Lords Sitting of 19 December 1974

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The VISCOUNT HOOD on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely
The Lord Bishop of Ely—Took the Oath.
The Baroness Gaitskell—Affirmed.

CIVIL SERVICE: RE-ENGAGEMENT OF WOMEN
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what the Civil Service is doing to encourage women who having left because of domestic responsibilities then wish to return to the Service.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, until now, civil servants who resigned could usually be reappointed only in the basic grade, regardless of any position achieved before resignation. It has now been agreed with the National Staff side that they may apply for reappointment in the grade reached at the time of resignation. This will help the Civil Service attract back able people and make proper use of their skills. It will be of particular help to women wanting to pick up the threads of the careers which they left to devote themselves full-time to running homes and caring for families.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his reply and hope it will have the result he anticipates.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, although I should like to emulate my noble friend, in view of the fact that the percentage of women in the executive and administrative grades of the Civil Service is very small, I must ask the Minister how the Government
1266
intend to overcome the prejudice which is ingrained in the Civil Service in this matter and which has inevitably led to this state of affairs?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, in order to avoid being unfairly classified as being a male chauvinist pig, perhaps I should address your Lordships' House as "My Lords and Ladies" or, better still, "My Ladies and Lords". I expected a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. Some may think that she "doth protest too much". Methinks, on the contrary, that the cause of sexual equality owes a great deal to her protestations.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I wish, as many people must, that there were more women in top Civil Service jobs. No one can relish the present position in which the junior grades arc pre-dominently staffed by women and the senior grades by men. The real problem is that many women have to resign to have children, and this either curtails or interrupts their career. The recruitment arrangements are structured in as impartial a fashion as can be designed, but it would be wrong to apply double standards. We do, however, need to be on guard against unconscious discrimination, the tacit assumption that women should be sent to women's jobs. A large number of posts, which had been restricted to men only, have now been opened to women as well. It might surprise noble Lords to know that there are now women immigration officers, women meteorological officers, and even women in the Tower of London as warders of the Jewel House. In fact, the procession of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor could even at some time in the future be enlivened by the addition of a female Purse Bearer, for that Office is now open to both men and women. I say this with all respect to the present incumbent, who fulfils his role with a dignity I much admire, for although I am in favour of role sharing I have to admit that I have so far stopped short of carrying a purse.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, are we to understand from what the noble Lord has said that, although this Question

1267
was inspired by the particular nature of women as opposed to men, the same rules will apply identically to men and women; that is, that either men or women can re-enter the Service if they have left for any reason, other than a shameful one, obviously?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Yes, my Lords; that is the case.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, as the Minister seems to have a progressive mind on this matter, may I ask him whether he feels that this old canard of marriage might at least be removed from the argument? It he aware that it has been advanced for years and has prevented women who may not wish to marry, or who may not be married, from reaching the top jobs?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Yes, my Lords, I fully agree with the noble Baroness. The removal of any bars which prevent women from re-entering the Service, or are in any way prejudicial to them, is entirely acceptable to me.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain to any women applicant for the post of Purse Bearer that she is expected not only to carry the Purse but to dress the Lord Chancellor in the most intimate way?
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the possibility of part-time employment during the period when women are not able to give all their time to employment?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Yes, my Lords. The Civil Service already employs some 16,000 part-time staff and all but 1,000 of these are women. It happens that most of these jobs are in the junior grades, but the number of part-time posts is increasing.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—in case there may be some misunderstanding—that there is a form of bias against women in the Civil Service in so far as they are denied the right and the opportunity of entering executive positions? Many of us who have occupied ministerial posts——
Several Noble Lords: Question!
Lord SLATER: Is he aware that many of us who have occupied ministerial posts know that within the Department there are promotion panels, and people of both sexes are given the opportunity of making their application for promotion within the Department in which they are engaged; and it would be wrong, as I see it——
Several Noble Lords: Speech!
Lord SLATER: May I ask my noble friend to make further inquiries as to why women are not receiving the same form of treatment as men inside the Civil Service?
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: Yes, my Lords, and, as noble Lords will know, the Civil Service Department is meeting all the recommendations made by the Kemp-Jones Committee which fully cover the point made by the noble Lord.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the objection which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, is not a new one? Originally the Lord Great Chamberlain used to regard stockings and drawers as the innermost garments of the Monarch; but that idea had to be varied at the time of Queen Anne, and I believe that it comes down to the present day when we have a Queen instead of a King.

PARTY POLITICAL BROADCASTS
11.15 a.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consult the Leaders of the Opposition Parties with a view to deferring Party political broadcasting on TV and radio, except in special circumstances or a General Election.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, Party political broadcasts are a long-standing and important means by which political Parties may present their policies to the public free from the editorial control of the broadcasting authority.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Party political

1269
broadcasts are not only long-standing but long-boring, and that they are more excessively boring nowadays than they were during the Election campaign? Is the noble Lord also aware that although neither the Government nor the political Parties can dictate to the BBC or to the commercial television authority they have it under their own control, and is not it time to put a stop to this farce? Since the BBC are complaining about the need for cutting down programmes because of the economic situation, surely they can cut out this nonsense! May I inform the noble Lord that last night I heard the Liberals, to whom I have no objection because they are very decent people, and that the programme had nothing to do with the issues of the day—only with propaganda asking people to join the Liberal Party? Imagine that!
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, Party political broadcasts are paid for by the Parties and not by the broadcasting authorities. In order to put this matter into perspective, I think we must remember that we have had two General Elections in one year and that we have not had two General Elections so near to each other for about 50 years. To put the matter further into perspective, may I remind my noble friend that the quota for this year was six Labour broadcasts, six Conservative broadcasts and three Liberal broadcasts. With regard to my noble friend's suggestion about making these broadcasts more lively, perhaps my noble friend would like to represent my Party in a debate with the Young Conservatives!
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, are we to understand from my noble friend's reply that the Government are not prepared to consult the Leaders of the other Parties in order to put a stop to this farce, or to modify it? If that is the situation, may I ask him whether he is aware that I shall persist in my opposition to this farce, this nonsense and this terribly boring procedure that we have to put up with?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, while not necessarily agreeing with what my noble friend has said about the quality of these broadcasts, may I remind him that the number of broadcasts and the
1270
timing of them is decided upon by the Party political representatives of the leading political Parties in association with the broadcasting authorities.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord understand why, if this particular broadcast was so boring, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, did not switch it off earlier?
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, surely the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, could not have heard his right honourable friend Michael Foot a few nights before. He would strongly have approved of that broadcast and would not have thought it was nonsense.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the people of this country are becoming totally confused by hearing one thing from one Party one night and the exact opposite from the other Party the next night? Would not it be better to drop Party political broadcasts at the present time and instead all work together in the national interest?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is underestimating the intelligence of the public. Of course we receive contrary views on broadcasts, but that is what democracy is all about.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is my noble friend able to say why 99·9 per cent. of these broadcasts are made by men?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that we shall have to do our best to rectify the position! I should certainly like to see more ladies taking part in broadcasts.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am not troubled about the bickering that goes on in these broadcasts. There is plenty of bickering without that. Why should we trouble the BBC and Commercial television with this kind of thing? My observation about the Liberals does not mean that I have any animus against the Liberals, but last night's broadcast was the absolute limit.

MOTORWAYS: OBSERVANCE OF SPEED LIMITS
Lord INGLEWOOD: 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 plans they have for ensuring that all traffic and, in particular, heavy commercial vehicles observe the speed limits on motorways.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, enforcement is a matter for chief officers of police who deploy their available resources in the way which they con-sider most effective for the discharge of this and other police functions.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that is hardly an Answer to my Question? Is he not aware that on many motorways, notably the Ml in the neighbourhood of Birmingham, it is the rule rather than the exception for heavy vehicles to travel at well over 60 mph? Does the noble Lord not think that at this particular time, quite apart from the issue of road safety and bringing the law into disrepute, this means a great! waste of valuable fuel?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's point, but it is debatable whether very heavy vehicles can do more than 60 mph. I can only come back to what I said to the noble Lord earlier, that there are motor patrols i on our motorways. It has been found that this is the most effective way of deal- ing with this kind of situation, but whatever controls one has one must bear in mind that the police are undermanned at the present moment and a number of these vehicles are bound to get through.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while I appreciate what the noble Lord has said, may I invite him to travel at 60 mph on some of these roads and take note of the number of heavy vehicles which overtake him? They will not be few.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I have said, I understand. I have been on the motorways; indeed, I use them quite often. It might interest the noble Lord and other Members of your Lordships' House to know that in 1973
1272
in England and Wales there were 11,860 prosecutions and 265 written warnings to drivers for exceeding the 70 mph speed limit. But having said all that, there is also abundant evidence that it is safer to drive on a motorway than on any other kind of road.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if we were to take a little more note of the quality of living and if we had a little more dignity in our life we would plan now to return as much as possible of this heavy traffic to the railways?
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, since the Minister has now given an indication of intention on the part of the authorities that there should be strict policing—and bearing in mind the experience last November when the effects were so derisory and there was a great deal of non-observance of the regulations—may I ask whether he can give any encouragement that, upon using the powers which he indicates the police have the intention of using, when convictions occur steps will be taken to ensure that they are given as wide publicity as possible? In that manner the most economical policing will be the deterrent influence arising from the examples which the police and the magistrates so ensure.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, how best to make these penalties known is a matter which is constantly under consideration. I would remind the noble Lord that quite recently, in fact in the Road Traffic Act 1974, the penalties were doubled; but I still want to suggest that the most effective way is the presence of police motor patrols.
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, is there any reason why the policing should not be done by mobile traffic wardens rather than the police? Traffic wardens have been extraordinarily successful in towns when they were not mobile; why should they not be mobile in order to undertake this task and thus take the pressure off the police?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I should like to pass on the suggestion made by the noble Lord. I am sure that it has, in fact, been considered.
Lord ROBERTHALL: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that

1273
when these regulations come into force, as they did last time, there will be a great fund of good will but it will rapidly dissipate because so many people are obviously infringing the law? Would it not follow that the time to make an effort is immediately after the introduction, when there are many less infringements?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is a point of which the chiefs of police are aware. It is in the public interest—and they know it—to try to apprehend people who do not obey the law.

DEFENCE: SERVICE STATION CLOSURES
11.24 a.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consult the relevant local authorities before implementing the closures of Service stations foreshadowed in the recent Statement on Defence.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I regret that it is not the usual practice to consult individual local authorities. The normal procedure is for the Ministry of Defence to consult other Government Departments concerned with regional policies, who will have regard to local implications.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer, which I find most unhelpful. I had hoped that the Government might be persuaded to look at the question of what happens to the buildings when they are vacated. Can my noble friend perhaps give me an assurance that he will look at how the buildings are used on stations which become defunct, to ensure that they are continued in use and that the taxpayers' money is not wasted? And will he look specifically at the position of Upwood aerodrome in Cambridgeshire, which has recently been closed, where some of the
1274
houses are being used and the rest of the property is standing empty? It is a crying shame that in our desperate housing shortage houses should stand empty at this time. Is it not possible for the Government to consider using some of the other buildings on our stations as open prisons or detention centres for juvenile offenders?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the first point made by my noble friend is, I think, absolutely correct, that proper use should be made quickly of parts of stations or whole stations which are no longer required. With regard to the second part of her question, concerning the present situation at Upwood, I will endeavour to provide her with a full answer.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, can the noble Lord give some indication as to how long it takes from the time when a particular service decides to give up an individual station to a final decision, in some cases a sale on the open market?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot answer offhand but I will make an inquiry, and will let the noble Lord know, about two blocks of surplus married quarters which have recently been released and which have been offered to local authorities at Rhyl and Barnard Castle. It might be an interesting exercise to find out how long this has taken. This I will do.

MEMBERS' REMUNERATION
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Lord President will be making a Statement in another place this afternoon on Ministers' and Members' remuneration. As it is unlikely that this House will be sitting when the Statement is made, I have had consultations through the usual channels and I hope the House will agree that the most convenient way of making it available here will be to print it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With the leave of the House I propose to arrange for that to be done.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE AND LORDS' EXPENSES
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg leave to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee on the Procedure of the House (1st Report, 1974–75), agreed to by the House on 18th December, the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Leave of Absence ("the general supervision of arrangements relating to leave of absence"), be amended by inserting at the end ("and the reimbursement of Lords' expenses").—Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, on the subject of leave of absence may I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, in view of the deteriorating economic position which is, I think, ackno-ledged by both sides of the House here and in another place, whether procedures are in train for the speedy recall of Parliament should the situation deteriorate still further?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DUMBARTON BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Bill considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

SCOTTISH TRANSPORT GROUP (OBAN QUAY) ORDER CON- FIRMATION BILL
Bill considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

DISTRICT COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
11.30 a.m.
Report received.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 1:
Clause 3 [Jurisdiction and powers of district court]:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert "but the maximum period of imprisonment which can be imposed by a district court shall remain at 60 I days."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment because we were agreed that the limit of imprisonment sentence in district courts should be 60 days. On looking at the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill, I see there is a tariff at Section 407 which states that if the amount exceeds £50 the period of imprisonment is 90 days. I am asking I the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whether that is correct, because it is not possible to amend that consolidation measure. If that is not correct, can the noble Lord tell us in what way what is stated in the Bill does not reflect what the law will be after the consolidation. My Lords, I beg to move.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, the question has been raised as to whether one indirect effect of the provision in Clause 3(3) of the Bill to raise the limit of the fine from £50 to £100 for a common law offence, would be to permit the district court to impose a maximum period of 90 days' imprisonment in default of a payment of a fine. I am advised that Section 3 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 already contains a proviso which would prevent a district court from awarding more than 60 days' imprisonment for failure to pay a fine. Section 49(1) of the 1954 Act contains a table which includes an entry for a maximum of 90 days' imprisonment in the event of a failure to pay a fine of over £50. However, in view of the proviso to Section 3, such a period of imprisonment could be imposed only by the sheriff, and not by an inferior court of summary jurisdiction. Therefore, the point is covered by existing Statute, and no amendment is needed in the Bill.

1277
In a short meeting I had with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, he referred to the consolidation measure before Parliament at present. On examination, we were able to confirm that the proviso is carried forward in consolidation, so that it is only in the summary jurisdiction court presided over by the sheriff where the 90 days provision applies, and the proviso limiting it to 60 days in the inferior court continues. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will be satisfied that his Amendment is not necessary.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Stipendiary Magistrates.]
11.35 a.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 2.
Page 4, line 11, at end insert—
"Where the Secretary of State considers the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate to be desirable for the better administration of the district court in any area, he shall direct the local authority to make such an appointment."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, may I move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Balerno. We had a discussion on this point during Committee stage. The noble Lord was good enough to say that he would have a look at it. He has had a look at it. This present Amendment gets round the difficulty of the effect in the Amendment that I put down. Perhaps I should explain the structure we are going to get in the district courts of Scotland.
It is an effort to combine the justices of the peace in the landward areas of the country with the old burgh courts which have existed in Scotland for a long time. These are brought together under the administration of the respective district local authorities in Scotland. It is envisaged that there may be a need to increase the number of stipendiary magistrates, and that is put into the power of the local authority, subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State himself has no power whatever to initiate the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate. That means that in this essential element of the administration of justice, the Secretary of State can play no
1278
role at all. The administration of justice is conducted in this country in the name of the Queen; that is the source of justice. The Secretary of State is Her representative in this respect in Scotland. I consider that he should be responsible in the last resort for ensuring that the criminal courts at district level are run properly.
My Lords, this is not provided for in the Bill. If there were a recalcitrant local authority who did not run its district courts well, the Secretary of State has no recourse whatever. I shall not suggest that this will happen very often. I believe most district local authorities will take much trouble to ensure that their courts are run well. But I am bound to say that one cannot assume that. One cannot say that this inevitably will be the case. The district courts are appointed and elected basically for administrative purposes, not really for the administration of justice, for which they are not necessarily well qualified. Recently we have had a Report by the late Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Grant, a man of very high judgment and qualities, and a man very moderate in his views and speech. I should like to quote, as an example of what may happen, something that he said in the Report. He says:
"We are told, for instance, that the arrears of work in the police courts in Glasgow are much more alarming than the arrears in the Glasgow sheriff court".
I do not say that is something that cannot be dealt with.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, if I may interrupt while the matter is relevant, would the noble Earl be good enough to remind the House of the date on which that statement was made?
The Earl of SELKIRK: Certainly, my Lords. The date was 1967. I am not saying that that is the position today. I have made inquiries as to the position in Glasgow, but I am not even concerned about that. It may be that nothing is necessary. All I am saying is that in the future—and certainly not on the 16th May when this Bill comes into operation—there may be times when certain standards are not adequately maintained in some district courts. I would say that the Secretary of State would be quite wrong not to have sufficient powers so that he could carry out what I believe

1279
the public expect him to carry out. But at present he could not do this. I am not one for giving the Secretary of State additional powers. I have had many arguments with the noble Lord in trying to reduce them. But the administration of justice is something which has long been nationalised in this country. The structure we are putting into the Bill of giving the responsibility to the local authority is rather peculiar. I am not arguing against it. It is an interesting continuation of a former state of affairs.
My Lords, it would be wrong for the Secretary of State not to have power to intervene in certain eventualities. I must make the point from the Report of the noble Lord, Lord Grant, that he recommends some additional stipendiary magistrates. In the consideration of this, he says:
"We do not believe, then, that the cost of obtaining a stipendiary magistrate need be a deterrent",
because fines and other means will pay for it. In some way, the amount of work that a stipendiary magistrate can do makes him no more expensive, probably, than a lay magistrate. I am not putting this forward in favour of stipendiaries, and against lay magistrates, but I am putting it this way: that they can get through more work and can prevent justice being delayed more than is necessary.
I should say that this is a weapon which the Secretary of State can use. I am not going to say he will use it very often—probably never. But he is in the position to say to the local authority, "Unless you speed up your court procedure, unless you make your arrangements better, I will step in". As the Bill is drafted today, he cannot do this. I am very clear that he should be in a strong enough position to be able to do that.
I have to add, of course, that we are now introducing legal aid at district level, which we agree is very acceptable although it will undoubtedly mean additional work. What we do not know is where this may happen. The ideas, is that it may happen in the congested areas, and there are two stipendiary magistrates in Glasgow. But with the growth of population, the change to new towns and the development taking place, who is to know where this may
1280
be necessary. I think this is a very desirable power. I believe it should be held in reserve and held available, so that the Secretary of State may fulfil—and, if I may say so, properly fulfil—the task which this affords him. I think this is a power which the Secretary of State would have as a last resort. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, may I adduce two further reasons in support of my noble friend Lord Selkirk? The first is that there is considerable movement of population from one part of Scotland to another, and a considerable inflow of people coming into Scotland. All this is mainly in connection with the oil, especially on the East and North-East coast, where at the present moment people are living in substandard condi-tions—one might almost say on hulks—pending the building of proper accommodation. There are troubles arising in those parts, which may well require the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate there, even if only for a short period, until the situation settles down.
The second reason is that a major point of this Bill is that magistrates should in future be trained, and that training, as I understand it, is of considerable length, including weekend courses. We are uncertain at the moment how many of the existing justices, or new justices, will be willing and will have the time to undertake this training. It may be that in certain areas there will be no difficulty at all. In other areas, more particularly the country areas where developments are taking place, it may be extremely difficult to get people to come forward as justices and undertake all the training. For this reason I think it should be made possible for the Secretary of State to direct the local authorities to appoint a stipendiary magistrate.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should also like to support what my two noble friends have said, and even perhaps suggest one other small reason—which would not be small if it happened. If there were a district court where decisions were continually and frequently being overturned in the Courts of Appeal, the Secretary of State might well like to have this reserve power to

1281
suggest to a district council that they should appoint a stipendiary magistrate. For that reason, and for the reasons adduced by my noble friends, I should like to support this Amendment.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, if I might first deal with the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, this is a most unlikely occurrence. The number of cases where decisions of the existing borough or JP courts are overturned on appeal are so few that it is most unlikely to happen, having regard to the fact that the change in local government which is taking place, and which necessitates a change in court structure, does not mean much change in the personnel involved. There are some 800 or 900 borough magistrates and 5,000 justices at the present time. So I do not think this will mean very much change.
One of the main purposes of the Bill is to continue the lay magistracy in Scotland. This is fundamental. As a practical matter there will have to be some whole-time professional magistrates in the district courts, but we simply cannot contemplate accepting Amendments which would enable a future Secretary of State to undermine the purpose of the Bill and to oust the lay judiciary by appointing stipendiary magistrates to do the work in areas where there are lay justices willing and able to do the work and prepared to undertake the necessary training. If this Amendment were to be adopted, there would, I fear, be continuing doubts and uncertainties on the part of the local authorities administering the courts and of the justices. Each successive Secretary of State may take quite a different view of the relative merits of lay justices and stipendiary magistrates. The requirement set down in the Amendment that the Secretary of State considers what may be desirable for the better administration of the district court, may mean a lot or it may mean very little. There is a section of opinion—a very small section, I believe—which will hold that it is always desirable for the court to be presided over by a professional rather than by a lay magistrate. Uncertainty about the future is likely to be harmful to the development of an effective system of courts.
In the course of his remarks, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that we could not make assumptions about what district
1282
councils might do in the future in regard to the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate. If it is unreasonable in the Bill to proceed on the assumption that a district council will not consider the appointment of a stipendiary in a case where it is obviously the right thing to do, then equally it is wrong to make the assumption that a future Secretary of State would not use the power which this Amendment would give him to change completely the structure of summary court jurisdiction in Scotland. A Secretary of State who was firmly of the opinion that it ought to be an entirely professional court could completely change the attitude without coming back to Parliament at all.
If it proves in the course of time that all-professional magistrates are the right system, the course of action is for Parliament to alter the law by another Bill, not for the Secretary of State to alter the law by making use of such an Amendment. I say right away that it is unlikely that that would happen, but it is an assumption which cannot be disregarded entirely. I say it is equally unlikely that any district council would be so unreasonable in its consideration of the matter that we must put in a provision of this kind to take care of that unlikely assumption.
There are other important issues, also. Under the provisions of the Bill the local authorities will continue to be responsible for the financing of these courts, including the payment of the salaries of the stipendiaries. Exercise of the proposed power of direction by the Secretary of State would have the effect of placing a burden on the ratepayers without their elected representatives having any say in the matter.
The present Amendment appears to contemplate that some district authorities will, in the future, neglect the proper administration of their courts, allowing their justices to become overburdened and refusing to appoint stipendiary magistrates to do the work, with the result that the Secretary of State has to step in. My Lords, I cannot agree that this is a real possibility. For one thing, the local authority representatives whom Ministers have met are very anxious that the new courts should be as effective and efficient as possible. The types of crimes and offences which are dealt with by the lower courts carry a considerable nuisance value

1283
for local residents, and I cannot imagine such residents allowing their local authority to permit a court to disintegrate.
I must also draw the attention of your Lordships to the considerable flexibility which will be introduced into the disposal of summary criminal cases as a result of the provisions in the present Bill relating to the assumption by the Lord Advocate of the responsibility for prosecutions in the district courts. For the first time there will be one service, the Procurator Fiscal service, which will be responsible for the prosecutions in both the sheriffs summary courts and the lower courts, and this will enhance the degree of flexibility possible in the distribution of cases between the two types of court.
The intention is that all cases suitable for district courts will be taken in these courts, but there will be room for adjustment either way to meet exceptional situations. The sheriff court, of course, has universal summary jurisdiction. I might add to the point which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in relation to the North-East of Scotland, where in the ordinary course of events there might not even have been a district court set up. In many of those areas at present, all the summary cases are dealt with by the sheriff. I have no doubt that there will be continued use of that procedure in some areas, particularly where, as the noble Lord indicated, the problem may be of a temporary nature lasting for a few years—I am not talking here about a few months—which, as the noble Lord was good enough to indicate, does not require a permanent solution.
There are at present three stipendiary magistrates in Scotland, all in Glasgow. At the time when the Grant Committee made its report on the sheriff court in 1967, there were two stipendiary magistrates; a third took up his post at the beginning of 1970. These figures seem small, but I would draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that these three stipendiaries together dispose of at least one-quarter of the total number of burgh and JP court cases in Scotland every year. The remainder of the cases are spread throughout the existing 250 or more burgh and JP courts. It must be appreciated, therefore, that the scope for appointing more stipendiary magistrates outside Glasgow is very limited indeed
1284
at present. The position may change somewhat after 16th May 1975 when the existing courts will be replaced by 55 or so district courts. The concentration of business in fewer courts may provide somewhat more scope for the use of stipendiary magistrates if required, and, as I have already pointed out, the creation of a unified prosecution system or the district and sheriff courts will permit considerable flexibility in the arrangements.
There is clearly a disparity in the performance of courts in different areas with regard to delays in the hearing of cases in the existing courts. Statistical returns on the business of the sheriff courts indicate that there has been some improvement in the position in the last two years, in spite of an increase in the volume of work and accommodation difficulties. But much remains to be done and this will be one of the problems to be tackled by the new full-time sheriffs principal. There is no central collection of statistical information on delays in the burgh or JP courts but here, again, the indications are that there is a disparity of performance. In many places there are virtually no unnecessary delays in hearings in the burgh or JP courts, a matter of considerable pride for the local authorities concerned. In some of the very busy courts, however, increases in the volume of court business and difficulties over the speedy acquisition of additional accommodation may have resulted in some delay although, as I say, there is no central collection of information on this point.
My Lords, there is sufficient flexibility inherent in the present provisions of the Bill to deal with exceptional circumstances. Under the terms of Clause 5, it is already provided that the Secretary of State is required to approve the establishment of a stipendiary magistrate post, to approve the salary to be paid and to approve particular appointments. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said—I may be paraphrasing, but I think I have the sense of his remarks—that the Secretary of State has no power to initiate proposals about the stipendiary magistrate. The noble Earl said that the Secretary of State has no right to initiate these proposals. In law that is undoubtedly the case, but the noble Earl must be well aware of the fact that many

1285
of the things which local authorities may do, rather than the things that they must do, arise because of the discussions that take place between local and central levels. I certainly envisage that if a case arose where it seemed apparent that there was at least a case for the consideration of the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate, the Secretary of State would not be in any way inhibited from suggesting to the local authority that the time might be appropriate to consider the appointment. Therefore, it is not right to say that he cannot initiate proposals. But it is right to say that if a local authority decided that it was not necessary or desirable to do it, the Secretary of State would not have the power to compel the local authority.
I suggest, my Lords, that it is in keeping with all the trends over quite a number of years in these matters that local authorities should have the maximum freedom to decide for themselves, and that in this case it would be quite wrong, first of all to give the Secretary of State power to compel a local authority to do something which it did not think was necessary or did not wish to do; and, secondly, to place in the hands of a Secretary of State the possibility of completely changing the character of justice in Scotland without getting Parliamentary consent through the medium of a new Bill. I therefore think that I am completely justified, from all that I have said, in asking that this Amendment be not made.
11.58 a.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I am very disappointed over the answer given by the noble Lord. He has referred to the Lord Advocate. I welcome the wider scope of the Lord Advocate, but he cannot do anything about it. He has no power. The noble Lord also mentioned
finance, but Lord Grant has dealt with that, and I have already referred to this. There should be no additional financial burden on the rates. The noble Lord said that he does not want to control the local authority. It is a long tradition in the burgh that the bailies and the provost could be sacked by the council. That is one of the controls that they have, although it is a very small control.
What has worried the noble Lord—I think unreasonably—is the fact that he cannot trust future Secretaries of State. I thought that the Labour Government would be in power for the next 20 years, so why worry about that? Secretaries of State must be regarded as sensible; I have always so regarded them. If they are not, they can do a lot of damage in this country in one way or another. We must take them as being sensible. If the noble Lord thinks that a Parliamentary decision is required, we could use the Negative Resolution procedure. I think the House of Commons should look at this. It is very important that they should see that justice can be made the responsibility of the Secretary of State, instead of leaving him with no initiative except persuasion. I am not talking about that Shangri-La on the Tay, as I think the noble Lord knows, but there are other local authorities which do not necessarily pay attention to persuasion. I think, my Lords, we should ask the House of Commons to look again at this matter.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords——
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, we are on Report stage.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS

Amherst of Hackney, L.

de Clifford, L.

Gridley, L.

Amulree, L.

Denham, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Arbuthnott, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Auckland, L.

Elles, B.

Balerno, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Hankey, L.

Barnby, L.

Elton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Henley, L.

Brentford, V.

Fortescue, E.

Inglewood, L.

Brock, L.

Gainford, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Clancarty, E.

Glasgow, E.

Kintore, E.

Coleraine, L.

Goschen, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Greenway, L.

Long, V.

Cowley, E.

Grenfell, L.

Lyell, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Porritt, L.

Stamp, L.

Mancroft, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mar, E.

Reigate, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Margadale, L.

Rochester, L.

Merrivale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Strathspey, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

St. Helens, L.

Teviot, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Selkirk, E. [Teller.]

Vernon, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Vivian, L.

Northchurch, B.

Simon, V.

Young, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Somers, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pargiter, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Arwyn, L.

Hamnett, L.

Roberthall. L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Henderson, L.

Royle, L.

Boothby, L.

Hoy, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Caradon, L.

Kissin, L.

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Crook, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Summerskill, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

McLeavy, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Melchett, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fulton, L.

Milverton, L.

White, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Pannell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
12.6 p.m.
Clause 6 [District prosecutor]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 29, after ("prosecutor") insert ("who shall be in private practice").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is quite a small point. Under the arrangement, pending the time when the Lord Advocate will be in a position to appoint the prosecutor, the procurator fiscal, the local authority will appoint the district prosecutor. The point of my Amendment, which says that the prosecutor will be in private practice, is really to make quite certain that the clerk of the court—who under Clause 7 is also appointed by the local authority—and the prosecutor do not in fact work in the same room; that is to say, so that they could not in fact possibly be accused of working in collusion.
The noble Lord may be able to suggest a better way, but I think he will appreciate that it would be very unfortunate, for appearance sake, that the prosecutor and the clerk of his court should in fact be working in the same room, and, worse still, at the same desk. If he is in private practice this could not happen. I do not insist on these words more than to say that I should like some arrangements made so that it is known that there is no possible
1288
working together between the clerk of the court and the prosecutor. I know that this is for only a temporary period, but nevertheless it is important for those people who may be involved. I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, as the noble Earl has indicated, these appointments are of a temporary nature. They will be effective, I can say, for only a very limited period of time. From consultations I have undertaken since the last stage of the Bill, I understand that the Lord Advocate has in mind assuming responsibility for prosecutions for more than two-thirds of the district courts from the beginning—that is, from 16th May 1975—and in the remaining one-third he will assume responsibility a year later. Therefore, a smallish proportion of the district authorities will have to appoint a district prosecutor for a period of one year only.
In the circumstances, I do not think that it is either necessary or desirable for us to seek to introduce new statutory provisions relating to the appointment of local prosecutors in lay courts. The Bill as it stands already goes somewhat further than simply re-enacting the present provisions relating to burgh prosecutors or JP fiscals. It provides that the Lord Advocate may issue directions to district prosecutors regarding the prosecution of offences, and requires the prosecutors to

1289
comply with any such direction. The Bill provides also that the district prosecutor shall report to the Lord Advocate on any matter concerning the discharge of his functions when called upon to do so. To go further and require the district prosecutor to be a solicitor in private practice would, I suggest, be an unnecessary restriction on the local authorities when they are seeking to fill these temporary appointments. There may be, for example, solicitors who have recently retired from local authority work and who would be well suited to fill temporary posts as district prosecutors but who, under the terms of the proposed restriction, would not be eligible.
I fully agree with the point the noble Earl made, and to which he attached the real importance of this Amendment, that it would be undesirable for a clerk of the court and a district prosecutor to share the same room within the local authority offices. I am equally certain that the new district authorities would not dissent from that view either. I do not think that we need to have detailed provisions in the Bill to secure this. No doubt when the Bill has completed all its Parliamentary stages local authorities will be sent circulars on the district courts. As noble Lords are aware, frequently following the passage of an Act of Parliament administrative circulars are sent to the authorities concerned. I certainly undertake that this will be one of the points which will be covered in such an administrative circular, emphasising the undesirability of anything which could give the appearance of collusion between these two officials. Because of the very limited period of time for which a comparatively small number of these district prosecutors will be required, and with my assurance about administrative guidance, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, most warmly for his extremely satisfactory answer. I should like to congratulate the Lord Advocate on undertaking to do two-thirds of the work by next May and the remainder in the following year. I wish also to thank the noble Lord for indicating that he will mention the point in the circular
1290
to the district authorities. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.12 p.m.
Clause 7 [Clerk of district court]:
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 23, at end insert ("and any person so appointed shall be an advocate or a solicitor").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is broad agreement that it is essential that the clerk of the court, who is to advise the lay justices, should be legally qualified. As originally drafted the Bill followed the policy which has been common in recent years; that is, to avoid laying down qualifications for local authority officers on the grounds that local authorities, as responsible bodies, ought to be allowed to make their own appointments and could be expected to appoint officials with relevant qualifications. The provision of clerks of the district courts has been discussed with the local authority associations who fully accept that the appointment to these clerkships should be made from their legally qualified staff. There has never been any fear, therefore, of inappropriate appointments being made. I was, however, impressed with the argument that in this case it is justifiable and proper to depart from the approach of not specifying qualifications, on the grounds that the clerk of the court will be someone primarily concerned in the administration of justice rather than as an official concerned with local authority administration and procedures, and that therefore recent precedents are not entirely applicable in this instance. During the Committee stage I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, who had down a somewhat similar Amendment, that we would examine it. I think that the present Amendment meets the points which were raised at Committee stage and I hope that noble Lords opposite will find that it is in acceptable terms. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, as the noble Lord the Minister has said, this Amendment does resemble other Amendments which I moved on Committee. It remains only for me to

1291
thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for putting the position in this way. I am most grateful to him.
12.14 p.m.
Clause 10 [Existing justices and magistrates]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 4, at end insert ("for a period of two years and he may thereafter be confirmed in such an appointment under section 9 of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to enable the appointment of a lay magistrate who is now being appointed to the new district courts and for that appointment to be considered again in two years. If it is required that he should continue in office after that time the requisite power is given under the Amendment. If this provision were not inserted these magistrates could continue to hold office for a very long time, and it might be better for the courts to be able to have a re-think in order that other magistrates might be appointed. I do not want to waste too much time on this aspect. I wish to help the noble Lord, and I beg to move.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I strongly support this Amendment. An important part of the Bill, which we will come to later, concerns the training of justices of the peace in Scotland. Neither I nor my friends are against lay justices in Scotland. It is wrong to suggest that. What we are violently opposed to are ignorant and incompetent lay justices. For that reason we welcome the clauses which insist upon the training of the justices and the fact that nobody should be on the active list of justices unless he has passed through a training course and has been approved. This idea of some improvement in the quality of the justices in Scotland has been prevalent for a long time. For at least ten years, if not more, successive Secretaries of State for Scotland have urged local authorities to institute such courses. It is all very well to say that when a Secretary of State says "may" the local authorities will jump to it. They do not do so. This is where I would differ from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. We must give power in the right place.
1292
Unless we train justices properly, the whole system of the lay magistracy will go to pieces; indeed, it has been declining for some time. The problems of the lay magistrate and the type of cases have become more complicated. Now for the first time in these courts we are to have legal aid so that again the complications are increased, underlining the importance of having a trained lay magistracy. The Amendment would prevent the present magistrates sitting in perpetuity; otherwise they could choose to stay on for ever as justices of the peace, or at least until they become of a particular age or until they blot their copy books so badly that they are transferred to the supplementary list. The period of two years during which the existing magistrates of the burgh courts may continue as lay magistrates, is very generous. If those who want to continue as magistrates are not already skilled or have not attended courses, then they can do so; otherwise, they can retire gracefully. I think it is most important that we should not have a dollop of legal suet sitting on top of our courts for an indefinite period.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I will take first the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno. I should have thought that if one is to have suet the most indigestible place would be to have it on the top. However, we shall be benefiting from justice and not devouring it, so I will let that point go. Because of the interest that the noble Lord has obviously taken in the importance of training, I was somewhat surprised that he should have based so much of what he was saying on the fact that for ten years Secretaries of State wanted training and had not been able to get it. Under Clauses 14 and 15 that situation will be totally changed.
I think I should read these provisions, which are relatively brief. Clause 14 states:
"The Secretary of State may make schemes and provide courses for the instruction of justices of the peace, and it shall be the duty of the justices' committee of a commission area to implement and administer any such schemes in accordance with arrangements approved by the Secretary of State."
So the old question does not arise once this becomes law. Then, Clause 15(2) states:
"The Secretary of State may direct that the name of a justice of the peace for any area

1293
shall be entered in a supplemental list if the Secretary of State is satisfied",
for a variety of reasons, the last of which is paragraph (d):
"that the justice declines or neglects to attend a course of instruction provided by virtue of section 14 of this Act, being a course suitable to his experience".
Thus the position is totally changed. We therefore have to deal with the situation which arises in May, and not with the continuing situation.
My Lords, the provision in the Bill under which persons now serving as burgh magistrates will become justices of the peace on 16th May 1975 is a key provision in securing that the district court is adequately manned from the beginning. A larger proportion of the existing justices of the peace have little or no court experience. There are some 5,000 of them, and between them they carry less than 10 per cent. of the existing lay court business, whereas the 800 to 900 burgh magistrates do the remaining 90 per cent. of the work. It is often said—and there is some justification for it—that the experience of sitting on the bench is the best training that any judge, lay or professional, can get. The district court will, therefore, lean heavily on the experienced burgh magistrates at the beginning. They will be required to show the ropes to the inexperienced existing justices. They may well be required to assist in some of the training of the present justices. In view of this, it might well be regarded as unfair that the more experienced justices would be on trial for two years, whereas the inexperienced justices whom they would be expected to tutor were appointed for life.
One of the main purposes of this Amendment, as I understand it, is to secure that unsatisfactory magistrates do not sit on the bench of the district court for the rest of their lives, or at least until they are 70. I suppose that we must also recognise the possibility that some of the inexperienced justices will not prove to have the type of judicial approach necessary for the bench. For both categories, however, there are already provisions in the Bill which are directed to ensure that the quality of justice administered in the district courts will be of a high standard; and I have referred to the provision in Clause 14 and to the duty placed on justices' com-
1294
mittees to secure adequate training arrangements.
In addition, it will be for the justices' committees in each district to approve the duty rota of justices. If a particular justice is not carrying out his duties properly, his colleagues will probably be the first to recognise this and, in order to maintain the reputation of the bench, his name will be dropped from the rota. This is the most immediate and effective safeguard there can be. In addition, there are the provisions to which I have referred, with the Secretary of State's power to put his name on the supplemental list.
One of the points which was put to me in a discussion which I had earlier in the week with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was the question of what powers the Secretary of State has for removing an unsatisfactory justice. Clause 9 is the clause which gives the Secretary of State's powers to remove, and it does not qualify his power in any way. At present the Secretary of State may remove any justice at any time. This is the existing law. In practice, of course, the Secretary of State removes a justice only if he is satisfied that it would be improper for the justice to continue because of misconduct, or in circumstances such as resignation, removal from the area or incapacity. But his power to remove is not limited by the Statute, and this power is not changed by the Bill.
So it is quite certain that, if there were an unsatisfactory bailee, there are the two courses of action: first, the immediate opportunity for his fellow justices to ensure that he does not disgrace them in appearing on the bench by not putting his name on the rota; and, secondly, in protecting the name of justices generally, any justice—not merely a former bailee, but any justice—whose conduct or capacity was such that it was desirable he should be removed, could be removed by the Secretary of State through the procedures which presently exist.
However, my Lords, having said all that, I recognise that there is some force in the Amendment, because I must accept that the Amendment is not limiting the opportunity to a bailee to sit for only two years. It is part of the argument of the noble Lord that a suitable bailee should be appointed a justice, so that he

1295
may carry on. This would be a substantial change in the arrangements on these matters, and I do not feel, in justice to the consultations which took place originally, that I could accept the Amendment at this stage without any opportunity to consult further. What I am prepared to say is that if the noble Lord feels able to withdraw the Amendment I shall discuss it with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and with my Ministerial colleagues who have direct responsibility for this action. I will draw their attention particularly to the merits of the Amendment, and perhaps look at a way in which, in another place, it might be capable of being dealt with.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I think the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, so carefully given. Bearing in mind his arguments and, above all, his extremely generous offer to have further consultations, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment on behalf of myself and my noble friends.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Disqualification of solicitor who is a justice]:
12.28 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 9, line 6, after "area" insert "unless a stipendiary magistrate is sitting".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment arises from a question that I asked the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, during the Committee stage. Clause 13 says that no one employed by a solicitor or partner may appear before any justice of the peace if any of the partners is a justice of the peace. I asked whether that also included cases in which a stipendiary was sitting on the bench, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would tell me the answer. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has indicated, this is a continuation of the discussion which we had on this matter at Committee stage, and deals with the disqualification of a solicitor who is a justice. A solicitor who is a justice of the peace has a choice. Either he remains
1296
an active justice eligible to sit on the bench of the district court, the licensing court or court of appeal, in which event neither he nor the members of his firm may take part in proceedings before these courts, or he may have his name transferred to the supplemental list, in which case the disqualification will not apply.
I can see some force in the suggestion that the disqualifications ought not to apply where the district court is constituted by a stipendiary magistrate. But I think that such a view overlooks the fact that the justices of the peace, of whom the stipendiary magistrate will be one ex officio, should be regarded as a body collectively with common interests. This is recognised in Clause 16, which provides for the appointment of justices' committees to be elected from among the justices for each area. A stipendiary magistrate will ex officio be a member of the justices' committee. In view of the close association which will exist between the other justices and the stipendiary magistrate, I do not think that it would be appropriate to relax the disqualification in Clause 13 in the way suggested.
As has been mentioned, the only place at present where there are stipendiaries is Glasgow. There are three stipendiary magistrates there, but, of course, there are also burgh courts with lay magistrates sitting and it would be exceedingly difficult for this course to be carried out effectively. I therefore cannot recommend to your Lordships that this Amendment be accepted.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Justices' Committees]:
12.30 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 7.
Page 11, line 11, at end insert—
"The sheriff principal of the sheriffdom, or the sheriff, in which the commission area is situated shall, by virtue of his office, be a member of the committee for that area."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an important Amendment and it raises

1297
certain questions of principle. It deals with the justices' committee which is allowed to handle certain subjects under Clause 16(l)(a)(b)(c) and (d). I draw your Lordships' attention to two of those, paragraphs (c) and (d). Paragraph (c) deals with the adequate training arrangements for justices and (d) deals with the effective administration of justice in the district courts. What I am suggesting in the Amendment is that the sheriff principal of the sheriffdom or the sheriffs of the area should be members of the justices' committee. Their advice and guidance can be of the greatest value to the committee dealing particularly with those two subjects or with many other matters which may arise. When I mentioned this matter before the Committee stage the noble Lord said that they were not justices. I do not think that that carries any weight at all. If it was necessary for them to become justices, they could be made justices. What I am concerned to do is to bring closer together the two areas of criminal administration—the sheriff court, on the one hand, and the district court, on the other—so that they could meet each other. I have little doubt that in time the courts will be brought more closely together. This is the first step.
The really important point about that is that in England the head of the justices is the Lord Chancellor; in Scotland there is no such person. The Secretary of State is not a lawyer and cannot be expected to exercise the same functions as the Lord Chancellor would exercise. There is nobody at all between the justices of the peace and the Secretary of State. The Report which I have here, the Report of the noble Lord, Lord Grant, to which I referred on a previous occasion, says:
"In particular it is said that no member of the Secretary of State's staff now confirms that the sheriff court is legally qualified."
That is no longer true of the sheriff court department; but I think it is probably still true of the justices of the peace. I do not know whether there is anybody in the Secretary of State's Department who is legally qualified to deal with the justices of the peace; and I think that it is tremendously important that they should have ready access to a fully qualified and experienced man, a man either like the sheriff principal or like the sheriff. It is very important that he should be there. No doubt there are unofficial gatherings
1298
where they can meet together and where they can talk; but I think that it is important that they should have official contact where they can talk quite freely.
The noble Lord will say—I know this because I have had it from various sources—that the sheriffs principal are not too keen to do this. With respect, I think that that is irrelevant. With their sheriffs, there would be no great additional work. If they cannot come, they cannot come. Much of the work will be dealing with rota matters and routine administration which will probably not affect the sheriffs very much; but it will provide a link in an organisation where there is no senior man of judicial or legal authority to whom they can apply. I think that this is fundamentally in the interests of the proper administration of the justices' court. I hope that the noble Lord will see his way to do this because I think it is very important. I should like him to consider carefully whether he might do so. I inserted the word "sheriff", as well as the words "sheriff principal", at the last minute and I apologise; but I must confess that the noble Lord has "bounced" this Bill on to the House and on to the public at short notice so that perhaps I do not have too much to apologise for. I hope that the noble Lord will give this matter some careful thought. I beg to move.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend. Of the cases that come up to the district court in the future, some may, if there is too much pressure on the district court, be sent to the sheriff court. Likewise, if there is pressure of business in the sheriff court, these cases may be sent down to the district court. It is the hope of the whole of this exercise that there should be the possibility of moving cases from one court to the other. This has been recognised by having the prosecutor at the district court level. He is called the procurator fiscal and he will be appointed in future by the Lord Advocate and an integral part of the whole prosecution system is in the hands of the one body, the Lord Advocate. Therefore, having the prosecution properly intertwined between the sheriff court and the district court, surely it is right that there should be integration at the other level of the court at the judicial level; and that is the hope of this Amendment. I would

1299
agree with my noble friend when he says that the sheriff principals may not—and may have said that they do not—want to accept this responsibility; but somebody must accept the responsibility for the oversight of these courts.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I made it clear at Committee stage that we very much hope that the senior members of the Scottish judiciary will take an active interest in the work of the justices and assist and advise them in connection with their duties on the Bench. I am certain that on that point there is no difference between us. There has been some doubt—and this Amendment is another example of the continuance of that doubt—on how best it might be achieved: whether by a statutory provision laying down that the sheriff principal be chairman of every justices' committee in his sheriffdom, which is the first approach, or simply a member of each justices' committee, which is the second line of approach; or, whether the best type of arrangement might be one where no specific statutory provision was required.
In the course of our discussion at Committee stage, I undertook to obtain the views of those full-time sheriffs principal who are available at present. Their view was that a statutory provision on the lines proposed would not be useful. As I mentioned at Committee stage, there would be the problem of each sheriff principal having on average nine or ten justices' committees in his sheriffdom. Much of the work of these committees would be related to local administrative arrangements with which the sheriff principal would not otherwise be concerned and on which he would have little to offer by way of guidance. Contact between the professional judges in the sheriff court and the justices is inevitable because of common interests. If good relations are established—and the sheriff principal expects this to be so—there should be no difficulty with regard to the sheriff principal making his advice known. In short, the sheriffs principal consider that non-statutory rather than statutory arrangements are likely to prove the more effective in practice and these views apply equally to the proposal that the sheriff principal be a member of the
1300
justices' committee and to the proposal that he be an ex officio chairman of that Committee.
My Lords, I am a little confused, but I know the ability of advocates to argue on the principle that their client did not do it, and that if he did do it he thought he was justified; and if he was not justified he was not acting maliciously, and so on; but one of the justifications advanced at the last stage for not putting existing magistrates in the JP court, was that it would be wrong to make a man a justice of the peace if he did not want to be one. That has been clarified. There is nothing in the Bill which compels a bailie to sit on the justices' court if he does not want to. There is nothing to compel him to become a justice of the peace if he does not want to. But now we are saying, having consulted the sheriff principal, is it a useful thing to be a member of these committees. The noble Earl says, that it is not relevant whether they want to be on a committee or not. I think it is relevant.
I asked the noble Earl at Committee stage whether, in putting this proposal forward, he has consulted the sheriff principal. He said that he had not and I appreciate the fact that, if nothing else, time did not permit him to do so. But he did not demur at all when I said that I would consult them. I feel under an obligation, having consulted them and having made their views known to your Lordships, and it would be quite improper for me to say to them, "I am very sorry, but their Lordships did not think your advice mattered and you are going on these committees whether you like it or not." The effect, of course, is that if a sheriff principal thinks it will not serve a useful purpose he will be a nominal member of eight or nine committees which he will never attend, and I cannot think of anything more likely to sour relations between the justices and the sheriff principal than looking at the attendance sheet and saying, "That man is a fat lot of help. He has never yet been along."
On the other hand, when there is an opportunity for consultation, perhaps on the question of legal training, the advice of the sheriff principal or the sheriff will be valuable. In all my past experience of local government—and I am quite sure that of your Lordships who are in local

1301
government—the legal man's advice is almost invariably accepted, when it is taken as expert advice, and when one has a legal expert as one of one's number one is rather inclined to look upon him as just one like oneself. Therefore, I think that the sheriff principal is taking the view that his advice will always be available, that it will almost certainly be sought on those aspects where it can be of value, and that having been sought it is much more likely to be given effect to.
My Lords, the latest form of the Amendment, and I agree with the noble Earl——
Lord BYERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves on, I wonder whether he would tell us how the sheriffs were consulted. Were they consulted corporately or singly, were they unanimous or was there an overwhelming majority, and how was their opinion conveyed?
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, they were consulted individually and their opinions concurred. They were unanimous, but that was not difficult because there are only two of them. When the reorganisation takes place at the beginning of the year, their numbers will be slightly increased. I hope that that satisfies the Liberal Party.
The latest form of the Amendment which we have before us goes wider than the sheriff principal, and provides that either the sheriff principal or the sheriff shall be ex officio a member of the justices' committee. The noble Earl had no need to apologise for the amended form. We are working very much against the clock in this matter, and I accept that it is a perfectly proper Amendment to put forward. By providing that the sheriff may be the ex officio member of the committee, the Amendment removes the difficulty of the sheriff principal being placed in the position of being a member of eight, nine or ten justices' committees, whereas the sheriff would sit on only one.
Your Lordships will appreciate that, because of the timing—although, as I said, the noble Earl had no need to apologise—I have had little time to consider the Amendment. Unfortunately, because of the fact that I was otherwise engaged for a long time yesterday, I did not see the Amendment until this morning. There is one technical difficulty. Whether we can provide in a Statute that
1302
the holder of this or that office should be an ex officio member of the committee is a point on which I have not been able to get satisfactory guidance from my official friends. It is quite possible to put on one or two persons, but to say in a Statute that one or the other should be on the committee presents possible difficulties.
It may very well be that the sheriff principal, in response to an earlier consultation, indicated that much more can be achieved in practice by flexible and informal arrangements than by explicit Statutory provisions. But, my Lords, as between the last stage and this stage I was prepared to be guided in relation to this matter by the views of the sheriff principal. I think it only right that the Government should endeavour to find out the views of the sheriffs in relation to being a member of the justices' committee in their sheriffdoms. Obviously, there has been no opportunity for me to consult the sheriffs individually or collectively, and to find out whether they have one view or a variety of views on this matter, but I think it would be proper to do so.
In asking the noble Earl not to press this Amendment at this stage, I cannot conscientiously either reject it or accept it on the basis of a full examination of the merits in so far as it relates to sheriffs. I can say that I will undertake to have the same kind of consultations in relation to the sheriffs as has been undertaken in relation to the sheriff principals, and when this has been done my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will undoubtedly take that into consideration in relation to the tabling of a Government Amendment in another place which might be restricted to the sheriffs. Notwithstanding what the noble Earl said at the outset, it will not be a surprise that I have said this, because I have had the benefit of more than two hours' discussion with the noble Earl on Monday and this morning, on the points of this Bill, and he knew in advance—because we spent the best part of half an hour on this point this morning—the line that I would be taking.
I hope that the time I have spent shows that I am anxious that the Bill should be put in the best possible form to make the justices' committees and the district courts work. So when I say that

1303
if the Amendment is withdrawn I will make certain that the proper consultations take place, and that they will be taken into account in relation to the amending of the Bill in another place, it is not an undertaking merely for the purpose of disposing of the Amendment today. It is an undertaking in the hope that if the Bill can be improved along these lines it will be, and I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I take that point at once. I have the impression that the noble Lord's arguments are so thin that he must be extremely sympathetic to this Amendment. He said that it would really be far easier to deal with people informally than if they were statutorily compelled to associate together; that if you are on a board of directors or on a board of anything, you find it much easier to take outside advice than advice from your fellow colleagues. That simply is not true. None the less, I appreciate that. He said that their advice will always be available. I do not know whether he has ever tried ringing up sheriffs and asking for advice. With great respect, I doubt very much whether they are going to work as the noble Lord said and any justice of the peace that can ring up a sheriff and ask, "Please will you tell me——"
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I did not say that. I was referring to the justices' committee.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I readily accept what the noble Lord says. May I say again that this point is important. The justices do not have the background of legal training. There is no Lord Chancellor and I think the sheriffs must be brought in as closely as possible to help the justices in their lay work. This is in the direct interests of good lay administration. But taking the noble Lord at his word, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Allowances]:
12.49 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 11, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) Any justice not entitled to receive payments by way of financial loss allowance, shall be entitled to receive a payment by way of attendance allowance in the manner prescribed for district councillors by section 45 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is very similar to one which we moved at the Committee stage, and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, showed sympathy with the intention. His main argument against it was that it opened the Bill too wide. This is a Bill dealing with district courts and, in all fairness, I think we should try to make the Bill as perfect as we can. In Clause 17 we have made provision for allowances for salaried and wage-earning justices. In all fairness, the self-employed justice is equally deserving of reimbursement. How does he work out his time? Take, for instance, the case of a justice who is a taxi driver. He has commitments to fares and may not be able to undertake some of them on days when the court will be sitting, and he will therefore have to employ somebody else to do that work. Take the case of the farmer: if he cannot do the work he will either have to get someone else in or pay overtime to another man. Take the instance of a man who runs a newspaper or tobacconist's shop. He may have to get someone to stand in for him. I am not holding that this is the only way in which this could be done, but we think it is a good way, with reference to the Scottish Local Government Act. I would therefore ask the noble Lord if he will consider whether he can accept this, purely in fairness and equity to those justices.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord can say something about this matter, because it really is quite serious. It is particularly difficult, with inflation taking place as it is, to ascertain the correct amount. I should like to refer to the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Grant, if I may call him that, that jurors should be paid on the same basis as local councillors. It seems that the noble Lord would put justices in the same place as jurors, and this Amendment suggests that jurors should be on the same basis as councillors. They are supposed to do 24 days a year, which is quite a number; and there is no doubt that professional people, small shopkeepers and others who are not

1305
paid a weekly salary are in many cases quite suitable for these duties. I have a note here saying that the allowance for travelling, subsistence and fixed attendance at present is £2·37 for four hours and £4·77 for a period exceeding four hours. This is probably rather harsh on some people and I wonder whether the Government are looking at this in general terms aside from the principles which I have tried to incorporate in this Amendment.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, as a long-serving justice in this country I must, with very great regret, speak against this Amendment. Also, being a resident of this country—although the noble Lord was kind enough to allude to me as a Scottish woman the other day—I should like to say that we in England are led to believe that what Scotland says today England will do tomorrow—that is the saying North of the Border. If in fact this Amendment were passed, it might mean, certainly in Scotland in the near future and perhaps in England in the distant future, that magistrates would not be voluntary but paid.
I have been on to my clerk of the court this morning. We have 80 members of our petty sessional division, none of whom is paid loss of earnings allowances. They cover teachers, staffs of local authorities, members of local authorities, wage-earners, salaried people, the self-employed and housewives. We operate a system whereby one can claim petrol and subsistence expenses—at, I may say, rather too low a level with inflation as it is now—but we are all content. From the list I have read out, the noble Lord will know that this covers the whole spectrum of our society and we have people of all sorts and all levels of salaries and incomes represented on our magisterial bench. There is never a shortage of magistrates coming forward to be made justices of the peace by the Lord Chancellor. I have the honour to sit on the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee and have to interview a very great number of people who are willing to come forward and sit, knowing they will not be paid. If, as the Amendment would have it, the idea is that the magistrate should be paid on a level which is comparable to members of the local authority, I have looked up the Scottish legislation and it seems that no amount is fixed as
1306
regards Scotland. In England, as everybody knows, members of the local authority are paid £10 per attendance.
I do not think that the magistrates in this country would resent being thought of as comparable to local authority people—that is not the inference I want to draw—but I think they would resent the fact that after 510 years it is thought that they should cease to be voluntary bodies. The clerk of my court gave me an absolute assurance that out of the, I think, 80 members of our PSD, nobody claims loss of earnings because either their employers allow them the time off or they are willing to give up their time. I cannot believe that the people North of the Border would be any different in this respect from the magistracy in this country. I am sorry to have to speak against this Amendment, but having had some 22 years' experience in this country of sitting on the bench, I feel very strongly about this matter. I must apologise to my noble friends that, because of another meeting, I was unable to tell them of this beforehand. From what I have said, I hope it will be realised that I think it would be resented, certainly South of the Border.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I think the intention of the Amendment was rather to probe the position that exists, because there is undoubtedly a fairly wide view, and I am happy to say that in most cases it is an erroneous view, that self-employed people are not entitled to claim under the provisions of financial loss allowance. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, for what she said, but I hope that because of the views she has expressed she is correct in her assumption that what Scotland does today will be done by England tomorrow. I believe the position in both countries is the same: the magistrate is entitled to claim a payment by way of financial loss allowance. What the noble Baroness has said is that in her particular area none of them claims.
This does not alter the fact that if the law is the same on both sides of the Border, as I believe it to be, they can claim if they wish. The fact that they do not claim is a matter for them and is a tribute to their sense of public duty. It may be that even if they were aware of the allowance referred to by the Amendment, self-employed magistrates might not claim the allowance, any more than they might not

1307
claim a financial loss allowance. But the purpose of the Amendment is to take into account the circumstances of the self-employed person who wants to undertake duty as a justice but could not afford to do so were he not to receive payment for the loss of earnings he suffers.
It is to that effect that I wish to direct my remarks. Clause 17, as drafted, and without the Amendment, provides that a justice of the peace should be entitled to receive payments by way of financial loss allowance for duties other than those performed as a member of a licensing court or court of appeal and other duties in respect of which similar allowances are payable under other arrangements or where regulations provide that this section does not apply.
Thus, the effect of the Bill as it stands is that all justices attending district courts will be entitled to financial loss allowances. I am afraid, therefore, that the Amendment secures nothing because it refers to justices who would not be entitled to financial loss allowances. If they are all entitled the Amendment is of no effect. The lack of effectiveness of the Amendment indicates something of the complexities of the subject of attendance allowances and, if anything, strengthens the view which I expressed at Committee stage that this Bill is certainly not the place to seek to introduce these allowances for some categories of justices. There are substantial matters of principle involved. There is a strong body of opinion which holds that justices must not even appear to be receiving payment for their services, be it signing papers or acting as a judge in a court of law. That has been so effectively demonstrated by the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. I am certain that will continue to be the view of many justices on both sides of the Border.
There are also strong arguments for justices of the peace to be treated, for allowance purposes, in the same way as many others giving service in which there is an element of public duty, for example, witnesses and jurymen. The point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that there was no comparison; the number of occasions when a person might serve as a member of a jury or a witness would be few in comparison with the calls which are going to be made on
1308
justices. He referred to the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Grant, said there was a case for paying jurors on the same basis as members of local authorities. The local authority comparison to which he was referring was the financial loss allowance, because the attendance allowance was not something that he dreamt of at that time and it still does not apply in Scotland because it does not take effect until the new authorities take up their full duties in May next year.
There are also strong arguments—and again I pray in aid the noble Baroness—for justices on both sides of the Border being dealt with on the same basis, because whether in Scotland, England or Wales, they are the Queen's justices. It is difficult to suggest that there should be a different method of treatment depending on which side of the Border they are operating.
Clause 17 re-enacts essentially the existing provisions governing the payment of allowances to justices in Scotland. The maximum financial loss allowance stands at present at £670 tax free. The attendance allowance to be paid to members of local authorities next year (announced provisionally as a maximum of £10) is taxable. So at present rates of tax it comes to the same thing for those who have tax liability. It is intended to be a unique arrangement which recognises the special position of the elected councillor who, like a Member of Parliament, represents the electorate. It must be accepted that the financial loss allowance provisions operate satisfactorily in many cases for self-employed persons, but I accept that there may be difficulty in some cases. I think it is possible, however, to exaggerate these somewhat and to gloss over too readily the injustices and inequalities likely to result if we were to move over to another system. There is certainly no doubt that such self-employed persons as shopkeepers will be eligible to receive financial loss allowances in accordance with the relevant regulations.
The case quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, should present no difficulty whatsoever, because it is not just a case of loss of earnings which can be taken into account in determining the payment of financial loss allowance; it has been accepted that the obligation to undertake expenditure to enable it is a

1309
relevant basis. Each of the cases he mentioned presents no difficulty whatsoever. As the name suggests, financial loss allowances are intended to cover the situation where a loss is incurred. That applies in the case of employed and self-employed persons. The important point is that I expect that a self-employed justice who, unlike a witness or a juror, would be likely to make claims regularly, would be able, in discussion with the local authority officials concerned, to establish a satisfactory method for showing entitlement.
I am sure that we could not contemplate within the restricted scope of this present Bill to seek to introduce a new system of allowances. I hope that I have clarified the point that if it should prove to be necessary, again in discussions with the authorities, not in relation to justices generally but in any document to which we could make reference to financial loss allowance, that there is no embargo on self-employed persons who can show they are involved in expenditure or suffer loss, there is no embargo on their claiming. I hope that will meet the point.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allaying my fears and explaining the points so carefully. If my noble friend is content, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the District Courts (Scotland) Bill [H.L.] has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be read 3a.—(Lord Hughes.)
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the opportunity that he has given for discussing this Bill. It has been of enormous value to me and I should like to say how grateful I am to him.
On Question, Bill read 3a: Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ROYAL ASSENT
1.6 p.m.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Earl CATHCART): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Dumbarton Burgh Order Confirmation Act 1974,
Scottish Transport Group (Oban Quay) Order Confirmation Act 1974,
Crouch Harbour Act 1974,
Port of Tyne (North Shields Fish Harbour) Act 1974,
River Wear Barrage Act 1974.

EDUCATION BILL
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord CROWTHER-HUNT): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I must say that I feel very diffident about making a second speech in your Lordships' House within a period of 22 hours—the more diffident since, 22 hours ago, I said what I wanted to say in just about 13 minutes; and now what I have to say will take probably twice as long. This is not because this Bill is controversial, because I am sure it will have the broad support of both sides of this House, as it did in another place, but its details are complicated, and I feel this House will wish me to explain them carefully and reasonably fully.
The Bill is intended to fulfil three main purposes: first, to extend the scope of mandatory awards under Section 1 of the Education Act 1962, secondly, to extend the scope of the 1962 Act to provide for students attending the six long-term residential colleges of adult education in England and Wales and the one in Scotland to receive State awards at full mandatory rates. Thirdly, it is intended to increase from 80 per cent. to 85 per cent. the rate at which grants and contributions may be made in respect of voluntary aided and special agreement schools.

1311
I shall deal with each of these objectives in turn, starting with the extension of the scope of mandatory awards under Section 1 of the 1962 Act. This extension covers three main categories of people; those taking courses for the Diploma of Higher Education; those taking the Higher National Diploma, and, thirdly, students following initial teacher-training courses. First, it might be helpful if were to describe briefly the present arrangements for awards to students taking courses of higher or further education. Section 1 of the Education Act 1962 imposes on local education authorities a duty to make awards to those students taking full-time degree level courses who satisfy a residential requirement and possess educational qualifications which are laid down in Regulations made under that Act.
These qualifications are two "A" level passes or their equivalent. At present students following courses of initial teacher training at colleges of education are eligible for awards from their local education authorities under arrangements approved by the Secretary of State under Section 2 of the Education Act 1962—this is the discretionary section. These awards are to all intents and purposes mandatory, but they are not legally so. Then, awards for students taking other courses of further education are made under Section 2 of the Education Act 1962 and are entirely at the discretion of local authorities.
I come next to the Diploma of Higher Education. The need for this clause of the Bill arises in the first place from the introduction of the new two-year Diploma of Higher Education courses. Schemes for the introduction of these courses are in preparation in the colleges and many are expected to start in September 1975, when the provisions of this Bill are intended to come into effect. The necessary Regulations will be laid before the House in due course. The Dip.HE is intended to serve both as a qualification in its own right and as a stepping stone to a degree or other qualification. I hope that it will prove attractive to students who are unwilling to commit themselves from the outset to a teacher training or other degree course. I regard it as essential to the success of the new Dip.HE courses that students following them
1312
should be eligible for mandatory awards as provided for in the present Bill.
I come secondly to those taking the HND, because outside bodies, including the student organisations, have made strong representations that the HND should receive parity of treatment with the Dip.HE in respect of awards. The HND is similar in level to the Dip.HE and, although it has a lower minimum entry qualification (that is, one "A" level or equivalent, instead of two), many entrants to it have more than this minimum requirement. There are at present about 17,000 students in England and Wales on HND courses, excluding overseas students. Of these, about 14,000 are in receipt of awards from their local education authorities, although not all receive the level of grant which they would receive if their awards were mandatory. I have always regarded the HND as an essential component of the further education system. It has characteristics which clearly distinguish it from all other courses with one "A" level entry requirements. It is closely geared to the needs of industry and is validated under national agreements by joint committees on which the Secretary of State is represented, thus enjoying a status and prestige which other qualifications, such as college diplomas, do not share. I do not consider that support for it can any longer be left entirely to the discretion of local education authorities.
Another reason for bringing HNDs into the mandatory system is the serious risk that demand for HND courses would fall off if they were not to attract mandatory awards once Dip.HE courses attract mandatory awards. This could have the effect of seriously reducing the supply to industry of suitably qualified manpower at this level—a risk which is quite unacceptable. I hope, therefore, that the extension of mandatory awards to cover both Dip.HE and HND courses will be regarded as very much in the national interest, and it also bears witness to the seriousness with which the Government have taken the Labour Party's commitment to the extension of the mandatory awards system.
I now come to teacher training awards. Your Lordships may well ask why it is necessary to provide for students following initial teacher training courses to be given entitlement to mandatory awards

1313
when they already receive awards which are in effect mandatory in practice. Among other reasons why it is necessary to do this, we thought it right to take this opportunity to give the present practical situation full legal backing. We felt this was the more necessary since the extension of mandatory awards to Dip.HE students who might then go on to teacher training might leave some local education authorities in doubt whether the present practice of, in effect, mandatory awards for teacher training courses would apply to those who had already completed their Dip.HE. So the Bill accordingly provides that awards for students following teacher training courses should be brought within Section 1 of the Education Act 1962, and thus made mandatory in form as they already are in practice. This rationalisation, I am sure, will be widely welcomed.
I now come to a point about educational qualifications for mandatory awards. At present Section 1 of the 1962 Act makes eligibility for a mandatory award dependent on educational qualifications which are prescribed by the Secretary of State. These of course are at present two "A" levels or the equivalent, as I said earlier. The Bill removes this requirement except for courses designated as comparable to first degree courses. That is to say, acceptance after this Bill is implemented for a course leading to a first degree, a Dip.HE or HND or initial teacher training qualifications, will be regarded as sufficient evidence of educational suitability for the course. One reason for this change is that it would be anomalous and unacceptable for a student with one "A" level to qualify for a mandatory award on gaining entry to an HND course but not to do so if he exceptionally gained entry to a degree course.
More generally, the change will benefit many students, including a number of mature students, who are accepted to study for a first degree although they do not have the formal educational qualifications required for a mandatory award. The great majority of them, I must add, do in practice get discretionary awards of equal value from their local education authority; but the Government consider that this ought to be made a matter of entitlement. The Government, in consultation with universities, colleges and the CNAA—and, in the case of the
1314
HND, through the medium of its representation on the joint committees—will continue to keep a close watch on the qualifications of students entering higher education, to ensure that the abolition of prescribed educational qualifications is not abused. Rather different considerations apply to courses designated as comparable to first degree courses. These are courses where there is not the safeguard of university or CNAA validation to ensure that entry standards are maintained. For students wishing to take these courses, therefore, eligibility for a mandatory award will continue to be dependent on prescribed educational qualifications. These will continue to be two "A" levels or their equivalent.
I turn now, my Lords, to awards for mature students taking courses at the long-term residential colleges, which are made at present under Section 2 of the Education Act 1962 and are, therefore, entirely at the discretion of local education authorities. While my Department has asked authorities to give particularly sympathetic consideration to applications from those who have obtained places at these colleges, we know that some prospective students have been unable to take up these places because their authorities were not prepared to support them.
The provisions in the Bill will enable a system of State awards to be introduced by the beginning of the next academic year at mandatory rates for students attending long-term courses of liberal adult education at the long-term residential colleges. There are six of these colleges, including Ruskin College, in England and Wales and a seventh—Newbattle Abbey—in Scotland. The colleges are independent institutions which offer a major channel of second-chance education to men and women who have in most cases left school without academic qualifications at the minimum leaving age, and many of their students are able to go on to new professional or occupational training or to universities as mature students.
The Russell Report on Adult Education recommended that when the necessary legislation could be introduced in Parliament, students accepted for courses at the long-term residential colleges should receive mandatory awards. For the Government's part, we wish to ensure that those who seem most likely to benefit

1315
from a second chance to progress up the educational ladder by attending a long-term course at one of these colleges should not be debarred from doing so because they cannot obtain a discretionary award.
However, there are difficulties about making the awards mandatory within the terms of Section 1 of the 1962 Act, and we have therefore chosen instead to make provision in the Bill which will enable the Secretary of State to make State awards—not in themselves mandatory although at mandatory rates—under a scheme to be administered by my Department for students who obtain places on long-term courses at these colleges. The Bill does not specify the length of a course that will qualify for such an award. This is within the discretion of the Secretary of State, but our intention is not to make awards available to students attending courses of less than one academic year.
My Lords, if this Bill becomes law, it is our intention that the State awards scheme should be introduced by the beginning of the next academic year, and the necessary regulations will be laid before the House in due course. Students on two-year courses who will not complete their courses at the end of this academic year will also be entitled to apply for a State award. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland intends to introduce a similar scheme under his existing powers in respect of adults resident in Scotland who obtain places at the adult colleges there, or in England and Wales.
Finally, I turn to the provision which increases the rate at which grants and contributions may be made in respect of aided and special agreement schools. The 1944 Act brought into being, as a complement to the provision of county schools by the local education authorities, an agreed system of support for voluntary schools. The new system then offered voluntary schools a choice between two kinds of status. Aided status implied a grant to assist the voluntary body with the expense of providing the premises of the school and maintaining the fabric in good order. It involved a continuing financial contribution by the voluntary body and, in recognition of this, the voluntary body was to play a leading
1316
part in the appointment of the school's governing body and was allowed to provide denominational religious instruction in the school. Controlled status involved relief from all financial responsibility, with a corresponding diminution of the part to be played by the voluntary body in running the school.
The new system has worked very well and it has succeeded, as your Lordships will appreciate, in removing religious questions from the forefront of educational controversy. The scale of its success and its acceptance can perhaps be gauged by the fact that there are now about 9,000 voluntary schools, catering for something like 2 million pupils. There are about 5,000 aided schools—roughly 2,500 provided each by the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church—with nearly 1·3 million pupils. That is more than 15 per cent. of the total number of pupils in maintained schools in England and Wales. However, the 1944 financial arrangements were not, and could not be, final in all their aspects. In particular, it has been necessary in succeeding years both to extend the scope of the assistance given to aided schools and to increase its amount in proportion to the contribution of the voluntary bodies. The grant, originally fixed at 50 per cent. in 1944, was raised to 75 per cent. in 1959 and to 80 per cent. in 1967.
Over recent years strong representations have been made both to my right honourable friend and his predecessor by the Central Joint Education Policy Committee, on which are represented the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and the Free Churches. These representations have been made about the financial difficulties confronting their schools. They have incurred over the years, and will go on incurring, heavy debt charges in order to play what they and the Government have considered to be their proper part in basic school provision. Over and above this, they have, like everybody else, suffered severely in recent years from the effects of the unprecedented increases in building costs and interest rates, coupled with the extra capital expenditure which they have had to incur arising from new educational developments, such as the raising of the school leaving age and the reorganisation

1317
of secondary schools on comprehensive lines, in which the Churches have co-operated to an extent which we all find highly gratifying. They also wish, quite properly, to make a Church contribution to the increased provision of nursery education where this is possible.
For all these reasons it is clear that their outgoings are bound to rise still further, quite apart from the aggravating effects of continuing inflation. Therefore after careful consideration and long discussion with the Churches, my right honourable friend came to the conclusion that an additional measure of help was justified and that the only effective and equitable way of providing this help was to increase the grant rate from 80 per cent. to 85 per cent. He announced this decision in another place on 30th July last and was gratified to find that it was welcomed by the Opposition and the Shadow Cabinet. My right honourable friend recognises, as did his predecessor in 1967 when speaking on the Second Reading of the Bill which raised the grant rate to its present level, that such an increase must inevitably raise doubts in some minds about the future of the dual system. It is essential that in return for the important rights they enjoy in the running of their aided schools the voluntary bodies are seen to be making a real and substantial contribution to the expenses of the schools. In his judgment, which he hopes will be generally shared among members of all Parties, a contribution of 15 per cent. towards new building and repair work can be seen in this light. It represents something between £4 million and £5 million a year, compared with the £6 million to £7 million which the present contribution of 20 per cent. represents.
My Lords, even with this additional aid the Churches will still have serious financial problems confronting them, but of course they are not alone in this. My right honourable friend is only too well aware of the difficulties which face local education authorities in providing and keeping under repair the schools for which they are wholly responsible. We have every reason to hope that the new grant rate will provide a satisfactory and durable basis for the continuation of the present dual system and will enable the Churches to continue to play the part
1318
that both they and the Government would wish them to play in the public system of education.
Finally, I come to the financial implications of what is proposed in this Bill. It is not envisaged that there will be any significant increase in public expenditure arising from extending mandatory awards to the Diploma of Higher Education, the amendment of the teacher-training grant arrangements and the amendment of the law relating to educational qualifications.
The cost of extending mandatory awards to students taking HND courses depends mainly on the number of students now supported from sources other than their local education authorities, who might decide to take advantage of the mandatory award. It is estimated that there are about 3,000 such students in England and Wales. If, say, about half of them received local education authority grants under the new arrangements, the additional cost might be about £700,000 in the academic year 1975–76.
The cost to the central Government of providing State awards for students at the adult colleges is estimated to be of the order of £500,000 in a full year. This would be offset by a reduction of some £400,000 in expenditure out of local funds, resulting in a net additional cost of the order of perhaps £100,000 in a full academic year and about two-thirds of this amount in 1975–76. The cost of increasing from 80 per cent. to 85 per cent. the rate at which grants and contributions may be made in respect of aided and special agreement schools will lead to increased expenditure at an annual rate of about £1·5 million.
My Lords, I have now described the provisions of the Bill and its financial implications. It is a modest Bill, a short Bill, but an important one—important to those for whom it seeks to extend and provide educational opportunities; important too, my Lords, for the country as a whole. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Crowther-Hunt.)
1.32 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I must begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, on a tremendous gallop. The tip from the end of the stables represented by the Liberal Benches was 30

1319
minutes; the jockey gave himself 26 minutes—possibly to fix the odds—but he actually did it in 22 minutes. This is very good form and it may arise in part from the fact that of course it is a gallop towards home.
Turning to more serious matters, the purposes of this Bill are in most respects very welcome, because they are generally generous and just; marginally generous, it is true, because we are in straitened times, and not entirely just as I shall seek shortly and very quickly to tell your Lordships. The extension of mandatory grants to students in higher education is logical and not costly, and were that all that could now with justice be done it would perhaps suffice. But such is not the case. We accept the noble Lord's evaluation of the function of the DipHE and the HND courses, and the status which they deserve and the financial structure which he feels should be put upon them.
But I would remind the noble Lord of the current campaign which is supported in most political arenas for awards for women making equal contribution to be equal. These are the avowed, if distant, goals of all political Parties. Why, therefore, do we not now see the Government taking firm, confident and not very expensive steps in that direction by abolishing discrimination against married women in the matter of student grants? I refer to the retention of the spouse's contribution—and its retention, at that, under very odd circumstances. We already have it on the authority of a Minister in another place, that students who marry when already in receipt of grants at the rates appropriate to single persons will continue to receive them at the same rates after marriage. Therefore there is neither logic nor charity in denying support at a similar rate to female students who have become married before their courses begin, rather than during them. Indeed where we are anxious to attact married women into under-recruited professions, this seems to be perverse as well as unkind.
The noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, who is, I am sure, as anxious as other noble Lords in his Party to bring about the equality of women which he promises—I am referring to page 25 in his Party's Manifesto—will, I fear, plead poverty in excuse for this omission. Will he therefore, please, at the same time confirm my
1320
suspicions that to bring in this modest but equitable reform, which would be widely welcomed among the student body—and a very responsible section of the student body at that—would not cost much more than £1 million a year, as opposed to the £30 million which might be the cost of abolishing parental contributions, and say that this is a step to which he is prepared to give his early and serious consideration.
The noble Lord mentioned that some students were excluded from the six long-term residential colleges for lack of discretionary awards from local authorities. One wonders whether there would be any women similarly disbarred by the lesser, but not inconsiderable, disincentive of the spouse's contribution. In that context, I will also take up his remark that there is no limitation of the grant to courses of a fixed length. Though it is not intended to give them to courses under a year, which I naturally approve, I wonder whether in the interim between now and the Committee stage we might just reflect on the phenomenon of the professional student and the very long course, and whether there might be some terminus ad quem to a grant.
The proposals to increase the State contribution to voluntary-aided schools from 80 to 85 per cent. is most welcome. It is not often that we on this side of the House can with pleasure take one corner of the protective mantle of State intervention, and assist noble Lords on the opposite side of the House to draw it a little further over the shoulders of individual choice and private corporate activity, and it is a great pleasure to assist them so to do. What would increase the pleasure further, and relieve much anxiety at many governors' meetings, would be if Her Majesty's Government agreed that the drafting of the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill does not prevent them from taking, and actually enables them to take, a further step which, at present rates of inflation, may become urgently necessary before many months are out, and indeed before this Bill itself becomes fully effective. There are schools which the noble Lord and his right honourable and honourable friends plan to swallow sooner or later into the comprehensive system. One can understand their reluctance, therefore, to make significant

1321
additional capital expenditure on their behalf during the time remaining to them of independence—a time which must seem to them rather short.
With inflation growing as it does, and eating up buying power as it does, in exactly the manner described by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, voluntary-aided schools and schools such as direct grant schools will be in a particularly difficult position quite soon. On the one hand, fuel, salaries, repairs, renewals and every other commodity become dearer by the month—almost by the day—but, on the other hand (and this is peculiar to them) their governing bodies, their old boys' associations, their old girls' associations, their parent-teacher associations and their fund-raising bodies of all sorts are faced with the possibility of a not too distant closure, and the feeling that it all may not be worth it.
Whatever noble Lords opposite may think of the teachers who teach the children in the selective system, and whatever the hostility with which the noble Lord's Party may regard the parents who send the children there to be taught, I defy him and them in common humanity to regard the children who are so sent and taught as enemies of either the State or of a particular political philosophy. I hope, therefore, that he may be prevailed upon to use this Bill on their behalf to ensure that in the difficult years before the final transition of these schools from one system to the other the pupils do not suffer educationally, through a lack of funds stemming from the dire convergence of inflation on the one hand, and political uncertainty on the other—and, I might add, administrative uncertainty as well.
I hope I have not kept your Lordships too long from home. My course was shorter; I hope that my gallop was no less swift. I hope that at Christmas the noble Lord the Minister of State and his right honourable friend will both find at least 5p in their Christmas puddings, and that so encouraged they will loosen not only their belts but their purse strings in aid of the married women and the children who, with the aid of this Bill, they could do so much to help.
1.40 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of ROCHESTER: My Lords, I have no wish to delay your Lordships unduly, but I am sure someone
1322
from these Benches must acknowledge, not only for the Church of England but for all the Churches of our land, the considerable help that Clause 3 of this Bill will be to all those bodies who are partners with the State in maintaining aided and special agreement schools. We are grateful to the Government for this help, as we are to the Leaders of the Opposition Parties both here and in another place, for supporting the Bill so wholeheartedly.
My Lords, I am sure that I do not need to reassure your Lordships that the Churches—and I know I am speaking for the Roman Catholic Church, and the Free Churches as well as for the Church of England—are anxious to fulfil their obligations in bringing all schools up to standard, and to continue their partnership with the local education authorities in the organisation of primary and secondary education. But the cost of doing this, as the noble Lord the Minister has already reminded us, has risen considerably, not so much because of reorganisation and the new opportunities that that sometimes brings, but much more to the simple fact of inflation, in particular the enormous rise in building costs. The extra £1½ million to which the Minister referred as being the estimated amount necessary to provide for capital and maintenance expenditure on aided and special agreement schools, in the present inflationary situation, will still leave Church people having to give more in the future than they have given in the past for these purposes.
As an illustration of this, I would mention two secondary schools in my own diocese, the extension of which will cost over £½ million. Even with the increased grant this will mean that the diocese has to find £78,000 for these two schools alone. Nevertheless, I assure your Lordships that notwithstanding all other additional burdens confronting us, it is our clear intention to respond to this generous gesture by the State, by endeavouring more earnestly to fulfil the obligations on our side of this valuable partnership. We accept that this increase is an expression of confidence by the present Government in the dual system. I would assure the noble Lord the Minister that for our part the continuing partnership in the work of education is one we prize highly, as it enables the Church to make a distinctive

1323
contribution to the national educational programme. For this reason, above all others, I express gratitude for the provisions of this Bill, and trust your Lordships will speed it on its way.
1.43 p.m.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, in this general atmosphere of Christian charity, I should like to extend my thanks also to the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, for having introduced, as he said, a short but important Bill. I do so more particularly on behalf of the residential adult colleges. As the noble Lord said, they are to be brought within the ambit of this measure, although only a few months back we were extremely apprehensive that his Department, while swallowing a fairly sizeable camel in the shape of a very large number of Dip.H.E. and HND students provided for in the Bill, seemed to be straining at the gnat of residential adult colleges. However, we are delighted to learn that wiser counsels have prevailed and that these colleges are now to be included. This is very much appreciated.
My Lords, I have a special interest because I am the Chairman of Coleg Harlech, not quite so well known outside the Principality as Ruskin. It is one of the longstanding adult colleges. I believe that we may possibly have some measure of gratitude owed to the Lord President of the Council who, on several occasions, has been to Coleg Harlech where he is a most welcome guest. I have reason to suppose that he may have had some part in persuading his ministerial colleagues that it was really absurd to leave out the residential adult colleges.
The method found to suit the proposals for mandatory grants to the peculiar circumstances which prevail in the adult colleges, in the sense that they neither have entrance qualifications of a formal nature, nor wish to have them, is an ingenious scheme. I think it should work very well. Of course, it means that the students will be receiving grants directly from the Department, and this will mean severing the connection with the local education authorities. To the many education authorities who were extremely generous to those students we are very grateful, and we shall regret not having the same direct connection with them. On the other hand, there were other education
1324
authorities which were far from generous. It was not only the students who suffered. Year after year, come the end of September, we still very often have not known how many students would be coming into residence a week later, because we have not known whether they were going to get any award at all or, if they did, whether it would be too little; whether the students were able to take up the place offered to them depended on whether they could obtain other sources of finance. This was all very unsatisfactory. I am delighted that this has now been brought under the scheme of State awards at mandatory rates, which was a recommendation of the Russell Committee, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt.
My Lords, I am afraid, however, that having expressed the warmest gratitude on this score, I must join with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in expressing grave disappointment with regard to the treatment of married women. As I understand it, it is true that if a woman marries during her course of study, she may continue to receive a grant as though she were single. This is to discourage what used to be called "living in sin", as being plainly more profitable. But in that case, the grossest injustice is now being committed to a woman married before she started her course of study. There seems no logic in this. I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, may be persuaded to think again on this matter, because the way in which married women have been treated under the grant scheme has been a grievance for a long time. I would hope that this Bill would be an opportunity to put right what I regard as a basic injustice. Apart from that, we are grateful for the Bill.
1.48 p.m.
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, this has been a short and galloping debate, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I am glad this modest but important Bill has been broadly so favourably received on all sides. May I, therefore, gallop quickly at the end to deal briefly with the various questions raised.
My Lords, may I start with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about, as he put it, discrimination against women; it was put slightly more delicately by the noble Baroness, Lady White, who

1325
was making the same point about the justice of the spouse's contribution. I should like to make two or three points on this. First, it is true to say that there is no sexual discrimination in the spouse's contribution. It applies equally to the husbands of women students and the wives of men students, so in that sense there is no discrimination.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell me then, what is the discrimination against? Is it against tardy marriage or non-precipitated marriage, because I can see no other principle which is involved?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, I was going to comment on that, and say there are a number of anomalies in this area, which I have already said publicly in another place that I am rather unhappy about. I want to have a look at these, but I must warn this House that there are important financial difficulties in this area which will not make it easy to produce what a number of noble Lords would regard as justice.
The other point I want to make here is that if the Government decided to abolish or amend the arrangements for the spouse's contribution this could be done by amendment to the Regulations which govern this; legislation would not in fact be required. It is a separate issue which really does not arise from the consideration of this Bill and I do not therefore in that sense think it is appropriate for the current debate.
Coming back to what I said a moment or two ago, there are number of anomalies in this area which I am having a look at to see whether, without any further expenditure, I can do something about certain aspects which I personally find a little difficult to defend. Having said that, I do not want to raise any hopes unduly because there really is no money available at the moment, and also the fact of the matter is that the introduction of the spouse's contribution was a crucial factor in the balance sheet when we managed to increase students grants and grants to women also, as from the beginning of this academic year. But I am having a look at this area and I hope something may happen, but I really cannot promise very much. I am looking at some of the anomalies.
1326
On the second point that the noble Lord made about the long term students, the noble Lord was suggesting that while we were saying in the Bill that the mandatory grant would, in effect, be available to the student in the residential colleges following a one-year course, the implication was that it might be available for those who might follow a ten-year course. I do not think that would in fact happen, but I am very ready to have a look at that and to deal with it at the Committee stage if indeed there is such a danger.
On the third point which the noble Lord made about the plea to do something in this Bill for the direct grant schools, my reply here must be that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is well aware of the financial position of these schools but he has made his own position clear. As he said in another place in June of this year, he does not propose for the time being to make any change in the rate of grant, and that is the position.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I seek clarification of that? All I am asking is, am I right in thinking that this Bill does not debar him from coming to their rescue should the situation I describe arise at the end of the time being, whenever that may be?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, the point is that this Bill is really about something quite different. It was not intended to, and does not in fact, cover direct grant schools. It is really intended to deal with a different problem, a problem which has had broad support from all sides of this House. and is nothing whatsover to do with the direct grant schools.
I was grateful to the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Rochester for his very kind remarks which are much appreciated by the Government. It is nice that we are doing things in this Bill which have the broad support of all sides. I was equally grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for the nice things she was saying in expressing the gratitude of the residential colleges. Therefore, with this Bill enjoying such wide support in this House, I very much commend it to your Lordships.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I put this to

1327
him. He was saying this has nothing to do with the direct grant schools. Does he not consider that a little unfortunate, in the light of the fact that the direct grant schools take a very considerable proportion of pupils from the local education authority?
Lord CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords, the position about the direct grant schools is in effect as stated in the Labour Party Manifesto. It is the policy of this Government to end the direct grant school system, and considerations about how to implement this particular decision and policy statement are now urgently taking place.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SOCIAL SECURITY (CONTRIBUTIONS AND MARRIED WOMEN AND WIDOWS) MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 1974
1.54 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the Draft Social Security (Contributions and Married Women and Widows) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1974, laid before the House on 16th December, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will take this matter as briefly as I can, but there are certain things which I must explain in some detail. The Regulations further amend and add to two principal sets of Regulations, the Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 1973 and the Social Security (Contributions) (Married Women and Widows Special Provisions) Regulations 1973. The greater part of these Regulations are necessary as a consequence of the passing of the Social Security Amendment Act 1974. When these Regulations have become law the consolidation of the Contributions Regulations to operate from April 1975 will be completed and submitted to Parliament as soon as possible, so that everyone concerned can have the complete Regulations in their hands as a single document well before the Appointed Day on 6th April.
The main provisions are that the proposed Regulations prescribe the banded tables for use by employers generally and the special tables required for members of the Forces and for mariners. They also make provisions for share fishermen and employment on the Continental Shelf. They amend the provisions of the Married Women's Regulations regarding the conditions for being a "qualifying widow" and substitute certain new provisions limiting any Class I liability of newly widowed women. The Regulations also make a number of technical and drafting amendments to the principal Regulations.
The banded tables, as your Lordships will see, take up the greater part of the Regulations. They continue the service available under the present graduated scheme of providing employers with a simple alternative method of calculating contributions where they do not have sophisticated calculating machines. The tables are based upon the rates set out in the Social Security Amendment Act 1974 and the special provisions relating to members of the Forces and mariners set out in the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1974, which received the approval of both Houses and came into operation on 9th December. The tables go in bands to avoid a plethora of rates. The relevant contributions are thus calculated at the midpoint of each band in accordance with previous practice, except obviously for the lower and upper limits, where the calculations have to be exact.
I just want to say a word about share fishermen. Share fishermen are, broadly, people employed in the fishing industry who are remunerated in whole or in part by a share of the profits or gross earnings of the fishing boat. The relevant provisions in these Regulations result from lengthy discussions with the organisations representing share fishermen, and I would like to point out that they have welcomed the Government's proposals. They enable existing benefit rights to be maintained, in return for a special contribution which is being arranged for this group only in recognition of their very special reserved rights under the existing scheme. The provisions themselves are straightforward, and we are in close touch with the relevant organisations about the

1329
way in which the provisions will work in detail.
The Regulations continue the special provisions needed for workers on the Continental Shelf, and these special provisions have been in existence for some time. They provide that employment in any area which may from time to time be designated by Order in Council under the Continental Shelf Act 1964 as part of the Continental Shelf will be treated for contribution purposes as though the designated area was in Great Britain. Subsequent benefit Regulations will ensure that the appropriate benefits will be available as a result of the payment of contributions by the people concerned.
I want now to deal with married women and widows. These Regulations amend the provision in the Married Women's Regulations concerning widows and, in particular, the contribution liability of new widows. Since those Regulations were made, further study suggests that the Regulations would have been difficult for widows to understand and for employers and the Department to operate. As far as possible, we have tried to simplify matters and to avoid changes of the rate of liability for employed women during the course of a tax year.
Perhaps I could just try to explain that. It means that when a woman becomes widowed she can, for the rest of that financial year and the next financial year, decide whether she is going to pay full contributions or opt out and just pay the 2 per cent. It means, in other words, that she will have, if her husband dies halfway through the year, something like 18 months in which to make up her mind.
We consider, also, that it is reasonable to require widows who go out to work for employers to pay earnings-related contributions at the reduced rate of 2 per cent., even when they are receiving widows' benefit (which is, of course, not subject to the earnings rule). That means that they will pay nothing on earnings under £11; above that rate they will pay from 22p at £11 a week up to £1·38 at the top of the scale. As your Lordships will remember, the top of the scale is £69 per week. A widow who has opted to pay the reduced rate while married will, as now, have no change of liability on widowhood. A woman paying the full rate previously will get a reduction immediately
1330
on widowhood, ranging from 40p a week at the lowest level of liability to £2·41 a week on earnings of £69. If the husband's death occurs before 1st October, as I said, she will have something like 18 months in which to make up her mind as to whether she is going to opt out or not.
A few widows may find it advisable to pay Class 1 contributions at the standard rate while employed, or Class 2 if they are self-employed. Full liability can, for instance, be advantageous for widows who have pensions at rates significantly below the standard rates, and who want to ensure that if sick or unemployed they will qualify for full benefit and earnings-related supplements. So we are making provision for widows, if they wish, to pay contributions on the same basis as other single women.
Finally, a very small number of widows may have difficulty in establishing that they are entitled to a widow's pension—for instance, a widow may claim that her late husband had paid more contributions than have been recorded, or that he died as a result of an industrial injury which was not reported at the time. Until she knows what her pension will be, the widow will not be able to make an ordinary contribution choice. So we are extending the "appropriate period" in such a case until the end of the year in which her claim is settled. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a fair thing to do.
In this explanation I have referred to the women concerned as "widows". But in fact the concessions I have described apply for the appropriate period even if the widow re-marries. She will still have a long period in which to decide whether she is going to opt out or not. Throughout that period, whether she pays contributions or not, she will have contributions credited to her account for retirement purposes under the separate benefit Regulations. My Lords, I beg to move that these Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the Draft Social Security (Contributions and Married Women and Widows) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations 1974, laid before the House on 16th December, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Peslell.)
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed by the Lord Chancellor
2.5 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, in speaking in reply, I should first like to say that we welcome the benefits set out. We naturally acknowledge the necessity for additional contributions, and we further acknowledge the concessions made for widows recently widowed. There is an important point of principle here that I wish to draw to the attention of the Government Chief Whip, because we feel very worried about the speed with which these Regulations have been brought before this House. Your Lordships will be aware that these were set down on the Order Paper on Monday of this week. While acknowledging, in the season of good will, that this is a necessity and that it will benefit a large number of people, it is a fact that your Lordships have been subjected to very considerable speed in the Government's programme in the field of social security. We accepted the Social Security Amendment Bill with not very good grace when it was literally railroaded through at speed.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord before he goes any further? As he knows, the business of the House is always arranged through consultation with all parts of the House. The Opposition knew that we were going to do this, and they fully understood our difficulties. My noble friend could give a long explanation as to exactly why we need these provisions, but I do not want to ask him to do that at this point unless the noble Lord wishes. In fact, the programme is agreed. We agreed the previous Bill and I think we really ought to leave it at that.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, while accepting what the noble Baroness says, and fully acknowledging the point that there is a necessity for speed in order to benefit certain categories—and I would never suggest that this House would wish to hold up those matters which another place had accepted—nevertheless we wish that the Government would acknowledge the fact that considerable pressure has been placed on this House, and accept the fact that these Regulations have had to be examined at considerable speed when they are of a detailed nature. In passing, I should like to acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell,
1332
has said in explanation, and thank him for the way in which he set it out before your Lordships. I have made my point.

RACE RELATIONS BILL [H.L.]
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Race Relations Act 1968. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a—(Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, from these Benches may we wish a very happy Christmas and a very happy New Year to noble Lords in all parts of the House.
Following is the Statement referred to earlier:

MEMBERS' REMUNERATION
"The Government has decided to invite Lord Boyle's Top Salaries Review Body to undertake a full review of Members' salaries and allowances.
"The Review Body will also be invited this time to make recommendations on Peers' expenses allowances. The last full review, as Members will know, was undertaken by the Top Salaries Review Body in 1971 and resulted in increases in Members' remuneration from 1st January 1972.
"In its report the Review Body suggested that Parliamentary remuneration should be subject to major reviews every four years, that is, roughly corresponding to once in the lifetime of each Parliament, but they suggested that interim adjustments should be considered between major reviews.
"Apart from the updating of some of the rates of allowances in August this year, there have been no other interim adjustments and the Parliamentary salary has remained unchanged now for practically three years. As a result, Members' salaries have fallen very seriously behind the rise in the cost of living. In fact, by October the Retail Prices Index had risen by 36½ per cent. since January 1972 while Members' salary has remained static at £4,500. The Government is conscious of the serious financial strain under which many Members are now labouring and also acknowledges the restraint they have exercised during the last year or so.
"The terms of reference of the review will be so drawn as to provide full score to the

1333
Review Body to cover all aspects of Parliamentary remuneration, allowances and pensions. We shall ask the Review Body particularly to consider the mechanism whereby Members' remuneration can be regularly reviewed in future so that they do not suffer greater hardship from inflation than the rest of the community. In this connection many Members feel that their salary should be linked to a particular civil service salary and the Review Body will be reminded of this option.
"The matter of Peers' expenses allowance is also being referred to the Review Body because the present system of a single rate of allowance is considered unsatisfactory in that it does not meet the varying circumstances of Peers attending Parliament. Some attend from distant parts of the country, while for others the House is comparatively nearby. It is hoped that the Review Body will commence their work early in January, but as this is to be a thoroughgoing review, Members cannot expect the full report to be available for some time. I am sure, however, that Lord Boyle and his colleagues will, as they have always done in the past, set about their task speedily and with the utmost care and due consideration to all the factors.
"Hon. Members will recall that in my statement on 29th July I announced the Government's proposals for assistance to back-benchers, for opposition parties and for political parties outside Westminster. First of all I said that I proposed to set up a Select Committee to examine the present support facilities available to backbenchers. I have today put down on the Order Paper a Motion proposing the establishment of this Committee. Its terms of reference will be: 'To examine the present support facilities available to backbench Members in carrying out their duties in this House, in particular research assistance on matters before Parliament, and to make recommendation for such improvements as they consider necessary '. This Select Committee will have a most important task before it on behalf of backbenchers.
"Next I referred to the Government's belief in the need to strengthen our Parliamentary democracy, and said that we proposed that an independent committee should examine the question of whether or not public funds should be made available to political parties for their work outside Parliament. I have had consultations with all the parties in the House, and the Committee will be set up shortly after Christmas. The terms of reference will be' To consider whether, in the interests of Parliamentary democracy, provision should be made from public funds to assist political parties in carrying out their functions outside Parliament: to examine the practice of other Parliamentary democracies in this field, and to make recommendations as to the scope of political activities to which any such provision should relate and the method of its allocation'.
"Also in my statement in July I told the House that I would bring forward in the autumn firm proposals for the provision of financial assistance to Opposition parties in
1334
the House. Any formula must take into account both seats in the House and votes at the last election—votes because there is a correlation between votes won and the volume of correspondence to be dealt with in the offices of Opposition Parties. In the case of the main Opposition, I have applied an upper limit, based on the costing of an adequate Parliamentary Office, including research facilities for the Leader of the Opposition. The scheme would be confined to parties having either:

i. two Members elected to the House at the previous General Election; or

ii. one Member elected and a minimum of 150,000 votes cast for it at the previous General Election.

The formula of £500 per seat and £1 for every 200 votes achieves the following results:

£

Conservatives

150,000 (maximum)

Liberals

33,250

Scottish National Party

9,700

United Ulster Unionists

7,050

Plaid Cymru

2,300

SDLP

1,270

"The allocation of funds between the two Houses is a matter for the parties themselves to decide, but I would consider it appropriate for a percentage of those funds to be allocated for the Opposition's work in the Lords.
"These are maximum amounts and the parties will be accountable for expenditure within these limits to the House authorities.
"I believe that these proposals will strengthen the effectiveness and independence of Members of Parliament, of Parliament itself and of the political parties and in so doing will greatly strengthen democracy in this country."