Lords Sitting of 28 June 1976

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

MR. ROBERT RELF
Lord BRADWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give instructions for the removal of the illegal racialist notice displayed by Mr. Robert Relf, of Leamington; and why this has not been done already.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, this is a matter for the courts. The Government have no powers to give such instructions.
Lord BRADWELL: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it is unfortunate that some of the media have been building this man up into a kind of hero or patriot, when he is in fact nothing of the kind, having belonged to a number of explicitly pro-Nazi organisations, including a rather ineffective local branch of the Ku-Klux-Klan? In view of what my noble friend says, would it not be ordinary common sense for the police or some other authority to apply to the courts for an injunction to remove a notice which is at least as offensive to the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish as to any coloured immigrant?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, on the latter point raised by my noble friend, proceedings under the Race Relations Act 1968 are specifically restricted to the Board and can be brought only by them. On the first point, I take note of what my noble friend has said.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this question, and may I put it in rather vulgar terms. Does he not think that it would be better if we all shut our mouths about this
570
business, and that it would be in the interests of good race relations if we did?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as a former member of my noble friend's profession, I always hesitate before giving advice to the media, but I think most of us would probably take the view that Mr. Relf has now secured more than enough publicity.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is it not a little late to do that? Has not the noble Lord observed that over the weekend a notice has gone up stating that a house is to be sold only to a black family? Will similar action be taken under the Race Relations Act and will we have a competitive hunger strike?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this is a matter for the Race Relations Board. From what I saw in the Press this morning, the matter is already in the process of being referred to them, and no doubt they will take appropriate action.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is not this notice a little hard on the whites? While it would allow non-whites born in this country who are English to buy the house, Scots, Welsh and Irish from Ulster would be excluded from doing so.
Lord BRADWELL: My Lords, although this matter may seem to some of your Lordships merely a piece of harmless lunacy on the part of Mr. Relf, as the last survivor—which I believe I am—of the Parliamentary delegation, under the leadership of the noble Viscount, the late Lord Addison, which inspected Buchenwald camp in April 1945, may I ask my noble friend whether he agrees that the ultimate horrors of those camps started with apparently relatively trivial racialist propaganda of this kind?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords: I do not think any of us would wish to underestimate the dangers involved in this entire situation. This is a matter which was touched on in the debate which took place on Thursday of last week on an Unstarred Question. May I say this. There are extremists, both from the Right and from the Left, who have a profound contempt for the rule of law and the standards of democratic society.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, effectively pointed out, that the word " English " describes a person's nationality and not his race? Would he further agree that under the Race Relations Act 1968 it is not an offence to discriminate on grounds of nationality alone? Could he, therefore, explain to the House how the Race Relations Board were able to institute these costly and counter-productive proceedings against Relf in the first place?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the learned judge took a different view from that of the noble Lord.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that on 4th March the Home Secretary pointed out to the House of Commons, and conceded, that the Race Relations Act 1968 did not cover nationality as opposed to national origins.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, there has been a decision in a court on this question, and that, so far as we are concerned, is the end of the matter.

SHIPBUILDING
2.42 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage British shipowners to order more ships from British shipbuilding yards.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, my right honourable friends the then Secretary of State for Trade and the Secretary of State for Industry discussed the urgent need for new orders for the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry with representatives of the General Council of British Shipping in March. These talks are continuing between officials, and I am glad to say that there has been an encouraging response from shipowners.
Lord CAMBPELL of CROY: My Lords I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for having written to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing and me correcting an error which he inadvertently made in giving a figure of 40 per cent. in the previous exchanges on 17th June. Did the recent indication by the Secretary of State for Industry, when he was speaking to the shipbuilding unions, that some closures and redundancies were likely when the Shipbuilding Bill was passed—if it ever is passed—mean that the Government are already making an overall assessment of the future structure of the industry?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I notice that there is a further Question to which my noble friend Lord Melchett will be replying, and no doubt he will comment on the first point made by the noble Lord. With regard to the future prospects of the industry, I would only add that the Government have invited the Confederation of Shipbuilding Unions and the Organising Committee for British Shipbuilders to discuss the problem urgently, and I would not wish to anticipate the outcome of those discussions.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, might it not be possible that, just as the public interest in British Leyland has led to a very great increase in the exports of British Leyland and an increase of profits instead of losses from British Leyland, so the passage of the shipbuilding Bill might have a similar result for the industry of shipbuilding?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords, there is an urgent need for modernisation of the industry, and it is my view, as it is of my noble friend, that the passage of that Bill would expedite that process.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that unfortunately I did not receive a copy of the letter—whether it was the Post Office or other systems, it does not seem to have worked. But if an error has been made which is in Hansard —we all make errors; I did myself when I was a Minister—it should be put right at the earliest opportunity. Perhaps the noble Lord could read out the letter so that at least for Hansard, for the record, the figure of

573
40 per cent. is corrected; because none of us yet knows what the figure should be.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I think that my noble friend will deal with that, particularly as he deals with the Post Office as well.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider that the actions of Her Majesty's Government may result in driving shipowners to get ships built in places like Communist Yugoslavia, which has very excellent shipyards which strangely enough, are not nationalised?

SHIPBUILDING AND THE INDUSTRY ACTS
2.45 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: 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 to break down the figure of £680 million to which the Minister referred in column 1380 of Hansard of 17th June; and what percentage of this figure was of benefit to United Kingdom shipbuilders as distinct from shipowners.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): My Lords, the £680 million represents the total value of guarantees given over the four financial years ending 31st March 1976. Guarantees are given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry to the Clearing Banks under Section 10 of the Industry Act 1972 in respect of loans advanced to United Kingdom shipowners to enable them to finance the construction of ships ordered in United Kingdom shipywards. The guarantees benefit both parties, and the extent of the benefit cannot be apportioned between them.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that in his first reply it was indicated that this aid was somehow connected directly to the shipbuilders? We were asking about shipbuilders. Is the noble Lord aware that
574
the House will be glad that it has now been corrected? Is it not true—and it has been under agreement with the OECD—that all Governments are allowed to give aid up to a certain amount, so that United Kingdom shipowners, if they build here, get the same aid as if they built overseas? Is it not rather misleading to the House if it is suggested that this is some special aid to the shipbuilding industry of our country when it is only matching the type of aid which every one of our competitors gets overseas?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, I did make a mistake in replying to the noble Lord's Question last week, for which I apologise, and I also apologise for the fact that he has not received a copy of the letter I sent him correcting it. However, I do not think I owe him any apology with reference to the supplementary question he is now asking me. I said in reply to him on 17th June, column 1380 of the Official Report:
" and the shipbuilding companies have benefited from the home credit guarantees for ships under Section 10 of the Industry Act to the tune of £680 million ".
I believe that is the position. If this credit had not been available to shipowners ordering ships in this country, they would undoubtedly have been encouraged by the credit terms available overseas to order ships overseas. As I said in my original reply, I do not think it is possible to apportion benefit between shipowners and shipbuilders, but as similar credit terms are available to shipowners ordering overseas I would have said that, on the whole, this credit is particularly valuable to British shipbuilders.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this provision of State aid to shipbuilding firms was not started by a Labour Government but by a Conservative Government several years ago?
Lord MELCHETT: Yes, my Lords; that is quite true.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us for the record what the figure of 40 per cent. ought to have read, so that we have it down. Secondly, is it not true that under a Conservative Government

575
we rationalised in this country not only shipbuilding but wool textiles, in recent years, and that the rationalisation in aero-space in the last three decades has been immense? None of this was achieved with the help of nationalisation. It was perfectly possible for previous Governments to go right ahead without nationalising the industry as a whole.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, to take the noble Lord's first point about the figure of 40 per cent., as I have said in my letter to him I gave the figure of 40 per cent. in the wrong context. It represents, in fact, the proportion of the orders taken by United Kingdom yards so far this year which are for United Kingdom registration; and it is a provisional figure. The figures which I gave in percentage terms would have been better given in terms of tons, in that United Kingdom owners ordered only 44,000 tons from British yards in 1975 whereas they appear to have ordered 96,000 tons so far this year—that is in the first two quarters of 1976. It was those figures which I gave in percentages for which I apologise to the noble Lord because they were misleading percentages.

THE ENERGY CONFERENCE
2.50 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to list the results of the Energy Conference convened by the Secretary of State for Energy on 22nd June.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, it is too soon to assess the full impact of the Energy Conference, which brought together for the first time in open discussion representatives of the very wide range of interests concerned. I believe that everyone left the Conference with a much better understanding of each other's points of view and of the complex factors that go into energy policy-making. My right honourable friend is now considering, in the light of the views expressed, how
576
the momentum of discussion generated by the Conference can be maintained in the future.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that rather general reply, may I ask him whether he would agree that included in the understandings which Conference participants carried away with them was the experience of the nationalised sector quarreling like Kilkenny cats? Would he further agree that the Conference masked, instead of brought out, the choice of weapons open to Government in guiding energy policy as between outright control, on the one hand, and the use of tax or subsidies, on the other?
Lord MELCHETT: No, my Lords; I do not think that I agree with the noble Earl. My impression of the Conference—which I did not attend, unlike, I believe, the noble Earl—from everything I have read and have been told about it, is that it was a considerable success and is thought to have been a considerable success by most of the people who attended it, and, thus, a very useful dialogue took place between the various interests. I do not think that a dialogue can be useful unless some disagreement is expressed.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am not attempting to say that it was not a tremendous success, particularly as a public relations exercise for the Secretary of State for Energy.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Secretary of State said during the Conference that the whole of the proceedings would be published, as he put it, in the form of a Hansard? Is the noble Lord aware that the quicker this information is available to everyone outside who is interested in energy policy the more valuable will be the results of the Conference? May I ask the noble Lord to convey to his right honourable friends the thought that since transport policy is so intimately bound up with energy policy, the same kind of exercise might well be conducted with advantage on the Orange Paper on Transport Policy?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to say that my

577
right honourable friend said that the transcript of the proceedings would be published. In addition to that transcript being published, there were 29 papers submitted by people attending the Conference and four submitted by the Department of Energy, and they will also be published. Those papers and the transcript will be published as soon as possible. As to holding similar conferences on other areas of public policy, I am sure that my right honourable friend responsible for transport policy will take note of the noble Lord's point.
Lord IRONSIDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to say whether all the papers will be published; that is, those that were delivered and those that were handed in and accepted but not actually delivered?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as I understand it, a number of principal participants were invited to submit papers and 29 such papers were submitted; it is those papers which are being published. I am not sure whether those include papers submitted on the day, but possibly I could write to the noble Lord and let him know.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, is there a certain policy of reticence adopted by the Government on publishing White Papers on international conferences? I ask this question only because I observed the same thing with regard to UNCTAD.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, this was not an international conference but a conference called to discuss the United Kingdom's energy policy. There is absolutely no reticence on the part of my right honourable friend in publishing transcripts of the proceedings, which will be published as soon as possible.

FISHERIES POLICY
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Strabolgi will repeat a Statement on fisheries policy.
LOTTERIES AND AMUSEMENTS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
EXPLOSIVES (AGE OF PURCHASE, &c.) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES &c. (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into committee.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Definitions of units of measurement]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert—
(" (6) Nothing in the 1963 Act, or in any other provision contained in or made under an enactment, prevents the use of " gram " as an alternative way of spelling " gramme ", and the same applies for other units in the metric system which are compounds of " gramme ".")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to legalise the already widely used spelling " gram " as well as the spelling " gramme ". This shortened spelling is now accepted by all the major English-speaking countries of the world, the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. The authority for the spelling of the names of SI units is the General Conference on Weights and Measures, and they recommend that the spellings employed in each country reproduce the sound of the name in the national language. Either " am " or " amme " comply with this recommendation, but there are obvious advantages in using the shorter forms.
These shorter forms have been recognised by international organisations such as the International Standards Organisation and the International Organisation for Legal Metrology, and in this country by such organisations as the British Standards Institution and the Royal Society. The Metrication Board have similarly brought themselves into line with

579
current international practice and now use the shorter spelling exclusively. At present the shorter spelling is recognised only as an abbreviation, and it is now time that we accorded equal legal status to both spellings in order to align with international practice. The spelling with the " mme " is still in use and cannot be replaced immediately. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: It is pleasant to start out with an Amendment about which we can all agree and, as one of the world's worst spellers, I only wish it were possible to have alternatives elsewhere in the Bill, possibly even legalising the transposition of the " e " and the " r " in metre.
Baroness PHILLIPS: Naturally, I would not disagree with the Amendment, but I am rather puzzled as to why the Metrication Board very clearly print " gramme " with no possible alternative explanation.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Is it intended also to harmonise the abbreviations? Harmonising abbreviations in this case may not be as easy as it seems, and it would be very convenient to have international abbreviations.
Lord ORAM: In reply to my noble friend Lady Phillips, I think that she has opportunities internally of taking up any questions with the Metrication Board but, as I indicated in my opening remarks, they recognise the form now proposed. As regards abbreviations, this is a somewhat new point and I shall look into it. I agree that if there can be harmonisation, both in spelling and in the abbreviations, it would seem to make sense, but I shall look into the point.
Lord SHINWELL: Can my noble friend explain what he meant in his response to my noble friend Lady Phillips when he said that she could raise any matter internally with the Metrication Board? Does it follow that when metrication is passed—if, unfortunately, it is passed—any question about the decisions of the Metrication Board will not be able to be raised in your Lordships' House or in another place?
Lord ORAM: No, I did not mean to imply that. I believe that it was indicated several times during the Second Reading
580
that my noble friend Lady Phillips is a member of one of the committees of the Metrication Board. I had that in mind when I said that she had possibilities of internal inquiries. There was nothing more sinister in it than that.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I feel that the onus is upon me to give some explanation. It is true that I have been—though I have not been able to attend the committee—a very humble, unpaid member of a small steering committee. I should like your Lordships to know that I was not a paid chairman or vice-chairman of the Metrication Board. I feel that this is rather important. I also felt very resentful of the way in which the Minister dealt with the points which I raised on Second Reading. He clearly had a very poor case, since it necessitated his quoting my membership of various organisations. I take up the point of my noble friend Lord Shinwell that, no matter what bodies I belong to, I hope I shall always have the opportunity of speaking out in your Lordships' House. Otherwise, it is pointless to be a Member of this House.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Will the noble Lord bear in mind that the abbreviations are in many ways very much more important from the point of view of commercial documents and also from the point of view of scientific documents than the mere spelling of the name, which may sound much the same? The two spellings are designed to make it sound about the same. I hope that the noble Lord will pay attention to this because I believe that it would be worth while.
Lord ORAM: I entirely agree and in looking into the matter I shall take into account what the noble Lord has just said. To my noble friend Lady Phillips I should like to say that I am sorry if she took any sort of offence over what I said at Second Reading. All I was seeking to do was to point out to her that there are many consumer organisations concerned with the Bill and that most of them are wholeheartedly in favour of it. I ventured to indicate those organisations of which she is a member, but we are all at times in the position of being members of organisations which take different points of view and it is up to us to make up our own mind, as my noble friend certainly did,

581
I did not in any way wish to query her right to say anything she wishes in your Lordships' House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause I shall stand part of the Bill?
3.4 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask a question about subsection (4)? I wonder why it is necessary to define the units which may not he used for trade. They are, after all, already defined in Schedule I to the Act, so to do so again in a new Part VA hardly seems necessary. Also, if one is to define them, what is the point of defining one unit which may not be used for trade in terms of another unit which may not he used for trade, rather than in terms of units that may be used for trade?
Lord ORAM: I speak subject to correction on this point and, if I am wrong, I shall seek a later opportunity of putting this right. I think that the purpose of subsection (4), similarly to the purpose of having two Schedules in place of one in the original Bill, is to provide a more flexible machinery as we move into metrication. It will be necessary to retain some units not lawful in trade but to have their definition still clear, for instance, for the interpretation of contracts and so on prior to the change to metrication. I think that this may be the connection but, as I said, if I am advised differently I shall let the House know.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [units of measurement etc. lawful for use for trade]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord ELTON: There are quite a number of points which I believe need clearing up at this stage. It might be in order for us to take them seriatim. The one which I feel bears most upon the anxieties of many in the retail trade and in the industry which provides them with the machinery with which to do their weighing and measuring is the question of when the powers given to the Minister will be rendered operative and when he will use them. It is a question of the
582
time available particularly for the conversion of weighing machinery. I said on Second Reading that this was a point which I intended to raise and I was interrogated by the noble Baroness, Lady White, on the question of whether there was such a volume of work to be accomplished in time for the country to go metric with its weighing machines for weighed-out foods in particular. I am disturbed to hear that there is correspondence and even a Press release indicating that the Department regards the weighing out of foods to be a low prority area. I am disturbed only in that this may imply that this is unimportant. I am reassured if it means that it will be done at length, because I am variously advised that it may take three or even four years for the trade to accomplish the conversion. Therefore, I believe that it would be right if the noble Lord could give us some indication of the time scale on which it is intended that metrication shall become compulsory and the use of metric units exclusive in the various areas of the retail trade.
Lord SLATER: Can my noble friend enlighten me as to how he intends to bring all this metrication to the attention of the general public? The general public is aware from the mass media that a change will take place in regard to weights and measures. The public is also aware that the Metrication Board has been set up under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and the deputy chairmanship of my noble friend Lady White. One begins to wonder whether we are not forcing ourselves into a position wherein the form of guidance is being given to us by the members of the EEC and we are all becoming foreigners and accepting the foreign edicts and commercialisation that operates in those countries, without first giving thought to the basic means of operation that has been with us in the country for centuries past. No one can vilify the operation of the Weights and Measures Acts which have been operating in this country as a whole—and I speak now as a Briton, not just as an individual who has opposed the EEC and what comes from it from the start. This is one of the things that seem rather strange and ridiculous to me. We are bringing something into line with what is operating on the Continent and the people in this country are not being given an opportunity

583
of saying what they understand and believe in regard to this measure which is being introduced.
Lord SHINWELL: I shall not follow my noble friend Lord Slater on a very important aspect of this problem; namely, the time-scale and the question of how long it is to take to implement the provisions of this legislation. I am much more concerned about the cost of it. I cannot recall that on Second Reading my noble friend Lord Oram, who is the Minister responsible for this matter in your Lordships' House, informed your Lordships about the cost of weighing machines, scales, conversion of this and that, and of one measurement replacing another measurement and the like; but obviously a vast amount of expenditure is bound to be entailed. The question which I venture to ask is: who is to be responsible? Is it to be the retailers, the manufacturers, or is this financial responsibility devolved upon the Government? If that is so, then we ought to know what it is to cost, particularly when there is now so much talk about curtailing public expenditure.
In this respect I note that statements are made from time to time by responsible members of Her Majesty's Government that a reduction in public expenditure may not take place in the coming year but in succeeding years. Therefore, this question of the cost of conversion from the traditional form of measurement to quite another form—which in my judgment appears to be imposed upon us because of our association with the EEC, and for no other legitimate reason—has to be answered.
At this stage I want to make my position perfectly clear. Any Amendment moved by the Opposition, and a decision by the Opposition to go into the Lobby in support of that Amendment, will gain my support on every occasion so long as I remain in your Lordships' House. I shall do this in every case on a matter of principle. I disfavour the whole project. I am a traditional supporter of the imperial pint, of the yard, the foot and the inch, and, quite frankly, I have not now time to learn about the litre, the kilo, the millimetre and all the rest. I prefer the old-fashioned concepts which have served the passage of time with
584
remarkable satisfaction to all concerned. I do not want this nonsense foisted upon the British public. We could do very well without it and so I wish to encourage the Opposition. This is not a question of politics. There is no reason why I should be expelled from the Labour Party for adopting this line. It is a matter of principle with which I am concerned. If the Opposition propose to go into the Lobby on any of the Amendments, I shall encourage them to do so and I shall be with them each time.
Lord ORAM: I should like to deal first with what was said by my noble friend Lord Shinwell. During Second Reading he indicated in a very brief intervention that he was displeased with the Bill and that he would take the action which he has detailed this afternoon. We all know of his strong, individualism, and I can assure him that if he were under threat of being expelled from the Labour Party as a result of his action here, I should be the first to jump to his defence, although I do not think that he would need any such defence. He makes two points. The first concerns the question of cost.
It is true that I did not include much on the question of cost in either of my two speeches, but my noble friend Lady White dealt with this aspect to a considerable extent, and she made the point, which although general is very valid, that it is not so much the cost of metrication that should trouble us but the enormously greater cost to this country if we do not metricate. Indeed, those sectors of industry, which with the advice of the Metrication Board have already metricated, have discovered that the warnings of the great cost that would be involved have not proved to be true. Although it is not easy to give precise answers to the question such as that which my noble friend raises about cost, I assure him that there is already sufficient evidence that the costs are much less than the fears about cost, and indeed in the modern world, in which practically everyone but us has metricated, the cost of not metricating would he enormously greater.
My noble friend Lord Shinwell also said that he has no time to learn the new system. I believe he has; I believe he will be with us for many years yet, and I think that he could spend some of that

585
time learning to live with the new system, and I feel that he would not find it as difficult as he might now imagine. I urge on him the point that there are youngsters involved. I have two young boys, aged eight and nine, who are now going through the process of learning arithmetic. I am concerned about them and their contemporaries, and about the enormous benefit that the metric system is to the educational system. Certainly I do not want my children—and I believe that farseeing parents do not want their children—to go through what is, frankly, the nonsense of learning two systems side-by-side, and the sooner we can get to the more rational system, the better.
Perhaps, in making these points, I have partly answered my noble friend Lord Slater, but there is one point of his which I also wish to answer. He suggested that what we are doing in the Bill is simply in order to conform with the EEC. I assure him that that is not so. Of course there are connections with our membership of the EEC; of course there is a link. But the strong recommendation which I quoted at Second Reading from the Hodgson Committee in 1950, was in terms of the merits of the metric system for the benefit of this country. That was before the issue of this country's membership of the EEC had been raised in the way it has subsequently been raised. There fore, this is not a European exercise; this is a British exercise, and I believe that it is good for Britain.
I now turn to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about the timetable. He will, I know, appreciate, first, that the Bill and this clause, as part of it, are principally a machinery-creating device. This does not in itself set a timetable, nor does it in itself do anything towards metrication. It provides the machinery whereby orders can be introduced so that metrication can be brought about. Therefore the timetable depends on the bringing in of the orders and with the discussions which will be necessary with a great variety of organisations before the orders are introduced. But the noble Lord is quite right to ask for some general indication of priorities. He quoted, quite rightly, my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place. What my honourable friend said was in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned; namely, that
586
the lowest priority will be given to weighed-out goods, and that in that sense they will be last in the list, or late in the list. What is meant is that things like prepacked goods will be dealt with first, and the weighed-out goods will come subsequently.
If I were to make a guess—and I should not like this to be taken as categorical— think a four-year period in terms of these goods would be the right kind of period to have in mind; but, having said that, I would stress that this does not mean that those concerned with the manufacture of machinery, and so on, will have to wait four years before they know how they are affected. It may be that the order concerning these things can pre-date the actual introduction of the regulations by some rather long period; and it certainly will be the case that planning and discussion will go on from the point of the passage of the Bill. I do not think the noble Lord would expect me to go into more detail—indeed, it would be impossible to do so—but I hope I have been helpful in giving a general indication of the proposals.
Lord ELTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having gone as far as he has. He was very tentative in accepting a target of approximately four years; I hope he may be able to speak with more certainty about it at a later stage. Of course I accept that the orders may predate the compulsive content of the orders in their publication. Indeed, I merely rise to say that the further ahead orders can be given, if orders must be given, the better, because, as the noble Lord knows all too well, large sections of the retail trade are not happy, and when they are not happy they are not anxious to act and therefore will not act until it is necessary to act. I hope the noble Lord will bear in mind, first of all, that the longer the time they can have in which to act, within reason, the better the hope of getting the measure satisfactorily completed, and, secondly, that the further ahead of that date the intended date can be published, again the more likely, it is to be smoothly completed. There is much reluctance to meet these regulations, and the pain will he reduced if it can be done in that way.
Lord SLATER: May I ask my noble friend a question before we accept this

587
Amendment? What consideration has been given to the present weights and measures inspectors in this country from the point of view of re-education? Some of these people have been engaged in this service for years and years, and they have certain conditions of employment laid down in regard to the positions they hold. What is happening for these people from the point of view of the re-education which will have to take place in some way or other for them to be able to understand the situation? They may even be too old to be able to understand or to pass forms of examinations, if they are subject to such. Is my noble friend satisfied that the present weights and measures inspectors in this country, who will have to implement this measure, will be efficient in their attitude of mind and understanding as to what is involved when the time comes for this legislation to be brought into operation?
Lord CLITHEROE: Before the noble Lord replies, may I go back to the question which was asked about cost? I quite appreciate the argument that there is, or may be, a general advantage in cost to this country of going metric, but what I want to know is who is going to pay the cost of replacing all the weighing machines and scales, and the millions of thermometers and barometers, that noble Lords and people throughout the country at present have. Who is going to pay for that?
Lord DRUMALBYN: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Oram, would like to answer that question first. I was going to go on to a rather different question.
Lord ORAM: Very well. First, I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that note will be taken of his points. They are important; but I assure him that we are, of course, already in touch with the trade, with weighing machine organisations, and that consultation will of course be continued. do give him that assurance.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Slater, it slipped my mind but I intended, when replying to his earlier intervention, to assure him that an enormous amount of consultation has taken place on this Bill already. Before bringing in any specific
588
orders under the legislation we are required to consult, particularly, consumers' organisations and all other interests concerned. Needless to say, this would include weights and measures officials. We all have a great admiration for the expertise of the weights and measures officials throughout the country, and I think the fears that my noble friend has expressed about their difficulty in carrying out their duties under the new legislation are not well founded.
In reply to the noble Lord opposite as to who bears the cost. this is taken on board by traders and by industry. But, as I said in reply to my noble friend Lord Shinwell, those who have already embarked upon their particular sector of metrication have found that the costs are not as large as they had feared; and, indeed, many of them have reported economies which overweigh the costs that they have had to bear.
Lord CLITHEROE: What economy can there be in buying a dozen new thermometers for a house? What is the economy in that?
Lord ORAM: I am talking of the costs to the trade and industry overall. Of course there will be some equipment which will become completely redundant and which will have to be replaced. I am not saying that every particular transaction has an economy, or has no real cost. What I am saying is that as the method of metrication is taken on hoard economies of method emerge, and it is these other savings which counter the costs, which are very real.
Lord THOMAS: Would the Minister not agree that we are already beyond the point of no return in so far as metrication is concerned? Every thermometer in my house is graduated in both Centrigrade and Fahrenheit. Let us get out of this twilight of indecision between metrication and the old-fashioned pounds, shillings and pence, and all that sort of old-fashioned stuff. I think that, as a nation, we must realise that metrication will come in. Let us get on with it and stop arguing about it, and get some action on the thing, so that we can do some business worldwide without backward thinking. I am all in favour of getting on with metrication and of giving it

589
the kind of attention we had to give it during the war, for instance, when a lot of munitions that we made had to be made to metric measurements converted from the old-fashioned inches and whatnot. We got into the habit of thinking in decimal points. Although I know that lead screws on lathes, and so on, must be altered owing to metrication, let us go to it with a good heart and realise that the longer we argue about it the worse it will be.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I add to what my noble friend Lord Thomas has said in this way? We have already made so much progress in metrication that it would be folly to go back, because it has been at the level of industry, in the main. This has all been in preparation for ultimately going forward to the point where this system will start affecting the consumer. It has already started to affect the consumer in certain respects—the metric clock, and that sort of thing—and, of course, if the consumer wants to go on using his Fahrenheit thermometer there is nothing in the world to stop him doing so. This is not in the course of trade. What he will not be able to do is to buy another one when it wears out. That is all there is to it.
I should like to come on to the small print of this clause. Let us take Section 9B, the new section that is to be inserted into the Act. I should like to ask what the Government have in mind about placing an obligation to give information about the metric equivalent of imperial units. The section is clearly drafted to start with in saying that it will be necessary to give the imperial equivalent of the metric unit. This is what will happen. In the turnover to the metric marking of packaging, the imperial equivalent will be given. Then it goes on to say that the equivalent can be done for the metric equivalent in imperial units. I wonder what the noble Lord has in mind on that; and in the same way when it comes to the question of giving information " on premises ". I can see that people will want to know what is the imperial equivalent of the new metric units. They understand the imperial equivalent and will want to see what the new metric measures and weights mean in terms of what they know already. I do not understand why it is necessary to do it in the opposite
590
direction; and I wonder why the Government are proposing to take powers for this.
There is another small point that I should like to be certain about. The orders that are to be made
" may prescribe the persons to whom, and the cases and circumstances in which, the regulations apply….
I take it—and I hope that I am right—that " persons " here includes classes of persons; because in some cases it will be classes of manufacturers, in some cases some types of distributors and in other cases other types of distributors. I hope that " persons " will include the words " classes of persons ".
There is another important provision in the new subsection (2A) to be inserted in Section 54 of the 1963 Act. It reads:
" In the case of an order under section 9A(3) of this Act which relates to imperial units, measures or weights the Secretary of State in acting under subsection (2) of this section shall have particular regard to the need to consult, and to consider representations from, organisations representative of the interests of consumers ".
This, I take it, relates to the change-over from imperial to metric units. It is on this that particular regard to the need of consumers has to be paid. Perhaps it is worth reminding your Lordships that what this clause of the Bill is doing is to amend Section 54 by adding a new subsection (2A) to that. In particular, Section 54 gives a list of sections of the Act where the Board are under an obligation to consult with and consider any representations with respect to the subject matter of an order made to the Board by such organisations as appear to the Board to he representative of interests substantially affected by the order. The subsection which it is now proposed to add goes on to say that the Board shall have particular regard to the need to consult consumers' organisations in this particular case—namely, changing over to metric measurements. I should like to ask the noble Lord how he is going to select the organisations representative of consumers' interests. This is the sort of thing that does not seem to give any trouble at the time of the passing of the Act, but it can give quite a lot of trouble later.
I would point out again that the Secretary of State is given discretion as to which organisations representative of interests substantially affected he should

591
consult in the other cases mentioned in Section 54, but in this particular case the Secretary of State seems to be obliged to consult with organisations representative of the interests of consumers. We all know the difficulty that can be raised by whether that means all organisations representative of consumers, and, if not, which? I should like to ask the noble Lord to give consideration to that point. Those are the only points I should like to raise. I am sorry to give him rather a lot, but that is because of the drafting of the subsection.
Lord SHINWELL: On this question of consulting the consumers, I can make my submission to my noble friend the Minister quite specific, because he has had a long and valued association with the Co-operative movement. Perhaps he would be good enough to say whether the Co-operative Wholesale Society and the various co-operative societies in the country have been consulted, and, more particularly because the Co-operative movement is a democratic movement, whether they have been consulted in a democratic fashion. In other words, has every member-consumer of the Co-operative movement, with which my noble friend was so long associated, been consulted on this subject of metrication? It is important that we should all know.
Lord REDESDALE: May I raise one point of clarification? This covers the cubic foot and comes within the Directive. I appreciate what the noble Lord has said about the non-relation of this Directive to this particular piece of legislation, but there is one area which worries me a little. The Directive says that the cubic foot should be dropped by 1979. This covers the gas industry. I appreciate that gas is covered by the Gas Act 1972, but I feel that the gas industry requires some notification of the Government's intention because every gas meter measures in cubic feet and that is converted by thermal value into therms. Therms also are proscribed, if that is the word. I should be grateful to know the Secretary of State's intentions in the future about giving indications in the gas industry (and to the other heating industries) as to what they ought to be doing about changing from cubic feet to, presumably, cubic metres.
Lord SLATER: The reason for my further intervention is the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I sincerely hope that, while he may already have these gadgets in his own home and welcomes metrication, he will have respect for the opinions of other people; because it is a matter of opinion. He may have been a professional in his own sphere of activity during the course of his lifetime, but some of us have been professionals in other spheres of activity not connected, probably, with the engineering sector of industry in this country. We have been connected with other organisations and other parent bodies who have had to carry out the edicts laid down by past Governments during the course of our careers in the representation of the general public in this country. Therefore, while he may make such statements as: "Let us get on with it!", "Let everything else be put on one side!", "It has been introduced. Let us get on with the job!", I very much hope that he will have respect for other people's opinion in the course of his deliberations.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

FISHERIES POLICY
3.40 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should now like to repeat a Statement on fisheries policy which is at present being made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Statement is as follows:
"I should like to deal first with the short-term consequences of the agreement with Iceland for fishermen and shore-based workers whose jobs are likely to be affected. We intend, as a Government, to do all we can to avoid hardship to those concerned. We shall give all possible help under the existing schemes for the re-training and re-settlement of redundant workers.
"We will discuss with the unions and employers the feasibility of an

593
arrangement for compensation for those fishermen directly affected by the settlement who, because they do not have regular contracts of employment, are denied the benefits they might otherwise have received under the Redundancy Payments Acts.
"We know that our fishing opportunities will undergo radical change. In the Government's view a satisfactory revision of the EEC's Common Fisheries Policy is of major importance and priority.
"Other countries outside the European Community are preparing to extend their fisheries limits to 200 miles. We are therefore pressing for an early declaration that the Member States of the Community intend to do the same. We have also made very clear to the Community the United Kingdom's requirements for a reserved coastal band of not less than 12 miles, and extending in parts to 50 miles. We are pressing also for early progress in the Community's negotiations with third countries about access to their waters for British and other Community fishermen, and about the limitation of fishing by third countries in the waters of Member States.
"Outside the coastal bands we expect there to be a system of properly enforced quotas to ensure fair shares of the available fish resources and effective conservation of fish stocks.
"As these negotiations progress, we shall be able to establish more precise objectives for our fishing industry. But already it is clear that changes will be called for in the structure of the fishing fleet, including provision of more stable conditions of employment. Changes will be called for also in handling and distribution, and in the processing industries.
" The fish resources available to us will include species different from those now familiar to the consumer. Work on methods of processing and using these new species will be intensified. In carrying forward our plans, we shall of course seek to derive maximum benefit from any EEC schemes.
" Accordingly the Fisheries Ministers and other Ministers concerned are embarking on a programme of consultation with the industries and other
594
interests affected. As a first step in this consultation my colleagues and I are meeting more than thirty representative organisations later this afternoon.
"The international regime for fisheries is changing, and other factors are making adjustments inevitable. We can begin to see the direction in which a new strategy can he developed. The Government are determined to ensure that our fisheries resources and the industries exploiting them make a major contribution to the British economy."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.45 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we arc very grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement which has been made in another place. For so long as our fishermen have been able to fish up to 12 miles off the shores of other countries such as Norway, the Faeroes and Iceland (as a large proportion of our fishermen have) the United Kingdom have not sought to extend our fishing limits beyond 12 miles. Now, as the noble Lord said, it is very likely that international action within the next year will cause a complete change with the coming into effect of 200 mile economic zones. The whole situation will be different; fishing countries will then have to catch much more fish in their own home waters and will have fewer fishermen, if any, fishing off the distant shores of other countries.
In preparation for that dramatic change in fishing patterns, and to promote effective conservation measures, we believe that it is essential that a new agreement be reached with the EEC. From the debates that have taken place in your Lordships' House in recent weeks, the Government will know that we have been urging from this Bench that the Government should enter into urgent, serious and powerful negotiations with this in view.
I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the Government recognise that 12 miles will certainly not be enough for the United Kingdom reserved band, and that 50 miles will need to be the minimum in important areas, especially off our Northern coasts. The noble Lord indicated that the band would he from between 12 and 50 miles and of

595
course this is one of the most important matters of negotiation within the EEC. We wish to encourage the Government to get as wide a band as possible in these negotiations. One reason for this is, as the Statement indicated, that there are new species in British home waters, such as the blue whiting and ling, with which consumers will no doubt become familiar in the future, and these will require new methods of fishing.
Is the noble Lord aware that we expected and welcome the special measures which are announced at the beginning of the Statement to help the ports which have been affected by the settlement with Iceland? Does the noble Lord agree that there is likely to be a period of great change, not only for Britain but also for other fishing countries, but that a large and prosperous British fishing industry can continue provided that successful results are achieved in these EEC negotiations?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord who, with his great experience of the industry and the problems involved in this changing world, has given a general welcome to this Statement, and for his appreciation of the fact that the Government are trying to negotiate the very best deal possible for the industry. Regarding the limits—and here I am speaking only of the EEC context—it is the intention of the Government to negotiate limits with our EEC partners of from between 12 to 50 miles. On the matter of the future of the industry, my right honourable friend is consulting both sides of industry and will be meeting with a great many of the different sections of the industry within the near future. We hope that the outcome of these negotiations will be fruitful.
The noble Lord also rightly said that it is important that we should continue with research for new species, of which the most important is the blue whiting. I think there should be considerable scope for good use of this abundant, though seasonal, fishery for both human consumption and for fish meal. This will certainly be one of the items on the agenda which the Government will be discussing.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does my friend appreciate that this is a smack in the
596
face for the British trawler industry, and with tragic results? Can he say, first, what is the amount of compensation that will be required to be paid to the displaced trawlermen? Can he further say whether the Government realise that the price of fish in the future to the domestic consumer and industrial consumers is bound to reach very high levels? The noble Lord referred to blue whiting. Blue whiting will replace cod and it is a different kind of "material". Perhaps noble Lords will be surprised that I should be talking about this matter. It so happens that I have had some experience of the trawlering industry. I organised the industry for several years in Grimsby, Hull, Fleetwood and elsewhere, and I got to know about them through that. That is the only qualification I have in the matter, but I am concerned about the effect on these men. I do not believe that the replacement of cod by blue whiting or any other kind of fish will satisfy the fish and chip industry in this country, which is a very profitable one, and very necessary in present conditions.
Can my noble friend say what has been the average tonnage of fish landed in previous years and what is likely to be the average tonnage caught by trawling 200 miles off Iceland in the future, or in some other ocean? Have the Government gone into this matter? Also, since we are discussing metrication today, perhaps my noble friend would use metrication terms when he speaks of the number of tonnes which are likely to be caught.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend perhaps I might say that of course the Government are concerned about the effect of redundancy. He is not the only one to be exercised about these matters. The Government arc concerned, as indeed I am, too. My father was Member for Central Hull for many years between the wars, and I am well aware of the wonderful work done by the fishermen of Humberside. We shall be consulting both sides of the industry as soon as possible to discuss the extent of redundancy among fishermen and the feasibility of a scheme. There will be a few hundred fishermen who may be affected but, as I have said, the Government are making plans to deal with the consequences of redundancies in the trawling ports. The nature, scale

597
and effect will be governed by the nature and timing of the operational decisions to be taken by both individual owners and the shore-based establishments in conjunction with the Government.
The noble Lord asked me how the shortfall of fish might be made good. The shortfall, of course, may not amount to more than a small percentage of our total supplies of fish, although I admit readily that most of this will be cod. In the short term part of it will be made up by imports, but a great deal will depend upon market conditions. In the longer term, species which are at present under-utilised and unfamiliar fish to consumers could become a more important part of our supply. We must continue to work for progress aimed at making the most effective use of these resources.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to clarify one point in his very interesting Statement? He talked of "all fishery resources". I am hoping that term includes fish farming as well as deep sea fishing, because the subject needs to be taken as a whole and should not be separated into compartments. I should like to have a reassurance that the fish farming and off-coast fishing will be considered in the same picture as the deep sea.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, of course it is being considered in a general way, and I can say that a great deal of research and development work is in progress. Marine fish farming has a great potential and a great future, and the contribution it can make to our fish supplies is still in debate. However, we are, as the noble Baroness knows, discussing this with all the bodies concerned. As I told the House the other day, the Government are putting £1 million into the industry every year for development.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, in talking about redundancies, what size of figures are we talking about? Is it not the case that many of the ports are not even in development areas, although one or two of them are? As we have never produced any special development areas other than in connection with the coal industry, will it be in the mind of the Government to designate, for example,
598
Fleetwood, Grimsby and similar areas as development areas? Or will the extent of the unemployment which is envisaged mean that they will have to be scheduled as special development areas, as was done when a great number of collieries were being closed down?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, this is certainly something that would be considered. I think about 600 fishermen may be affected in Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood. The Training Services Agency run schemes for retraining and resettlement, and this is only one of the schemes which the Government will be considering when they consult with the industry. We have the matter of redundancy very much in mind, of course.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, when it comes to the introduction of these exotic species of fish to our dinner tables. may I ask my noble friend whether it might be a useful thing to consult my noble friend Lady Summerskill, who did so much during the war by the introduction of snoek to sustain us during those years?
Secondly, as a number of trawlers are to become surplus to requirement, with the diminution of the fishing industry in the North Sea and the expansion of the oil extraction industry, would it not be possible to organise those trawlers for the servicing of the oil rigs in the North Sea and for carrying the food, fuel, machinery, cement and other materials which are required? In considering that point, will my noble friend bear in mind that these particular trawlers are well accustomed to braving the rigours of the North Sea?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that is a very interesting and useful suggestion from my noble friend Lord Leatherland, whose constructive attitude we always appreciate. He asked whether the Government would consider using the laid-up trawlers for protecting the oil rigs. I suppose there is the possibility that they could be used for protecting the fishing fleet. Some thought has been given to this point, but we have to bear in mind the expense of converting the ships to a new task and maintaining them after wards, as well as their relatively slow speed. They would not be as cost-effective

599
for protective purposes as new craft, many of which are at present in commission.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord, when he says quite rightly that there will be consultation with all the interests concerned, whether the smaller fishing ports will receive as much consideration as the larger ones? From my experience of having represented an area containing a fishing port, perhaps I might say that Hull, naturally, has had a great part to play in all the final decisions. I should like to know, when the reductions are made, whether they will be fairly spaced out. For instance, North Shields is a very small fishing port as compared with Hull. Presumably we shall have only one representative taking part in the consultations—though of course I hope we might have more—but it would not be fair if, for instance, Hull were to have a larger number of trawlers maintained whereas North Shields could have only a proportion retained.
I am not criticising, because this is a very difficult matter and I am sure the Government will do their best to be fair to everybody; but it helps smaller fishing ports if they know how their special interests, particularly over compensation, are to be dealt with and also know whether a smaller fishing port will have as much right to consideration as a larger one.
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords; we shall certainly bear this in mind. People are people, whether they work in large or small ports.
Lord COLERAINE: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the Statement referred to the necessity for the improvement of the distribution and processing of fish. Can the noble Lord say exactly what was meant by that? I take it that he does not mean nationalisation of the distribution of fish.
Lord STRABOLGI: No, my Lords; I can confirm that there are no plans for nationalising the industry.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES &c. (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
4 p.m.
House again in Committee.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Debate resumed.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: May I have a little go? May I raise the point that I wanted to mention before we started to discuss the Statement? There have been many points of view put forward about going metric, and I want to know whether it is possible for the Government to tell us what representations have been made in favour of them. After all, everybody has put forward very important points of view on this matter, but the Minister has never said how many representations he has had from the various people who are worried about going metric. It would help if the Government sometimes told us about the problems that have been raised, and whether any of the Government's suggestions are acceptable to those people who put the problems forward. I always like to have both sides presented.
Of course, I know very well that Governments—whether Labour Governments or Conservative Governments always put forward their own point of view. That is natural. But these points have been put forward by very knowledgeable and interested people, and I do not have the slightest idea how many there are and whether the Government have done anything about meeting their points. We hear only the Government's side, and I should like to know about the people who have made representations, and how much substance there is in their points of view. I should like a general expression of views, not just answering everybody by saying, We cannot do anything about that", or, "That is not decided." I should like to know how many representations have been made by people interested in the problems caused by entering the metric system, compared with our old system.
Lord LEATHERLAND: Are we not making rather heavy weather of this? Can we not recognise the inevitability of the approach of metrication, and steel ourselves and prepare ourselves to be ready for it? We seem to have forgotten the fact that millions of our people travel to the Continent every year, read the

601
distances in metric notations by the roadside, buy their half-kilogrammes of strawberries and their half-litres of wine, and have accustomed themselves to the use of this new form of measurement.
My noble friend Lord Slater expressed some doubts as to whether the inspectors of weights and measures would be capable of accustoming themselves to this new procedure. In the course of a long local government life, I have known many weights and measures inspectors. I have formed the very highest opinion of their intelligence and capability, and I am quite sure that it will not take the average weights and measures inspector very long to accustom himself to the new state of affairs. Of course he may feel sad, as I feel sad, that the rod, pole and perch will disappear, but we are very well acquainted with so many of the other forms of measurement. Some of us who were at school 70 years ago learned about metrication in those days, and the children who are in schools these days are almost having their lessons monopolised by metrication.
My noble friend Lord Shinwell—a youngster, like I am—expressed some doubts as to whether he would have time to learn all about the metric system. My noble friend and I are deeply interested in the matter of defence. We have, I think, taken the same view about the desirability of standardising the weapons, not necessarily of all countries in the world, but of those countries which are associated in NATO. My mind goes back to 1915 down on the Somme, when we had the 0.303 inch rifle while our French comrades had something different, and in moments of emergency we could not interchange our weapons. Everybody who is interested in defence is interested in the standardisation of weapons. A week or two ago, it was announced that Britain had discovered the ultimate in the perfection of rifles. This new rifle of ours is one that we are expecting to be able to supply to many countries in the world. Its bore is calculated not as 0.303 inch, but as 4.7 millimetres, and quite rightly if we are expecting to sell it to the rest of the world. As I said originally, we are raising too many bogys about this whole affair. It has got to come. Let us get on with it and prepare ourselves as best we can.
Lord SHINWELL: Seldom have I heard so many fallacies in one speech delivered from these Benches as in that of my noble friend Lord Leatherland. He produced the old-fashioned, hoary-headed argument that this is inevitable. Of course nothing is inevitable, not even my noble friend.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: Death is!
Lord SHINWELL: All kinds of prognostications have been made from time to time, during my long and extensive experience, of what would happen in the future. It never happened. All that we can prognosticate about is that there will always be another trouble and it is wise to take the pessimistic, negative view. Indeed, by supporting this measure we are taking the negative view. As an example of the kind of fallacies that are produced in the course of a speech, my noble friend Lord Leatherland said that people go abroad and learn about metrication. But what about the vast number of people who are coming to this country, and have been doing so for years? They have learned to know what an imperial pint is and what yards and feet are, and how far it is to Lord's—the cricket ground, not this Assembly; they would not want to come to this Assembly. We have learned a great deal from abroad, and they have learned a great deal from us and go on doing so. Why impose this piece of metrication rubbish on a general public who have never asked for it, and have never been properly consulted?
I ask my noble friend Lord Oram, who has a long association with the Cooperative movement, whether his members, who formerly assisted in electing him to the House of Commons—and rightly so—have been consulted about metrication? Of course not.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: Yes.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I wonder whether my noble friend will allow me to interrupt. I was in the Co-operative stores the other day buying sugar, and I bought it in a packet marked, 1 kilogramme ".
Lord SHINWELL: Does that mean that every member of the Co-operative Society was consulted? Of course not.

603
You go into a Co-operative store and you take what you can get, but sometimes you cannot get what you want. I also have long experience of the Co-operative movement. I happen to have once worked for the Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society, and I came to the conclusion that it was an antidote to believing in the Co-operative movement. This inevitability stuff will not do—not in a responsible and intelligent Assembly. We are not bound to accept anything as inevitable. and we are not going to do so. We will go on opposing it as long as we can. Whether or not our views are accepted in your Lordships' House, either by the Opposition or by Her Majesty's Government, you can depend upon it that, just as in the case of decimalisation, in future there will he a great deal of trouble.
Let me take the example of decimalisation. The public were never consulted about decimalisation; it was imposed upon them. And has there been no trouble about it? One feature of decimalisation that could not be avoided was rising prices. I am not going to accuse the retailers unnecessarily, but some of them have been inclined to take advantage of decimalisation in order to raise prices somewhat sharply. We have been taken in by decimalisation, just as we are going to be taken in by metrication.
How did metrication come about? Was there any great demand at the General Election for metrication? By the way, may I ask my noble friend Lord Leather-land, who goes on about the Labour Party, whether metrication was contained in any of the Manifestoes issued before General Elections? I do not remember that anything was said about metrication at the last General Election—not a single word. I took part in the General Election and was never asked by my local Party to talk about metrication. They wanted to know what I thought about our position and I told them. Some of them wanted to know what I thought about the Government, but I did not say much about that, of course.
Let us have no more of this kind of stuff. The Government will try to shove through metrication. Have they not enough on their plate without that? Of course they have. I would advise
604
the Government to throw metrication on the dust heap, which is where it ought to be. Metrication is not inevitable, and so long as I get an opportunity to do so I shall oppose it and make things difficult for the Government who are trying to foist it on the British public.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: It is with great temerity that, sitting immediately in front of my noble friend Lord Shinwell, I rise to make the comment that I hope all our friends in the EEC will appreciate that this afternoon the Committee is in a lighthearted mood. I have always thought that this is a most progressive place. If one did not realise that it is a progressive place and that we are being lighthearted this afternoon, I think we should be thought to he in a most retrograde position, because the way this question has gone backwards and forwards has been, I almost say, a complete waste of time. I am quite sure that none of us wishes to join the one or two countries in the world who are opposed to the metric system. We know that it has to come. From the viewpoint of one of the many consumers who has not been consulted individually, I should have thought that our great job is to try to bridge the gap or space between the present nomenclature and that of the metric system so that people have the chance to use both systems for a short while. One of the great drawbacks in industry is that so long has been spent upon moving forward with metrication.
While I do not wish to turn to decimalisation and what my noble friend Lord Shinwell has just said, I share the view, taken by many consumers at the time, that the great fault about decimalisation was that the pound, not the ten shilling piece, was taken as the unit. We should have had much less inflation had that been the case.
If I may leave that topic and return to what was said by my noble friend Lord Shinwell, nobody can tell me that my noble friend cannot learn anything new in a short space of time—never mind as much time as he has left. Furthermore, on the matter of Defence, about which I should have thought that my noble friend Lord Shinwell knows more than anybody in this House, I have understood over the past year or so that one of the great drawbacks to the Western Alliance has been the lack

605
of standardisation in our Defence equipment. I should have thought that that must have led to a similar lack of standardisation in measurements.
If my noble friend Lord Shinwell does not mind, in the name of this Committee may I ask that we get on with metrication. We know metrication is coming, so let us bring it about in the best way possible and as soon as possible.
4.16 p.m.
Lord ORAM: The debate on this clause has ranged even more widely and vigorously than the debate at Second Reading. As a comparative newcomer here, I merely express my surprise at the difference in procedure compared with the place with which I am more familiar. However, I did have an earlier opportunity to reply in fairly general terms when I indicated why the Government believe that perhaps this is not inevitable—if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Shinwell—but that it is highly probable.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, my noble friend Lord Leatherland and my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry, for their vigorous defence of the proposals in this Bill. Since my noble friend Lord Leatherland repeated, in reply to my noble friend Lord Slater, the point I made about our confidence that weights and measures inspectors are fully capable of taking on this task, I would remind my noble friend Lord Slater that weights and measures inspectors have been familiar with the metric system since 1897, for it was in that year that the metric system was made lawful in this country. All that this Bill is proposing to do is to bring about, by an ordered timetable, the end of a situation in which we have two systems side by side. The Bill does not render legal the metric system; that was done long ago.
I should also have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for his general support, which was welcome. The noble Lord then went on to ask more detailed questions upon which I now wish to comment. The noble Lord raised the question of information being displayed, giving conversion tables. If I understood the noble Lord aright, he was wondering why conversion had to take place in both directions. The noble Lord will recall that this proposition was brought into the
606
Bill in response to those who were particularly anxious about the welfare of the consumer: the need to give the fullest possible information. I do not think that we have gone too far in this respect. We are using, if you like, both belt and braces, but there are circumstances in which that degree of caution is wise. The noble Lord said that people would start from the system with which they are familiar and would want to convert to the system which is less familiar. However, one can conceive of other circumstances. They are confronted with a shop, for instance, which is entirely metricated; they are unfamiliar with it that way round and would find it helpful to have conversion tables in both directions.
The noble Lord went on to ask about the use of the word "persons". My understanding is the noble Lord's understanding: that this would include "classes of persons". I will examine that point more fully, and if it is necessary to do anything to make it clear I will see what can be done. The noble Lord then raised the question of consultation with consumers and the difficulty, of which we are all aware, of defining who are representatives of consumers—such a broad based sector of society. It is true that if we were to go back 10 or 15 years this would be an extremely difficult problem, but I would suggest that over the last decade or so there has been a considerable change. There has grown up what may perhaps be called a consumer movement and consumer consciousness.
There are now effective organisations which look at public affairs through the eyes of the housewife and the consumer. They are effectively organised and are able to represent the interests of the consumer, however general those interests may be. Indeed, as the noble Lord will be aware, we have the National Consumer Council, which was set up specifically for the purpose of representing the point of view of the consumer. That is an official body. There are other official bodies, like the various consultative committees concerned with nationalised industries. Then there are many voluntary bodies which have developed a surprising and welcome degree of professionalism. One hesitates to mention any one because others might feel that they ought also to have been mentioned, but I think one can rightly refer to the Consumers' Association, the

607
publishers of Which?, who have a considerable expertise which has been developed over a number of years, and there are consumer groups in localities which are organised in the National Federation. Then a whole range of women's organisations are similarly aware of themselves as the effective representatives of consumers.
So it is this whole range of organisations which it is possible to call into consultation under the various references in the Bill which require the Minister to consult with consumers. It was on this that my noble friend Lord Shinwell asked me, as a Co-operator of some years' standing, whether I was satisfied that my movement had been consulted in this matter. I can assure him that they have been consulted. They were consulted as long ago as 1950 in connection with the Hodson Report on these matters. Indeed, our Co-operative Movement are fully consulted, not only on these consumer matters but on a great range of matters within the field of trade and industry through, particularly, their well staffed Parliamentary Committee, and therefore I can assure my noble friend that as a Co-operator I have no anxieties such as he expressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, then raised the question of the gas industry, in connection with cubic feet being one of the units which, under the EEC regulations will be phased out in 1979. I can assure him that the gas industry has been consulted at all stages on the timetable—I see the noble Lord is shaking his head, but my information is that they have been consulted.
Lord REDESDALE: As I understand it, the gas industry is not going to take any further action until the Secretary of State gives it some further directive. Therefore at the moment it is just waiting to hear.
Lord ORAM: Perhaps our information is somewhat at variance; but I can assure the noble Lord that there is no desire to leave the gas industry in ignorance, and I will ensure that if there is any gap in consultation that gap is filled. It will be the responsibility of the Department of Energy to bring forward any legislation in this connection, and I take the
608
general point about the need for information as and when it can be given.
In conclusion, I think I need only refer to the very valid point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of Tyneside, about the need for Governments of all kinds to let it be known what representations they have received and what responses they have been able to make. I assure her that there is a perfectly clean bill of health in respect of this Bill. She may recall that this is Weights and Measures (No. 2) Bill [H.L.], and that there was a Weights and Measures Bill going through the House of Commons. When that Bill was printed, because representations were made at that stage, before it was even read a second time in the other place, indications were made that certain sectors of the public, particularly those claiming to speak on behalf of consumers, were dissatisfied with the Bill.
The Bill we are dealing with today is largely that Bill, the Second Reading of which was postponed; but there are important additions to it, directly as a result of representations which were made. The very thing that we have been discussing in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, about the putting up of conversion tables, was one thing, responding to the representations made on behalf of consumers. The requirement that consumer organisations should be consulted was another. The requirements for dual marking during the transitional period from one system to the other was a third. So, apart from any Amendments which may be accepted, there are already embodied within this Bill the results of representations to which he referred.
Lord ELTON: There are one or two points which I should still like to revert to at the Committee stage. In passing, I should like to ask the noble Lord exactly how he proposes to introduce the provisions in the new Section 9B. I presume there will be a standard range of conversion, because of late there has been a good deal of anomaly in this field, with packages of the same weight imperial being labelled with different weights in metric, and vice versa. I presume it will be the noble Lord's prime object to remove that anomaly. On the other hand, the noble Lord might turn his attention to the subject of breakfast foods. I have

609
recently learned that there is one breakfast food on the market which advertises itself as being in a metric pack: it is metric to the extent that it contains ten oz., which of course is very far from being a metric amount. The word may be abused in some cases.
More technically, and possibly more important than this, is the question of the regulations for the delivery of coal as they at present stand. I apologise for not giving the noble Lord notice of this, but I had none myself until very recently. I should like the noble Lord to confirm that there is power within the Act of 1963 as it stands, or as it will he amended, for alterations to the requirements in Schedule 6, because they concern—and I think he is probably aware of it—the fuel industry. There is at present a requirement for the labelling or " tallying ", as they call it, of individual bags when coal is delivered on a lorry. The tags are not normally seen by the consumer. It would be much easier for the merchant, and much more useful for the consumer, if a notice could be prominently displayed on the vehicle saying what was in each bag, rather than there being a label on each bag. It is paragraph 3(1)(b), as I recall it, of Schedule 6 which requires this to he done. It may be that a Statutory Instrument will suffice; but if, at slightly greater length of notice, I find that a Statutory Instrument will not suffice, then I think perhaps after conversations with the noble Lord it may be in order to table an Amendment for the Report stage. I thought I should not let that point go without a warning to the noble Lord, although he may in fact have an answer to it.
Lord CLITHEROE: Can the noble Lord tell me whether milk farmers and retailers have been consulted, and, if so, what is their view?
Lord ORAM: I can give the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, the assurance that on the question of milk considerable discussions took place and there was no opposition to the proposals from those quarters. The pint—if that is what is in the noble Lord's mind, on milk rather than other forms—will be able to continue in this country.
Lord CLITHEROE Lord CLITHEROE: I thank the noble Lord.
Lord ORAM: Two points were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Yes, we shall need to give careful consideration to the conversion tables, and to ensure that there will be a standard of conversion. I can assure the noble Lord that that will be looked at carefully.
The second point concerns fuel and the marking on lorries of the weight of the sacks on the lorries. As the noble Lord anticipated, we are aware of this; we have had consultations, and we intend to legislate. I thank the noble Lord for giving me notice about it. As to whether it will be necessary to do it by introducing an Amendment at a later stage or, as I am a little inclined to think, there is already power to do it under Statutory Instrument, perhaps the noble Lord will give me a little time to ponder that. But the point has been well taken, and we propose taking the necessary action.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but before he leaves that point I would ask him a simple question. When he so pleasantly says that the pint will remain, is it going to remain for all time? Secondly, if it is not going to remain for all time, will it not mean—and may I say that my noble friend's own Co-operative movement delivers two-thirds of the milk in this country—that the dairymen of England will have considerable expense in altering the size of the bottles? I hope that when my noble friend says that the pint will remain the same it will remain the same permanently.
Lord ORAM: I hesitate to say what will remain for all time, but I can assure my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek that the pint will remain for a very long time, certainly long enough to satisfy my noble friend, to satisfy me, and, I think, my children.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: If I may further press my noble friend on that, I am thinking of the expense, of the millions of pounds involved in changing machinery and the bottling. The Cooperative movement does a magnificent job on this. This is an appropriate time to pay a tribute to the milkmen who do a wonderful job, the best in the world.
Lord ORAM: Yes, but in this case the cost of conversion would be considerable. This is one of the factors taken into account in our discussions.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Containers for goods]:
4.32 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, line 18, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. The point of the Amendment is to get a further explanation of what is intended by this Amendment. I am, of course, aware that difficulties have arisen in the past. Indeed, there have been legal proceedings on the question of what is meant by "prepacked" on a container. But on a container of a description so specified, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Oram, would indicate exactly what the Government have in mind about this particular provision. Once he has done that perhaps we can discuss it further.
Lord ORAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for giving me an opportunity of explaining what is intended by this subsection. I hope I can take it, from the way the noble Lord presented his Amendment, that it is a probing Amendment, seeking information, and one not likely to be pressed, because it would take away important powers which the Bill as at present drafted would provide, powers which we are seeking for the Secretary of State to prescribe the description of containers, including their size and capacity.
There are certain products—soap powders are a good example and some breakfast cereals are another—which are not suitably dealt with by the legislation which prescribes quantity. We have been having a number of metrication orders in this House in which there has been a prescription that certain goods can be sold only by weight. The kind of products of which I have mentioned examples are not suitably dealt with in terms of weight.
The reason for this is that the densities of these products vary from one make to
612
another. If their sale were standardised by weight the varying densities of the products would lead to a great number of package sizes. This would add confusion to the consumer faced with too great a variety of package sizes. But if standardisation of the container sizes and capacities is the method by which we proceed, it can make possible savings in packaging costs, as well as making it easier for the consumer to make comparisons when he or she is seeking to compare one with another in getting value for money. That is the main purpose of seeking powers to standardise sizes and capacities of the containers involved in the wording which the noble Lord is seeking, temporarily at any rate, to remove.
Perhaps I should add that there are EEC implications, in that a currently proposed EEC Directive on prescribed quantities for certain commodities proposes to set out ranges of standard container capacities for certain foodstuffs. The provisions in this Bill would enable us to conform with that Directive as it comes forward. But I would stress that that is only a subsidiary reason for the inclusion of these words in the Bill. Our main purpose in seeking these powers is to add a greater measure of consumer protection.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether the noble Lord would look again at this wording because, of course, the word "description" does not relate only to size and capacity. The description could go much further than the question of size and capacity. I am wondering whether the noble Lord has the right word here. This conveyed a different meaning to me altogether. If all the noble Lord is wanting is to be able to prescribe the size and capacity of a container, then I think he should say so and not say the " description" of a container, because that goes very much wider. Could the noble Lord consider that point?
Lord ORAM: Certainly I will consider it. I can assure the noble Lord that that is the intention, that it is a description of the size and the capacity. It may well be that the addition of a few words can make that crystal clear if there is any difficulty. I have no hesitation in saying that I will look at what has been said by

613
the noble Lord, and if necessary bring forward amending words.
Viscount HANWORTH: Can the noble Lord, Lord Oram, assure me that in such cases as, say, breakfast cereals and detergents weight will be given as well, because in the case of breakfast cereals one has to take into account the probable calories you are getting, which has some equation at least with the weight and not only with the volume.
Lord ORAM: This would depend on the discussions before a particular order is introduced. Before any order under this provision is brought in there would be, of course, thorough discussion with the trade concerned and with consumers. I take the noble Viscount's point, that it would be desirable—unless there are technical difficulties, which there may be—from the point of view of the consumer that as much information as possible should be given.
Lord WIGG: When my noble friend Lord Oram says there will be conversations with the consumers and with the trade, we all understand what the conversation with the trade will be, but what does he mean by "conversations with the consumers"?
Lord ORAM: I think my noble friend Lord Wigg has joined us about ten minutes too late. If he does me the courtesy of reading what I was saying in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, he will find that I dealt with this at perhaps too great a length, and I hope he will—
Lord WIGG: I am sorry. but this is the first time that apparently I am guilty of discourtesy simply because I have failed to solve the mystery of being in two places at once. I am interested in this Bill, and utterly opposed to the principles on which Government are working; it is a denial to everything that the Labour movement has ever stood for. It is not just a form of highway robbery but far more insidious. Although I have not been here, the Minister conies along and says, " I propose to consult the consumers ". If he is referring to something he has already said, I should have thought that precision demanded that he should say, " As I said previously, I will do this, that and something else ". But the term " consumer " is nebulous, a non-event. Consumer is not
614
a person; consumers have no organisation; and, in plain English, never mind what the Minister said before, that they are going to have a talk with the trade interests, who know what they want, the consumers are going to be ordered to stand and deliver, and they will just deliver.
Lord ORAM: As I said before, and at the risk of wearying those who heard me say it before, perhaps I will be a little more specific in reply to my noble friend. I ventured the opinion that what he is now saying was true 10 or 15 years ago, but that during those 10 or 15 years there has been a remarkable growth of a consumer movement and a remarkable growth of consumer organisations. There are statutory organisations; there is the National Consumer Council: there are the consultative bodies under the nationalised industries. There is the important expertise gathered together by the Consumers Association, the publishers of Which? There are local consumer groups which have their National Federation, and there are many organisations of women who regard it as their prime function to represent the interests of the consumer. I assure my noble friend that all this adds up to a really important representative group of organisations which the Department constantly consults, and they are capable of effectively representing the point of view of the consumers.
Lord WIGG: I am much obliged for that, but I am not satisfied. When the Minister says that in the last 10 or 15 years there has grown up an important group of consumer movements, I take the opposite view. Up till about 10 or 15 years ago in this country there was a consumers co-operative movement which had real grass roots and found effective political expression, and in truth did represent consumers because they traded on that basis. Since that time, the cooperative movement has fallen into—I will not say evil hands—the hands of those who no longer make any claim whatever to be heirs to the Rochdale principle; they have abandoned that. This is a purely materialistic capitalist organisation, out to make the fastest buck and the largest buck they can in the least possible time. The only representatives of the consumers organisations now are the House of Commons, and in so far as one has expression, this House.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: That is rubbish!
Lord WIGG Lord WIGG: Does the noble Baroness want to interrupt?
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: I am very grateful, but really what the noble Lord is saying is absolute rubbish. The Minister is quite correct.
Lord WIGG: I am fortified by the fact that the noble Baroness has characterised it as rubbish, because that is the only interruption she has been capable of over about 50 years. The fact that she says it is rubbish confirms me in the view that everything I have said is absolutely right. But when I interrupt I always pay the speaker the compliment of standing on my feet and not muttering under my breath.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I did not mutter. I have a much bigger voice than muttering.
Lord WIGG: It was a somewhat hurried and articulate form of mutter, but let us pass on. It is now the Government who are responsible for keeping the trade organisations in check. The buck cannot be passed. If the Government are to take any action, they have no alibi by saying that they are going to consult the consumer organisations, because in truth, at least to the same extent as the trade organisations, they do not exist.
Lord SHINWELL: I venture to offer a further contribution, but I do so with great reluctance. Ordinarily one is bound to accept a statement made by a Minister, but when a Minister says there has been effective consultation and then—excuse the expression I am going to use—trots out this old argument about consumer councils, I am bound to say I reject it totally. What usually happens—I have noticed this over and over again, even in another place, and also in your Lordships' House—when the question of consumer consultation is raised is that reference is made to consumer councils. Who appoints the consumer councils? The Minister asks his principal civil servants who are the right people to ask to join a particular consumer council; the civil servant has a list, and he goes round and invites them to join on behalf
616
of the Minister, and a consumer council is formed. They are usually hand-picked.
But are the actual consumers consulted? I venture to say this to my noble friend Lord Oram, meaning no offence at all but speaking quite objectively: if I went into a cooperative store tomorrow morning and asked some of the women there who were about to purchase goods whether they are satisfied about metrication, they would want to know what I was talking about. In the Co-operative movement, they have consultation; they have political organisations where they meet from time to time, and very often the members are brought together when there is a question raised about the dividend and so on and so forth. They know all about these things. But consultation with consumers on an important issue like metrication is just a fantasy; it does not exist. Therefore, I beg of my noble friend not to use that argument. It is just a facade. Anyhow, this is all I want to say: we have listened this afternoon to my noble friend Lord Leatherland, my noble friend Lord Oram, my noble friend Lady Burton who have told us that metrication is inevitable; it has got to come. How do they know? It is just what they say, it is their opinion that it has got to come.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene. I am very grateful. Are we not getting a little away from this particular Amendment, which has nothing to do with metrication at all. This Bill is not concerned solely with metrication. It makes certain alterations in the 1963 Act in regard to containers, prepackaging and all the rest of it. This is what we are talking about here, not about metrication.
Lord SHINWELL: I probably deserve that rebuke from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who speaks, of course, with great experience of the procedure in your Lordship's House. I am well aware of what is happening. I have been dealing very largely with what one might call Second Reading arguments; I do not deny that. But it was raised even by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, when he asked for information on a particular item earlier associated with metrication; it raises the question of principle. Anyhow, all I was about to say was this, and I w ill perhaps repeat it in another form: if

617
this is what Members of your Lordships' Committee think, that this is inevitable, that it is bound to come, we will just wait and see. It is an expression used by a Member who was in this House for some time many years ago, the late Lord Asquith who said: " Wait and see ". What did we see in the end? We saw only a lot of trouble, and I think that is likely to result from this legislation, which some day the consumers of this country will find is very difficult to bear. Anyway, we will wait and see.
Viscount HANWORTH: Before the Minister replies, I was going to say a word or two about consumer representation, which I think I am well entitled to do, having been in the field for some 15 years. However, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said. It seems to me the Committee has been shown at its worst today in having a complete Second Reading debate. I will, therefore, forbear to say anything.
Lord ORAM: Perhaps I should forbear from replying, except that I am really tempted to suggest to my noble friends Lord Wigg and Lord Shinwell that they are out of touch with the developments in the Co-operative movement, of which I always have been and still am a most active member. IF they had been with me down at our Plymouth conference over Easter or our Margate conference at Whitsuntide they would have seen a flourishing Co-operative movement of organised consumers still fully capable of representing the consumers.
Lord DRUMALBYN: In view of what the noble Lord said to me about 20 minutes ago, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.51 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 26, leave out (" (3) ") and insert (" (2) ").
The noble Lord said: This is a rather small point, and I do not know that I need spend much time on it. The subsection after which it is proposed to insert this new subsection has to do with the new clause. It seemed to me that it would
618
be much better to insert this new subsection after the subsection than before it. I do not think I need go into the intricacies of this, but it is rather an intricate one. I wonder whether the noble Lord would look at it and perhaps we could have a talk about it. It is of no substance really, except that it could be interpreted as limiting the range of matters on which the Government might have to consult those organisations concerned. But this could be avoided altogether by putting in this new subsection after subsection (2) instead of after subsection (3). I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining briefly the point that he had in mind. I must confess that I was puzzled by his Amendment (as indeed were those who have advised me in this matter), as to exactly what it was that the noble Lord was intending. Now that he has given his explanation I assure him that I shall look at it to see whether we can meet his point and, if necessary, do so at a later stage.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I should have mentioned that it also has to do with the way in which the order will be carried out. It would make it quite clear that this is to be done by order which is subject to Affirmative Resolution procedure, and has nothing to do with the regulations that follow in, I think, subsection (4) which are not subject to Affirmative Resolution procedure but to Negative Resolution procedure. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.53 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 32, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we took the two Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together. These Amendments cover the point raised at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I told him then that I was already aware of the point he was raising, and that discussions were taking place between officials of our Department and the trade associations who were worried on the point. I told him that I hoped to produce an Amendment

619
satisfactory to him, and since I have produced one which is identical with his own, I hope that I have succeeded in doing that.
We have been able to agree in the discussions that the powers sought under (a) and (c) are not so necessary as was thought at an earlier stage. At one stage it was thought desirable to insert (a) and (c) in anticipation of certain EEC requirements which were then envisaged. In fact, in relation to (c), the method of closing a container, representations were made in Brussels by the United Kingdom and the EEC is not now pursuing that point. Therefore, for that reason we do not now need the power in (c).
Lord DRUMALBYN: Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? As I understand it, (c) is not to be left out. The noble Lord has left out paragraph (a) but not (c). This is one of the things I was wondering whether he was going to explain.
Lord ORAM: I think I am right that the second Amendment we are considering deletes the word " and " in (b) and then goes on to delete the whole of (c). If the noble Lord looks at it again, I think he will find that that is so, and that we are proposing to delete (c) for reasons I have already explained.
May I now revert to (a). Our objective in relation to material for a container was for us to be able to prescribe different sizes or capacities for different materials; for example, to prescribe a different size for a can as compared with goods contained in a glass jar. We wanted simply that power. We understand that such power will still be necessary to meet our forthcoming EEC requirement, but we do not need the wider power which is implied in (a) as it stands, and we can fully understand why there were fears raised in the minds of the trade that perhaps the Government were intending to use wider powers in an unfortunate way from the point of view of the trade. We have had discussions, notably with the Food Manufacturers' Federation, and we understand that they are content with the proposals contained in the Amendment which I move.
Lord ELTON: I wanted to say that, while we are genuinely glad to see that the
620
Minister has seen fit to reduce the powers he would need to take under this Bill, it is slightly alarming to hear that none the less powers will be needed to have separate regulations for metal cans and glass jars at a later date. I do not think the feeling ought to go by default that there is an enormous amount of regulation around at the moment anyway, and that people engaged in business as well as people engaged in shopping should be allowed some width of choice.
Might I remind the noble Lord of the words of President Giscard d'Estaing last week which extracted audible approval from those who heard them, that if we were not careful we should have more and more regulations and administration, with which our Continent is already sufficiently endowed. I think that that should be written upon his heart, but it is very agreeable to see that these powers have been withdrawn—one of them permanently, and the other temporarily.
Viscount HANWORTH: The Minister would presumably agree that one of the dangers here is deceptive packaging, and you have to balance an absolutely free choice against some firms who will deliberately produce deceptive packaging. As a consumer representative, one has felt for a long time that it is a mistake to have too many different sizes of a similar product.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Do I understand the noble Lord correctly to say that he is going to introduce a further Amendment into this Bill? If so, will he be introducing it during the passage of the Bill through this House or will he do it in another place? I understood him to say that some regulations would have to be made. Do I understand that a power will have to be inserted into this Bill in order to enable those regulations to be made?
Lord ORAM: I am sorry if my remarks led to a misunderstanding. I meant to say that the powers which will remain after the Amendment is accepted, if the Committee agrees to it, will be sufficient for us to comply with a Directive on this matter which we anticipate coming from the EEC. It will not be necessary, as I am at present advised, for any further Amendment to be introduced to the Bill and I was not intending to imply that it would be.

621
The reduction of powers by this Amendment is not so drastic as to prevent us from complying with the EEC Directive. I take the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, about deceptive packaging and I think that that would be better discussed on an Amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. As a general comment to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about the proliferation of regulations, I can assure him that I heard the words he quoted and noted them; but of course this Amendment was tabled before the visit of the President of France.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 33, leave out from (" container ") to end of line 34.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.3 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 45.
The noble Lord said: This refers to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, was just making. I quite appreciate that it may be desirable from time to time to make provision to prevent the size and capacity of containers giving a false impression as to contents, but one is here up against a question of degree. There are abuses and no doubt it will be necessary to prevent them but I hope that the regulations will not be too tight because it can serve a useful purpose from the point of view of keeping down the cost of packaging if firms are able to use a wide range of packages for goods with marginally different densities of content. It would be a mistake to exercise the power that is being sought in such a way as to limit the discretion of the manufacturer on the amount of headroom he needs in a particular packet, provided that the headroom is reasonably necessary for the conservation of the product and to enable him to have a series of products all packed in the same dimensions even though their densities are slightly different.
This equally applies in regard to products which are volatile in price—where the world market is volatile—and one is con-
622
stantly having to change the value for money that one is giving in a package. It can happen that the easiest and cheapest way of passing on an increase in world price is to modify slightly the contents of the package. This would have to be marked on the package, but since costs are largely often dependent on the number of packages that are ordered by the packer, it can save a lot of money to have a standard run of package. I thought that it was worth while making this point in connection with this Amendment—or perhaps I should say in connection with this Amendment to the original measure —because it is a matter which in this House and elsewhere we have discussed from time to time. I am simply making the plea that while it may be necessary to exercise this power to avoid abuses, it is not something which should be used too severely or frequently in regard to packaging.
Lord ORAM: I accept the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, moved the Amendment and I listened to what he called his plea that this should not be too vigorously used. I can assure him that it is not the intention that orders under these powers should regulate the design of containers but merely the quantity that is prescribed as being in those containers. Thus, some of the fears that have been expressed will he overcome by that assurance. I think that Lord Drumalbyn will recognise the need for these provisions on two grounds. We have been discussing the desirability of taking powers to prescribe sizes and capacities of containers. The Government would be subject to criticism if we took those powers but did not at the same time take powers to prescribe what the containers should contain in terms of quantity, and so the one goes with the other. I am sure that the noble Lord will realise, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, earlier said, that this is a matter of considerable concern to consumers. They want regulations which ensure that containers are not misleading or deceptive. There is the familiar example of the ice-cream carton which looks the same but which contains less ice-cream because the bottom has been pushed up. Powers to regulate that sort of thing are necessary and that is all that is involved in the wording of the Bill as at present drafted.
Lord BROWN: I realise the necessity for the drafting of the Bill, but I wish to support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, because it is possible that from time to time this House and the Government listen to the economic pleas for the longer runs of the same goods in the same packages but do not always appreciate how immensely important this is to industry; the length of run has an absolutely vital determining effect on manufacturing costs. If one has to break down the supply of different kinds of material because by law the packages have to be different, one may increase the cost by between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. because the cost of setting up to introduce the material into a package with different numbering or of a different weight results in a breakdown in the whole manufacturing process while that changeover is made. I make this observation from long experience in industry and I wish simply to back up what Lord Drumalbyn said because this is capable of being rather overlooked, although I realise from what my noble friend said that these regulations are necessary.
I am aware of a number of the draft Directives which are at present coming from the EEC, one of which is concerned with the marking of packages of particular types of goods. I cannot help feeling that many parts of the Bill are concerned to put us in a position to implement forthcoming EEC regulations and that we shall eventually have, with others—I hope, the French—to bring pressure to stop the bureaucracy in the EEC going into so much detail and burdening the Member States with so much detailed legislation because, in my view, which results from recent experience on Committee B of this House, it is becoming a bit farcical. I cannot blame the Government for producing legislation which will put them in a position to implement those regulations, but I believe that we must go to the root of the matter and bring pressure to bear to stop so much detail coming from the EEC.
Lord SHINWELL: When my noble friend Lord Brown intervenes to inform the Committee that we may in the future have to intervene to prevent the bureaucrats in Brussels doing something which is obnoxious to the consumers of this country, is not that a Second Reading
624
point? Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who sought to rebuke me for raising Second Reading points, might intervene now and explain that away. It seemed to me to be a Second Reading point. I did not object to it. Far from it. I thought it a very appropriate point and it is indeed part of the objection that I have been raising about the future effects of this legislation. Now, it is all coming out in the wash.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who also sought to rebuke me for raising Second Reading points, has been raising many points which lead to a Second Reading debate. He wants to know about the regulations. We heard nothing about the regulations in the Second Reading debate. I cannot recall a single word being said about the regulations on that occasion. Now, it transpires that there is to be a whole series of regulations in order to prevent any mistakes occurring. This is to be done in the interests of the consumer. I agree that there ought to be regulations, but what these regulations are and what they pretend to do nobody seems to know. Questions have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the answers from my noble friend Lord Oram indicate that points will be taken into consideration and so on, but he has said nothing specific in reply. This is the situation in which we find ourselves, and it vindicates everything I have said about this piece of legislation.
Lord ELTON: I should like to mention that I spoke at some considerable length on Second Reading on the question of European regulations. The noble Lord apparently did not take note of my words. I raised a point of important principle. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord for arranging for his helpers in the Department to explain some of the procedures which are associated with the regulations before they reach us. I referred to the draft regulations. I wished to point out the danger that it was open to a Minister to invoke a procedure of regulation-making in Europe and then, the when regulation arrived, to cry in mock horror, " I don't want to do this but I've got to because we've been told to." But that process is only open to him to initiate, and afterwards it comes out of the ground like a mole before it goes into another hole as a draft Instrument to be submitted to the

625
Council. It is a function of this House which is being discharged by a number of noble Lords and by the other House which joins them in it to scrutinise these draft Instruments, so, provided the job is properly done, the bureaucrats will be kept under control.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we should keep the bureaucrats under control. I believe that it is a vital principle not only in European but also in British life. I do not cavil at that, but I should like to say that the ground was covered at Second Reading. We have the greatest respect for all the noble Lords' contributions, which are elegantly, amusingly and humanely put, but the fact is that the ground had been covered and that we are now dealing with a different Amendment.
Lord ORAM: I believe we are in danger of having the sixth or seventh Second Reading and perhaps it would be most helpful if I were to select the one point which arose specifically out of the Amendment which we are now considering—namely, the point raised by my noble friend Lord Brown. We listened with interest to him speaking with his experience of industry. He is of course right to draw attention to the problems that arise under this kind of legislation in practical matters of manufacturing. I assure him that we are aware of this and that that is the very reason why we have carefully written into the Bill at a number of points the requirement that before any orders are made full consultations are to take place with all the interests concerned. Clearly, that includes the manufacturing interests to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord WIGG: I share the views of my noble friend Lord Shinwell, whose apprentice I am. For years, I was his Parliamentary Private Secretary. I feel that he has this afternoon taken a perfectly legitimate point. I reject utterly the rebuke of the noble Viscount, Lord Han-worth, from his superior knowledge of the procedures of this House. It seems to me right for any Member of this place to use the Rules of the House in order to draw attention to a matter which he thinks is of public concern. I am not arrogant enough to believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested, that we can control the bureaucrats. Of course we cannot.
626
We have passed long beyond that stage. The mandarins in Whitehall are now in control. Their progeny are also in Brussels. They run the show.
What we can do, and what I have joined my voice with my noble friend Lord Shinwell this afternoon to say, is that we can draw attention (even though we may offend the noble Viscount, Lord Han-worth, in appearing to make a Second Reading point) to the consequences of the legislation before the House. That is perfectly proper. I do not want to give offence to anyone, but I wish to venture the opinion that the discussion which I heard this afternoon and which was conducted in courteous tones, is an illustration of the decline of the authority of Parliament as a whole. The discussion is really in corporate State terms. A decision has been taken to go into the EEC and, on Second Reading of what is essentially subsidiary legislation, it was said that safeguards must be enjoined in order to take fully into account what the EEC may do which Ministers and both Houses of Parliament are powerless to control. All we can do is to use every opportunity—and this is one—to draw attention to the fact that, away over in Brussels there are well-organised international cartels, international companies and even national companies which will make their voices heard—perfectly legitimately as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Brown—and that, if this is done, although it may be in the interests of the consumer, one may be adding 40, 30, or 25 per cent. to the manufacturing costs. So beware. Be absolutely sure that at all levels, be it Brussels or London, the legitimate—and I emphasise that—manufacturing interests will find expression, but that the milch cow, the individual housewife, the public as a whole, has no effective voice. That seems to me to strike at the very root of all those things that I believe and that—and I say this with respect to Lord Oram—the Rochdale Pioneers believed in as well. That is the truth of the situation, and if I have offended against any principle in saying what I have done because it is a Second Reading point, I am completely unrepentant. I shall go on doing so because I believe that this country—which is not an abstraction to me, but means my fellow countrymen—has been sold down the river and, though I cannot stop it, I can

627
use every opportunity, of which this is one, of drawing attention to that fact.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I wonder whether I can bring some comfort to the noble Lord who has just spoken. I also am a member of the Select Committee on the scrutinising of EEC Instruments. This is based on the principle that, since I did not believe in going into the EEC, it was wiser for me to be there and have at any rate some small participation in these Instruments which affect us all.
The Directive, which I also referred to in my Second Reading speech and on which I had no reply from the Government—and that is why I am raising it now—specifically says that the use of imperial units listed (and this is of course a very long list and a longer list than we have in the Bill) will be prohibited after 31st December 1977. Subsequently, however, we learned that the Weights and Measures Bill now before your Lordships' House seeks to provide the Government with the necessary powers. It seems to me that there is quite a lot of power there if the Bill we are now discussing is necessary before the Directive can become effective.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
5.20 p.m.
Clause 5 [Containers for goods: supplemental].
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 6, line 46, leave out (" the three last foregoing paragraphs,") and insert (" either sub-paragraph (i) or sub-paragraph (ii) above ").
The noble Lord said: We are concerned here with a very small point which deals with breaking open containers. It has nothing to do with the EEC, nothing to do with metrication, and so I hope that we can deal with it fairly quickly. It seems to be very odd that whereas subparagraph (iii) prevents containers being broken open and damage being done, sub-paragraph (iv) is then made to apply to sub-paragraph (iii) so that one can go ahead and break open the container even
628
though under sub-paragraph (iii) it is stated that this must not be done. I can appreciate that this is due to the different use of the word " container ". The word " container " has been used in the Bill mainly to deal with the article which immediately contains the goods. Now for one reason or another, the Government want to change that and change the " container " to refer to " any container of goods ", which presumably means the container of the containers. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us what is the real purpose of this and say whether it is worthwhile introducing this kind of confusion.
Lord ORAM: There is never any justification, I hope, for introducing confusion. I shall try to introduce a little clarity on this point. First, I should like to take up the point which the noble Lord made about an apparent inconsistency. I suggest that there is nothing inconsistent in giving an inspector powers to break open a container whilst, in certain circumstances, requiring him not to take any action which might damage or depreciate the goods or the container. There are many cases where this would be possible—for instance, if, in the course of his duties, he opened a screw-top bottle of vinegar. Opening and reclosing a bottle would not damage the bottle and a brief exposure to the air would not damage the contents in such a case. So I think that there are cases where what is an apparent contradiction is not in fact contradictory.
The Amendment which the noble Lord moved would go much wider than dealing with that particular point. It would prevent a weights and measures inspector from breaking open a container of goods in order to check whether or not the container complied with requirements of orders made under Section 21(2) (bb) of the Act referred to. Sub-paragraph (iii) gives the inspector power to do anything
" which is reasonably necessary to ascertain whether "
a container of goods meets the requirements imposed on it, provided that his actions do not
" damage or depreciate the goods or container."
Sub-paragraph (iv) provides that if necessary for the purposes of checking the container's characteristics, an inspector may break open any container of goods.

629
" Breaking open " does not necessarily mean damaging or depreciating the goods or the container. If the goods or the container were to be damaged or depreciated to such an extent that the container could not be resealed, or if there were damage to the contents, the trader can require the inspector to buy the goods on behalf of the local weights and measures authority. In other words, the powers of the inspectors are extended by this clause. What is proposed in the words which the noble Lord seeks to leave out is to give the trader an extended power to require the inspector to buy any goods or containers that are damaged. So I think that it is a necessary provision from the point of view of the trader, who is the victim of any accident during the course of the duties of the weights and measures inspector.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
5.26 p.m.
Clause 6 [Fees for performance of Community obligations]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 7, line 17, leave out (" services or facilities provided by them ") and insert (" testing and stamping weighing and measuring equipment ")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to Clause 6 which inserts a new section at the end of Part V of the 1963 Act and gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations prescribing
" the fees to be charged by local weights and measures authorities and by inspectors for services or facilities provided by them …"
That is the part of the section which concerns us. The present practice is that only the marking or stamping of machines for purposes of certification for use in trade had been the subject of specific fees, and the expenses of the inspectorate in testing to see whether such a stamp is necessary or appropriate had been charged out of the funds to the weights and measures inspectorate which are got from the rates to which the trade already subscribes.
I understand that there has been correspondence between the trade and the Department about the fact that what is proposed now gives to the Minister power to make charges not only for the inspection of the weights and measures machinery prior to stamping, but also for any other acts which the inspectors may in the future be required to carry out. I do not think that we wish to see blanket legislation being made by the Government for future provision of charges, particularly in the light of the tone and temperature of this afternoon's debate. We should like not merely an assurance that the intentions of the Government are, as they have been stated outside the Chamber, to be limited in this respect, but beyond that we should like to see, whether in this form or in a form suggested by Her Majesty's Government, that assurance written into the Bill, because it is not wise to give powers which it is not intended to use; the user changes and so do the intentions.
Lord ORAM: As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, indicated there has been correspondence on this subject with the Department and I want to give him the assurance for which he asked; namely, that it is the Government's intention to use the powers in this narrower sense. But since he has raised the point—and he will concede that there has not been much time on this particular Amendment to consider the point—I hope he will be content if I say that I should like to look at it further, and it may be that in order to meet the points he has just made, an Amendment will be necessary at the Report stage. But I should not like to give any commitment about that at this stage. I can give him from this Box the assurance for which he asks, but I shall look further at the wording to see whether any change is necessary.
Lord SLATER: Is my noble friend aware that there are two nationalised industries which will be examining very carefully the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and made even by my noble friend the Minister; namely, the Post Office and British Rail? I do not know whether the Minister is aware of it, but during the course of my service I entered into agreements with British Rail on behalf of the Post Office that, as a common carrier, the Post Office would

631
carry parcels of a certain weight for a certain fee, and so on. We also entered into a formal agreement with British Rail, which is another common carrier, for them to carry parcels which were over and above the standard weight that we had fixed with them, so that those parcels could go by rail. How is this going to affect these two industries? I claim them as industries. The Post Office is a service on the postal side, whereas British Rail is a common carrier and is able to carry different types of objects in the course of its business. I have a fear that everything will be examined meticulously by these two organisations during the course of the discussions on this Bill, particularly as it affects this parcel-rating business.
Lord ORAM: My noble friend is quite light in saying that the Post Office and British Rail are of course important organisations in respect of measuring instruments, and he has drawn on his own personal experience in this respect. In answer to him, I would say that they are like any other user, and if they require the services of a weights and measures inspector they will have to pay for those services, as any other user. It is the Government's policy that where a service is requested the person concerned should meet the full costs incurred, and that will apply to the two organisations to which my noble friend has referred.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his statement of intent. He has said that he will also look at the question of the necessity or the possibility of an Amendment to enact that intent. I hope he will be kind enough to give me a little warning of his decision in that respect, so that if I feel it goes by default and I do not agree with his decision I can substitute my own. On those terms, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Units of measurement lawful for use for trade]:
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 13, leave out line 34.
The noble Lord said: This a very simple Amendment. It is to leave out from the list in Schedule 1 the words " Metric tonne ", because they come immediately after the word " Tonne ", and as I understand both are of exactly the same value it seems redundant to have them both. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: Perhaps I could make the preliminary point that if this Amendment were to be accepted there would need to be certain consequential Amendments. I am not putting that forward as an insuperable difficulty; I am just pointing to a consequence. But perhaps I may give a little of the reasoning as to why these words are included in the list on page 13. " Metric tonne " is included as well as " Tonne " because there is the possibility of some confusion during the transition period between " ton " and " tonne ". However, since " metric tonne " is normally used only in speech to discriminate between " tonne " and " ton ", there is no great point in its inclusion in the Bill. As " tonne " is the more correct form for the SI unit, we can consider accepting this Amendment for the deletion of the term " metric tonne " provided it is still acceptable in speech to distinguish between the two forms " tonne and " ton ". There could be, I think, a consequential difficulty if at this stage I advised the Committee to accept this Amendment, and I hope it will not, but I think it is a point that we can examine. Perhaps I can have further talks with the noble Lord, and we will see what can be done at a later stage.
Viscount HANWORTH: I would be very sorry to see this Amendment agreed to because I think that during the transition period many people will not have the faintest idea that tonne " is any different from " ton ". Whether it is written or not, in this transition period I think it would in certain circumstances be very useful to say " metric tonne ", so I hope the question will be left over.
Lord KILBRACKEN: Perhaps I may just say that if it is considered necessary to include " Metric tonne " it should also be necessary to include " Imperial ton ".
Baroness PHILLIPS: Surely, we said earlier in relation to the word " gramme "

633
that there would be some area of confusion if one assumed that the present gram is the same as the metric gramme, which of course it is not. So should we not have a metric gramme or gram, whichever you like, as compared with an imperial gram? If we are really going to have fun with this, the possibilities are infinite.
Lord LEATHERLAND: It seems to me that there is some need for discrimination between " ton " and " tonne ". I have noticed during this debate that the pronunciation of those two words by various noble Lords has been quite distinctive. They have said " ton " and they have said " tonne ". That is all right in an educated and civilised community like your Lordships' Committee; but if you went up to Birmingham, where I was born, I am afraid you would find " ton " and " tonne " pronounced as " tun ", and there would be confusion all round. So I think there is something to he said for keeping to the phraseology which is at present incorporated in the Bill.
Lord ORAM: While I was listening to what my noble friend Lord Leatherland was saying I had a great deal of sympathy for those who do such an excellent job in recording our proceedings. Just how this speech will come out in the Record I shall look forward to reading with interest.
In reply to my noble friend Lady Phillips, when we were dealing with " gramme " earlier we were dealing with the question of spelling. We were dealing with the legalisation of " gram " and "gramme". Here it is a question of whether we are going to continue to have the term " Metric tonne ", and it very much comes down to the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, made about clarity in speech and, in particular, during the transition period. I personally find it helpful to be able to refer to " the metric tonne ". On the other hand, I see the argument that, if we are going to change, the sooner we get used to recognising " tonne " as the standard, the better. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, asked that the question should be kept open. I hope I implied, if I did not say so specifically, that it would be kept open. I am prepared to look at it in the
634
light of what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, and that is as far as I would wish to go at this stage.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think the point about this is that the word " tonne " used not to be very much used. It was always 1,000 kilogrammes, and it will go on being 1,000 kilogrammes in most countries, I imagine; so we do not really need to distinguish it in that way. But this started off as " metric ton " in Schedule 1 to the Weights and Measures Act 1963; I believe that it got altered by regulation or something to " metric tonne ". Now we are proposing to have both " tonne " and " metric tonne ". As they are both the same, I still think that this is illogical; but if people want to be able to say " metric tonne " and mean the same thing as " tonne ", I suppose that is fine. I will not press this Amendment, but I am certain that sooner or later we shall be having one of these orders made to remove " metric tonne " from the list. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule I agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (VOCATIONAL TRAINING) BILL [H.L.]
5.42 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT GOSCHEN in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Regulations in connection with s.1]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 42, at end insert—
(" ( ) shall only be exercised in the case of female applicants after consultation with the Equal Opportunities Commission; ").
The noble Baroness said: The object of this Amendment I think must be quite clear, but the point that I am raising is one which I believe to be of great importance because I think that under this Bill we could, unless we are very careful, make it much more difficult for women to become general practitioners. As I indicated at Second Reading, the purpose of the Bill is that after a boy or girl has completed his or her medical training they shall then have three years' prescribed medical experience before they are fully qualified, and I raise the point as to how this will affect women doctors. As I am sure the noble Lord himself is well aware, until the passing of the Sex Discrimination Act there was a very great discrimination against girls wanting to be medical students and, quite rightly, that Act put that right.
We find now in another Act, the purpose of which will be entirely made clear by regulations about which we know nothing at all at the moment, that all general practitioners are going to be required to undergo these three years of prescribed medical experience. The only exceptions are the ones listed by the noble Lord at Second Reading. It seems to me that to ask every women to undergo these extra three years' prescribed medical experience will make it very difficult for many women to qualify completely because it is expecting everybody to undergo nine years' training before becoming a fully qualified general practitioner. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it is going to be possible for women to undertake this prescribed medical experience part-time? What is to happen to them if they marry and, in the course of their prescribed medical experience, start a family? Is it possible for the one year or eighteen months that they have done to qualify them, and will they be able to continue; and, if they do not undertake the prescribed medical experience having qualified through their medical training, will they be able to come back after a period of time and qualify for it, perhaps 10 years later?
I ask these questions because I must say that I was surprised to discover that
636
neither the Equal Opportunities Commission nor the Medical Women's Federation have been consulted about this Bill and are aware of its contents. I think that once it becomes known that this is going to become law by 1980, many women are going to feel very concerned about it. I therefore put down a simple Amendment, that before the regulations are laid the Equal Opportunities Commission shall be consulted and shall be able to express a view on the effect of the Bill on women who wish to become general practitioners. I hope the noble Lord will be willing to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
5.47 p.m.
Lord PLATT: Let me straight away say that I agree with everything the noble Baroness has said. I think women have had a poor deal in the medical profession, in medical training, in medical education and in their admission to medical schools and so on; and as the noble Baroness has said, although we are going to speak about Clause 2 in a few minutes, we have no inkling from the Bill of what is going to happen. I would not quarrel with, but differ slightly from, the noble Baroness over the wording of the Amendment. I think myself that " women doctors " is a nicer term than " female applicant "—and that should have come from her rather than from me. Then, whether the Equal Opportunities Commission is the right body to be consulted about this, I am not quite sure. I should require guidance. It seems to me a little as if referring to the Equal Opportunities Commission is making rather heavy weather of what we are trying to do, and if it could be done in another way it might be better.
I am absolutely aghast to find that neither the Equal Opportunities Commission nor the Medical Women's Federation, which to my certain knowledge has been a reputable and distinguished body for at least 50 years, has been consulted so far. When we come to Clause 2, I may have something further to say about the Medical Women's Federation and another body which I shall then mention which I think should be consulted. I am really very unhappy about this altogether.
As I said on Second Reading, having been on the Royal Commission on Medical Education I am, in general, in

637
favour of a longer period of training before becoming a principal in general practice. But I share the misgivings of the noble Baroness about what this could mean to women, and I hope it will be clear that some of this time could be spent in part-time training and not full-time training. I think we must look at this very seriously or it may become another raw deal for the women.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to support the noble Baroness in this Amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that " women doctors " is a better phrase than " female applicants ". No doubt that could be discussed further. When we were discussing the Equal Opportunities Commission, I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill—who unfortunately cannot be here today—pointing out how extraordinarily unfair the medical profession had been in the past in many ways to women, and with what pleasure she agreed to the new procedures under the Equal Opportunities Commission. It would be a great pity if on one aspect of medical training in the National Health Service we still see the same discrimination—it may not be intentional—against women in this matter. I hope that the noble Lord will be kind enough to think about that again and ensure that an amendment is made to remove any kind of discrimination such as that mentioned by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Platt.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: Reference has been made to the Medical Women's Federation and the Equal Opportunities Commission. As well as those bodies, we also have the Women's Commission which has operated under both Governments for a very long time. This Commission meets regularly, and I think it odd if that Commission is not taken into consideration and asked for its views. It seems to me that Governments do not know about such organisations which deal with these matters. It would have been much more appropriate to have consulted the Women's Commission. Both Mrs. Thatcher and Mrs. Barbara Castle have been chairmen of this very important Commission. It would have been more appropriate to have consulted that Commission than the Equal Opportunities

638
Commission. The Women's Commission has representatives over a wide field. I am not sure whether this is the right time to raise this matter, but if it has not been consulted I should like to know why. Its advice would have been valuable, and I should like the Minister to tell me why the Commission has not been consulted. My own view is that the Amendment does not cover a wide enough field and wise advice ought to have been sought from that Commission.
Lord SOMERS: I should like to support the Amendment. As it was a woman doctor who saved my life, I suppose it is not surprising that I am in favour of it. The noble Baroness pointed out the difficulties that face any woman who marries and starts a family. Those are facts of life which no legislation can afford to disregard. It would be totally unfair to do that. I feel that that aspect should be considered and that women in that position should be given a proper chance.
5.55 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I must confess that I am a little surprised that there should be a feeling existing in this Committee that this Government are going to stand idly by and see women doctors get a raw deal. If the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, will allow me to say so, I do not know whether she was present at the Second Reading of the Bill. If so, she would have recalled that I made it perfectly clear that discussions were only just beginning. Often the whole object of Governments is to get a Bill on the Statute Book and, while it is passing through the procedures of both Houses, to have discussions on certain matters and then lay the regulations before Parliament. I want to make it perfectly clear to the noble Baroness that discussions have only just begun and are going to continue for some considerable time. Before the noble Baroness rises to speak again—as I am sure she will—may I point out that we are concerned with a specific contribution by a specific group of people; namely, women doctors.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for recognising that I should like to say something else. I do not remember whether or not I was present at Second

639
Reading. I am a little surprised that, with all their great experience and knowledge, the women Members of this House were not asked to come together to discuss the matter. Nowadays a great deal more notice is taken of what women think about matters, and I am sure the present Government as well as my own Party are concerned with these issues. The noble Baroness moved the Amendment in very good terms, and I am surprised that she did not think it advisable to get all the women Members of this House together to discuss the matter, to see whether anybody had any views as to whether women were not being properly protected in the Bill.
I do my best to be in this House as often as I can. I am not in favour of " Women's Lib.", but I believe in experience. As has been pointed out, women doctors have known many occasions when their experience has not been taken into account. I am always willing to join in any consultation; I am only too delighted to do so. But I represent a part of the world very far removed from here. I attend this House very regularly and I am not sure that my own Party realise that I attend so often. So I hope the noble Lord will not think it extraordinary if I take any action in this matter. I would never be able to do anything in my part of the world if I attended here all the time. The people in my part of the world like to see me from time to time.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I can assure the noble Baroness that she is now in a civilised part of the country, and, because it is a civilised part of the country, she can rest assured that not only this Government, but also the noble Baroness opposite, will see that the right steps are taken to safeguard the interests of women doctors. As I understand the situation, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised this matter simply because she wanted to draw attention to the fact that the needs and interests of women doctors should be adequately protected and safeguarded. This is an intention of the Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, made a comment about " nothing known at all about what is going in the regulations ". The noble Baroness should know better than anybody in your Lordships' House that such a thing is not unusual. I seem to remember that when she was Parliamentary
640
Under-Secretary of State in the Department of the Environment she introduced a number of Bills and then said that the regulations would follow. This is the normal procedure and there is nothing surprising about it. It has been going on for many decades. Your Lordships will know that once the regulations are laid, if they are not satisfactory in this case, they will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure and can be prayed against, and there could be a debate upon them at that stage. I am not saying this is what one wants, but I am saying that the Government are not unmindful of the need to watch carefully the position of women doctors, because of the special difficulties in which many find themselves, and that they should not in any way be prejudiced by this vocational training.
Having said that, I cannot accept this Amendment because, with the greatest respect, the Government do not think it is necessary. The reason is that we can be very certain that, during the discussions that have been started and will continue for some considerable time, the very matters which are of concern to all who have spoken will be taken into account. As I understand the situation, one of the difficulties in accepting this Amendment would be that we should be required to consult with the Equal Opportunities Commission on practically all matters set out in Clause 2(1)(a) to (g), and I am sure that the noble Baroness will come to the conclusion that this is not necessary when she reads what is there.
I fully appreciate—and I speak with the authority of the Government on this—the concern underlying the Amendment. We have long recognised that women doctors can and do face very special problems because of domestic commitments. Already we have arrangements to help women doctors and hope to improve these considerably. I will return to that matter in a moment or two. The effect of the Amendment would be to require separate regulations for women, and in fact that could lead to the creation of discrimination. I do not think that was in the mind of the noble Baroness.
It introduces discrimination also in respect of a particular body for consultation. Noble Lords will appreciate that there are a number of bodies which will need to be consulted, all of them with very

641
important contributions to make. The Bill, as drafted, gives freedom to include every one of them; there is no restriction whatever in the Bill. It does not preclude consultation with any body. The Equal Opportunities Commission's concern will be with the opportunities for acquiring the experience, and we feel that in our consultations we can consult the very people who really know the problem of women doctors when they get married and take time off to have a family and then want to return to their profession. This is peculiar to the profession, and the Government can explore it quite fully.
This leads me to explain some of the wider provisions already made to help doctors with domestic commitments. In 1969 health authorities were advised of the need to make part-time hospital training posts available for women doctors. In 1972 the Women Doctors Retainer Scheme was introduced to help them to maintain contact with medicine. In this, the women doctor works up to two sessions a week either in hospital or in general practice, for which she is paid in the usual way. She also receives a grant to cover such expenses as registration and for professional journals. Since 1973, about 300 part-time training posts have been provided, and nearly 500 women doctors have passed through or are members of the Retainer Scheme. There are also provisions to pay fees, subsistence and other expenses of doctors taking courses arranged by post-graduate deans to help them to return to general practice after absence because of home commitments or, in some cases, of working abroad. Last July my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for Social Services held a conference at Sunningdale about the problems of women in medicine. That was less than a year ago. Copies of the report of the proceedings have been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. We are now discussing possible improvements to the present schemes and the revision of the existing guidance with the medical profession.
I hope your Lordships will accept my apologies for perhaps having taken up some time in setting out the detail, but I think it is important to reassure your Lordships that we are pursuing an active policy to ensure that the skills of these
642
doctors are not wasted. I can go so far as to say that we are looking to a time in the future when 50 per cent. of the medical school output will be women. We are working towards that—a 50 per cent. output.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Surely he is not saying that the Government are committed to a system of quotas?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, a system of quota, if it means higher than it is at the present moment, yes. There is nothing wrong with a quota if it is the right quota or a better quota than one has at the present moment. In the interests of women doctors and, still more if I may say so, in the interests of the National Health Service, we have to realise that we need their skills more and more, as those of us who have a close identification with the National Health Service will know.
Our consultations on the regulations to be made under the powers conferred by the Bill will certainly have these matters in mind, and since the noble Baroness raised this matter on Second Reading I discussed what we are doing in the Department. I may say that we shall leave no stone unturned to ensure that adequate provision is made for the training of women doctors who want to enter the National Health Service as principals, and to offer them every possible facility to do so.
I think the only question I have not asnwered concerns that put to me by the noble Baroness as to whether, if there is a break in training, a woman doctor will be able to return to it, and also what her credit will be for what she has already done. If the woman doctor takes the National Health Service vocational health training and has to withdraw from it at any stage and for any reason, she will be able to return to it at any stage convenient to her and, if I may put it this way, she may merely carry on where she left off. She will receive whatever credits are due to her.
There has been preliminary consultation with the General Medical Services Committee. On that Committee, I understand there is a member of the Medical

643
Women's Federation. Of course, it could be argued that there is only one member of the Federation but, as I tried to point out, under the Bill there is nothing to prevent the Government from holding consultations with every body and every concern which has an interest in the matter or something to say on it. I can assure your Lordships that that is the intention of the Government.
I hope that, in the circumstances, the noble Baroness will feel that it is not necessary to press her Amendment to a Division. I would again remind your Lordships that the regulations will be laid, and if on reading them there is any serious doubt in your Lordships' minds as to their worthwhileness, there is no reason at all why the normal procedure should not be adopted and why we should not debate them.
Baroness YOUNG: I am very grateful for the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and I am particularly grateful for the general support which my Amendment has received in the Committee this afternoon. I feel that it was well worth while to put it down, in order that we could have a very full debate on this point. I am bound to say that I am not very happy with the noble Lord's reply. I absolutely accept his good faith in this matter, and that of the Government, in that they want to ensure that as a result of this Bill the position of women doctors is not made more difficult than it is at the present time. On the other hand, it is very easy to say that discussions are continuing, that the Government will lay regulations which we can all read and that these will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure so we can vote against them.
The real difficulty, as he knows, about voting against Statutory Instruments is that we have to vote against the whole regulations and cannot amend them in the way that we can amend a Bill. What the noble Lord is saying to us is that we must buy this Bill blind, because we do not know what will be in the regulations. He has told us that he cannot tell us precisely what will be in them, because consultations are continuing. He has also said that we must wait until we see the regulations and then, if we do not like what we see, we can vote against them.
644
But I do not believe that that is a very satisfactory way of legislating. It may well be that when I myself was responsible for introducing Bills I introduced similar provisions, but I cannot recall a single instance of a Bill which entirely hinged on regulations to be laid which had not been seen. I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me about this Bill. It has only five clauses in it and the only one of any significance is Clause 2, because the rest of it is completely descriptive. So that its core will lie entirely in the regulations which lay down what the prescribed medical experience will be.
This afternoon we have to accept good faith that the Women's Medical Federation will be consulted, that the Equal Opportunities Commission will be consulted—if that is considered right—and that the needs of women doctors will be taken into account, so if we have all those assurances we need not worry at all. But I have lived long enough in politics—not that I doubt the fact that the noble Lord means to do all he can—to know that that is not a very satisfactory way of safeguarding the real interests of women doctors.
Of course, I was very pleased to know about the numbers of consultants in part-time posts since 1969, and this is very much to be welcomed. I am glad to know that they are on the increase, but I think we can take that as an indication of what will happen to women who want to go into general practice, because my guess—although I do not have the figures—is that far more women want to go into general practice than into hospital work, because general practice has a particular appeal to women doctors and they are very good at it. My suspicion is that the doctors will say, as they say now, " There is not much real need to train more women doctors, because they marry and have families and do not practice as much as men doctors, so we do not need so many in medical schools."
A Bill like this will make it more difficult for them to practice, because they must have not only six years at medical school, but have gained three years' prescribed medical experience. I accept that they will be paid during that period, but the reality of life is that they will not be fully qualified until they have gained the experience, and if they are working

645
part-time it may take them six years. So that for many women it could be up to 12 years before they were fully qualified, which could make things much more difficult for them. This is a very real point which ought to be considered, but we are asked to have faith in the regulations.
I accept that my Amendment is not very well worded. I take absolutely the point of my noble friend Lady Elliot, and of the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that " female applicants " is not a very good term. The difficulty about wording Amendments rather late at night, in order to get them down in reasonable time, makes one realise on reflection that one could have done better, and it would also have been better to use the term " Women's Medical Federation " instead of " Equal Opportunities Commission ". So in those ways the Amendment could be improved. What I should like to do now is consider what the noble Lord has said. I shall read Hansard very carefully, and take the opportunity to consult with some of my colleagues to see whether we should return to this matter on Report. Therefore, I shall not press the Amendment this afternoon, but I shall consider the situation very carefully when I have read the report of the discussion.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Before the noble Baroness sits down, may I say that I am very grateful to her for taking the line she has taken. But it would be helpful if the Government could have an indication of how she feels this matter could be dealt with more adequately. I am not being facetious when I say this, but I do not see any other way of proceeding and I have given the Government's assurance that exhaustive consultations will be held. If the noble Baroness can make a suggestion whereby we can overcome some of her reservations, then we shall be very glad to have it. One must hear in mind that not all women doctors will want to have this. They are obliged to have it only if they want to enter the National Health Service as principals. Many of them work on a sessional basis or as assistants, and will continue to do so. It will be obligatory only if they want to be principals in general practice.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Before my noble friend withdraws the Amendment, if that is what she intends, I hope
646
that she and her colleagues on the Front Bench will look at this matter very carefully when it arises again at the next stage. I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that government by regulation is an accepted and proper form nowadays, but, even so, it is a blank cheque. Therefore, it is vital that some kind of indication should be given as to the possible line which such regulations will take. My noble friend made the point very clearly that in practice it is very difficult to deal with regulations, once power has been given for them to be issued. They cannot be amended and one can only pray that the whole measure is removed, although one may not want that. It may well be that 80 per cent. of what is in the regulations is acceptable and right, but 20 per cent. is not—and that may be the vital 20 per cent.
While the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, inspires a lot of confidence by his manner and the way he always presents his case, he may not be in the Department when the regulations are put into operation; he may well be in another Department. So we have had an undertaking from someone who has given us confidence, but he may not be there to justify the confidence that we have placed in him. It is for that reason that, before a Government should ask for power to legislate by regulation, they should give clearer indications than have been given on this issue as to the line that they are likely to take.
Indeed Governments sometime use any argument here against Opposition. There was an example in the other place when one of the leaders of the Government Party was questioning Mr. Churchill in opposition, as he then was. He said, " You have not put the words very clearly. The words you threaten to put on the Order Paper ought to be known now by people. Can you not give us a clearer line on what it is all about?" Mr. Churchill replied " That is quite true. The words are not there in detail, but the general line will be tyranny, conceit and incompetence. That will be the general line ". We have not had even a " general line ". We have not even had that from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell.
I believe that before one asks for power to use the blank cheque method of government, a clearer indication ought to be given of the figures which will be put on

647
the cheque. I hope that my noble friend will watch this point very carefully—not in this instance, because I am not au fait with the women doctors' point of view and cannot help, but in terms of how we use our Governmental procedure. This is vital, because if precedents are set up and one is allowed to go through, it is much more difficult to deal with it on a future occasion.
Lord SEGAL: Before my noble friend replies, I wonder whether he could also give the Committee an assurance that so far he has not received any representations along the lines of this proposed Amendment from the Medical Women's Federation, for this is the professional body that is most closely involved? I am convinced that the Medical Women's Federation are closely watching the progress of the Bill and the provisions included in it. It would reassure the Committee if my noble friend could tell us that so far the Medical Women's Federation have not made any representations about this issue to the Government.
Baroness SEEAR: Would not the Minister agree that the position will be met only if it is embodied in the Bill that the experience need not be full-time experience? I have not worked out an Amendment, but if we look at Clause 2(1)(a) surely it would be possible to add some words. The paragraph refers to " medical experience ", indicating that the experience need not be on a full time basis. We would all be much happier if a safeguarding provision were incorporated in the Bill. This is the crux of the matter. Surely it ought to be possible to incorporate a safeguarding provision in the Bill.
6.22 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: First in reply to my noble friend Lord Segal, may I say that up to the present time no representations have been made to the Government by the Medical Women's Federation. With regard to the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I should like to look at what she has said and have discussions within the Department about her proposal. However, my understanding of the situation is that even at the present time it is possible for a woman
648
doctor to be a principal in the National Health Service, even though she is not working full time. I ought not to guess at figures but I will do so and then write to apologise if I am wrong.
I think that at the present time a woman doctor can be a principal within the National Health Service, even if she has a list of only 1,000 patients which, as the noble Baroness knows, is considerably fewer than the lists of many other doctors. Therefore I do not envisage any future difficulties about this, because presumably the same conditions will apply. However, I should like to consider what the noble Baroness has said, and certainly I shall not hesitate to write to her if I have to change some of the points I have made or if there is anything that I can add to them.
May I say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that I dealt with this matter at Second Reading. However, I think that I can deal briefly with it at this stage. Already we have had preliminary views from the General Medical Services Committee, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Council for Post-Graduate Medical Education. In prescribing the medical experience necessary, the Secretary of State will take advice from the joint committee on postgraduate training for general practice. This committee is composed of representatives of the General Medical Services Committee—on which, as I have already said, the Medical Women's Federation is represented—the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Conference of Regional Advisers in General Practice, the Conference of Postgraduate Deans, the Association of University Teachers in General Practice and the Armed Services General Practice Approval Board. Professional committees will also be responsible for issuing certificates of prescribed experience, but I think that the noble Lord will agree that we are to have consultations with a very wide field. As I say, the Government are always open to advice, particularly in matters of this kind where there are so many members of the medical profession in your Lordships' House. If there is anybody that we ought to be thinking about, then I hope that Members of your Lordships' House will not hesitate to let us know.
Baroness YOUNG: I am very grateful to hear that list of people who are to be consulted over the laying of the regulations and I am very glad to know that in no way is it going to be restricted. One of the difficulties at the moment is that people have not given evidence to the Government because they did not know that the Bill was going through Parliament and had arrived at your Lordships' House. Therefore one has to be a little careful about saying that just because evidence has not been produced it would not have been forthcoming had it been asked for.
I do not feel we could accept the argument that a woman doctor could be an assistant and therefore need not worry about not being a principal in general practice. I do not intend to repeat all the arguments that were used on this kind of point during the course of the Sex Discrimination Bill. It merely goes to show that women have more difficulty in qualifying and therefore tend to end up in the less good jobs. One must be realistic about this. It could well mean that in a general practice the woman doctor would be the general dogsbody because she was not so well qualified as everybody else. This is a situation which I am sure we should all want to avoid. It is for that reason that one wants to enable women doctors to qualify to become principals without too much difficulty.
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for her suggestion of an Amendment. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his offer to consider any Amendment that would meet this point. T shall think about it, and I am certain that the noble Lord will in general terms consider the Amendment that has already been suggested. As I say, I will read what has been said in Hansard and consider this matter before the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.27 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: As I have already indicated, Clause 2 is the core of this Bill and it would be very helpful to know something about the kind of regulations
650
that the Government intend to lay. There are, therefore, three general questions that I should like to ask.
First, what is meant by " prescribed medical experience "? For example, does it mean that doctors will be sent to various areas of the country and that the real intention is to operate a kind of quota system so that the less attractive parts of the country will be able to get general practitioners? It may be that I have a suspicious mind, but it would be helpful to know that this is not the intention of the regulations. Certainly some doctors have said this to me. Of course, one knows that there are parts of the country where it is very difficult to get general practitioners and that the temptation to say, " You will do your prescribed medical experience in X, because we cannot get any doctors there ", would be very great. The " prescribed medical experience " would be rather like the teacher quotas of local education authorities. This is a very good way of making quite sure that qualified teachers are distributed around the country so that the popular areas are not able to get more than a certain number. I think it would be helpful to know that this is not the intention of the Government over prescribed medical experience.
Then I should like to know what the ratio between hospital experience and community work is to be, and in this connection what will be included in community work? For example, will doctors be required to work with social services departments. Will they, for example, be required to have a period of time in an old people's home, so that they would know some of the problems of geriatrics and some of the very complicated problems of dealing with old people in the community? Will they get some experience of working with other medical services? Will they, as it has been put to me, learn about a community approach; for example, finding out the number of preventable diseases within a practice?
The second general question I should like to ask is who is to be the prescribed body which will determine the prescribed medical experience? Thirdly, how will the prescribed medical experience be assessed? Is this to be assessed by the prescribed body by examination?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Will the noble Baroness repeat what she said a sentence or two ago?
Baroness YOUNG: The second question that I asked is, who is to be the prescribed body? And the third question is how will the prescribed medical experience be assessed? For example, will the general practitioner, before completing this course, have to sit another examination? Will he, for example, have to write a dissertation? Will he, for example, have to do some kind of study in depth on some particular medical point? Will there be an assessor, or will the body working out the prescribed medical experience have the final say? What happens in the case (which is not unknown) of a doctor who, for perhaps perfectly good reasons, happens to fall out with the prescribed body? Will there be an outside assessor to whom he may appeal to make quite sure that justice is done?
I am not asking all these questions simply to take up the time of the Committee, but as I have already indicated, this is all going to be laid down in regulations and it is very difficult to do anything in detail at that stage. Therefore, I feel it will be helpful to have some information about what the Government really believe is to happen under Clause 2.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I should like to endorse much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has just said and also to ask a couple of questions which I hope will be thought relevant and succinct. In passing, may I say that I do not think my noble friend in any way wanted to denigrate the ability of women today. Indeed, I should be the last to denigrate the constructive abilities of the noble Baroness, and certainly of the noble Baroness who speaks so logically and so cogently from time to time in the House.
This question is important to those of us who have lived in the mining and anthracite areas, for instance. What is the prescribed medical experience there, where we have the disease of pneumoconiosis? Such diseases are not easy to diagnose by X-ray. What qualifications are needed in an Area Health Authority in a mining region where we have problems? For instance, two miners can work together on the same coal face and miner " A " will get pneumoconiosis whereas
652
by some strange quirk of working conditions miller " B ", working side by side with him, may not get it. Now there is so much progress in analysis and time is needed for Sabbaticals. Whether it be a woman doctor—I prefer the word " woman " to " female "—or a man who comes into a mining area straight away, a lot of training and experience is needed before they can deal with these problems, particularly now, with the advance in endoscopy—which is a British discovery, more or less, that has gone out of this country and now the Japanese more than anybody else produce the filaments which enable an examination to be carried out inside a duodenum or inside the stomach of an individual.
All this is a great advance which is being made in the analysis of diseases, and particularly in areas in which, because of the nature of the job, people are subject to duodenal ulcers, the advanced knowledge of endoscopy and analysis of the conditions of the duodenum and the stomach through pictures and photographs, has progressed. In other words we are in an area where we have a science and an art moving so rapidly that, were I qualified, I would not like to be one of the people who had to lay down these regulations. In other words, there must be latitude and understanding.
Lord PLATT: May I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that his scheme for post-graduate education would take the whole lifetime of the doctor and we should then have no principals in general practice at all, and that would settle the issue.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I would not for a moment dare to contradict the noble Lord. That is one of the difficulties of the area in which we are dealing. That is all I have pointed out, and I think the noble Lord has confirmed it by his constructive remarks.
Lord PLATT: I had intended to make one or two remarks, but really everything I could have said has now been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. As to the question of government by regulation, we all know and agree that it has to happen to a large extent, but I myself do not remember—and I have now accumulated a little experience of legislation—a Bill in

653
which I really knew nothing at all about the intentions or what the prescribed body was and what the Government had in mind. Surely it is quite common in regulations to say something about the prescribed body, such as " it shall consist of no less than so many people ", or something of that kind, and that regulations shall not be drawn up without consulting certain bodies. Also if you do not like to name an actual body, such as the Medical Women's Federation, which is the one that really should be consulted, and of course the Royal College of General Practitioners, and in particular if you do not like to name certain bodies in the regulations it is not unusual to say that some of the bodies should be those particularly concerned in the education and training of women doctors. Something like that could go down, surely; and why the Negative Resolution procedure, which, as we know, is so extraordinarily unsatisfactory?
Baroness SEEAR: I notice that this Bill has no Schedule. Surely many of the matters which have been raised, instead of being dealt with by regulations could be incorporated in Schedules, and then we should have them in the Bill and we should be able to discuss them during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not think I can give a satisfactory answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I can only assume that this matter has been considered by Parliamentary draftsmen and we have taken advice on this and it has been considered to be the best way of proceeding. I will go into the matter and will let her know what the reply of the Government is in respect of this, but it certainly had not occurred to me that it was an unusual way of dealing with it.
I shall try to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. May I say that in some respects we are glad that she spoke in this way because we feel it is desirable that we should be able to give as much information as we can at the present time about the nature of vocational training. Perhaps I may preface my remarks by saying that in laying down detail in the regulations, as I said earlier on, we shall want to consult very closely all the educational and medical bodies within the medical profession; but we expect that the general
654
pattern will be a period of, say, two years in a hospital, normally in a senior house officer post, and a period attached to an established general practitioner for about one year, he having been approved by the general practice sub-committee of the regional committee for post-graduate medical education.
The pattern of training undertaken voluntarily by many young doctors at present is greatly influenced by the requirements of the vocational training allowance, payable to principals during their early years in practice. At the present moment, these involve three years, including the pre-registration year. During that time, the doctor occupies a post in a number of specialties. He may spend either six or 12 months in each of several specialties so as to get the broad base of experience which is obviously very valuable to the general practitioner. There are some posts which provide for rotation through a number of departments for shorter periods.
At the moment I am talking about the present training scheme, but this is broadly the pattern on which the vocational training will be developed. In order to qualify for the vocational allowance, the doctor must include at least six months in two or more specialties from a specified list, which includes general medicine, chest medicine, traumatic surgery or accident and emergency work, obstetrics and gynaecology, paediatrics, psychiatry, geriatrics, dermatology, ophthalmology, anaesthesia and otorhinolaryngology. But as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, said, there is a limit to what one can do in three years! We are not going to pretend that we can have a curriculum which will equip a doctor in every possible field. It may be that when we consult the profession, they may wish to amend the criteria in the light of experience. However, I think that this will give noble Lords a general picture of what we have in mind.
In hospital, the potential general practitioner does the same kind of work as his colleagues who are planning a hospital career. In fact, he is a hospital junior in that speciality. However, in addition, throughout his training he may attend such lectures and courses arranged by the local clinical tutor in consultation with the regional postgraduate dean and general practice sub-committee.

655
During the year in general practice, the trainee gains practical experience of the work of the primary health care teams, the links with local authority services and the whole pattern of the organisation and delivery of primary health care. He will have an individual training programme designed for him by his trainer. This is a matter which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised. As she knows, there are fourteen Regional Health Areas in the country. Each of them will have a vocational training set-up with trainers, and this will work on a regional basis. The trainee may participate in visits and consultations with the trainer, or undertake them on his own. At all times, he will work closely with his trainer and other members of the team, in order to gain a deeper understanding of the medical and social problems involved in the medical care of a patient and his or her family. Something which commends itself to the noble Baroness, because it commends itself to me, and I know how she feels about this, is that he may be seconded for short periods to other practices, and recently, some short experimental attachments to social service departments have been arranged. We are hoping that this can be a particular factor in the training, and that it will be much more widespread in the future than it is at the present moment.
We do not wish to make the regulations so inflexible that all doctors must follow the same training pattern. We think there is some merit in leaving some of the training for the trainer himself to develop in the various regions. This is why we have provided for, shall I say, an alternative route; that is, the certificate of equivalent experience. A postgraduate medical dean and regional adviser in general practice may wish to experiment with different specialties, to give your Lordships an example. Doctors coming from overseas need to have their experience individually assessed. There is also the question of doctors who can train only part-time. I have already touched on this in referring to the training of women doctors in the first Amendment. Clearly, the regulations will need to provide for part-time training.
Part-time junior hospital posts already exist, but we shall be emphasising to health authorities the importance of planning for the needs of these potential
656
general practitioners. Similarly, part-time training in general practice also occurs, and we see no problem at all in extending this. We will keep the operation under review while we are having discussions. That is why the details of training arc more appropriate, we think, to regulations where changes can be more readily made than if they were included in a Bill.
The question of assessment was raised. There is provision for an appeal, but I just cannot remember to whom the appeal will be made. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised a question as to whether there is an appeal. There is, but I just cannot remember the body to whom the appeal will be made. There is not an examination as such. The prescribed body must be satisfied that experience has been acquired. The trainee doctor will most probably produce a statement from whoever has been supervising the trainee, to the effect that he has not only taken it, but has acquitted himself satisfactorily. If the supervisor refuses such a statement, or the prescribed body refuses a certificate—I see I have the answer here—the trainee will be able to appeal to a body advising the Secretary of State, but I cannot say at this stage who the body will be.
We want to discuss the question of the prescribed body further, but our general view is that this will be the regional postgraduate education committee operating on the advice of the Joint Committee for Postgraduate Training for General Practice. That will be in the areas. I think I have answered the three questions put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I hope she will feel that her Amendment to delete Clause 2 has been satisfactorily dealt with, and that it is not necessary for her to proceed with it.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for giving a full answer to my Amendment. I am bound to say that I feel I was completely justified in putting it down because now we have had a much clearer picture of what this Bill entails. I am somewhat worried that so many important points are still to be determined, the details of which, after the Bill becomes law, we shall not be able to find out and really will not be able to alter, even if it seemed to us that they were not very satisfactory. I shall read very carefully what has been

657
said, and it may well be that in the light of my study of Hansard I will come back with a further Amendment on Report.
I should like to consider the question—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will consider it, too—as to whether there is not anything more that he and his advisers could put into the Bill to tell us about this prescribed medical experience; to tell us about the body that will be responsible for administering it, who it will consist of, and the numbers. I take his point that this is to be done by Regional Health Authorities and a particular person or committee advising them, but it is really unclear to me at this point as to exactly what it is intended should happen. The noble Lord may well say that of course this is still all subject to consultation, and then we shall be back in the same argument about regulations. But he might like to consider that it would be worth while for the House to have by the next stage a little more detail written into the Bill. I believe that in an extremely important situation we know extraordinarily little, and we are taking it all—except for what we read in Hansard—absolutely on faith. I do not intend to press this Amendment to a Division this evening, but I hope the noble Lord will consider what I have said before the
658
Report stage of the Bill, when we can return to it, if necessary.
Clause 2 agreed to. Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.