satisfied that the firm is carrying out training adequate to its needs.
Pressure for good training will be maintained by the criteria which boards will set for exemption. These will relate to what a firm can be expected to be doing in order to be regarded as carrying out training adequate to its needs. The criteria should represent standards of good training practice which boards have worked out with their industries. The important thing to realise is that as the standard of what is accepted as good training practice rises over time, so the exemption system can apply its pressure for these improved standards. It is entirely appropriate that the standards qualifying firms for exemption should be progressively raised.
I have said this to show the very point that so many firms are spending more on training than they are assessed for levy; the very point that training boards are even now, so many of them, below 1 per cent.; the fact that the engineering training board itself has reduced its levy from 2 per cent. to 1·5 per cent. already, and will be coming down in due course to 1 per cent.—all these factors I think indicate

899
that it is only in exceptional circumstances that the Secretary of State should have power to impose a levy over 1 per cent. After all, when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State first announced the scheme in another place last August he said that the maximum limit on levy would be 1 per cent., and in the White Paper, Cmnd. 525, published with the Bill, we explain that any levy in excess of 1 per cent. would be applied in only quite exceptional circumstances which make it necessary, and would be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
In fact, we have even been criticised from the other side for saying that we would allow exceptional circumstances and would go beyond what we originally stated would be the maximum of 1 per cent. We think that, in the light of all these considerations, it is only in exceptional circumstances that it would be necessary to provide for levies above 1 per cent., and we feel that we must stick to the maximum levy of 1 per cent. in normal circumstances. We believe that this is the right amount and that within it will be possible, with the assistance of the £35 million I have mentioned, for the training boards to supervise the training services and to make their contribution to the raising of their standards.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, in view of the hour, we will consider the reply by the Minister and reserve the right to come back at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 16 with Amendment No. 10. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 5, leave out from ("words") to end of paragraph and insert ("from the beginning to "carried on" there shall be substituted the words "An industrial training board may, with the consent of the Commission given with the approval of the Minister, exercise such functions in connection with training for employment" and at the end of section 14(1) there shall be inserted the words "; and the board may enter into agreements in the making of payments to the board n respect of the exercise in pursuance of this subsection of functions by the board." ").—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
6.36 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 34, line 35, at end insert ("; in exercising this control in relation to boards the Minister will have full regard to the desirability of movement of staff between boards and their industries; and").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to give industrial training boards the maximum freedom of action to recruit the calibre of staff they believe to be necessary in order to do the work which the training boards will still have to do, and still ought to do, in the new set-up. I am sure that the noble Earl or the noble Lord will tell me that, as the Bill now stands, there is nothing in it to stop them from paying the higher rates they will need to pay to get these people. It would, however, be a great help and reassurance to some training boards, at least, if this qualification were inserted in the Schedule, so that they would know that they were not going to be tied by the Minister to Civil Service rates in the employment of their staffs. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, at an earlier stage of the Bill the noble Baroness moved the same Amendment and I undertook then to have a look at it. I pointed out that there were other Bills under which the same conditions had arisen before, and that we should in fact be creating a precedent if we did what has not been done before and wrote into the Bill words which had appeared in the White Paper. I am afraid that, having looked at it, I still find that the arguments against taking the unprecedented step of writing such an assurance into the Bill are convincing. In any case, I am bound to say to the noble Baroness that, although it might have a comforting effect, it would not have much more than a comforting effect, because all that the Minister has to do, according to these words, is to
"have full regard to the desirability of movement of staff between boards and their industries".
This has already appeared in the White Paper and, while I must again advise the House not to accept this Amendment, I will repeat the assurance one more time: that, in exercising his control in relation to boards, the Minister will have full regard to the desirability of move-

901
ment of staff between boards and their industries. I wholly agree with the noble Baroness that this is something desirable to happen and therefore it would be necessary to provide the means for it to happen; and I hope she will rest content with that assurance.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, I deeply regret that the Minister is so bound by precedent. After all, there is no precedent for industrial training boards, which are sui generis. However, I take it there is no point in pressing him further, and therefore I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 together. They are consequential:
Amendments moved—
Page 48, line 48, at end insert:
Power of industrial training board with respect to training for employment overseas
("14.—(1) An industrial training board may, with the consent of the Commission given with the approval of the Minister, exercise such functions in connection with training for employment outside Great Britain of persons temporarily in Great Britain as are exercisable by it under subsections (1) and (4) of section 2 of this Act in connection with the training of persons employed or intending to be employed in the industry for which the board is established; and the board may enter into agreements for the making of payments to the board in respect of the exercise in pursuance of this subsection of functions by the board.")
Page 51, line 39, at end insert—
("7A. In section 14(1) of the Act for the words from the beginning to "carried on" there shall he substituted the words "An industrial training board may, with the consent of the Minister, exercise such functions in connection with training for employment."") —(The Earl of Gowrie.)
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Gladwyn asked me, in his absence, to convey his thanks that this Amendment, which originated with him, has been accepted.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness.

FAIR TRADING BILL
6.41 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I should like to say a word or two about the Bill before parting with it because we have spent quite a long time on it. May I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have contributed so effectively to the proceedings on the Bill and for giving your Lordships the benefit of their experience and their wisdom.
I suggest that the Bill has been much improved during the consideration which it has received in your Lordships' House. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will agree that the Government have been very ready to take account of suggestions for its improvement so as to strengthen the provision which it makes for the protection of consumers. I should like to mention in particular the Amendment which your Lordships agreed to in Clause 124 following suggestions made in Committee by noble Lords opposite, which will place the Director General under a duty to encourage trade associations to prepare codes of practice with the object of promoting the interests of consumers. But many useful new technical improvements have been introduced. Your Lordships received this Bill from another place with 130 clauses and we shall return it with 140 clauses. This is not inflation. I am not sure that in itself this is a matter for congratulation, but in this particular case I am quite sure that the additions made to the Bill represent considerable improvements. Your Lordships have added to the Bill two clauses (Nos. 97 and 98) dealing with the position of wholesale co-operative societies under the restrictive practices legislation, and one clause (No. 106) dealing with industrial and provident societies. These changes were made in response to representations from the Cooperative Movement and were put forward on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and I was glad to note the welcome which they received from noble Lords opposite.
Your Lordships have also added Clause 99, on agreements relating to coal and steel. As my noble friend Lord Limerick explained when introducing it at the Report stage, this clause will ensure that producers in this country are at no competitive disadvantage as compared with

903
their European counterparts. But I suggest that the greatest improvement made to the Bill is its extension to cover the troublesome matter of pyramid selling, and I was very glad that it was possible, with the co-operation of the whole House to extend the Bill by the addition of six further clauses constituting an entirely new Part on this subject. It is our intention that the powers conferred by this new Part should be vigorously exercised, and I hope we can eliminate once and for all the trading practices which have caused so much hardship to unsuspecting people.
I should like once again to thank noble Lords in all parts of the House for the welcome that they have given this Bill, and for the co-operation that they have shown in getting it through so expeditiously. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, we on this side of the House would like to compliment the Ministers concerned on the way in which they have steered this Bill through the House. We believe that on the whole it is a good Bill. We are grateful for some of the Amendments which did get through, particularly the ones concerning codes of practice and the two which related to the Co-operative Movement.
Of course there are certain disappointments. Particularly are we disappointed that not even just a little initiative was given to the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee. We believe that to be a psychological error. However, we have been pleased to co-operate with the Government in getting this Bill through the House and we hope that it will in practice achieve as much as it promises in theory.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Admendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NATIONAL INSURANCE AND SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT BILL
6.45 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: 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 Aberdare.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendment of Schedule 2 to Ministry of Social Security Act 1966]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 16, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 42.
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, with the permission of the Committee my noble friends and I would like to speak to Amendment No. 2 as well because in fact it deals with the same philosophy but it is an attempt to deal with the matter in a slightly different way.
When a Bill is introduced which purports to make improvements in the lives of the folk for whom it is catering, as this Bill does, it is important to make certain that these are real improvements, and in the Schedule that we are discussing this evening we are talking about the long-term allowance. This is intended to cover the needs of elderly pensioners who will draw supplementary benefits for the rest of their lives, and for those below pensionable age who have been on benefit for one or two or more years and are not required to register for work.
In the matter of the exceptional circumstances allowance for heating it is good to note that in future this will not be offset against the long-term allowance. But the special diet or laundry costs or any other additions will still be offset. I think your Lordships will appreciate this best if I give as a practical example a case given to me quite recently. If a couple were given 90p for heating, £1·32 for extra diet and 65p for laundry they would receive a total of £2·87. Under the new arrangements nothing would be taken off the 90p for heating, but 50p would be taken off the further allowances, so that they would receive long-term benefit of £12·85 plus £2·37 and not £2·87. It seems quite obvious that the greater the number of claims that are made by

905
anyone in this section the more important it is to have the maximum.
The Help the Aged Group spoke quite recently to a patient in hospital who, when he was at home, was given 83p extra: 50p was taken off the long-term allowance, leaving him with 30p. As he was on a very special and expensive diet this man was literally living at starvation level, and each time he was discharged from hospital his weight fell rapidly. When the Minister was challenged on this point, namely that the heating allowance was treated differently from the diet, he said that the Supplementary Benefits Commission had discretion. This is true. At the moment the Supplementary Benefits Commission use discretionary powers, but it is very significant that this Bill surely removes this discretion. As I read it, from October 1, if the Bill becomes law then, any exceptional circumstances addition given for heating will not be subject to being offset, but exceptional circumstances allowance for any other purpose will automatically have the deduction applied, and because it will be statutory—namely, written into the Bill —and not discretionary, even the Tribunal will not be able to exercise its powers in individual cases as it can do at present. The cases which come under this particular section I suggest would never be large in number, but they will be singularly pathetic in character. Yesterday I was privileged through another splendid group, the Poverty Action Group, to meet four people who I suggest are classic examples of the people we are dealing with under the Bill. The first thing I noticed about them was that they were not complaining; indeed in my experience the people most hardly treated very rarely complain. Perhaps if they complained a little more they would get a little more.
The second point that was very noticeable was that they did not understand how their extra allowances were made up. In each case they told me the total amount they received, but when asked, "Was this for diet or heating?" they could rarely sort it out. One dear old lady rather patiently said, "It seems to me that they give with one hand and take away with the other". I will not go through all the cases, but I think it would be useful to give your Lordships
906
at least one example—and I ask you to remember that these are selected because they are typical examples. Mr. Roche is 78, has bronchitis and a fractured spine. His wife, a little younger, suffers from at least four different diseases, and she has had a coronary thrombosis. Therefore, they each receive a dietary allowance, a laundry allowance and a heating allowance, making their total of extra allowances £2·82. The heating allowance, therefore, is not taken into account, but if the others are taken into account in the long term addition, in fact they would be very little better off—I think it is about 10p.
This Bill is partly to meet the cost which is rising all the time. I would remind your Lordships that if one is on a special diet, which is invariably expensive, one shops in the same market as the millionaire. There is no special price for steak, even if one person buys it as part of a diet and the other because he wants to. If prices rise for the wage-earner, they certainly rise for those people who are at the very end of the scale. In our Amendments we seek to do one of two things. First, we would remove the automatic deduction of the 50p from the exceptional circumstances addition. This would make the thing logical; namely, we should be back to where we are now. It would relieve the officials from what I can only call the cruel mathematical exercise of having to tell someone that they are giving them an extra 30p, an extra 10p, and an extra 10p, and in the next breath telling them they are having to take certain amounts off. This can be absolutely tragic because some people apply only when they are in desperation and few of them understand the system of how they appeal or how they deal with this problem.
The second Amendment seeks to add the heating expenses, the special diet expenses, the laundry or laundrette expenses and so on; in other words that each of these could be offset as is the case with the heating allowance. I know that the heating allowance concession is to be applauded. We know, unfortunately, that last winter there were elderly people who actually died from cold. What a terrible commentary in a so-called civilised society. Nobody would criticise the Government for their splendid attempt to help this group. What I am suggesting is that it would be desperately unfair if

907
those who, through other causes, incontinence or special dietary allowances, were put at a disadvantage. I have a feeling that the Government may well understand this, and perhaps at the end of the Session we are going to receive a lovely surprise when the Minister will rise and say that he will accept either one of our Amendments. But in the event, I beg to move the first Amendment.
6.56 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: If I may add a few words to what the noble Baroness has said, I think the Government have not sufficiently taken into account the factor that she has mentioned. Although she has already mentioned that we should applaud the exemption of the heating allowance from the deduction which is to be made from other supplementary benefits we cannot see the logic in the way that the Government have tackled it. They say that heating allowances are to be placed in a special category, but that people with multiple deprivations, as the noble Baroness so rightly expressed it, people who have heating, dietary and laundry needs so they are by definition much worse off than the person who needs heating alone, will have the equivalent of the long-term addition deducted from their benefit. So in many cases they are no better off. The noble Baroness has also mentioned that we saw four people yesterday all in this situation, two of whom were visited, I believe, by the Secretary of State, in connection with the question of heating allowances. Therefore, the Secretary of State is in full possession of the details of these cases and must be well aware that they are not only dependent on receipt of an allowance for heating, but also for diet and laundry in each case. The noble Baroness has mentioned the circumstances of Mr. Roche and his wife which I think illustrate the purpose of this Amendment very well.
Just to reinforce what the noble Baroness has said, may I refer to another case which was drawn to my attention, that of Mr. Thompson who comes from Birmingham, suffers from a prolapsed disc and arthritis of the spine, whose daughter needs special shoes and who, instead of receiving exceptional needs payments when she needs a new pair, has been awarded a special exceptional circumstances addition of 25p weekly.
908
If we ignore the basic pension changes—and I think we are right to do this—we must dispute the contention of the Minister in another place that these people are benefiting from Government largesse generally. So is everyone else, but these people are in a unique situation, otherwise they would not have been awarded the special needs allowances in the first place.
We must consider the special needs allowances in isolation, apart from any increase in pensions or supplementary benefit awarded to everyone irrespective of need. Mr. Thompson had the following allowances: diet, 60p, heating, 30p, laundry, 35p and special shoes 25p, making a total of £1·60. Then you have to deduct the 50p long-term allowance making £1·10. If the Bill is unamended, the situation will be precisely the same for him. He will get the diet allowance of 60p and the laundry allowance of 45p; from that will be deducted 50p long-term scale rate and after that you have to add on heat and shoes. Having done that, one finds that he finishes with £1·10, the same as he receives at present. He is no better off. I thought that the purpose of this Bill, as the Tory Party has always claimed, was to help those in greatest need, but we find that that is not the case at all. As the noble Baroness says, when the Minister was talking about this in another place he said that the Supplementary Benefits Commission have a discretionary power to pay more when necessary, but we all know that in practice this discretion is not exercised and that even the full amount of dietary allowances are not paid. The Minister referred in particular to people who need an expensive diet because they are suffering from kidney failure. A case has been brought to my attention by the Child Poverty Action Group where it has been medically established that the person needs a special diet costing £4 and is receiving only £3·50. So in any case, quite apart from this Amendment, we are not paying the full amount of these people's needs. In addition, we are going to deduct the long-term allowance from whatever they receive.
When the long-term allowance was first initiated in 1966 it had the purpose in mind that people who had been on supplementary benefit for a considerable period had needs which were greater

909
than those who had only just lost their income, either by reason of unemployment or retirement or whatever; that the longer you exist on the small income that you receive from supplementary benefit the greater your needs become. I think that is obvious to anyone who has had contact with old people or people who are chronically unemployed or sick. Their needs do become greater with time. That is entirely independent of the question of whether their health requires special diet or whether they need expensive laundry facilities for some other reason, and arises entirely from the fact that they have been on benefit for a long time. It follows quite logically from the consideration of the circumstances. The Minister himself said that the Government accept that there are people with multiple needs, and he said they will benefit from the improvement in the rates of benefit. One can see from the figures that have already been quoted that this is not in fact the case.
It is all very well to say that opponents of the Government have distinguished heating as something which should be given high priority. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is a most appalling thing that old people should die from hypothermia because they have not been given proper heating allowances. But would it not be just as bad if old people were to die because they could not afford the proper diet, which is allowed for in the supplementary benefit rates but taken away with the other hand? It is quite true, as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said, that the old people who are victimised by this policy simply cannot understand it. They know that a total amount has been given to them which is inadequate for their needs and that they are not going to benefit, in distinction from what the Minister said in another place, from the Bill now going through this House, apart, of course, from the basic increases in pension, which, as I say, are not relevant in this context.
I hope the Minister will think again on this matter, because if he does not enormous suffering will be created for a small number of people, and, as was pointed out in another place, we shall save a mere £6 million. The Government can give away £15 million to help owner-occupiers by subsidising interest
910
rates for three months, and this to a group of people who, by definition, are better off than those on social security, who could not possibly afford to buy their own houses. If they can give away £15 million to people buying their own houses, they can surely afford £6 million to take account of the dietary and laundry needs of this most deprived section of the community, and they must do this if they really believe in the Tory policy of helping those most in need.
7.4 p.m.
BARONESS MASHAM of ILTON: I welcome the extra allowance for heating, but, unfortunately, in some cases this is not nearly enough to cover the rise in costs. To-day, concerning this Amendment, we are not speaking of disabled people who want incentives to work and a much needed tax relief to offset the extra expenses which all disabled people incur. Your Lordships are considering a totally different group. They are people without drive and the needed energy to compete in life. They are people with exceptional expenses. They are just trying to survive in an increasingly expensive and complicated society. They are not treated in the civil and courteous way in which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, deals with us; they are hounded before tribunals and told to go to bed early if they are spending too much money on lighting.
In this Amendment the noble Lords who are supporting it are asking Her Majesty's Government to treat the extra expenses of special diet, and laundry and laundrette expenses, in the same way as heating. I have watched people who are continually returning to hospital for treatment, and it is evident that most of them come from the lower income groups. I am sure that diet has a great deal to do with it, and in some cases a special diet is vital to their lives. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, because he has an elegant figure, will not know personally the extra expense of high protein foods. I do. My noble kinsman has a weight problem and must not eat the cheaper foods such as pastas and sausage rolls. My housekeeping bills are therefore very high. Instead of deducting this mere 50p or 75p in cases of the over eighties, it seems to me that even if the amount granted was £5, it would be common sense and economically worth while to

911
grant it, as the most expensive result of all is to have these people in hospital. The same goes in regard to laundry. Most of your Lordships will agree with me that sending clothes to the laundry these days is a sure way of halving the life of the clothes and therefore incurring yet another extra expense. These unfortunate people who are incontinent feel very embarrassed sometimes when they have to plead with their social services for special laundry allowances.
I should like to ask the Minister what the cost of administering this scheme would be. Would it not be nearly as cheap to let them keep the 50p or 75p? This would benefit the people who need it so much and would leave the hard worked Civil Service to get on with more important jobs. I believe that the Government were expecting more people to take up the constant attendance allowance than did so; therefore there must be some spare money around. The Government to-day have shown, by giving young people two duplicated employment services, under the Employment and Training Bill, how flexible they can be. I sincerely hope that Lord Aberdare will show also how flexible his Ministry can be. I do not know how your Lordships can have the heart to vote against this Amendment to-night.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: In briefly supporting this Amendment, which has been so ably spoken to, I would begin by taking the opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on his patience, his skill and his humanity in piloting two major Bills through the House during this Session. I speak in this debate as one who is closely associated with the Disabled Drivers' Association, and indeed with the Disabled Income Group, and am conscious of the fact that we are living in a time when we are becoming more and more aware of the special needs of the various kinds of chronically sick and disabled. This Bill, the very Schedule we are talking about, takes care entirely —perhaps not adequately according to Lady Masham—of the heating problems of the old people by isolating that special provision from the cut-back which is made in an earlier part of the Schedule. What this Amendment seeks to do is to realise in the Schedule what is realised
912
at present in administration: the needs of certain kinds of sick people for special expensive diet, the needs of certain kinds of sufferers for extra special laundry expenses. If these are provided, they are to be cut back under the arrangements made in the Schedule. This Amendment, if accepted, would allow these two special kinds of expenditure, which mean so much to so many special people, to be disregarded in the Schedule, as we disregard whatever special extra provision we make for heat. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will accept this Amendment. It can cost very little, but it can mean a lot to a number of very unfortunate people.
LORD PLATT: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee unduly, and I will try to confine myself to one or two points which perhaps have not been adequately covered by other speakers in this debate. At the Second Reading I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that we might have to come to this Schedule at the Committee stage and deal with the off-set which is being made against allowances for exceptional circumstances. The noble Lord, with his usual wisdom and logic, said, "Well, of course, the supplementary benefit is given partly to pay for a person's food and, for that matter, his washing"—I will not say "his laundry", because he does not necessarily have to go to the laundry. He then said, "Therefore, is not it reasonable, if you are then to give him the cost of the special diet which he has to live on, that a little should be taken away from the basic supplementary allowance which had been given to him to include the ordinary needs of food?"
This very reasonable argument seems to me to have three rather major flaws to it. The first is the question of how these special allowances are calculated. I know in one case that the cost of a special diet was estimated, not by the pensioner but by the hospital dietitian, as £3·50. The pensioner was given £2·50. Either this was a bit of meanness or it was a perfectly logical exercise, in that he was probably already spending £1 in any case, and if the cost was going up to £3·50 the difference was £2·50. In other words, an off-set was already made when he was given that allowance. The Bill, as it stands, will now say that

913
another off-set has to be made for exactly the same purpose. This seems to me to bring illogic into what at first seemed to me to be a perfectly logical argument.
The second major objection is the very bad effect on morale— and, may I say, to the Party at present in power, and therefore in votes. Because the ordinary person, especially the elderly, just cannot understand these regulations. He says, "You are giving me 90p for this, and then you are taking 50p away. I don't understand it." Even the ordinary "Peer in the street", as I call him, will find it almost impossible to understand this particular piece of legislation. It really has a devastating effect on the morale of the pensioner. The third objection is that it has a very bad effect on the people who have to administer this kind of thing. They may understand it and think that it is all perfectly fair and logical, but to the ordinary recipient you are giving with one hand and taking away with the other. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to assure us that the Government are going to have a new look at this matter and see whether the whole thing cannot be done in a better way.
7.14 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: I want to say just a few words in support of the Amendment that has been moved. I shall be talking mostly to some parts of the second Amendment, but as the Amendments are being taken together I do not think that that matters very much. Everything should be done, particularly in the case of old people, to ensure that those who are incontinent can get their laundry washed by all possible means. To take that service away seems to me very wrong. People will be quite content —their families will, and their friends will —to do the washing if it can be done in some kind of economical way. What really upsets people, lowers their morale and gets them down, is to be confronted by a large amount of filthy or foul laundry and have no means of washing it, because what money there might be to help them in that washing is not now going to be given them. I should very much like to support the Amendment mainly from that point of view, but the same thing applies to special diets. There are people who need a rather more expensive diet than some of their young contemporaries, and I am quite certain
914
that nothing should be done to prevent them from having it. If they do not get their proper diet, if they do not get their laundry done properly, they are going to be moved for a long-stay either in hospital or in a local authority home. Not only is that going to be expensive, but it is against more modern ideas for the care of old people. I strongly support the Amendment before us.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I shall take just about one minute. I had the privilege of serving in the Ministry of Social Security when the Minister was Miss Herbison, and we were the first to introduce a grant for hypothermia. I know the difficulties involved in these cases. Nobody could be a kindlier person than the noble Lord speaking from the opposite Bench about social security. The great problem that a Government must ultimately solve is the battle between the Cabinet and the Treasury over the money side of this question. Here is a relatively paltry sum compared to other sums which are being paid out, such as the subsidy given for houses. During my period in office I saw this battle myself of the Minister against the power of the Treasury. When I use the word "illiterate" I do not mean unwise—people can be illiterate and be very wise—but it is hard for people who are illiterate and not accustomed to these tribunals to make appeals about things like incontinence and other sorts of disabilities, and for surgical belts or boots.
I had 26 or 27 years' experience as a Member of the other place, and everyone, on both sides of the House, had to deal with many constituency problems and knew the problems that had to be met. I appeal to the Minister—I do not want to repeat arguments that have been given —and I appeal to the Government to look at this matter again. Some power must be taken from the Treasury over the relativity of amounts. The small amount that would be given here for the comfort and succour of the disabled is hardly measurable compared with the money given out to big firms and those "lame ducks" who now have golden crutches.
BARONESS ELLES: I apologise for being late and not hearing the first part of the discussion on this Amendment. It is an Amendment about which I feel very

915
strongly, so may I be allowed to contribute one or two words to this discussion. The people we are dealing with—and I think that this is the crux of the matter —are people who never have any hope of improving in health. They are people who will never benefit from the age of affluence in which we are living; they are people who will never have a large percentage rise in their wages, and they will depend entirely on the paltry sums that the Government are prepared to give them in order to have minimum comfort.
My right honourable friend in the other place and my noble friend in this House are well-known for their compassion and understanding of these problems, and it is in no way a criticism of them that I wish to make this plea. I realise that it will cost the Government a little money, but what is £9 million a year if it will make over 300,000 people live in a greater degree of comfort than they otherwise would? It is absolutely incomprehensible that we can allow extra money for hypothermia cases so that they will be warm, when they will be warm sitting between wet sheets. This seems to me quite illogical, and I would therefore plead with the Government, although I realise that it is difficult, to look at this point again to see whether 50p a week can be given—it is not even 50p a day that we are asking for—to enable people to have the minimum comforts which nobody would allow a dog to be without. Even if someone is over 80, it will come to only 75p. So it would be a gesture on the part of the Government to recognise that we should show compassion to those most in need, and we should support this Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, for saying some nice things about me at the beginning of his speech. One of the nice things that I have had the privilege of doing over the last few years is to introduce this annual uprating Bill, and I think we can be proud of the fact that we are the first Government to introduce an annual review of pensions and other social security benefits. It has always been a pleasant Bill to introduce because, being an uprating Bill, never before have there been any dissentient voices; and it is a little astonishing that, in a Bill which is designed to give everybody more, we
916
should now be criticised for not having gone quite far enough. As noble Lords everywhere have acknowledged, we have —and I hope I shall make this clear in my remarks—made great improvements in the payment of the so-called heating allowance, which is a definite improvement and a move forward. But one learns by experience from speaking on social security matters in this House that if one gives a penny one is asked for a pound.
In this Bill the long-term scale rates contain amounts of 50p, or 75p for the over eighties, which correspond to the former long-term addition, which are specifically intended, like the long-term addition always was and is, to take the first strain of special expenses in long-term cases. In other words, special expenses up to 50p or 75p a week in longterm cases are already provided for in the scale rates, and an exceptional circumstances addition is appropriate only to the extent that such expenses exceed 50p or 75p. The justification for this is the same as it was in relation to the long-term addition: the fact that many long-term beneficiaries will have special expenses which should, up to a point, be provided for automatically without the need for detailed inquiries. This was the original reason for the longterm addition which was introduced in 1966 by the Government of noble Lords opposite. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who, having spoken so violently, has now left us—
BARONESS SEEAR: He is coming back.
LORD ABERDARE: —was quite wrong about the origins of the purpose of the long-term addition. It was not just to meet small expenses. If I may quote what the Minister said in the Second Reading debate on that occasion:
"The purpose of this long-term addition is a simple one. It is to remove in these cases the need to inquire into the small day-to-day expenses for which the bulk of the discretionary allowances are now made."
In those days, every extra allowance had to be gone into in every individual case. Instead of that, the long-term addition was made available—and all credit to the Government for doing so—in order to avoid the need for going into all these details.

917
In strict principle, this should apply to all special expenses irrespective of their nature, but in practice the Bill provides three exceptions. Two of these, relating to rent additions for non-householders and children's special expenses, merely put into statutory form what the Supplementary Benefits Commission have always for good reason done on a discretionary basis. The third exception relates to additions for special heating expenses. This is a new provision and it is being introduced because we attach priority to the heating needs of the old and the longterm sick who are on supplementary benefit. We have frequently made clear our concern about this problem, and we have now taken positive action by improving the supplementary benefit provision for heating before next winter begins.
We have therefore decided to provide for heating additions to be paid in full on top of the long-term scale rate, instead of being offset against the long-term addition. This is a change which has been advocated by many people, including the Child Poverty Action Group and Age Concern. We cannot make any firm estimates on the matter, but we think that over 400,000 supplementary beneficiaries will receive more for heating as a result. There will be those with extra heating needs who now get no addition because their extra expenses are being covered by the long-term addition, and those who now receive a reduced heating addition because their extra expenses are partially covered. All will get heating additions in full and the estimated cost is something like £6 million a year, though in practice it will cost whatever is needed to implement this proposal. So heating expenses are being treated differently in relation to offsetting against the long-term scale rate, simply and solely as a matter of priorities.
We consider that the change made by the Bill is a simple and understandable way of giving extra help to people with heating needs. We do not accept that the change invalidates the general principle of a long-term addition intended to meet automatically special expenses up to 50p of 75p. -Consequently, it does not follow that, because heating expenses are now exempted from offsetting, all special expenses should be so exempted. Diet and laundry expenses up to 50p or 75p,
918
along with other special expenses on such things as home helps and abnormal wear and tear of clothing, are provided for by the special expenses element in the longterm scale rates and, where necessary, by an exceptional circumstances addition where the expense exceeds that amount.
It is true that a proper diet can sometimes be as vitally important to a person's health and welfare as adequate warmth, or, to put it another way, that a given state of ill-health can produce both heating and dietary needs. On the basis of medical advice, the Supplementary Benefits Commission currently allow, subject to offsetting against the long-term addition, 92p where a person is suffering from a number of specified conditions such as diebetes and peptic ulcer, and 40p where a special diet is needed in other cases; for example, during convalescence following a major illness or operation. By no means all the circumstances in which diet additions are given are really "life or death" situations, and certainly this is not at all true of laundry additions. Most frequently it is a question of a chronic but not necessarily serious condition requiring extra nourishment. Where it is claimed that hardship exists, the Supplementary Benefits Commission are prepared to look into any case to see whether more help can be given under their discretionary powers: for example, by increasing the amount of the exceptional circumstances addition. For example, where it appears that a particularly expensive diet must be followed—for instance, in a case of kidney failure—the Supplementary Benefits Commission are prepared, on medical advice, to pay the actual cost, however high this may be. It is certainly not true, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Platt, suggested, that additions for special diets already made would be reduced by the Bill. The Bill will make no change in those allowances.
Given that the long-term scale rate will provide for special expenses up to 50p or 75p and that the Supplementary Benefits Commission's flexible discretionary powers are available to give help above this level, we consider that the present provision for special needs other than heating is adequate. We do not think it right to accord all special expenses the same priority as heating by providing for such additions also to be paid in full on top of the long-term scale

919
rate. But the Supplementary Benefits Commission will always consider increasing benefit in individual cases, and the Commission will also keep under review the general levels of special additions for diet and the criteria on which they are given. We do know the number of people who at present have some special needs but whose needs are covered by the longterm addition, and who therefore have no exceptional circumstances addition to their benefit. It is consequently not possible to say accurately what the cost of the Amendment would be, but our estimate is that it would be not less than £15 million a year. Now the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, I think considers this to be a paltry sum.
LORD AVEBURY: if the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting, I am looking at the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee stage in the Commons, and the Minister there, Mr. Dean, said that if we were to go beyond the £6 million or so that the improved heating arrangements involved and on to what was proposed by the Opposition, which is substantially the same as what we are proposing here, we would need about £12 million. I do not know whether my arithmetic is correct, but if you take £6 million from £12 million you get £6 million, and not £15 million.
LORD ABERDARE: The £6 million is the cost of the heating allowances which we are already giving, but if, in addition, we did away with any offsetting against the long-term addition of any other need, it would then cost an additional £15 million as far as we can estimate it. This is not a figure that it is easy to set definitely, but it certainly could well be in the region of £15 million. If the second Amendment, which covers only laundry and diet, were to be put into effect, then the figure would probably be nearer £10 million. But at a time when there are so many demands on resources, and having made an important concession in the sensitive area of heating, we do not feel justified in going further and treating all special expenses in the same way, when these can already be met from the long-term scale rate plus an exceptional circumstances addition where that is appropriate. I hope that your Lordships will
920
not agree to either of these two Amendments.
7.35 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like to thank the Minister for his reply. Of course, throughout the whole of this Bill he has on each Amendment told us that he sympathises. I was brought up on the old-fashioned idea that "fine words butter no parsnips". We appreciate the point that the long-term allowance is intended to cover these particular problems of diet and laundry. There seems to be no reason why a long-term allowance would not equally include heating; but even if we take into account all the arguments advanced—and, in the end, they are mainly monetary—we still come back to the fact that I can produce three sums here to show that in one case those concerned are getting only about 5p more and in another case they are not getting any more. If this Bill is to give everyone who is concerned with it a little uprating then it must apply equally to the people who are on supplementary benefit. This is my plea. If the pensioner is to get an extra £1, then it is equally true that these people must be uprated as well. But under this system, by the calculations we have made—there are only five or six cases, and they are not selected—in some cases these people will get only lop more and in others they will not get anything.
I feel that the Minister has not made out a case. He may say that every time he gives us one thing we ask for a little more. This is true, but this is an exceptional group. I pleaded, heaven knows!, for the pensioners, and I pleaded for the widows. But this is a group which is far worse off than any other group that we have pleaded for in your Lordships' House. I am fascinated by the figures which the noble Lord produced. I am always fascinated by the way Departments produce figures. We had quoted to us the figure for illegal immigrants. We did not know where they were, even; but they could tell us that they numbered something like 19,000. We were told how many widows could be affected by the abolition of the cohabitation rule, which conjures up wonderful ideas of how they are assessed. We are now told of this figure; but we do not know that every one of these people will take this amount up in total. This figure must be based

921
on the assumption that everyone will take it up; and even if they did—and I have talked to a lot of people about this—this is the one group in the community for which most people would be happy to pay a higher contribution. In the end, as I said the other day, where does the money come from? It does not come from the Government; it comes from the people —and I believe that this is one group that the people would be happy to see assisted. I know that the battalions are gathering outside. I am not going to be put in the same category as my noble friend Lord Shepherd, and be accused of moaning and groaning. Those outside have not heard the force of these arguments, and I feel it would be to some measure against their conscience if they were to oppose these Amendments.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: I had no intention to speak to this particular point, and I apologise for the fact that I have not heard all the argument, but the argument I have heard from both sides of the Committee has made me rise to my feet.
7.47 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 42, at end insert—
922
For over 35 years I have worked very closely with the domiciliary service of the Queen's Institute of District Nursing, and I know exactly how much is known of the individual cases that need specific and special help. In spite of that, I like to think that perhaps in your Lordships' House I have not got a reputation for being a hard-faced, inhuman individual. I have great sympathy with the point of view that has been put forward by my noble friend to-night. I think that those people who are going to need the most help are going to get it. I think that it is not going to be available to everyone, and I think that is right; but if the domiciliary services, of which I happen to have very special knowledge, are going to report those cases that need help, I am perfectly happy to support my noble friend by not going into the Lobby on behalf of this Amendment.
7.38 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 34.
("(d) special diet expenses incurred through illness,
(e) laundry and laudrette expenses incurred through illness, or incontinence, disability or infirmity or lack of facilities.")—(Baroness Phillips.)

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Hanworth, V.

Platt, L.

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Avebury, L. [Teller.]

Jacques, L.

Seear, B.

Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Serota, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Shackleton, L.

Elles, B.

Loudoun, C.

Somers, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Swinton, E.

Garnsworthy, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Wise, L.

George-Brown, L.

Monson, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Davidson, V.

Saint Oswald, L.

Auckland, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sandford, L.

Balfour, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Selkirk, E.

Berkeley, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Ferrers, E.

Sudeley, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Terrington L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gowrie, E.

Teviot, L.

Carrington, L.

Monck, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Coville of Culross, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Windlesham, L. [L. Privy Seal.]

Conesford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

Craigavon, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

On Question whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Archibald, L.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Auckland, L.

Jacques, L.

St. Just, L.

Avebury, L. [Teller.]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Seear, B.

Beswick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Serota, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Loudoun, C.

Shackleton, L.

Elles, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Somers, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Maybray-King, L.

Swinton, E.

Garnsworthy, L.

Monson, L.

Wise, L.

George-Brown, L.

Phillips, B. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Platt, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Saint Oswald, L.

Balfour, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Sandford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Selkirk, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Ferrers, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gowrie, E.

Terrington, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Monck, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Conesford, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Craigavon, V.

Mowbray of Stourton, L.

Young, B.

Davidson, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendment.

GLASGOW CORPORATION (PARKS, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
DEE AND CLWYD RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.

TRENT RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition
924
to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on June 5 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.