Lords Sitting of 8 July 1974

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

LORD LEE OF NEWTON
The Right Honourable Frederick Lee, having been created Baron Lee of Newton, of Newton in the County of Mersey-side, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Taylor of Mansfield and the Lord Pargiter.

M.3 AND WINCHESTER BY-PASS
2.45 p.m.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: 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 it would not be possible to complete without delay the dual carriageway between the South end of the M.3 and the Winchester By-Pass, thereby obviating a bottleneck, pending a decision on the final route of the motorway.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the route of the M.3 Motorway southwards from Popham to Compton was fixed in 1973. Her Majesty's Government have no proposals for further lengths of dual carriageway on the A.33 trunk road between Popham and the Winchester By-Pass.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he has any information as to likely completion date for this new section of the motorway?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the best answer I can give the noble Lord is that, provided all goes well, the new section may be started in two to three years' time.

COMMUNITY HEALTH COUNCILS
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many local authorities have made their appointments to community health councils on a Party political basis.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not think I am being unhelpful, but the information for which he is asking is, quite frankly, not yet available.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am a little surprised at that very unsatisfactory Answer. Is the noble Lord aware that, in a debate in this House on June 28, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, said that to her knowledge some councils had made their appointments through the leader on a Party political basis? Surely, if the noble Baroness is able to produce this information, the Government should be able to.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I rather imagine that the noble Baroness was speaking probably from personal knowledge of a limited number of councils, or perhaps only one council. I was present in your Lordships' House and I replied to that debate, but we have no information as to what is happening in the country as a whole. As I said on that occasion, and as the noble Lord will know, it is up to local authorities to appoint their representatives in the way they think best and, as the noble Lord knows better than I do, it was the suggestion of the last Government, and we agree entirely, that local councils should appoint the best possible people and not necessarily councillors. We are hoping that councils will do that.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Baroness, who is herself Chairman of a Regional Health Authority, has made this statement, would the noble Lord look at this matter very seriously to see whether some further guidance is necessary for local councils?—because it is really a

445
complete negation of the value of community health councils if these appointments are to be made by one Party only.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in his Question the noble Lord asks how many local authorities have made appointments on a Party political basis. Hence, I say that the Department does not know how many local authorities have made appointments on a Party political basis. The guidance has been given and I will certainly explore the practicability of giving further guidance on this matter.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one is rather surprised at the supplementary question from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asking the Government to give guidance to local authorities on this issue? Surely, if autonomy has been passed to local authorities, this becomes their responsibility. Is it not correct to state, as we have time and time again, that there ought to be more power vested in local authorities on this type of issue? Why take it from them?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think there is any disagreement on that matter; but we, like the last Government, feel that representatives on community health councils should be drawn from the widest possible field of representation.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, do the Government suppose that local authorities will treat these appointments in any different way from those made to, for example, the governing boards of schools, which everybody knows have been made on a Party political basis ever since the machinery for these appointments was first established? Would the noble Lord agree, however, that there is sufficient interest in this matter, not only on the part of my noble friend Lady Robson, but during the debates on the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill when this point was raised—I raised it myself—for the noble Lord to agree to publish some analysis of the appointments made to the community health councils so that we can see whether this is happening as has been predicted?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I did say to your Lordships that I will see whether we can explore the possibility of finding out exactly how the present appointments have been made. But may I remind your Lordships that the whole purpose of giving the Regional Health Authority three places to fill on the community health councils was to try to redress any tendency that may occur in the appointing of exclusively council people.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he knows for certain that the appointments are not made politically? I know of certain appointments by local authorities—I have one in writing which I can produce for the Minister to see—where the appointments of the local authorities were entirely on a political basis.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have said that I will take note of this point, but I remind your Lordships that out of the 207 community health councils which are to be appointed, at the time we had the debate following the Motion of the noble Lady about a week ago, some 117 had been appointed and there are only 90 remaining to be appointed. By now many of them will have done so. But I will pursue this matter, to see whether any further guidance can be given to local authorities.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, with respect, in view of the interest shown by noble Lords on all sides of the House, would it not be possible to ask a direct question of the Regional Health Authorities, to ask how many appointments are made on a Party political basis?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord and I shall see whether something further can be done. We agree entirely with the last Government that representation should come from a very wide field.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that it is very difficult to detect with any certainty an individual's political affiliations unless he is a member of a Party?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, that is perfectly true.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, if my noble friend makes inquiries on the

447
lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about the political complexion of people appointed to the community health councils, will he at the same time inquire about the political complexion of people who have been appointed to far more important posts in the Health Service under its reorganisation by the last Government? Is he aware of the fact that he will find that most of the people who have been appointed to important chairmanships are Tories?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think I must confine myself to the Question as put before your Lordships and say that we are dealing with community health councils; and on that matter I will see what can be done.

SMETHWICK NURSERY SCHOOL AND WILD DOGS
2.53 p.m.
LORD CROOK: 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 whether Her Majesty's Government's attention has been directed to the Press reports of an incident at a nursery school in Smethwick, Staffordshire, in which 30 small children, between the ages of three and five, had to be locked in classrooms for safety when the school was attacked, for a second time, by a pack of wild dogs, which was driven off only after fire brigade crews used "water cannons"; whether it is true, as stated, that the police possess no power to deal with such a situation; and, if that be so, whether Her Majesty's Government will now seek to provide powers for the police.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the information given by my noble friend in the first part of his Question is, I understand, perfectly true. On June 27 a pack of about ten dogs was found underneath the school which, in fact, is built on stilts. The headmaster called the police, but by the time the police arrived the dogs had disappeared. They returned the next day and the headmaster on that occasion called the fire brigade. The fire brigade dealt with them in a very definite manner.
448
With regard to the second part of his Question, the police have certain powers under Section 3 of the Dogs Act, 1906, but the difficulty is that while they can deal with stray dogs, these must be on the public highway or in a public resort. This pack of dogs was certainly not on the highway and, legally, there is some doubt as to whether a school is a public resort. It is doubtful whether the police could have dealt with the situation had they been able to catch the dogs. I think it comes down to this, my Lords; the Act giving the police powers is unsatisfactory. There are two other Departments dealing with dogs; namely, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment. It is our intention to look at this Act to see, whether something can be done to strengthen the powers of the police and to prevent this kind of situation arising in the future.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for the very helpful end to his reply and ask him whether he is aware that, although this is the only known attack on a children's school, there are a number of places in the Midlands where dogs congregate, particularly in the grounds around high-rise blocks of flats, and terrorise the children to the extent that their parents are worried? Is he also aware that the Smethwick local authority is appointing a dog catcher? I think that that would only come under the earlier enactment to which the noble Lord referred, because you have to catch your dog before you can do anything about one, let alone 12.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we realise that this is a serious matter, particularly with regard to children, and there appears to be some ambiguity so far as the law is concerned. I have given an undertaking that the Department concerned are proposing to look at this matter to see whether something much more satisfactory cannot be done.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, does not the noble Lord think that those people who are so callous with their dogs as to allow them to become wild are the people who should be prosecuted?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is a matter we could consider. As the noble Baroness knows, the police have

449
power to take dogs if they are found to be straying on the highway, but the question then arises as to what is a stray dog.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government consider adjusting the price of dog licences to the fall in the the value of money, which might help in these matters?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I understand that this is a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I will see that the noble Lord's comment is drawn to their attention.

PORT OF TYNE (NORTH SHIELDS FISH HARBOUR) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MORPETH COMMON BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-IONES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It consolidates the nine Acts which are comprised in the collective title, the Friendly Societies Acts 1896 to 1971 and certain other relevant enactments. It also gives effect to two recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission in their recent Report. If the House has no objection, I will not describe them in detail, because they will be examined by the Joint Committee in the usual way. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

EDUCATION (MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN) (SCOTLAND) BILL
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has
450
indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORD CHANCELLOR (TENURE OF OFFICE AND DISCHARGE OF ECCLESIASTICAL FUNCTIONS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SOLICITORS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1963 (SUGAR) ORDER 1974
3.2 p.m.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES rose to move, That the Draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Sugar) Order 1974, laid before the House on May 23, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be recalled that this Order was debated in this House on June 25. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had examined the Order and on the previous evening its Report had become available. In its Report it was critical of the Order and of the Explanatory Note. In the circumstances, after the debate the Order was withdrawn in order that my right honourable friend might give consideration to all the points raised by the Committee on Statutory Instruments. This, my Lords, has been done and, after considering each of the points raised, my right honourable friend finds compelling reasons for retaining the Order in the form in which it was submitted.
The Committee were critical of Article 3. In particular they said that the phrase—
"shall be sold by retail only by net weight"
was ambiguous. We find that these are

451
the words repeatedly used in the Act, not only in reference to sugar but in reference to other commodities. This phrase has also been used consistently in all the Orders based upon the Act. We find also that neither the Department's records nor O'Keefe's standard work of reference on the Act suggests that there has been any difficulty so far as interpretation is concerned.
An explanatory memorandum was sent to 70 representative organisations of manufacturers, retailers and consumers. In that explanatory memorandum this phrase was used, but no comment has been made by any of the organisations suggesting any difficulty. In the past when Orders based upon this Act have been contemplated similar memoranda have been sent using the same phrase and we have no record of any difficulty of interpretation ever having been raised. My right honourable friend feels that to change the wording now might for the first time cast some doubt on existing legislation and may give rise both to difficulties and inquiries which should be avoided. I give that as an example of the kind of inquiry that has gone on in relation to the Order.
I turn now to the Explanatory Note. My right honourable friend feels that the Committee's criticism was justified. Accordingly, the Explanatory Note has been completely redrafted and all the Committee's recommendations have been accepted and incorporated. The revised Explanatory Note is available in the Printed Paper Office, and I would suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if it were reproduced in the Record. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Sugar) Order 1974, laid before the House on May 23, be approved.—(Lord Jacques.)
3.5 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the aim of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, myself and others who spoke when this Order was debated on the last occasion was to ensure that the views and the comments made by the Joint Select Committee of this House and of another place were given serious consideration by the Department concerned. There was no questioning of the motives of the Department, but because of the shortage of time
452
it seems that there could not have been an adequate opportunity for consideration to be given to the comments of the Joint Committee. I am very pleased to hear what the noble Lord has just said from the Dispatch Box opposite, that the comments of the Joint Committee on the wording of the Explanatory Note have been accepted by the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection and that, as a consequence, the Explanatory Note which will appear with the Order has been completely redrafted in the interests of clarity and accepting the various criticisms made by the Joint Committee.
I am not sufficiently close to the bigger question of the wording of the Order consistently with the substantial Act to be able to make a judgment one way or the other; but I am quite content, now that thought and consideration have clearly been given to the comments of the Joint Select Committee, to accept the conclusion at which the Secretary of State has arrived; in other words, that the wording of the Order as it was put before Parliament previously is the best in the circumstances.
I would not propose to press the Government further on this Order, but I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and the Leader of the House also, for the action they took following the last debate. It was a matter, I think, entirely of the rights of Parliament against the legitimate interests of a Government Department. As the noble Lord opposite will accept, when in opposition we do need to be vigilant in these matters.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRICES BILL
3.8 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received. At the Committee stage I made the point that any exemption of the small trader from displaying prices should be a matter for the various Orders and not for the Statute. I pointed out that the circumstances covered by each Order could be quite different. There could be cases where there were grounds for exempting the small trader and there could be other cases where there were no such grounds. I was then pressed to consult with my right honourable friend to get her state of mind in relation to the Orders, had she in mind

453
some exemptions. I promised that I would do so. I have done so and I now report back.
My right honourable friend has in mind that in so far as the Orders under Clause 5 which deal with range of prices are concerned all traders shall display a range of prices in relation to subsidised foods. But she has in mind the possibility of a restricted range for the small trader; that is to say, a range at which the prices commence at a higher figure. She undertakes to consult with the representative of the small traders and if that is their wish she will act accordingly. Secondly, she has in mind that the small trader should not be required to display the range of prices for non-subsidised foods; and, thirdly, that a "small trader" means one with a selling space of less than 250 square feet.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Jacques.)
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for those concessions. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Elton who pressed him on this point. We were anxious to protect the small shop and small shopkeeper and it is my belief that these new concessions which have been announced by the noble Lord, which will come into effect through regulation, are very satisfactory. I am grateful to him and hope that he will also thank his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for having gone as far as she has in helping us in this matter. While I am on my feet, may I also thank him for the very helpful reply he gave me on the point I raised of the one firm that was wholesaler-retailer on Clause 2.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution):
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, may I thank the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Elton, and also several of my noble
454
friends and noble Lords in other parts of the House for the helpful contribution they have made to this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
LORD ABERDARE: Again, my Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. As he knows, we have fundamental differences on the underlying policy, but it was not up to this House to dispute that. On the other hand, the small points which we have raised have been very sympathetically considered by noble Lords opposite, and we are grateful.
On Question, Bill passed.

PARKS REGULATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
3.11 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: 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 Parks Regulation (Amendment) Bill, has consented to place her Royal prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of this Bill.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short Bill and I hope that it will not be a controversial one. Its purpose is to change the name of the park-keepers in the Royal Parks to park constables. Before I explain what that means, I should like to just go back to the Parks Regulation Act 1872, which covers the employment of these keepers. Under Section 5 of that Act, the keepers have the power when in uniform to arrest without a warrant any offender in the park whose name and residence is not known. Section 6 of the Act provides for a penalty of a £20 fine to be imposed by park-keepers together with, or instead of, a term of imprisonment of six months. Section 7 of the Act states that park-keepers have all the same powers, privileges and immunities, in respect of such duties and responsibilities as they carry out, as the police have in areas outside the Royal Parks.
The ten Royal Parks in which park-keepers are employed are not policed by police constables. The last one, Hyde

455
Park, is policed by Metropolitan policemen, because there is a great deal more to do there; for example, troubles may arise from meetings at Speakers' Corner, from processions and so on. At the present time there are, I believe, 162 park-keepers in post. They are rather understaffed and I think that the Government and the Department of the Environment would like to see the number increased to about 180, or even more. The change in title is one that the park-keepers themselves feel explains rather better what their duties are at the present time. The general public tends to think of park-keepers as people who go around picking up paper and so on from the walks of a park, and not as police constables with some sort of control and authority.
This Bill has the active encouragement of the Department of the Environment and also, so I am told, of the Home Office—from the point of view of the Metropolitan Police—and of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as regards Kew Gardens, which is their responsibility. We hope that the passing of this Bill may result in increased recruitment to the ranks of the park-keepers or constables. There will be a change in the Schedule, because the park-keepers will be called upon to attest as constables in front of a justice of the peace, which, I think, means that they forgo some of their rights to industrial action if such a course may be suggested to them. I commend this Bill to your Lordships. I do not wish to take up any more time and, if the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading, I propose to move the remaining stages to-day so that it may become law before the end of the Parliamentary Session.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amulree.)
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already informed the House that Her Majesty the Queen has graciously consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by this Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, on introducing this useful little measure, which I welcome on behalf of the Government. I would confirm what
456
he has said—that park-keepers in the Royal Parks and gardens perform a very important role in the maintenance of law and order, in addition to protecting the amenities of the parks and gardens. It is indeed rather anomalous that they should still have a title which rather tends to give the impression of someone walking around with a stick, jabbing at and collecting pieces of paper. In fact, special staff are employed for this latter purpose. So it is that the term "park-keeper" is something of a misnomer these days and it has been found unhelpful when seeking new recruits. As we see it, this Bill ought to correct that misconception, and the change from "park-keeper ' to "park constable" will reflect more accurately the responsibilities of this quite invaluable force, and will assist in its maintenance at full strength.
I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House and hope it will have a speedy passage. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, has indicated that he will ask for this facility, not only in your Lordships' House but in another place.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I welcome this Bill but I have just one question to ask. Shall we assume that these park-keepers, under their present title, are members of the National Union of Public Employees, the National Union of General and Municipal Workers, the Transport and General Workers' Union or some similar body? After they have been sworn in as special constables, we appreciate the fact that they have to surrender their right to go on strike. I now come to my question. Will they be required to give up membership of any trade union to which they may at present belong?
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I think that the reply to the noble Lord is that they will not be required to give up membership of a trade union. I have been in touch with the secretary of the trade union to which they belong—indeed, it was he who drew my attention to this proposed Bill and asked whether I would give it my support here—and I do not think that that would be the case.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution),

457
Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
ORKNEY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
The Queen's consent signified and Bill reported with Amendments.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL [MONEY] BILL ASHDOWN FOREST BILL WORKINGTON HARBOUR BILL
Examiners' certificate that no further Standing Order is applicable: Ordered to lie on the table.