Lords Sitting of 12 May 1976

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Norwich):
The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
The Earl Russell—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

RAIL BAN ON CARRIAGE OF PETS
Lord MAELOR: 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 seek to dissuade the British Railways Board from banning the carriage of pets sent by stores to purchasers.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, in exercising their commercial judgment as to what unaccompanied livestock should be carried by rail, the British Railways Board have to bear in mind the objectives of the rail freight business and the requirements of the animal protection legislation. The Transport Users' Consultative Committees were set up under the Transport Act 1962 to protect the interests of dissatisfied members of the public.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many storekeepers will soon be bankrupt because they are losing all their business? I fully appreciate the British Railways Board's objection to carrying racing pigeons, for instance, but it is different when animals and birds are carefully packed and fed while being conveyed from the seller to the purchaser.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I appreciate that there are problems connected with this, and we have to leave it to British Rail, who know about the workings of British railways, as to which forms of animal life they should accept
944
for transport. There are problems, under the Transport of Animals (General) Order, about the watering and the feeding of animals in transit. I can only suggest to my noble friend and to other Members of your Lordships' House who are concerned about this matter that the proper procedure would be to consult their Area Transport Consultative Committee, who are able to put pressure on the British Railways Board.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, if I were to send a sheep by rail how would British Rail know whether I wanted to keep it as a pet or use it on my farm?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I think British Rail would have to take the noble and learned Lord's word whether it was to be a pet or an animal for his farm.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, if I am correct in assuming that the British Railways Board will not, in theory, take an animal, is it possible to send it by post?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I do not think the Post Office would welcome some of the things which might be sent by post.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I speak as a pigeon-fancier, and I can assure my noble friends that it is a very expensive business—that the action which has been taken by the British Railways Board in regard to the conveyance of racing pigeons has forced the organisations responsible at national level, as well as at district level and local level, to obtain their own transport for the conveyance of these pigeons from place to place for racing purposes, thus causing a big loss to British Rail? I am rather surprised that British Rail are turning away business which ought to have been profitable for them and which has been in existence for years, ever since I was a boy.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, British Rail are in difficulties at the moment because they are making a loss on their freight. The present total traffic in livestock produces a revenue of about £500,000, out of a total freight revenue of £280 million. Between one-half and two-thirds of this represents the classes of traffic which are to be retained. The

945
revenue from the carriage of pigeons, which is the category which is producing most public interest and pressure, amounts to only £150,000. I know there will be difficulties for the owners of pigeons, but I am sure that if they all use the services of their Members of Parliament and of Members of this House, and if they write to their Transport Users' Consultative Committee, they will probably get some results.
The EARL of HALSBURY: My Lords, with reference to the last answer but one given by the noble Baroness, may I ask her whether she is aware that it is quite customary to send queen bees by post?
Viscount LONG: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, in a recent letter to the Fur and Feather magazine, the British Railways Board said that the only animals or insects they could transport by rail were waterfleas, maggots, crabs, oysters and one other which I cannot remember? Could the noble Baroness advise us how one waters those various species?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, they are packed in such a way that they do not need any care in transit.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): My Lords, could the Minister please say what is to happen to the large-scale transport of pedigree dogs, which has gone on for years and which brings considerable revenue to the railways? How are these dogs to be transported?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, at the moment the only way we can suggest to the noble Baroness is for them to be sent by road or to be accompanied on railway journeys. But, again, if there is a substantial trade in the transport of pedigree dogs—and I accept that there is such a trade—I can only repeat what I save said: make your views known to your Transport Users' Consultative Committee.
Viscount MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that this does not affect the carriage of day-old chicks?
946
Furthermore, would the noble Baroness agree that the reason why the British Railways Board have lost such a great deal of the livestock trade, particularly in sheep and cattle, is because they appear to have deliberately thrown it away by not catering for it?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, day-old chicks can still be sent by rail, because for up to 72 hours they do not need any attention by way of feeding and watering.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether she would agree that pigeon racing is not only a matter of great pleasure to thousands in the North but is now becoming an industry? The action of the British Railways Board, in restricting the transport of racing pigeons, is having a deplorable effect on that industry. Can the British Railways Board at least discuss with the Pigeon Racing Association some change in the rates which they charge, so that an agreement can be reached?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I think it would be helpful if the Pigeon Racing Association would ask for discussions with British Rail. At this time I have no knowlegde as to whether they have done so. But there must be thousands of people in this country with racing pigeons or with an interest in them, and I can only repeat, my Lords, that they should all be writing to their Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee.
Lord KILMANY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she can arrange for the view of this House to be transmitted to the British Railways Board, without going through the medium of the Transport Users' Consultative Committees?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, this House has handed over the responsibilities for British Railways to the British Railways Board, and they are therefore responsible for the running of British Rail. I am quite sure that members of that Board, or their officials, read Hansard and are aware of what happens in this House and in another place: but we have not the right to indicate to British Rail which goods they should accept for transport and which they should not.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she thinks that the very small economy that apparently can be made in this way is worth upsetting a vast number of people who are going to be troubled by this change?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, this is something which British Rail no doubt have to take into consideration, but we as Parliament have required British Rail to run their freight business commercially. They have been given the responsibility at the moment to try to eliminate the deficit at present running at £60 million a year. Therefore, we have to give them the freedom to arrange their business as they think best. If individuals or organisations do not like it then, once again, will they write to their area transport users' consultative committee?
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, does accepting that British Rail have to run their railways mean that the House of Lords cannot give an extract of what they feel? We do not have to be eliminated because British Rail run the railways. That would mean that we could never express any view at all, because before long everything will be nationalised and we shall not be able to say anything to anybody.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am sorry to have to repeat that this is a matter for the British Railways Board and it is because of the commercial implications in meeting their obligations under the Transport of Animals (General) Order 1973 that these problems have now arisen.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, your Lordships have adequately represented the rights of day-old chicks, and, through the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, the rights of sheep in transport; but I think—although I am in the hands of the House—that 10 minutes is enough for one Question.

RATING (CHARITY SHOPS) BILL [H.L.]
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Baroness Birk,
948
I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Section 40 of the General Rate Act 1967 and Section 4 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions etc.) (Scotland) Act 1962 as respects charity shops. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read la—[Baroness Stedman.]
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION
2.42 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY rose to call attention to the work of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was under the illusion that the previous problem had been settled once and for all by Punch with the statement: "Dogs is dogs, cats is dogs, but tortoises is insects and must be classified accordingly." But I rise to turn to another subject and one which I think has not had sufficient airing in Parliament in the past. I rise to call attention to the work of the Council of Europe and of the Western European Union and to move the Papers.
It is possibly a mark of the need for this debate—at least I hope your Lordships will agree—that the speakers' list, although admittedly it is only a short debate, consists of the Front Bench speakers for the Parties and three of my valued and respected colleagues on the Parliamentary delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. I am grateful to them for speaking in this debate, and I think it is very true that these bodies—which I hope to show your Lordships are of considerable interest, not to say of vital importance to this country—should receive more of an airing in Parliament.
One of the problems is the European Economic Community. I am a strong and fervent pro-European in the sense that I was delighted that this country went into the EEC and I hope that it becomes stronger and more combined.
But it is not Europe; and its habit of calling itself "Europe" to the exclusion of a great many other democratic countries in the West, not to mention the countries in Eastern Europe, is, I think, a great pity. In particular, I would draw attention to the fact that the Council of Ministers now calls itself the European Council. The muddle between this and the Council of Europe is quite obvious and it does not merely extend to people who are not in politics but to Members of both Houses of Parliament. It also extends to Ministers. There was one glorious situation in one European country where a Minister of the country concerned spoke to a committee of the Council of Europe for a solid hour under the misapprehension that he was addressing a committee of the EEC. These things happen but I do not think they should happen because more should be known particularly of the work of the Council of Europe, although I do not underrate the effects and the effort of the Western European Union. We have the same delegation to each of these bodies, which possibly tends to confuse them in the eyes of some people.
The Council of Europe was set up for the purposes of peaceful co-operation between democratic European countries on most matters affecting the citizen except defence. The Council of Europe consists of 18 democratic countries, which is about three-quarters of the democratic countries of the world. It represents 320 million people. The Western European Union, which I shall be discussing in detail later, discusses defence. It was set up for wider purposes, but it fills this gap which is not covered by the Council of Europe. It consists of seven countries, the original six of the EEC and the United Kingdom. In cultural matters, the work of the Council of Europe extends even further. The 18 is extended to 21 by the co-operation of Finland, which is in a difficult position apart from that of its nearness to Russia, Spain which has been allowed culturally to co-operate in the past although to date, because of its undemocratic nature, it has not qualified for membership of the Council—and we hope that that will come in the future with the coming of democracy—and the Holy See. That makes 21 countries which co-operate on the cultural side.
My Lords, even a brief review of the work of the Council of Europe would take too long, so I will not submit it to your Lordships or your Lordships to it. I want to underline three points which I think are of great importance in its work. Those are human rights, the preservation of European cultural heritage and the voice of democratic Europe; and, to a certain extent, they are combined and interwoven.
In human rights, the Western European countries in the Council of Europe are the one body to take the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, in its substance, turn it into something which has teeth and can be administered. It is greatly to the credit of the countries concerned, including our own, which have submitted themselves to the European Court of Human Rights and, in particular, to the optional right of allowing individual petitions. At least two petitions against this country by individuals have been allowed by the Court. Even if sometimes we may disagree with the judgment (as anyone may disagree with any judgment, even that of the highest judge in the land), it is important that we should submit ourselves to this administration of justice with all the rest of the European democratic countries.
Secondly, there is the preservation of our cultural heritage. I do not propose to say much about this because the great name in this field is that of the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys. He is going to speak in this debate today and we are all looking forward to hearing him. There is absolutely no doubt that one of the immense triumphs of the Council of Europe has been the European Architectural Heritage Year. The fact that this was largely the work of the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, the effect it had during the Year, and the ongoing effect that he is doing his best to see it has now, is something very great and valuable for those of us who deplore the rate at which some of our heritage appears to be going down the drain.
The third major point in the work of the Council of Europe which I want to mention is the voice of democratic Europe. In a way, this ties in with human rights; but it also provides a forum in which democratic countries which have disputes or differences can talk to each other openly and frankly. It has been a saving

951
grace in past years that Greece and Turkey have both been able to speak to and discuss foreign affairs and their own problems in the forum of the Council of Europe. While they have not always done so amicably, it has been a place where dialogue continued and where other people were able to put in their views and therefore bring the influence of democratic Europe to bear on the problem.
In the matter of Ireland it has been a forum where the Republic of Ireland and ourselves could talk in public with other democratic countries. It is my belief that possibly the future of Northern Ireland will be found somewhere in the framework of the European Economic Community. The fact that all the democratic European countries have been able to contribute to the discussion has been useful. A recent debate we had on this matter was marked by the sobriety, fairness and, in the end, almost unanimity of the Irish and English delegations. Our dialogue with nonmember countries is also important, particularly with the other non-democratic Western European countries. With Spain and Portugal and changes in the regime, I think that the Council of Europe, more than any other body, is able to keep in touch and represent what the whole of Western Europe wants to encourage and expects to see in such a development.
The other side of the coin was that the Council of Europe was the one body which had the courage to stand up and say to Greece, when it was under the dictators, "You are not observing human rights; you are not observing the Charter. You cannot remain in this body". As normally happens in these matters, Greece actually withdrew before it was suspended; but the point was made that this was a body that was able to put this very considerable pressure on Greece, a pressure which in the end must have been one of the factors which worked to the restoration of democracy in Greece. It was one of the most moving moments in the whole of my political life when the Greek democratic delegates came back to the Council of Europe. They were overjoyed to be back and we were very pleased to see them.
One of the jobs that we are able to do under this same heading of the voice of democratic Europe is to combine very
952
effectively to look at the results of the Helsinki pact. This is one of the jobs to which the Council of Europe and the WEU are both paying considerable attention at the moment. Other subjects which are important are migrant workers, where we represent not only the host countries but also exporting countries like Turkey. There are the efforts of people like Mr. John Cordle who has been working hard on an international health card for motorists. That will be most valuable in terms not only of saving life but also in other fields, and in ease of paying for medical treatment and things like that.
Regarding education, a complete review of the higher education of all the Western democracies is going on. We have had recently an extremely important and very good symposium on the performing arts at which the rapporteur was Mr. Faulds who did a magnificent job, even though I was forced to make some amendments in the full debate afterwards. There was another symposium on domestic institutions. There is continuing work—and this is very important—on environmental matters which cannot be settled by one country at a time when one person's environment is infected by the pollution of another. Continuing work is done on this. That far from exhausts the list, but I know other speakers will have more to say.
I now turn to the work of the Western European Union, the Seven. This was an instrument originally for drawing Germany into the defence of the West in a way whereby its arms could be controlled. I suspect that some experts will think that that is an over-simplification; but there is no doubt that that was one of the main objects and that is what many people still think of as its original purpose. It laid down that it was for economic, social, cultural and defence co-operation; but with the growth of the Council of Europe the first three items have fallen away and the Western European Union deals mainly with defence. It may be a talking shop, and it is true that in possibly the most important field in which it could work, the standardisation of armaments, it has had very little success, but no more has anyone else and it is at least still trying.
There are some moves at the moment to get rid of the Western European Union

953
on the basis that it really has no powers and does not do very much. This is a tendency which should be greatly resisted. I shall be interested to hear what the Government have to say about this because it is the one purely European Parliamentary defence forum. If Parliamentarians want to talk about European defence, this is the one place in which they can do it. They can talk about it in NATO with America and Canada—but, incidentally, without France—but they can do it with France in the WEU. I think it is important for this purpose. I look forward to a time when the Western European Union will not be needed because the EEC will have its own foreign and defence policy. I hope that that time will not be far off. It is obviously not immediate, because, for instance, of the presence of Ireland which is not a member of NATO. In the meantime, the WEU must go on.
But it is not just its existence as such which is important; it in fact does some very important work in the way of reports which are available to your Lordships. No doubt noble Lords who are interested in defence and foreign affairs make use of those reports. Mr. Critchley, when he became chairman of the Defence and Armaments Committee, stimulated an enormous amount of valuable work, particularly in this field. This is appreciated by all the Members of whatever Party and nationality. It is in this area that we find a surprising toughness of attitude on behalf of Parliamentarians of all Parties as to what are the necessities for defence, and it is a valuable training ground for those of us who possibly did not know very much about these matters before we went in.
Finally, I should like to raise a small personal point of which I have not given notice to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. I apologise for that. I do not expect an answer today; in fact, it is something to which an answer could not be given today even if I had given notice. I have not given notice partly because I was at Strasbourg at the Council of Europe meeting all last week, at a Committee meeting of the Western European Union in Paris on Monday, and certain other things have been taking up my attention since then. But the attention of the Leader of the House should be brought to the burden of the financial
954
sacrifice which is placed upon noble Lords who are concerned in these delegations. Members of another place are paid their Parliamentary salaries and, on top of that, they are paid a living allowance and their travelling expenses. This is enough, if you are careful, to cover expenses; there is no doubt about that. But we in this House receive expenses when we attend here. Quite rightly, we do not draw our expenses when we are at these other bodies. We have our living expenses here, but nothing else. I speak humbly, as a relative newcomer to this body who does not claim any great attendance compared with my colleagues, so I hope I speak on behalf of us all. Throughout the year we put in quite a lot of time on these bodies. I know the difficult problems that have to be faced involving the whole question of expense and salaries for Members of your Lordships' House, and also how much more difficult they may be being made by the tax collector. Nevertheless, I think this is something which ought to be considered either by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or by the noble Lord the Leader of the House; and I will leave it at that.
I hope I have given a short survey of the work being done and why I think it is valuable. I know that the present Prime Minister very much values the work of the Council of Europe, and I hope this is a matter which will continue to be made plain, because we are often accused by our colleagues in Europe of slightly dragging our feet. I think everyone in every country complains that the Council of Europe is not as well known as it should be, but one gets the impression that in this country it is even less well known than it is elsewhere. If its work is to continue and indeed to flourish, it needs the full-hearted support of the Government. I have the feeling that it has this, but one of the purposes of this debate is to ask the Government to give this assurance and to allow it to be broadcast to all our allies and friends in these bodies. My Lords, I beg to move the Motion for Papers standing in my name on the Order Paper.
3.2 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, before discussing the two establishments which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has so ably described, I should like heartily to endorse his impassioned

955
plea for a consideration of emoluments and allowances to be given to Members of this House who serve on them and also serve in the European Parliament, that other body where many of your Lordships spent a lot of time and do enormous amount of work. Those noble Lords, like the others who serve in the Council of Europe, lose their daily allowance here and at the end of the year have the added indignity of an income tax demand on what has always been understood to be an allowance and apparently can be perfectly justified if one spends it on asparagus but not justified if one lives off a packet of biscuits. The present position is positively absurd, and I hope that the noble Lord will look with his usual sympathy at this matter to see whether some fair treatment can be given to those who serve on these bodies and do so much for the honour of the United Kingdom abroad.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, a very graphic description of the work of two institutions. Institutions which have been established for a particular purpose sometimes outlive both their usefulness and their reason for existing. That has sometimes been said both of the Council of Europe and of the WEU. However, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has already proved more than adequately that those bodies fulfil a useful role. I should like to endorse everything he has said and to add that the existence of these two earliest institutions in Europe means that they play a vital role in the development of European affairs.
The Report on the activities of the Council of Europe for the last year, from 1974 to September 1975, gives a very fair indication of the subjects of common interest to all the 18 Member-States, whether in the field of social, cultural, educational, scientific or legal policies. They have, also, a great role to play in the future, as one can see from the inter-Governmental programme for 1976–80, which covers a vast number of important matters which are to be discussed in the Council of Europe. I would say at this point that none of those matters could conceivably be discussed fruitfully in the arena of the European Parliament, because, whereas the Treaty of Rome is based almost entirely on economic con-
956
siderations, the Council of Europe devotes its attention to almost every other sphere which is of interest to the European citizen.
In 1975 the outstanding contribution to the Council's programme has already been generously referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I should like, also, to add my congratulations and thanks to my noble friend Lord Duncan-Sandys for the initiative he took in establishing 1975 as the European Architectural Heritage Year. The citizens and, above all, the Governments of Europe have at last been reminded of the priceless inheritance we have in terms of historic buildings and of the urgent necessity not only to ensure that the best are kept in a good state of repair but that they are not destroyed, or their surroundings violated, by energetic but often misguided urban planners.
Under the Statute of the Council—may I say how delighted I am that this has never become abbreviated to "C of E" and is probably one of the few institutions in Europe which has not been turned into initials—one of its chief aims is to protect and develop the human rights of individuals by ensuring the application of the European Convention. The number of individual applications—I think this is very relevant to the importance which is attached to the Council's work—was over 400 last year. That is evidence of the importance attached to the institution by individuals throughout the Member-States. Equally important is another sphere to which the noble Lord did not refer, because he had many other aspects of the Council's work to cover; that is, the studies by the Committee of Experts, particularly in relation to the responsibilities and functions of Press councils, which should ensure an unrestricted supply of information to the public as well as protecting individuals against any abuses on the part of the Press. I mention this to show that the discussions which go on in the Council of Europe and through the Committee of Experts are by no means mere intellectual exercises, but are very relevant to the needs and demands of European citizens.
The work undertaken by the Council naturally includes a variety of subjects concerning the environment, legal and judicial matters. For example, the subject

957
of the legal status of migrant workers is one which is covered to some extent by the European Community. It may result in action by means of some form of Directive or Regulations. Here, again, it was the Council of Europe which took the initiative and has done all the groundwork and the homework in order to present the very real human problems that arise.
The work of the Council of Europe has been shown over and over again to have been extremely thorough. What is very rewarding in strictly humanitarian matters has been the non-Party way in which such matters have been approached. In the search for suitable draft conventions or instruments which could be accepted by Member-States, they arrive at a consensus in an effort to reach a humanitarian solution to today's very difficult problems.
Further, the Council is an organisation which can be joined by States who have not yet gained the economic strength or structure to join the European Community. It gives an opportunity to those States who are returning to or initiating democratic systems to look towards European co-operation and thus contribute to the maintenance of peace in Europe by aspiring to the democratic standards and ideals set by the Council of Europe.
I should like to turn to a subject which has been referred to in the Annual Report. It is of great concern to this country and, again, could not conceivably come up in any other European body. This is the Conference on Criminal Policy, which has provided a forum for the need to adapt the criminal justice system and the role of penal law in contemporary European society. One aspect common to most Member-States is the overburdening of the criminal courts with minor road traffic offences and infringements of regulations and so on. Alternatives to imprisonment and the treatment of the long-term prisoners raise many human issues which need discussion. The Council of Europe, with a very wide membership and deep experience of these kinds of problems based on similar traditions, customs and social structures, provides the ideal forum not only for discussion but for finding partial solutions to the problems of our society of today.
958
The continued implementation and extension of the provisions of the European Social Charter, and improvements in social security systems throughout the 18 States, are important elements in the contribution of the Council to European wellbeing. Similarly, in the field of education, application and furtherance of the effects of the Conventions on academic qualifications and entry to universities are more than ever necessary to encourage the exchange of students and university teachers between the various European States.
The Council, of course, provides not only a forum for debate, but, by its contribution to the development of international law with over 80 Conventions or agreements and more to come, fills a role which cannot be undertaken by any other body. It further provides a possibility for countries such as Spain and Portugal to join, once their democratising processes have been achieved, so that they can take part in matters of European interest and concern. Again, I emphasise that none of these elements is fulfilled, or could be provided for, by the European Parliament or any of the institutions of the European Communities. Of course, the Treaty of Rome provides under Article 230 for close co-operation with the Council of Europe, and I very much hope that this co-operation will continue, and bear fruit, between the structures and the institutions in Europe. But they need each other, they are complementary to each other and one does not exclude the work of the other.
Before concluding the few words I have to say on the Council of Europe, I should just like to pay tribute to the very splendid work done by the 700 civil servants who work in Strasbourg at the Council of Europe. I know that all of us who have had anything to do with them—and I add in parentheses that I have not had the honour of serving on the Council of Europe, but I have had dealings with them through my work in the European Parliament—know how extraordinarily dedicated they are and what wonderful work they do for the European cause.
Turning to Western European Union, the other body which is the subject for debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has rightly pointed out it provides the only forum for the time being where

959
European defence can be debated by Parliamentarians of the seven States which have ratified the Treaty of Brussels and its modified 1954 Paris Agreement. But it should be emphasised that, even though defence is from time to time debated in the North Atlantic Assembly, that is not an organisation which has been set up or established by Treaty, whereas the WEU Assembly is established by treaty and it has not only the possibility but the duty to discuss defence matters. So that at the moment the WEU Assembly is the only body that is legally obligated to discuss these aspects of European security. The advantages, therefore, to Western States of the continued existence and effective working of the WEU are points which I should just like to enumerate briefly, because I know that there are other speakers on this matter.
I think it is important to underline one or two aspects of the work of the WEU. These appear to be, first, the important role it can play in the standardisation of equipment, which is essential both on economic and military grounds. Secondly, the treaty contains provision for the mutual defence of its adherents; indeed, it is the only treaty in Western Europe which strictly provides for this mutual defence. It has often been considered that if Greece and Turkey were to join the WEU they would be bound to assist each other in the event of attack, and thereby avert the possibility of one or other attacking. This is a subject for the Greek and Turkish Governments to consider, but it would be well worth while offering to them the possibility of membership of this very important organisation. Of course, it should be added that before we joined the Community the WEU was the only European body through which we had a direct link with the original Six of the EEC. Finally, the application of the treaty ensures democratic control by the Parliamentary Assembly over the collective security and defence of Western Europe.
Both of these institutions which we are discussing have played, and continue to play, a vital role in the co-operation of Western European nations for the development of a better and more secure society. The Tindemans Report on European Union clearly stated that it could not be achieved without a common defence policy. The WEU already provides a basis for a common defence policy, but it cannot
960
overlook the importance of the fact that the European Union should eventually be extended not only from seven countries to nine but from nine to all the Western European countries; and also of the fact that co-operation with the United States should be maintained and not excluded. So that hopes for the future of a European Union may lie in the eventual development of the European Communities, possibly as outlined in the Tindemans Report but it will certainly be a long time before the Nine reach agreement on defence matters or give undertakings on mutual assistance. It is still essentially an economic community confined to nine nations. The Council of Europe, with its wider cultural, scientific and legal fields, with 18 nations and the WEU under the Treaty of Brussels, are still needed to play their constructive role in a future Western European Union. My Lords, I beg to support the Motion.
3.16 p.m.
Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, on his success in the ballot and on choosing this subject, with which I personally am very much involved. But I think he will agree that this is far too important a subject to be left to the fortuitous chance of a name being drawn out of a hat. I am quite sure that we should be regularly examining the work of the various European institutions of which we are members and, in the case of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union, to which we send Parliamentary representatives. In both Houses, we have been compelled to examine on an ad hoc basis the regulations and the Directives that come from the European Economic Community, but we seldom discuss the wider political aspects of European affairs, and in both Houses we completely ignore the European institutions that we are discussing today.
Yet, in my view at any rate, this is an extremely important aspect of our Parliamentary activities—at least, it should be—because the Council of Europe, if I may take that first, has produced, and will go on producing as we have heard, valuable proposals for Government action over a very wide field. In concert with the other democratic countries of Western Europe it is acting as a stimulus to the executives

961
of the various countries to produce policies that have a European context, that are common policies in Western Europe, and is also putting a check on their executives—at least, I hope that that is the case— when they wrongfully produce insular policies that are unacceptable to some of our European friends. Therefore, I think that in both Houses we should receive and debate regularly reports from our representatives in these European Assemblies. So the first plea that I wish to make to the Government is that they arrange through the usual channels, here and in the other place—if the support that is given to today's Motion means anything—for regular debates on these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has given us a useful account, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, of the work of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. He has explained some of the achievements that have been gained so far, and given an indication of the very important projects that are now being considered and that will emerge as recommendations to member Governments, or as conventions to be signed and legislatively accepted. Reference has been made to human rights, which I think is one of the most important and great achievements of the Council of Europe. Of course, I am too modest to mention the European Consumer Protection Charter, but I hope that somebody else will do that for me. The list of achievements is impressive, but it is by no means complete. Nevertheless, I do not wish to take the matter further or to cover ground that has already been described. I want to address, as briefly as I can, some observations to my noble friend and to offer some proposals for what I believe are necessary and improving changes in the administration both of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. Any improving changes that are made will have to come from the initiative of the Committee of Ministers and not from the Assemblies. This is a rather difficult point and I do not want to elaborate it now, but this is the reason why I am addressing my observations to the Minister.
I think that my noble friend will agree that with the publication of the Tindemans Report, to which the noble Baroness referred, and the enlargement of the Economic Community, both the Council of Europe and the Western European
962
Union have reached a crucial stage in their development—perhaps a turning point at which some changes are essential. The enlargement of the EEC has caused some problems for the Council of Europe and whatever may come from the Tindemans Report has to be taken into consideration. I shall have to be brief and put forward views without the full measure of supporting argument that I should have liked to produce.
First of all, because of the importance that we attach now to the European Parliament, to the work of the Economic Community and to the reports that come from the Commission, we face the danger of isolating the Economic Community from the rest of Western Europe, or at least of diminishing the part that has to be played, if we want the Council of Europe to be effective, by the Council of Europe itself. I think that this danger is to some extent implicit in the Tindemans Report, for to carry out parts of it logically we would see the Council of Europe Assembly reduced to an appendage of the European Parliament. There are proposals that the Council of Europe Assembly should not meet so often as it does, which is three times a year—that perhaps once would be enough when, in effect, the European Parliament would graciously allow the other nine members of the Council of Europe to attend one of their sessions. If that were to happen, then the value of this wider association of democratic countries would be lost.
Moreover, to give such a prominent and dominating position to the institutions of the EEC seems to me to run counter to European geography. For example, we are moving towards an integrated European transport system and, of course, we cannot contain that system within the Nine. Railways, roads, rivers and canals do not stop at the frontiers of the Nine; they go beyond. For example, the waterway link that is now being developed as an active proposition that will eventually link the Rhine and the Danube is a most imaginative development, but obviously it cannot be contained within the Nine or within the Western European countries themselves. The Danube goes off to the East.
There are many other examples which could be taken where it would be quite impossible to contain the active projects

963
that are now coming along within the Economic Community—on pollution, especially river pollution, on energy policy, on common health services, on rules for migrant workers, on cultural co-operation and so on. It is a very long and impressive list. I do not want to see any of the developments in these wider fields being assigned from the Council of Europe to the European Parliament. The idea that all of these developments, now successfully pursued by the Council of Europe, could be handed over to the EEC, with only some kind of loose consultation with the Nine countries outside the EEC, is to me totally unacceptable and would be a grave rejection of our concept of European unity. Nevertheless, as the noble Baroness mentioned, but not quite in the same context, the Tindemans Report gives to us the opportunity to reappraise our Western European institutions.
It is at this point that, as I say, I wish to address some observations to the Minister. I think we must decide now, in a review or reappraisal of the institutions, perhaps following from the Tindemans Report, on the proper role for each of them and do some streamlining, because there is considerable duplication of their work, considerable overlapping and considerable wastage of staff who are going over the same fields and producing not complementary but rival reports. As a result of all this there is, too, a great deal of wasteful expenditure that we should look at very carefully. It is a big subject but, much as I should like to do so, I feel that I cannot take up your Lordships' time by going into the details.
May I therefore ask the Minister to consider seriously two proposals for initiative. As I have said, I believe that the initiative for any changes must come from the Committee of Ministers. To deal first with the common economic policies for Western Europe, there is a danger of the European Economic Community becoming too inward-looking, too insular. If the Council of Europe's concern about economic policies is weakened or diminished in any way, merely to assign preparatory work—the reports which have to be discussed in the Council of Europe Assembly—to, say, the EEC Commission, would be going backwards.
964
But this is implicit in the Tindemans Report and I think that it should be challenged.
I believe that we have to challenge it by putting forward a far better proposal, which is to widen the scheme of the Council of Europe's work on economic affairs. I hope it will be possible to have a one-part session—that is, one week of meetings a year—devoted solely or mainly to economic policy, but to do so on a wide basis and for that purpose to give to the OECD—I am sorry that I have to talk in initials, but I think that noble Lords will understand them—the task of preparing the reports that could be discussed on a political basis at that session. At the moment, OECD reports are directed at Governments, not to Parliamentarians for Parliamentary debate.
If we could enlarge the OECD's approach to its member countries by providing for a large-scale debate on economic affairs which would not be concentrated on Europe, although it would be mainly about Europe, this would he extremely valuable. It is not a far-fetched idea because I think noble Lords will know that the United States of America, Canada, Australia, Japan and New Zealand send representatives to meetings of the Council of Europe from time to time, but because there is no agenda to discuss in which they have a place they bring along goodwill messages and we get together. It is a valuable meeting place hut very little that is useful comes out of it. We need positive agendas for meetings of this kind, well prepared and considered in advance before we meet, and I believe the only body that can prepare them for meetings of this description, dealing with development aid as well as our own economic problems, is OECD.
My other proposal concerns Western European Union—and I shall be brief. I disagreed with the noble Baroness when she hinted—no more than hinted; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, did likewise, although I hope I am not doing him an injustice—that the defence of Western Europe might be handed over to EEC and that the European Parliament should discuss defence questions. I am utterly opposed to that idea. Because we built up Western

965
European Union and it is the body where defence policies and armaments are discussed and where Parliamentarians can meet to discuss collectively what their various Governments are doing in the defence field, it is too valuable an institution to be abolished.
However, I think that WEU should be restricted to this very important task. The reference in the original Brussels Treaty to collaboration in economic, social and cultural matters should now be removed. That was Ernest Bevin's dream of uniting Europe in a comprehensive series of pragmatical developments without any basic constitution to begin with—that would grow out later. But that has been overtaken by events. We now have to give WEU its modern function and I think the section of the Paris agreements to which the noble Baroness referred should also be modified. The section referring to the Assembly representatives of WEU being the same representatives who go to the Council of Europe, I think should be changed. One main reason why the WEU Assembly sometimes does not have a quorum is that so few of us who go there are really interested in defence, and I think it would not be difficult to change the Paris agreements in that way.
I apologise to your Lordships for having spoken for so long, but I think that with all the experience I have had in the Council of Europe and Western European Union this is the first opportunity in 25 years that I have had of discussing Western European Union and the Council of Europe in either House. I hope therefore that I may be forgiven for taking some time in making certain proposals which I think now are absolutely necessary for the effective development of both institutions.
3.34 p.m.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords. I am intervening not to make any very definite proposals but merely to add a few comments to the remarks which have already been made. I think all of us who care about Europe are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for raising the subject of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. It is important that their work should be referred to and should be reviewed
966
from time to time in our Parliament and I support the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, that there should be a regular review of these activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, defined the functions of the Council of Europe as in the main dealing with three matters—human rights, cultural affairs, and providing a forum for democratic Europe. It was The Hague Congress, which I had the task of organising in 1948—a long time ago—which first launched the idea of the creation of a European consultative Assembly which was given the name of the Council of Europe. But I should like to make it clear that at that time we never envisaged that this purely consultative Assembly was to be an end in itself. It was essentially to be the first step towards the achievement of a much larger and wider objective. I go further than many noble Lords: in my view the objective should be nothing less than the eventual creation of a United States of Europe.
The Council of Europe has already proved to be the starting point of a process which has led to the creation of the Coal and Steel Community, Euratom, the Treaty of Rome and the European Community. While the Community in Brussels has much more power, none the less the Council of Europe— and I am glad this has been recognised in the speeches that have already been made—has a most useful role to play as a meeting place for the representatives of the countries of the wider community of the 18. I think also one must emphasise (this has been referred to already) that it provides a focus for co-operation and interchange of ideas with countries outside the 18—countries of Eastern Europe and of the Iberian Peninsula.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, mentioned the European Architectural Heritage Year and I am most grateful to them for the all too generous remarks they made about my efforts in that respect. There is no doubt that this European Architectural Heritage Year, certainly from my point of view, has achieved a great deal more than I had dared to hope. It has made a big impact; it has aroused an enormous amount of interest; and what was particularly satisfying to me was

967
that it really was a European Architectural Heritage Year. It was not the Six or the Nine or the Eighteen, it was the whole of Europe. We had active support from Portugal, Spain, Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. In fact the Soviet Government provided material for the film which was produced for our Amsterdam Congress, and I think that was a contribution not only to culture but also to understanding in the spirit of Helsinki.
Of course it is no good having an activity and a campaign of that kind and then saying, "Well, that was very nice. Now we can think of something else." We now have to maintain and develop further the interest which was aroused during that campaign and there is no doubt that the method by which it has to be done is the exchange of information and ideas and persons, all the time maintaining contact with one another. There are two forces which we have to mobilise: one is pride and the other is shame. The more different towns and peoples can see what others are doing in other towns in other countries, the more they say, "That's fine! Why don't we do the same in our town? "Or else they say," Why are we doing so little in our town? "All this has a stimulating effect.
There is no doubt that the central force in the whole of this activity is the local authorities. They are the people who take most of the decisions, for better or for worse, which determine the fate of our architectural heritage. That is why we have, by independent initiative, created a new organisation, the Historic Towns Forum under the auspices of the Council of Europe. We have as patrons all the mayors of all the capital cities of Western Europe, and 500 or 600 towns exchange publications. There are tours. A party of German mayors is coming to Britain shortly and British mayors are going to Germany. There is another tour in France. In this way, we are trying to stimulate people, to get them to feel European, to recognise that our culture is a common European culture for which we have a common responsibility, and that we must work together to preserve it.
The other force is the independent citizen. There is no doubt that local
968
authorities are elected bodies, and strangely enough, they like to be re-elected. So, if they are criticised for having spent the ratepayers' money restoring the town hall, they do not do it any more. On the other hand, if they are praised for it, they do more. That is why the local conservation society is immensely important at local and national levels, and also at international level. There is room for closer coordination between the activities in this sphere of the Community and the Council of Europe. There is a good deal of duplication and of waste of effort and money. I think we could achieve more if the two bodies, not only in the cultural field but in other spheres as well, were to discuss matters more closely, and try to co-ordinate their activities. I raised the matter with M. Ortoli, the President of the Community, when he came to the Strasbourg Assembly about a week ago. Money and effort could be saved by closer co-ordination.
With regard to Western European Union, which is concerned primarily with defence, this is a much more specialised sphere of action, but, none the less, an extremely useful one. There are those who say it ought to be done away with, that we ought to concentrate entirely on a North Atlantic Council. But while we are part of the NATO Alliance, the basis of the whole of our Western defence, the European members of NATO have a separate and special responsibility which cannot be entirely merged with the American contribution. Essentially, we have a European defence problem; the Americans have a much more widely spread world responsibility, and consequently some of the problems are different.
As has been already mentioned, we must make a much bigger effort to make progress on standardisation of armaments. It is a crying shame and a disgrace that over all these years we have talked and talked, and paid lip service to standardisation, but have made so little headway. We see the growing power of the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc. I cannot help saying that I feel very much as I felt in 1938, seeing the rising power of the other bloc and everybody pretending it did not exist. On the other hand, we have an economic problem, there is no doubt about that. We do not have an unlimited amount of money to spend. The only way in which we can increase our military

969
strength without spending a vast amount of extra money is by organising our production in a more sensible way, which means standardisation of equipment and integration of our forces. It is not necessary for every country. If we ever have to fight a war, which we all hope we shall not have to do, we shall fight it together, so it is not necessary for every country to have every kind of unit. We should think in terms of a European defence. That is one of the main tasks of Western European Union. I believe that both the Council of Europe and the Western European Union are performing really valuable roles. I am glad that in this debate this has been duly recognised by this House, and I beg to support the Motion.
3.46 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I speak with some diffidence in a short contribution to this debate, not only as a new boy but in following some very prominent members of the Council of Europe who have rendered service over a period of years. Therefore, my humble contribution will be based on the experience of a few months, because I first became a British delegate last September. I must admit that these few months have not only attracted my interest but, indeed, my enthusiasm.
Some of my colleagues in the House, who shall be nameless, and some other colleagues in another place, involved as they are in the activities of the EEC and the European Parliament, have suggested to me, and indeed to other people, with a somewhat superior air that the Council of Europe is a somewhat minor body, hardly worth retaining. Some of these people were active opponents of the EEC, but now seem to he enthusiastic members of the European Parliament. In this attitude, I feel they are completely and utterly wrong. The Council embraces a much larger number of European nations, giving it a wider scope in sounding national opinions and hammering out a constructive approach on many social and humanitarian issues, with human rights as a keystone. Also, there is the value of personal contact during sessions and afterwards, when one can contact colleagues from other countries and discover their personal points of view, and discuss problems informally. All this also adds to experience. There are still some
970
nations in Europe which have emerged, or are only slowly emerging, from the press of dictatorship. Greece is now a member of the Council and, before long, Portugal will be accepted. Let us hope that Spain, in the not too distant future, will be approaching membership status.
In the recent session just over a week ago there was an historic moment during a debate on Portugal when, on the last day of the Assembly, the democratically and newly-elected Portuguese representatives were present and were invited to address the Assembly. That debate was important. As one of our colleagues in another place said, it was historic. But it was also a vitally important debate, because these Portuguese representatives, as they were new and democratically elected representatives, were given a cordial and sympathetic welcome and, what is more important, left in no doubt whatever of the desire of the Assembly to extend practical help to a newly emerging democracy. To me, that underlined the value of the Council of Europe, because these democratically elected representatives could go hack to their own country fortified with feelings of support from their colleagues in many other countries. It is indeed rightly described as an historic moment.
Although it is true that political groups exist and meet at unearthly hours, sometimes at eight o'clock in the morning, essentially the Council is an assembly of Parliamentarians. As with other Parliamentary assemblies the basic work of the Council lies in the subject committees. In those committees a great deal of hard work is carried out beforehand, not only from the point of view of meeting in Strasbourg—where they tend to meet at eight o'clock or at 8.30 in the morning after a heavy day, and sometimes night—but in many other directions, too, because the discussion is intense and detailed on many vital and interesting subjects.
I can speak from only a few months of membership of the Committee on social and health questions. In January we had a magnificent and interesting and pointed debate on the findings of the Committee on the rights of the sick. It was a good debate, and eventually the approval of the Council was given. The problem of large-scale unemployment—strangely enough, a problem not only

971
in Britain but in the whole of Europe—is now under review. There is also the question, which has been referred to already, of the need for medical treatment to be easily and freely available, without complicated formalities and irrespective of national frontiers. From personal or other experience, many of your Lordships will know that frequently people have been taken sick on the Continent, or there has been some accident, and there has been tremendous bureaucracy to overcome and financial difficulties, and what-have-you. Here an attempt is to be made to try to iron out the frontiers; the right to have medical attention, irrespective of nationality, is to be debated and discussed, and we hope a solution found. It is not going to be an easy problem to solve but it is a problem that is vitally important. These and many other things are vital human issues with which this Assembly deals with compassion in intense discussion and debate.
My Lords, I am convinced that the Council of Europe is a forward and outward-looking body, with increasing importance as more and more nations qualify for membership through emerging democracy. One complaint I have, and I think it is a general complaint of the British delegation. It is indeed regrettable that the media in Britain tend to overlook almost completely the work and achievements of the Council, due to the general obsession, it would appear, with the affairs of the EEC. It is, I feel, time that this vitally important body of democratic opinion was given the rightful attention and support it deserves. Indeed, I go further. I would say that it is important for democracy in Europe that this attention is given.
I support my colleagues in all quarters of the House who have asked for more frequent debates on the findings and the work of the Council of Europe. We have a series of sub-committees, of which I have apparently suddenly, to my surprise, been made a member, going into great detail on the EEC findings. But we do not debate or consider the very vital and human issues which are decided and discussed at Strasbourg. I can assure the doubting Thomases and colleagues who think that those of us who are on the delegation go abroad on a wonderful jaunt with expenses paid, that they are
972
under a complete delusion, because there is plenty of work involved. Even when, from time to time, we have our occasional social evenings, frequently "shop" is again discussed. I am confident that this debate will serve a vital, useful purpose, and I trust that my noble friend on the Front Bench will give us his full support. Ministers have come out to Strasbourg and given lip support, but we need at this time more practical support than we have received up till now.
3.54 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, I am very glad the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has enabled the House to discuss the work of these two very important international Parliamentary Assemblies. They are not often in the public eye, but the contribution they make towards greater unity and collaboration in Europe is none the less for that. The Consultative Assembly—I noticed that with his expertise the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, referred to it as such; it has since, of course, been increasingly referred to as the Parliamentary Assembly—of the Council of Europe is the oldest of the international Parliamentary Assemblies. It owes its origin to the burst of enthusiasm for European unity which followed immediately after the last World War, and I am glad to say that from the very first Britain played a leading part in its formation. Since then I think successive British delegations have addressed themselves to the work of the Council of Europe according to the merits and without undue regard for nationalistic or partisan or ideological preoccupations, a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, brought out so well. In fact, we have brought to the Assembly the same tradition of free and frank debate that has been the mainstay of our own Parliament in this country.
The process of European unification, which began with the Council of Europe, has of course spread into various channels. There was one feature of this short but extremely useful debate which led us inevitably to consider whether there are not means of making more coherent, more related, more clearly interdependent, the various media and milieu of European co-operation. It is a fact that stemming

973
primarily from the efforts of 1948–49 the channel of co-operation in defence has tended to be Western European Union, and indeed WEU has played a vital role in this way. Then the channel of economic co-operation, beginning with Marshall Aid, developed into the present Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD. The channel of economic integration began with the Treaty of Rome; and the channel of voluntary political co-operation, tending towards, so far as possible, progressively a common foreign policy, is to be found in the increasing activities of the nine Member-States of the European Community in this regard. All of these developments owe their origin—I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord DuncanSandys—to what was begun in 1948 and became enshrined in the Statute of 1949 which founded the Council of Europe.
We are now faced with a number of institutions, activities, all of them representative and tied to the democratic requirements, but which from time to time as European unity grows—there is a price of growth—tend to bring up new questions of coherence. I welcome this short debate as a precursor of more regular and possibly more comprehensive debates about the corpus of European institutions to which this country and others subscribe, so that the search for this coherence, this increasing correlation can be carried forward. Here I think my noble friend Lord Darling made an extremely important contribution, and, although I will not follow up the suggestions he has made this afternoon, I can assure him that what he has had to say will be very carefully considered by the Government and, indeed, I am quite sure in due course, subject to the usual channels, by this House.
The second point that has come out of this debate is a query—not a hostile query but a query of concern—as to whether the emergence and the development of the EEC, which is an increasingly large fact of life for nine Members of the Western Europe area, has not made the Council of Europe, as such, somewhat redundant. More than one speaker referred to the undoubted possibility of duplication and waste. Her Majesty's Government's view is that the development of the EEC certainly does not make the work of the Council of Europe, or of
974
Western European Union, redundant. The Council is not a substitute for any other organisation; or (shall I put it like this?) the Community is not, at least so far—and I do not think in the foreseeable future it will become—a substitute for any other existing European institution.
Our attachment to membership of these two institutions—and they are not the only ones doing very important work in Europe—is undimmed, unqualified. We propose to play our full part in the future both in the Council of Europe and in WEU, as we have in the past. More than one speaker has adduced the reasons for this, and I need not retread the quite conclusive arguments for continuing in this way. The principal ones are, first, that the area, the membership, and the purposes of the various bodies do not coincide. A simple instance is that the Community itself comprises at the moment nine Member States from Western Europe, while the Council of Europe at the moment comprises 18. The Community, therefore, cannot subsume within itself either the membership or the purposes of the Council of Europe. One might almost say that if the Council of Europe did not exist it would, in a Voltairean sense, have to be invented because it has other purposes and therefore has to draw from a wider membership. It may well be that in due course the two purposes and the two areas of membership may coincide, but we are far from realising that—and here again I defer to what my noble friend Lord Darling of Hillsborough had to say—even if it were to be the most desirable development.
Equally this argument—and to the Government it is a conclusive argument—applies to WEU. That has become inevitably and necessarily an organisation whose centre of gravity, you might say, is a common interest in the defence of Western Europe among the Western European members of the Alliance. If there were not a forum for that preoccupation, for that study, for that source of suggestion, it would have to be created. Therefore, why create anything when you have in WEU, for the seven member States concerned, a very useful forum for discussion of defence which is complementary to the larger discussion which proceeds within the Alliance? I am very glad to respond to the noble

975
Baroness's request and that of other speakers this afternoon and say that it is the firm policy of Her Majesty's Government to continue to support its membership, its participation, in these two essential European institutions.
Before I sit down may I turn to one or two particular points raised by the various speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who introduced this debate so admirably—and I should like to join the noble Baroness in congratulating him as a reverend as well as a noble Lord in withstanding the fatal temptation to use the initials "C of E" in this connection—said in a stimulating speech that we must constantly study how things are going but not lose sight of the excellent work which is being done. In so saying he pointed to the value of the work done by members of the British delegation. I heartily agree, and I take full note of what he said about this vexed question of allowances. There is no doubt that many, if not all, members, at least from the section of the delegation provided by this House, undertake very arduous duties, often at some cost to themselves. I take full note of that point, which the noble Baroness supported, and I shall of course be drawing the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the House to what has been said.
The noble Baroness herself made what I thought was a speech full of thoughtful suggestion. She, too, has experience of membership of these European organisations. She made one or two valuable points. In particular I think it was she who stressed the need for WEU to continue to be most concerned with defence rather than to revert to its previously more comprehensive field of study. I entirely agree. I think that this is very sound indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, reminded us that the Consultative Assembly, as he called it, quite rightly, was only a step to something wider and bigger. The wider and bigger of course has come about but, as I suggested, through various media. There has been this quadripartite emanation from the 1948–49 idea. It is none the worse for that. I like his suggestion that, while we recognise that as an inevitable tendency, there should be closer co-ordination between the Council
976
of Europe and the EEC. He too made the point that a good deal of time and rare and highly qualified personnel, as well as money, may be wasted, and as we constantly look to improved co-ordination this does not threaten the individual identity of purpose of either institution. Indeed, it is a new insurance that they should survive viably in terms of the proper use of resources.
Of course, the immensely important point he made was about the standardisation of arms. Yes, there has been some progress in the matter. It is not of course entirely a matter for the seven Members of WEU. The Alliance—and this is a good thing—is somewhat wider than that, and the perimeters of discussion and of disagreement, technical and other, are therefore more frequent. It is a very wide Alliance, and may become wider still—let us hope so—so that a fundamental technical, and possibly technological, change which standardisation of the nature which I think the noble Lord has in mind, and which we all have in mind, may be a matter of considerable argument and even international bargaining as to who produces what for everybody. I think we can claim as a country that we have been in the van of this, and continue to be the most willing. If there is a most willing nation position in this respect, we occupy it. We see it as in the interests of all that there should be standardisation, particularly as certain forms of defensive equipment become more and more sophisticated and duplication both of rare and highly qualified manpower and of money and material becomes thereby more serious.
My noble friend Lord Wallace of Coslany, who also has considerable experience in this field, stressed the practical achievements of the Council of Europe and in particular he stressed the reason for this, which is that it is fundamentally democratic. Of course the delegation to both the Council and the Union are based, are drawn from, Parliamentary democracies; indeed, it is a condition of membership that a country which is a member or which aspires to membership of either should conform with the proper standards of Parliamentary democracy. As the House knows, at the moment we—not just this country but other countries in Western Europe—are engaged on the question of direct elections; how to organise them, how quickly we can

977
organise them, and there are of course respectable arguments going on about how this should be done.
It is a fact that for these purposes—which have led through the Council of Europe in particular to very far-reaching humanitarian, social, educational and cultural advances in Europe, some of them tied down to international sanction, exemplifying to the entire world how the rule of law through international courts can be implemented—all that we have heard this afternoon, in which we can take great pride as a country and as a region of Europe, has been done through representation which is not strictly elective. I leave the thought with the House that the Government's policy is to work towards an elective system for Europe as quickly as proves practicable and acceptable not only to our country but, I must repeat, to other Members of the EEC. In so doing, reports like that of M. Tindemans and other reports and certainly debates of this kind must prove useful to us, to the Government and to our friends and partners in Europe in terms of the way in which they will move ahead in the future. I join noble Lords on both sides of the House in hoping that this kind of debate will be made possible more regularly in the future.
4.15 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their uniformly valuable contributions. I also thank noble Lords who came to listen and stayed to listen, because in a way this has been a debate which we hoped would inform people, and we have had for this House a high ratio of listeners to speakers. I will not delay your Lordships by taking up the various very valuable points that have been made. I must, however, mention that I was fascinated by the problem about which the noble Lord, Lord Darling of Hillsborough, spoke; namely, the possibility of dividing the Parliamentary representation of the Western European Union and the Council of Europe. I. have thought about that for some time. I see all the advantages but, on balance, I do not agree with the noble Lord, for I think that membership of the WEU is one of the few really educational experiences in the field of defence. In both Houses of
978
Parliament there are too few who understand and have learnt about the problems of defence, and WEU's role as an educational body should not be underestimated. It is a very finely balanced argument and both sides have to be taken into account.
I should not like to withdraw the Motion without paying tribute to all my colleagues in the delegations; and several noble Lords have already paid such tribute. In particular we should mention the leader of the delegation, Mr. Urwin, his predecessor, Mr. Fletcher, and Sir John Rodgers, the leader of the Conservative delegation. In addition, we pay tribute to our advisers, whether from the Foreign Office or the Clerkship of both Houses, and from elsewhere. We are extremely well served and looked after. It was my hope that this debate and especially the Government reply would be a message to our colleagues in Europe—and to the scoffers, of whom the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, spoke —and the public, that these bodies, the Council of Europe and the Western European Union are extremely worth while and are doing an extremely worthwhile job. I feel that my hopes have been fulfilled and that the debate, and especially the Minister's reply, have made exactly those points. It is, therefore with great satisfaction that I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY
4.18 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK Lord DAVIES of LEEK rose to call attention to the problems of the telecommunications industry in this country, its serious competitive weaknesses and the need for more investment in research and development; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is with pleasure that I take this opportunity to initiate a short debate on the problems of the telecommunications industry. Many people may be of the opinion that telecommunications are modern. Far from being modern, the Indians knew what they meant when they sent up smoke signals, and as my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder wrote in a famous book some time ago entitled The Story of Man and the

979
World he Made, which I am proud to possess:
"The All-Seeing"—
that was the chapter heading.
"This sense of the All-Seeing Inca was maintained by an elaborate system of communications. In time of emergency, fire and smoke codes were used by lighting dry-cotton tinder with concave mirrors.".
He went on to write that they were able to communicate from one end of Inca-land to the other faster than could the Romans at the time of the Roman Empire. I know that they used the heliograph because, for my sins, when I took what are now called A-levels in Welsh I had to study a book called Plant yr Haul, which means The Children of the Sun, and they sent messages when they were lighting guerrilla wars against the Spaniards by flashing their news via gold shields from mountain top to mountain top. Alas, the Incas of Peru are no longer in existence; neither shall we be if we do not understand the meaning and importance of telecommunications in the very difficult world in which we live today.
Noble Lords who have read Alvin Toffler's famous book, Future Shock, will be aware that he used the ugly phrase, "The technotronic society". What was he trying to say? Pompous people often use big words to give little communication, though I do not consider Toifier's book to be pompous. It is valuable and dynamic. The technotronic society in which we live today is a dangerous one based heavily on advanced communications and electronics. One of the most difficult hugs to control in society is the electronic one—a taxi cab could set off a nuclear device if its microwaves were on the correct oscillations. In a telecommunications world—and we are entirely surrounded by telecommunications—our bodies stay at home while our eyes and our ears extend to the distant places of the moon and to the rim of the universe. We sit there critical and comfortable while men risk their lives in all these telecommunications devices to expedite, as they hope, the civilisation of mankind. This is telecommunications.
How did all this magic come about? I wish we had time to discuss it, because it is a fascinating thing to think about. What are the impedimenta which make up telecommunications? I do not want to bore your Lordships—some old buffer
980
wrote that I was one of the bores of the House—and I apologise if I bore your Lordships. How did this magic come about? It came about through telex, television, telegraphs, radio, movies, telephones, data communications, computers —the most dangerous of all—satellites, masers (microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, the death ray) and lasers; that is, light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. I remember watching this in a laboratory in Switzerland and being careful that I did not get my eyes in front of it. In Denver, USA, kids in the fifth and sixth form can buy an apparatus to set up a little laser beam outfit. Man messes about with toys like nuclear weapons and knows not what he does because, despite all our science, we do not know the answer to the magic and miracle of creation. Therefore, it behoves us to go carefully.
How do I want to deal with this subject in a short debate?—much as one would have liked a long one. I have cited my little talk as one to call attention to the problems of the telecommunications industry in this country, its serious competitive weakness and the need for more investment and research and development, and to move for Papers. There is a sad fact about the modern economic world in which we live. I see some notable economists present, whose heights of erudition it is now too late for me to reach, and I humbly apologise if they do not agree with my Celtic analysis, but I believe that, when the economist uses differential calculus and mathematics to prove that his sociological emanations are scientific, he is going a bit too far. I believe that economics is not a science but is like medicine; that is, an art and a science mixed. I believe that one must look upon it in that sort of way.
It is all right to talk about the need for more investment, but one can pour in money like a gambler into a kitty. It is not more investment which is needed; it is what is done with the investment which we have already put into the telecommunications industry. It is like UNCTAD and the United Nations setting up study group after study group ad infinitum. I have been on some of them and one studies until one is going grey and turns out pamphlets and nobody takes any action. What we need is less investment and more development from

981
the sources with which we are now working. I am sure that that is true. I therefore put out this caveat: we should be careful how we use the phrase "research and development". Researchers can develop but, if there is a lack of impetus, development is not encouraged. The world and the society in which we are living are a world and a society where man is allegedly at the top of the biological tree. Look at him!—with his religions, his prejudices and his telecommunications, which give him information about where to lay bombs and blow his fellow men up. He is one of the most pathetic animals on earth. Yet, there is a terrible and complex paradox: side by side with that, we have saints—men and women who dedicate themselves to improving the world. Those of us who still believe in something and have faith and hope to develop a creative society, despite all these dilemmas, must move on and keep trying to get a decent world. I believe we can get it if we use our telecommunications systems, which are the result of the discovery of the electromagnet and electro-magnetic forces sent over a piece of wire. If we learn how to use these things together with the projecting of vision from one rim of the universe to the other, mankind can raise his standards of life and of culture—without using that word "culture" in a horrible, pseudo sense—and still become a happy animal upon earth.
How can we do this? I am not interested in a cheap witch hunt, but, whenever the word "telecommunications" is used, the Post Office jumps in. It is pathetic sometimes to hear the witch hunt which goes on against the Post Office—never mind whether it is nationalised or publicly owned. People do not realise that about 20 million telephones have been put in and that per head we have more telephones than any nation in the world. Despite all the criticism of the British Post Office and despite its idiosyncrasies, it is still a first-class organisation. You try telephoning Seattle from, say, the Commodore Hotel, 42nd Street, New York, and talking politely to the operator. You should hear the kind of answer you will get from a gum-chewing operator—the crack of the gum plus the crackle of the voice. You will find that all they want to know is, "Why can't ya say Seattle 4242 ' and have done with
982
it?" This is the kind of crude world one can sometimes get when men are thinking of nothing else but getting profit on earth.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peddie—I do not know whether he is here—and his organisation, the Post Office Users' National Council, that there is a need to watch it. The Council asked last August,
"for fresh constructive thinking which could enhance Post Office prospects, revitalise its public service and give encouragement to all engaged in this great enterprise."
I believe that co-operation—never mind the question of nationalised and private industry—is necessary, taking the world as it is and telecommunications as they are now. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is to take part in this little debate. It is of vital importance to defence. Conferences on electronic warfare will be taking place this very month. It is that kind of world in which we live today. It is essential that we now "cut the cackle" about whether there should be private enterprise or nationalised undertakings. The whole world, including the United States, which is the acme of private enterprise, now accepts that we must, in certain areas, if not all, have co-operation between private ownership and public ownership.
If ever there was a crying need for that co-operation it is in the telecommunications industry, because the greatest purchaser today of telecommunications equipment and of the tools of telecommuncations is the Post Office. Since development is now probably more important than research, I believe that a committee of co-operation should be set up between private industry and the Post Office. The big firms should be involved in this; those which work on cables, those which produce the magnificent tools we use today. I have in mind firms such as Plessey, GEC, STC, Siemens, Philips, ITT, and Ericsson. They won a contract for £25 million here in London, which we should have had, because they have computer switchgear.
We should be able to get these firms and organisations working together. Clearly there are great difficulties in comparing spending in this field. The

983
Financial Times stated on 20th November 1975 that firms like:
"Siemens spent around £75 million on telecommunications research. The Post Office estimates that the whole U.K. telecommunications industry last year spent, about £30 million—£40 million in its own laboratories, including contracts ' (worth at least £7 million) paid for by the Post Office '."
The private industries of which I speak could not function without the work of the Post Office, and so instead of shouting that we should privatise" or nationalise everything, let us, in this vital sphere of telecommunications, have co-operation between the great big elephants of telecommunications and the publicly-owned Post Office, or the new system of Post Office ownership. I do not think that that is beyond the wit of man. If a committee such as I suggest was to be set up it could do the same kind of work as that done at present by the council which deals with electronics in England.
I have been speaking for 14 minutes and do not wish to bore your Lordships by quoting figures on investment by these firms, although I have the exact figures with me. But arithmetic is not as important as the spirit of the thing. Telecommunications, television, radio, computerisation and such are developing and investment is needed. Most noble Lords will, like myself, have travelled around the world and so they will know that nowhere else are the television programmes as good as those which we have in Britain, despite criticisms made of the BBC. Sometimes I moan about the trivialisation of political questions on television and the seeking for instantaneous comments, but I believe that the British people should pay a tribute to our broadcasting service. At least comments and discussions are sought on television in this country, and there are not hours of advertising with only 10 seconds devoted to a constructive discussion. So I believe that we can be proud of broadcasting in Britain, whatever criticism may be made of it.
Last November in an adjournment debate in the other place there was criticism of the unemployment caused because of the cutbacks. As technology progresses less labour will be used. Thus this committee of co-operation which I suggest, involving private industry and the Post Office, should also involve sections
984
of trade unions, including the engineers who could justly claim that they should have a say in what is discussed. If this three-legged stool of discussion were to be set up on a permanent basis, and outside of Government influence, comprising representatives of the Post Office, the engineers, the trade unions and the great elephants of telecommunications, it would be a very useful instrument to keep the public clearly and honestly informed.
What encouragement are the Government giving the Post Office to make more rapid progress from outdated equipment? Why is more rapid progress not being made from the old-fashioned Strowger, through to the Crossbar system, to TXE 4, and ultimately to the computerised system of switchgear? Such progress is vital. This is a knowledgeable Chamber and I shall not go into details, because 99 per cent. of those present will know about these matters. is development in Britain far enough ahead to abandon the Crossbar system in the exchanges and move nearer to computer switching? Computer switching would be completely electronic. We are now working on a second system of switching to electromechanical control. If we want rapidity and improvement, with fewer errors, we must move as quickly as possible to computerisation.
The Post Office Act 1969 states in Section 35(1):
"The Post Office may borrow…from the Minister or, with…the approval of the Treasury, from any other person, such sums in sterling as it may require for meeting its obligations and performing its functions."
What encouragement are the Government giving to the Post Office to borrow even abroad? I would take petrodollars, or Arab oil money. Anyway, we are encouraging improvement in the standard of life of the Arabs, although we are forced to use the oil because we need it. This kind of co-operation leads to understanding. Is the necessary encouragement coming forward?
The Post Office Users' National Council and this House have asked for a Committee to be set up: so the Carter Committee has been set up and is now sitting. When is this Committee likely to report? Its terms of reference arc:
"To examine the performance and main features of the organisation of the Post Office and its use of its resources and assets; and to

985
consider whether any changes would better enable it to perform its functions under the Post Office Act 1969."
The Committee is under the chairmanship of Mr. C. F. Carter, Vice-Chancellor of Lancaster University. It has been asked:
"To assess the policies, prospects and social significance of the postal business"—
I shall not go into that, because everybody talks about it—
"including methods of financing as a self-supporting public service; to consider whether the Post Office Act 1969 places"—
note this, my Lords—
"undue restrictions on the activities of the Post Office; and to make recommendations."
I hope that the Carter Committee will make recommendations in the esoteric section of telecommunications and that it will deal with computerisation as well as matters of co-operation between the Post Office and private enterprise. If that is done, both the public and the Post Office would benefit from such a review.
I wish to make two further points, my Lords. Many firms in the telecommunications industry do a first-class job of work, and the miracle of undersea cables is often forgotten. For instance, STC laid the last new cable between Canada and this country on which Prime Minister Wilson spoke to Mr. Trudeau a year or so ago. The magic of the cable is such that thousands of calls can be put through one cable across the ocean. Satellites are good for photography and transmitting pictures, but are not at the moment so good for transmitting speech. Countries such as Korea and Nigeria and others are moving towards using cables rather than satellites, because cables give a better return. You have to replace a cable after about 20 years, which is its life. In the case of a satellite, like Telstar, you are overworking it if you keep it 10 years in the sky. We should get the economics of the cable and of the satellite worked out. They are both needed, and in some cases are absolutely necessary; but I think the world should make sure where it stands on this. I shall not develop that any further because I am sure my noble friend who is to reply knows as much about this as I do, and perhaps more.
My Lords, I think I will number the points before I sit down. I hope the Carter Committee will deal with the four
986
main problems of the industry. I hope it will deal with the cuts in ordering that have been made by the Post Office, because they are creating unemployment, and will see that consultation with the trade union movement and with the Post Office engineers is really worked out effectively. I hope it will discuss the effect of technological and technical changes in switchgear, and their cost in manpower; and the need, if there be need, for major reorganisation. I hope it will recommend, as I have, co-operation between the Post Office and private industry, and will set up a joint consultation committee where nationalised telecommunications are side by side with private telecommunications, and the trade unions have an appropriate voice. Because, whatever one may say, a tribute must be paid to the trade union movement over the last few years. For all our criticisms, there is no trade union movement in the world which has approached so realistically the problems of inflation as has the British trade union movement.
The last one is my bête noire. If one takes the blue book and looks at the money we get from the Common Market and the money we put in, one sees that we are putting in more than we get out. One of my points—and I should like the Carter Committee to note it—is what the impact of the Common Market is to be, because, to quote the Financial Times again, the EEC Committee,
"is of the opinion that European based companies require markets of European scale if they are to achieve the dimensions and capabilities to improve their position in world markets".
In other words, they could insist that we in Britain accept an Italian or a Swedish firm's contract for telecommunications. They are aiming at harmonization. If they are aiming at harmonisation, let us see that they use the black notes as well as the white. You will not get harmony unless the British, too, who have been pioneers in telecommunications, get an equal chance. Finally, the Carter Committee should point out the vital place that telecommunications play in defence.
My Lords, I have kept your Lordships long enough and I have made enough points, I hope, to get a tidy little debate out of this Short Debate this evening. All I would add, finally, is a tribute to private industry, which has done such magnificent work in telecommunications and, indeed,

987
whose investments, despite the trans-national and the multinational firms, have kept British telecommunications in the forefront of modern telecommunication technology. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.44 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, to follow such an eloquent speaker as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, is extremely difficult; and I must congratulate him on putting forward so many constructive suggestions. I also appreciate the role of the Government vis-à-vis the Post Office. I could not help but think of the exchange the other day between the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, when, as the exchange went on (in the terms of this industry) the level went up. I appreciate that the Post Office is separate, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, who made this point so clearly, I do not wish to indulge in a "Post Office bashing spree "; but I think there are a large number of points to be made. I am sorry if they may sound overcritical when I raise them, but I am putting them forward in as constructive a way as I can, because no one is perfect, oneself included.
My Lords, the Post Office, I feel, must realise that times have changed. We are now talking about large overseas markets, not about the situation, which did exist, in which the Post Office had a monopoly in this country, it could do what it liked, it was a big market and a number of companies wished to supply it and were prepared to meet its particular needs. This is no longer the case, I am afraid. We have to look upon the industry as supplying the Post Office and any market where a gap can be found. Finding a gap is not too easy, because the industries in the developed countries—mainly Europe, America and Japan—are highly sophisticated. They are extremely competitive; in fact, there is much more equipment than there is a potential market. So we have to fight extremely hard, and we can fight extremely hard only if we have a market in this country which can be satisfied by the industry but which is such a market that the equipment which is produced for it is compatible with overseas markets.
988
Now we are competing against countries which have companies which operate in an extremely chauvinistic manner. We in this country compete on the basis of five companies offering equipment to the Post Office. In the other countries, this does not really occur: the market is fixed, because you never get more than one company from one country competing for an export order. In some ways this is unhealthy; in other ways, I am afraid, in these times, it is probably essential, so that a company can concentrate on its particular sector and do it well. There are gaps in every country. There was a gap, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said, when Ericsson got their order, so they came in here. But the same has applied the other way round, and our companies have found gaps in a sophisticated overseas market and have supplied against considerable odds—and all credit to them for doing this.
The point I want to come back to is that there must be co-operation between the industry and the Post Office, which is a point the noble Lord raised. As I have said, the Post Office does not seem to realise entirely that times have changed. It specifies equipment in such a way that it requires many integral features to be added to this equipment to satisfy its own very special requirements. If we are to compete, we must have a simple specification (I do not mean technologically simple, but a simple specification) to which all the additions required may be added. In motor car terms, the slang is that you have a basic model and then you can have all the "bolt-on goodies" that you require. This applies in this market. Different overseas markets require additional features. The Post Office requires additional features; but if we could get round to co-operating in such a way that we start off with a basic simple model which is acceptable to the overseas markets, we would stand a much better chance of competing, not so much in the sophisticated markets but much more so in the big potential markets, such as Africa and other developing countries.
To take one point on this, there is the question of racking dimensions. The Post Office have large, much wider equipment. They like it single-racked, as opposed to having it so that it can be put in back to back. There are many other features, too. For instance, they require larger printed circuits. What it all boils down to is that

989
the equipment which meets the requirements of the Post Office is not as acceptable to overseas markets as if we designed it from scratch for overseas markets and the Post Office then said what it wanted in addition to it. It is a fairly simple matter but it is a change of philosophy. In fact, what I was saying was that if we are to sell and to compete we must provide our customers abroad with what they want and not with what the Post Office thinks they should want. In this particular debate it is very tempting to go after one of a myriad subjects. It requires a considerable amount of self-discipline to keep down to the simple facts of what one is required to do to make this industry more effective and to survive.
On the question of co-operation, I think that one of the perfect examples is that of the Japanese Government; because the Japanese Government, the administration of the services and the suppliers are co-operating entirely together to gain export orders. They are flexible. Each section does its bit to satisfy the order. For instance, the industry goes after orders, the administration is flexible in saying what they will specify and the Government do their part in tremendous encouragement in terms of finance, providing loans and organising loans to the countries concerned. I am not saying that it does not happen here but that it does not happen to the same extent.
On the question of co-operation, TEMA, the industry's association, have put forward a document to the Post Office mainly on transmission equipment which lays down in detail—certainly I will not bore your Lordships with it—all the areas in which Post Office requirements differ from export requirements. The facts are there, the Post Office is aware of them; and I am sure that the Government are aware of them. It really means that everyone must get together fairly quickly so that this co-operation is effected.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, went into the question of exchanges. He talked about the TXE4. The TXE4 came in after the TXE2 but, unfortunately, it is an interim model because we missed out on the first generation. I am not harking back to apply blame, but we did miss out on the first generation of computerised exchange
990
and we are now going to have an interim model. This is not as advanced as the other system and it is, unfortunately, totally unexportable. We are going to be stuck with this model for some time because exchanges cost a considerable sum of money; they last for a long time, they have to go into a special building and you just cannot tear them out. The TXE4 is an electronic exchange but it is hardware as opposed to computer-controlled and it is not as satisfactory as the system we could have gone for. The real golden opportunity—and this ties into the question of R & D—lies with system "X", the computer-controlled system. The Post Office is helping industry to fund the development work on this system. If I do not make any other point, this must be brought home to your Lordships and to the country. System "X" is like a game of tennis; it is match point. If we lose out on this match point, then we are out of the game. We must get this one right and we can do so only by the co-operation that we have been talking about so far.
I have mentioned R & D. Large sums of money are spent on R & D and the amounts vary: but I believe that the Post Office spends about £27 million a year on R & D. This money is produced on specifications and, to a degree, on the development; but the main point is that at the end of the day it does not actually produce any real hardware. I have the feeling that this sum of money must be looked at very carefully, in terms of the co-operation that we have been talking about, as to how best it could be spent. I am not saying that it is very much more effective, but one company, Marconi, with a turnover of £40 million, spends £3 million on R & D. They have managed to get into a whole number of export markets by fighting their way in through the expenditure of this sum of money.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, touched on the subject of harmonisation. Harmonisation is, of course, a worry. In some ways it can be the answer; because if everybody specified the same way this would make life easier although it would make competition fiercer, too; but the whole point is that we cannot liberalise our side until everybody else does. Otherwise, we are opening the Post Office market to be eaten alive by our

991
competitors. It must be a phased operation; but I am sure the the Government have this in mind at the moment.
My Lords, I come on now to—and I know that I sound as though I am Post Office" bashing", but I am trying to do this in as constructive a way as possible—
Lord SLATER: My Lords, in regard to the noble Lord's reference to the export market, it would appear from what he is saying that tile Post Office at no time has given serious consideration to the export markets. May I say for the benefit of Members of this House that it was my privilege to go to Mexico with the object of trying to find a market for certain developments we had put through the Post Office by Post Office investigation and through scientific research. When I got to Mexico and met the trade representatives, I found that these trade representatives seeking to get markets in telecommunications were knocking their heads against a stone wall; because Mexico, as one area, was overloaded with the power that was coming from America. They could not in any way make inroads into that export field; with the result that I was able to get the Minister to come away from Mexico with his team to this country to see whether we could sell him something.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful for that statement. Noble Lords will appreciate that I did say that perhaps not as much was being done as might he done. The industry feels that there is an area for improvement and perhaps that is the best way of leaving it. A certain amount is being done and has been done, and great credit should be given to the people who are making the effort. What I said at the beginning was that I was trying to look at this in as constructive a way as possible to improve the situation. I was not saying that nothing had been done but that perhaps more could be done.
However, to come back to the subject of Post Office procurement (and perhaps to leave myself wide open again) I should like to come on to the subject of some of the planning which has fallen down a little on Post Office procurement. I think it probably has happened through the Post Office attempting to be as fair as
992
possible and, at the same time, trying to achieve as competitive a price as possible; but I feel that this is a little misguided. If your Lordships will bear with me for a moment I should like to give a small example on Modem 7 which is a relatively small unit used at the subscriber's premises to permit the transmission of data over public telephone networks. Three of the most recent orders for Modem 7 were placed in August 1973,April 1975 and November 1975. In practice, the two suppliers who have competed for this business are Marconi and STC. The first of these orders was split roughly equally between the two companies with about 1,800 units going to STC and 2,200 to Marconi.
When the second order came along, for reasons either of marginal price or delivery advantage, the total quantity of 2,000 was given to STC. Marconi were thus left with a vacuum in their production facilities and so that they had to run down somewhat and generally re-deploy people. In November 1975, however, the trend was reversed and the total requirement of 3,000 further Modem 7s was placed with Marconi, STC getting none. STC will very soon come to the end of their run of 2,000 which must have represented a substantial increase in their activity on this product, whereas Marconi are now faced with winding up from a zero situation to a situation of a substantial level of production. It was probably done with the best possible motives but it meant that labour was laid off and labour was brought on. It is a question of planning so that the best use of labour can be made.
I should like to come on to another problem which is related to that, and that is on defence communications. Here again there are so many operations required in the specification of equipment on defence, for the sponsor branch, finance branch, CER planning, procurement executive engineering, contracts, quality assurance, radio introduction branch, handbook/technical writing department, spares ranging department, test equipment standardisation, maintenance experts, post design services and operational staff. It all has to go up and down the line and it takes a lot of time. It is a bureaucratic process, one in which savings could be made in terms of time and money if it could be simplified.

993
There is one little case in point. Perhaps I am poking fun at the MOD, but I am sure they will not mind that. The piece of equipment was a morse key and a considerable amount of thought was given as to whether this should be for left-handed or right-handed operators or whether the key should be interchangeable. Finally somebody came to the momentous decision to put a piece of wire long enough for the morse key to be moved from the right hand to the left hand. In that way the situation was solved. This took time, it delayed the process and it cost money. I know this is trivial, but it tends to happen from time to time.
On the brighter side, the Ministry of Defence are encouraging discussion of operational requirements before finalising specifications. This is excellent and is something which I hope will happen more and more with the Post Office. Returning to it, I should like to come on to one other item—I am probably taking too long but this is the major field of tropospheric scatter equipment. This equipment, I am sure your Lordships know, is ideal for communicating across hostile environments I think that is a lovely phrase!—or across the sea. It is very important equipment which is used on the North Sea oil rigs. The Post Office, I am afraid, was rather slow in appreciating its potential on the North Sea and in fact acted not quite as well as it might.
Originally BP decided that they would use this type of equipment and they bought their own tropospheric scatter equipment which they placed on the oil rigs with a relay station on the mainland. They paid for this semi-automatic equipment. It operates very well with very little trouble at all. Two years later the Post Office thought that this was an excellent idea and was one way of making a lot of money. They went a bit hard on the money aspect of this because in real terms what they said was that the oil company had to put its terminal on the difficult end, on the oil rig, and the Post Office would look after the land based end. Nevertheless, its charges have been a little stiff.
The Post Office tariff for the equivalent number of channels to those used by BP is such that had BP leased the shore end of their system from the Post Office
994
they would have paid in nine months as much as the total cost of both ends of their system. Your Lordships will realise that the Post Office tariff offers the oil company only the shore end of the system and roughly the capital cost still falls on the oil operator to deal with the sea end. The Post Office tariff is such that it would have offered BP almost equivalent to half the investment, or four and a half months of tariff. This expense is considerable; the Post Office are asking BP to pay a lot of money for a service which, if they bought it and operated it themselves, would cost only around nine months' of operation.
One other point which I should like to raise briefly is the question of Post Office procurement on this type of equipment. Originally it was stated that they wanted to have a 2 kW. transmitter. Nobody makes such a transmitter and it would have had to be made separately. They either make 1 kW. or 10 kW. transmitters. However, in the end the Post Office agreed to this somewhat reluctantly, because it felt there would be a breakdown in the service. Rather amusingly, when the Post Office started to operate this it was very pleased and said that on its first telephone call it found that the quality was excellent although the levels were perhaps a little low. Somebody else said, "Yes, but of course that was in the afternoon: until that time, we could not get through to Aberdeen". This is an area where perhaps there is a lot to be desired.
There is the question of overmanning, and I do not want to take up too much of your Lordships' time on this aspect. We overman marginally in the Post Office. It is difficult to compare, but you can do it on the number of telephone communications per employee. It is about 82 in this country compared with a figure of 118 in Sweden. This brings me to the question of putting a lot of engineers in on the scatter equipment sites, whereas the BP site is a totally automatic operation. The Post Office one has 17 men, all obviously having to use cars and on a roster which amounts to four or five people. There is more equipment in the Post Office station but it is basically semi-automatic equipment. The BP station is actually staffed by a dog. A dog is required because of the Tartan army and a handler is required for the dog because of the regulations which we have brought in. Perhaps that

995
is a slight overstatement of the facts, but I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that.
I should like to raise one vitally important point which affects this industry considerably. That is the question of orders overseas. After a lot of work, an order has been negotiated with South Africa amounting to about £8 million for the tropospheric scatter equipment. This is being purchased by the South African Armaments Commission, but is interrelated as a communications system—it is only a communications system—with a number of other orders because the South African Government purchases in such a way that all of the companies are related. There appears to be some question as to whether a licence will now have to be obtained, and whether a licence will be granted. If this is stopped for reasons which the Government have of their own it will affect other orders. It is not just the £8 million of orders which is involved—which we cannot afford to lose—but the total will probably be in the region of £100 million. It would be a great pity for this industry to lose out on this for reasons which I feel might be more emotional than actual, since it is a communications system and nothing more. I hope that when the noble Lord replies he may be able to say that there is hope that this order will be allowed to go through. My Lords, I am sure I have spoken for far too long. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, for initiating this debate and giving the opportunity for saying that there is a need for co-operation between the Post Office and the industry.
5.10 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I must apologise for not being present when the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, began his introduction to this debate; it came on a little earlier than I had anticipated. I apologise for this discourtesy, but the noble Lord had told me a little of what he might say and I am sorry that I missed hearing it in the Chamber. I want to draw attention to a phenomena which is happening—and which I believe is increasingly happening—in that qualified engineers in the telecommunications and associated industries are being tempted away from the private and wealth creating
996
sector, the sector which earns the vast majority of our exports, into the public sector by higher salary scales and constant upgrading and of course fully-indexed pensions. That is not possible in the private sector, in spite of what a Government spokesman said on an earlier occasion, because no private company that I know of is able to index its pensions at 26·1 per cent., which is what happened in the case of retired civil servants last year.
I have already had an opportunity of drawing attention to that anomaly, and today I should like to draw attention to the anomaly which exists in the telecommunications and particularly the electronics area. Perhaps I should declare an interest, having all my life, when not on Parliamentary business—which is, or was then, ill-paid—earned my keep in the electronics engineering industry, where I took a graduate apprenticeship when I was very young. So I am speaking with some knowledge of the problem and must declare an interest, because the figures I shall quote come from the Institute of Electrical Engineers, of which I have been a member for 40 years or more.
A remuneration survey has been carried out by that learned body to try to compare how engineers in the electrical field generally, which goes a little wider than just telecoms, are paid in the private sector as against the public sector, the nationalised industries and central Government. I do not want to bore the House to extinction by quoting a mass of figures which, in any case, cannot be fully taken in. I always feel that other Parliaments, and particularly Congress, are better equipped than we are because they are able to have displays and one can project facts and figures to enhance one's argument. I, being numerate and having a visual memory, can take in information much more easily when I can see facts illustrated than when I hear them spoken.
This survey was unique. A questionnaire was sent out on 2nd January 1976 to 9,995 fellows, members and associate members in the United Kingdom and Ireland. By the 12th January, 30 per cent. of them had answered. I am very surprised at that, because I do not know of any other organisation where you can get a response of 30 per cent. ten days after

997
posting the inquiry—which means that this was probably in the hands of the recipient for only seven days. After one month they had replies from 66 per cent. giving full details of their pay and remuneration. I would say straight away, if someone says that I am not comparing like with like because of the fringe benefits in industry as compared with the public sector, that 11 per cent. was noted to be the difference, and this was carefully calculated.
The outcome of this very deeply-studied remuneration survey absolutely confirms what many of us have felt for some time. I should like to take first a comparison of figures for skilled graduates, that is fellows and members of the Institute. In the 30/34 age bracket—and this is a very important age bracket because it probably concerns a third-job man and certainly a degree graduate—in the median quantile these graduates were getting £5,760 per annum in the nationalised public industries, and £4,800 in the private sector; that is to say, they are paid 20 per cent. more in the public sector. Taking now a slightly older man, aged 40/44, he is probably in charge of a project and again is extremely important to private industry, if it is to remain competitive. That man in private industry was getting £5,460 and, in the public sector, £6,430—nearly £1,000, or nearly 20 per cent. more.
When we get to the 50-year-old man, we can compare remuneration in central Government as well, and it may surprise some of your Lordships to know that central Government pay even more highly than the nationalised industries or the public sector. In central Government, a qualified engineer who is 50/54 years old, again in the median range, gets £7,330; in the nationalised industries and public sector he was getting £7,070, and in industrial and commercial companies he was getting £6,010. There is a difference of £1,060—very substantial indeed. The same applies, though to a less marked degree, if we go to the less skilled persona non-graduate who probably took an HNC. So what we have suspected in industry for some time has been borne out by this survey.
I have not included the Post Office, but I would say that many of our skilled personnel are being tempted away or, to be brutal about it, being bought away by
998
the Post Office. Of course none of us would wish to see an unadventurous Post Office. I think at last they have woken up to the fact that we are in an electronic age; and under new leadership I hope the new Ministers are giving extra attention to this because we are now trying to drag ourselves forward towards a really modern telephone system. For too long it has been the poor relation of Governments; and nothing is more important to the industry of our country and to the infrastructure of our country than an efficient telephone system, not only internally but internationally, because so much business is done on the telephone now in the City of London and elsewhere by all of us in the export field. So I would not wish to see the Post Office in any way inhibited in paying good rewards. But there seems to be something rather odd when the Government have given instructions that the public sector is to economise in manpower and in remuneration. That is to happen wherever it may be, in local government and so on, but we find that the public sector is paying far more than the private sector is able to afford for the same type of qualified person.
5.18 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): My Lords, as the noble Lord has made reference to the Government's urging of the public and private sectors to economise, it would be helpful if we got one thing straight. He is not suggesting that the public enterprises he has talked of have broken the £6 limit by paying more than private industry has been allowed to?
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I was not suggesting that they were paying internally more than the £6 limit. They have a regrading of people and I do not want to discuss that in this debate because I have not looked up the figures. What I am saying is that they are tempting people away, because if you change your job you are not inhibited by the £6 limit. This is one of the great disadvantages of having any pay limit; you give a real incentive for someone to change his job. There is nothing to stop someone from getting £1,000 more, or even more, if he starts a new job with a new firm, a new designation and new responsibilities. Such a system makes for more movement, and every

999
time a person moves some of his productivity is lost. The firm he leaves loses his trained ability and knowledge of the firm's work, and the organisation to which he goes cannot get full value for their money probably for the first six months or even a year. So any system which actually stimulates movement is not helpful in the long run to the productivity of the engineers to whom I am referring.
I should like to draw the Government's attention to the Civil Service Pay Research Unit. I recognise, and we have all recognised on previous occasions, that this is an extremely well-meaning body. In such dealings as I have had with them I have always found them to be people of very high integrity, desperately anxious to get their figures right. I spoke earlier about pensions and their indexation, and I do not think they have the right remit. For this reason I would ask the Government to look again at this, because it is a very strange situation. They have to work out what the comparative remuneration is in the so-called private sector and they then say that in the central Government field people in similar employment must not be any less well paid. In fact, their pay is fixed on a basis of comparison. But in the private sector, they take into account the inflated rates of the Post Office, which I have just mentioned. They are counted as private sector so far as the Pay Research Unit is concerned. The Post Office's remuneration, the nationalised industries' remuneration and the public sector remuneration are taken into account. So if they are paying £1,000 a year more, then, automatically, the salary which is produced for central Government is built up that much more than it should be. They are not comparing like with like. They are not looking at private sector remuneration and then making sure that central Government is just as good. So I would ask the Government to look at the terms of reference and see whether there is not a strange anomaly which ought to be put right.
I do not want to take up the time of the House any longer, but we must remember that we are utterly dependent in the telecommunications area on good people, well trained, experienced people, properly and decently remunerated, and with a chance to take on extra responsibilities and to realise their ambitions. It is not
1000
right, at a time when we in private industry are being prevented by the present Government restraints—and I support them on a short-term basis—when we cannot pay people more, that we should lose people to the public sector, which is not creating our exports and is able to pay £1,000 more to the same kind of person; thereby, it seems to me, breaking the Government instruction that there should be strict economy in the public sector at a time when it is more or less out of control.
5.21 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, this debate has been fairly short even by mini-debate standards but is, none the less, valuable for that. Indeed, the telecommunications industry is an extremely important sector of the economy, and, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek has pointed out, it is facing serious problems at the moment. It might he helpful if I started by making clear what I understand the telecommunications industry to cover. I apologise if my survey of the industry is a little more mundane than one ranging from Incas to Future Shock, and from death rays to nuclear taxicabs, as my noble friend's did. The industry is usually understood to comprise those companies which manufacture switching equipment (public and private telephone exchanges), transmission equipment (carrier systems and broad band radio links) and subscribers' apparatus (telephone instruments and so on). Associated sectors, whose fortunes are to a considerable extent tied up with the industry. are those covering telecommunication cables and satellite communications.
The telecommunications industry in the United Kingdom is largely accounted for by three companies—GEC, Plessey and STC, with a fourth, Pye TMC, also participating. These companies between them account for some 90 per cent. of the industry's output of around £400 million per annum. As noble Lords will know, GEC and Plessey are British owned; STC is part of the American ITT group, while Pye TMC is owned by Philips. Excluding work on cables, the companies employ about 65,000 people, which is considerably fewer than they employed two years ago. More than half of the employment is in Assisted Areas and is, therefore, extremely important to those areas of the country

1001
where jobs are scarce and unemployment is very much too high. Some 45,000 of the employees of these companies are engaged in producing telephone switching equipment for the Post Office. By world standards, the industry has shown itself reasonably efficient in many fields, but I accept that it has some weaknesses. Its annual output of about £400 million is in the ratio 4:1:1 as between switching, transmission and subscribers' apparatus. About three-quarters of production goes to the Post Office, with the remainder divided between other home customers and exports. Decisions by the Post Office on the type of equipment, particularly switching systems, required for the United Kingdom network are of crucial importance to the industry's competitive position in export markets.
Two years ago the Post Office's plans for modernising the telephone network were approved by the Government. These included the introduction of a new large and partly-electronic local exchange, TXE4, a phasing out of the electro-mechanical Strowger equipment, but with a continuing requirement for some Crossbar equipment, which is also electro-mechanical, but much more modern in design. Work would also be pressed ahead on the design and development of equipment for a new network for the 1980s, System X, to which noble Lords have referred. This would include computer controlled, electronic switching equipment which we would expect to be sufficiently advanced to attract large export orders. We have to accept that, desirable as speed in the development of System X is, as my noble friend in particular pointed out, faster development will cost more, and cause even greater employment problems than are already caused by the change from the older equipment to the new equipment.
When the modernisation plan was approved, it was realised that it meant a reduction in the labour force of the industry. This was because of the phasing out of the labour-intensive Strowger equipment and its replacement mainly by the less labour-intensive TXE4. It was planned that this reduction in the labour force would be carefully arranged with the Post Office's co-operation, to avoid redundancies as far as possible, although it was thought that some might be unavoidable. The present difficulties of the industry spring directly from its
1002
heavy reliance on the Post Office market, exacerbated by problems which arise from the worldwide changeover from electromechanical switching systems, such as Strowger and Crossbar, to the more efficient but less labour-intensive electronic designs. But, to be frank, I should add that in the past specialised domestic requirements have not always been beneficial to the industry's export potential. This is a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, with which I agree.
In the long-term, there is a clear pattern of steady growth in demand for the telephone service in the United Kingdom. This has been reflected in Post Office orders for switching equipment. Given this pattern, the manufacturers have in the past been able to cope with the unavoidable peaks and troughs which occur from time to time in the ordering programme without any major effect on employment in the industry. They also expected to be able to absorb the change to electronic equipment without major redundancies. However, in the early 1970s demand was grossly inflated by the previous Government's policy of restricting Post Office prices. Additional equipment had to be ordered to keep the waiting list within bounds. As a result, there was serious distortion of the normal growth pattern and by 1973 orders (and, therefore, also employment in the industry) were running at an unnaturally high level. This was closely followed by an arbitrary cut of some £20 million rate in 1973 as part of the same Government's economy measures.
When this Government came to power in 1974 we decided, with the full support of the TUC, that a policy of economic pricing must be applied to the nationalised industries. The tariff increases which resulted, coupled with a general downturn in economic activity, stabilised demand. As a result the Post Office found that, with equipment delivered or on order, it had several years' spare capacity at this reduced rate of demand for telecommunications services. It was obviously prudent for it to cut its ordering programme, and it made increasingly heavy cuts during 1975 as the new pattern of demand became clearer to it. Full information was given to the companies concerned. Unfortunately, because of the situation I have outlined, the companies could not immediately cushion the effect of Post Office cuts by taking more export business. As a

1003
result, several thousand redundancies have occurred in the industry, and more are likely, many, regretfully, in development areas. Ministers are extremely concerned about these redundancies and have met the unions, the Post Office and the employers to see what can be done to help. Last October the Secretary of State for Industry asked Sir William Ryland to review his ordering programme, and as a result some adjustments were made and some jobs in the industry saved.
There have been calls—not in this debate, I know—for a reinstatement of the 1973 ordering pattern. But it would be inconsistent with the Government's overall financial strategy to press the Post Office to buy equipment it does not need and then provide money from the public purse to enable it to purchase that equipment. The industry must, therefore, look to
exports and to the sale of private telephone installations to bolster its order book and keep more of its staff in employment in the face of the present downturn in demand from the Post Office.
In contrast to what the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, my understanding is that there are encouraging signs that this is beginning to happen, particularly with the semi-electronic TXE2 system. But despite any increase in export orders there will be some plant closures. Partly for historic reasons as a result of various mergers and partly as the outcome of successive Governments' policies of regional development, the industry has about 40 factories in different parts of the United Kingdom. Some of these factories are quite small. Many, particularly the newer ones, are in development areas. If the industry is to become more efficient and effective in world markets, which we all agree is desirable, it seems likely that it will have to concentrate its activities on a smaller number of the larger plants. Some closure of the smaller plants is already under way, due to the cuts in the Post Office's ordering programme and the shrinking demand for the older types of equipment.
At one time the industry had a bigger share of export markets, particularly in the Commonwealth and other countries subject to British influence. There was a tendency for such countries to follow Post Office standards and buy their
1004
equipment from the same suppliers. But in the post-war period, as political links with the United Kingdom became more tenuous, Administrations in those countries began to establish differing standards of their own. In the meantime, the United Kingdom suppliers, in the face of diverging home and export requirements, concentrated on the Post Office market. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, the result was that some of the traditional British markets overseas were lost to foreign competitors. Overseas markets for earlier systems supplied traditionally by United Kingdom manufacturers will soon be coming to an end. Only orders for additions to existing systems and replacement parts can be expected in future.
So far as the next generation of exchanges is concerned, it has been demonstrated that there are export prospects for variations of TXE2, and there are similar hopes for TXE4. Although these systems are often described as "electronic" they are not completely so, the switching devices being in the form of a magnetically operated reed and not a semi-conductor device. As used by the Post Office in the United Kingdom, they are not computer controlled, but I understand that their design lends itself to development so that such control may be possible.
My noble friend Lord Davies of Leek touched in particular on the levels of expenditure on research and development in this industry. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, in the financial year 1974–75, the Post Office spent £27·1 million on telecommunications research and development. Fifty-nine per cent. was spent on new systems, 25 per cent. on existing systems and the remaining 16 per cent. on exploratory research. It has been estimated that the United Kingdom telecommunications industry spends a further £30 million to £40 million a year on research, about a quarter of which is under Post Office contracts.
I know that trades union representatives have expressed fears that companies are not undertaking adequate research and development. We have explored these points with parts of the industry who maintain that it is their policy to develop new products whenever they see a commercially viable future for them. But research and development is not an end in

1005
itself. It makes commercial sense to undertake it only if the product resulting from research will be profitable. My noble friend can rest assured that the industry and the Government agree with him that the development of profitable products is what is most important for the future.
I should like to deal with one or two of the points which various noble Lords have raised during the debate. My noble friend said that under the terms of Section 35 of the Post Office Act, the Post Office has considerable scope to borrow money from a variety of sources. I understand that in practice a proportion of its domestic requirements are met from foreign currency loans. This will almost certainly include the Arab money which my noble friend mentioned. I understand that recently loans have also been negotiated from the European Investment Bank.
To deal with the two European questions which my noble friend raised, I can assure him that we are taking our full part in the various international forums where harmonisation of operating conditions and equipment parameters are being discussed. My noble friend also referred to the need for a European policy for the electronics industry as a whole, including computers and telecommunications. This is an important subject upon which the European Commission rightly places much emphasis, and again we are participating fully in on-going discussions in Brussels on European collaboration in this field. My noble friend can rest assured that the interests of this country are being fully taken into account in any discussions that take place in a European context.
Both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned the Post Office's order with a Swedish firm which was placed in 1974. As noble Lords know, the Post Office customarily places virtually all of its orders for telecommunications equipment with United Kingdom firms. In the summer of 1974 the chairman of the Post Office wrote to the then Secretary of State for Industry, Tony Benn, indicating that the Post Office had concluded that it had to buy exchange equipment for a new international exchange in London from Ericsson of Sweden. After full consideration of the facts
1006
and following representations from British industry, the Secretary of State reluctantly concluded that it would be wrong to object to the Post Office's intention to place this order with Ericsson. It was a condition of the contract that part of the work would be carried out at Ericsson's factory at Scunthorpe. I can assure my noble friend that that decision of the Post Office in no way implies a significant change of attitude by the Post Office towards its traditional suppliers.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned the tropospheric scatter equipment and in particular its use in the North Sea. As the noble Lord will know from previous exchanges in this House, the question of the price charged by the Post Office for this equipment is a matter for the commercial management of the Post Office, and I have no doubt that it will take note of what the noble Lord has said about the price being charged. The noble Lord touched also on the question of the export of this equipment to South Africa. Because this equipment was considered "sensitive", it was placed under specific export licensing control. In the case of any application for a licence to export such equipment, the end uses to which it will be put will need to be explained. I cannot, of course, prejudge the outcome of any such application that might be made, but I can assure the noble Lord that the points which he has made in the debate will be borne in mind by the Government when any application is considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, dealt with the pay differentials which, he told me, a survey showed between the public and the private sector—particularly, I think, for people qualified in engineering. It would be very difficult to do so and I do not think that the noble Lord would expect me to comment in any detail on the figures that he produced, because one would want to see the survey, exactly what questions were asked and in particular whether like was being compared with like. I am glad that the noble Lord made it clear that he was not saying that the public sector had been getting round the current pay limit. I very much regret, however, that in making that clear the noble Lord appeared to make the insinuation that the public sector, compared with the private sector, had been using the regrading of jobs to get round the pay limit.

1007
As has been made clear by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there is a certain amount of drift when any pay limit is imposed but I see absolutely no evidence to suggest that the public sector, more than any other sector of industry, is re-grading jobs. Indeed, bearing in mind the very close eye which Ministers and other people keep on all pay negotiations and pay awards in the public sector, my own suspicion is that if there is more drift in one sector than another it is more likely to be in the private sector of industry. But as I say, I have absolutely no evidence to suggest that one or the other sector of industry is making use of re-grading to get round the pay limit, and I think that the noble Lord was a little unfair to suggest that the public sector was doing so—if that, indeed, is what he suggested.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I must intervene to say that I did not suggest that. Each Civil Service organisation has re-grading as people move up. I by no means suggested that that was a way of getting round the pay freeze. If the noble Lord will look at Hansard and the words I used, they will, I think, bear me out that there was no such imputation. I said merely that they have re-grading, which industry also has. We re-grade. But I was not seeking to make that point. I was seeking to make the point—and perhaps the noble Lord could deal with it—that it is not healthy to pay substantially more for the same-qualified person of the same age as is revealed by this survey, and I hope that he will take that criticism very seriously.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am glad we have cleared up that point because it is important, and particularly now that we have settled the next pay round it is important for public and private industry—and indeed the whole country—to pull together to make sure that the agreement sticks. I am glad that we have got rid of any suggestion that one section of industry or another is making an attempt to get round the limit. As I said, it is difficult to comment on the figures without seeing the survey in detail. My own reaction would be that if the public sector is paying engineers more than private industry that is the fault of private industry rather than the fault of the public sector.
1008
The noble Lord will know from previous debates that we have had in this House that one of the major concerns of industry in this country is the lack of suitably qualified engineers. Indeed, since my time at the Department of Industry one of the main preoccupations has been looking for the up-turn in the economy, which we expect and which indeed appears to be under way at the moment; one of the major bottlenecks is likely to be the shortage of skilled people in industry, particularly skilled engineers, and one of the criticisms that was made of the pay levels in industry—certainly to Ministers in the Department of Industry—is that engineers are not given sufficient rewards and that when training places are made available for engineers no young people from school are available to fill them. Indeed, I have been to parts of the country where that very criticism has been made: that companies desperately need engineers, there are training facilities available but that the engineers simply are not coming forward to be trained.
Similar criticisms have been levelled at the educational system; that not enough emphasis has been placed upon training people, particularly engineers, in technical I skills; and one of the answers, for example, that directors of polytechnics have given me in discussions on this problem, is that it is very difficult to encourage people to go into engineering and into industry if the pay levels are not right. I do not want to comment on the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, because I do not know the basis on which they were collected; but it may be that the whole country should think of rewarding people with technical skills, particularly engineers, a little more highly than we have in the past.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I should like to come back to the point—the noble Lord will understand. It is not right that people should be tempted away on the same standard to get £1,000 a year more—20 per cent. More—by changing their jobs from the wealth-creating industry to the public sector. Can the noble Lord deal with that point, because that is the whole criticism that I have? It really is not fair to say that we should be paying more. In private industry we are rigidly controlled. We cannot even pass on the extra cost of our

1009
labour; we have to bear that on our profits, and we are always, quite rightly, criticised that out profits in industry are already too slender to invest them as we should do.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I have said to the noble Lord several times that I do not wish to comment upon the figures because I do not know the basis on which they were collected and whether the noble Lord is comparing like with like. I should be happy and interested to study them. I have emphasised that the problem of the shortage of engineers in manufacturing industry is one of which the Government are acutely aware and to which they attach considerable importance. I think the noble Lord is a little unfair to claim, as he appears to be doing, that this problem is caused or exacerbated by the recent pay limits. It seems to me that all the evidence points to a long-term shortage of engineering skills in British industry and that the recent round of pay limits cannot, by any stretch of the imagination or any recent survey, possibly be blamed for a shortage of engineers in industry or indeed a differential between the pay in manufacturing industry and the public sector, if such differential exists. It seems to me that this is a long-term problem. I agree with the noble Lord that the shortage of engineers overall is a serious problem, and I can assure him that we are giving considerable thought to it.
Finally my noble friend referred to the committee, under the chairmanship of Professor Carter, which is carrying out a review of the Post Office. I know that we shall all look forward to the report with considerable interest. I anticipate that this will be available in 1977, hopefully in the early part of that year. In the meantime, of course, it would be wrong of me to anticipate the outcome of Mr. Carter's committee, but I am sure that note will be taken of the various points which my noble friend made with particular reference to the Carter Committee.
In conclusion, I should like briefly to touch on the future of this industry. The future of the industry rests primarily with the development of a new range of fully electronic equipment—System X—and its full exploitation in overseas markets. The system is a joint venture between the
1010
Post Office and its major suppliers, and the Government are giving every encouragement to the partners to press on as fast as possible, taking into account the needs of potential overseas buyers. I think the approach to System X exemplifies the change of philosophy that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said was needed. I certainly agree with him about that, and the Government have laid great emphasis on this need to make sure that System X has a full export potential. Great emphasis has been laid on this to all concerned.
We are confident that there is a prosperous future for the industry and for those who work in it. But this needs to be on the basis of the fullest co-operation between all the parties concerned. This process is being advanced by the "Little Neddy" for the electronics industry, on which the Government, the industry, the unions and the Post Office are all represented. We lay the greatest emphasis on a tripartite approach to all British industries' problems, not least the telecommunications industry. This Government's industrial strategy is based on this approach, and I warmly welcome my noble friend's support for our policy of tackling the problems of the telecommunications industry on this tripartite basis.
5.47 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and for the expertise of both noble Lords who have spoken from the other side of the House. I have listened many times to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and I know that he himself had earned his living in the electrical engineering industry. I wish he had taken a little more time, after he dealt with the questions of pay, and had come on to some of the points in which he is an expert. However, I am grateful to him for what he said. I did not know the figures that he has given but I suppose that publically-owned industry tries to win the best talent in just the same way as there are a few pirates in private industry. I do not justify it. I take his figures as being accurate. He has made his point and I am sure the Government will take note of it. I hope that competition for labour will be as fair in that field as it ought to be in others, and I thank him

1011
indeed. I was hoping that the noble Lord would have made a bigger contribution because I would make a plea to spend a little more on electronics on account of its contribution to defence; but because of the time factor I know the noble Lord did not want to weary the House, and neither do I.
I am grateful to the noble Lord who spoke from the Front Bench. I let him know what I was going to say, so I had no magic cards up my sleeve. I was concerned with the industry proper, and I wanted the best reply I could possibly get from my noble friend who spoke so eloquently from the Front Bench and I am grateful for the answers he gave. I am certain that the whole House and the nation are waiting for the Carter Report. I am sure it will be constructive and it may contain suggestions. There is no doubt that the telecommunications industry is moving ahead as fast as biochemistry. In the field of biochemistry, in which I have an interest, movement is so rapid that one can hardly keep pace with it. It is moving faster than knowledge of space.
For instance, for the first time in history a glamorous side of telecommunications was pointed out in the Financial Times only a short while ago, when here in London the Institution of Electrical Engineers had a world conference for the first time in history discussing optical fibre communication, which means that we are now making glassfibres so fine and so wonderful that we can use them for telecommunications and get thousands of calls on a 15 kilometre stretch of glassfibre inside a cable and we do not want boosters along the line. It will alter entirely the economics of cable communication. There are about 50 other movements in the telecommunications world which have evolved as a result of the co-operation of Post Office engineering—and I use that word. "Post Office" has become an ugly word; we must dust it and make it a good word. I should like to see the Post Office uniforms made a little better, too, for the old postman to come round in. I am grateful to the Government, and I hope they will keep the organisation on its toes, and let us know from time to time if there could be some interim report on the way the Carter Committee is working.
1012
My Lords, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have taken the trouble to take part in our debate on what I consider is one of the growth industries, worth £14 billion if worked properly. I say "thank you" to all, and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CHIROPRACTORS AND OSTEOPATHS
5.51 p.m.
Lord FERRIER Lord FERRIER rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to contemplate any amendment of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 to encourage professions such as chiropractors and osteopaths to qualify for registration. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. May I in advance thank noble Lords who intend to speak, because I will not have an opportunity of so doing at the end of the debate. I am looking forward to their contributions, and consequently I shall be as brief as I can. When I put down this Question, I expected that Mrs. Joyce Butler's Osteopaths Bill would have been debated in the other place, but last Friday it was objected to and comes up again on 25th June. Consequently, I do not propose to refer to osteopaths, although I have mentioned them in my Question. I will confine myself to the subject of chiropractic.
When I asked a Question on 26th November 1974 regarding the exchange of X-ray records with the National Health Service, a noble Lord asked for a definition of "chiropractic". There is, of course, a complete and necessarily technical definition laid down by the European Chiropractors' Union, of which the British Chiropractors' Association is a member. To save time, I will quote the interpretation used in the New Zealand legislation of 1960. It is:
"the examination and adjustment by hand of the segments of the human spinal column and pelvis"—
the emphasis is on manipulation, and on the Greek word "chiros" the hand. To return briefly to the question of non-exchange of X-ray plates between the

1013
National Health Service and the chiropractic profession, this involves unnecessary exposure of patients to the risks inherent in radiography. I will leave it at that, but I feel it is something that should be put right.
My Lords, my intention is to divide my speech into three parts: first, how do I come to put down a Question at all? Secondly, why do I ask a Question by reference to the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act? Thirdly, what amendments to that Act do I suggest? First of all, how am I concerned? Once upon a time and for many years my wife and I were fairly bold horse-persons, which is probably the modern way of putting it. We each had many a tumble, and one of hers ended my wife's riding for ever. It could have been worse; her sense of balance and eyesight were affected and it was only after four or five years' partial disablement that she was advised to consult a chiropractor. Manual adjustment of the vertebrae at the base of her skull provided a remedy, and after adjustments for a week or so, she could drive a car and ride a bicycle.
When I later came home from India and had an attack of back trouble which had plagued me since I was bucked off a young horse that I was breaking in 1924, my wife sent to to a chiropractor who dealt with it successfully though we still pay regular visits to keep things in adjustment. I have a neck injury resulting a motor accident which responds to this treatment.
But I resist the temptation to go on citing successful cases, of which I know many, because time is short and other noble Lords may feel able to do so. Therefore, I am no more than a satisfied patient. However, I venture to take up your Lordships' time because I happen to have been brought up by an uncle, an eminent physiologist, so I spent my boyhood in an atmosphere of medical research. I concluded my business career as the chairman of a group of pharmaceutical companies, so I know how little I know about healing. But I also know the pitfalls surrounding anyone who asks a Question like the one I am asking in a place like this.
Secondly, why do I ask my Question in this form? It is not because we as a family have benefited enormously from this science, but because of my confident
1014
belief that chiropractic has a contribution to make to the nation's health and wealth. A first step to that end might be the amendment of the Professions Supplementary to Medicines Act. It is not everyone who knows chiropraxy—I use this rather quaint French-Canadian word which I culled from Hansard of the Quebec Parliament on the subject. Furthermore, it is not everyone who can afford the treatment, if they know of it. Fees, incidentally, attract VAT, an extra which is surely unnecessary.
Back pain may be an inconvenience to the sportsman or games player, but it is a serious matter in every way when it affects the life and livelihood of working men and women. Last week, I was encouraged when I happened to listen to a BBC programme on Radio 4 called, "Finger on the Pulse", when in a recorded exchange between the BBC interviewer and the Minister of Health, Dr. David Owen, the latter said, inter alia:
"We are also slightly worried that, for instance, things like backache, which can cost the nation as a whole anything up to well over £100 million a year, is a very under-researched problem, but you have to have fundamental research, so I am wanting much more public debate at this stage".
This was an encouragement to me. I am certain, as he must he, that there are many men and women who have been involved in industrial, agricultural or household strains or accidents, including motor accidents, who suffer the resultant ailments, pain and, indeed, incapacity, who could benefit from more general availability of this form of treatment.
It was not injuries to sportsmen that induced the New Zealand Parliament, in the face of bitter opposition from several quarters, to include chiropractic under the New Zealand National Health Scheme in 1960, 16 years ago. Other countries who do the same are Canada, the United States of America, Switzerland, Denmark, South Australia, Western Australia, Mexico—and the number is steadily growing. After all, the importance of the spine in the sphere of general health was recognised by Hippocrates. There are still cries of "quackery", "charlatan", and so on, but these were the rods with which the late Sir Herbert Barker was once chastised. I am now on the brink of one of the pitfalls, which I had better be careful about. One has to admit that up and down the country there are

1015
healers, practitioners who are not members of any discipline and who besides have hardly any specific training. Of course, this does not apply to chiropractors. The amendment of the Act could be a step to correct this difficulty by adding to Section 1(2).
In saying this, I do not decry the skills of some of these healers, bone-setters, call them what you will. I know of a shepherd in Tweedside who, apart from being in great demand up and down the Borders for the treatment of dislocations and the like in farm animals, has many successful cases to his credit in dealing with bone injuries to men and women. But, of course, there are people who have not got the experience or the lifelong training and gift that he has in his healing hands. The British Chiropractors' Association have already applied to the Council which is established under this Act, but their application has been refused, and, further, it, the Council, contends that it is not required under Section 10 to state any reason. But this matter is in dispute; I think it may well be that they are wrong in this contention. I had better leave it at that.
To digress for a moment, surprisingly one must realise that it is possible today for an official study on the subject of sciatica to be made without involving chiropractors at all, as your Lordships can see from the Answer to my Question for Written Answer which was given on 22nd January last year. This, to me, is an extraordinary situation. I have here some figures about the training of chiropractors under their present discipline, in which their course, in the Anglo-European College, involves 4,416 hours, compared with the Edinburgh University's medical course of 4,899 hours. Substantial training of this measure is not commonly known. I have here some figures about the doctors of chiropractic per head of population in different countries: USA, 1 to every 13,000; Canada, 1 to 20,000; New Zealand, 1 to 45,000; Denmark, 1 to 46,000; Australia, 1 to 56,000; Switzerland, 1 to 74,000; Norway, 1 to 81,000; Belgium, 1 to 125,000; Sweden, 1 to 336,000; France, 1 to 500,000; England and Wales, 1 to 635,000; Scotland, 1 to 871,000. They are interesting figures, which I mention only in passing.
Finally, my Lords, I turn to the third part of my contention. What Amendments to the PSM Act—I call it that for brevity's sake—do I suggest, if indeed they are necessary at all, to secure the registration of chiropractors? Basically I think that Section 1(2) should be extended to include chiropractors. The section is quite a short one, but rather interesting. It reads as follows:
"For each of the following professions, that is to say, chiropodists, dietitians, medical laboratory technicians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, radiographers and remedial gymnasts, there shall be a body, to be called the Chiropodists Board, the Dietitians Board, and similarly for the other professions, which shall have the general function of promoting high standards of professional education and professional conduct among members of the relevant profession, and the additional functions assigned to it by this Act."
Section 10 of the Act, to which I have already referred, gives overwhelming powers to the Council. Should not this section be overhauled to make it clear that the Department of Health, namely Parliament itself, should be the ultimate arbiter? Indeed, as I read the Act, Section 10 is quite specific. Under subsection (1)(a) the Council are empowered to extend the number of professions up to 12. There are only seven in the list I read to your Lordships from Section 1. Section 10 is a long one; only subsection (1)(a) is of importance to us. It says:
"If the Council considers it appropriate, after consulting any existing boards appearing to the Council to be concerned—

(a) that this Act should be extended to a pro-fession which appears to the Council to be supplementary to medicine and is not mentioned in section one of this Act…

the Council shall make a recommendation to that effect to the Privy Council."
I should not be surprised if the noble Lord who is to reply tells the House that there is no room in the legislative timetable for an amending Bill of this nature. This may be so. If so, it is a pity. But I make bold to suggest that the recognition of chiropractic is a matter of such immense importance that it should be tackled without delay. Can this be done without amending the Act? Cannot the Department of Health act independently of the Council? Of course, we have a Royal Commission in the offing, and presumably this matter will be part of its remit; I mean the matter of including chiropractic under the supplementary

1017
professions. But a Royal Commission means years of delay. I have here a copy of the Canadian Chiropractic Association's journal of May 1962 containing that Association's brief to the Canadian Royal Commission on the health service. I see that the Commission's public hearings lasted from June 1961 to June 1962, with evidence amounting to 3½ million words. But in addition 27 separate research studies were ordered by the Commission, one of which was a study of the chiropractic profession. Anyway, the outcome was a recognition of the profession throughout Canada, as I have said.
I feel that in the light of recent world experience and research there may he no need for this country to take so long. Of course, there are difficulties over some operators with minimal training, as I have mentioned, but this does not apply to qualified chiropractors, a number of whom are doctors of medicine. I remember that the first one to treat me was a doctor of medicine as well. A number of doctors of medicine are also chiropractors. The British Association has its own college and discipline and faculty. As someone wrote the other day:
"There is a momentum in the chiropractic profession which makes it a dynamic and exciting one in which to be involved at this time."
In conclusion, I am no more than a satisfied customer, as I said. I do not even claim to be much of a politician, but your Lordships can include me in an answer Sir Geoffrey Howe gave on television the other day, when he was asked why he became a politician; he replied, "Because I care deeply about the society in which I live". Whatever may he the errors of chiropractors' ways, if there are any, I myself feel like the man whose outburst is described by Saint John in his Gospel, chapter IX, verse 25. My Lords, I beg to ask my Question.
6.10 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will indeed be grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrier for introducing this Question to your Lordships this evening. I must say that I think he has expanded the debate on health in an area which is very little explored. In this regard the Government must surely be particularly pleased that he has done so, being very much in line with what the Minister, Dr. David Owen,
1018
said in his broadcast so recently, as quoted by my noble friend Lord Ferrier. My noble friend has suggested to the Government that it might be a good idea to contemplate an amendment to an Act of Parliament, the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. In your Lordships' House I think we consider our legislative role with great seriousness, and perhaps it would be of some benefit to relate this to the questions brought up in Sir David Renton's report on the preparation of legislation. Turning to Chapter 13 of that report, which I shall not quote, we have the subject title, "Amending Legislation", and it is a subject which we should approach with some trepidation. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for bringing this subject forward so that we can air it, and I hope we shall follow the recommendations of Sir David Renton's Committee and consider the matter with care before contemplating any such change.
Alternative medicine is a subject which I think is of compelling interest to every one of us. Two sides of this field have been mentioned in my noble friend's Question, the professions of chiropraxis and osteopathy. I shall concentrate, in my short remarks, on osteopathy. An interesting article appeared in the Nursing Times so recently as 29th January this year. The subject of that article was to lay stress on the fact that osteopathy can cure such diverse conditions as asthma, migraine, sinusitis and similar conditions. But, as a whole, osteopathic medicine is a complete school of medical practice. It utilises scientifically accepted medical practice such as X-rays, and it lays particular emphasis on the muscular/skeletal structure of the human body and its relation to organ functions. On the skills demonstrated by osteopaths I am in no position to comment, since I am not an osteopath myself, but I believe that the manipulative skills are demonstrated very well in those who are cured patients, and I am particularly glad that my noble friend Lord Ferrier stands before us this evening as a cured patient of a sister profession.
One thing I think should be very clearly set out here in regard to the osteopath's profession is that the General Council and the Register of Osteopaths do their utmost to see that the standards of training and ethical behaviour are observed by members. It is of the

1019
greatest importance that the public should be protected by the highest professional standards; and it is of particular significance that a school was set up in this country, that a register has existed for over 40 years, and that the profession have maintained their own standards to the complete satisfaction of both the Department of Education and Science and local authorities, who are pleased to bring forward candidates.
My noble friend said that backache costs this country over £100 million a year. Surely on grounds of curing human suffering alone, quite apart from the financial aspect, we should consider all available means to see how this can be achieved. If, as my noble friend suggests, it would be a good idea to amend the law, that that would enable these two professions to be conducted in a better manner, then I hope that the Government will bring forward their suggestions. If, on the other hand, the Government feel that the state of the law is entirely satisfactory, I hope that they will say so.
6.15 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, when I first saw this Notice of Question on the Order Paper I was attracted to it not least because of the overtones and undertones of meaning significance which I think lie above and below it. I am the more grateful for the introduction of this Question by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the way in which he has set out the areas in which the debate can profitably continue. I have no competence in this field. My therapy, such as it is, is directed to other organs of the human body than the spinal column, though we are in Scripture bidden to make the dry bones live. But I have evidence, which think is worth passing on to your Lordships, of the efficacy of chiropractic treatment and of the efficacy of osteopathic treatment.
I belong to the generation which enjoyed, and was sometimes I think exasperated by, the controversy between men like Barker and that Guernsey peasant De Putron Rabey, who was in many respects as competent in the effects he produced as was his more closely educated and equipped fellow practitioner. In this record of past events I could claim
1020
knowledge of many who have been materially, and in every other way, improved by chiropractic exercises, and indeed by osteopaths in general. It is for that reason that I am the more concerned that they should receive the kind of justification for, and should be enabled to be entitled to the same kind of status to which I believe they are now fully equipped and entitled.
May I delay your Lordships to make one comment about the twin areas of chiropraxis and osteopathy. There is one redeeming feature in the otherwise somewhat murky story now of the military achievements of Field Marshal J. C. Smuts which is often forgotten. I believe he was a great philosopher. His doctrine of holism has been underrated, even if it has been read at all. I think that the chiropractor and the osteopath are probably in touch with the inner meaning, or one of the inner meanings, of this philosophical idea.
Let me expatiate on it just a little. I have a very common gift which is called an ear for music; that is to say, if I hear one note I can hear the other notes that accompany it in the whole harmonic scale. Incidentally, it interests me that in the previous debate my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek was referring to the need for harmony; but he said he required both the white notes and the black notes, quite forgetting that for 3 keys at least you do not require the black notes at all, but you do require a sense of the whole of the harmonic entity. You have to possess what is called, I suppose, tonal sympathy.
It was none other than De Putron Rabey who told me that when he felt one bone he had a sense of feeling the whole structure of the system of bones. I cannot comment on that, except to say that it would not surprise me if what Field Marshal Smuts was saying about the doctrine of holism has a very relevant and impressive part to play in the further explication of this area of healing and therapy. Therefore, for that reason, what is a more profound one, I am disappointed that the Council set up by the Act of 1960 has refused the application of the chiropractors and has, what is more, as the noble Lord said, given no reason for so doing. Is there any right of appeal in this matter? The position seems to be quite unsatisfactory as it exists.

1021
I understand that osteopaths are not anxious at the moment to apply for permission to be added to the seven, to become nine, under the first section of the Act, but I am sure that the noble Lord is right when he insists that it would be very helpful during the Royal Commission's deliberations on the National Health Service if it took this matter into account. I do not find that there is sufficient evidence to amend the law—I think it is applicable as it stands—but I would ask the Minister by what means it could be facilitated in order to include, if he thinks it should, the very reputable area of chiropraxis and osteopathy.
The comment I wish to make now is, so to speak, professionally more in my line. There is a widespread increase of superstition at the moment, partly consequent on the failure of many organised religious beliefs in the minds of contemporary people and partly because of the charismatic movement, and it has been expressed in some of the exorcist controversies, of which your Lordships will know something. There is a tendency, to which I give evidence, to be much more superstitious in matters of medicine, and it would be a discipline on the part of those who practise chiropraxis and osteopathy if they could enjoy the kind of status by which they could be distinguished from the quacks, of whom there are many, and the number of those—for whom, as a social worker, I seek very imperfectly to do something—who suffer because of the predatory habits not only of the minor prophets but of the false prophets. This is a serious concern and growing menace and to distinguish between the sheep and the goats, to be represented in an organisation for therapy which has the imprimatur of recognition because it has undergone the disciplines required in order to be certificated is, I believe, one of the ways in which we ought—and I speak now for the profession to which I belong—to be urging the Government to do what they can to make it possible that in the field of medicine we do not lag behind those who, though they may not be able fully to express their discoveries in the scientific terms which would be required in an examination paper, nevertheless are in touch with realities which are still beyond the competence of many people in the traditional medical service.
1022
My Lords, I conclude by saying that there has always been a controversy between justification by faith and justification by works. We know now that faith owes its dynamic in many cases to the exercise of faith rather than to the direction of it, but the long-term effects of a misdirected faith are very dangerous. To be disciplined by the works that can be expressed within the framework (shall we say?) of the medical profession—the marriage of faith and works—is still one of the supreme requirements of an intelligent and helpful public service in relation to the health of the community. I believe that the medical profession will itself profit by the benefactions that can come from these new ways of expressing therapy, and I believe that those who are to be the recipients of this kind of help can be better protected if those who are qualified so to help them are disciplined in such a way as to leave out of account and to preclude the intrusion of the quack from whom we now suffer. I am glad that this Question has been raised, and once again I thank the noble Lord for raising it.
6.24 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, I always find it difficult to speak following any speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and certainly I agreed with almost everything he said. I think, however, that there are things to be said, not on the other side—I do not want to make an antithesis of it—but about things which perhaps point in different directions. In passing, I would ask the noble Lord which three scales can be played without the use of black notes, but perhaps he would rather let me know in private after the debate.
Lord SOPER: The scales of C, F, and G, my Lords.
Lord PLATT: The noble Lord and I can discuss that later. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, is unable to be present for the debate, although he had put his name down to speak; he might have added considerably to our deliberations. I am also sad that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, who is one of the outstanding general practitioners in this country, is also unable to be here because I am sure that he would have been able to give us a most balanced picture of the present attitude of the medical practitioner to the question of

1023
chiropraxy and osteopathy. Having consulted the Concise Oxford Dictionary, which is not necessarily always right, I find that chiropraxis is manipulation of the spinal column as a method of curing disease, whereas osteopathy is manipulative surgery as a profession. This makes a certain distinction between the two; I suggest that it is a distinction of philosophy and belief which is rather important from the point of view of the members of the medical profession.
In other words, we are left with the impression—though as I said, the Dictionary is not always right—that the chiropractic really believes that he can cure disease by manipulation of the spinal column. What the disease is, of course, is not stated and it is not very clear from any of the chiropractors' literature which I have read. Osteopathy is given as manipulative surgery as a profession. In other words, the osteopath claims to have found some lesion which can be put right whereas the chiropractor tends to think that most disease can be influenced by manipulation of the spinal column. Those who, like myself and other members of the medical profession, have been brought up in a belief that what we do is based on scientific principles of anatomy and physiology, find it difficult to accept some of the claims of either of those professions, especially when, for example, they find some displacement of vertebrae which is not confirmed by some of the most distinguished radiologists in the profession.
None of this is to be construed as saying that I do not believe that some of these cures can be effected. Indeed, I am sure that the kind of experiences which have been told to us by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, have actually come about, and I believe that in the last 10 to 15 years or so the medical profession has had a rather changed attitude towards osteopathy and perhaps to a less extent chiropraxis in that it acknowledges, let us face it, that the medical profession is not very good at treating many things, including backache, and that people who have been brought up to study these conditions, even in a somewhat unorthodox way, can effect cures where the medical profession has signally failed to do so. So do not let anybody think that I rule the whole lot out on some kind of conventional medical law.
1024
So far as the actual practice of this subject is concerned, the law of the land does not prevent anybody from practising anything, nor anyone—qualified or not—from claiming to cure or to set out to cure a disease. That has certain exceptions, in that one may not advertise cancer cures because a very serious situation was beginning to develop and many people who were in agonies over their own or their relatives' illness were paying a great deal of money for quack remedies. So cancer cures are ruled out. Also, anybody who is not qualified in medicine and who professes to treat or to cure disease—which he has a perfect right to do—is up against certain limitations, in that he may not use certain dangerous drugs and cannot sign a death certificate, which is a little restriction on the complete freedom of treatment.
There have always been unorthodox practitioners and, in the long history of medicine and allied subjects, it has been known that the unorthodox has proved its case and been adopted as a recognised form of treatment. I would especially call your Lordships' attention to the question of acupuncture, which is now recognised as being a most interesting way of relieving pain—even of relieving pain during a major operation. So much is this so that medical scientists who have gone with an open mind to look at acupuncture have come back not only with the view that it can in certain cases do what it sets out to do but also believing that there are reasons for it. Those reasons are rather complicated to go into now and they reside in the question of pain fibres and the central nervous system. However, where the medical profession would at once depart from the acupuncture people is in certain beliefs which we find it very difficult to follow. For instance, they say that if one wants to cure the eyes one must put one's needle in in a certain place and if one wants to cure something else one must put it in somewhere else. This seems to us to be a combination of a built-up lore and—I will not go so far as to call it witch-doctoring—a belief in the supernatural which detracts from the real value of acupuncture.
We must face the fact that there is of course a slightly general disapproval on the part of the medical profession of unorthodox practices. Ruling out all those who have absolutely fixed views on

1025
all these matters and listening to those who have given them some study, I believe that the reasons for the disapproval of the medical profession are twofold. The first is, as I have said, that a certain number of claims for osteopathy and chiropraxis are based on principles which those who have been brought up in the science of medicine, anatomy and physiology, cannot accept. The second is that they may do harm. A doctor has always to be very careful that what he advises in the way of treatment will not do harm. He can never be quite sure and, in these days of modern medical science, he is even less sure that he is not doing harm. But the more ignorant end of the scale of unorthodox practitioners is in danger of doing harm. For instance, a continual pain in the back for which an osteopath may manipulate the spine could be due to a cancer of the prostate or elsewhere with secondaries in the spinal cord.
However, there are of course osteopaths who are medically qualified and, as far as I know, they are entirely reputable people. People in my own profession will recommend their patients to go to such osteopaths. As to the unqualified osteopaths, people in my own profession often say to their patients, "Why not see whether this man can do more for you than I have been able to do?" I believe that in the profession there has been a more liberal attitude towards osteopathy than was the case some time ago. However, I feel that a doctor should not delegate his authority to an unqualified practitioner. If his patient prefers to go to an osteopath or a chiropractor, I do not see why the doctor should stand in his way, but I do not feel that he should delegate his authority.
This brings me to the question of what happens in other countries. I have been in touch with an American professor who has a great knowledge of the practice of medicine in the United States. I brought up this question with him and he replied, "To us, this question of osteopaths and chiropractors is a State matter." In other words, it is not a Federal matter and the practice varies from State to State. Such is the chaotic state of medicine in the United States that there are States and large districts and regions which are completely under-doctored. Some have
1026
tried the experiment of allowing chiropractors to practice medicine after a sort of crash course, for instance, in the sort of things that one must know about modern antibiotics and so on. In the opinion of my friend, who is a person of very balanced opinions—and not a member of the AMA as far as I know—this has not really been a success, except that it may have done some good in cases where doctors were otherwise unobtainable.
I have also appealed to a personal friend who practises medicine in Canada and he told me much the same story. Chiropraxis has been registered in most of the Provinces of Canada. The doctors are mainly antagonistic, but that may be due to the entrenched positions which they hold. My friend suggests that the situation is far from satisfactory and asks why there should not be a collaborative investigation of the claims of chiropraxis. If its practitioners want to establish their position in the healing arts, they should be open to inspection by some kind of inquiry which would be as unprejudiced as it was possible to be. Osteopaths already have their own register, and there are many osteopaths medically qualified.
I end with the question of whether any action is due at all. People are free to practise medicine as they wish; patients are free to go to what kind of practitioner they like. If these practitioners of rather unorthodox medicine want to establish their position, it is up to them to take steps to do so.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to raise a point with the noble Lord before he sits down. He referred to the delegating by the medical profession to other professions. But what of these professions mentioned in the Act; for instance, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, and remedial gymnasts? The medical profession does not hesitate to delegate some responsibility to them, does it?
Lord PLATT: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, that is just not so. They delegate certain treatment, just as one may delegate certain treatment to a nurse; that she must, for instance, give an injection to a certain patient every four hours. But they do not relax their own authority over the patient.
6.42 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I feel very much a layman after the very educational speech of the noble Lord, Lord Platt. I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Ferrier for introducing this debate. He limited himself to speaking about chiropractors, of which I know nothing personally, and I am speaking today only because for some years I have been chairman of the Osteopathic Educational Foundation, which is a registered charity involved in raising finance for the osteopathic profession. As the noble Lord, Lord Platt, mentioned, there has been an osteopathic register for 40 years, and I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, sitting in his place because it was he who first started this idea.
The objects of the register are:
"First, to establish and maintain standards of education for practitioners of osteopathy, for the protection and benefit of the public. Secondly, to promote, assist, approve or co-operate with any universities, colleges, schools, hospitals, clinics or other bodies, institutions or establishments which may conform with the standards of the register in the matter of osteopathic education, research or practice. Thirdly, to keep a register of persons qualified to practice osteopathy in conformity with the standards of the register and to grant to such persons the right to use after their names any letters or additions showing they are admitted to membership of the register."
Over many years this register has faithfully carried out its duties and has conscientiously ensured that high standards are maintained, or improved, as new techniques are developed. Members of the register come from two sources: first, the British School of Osteopathy, where students who need five "0" levels and two "A" levels to be eligible, do a four-year course of training; and, secondly, from the London College of Osteopathy where a one-year course of osteopathic training is given to registered medical practitioners.
I think that the best indication that the present system works satisfactorily is the fact that the relationship between doctors and osteopaths has improved so much in recent years. More and more doctors now send their patients for treatment for particular ailments, such as back pain, stiff necks et cetera, to osteopaths who are members of the register and hence have the letters "MRO" after their names. On the other side of that coin, patients now admit quite freely to their doctors that they have been treated by an osteopath
1028
or that they wish to have one recommended to them.
Therefore, I suggest to your Lordships that the present position as to the registration of osteopaths needs no alteration. If it is thought that some similar system should be instituted for chiropractors—which may, for all I know, be the case—I think that the register for osteopaths could be used as a model.
6.45 p.m.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I wish to speak for only a few minutes. Many years ago, long before the war, I introduced in another place a Bill designed to give qualified osteopaths, after they had undergone whatever examination was required, the status that was necessary. Unfortunately, the Bill was rejected, and since then osteopaths who are not medically qualified have had a fairly raw deal. Like the noble Lord, Lord Platt, I know many osteopaths who are also medically qualified—Dr. Ronald Barbor for one—and they are first class. But there are many osteopaths who have no status at all. They are left out in the cold. They cannot qualify by any examination for any kind of status, and that is bad because I believe that they have a great part to play.
Some of my medical friends have told me that in certain cases, particularly in those of back trouble, surgery is seldom effective but manipulation is almost always successful. The osteopaths have had a raw deal, and I hope that the Government will look seriously at this matter. For some years I was the chairman of an association—of which Dr. Barbor was a member—which was set up for osteopaths and for the promotion of their cause and case, and I believe that everything that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said is right. Why should these people not be given a status? My medical friends tell me that they have a real part to play, and I think that they have not had a square deal. Therefore I hope that Her Majesty's Government will follow up the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and reconsider the position of osteopaths.
6.47 p.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, at this hour I do not wish to detain your

1029
Lordships, but as a doctor practising in a group general practice in an urban and mining area of the industrial North, in which we see many bad and painful backs, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this subject. I like to think that while perhaps I do not cure many, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt said, I do not make many of them worse. Practising in the circumstances I have described, I am increasingly made aware of the ever-widening gap between our present health resources and the ever-increasing work load in the field of health. When I look at that gap and at the difficulty which orthodox medicine has at the moment in coping with its workload, I must say that no doctor in his right mind would place any impediment in the way of any person or group of persons who want to do some of our work. So I accept that if people can help they should be enabled to do so.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, that there is a register for osteopaths, and that may be satisfactory so far as it goes. But it does not go very far. If we once accept that any form of treatment is advantageous, efficient or efficacious—albeit for a minor group of conditions, or possibly a large group—and if there is a form of treatment which is valuable and which can help people, then it ought to be available not just generally but within the National Health Service. There is no way of making these things available within the National Health Service unless we proceed to a more elaborate form of registration.
There are two things to do here. First, there is the need to make the form of treatment available. Secondly, as has become clear already from what noble Lords have said, there is again the need to protect the public from exploitation and fraud. That, of course, is a very real need, and the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has referred to it. I think there is nothing more tragic than the sight of suffering, confused people, perhaps dealing with a child with an incurable condition, dragging the child round and round the world, clutching at fruitless straws and being exploited by people who are perfectly content to batten on the sufferings of human beings in that way. So there is a need for safeguards.
1030
But looking at the broader question, I say this. Looking at the future and at how we in medicine are to cope—and I think the Royal Commission, which has already been referred to, must look at this—we have to wonder how we can bridge the gap over the next few years when we have inadequate resources, on the one side, and an ever-increasing workload, on the other. It seems to me, my Lords, that there are two ways. One (which is wandering from the subject a little) is that perhaps we must encourage more and more people to realise and to understand that many medical conditions do not in point of fact need any treatment at all. I am not here making an impassioned plea for self-medication, but I am bound to say that the ideal self-medication is some substance which enables a person to pass the time profitably, beneficially and comfortably between the onset of some minor malady and its subsequent spontaneous recovery. So that is one thing, perhaps, which can do something to lighten the burden: the education of people to look after themselves. With that, of course, must go the education of people so that they will recognise danger signals which should prompt them to seek attention. That is one way.
The other way, I am absolutely sure, is by ensuring that more and more people are brought, in one way or another, into the field of health care. Every day in my practice I am conscious of the fact that the work I am doing could very often be done better by somebody else; perhaps by a social worker, perhaps by a marriage guidance counsellor, perhaps by an occupational therapist—by a whole number of people of that kind. I should not like to see medicine move to a whole series of specialists of one kind or another so that we had foot doctors, hand doctors, back doctors and so on. Somewhere, my Lords, there must be somebody who is going to be responsible, and continually responsible, for a whole patient, not a lot of little bits of a patient. But, accepting that it is the general practitioner who has to accept that total responsibility for the whole patient, then he needs as much assistance as he can have with different aspects of the patient's illness, and of the patient's life in general.
One of these aspects, of course, is this question of back pain. It is a subject

1031
which we understand very little about, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has said. But one thing we do know is that there is a great deal of it. Perhaps it is related to the fact that human connective tissue is probably constructed to last for about 40 years. Indeed, for millions of years that is all it did last; and perhaps, my Lords, many of us are now living on borrowed time, which is why our hair, our teeth, our joints and our muscles wear out. We have to accept it, I think, that human connective tissue does wear out, and there is a great deal of back pain in modern Western society. Perhaps it is a reflection of the way in which we live. We do funny jobs. We have miners working underground in bent conditions, abusing their bodies and their skeletons in all sorts of varieties of ways.
Lord FERRIER: Tractor drivers driving tractors.
Lord WINSTANLEY: Indeed in many ways, my Lords, we abuse our bodies, and perhaps back pain is a product of our mechanised kind of life. If we all went back to walking on all fours, there might be less of it. But the fact remains that there is a great deal of it; and the fact also remains that it is utterly clear—and I cannot always understand why—that many so-called osteopaths or chiropractors (call them what you will) very often deal with this effectively when I cannot deal with it at all. If this is a fact, if it is established that these practitioners are able to give relief to patients suffering in this kind of way, then surely we must take some kind of step to see that they are enabled to give that relief within the orbit of the National Health Service, and to give it free. Why should the general practitioner's services he free, and the services of the dentists, the physiotherapists within the Hospital Service, the vocational guidance experts, speech therapists and so on? If it is established that the osteopath is valuable in a certain field of conditions, then surely we must take steps to see that his services are made available within the National Health Service; and that can be done only by the kind of system which we have introduced in the case of other professions covered by the Professions Suplementary to Medicine Act.
Therefore, my Lords, as I see it we have two needs in the future. The first is to
1032
recruit the aid, within the National Health Service, of all those who can assist in the general field of health care. Secondly, we have the need to protect the public from exploitation and from fraud. One of the difficulties which faces us—and the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has commented on this—is the question of definition. If we look back to a debate about osteopaths which took place in your Lordships' House more than 40 years ago—and I read that debate a long time ago—we see that osteopaths were very different things from what they are now. There was a time when people claimed, as osteopaths, that all illness was due to some kind of spinal malfunction, malformation or malposition; but I think things have changed, and so long as we see to it that the scrutiny is adequate and that the education of these people, again, is adequate, that their training is adequate and that they practise safely, then I believe that obstacles should not be placed in the way of their practising within the National Health Service. I put it no higher than that, my Lords.
There is a lot of work to be done, because not only must we look at the training arrangements; we must also see, too, that it is not too restrictive and that we do not create another closed shop. I am not referring to my own branch of the medical profession as a closed shop, though I do know that we look with certain suspicion at unorthodox practitioners. So do all professional people, be they solicitors or be they anything else; they look askance, I think, at anybody who is creeping in, unqualified in any kind of way. But I think there are benefits for the community as a whole to be had from looking at this kind of development.
Therefore, I welcome the move of the noble Lord in bringing this subject forward, because it has given us an opportunity to look at it. All I want to do is to make it clear that I believe the bulk of my profession would now approach this subject with a much more flexible, a much more liberal, attitude than they might have done in the past; and I hope that in the future we will have the open-door kind of policy, provided we have adequate scrutiny so as to protect the public from the very real dangers of exploitation and fraud which I do not need to go into in order to show your Lordships do genuinely exist.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him one very short question? From the Liberal Benches there has been more than a liberal attitude towards registration—an almost indulgent attitude—both by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne. I am sorry; I beg Lord Cullen's pardon. Surely, the public should be protected in this matter, especially if we are to have any of this under the National Health; because when we think of scientology, which takes unto itself both the word "church", and speaks from a religious point of view, and the word "psychotherapy", and also uses that, I think the public needs a lot of protection. I am all for the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and his attitude towards this.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, perhaps I may take up that point, because I understand the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, is on the transfer list, though I am not quite sure. The point is one which, indeed, I endeavoured to make. I agree that, if we are to have the open-door policy, certainly we must have very careful scrutiny to see to it that the wrong things do not get through. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness.
7 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I wish to remind your Lordships of the Question, which is:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to contemplate any amendment of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 to encourage professions such as chiropractors and osteopaths to qualify for registration."
This is a matter that the Government have been asked to pronounce upon. I want to resist the temptation to be drawn into any discussion or even to give an opinion upon the value or otherwise of chiropractic work. For the benefit of those of your Lordships who may not be familiar with the background of this discussion, perhaps your Lordships will allow me just to say that the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 was passed, with the agreement of the professions concerned, in order to establish statutory registration as a means of securing adequate standards of qualification.
The Act makes registration boards
1034
responsible for the standards of professional education and professional conduct of eight of the health professions: namely, chiropodists, dietitians, medical laboratory technicians, occupational therapists, orthoptists, physiotherapists, radiographers and remedial gymnasts. It is the duty of each board to maintain a register of all those who are entitled to be registered; which is to say, essentially, all those who have attended a course of training and obtained a qualification approved in each case by the board and who have, obviously, paid the necessary fees—that is always important. The Act also provides for a Council for "Professions Supplementary to Medicine" with the general function of co-ordinating and supervising the activities, standard of selection and training of the eight boards that form the Council. I ought to say that the Council is made up of 23 members; 8 drawn from the medical profession, 8 representatives from each of the boards, and 7 lay members. I will not go into the details of by whom they are appointed; but there are 8 medical members, 8 representatives—one from each of the boards and 7 lay members, who make whatever decisions must be made.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? Where do the osteopaths come in? Are they represented?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, they are not represented for the simple reason that they are not one of the eight boards. I thinks I am right in saying to the noble Lord and if I am wrong I shall be corrected in due course that they have never attempted, and have never applied, to be registered as a statutory body. Therefore they are not one of the eight boards; in which case they are not represented. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
My Lords, the Council places no restriction on practice in these professions by unregistered practitioners; although it is an offence for an unregistered practitioner falsely to represent himself as registered. Regulations made under the National Health Service Reorganisation Act restrict NHS employment to statutory registered members of the eight professions. That is the restriction. It restricts the employment of statutory-registered members to the eight professions.

1035
The first point that I should like to make is that the 1960 Act itself provides for an extension of its application to other professions which appear to the Council to be "supplementary to medicine" within a limit of 12 registration boards at any one time; so that it could be argued that there are four vacancies. They can admit 12 boards; at the present moment there are only eight. But in admitting another organisation as a statutory body and statutory board they would have to satisfy the Council that they meet whatever requirements the Council lays down. The machinery laid down provides for the initiative for such changes to emanate from the Council. This is the point that I want to make to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier: that the machinery provides for the initiative for such changes to emanate from the Council in the form of a recommendation to the Privy Council. Both Councils are required to consult any existing registration boards which appear to be concerned. Changes are implemented by order made by the Privy Council subject to Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. This procedure has already been used—in fact it was used as recently as 1966—to add orthoptists to those covered by the Act. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, if I remember correctly, suggested that this should be the function of Parliament; that it is really a matter for Parliament, for both Houses, to decide who should be accepted or who should not be accepted.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, what I intended to indicate is that I am informed there is some doubt legally about the interpretation of the Act. I suggested that if this doubt does exist, to leave it entirely with the Council might even be interpreted as saying that it is not with Parliament to say that we must have osteopaths and chiropractors as "supplementary".
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. But he is a very experienced Member of this House, and he will know better than many of us without his experience, that it is quite impossible for Parliament to accept responsibility for everything done. The most that Parliament can do is to prepare a Bill, to get that Bill through Parliament
1036
so that it becomes an Act, giving authorities at various levels the power to do certain things and, in some cases, to make those actions mandatory. We could not, as Parliament, be responsible for passing legislation to meet every kind of situation. What I want to suggest is that this Act, the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act, lays down procedures whereby bodies which can render some useful service and, in some cases, expert service to the medical profession can apply to be created members of the Council by being made statutory boards. I do not think that Parliament can go much beyond that. It gives this to the Council and the Privy Council has some control over that Council. I should have thought that that in itself would be as far as Parliament could go. It could not take upon itself the responsibility of deciding on all the small issues.
There were two particular professions mentioned in the noble Lord's Question—and I am not saying this unkindly; but I do not think he mentioned osteopathy which was one of them. The one he dwelt on was chiropractice. He mentioned that they approached the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicines last year, with a view to setting machinery in motion; but I understand, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, that the application by the British Chiropractors' Association did not meet with success. Nevertheless, while I take the point that he made, the Government do not regard it as desirable in consequence of the refusal by the Council to consider amending the Act itself, to make it easier for such groups to be brought within its scope. I think that it was implicit in what the noble Lord said that something ought to be done to make it easier. If I may say so, I hope, kindly, the last thing that we want to do and which your Lordships want to do, would be to take some action which would open the door wider when it ought to be (shall I say?) pretty tight; and the only thing that I can say at this stage is that, as I understand the Act, there is nothing to prevent the British Chiropractic Association from appealing to the Privy Council. As I understand the situation—and again I must confess it is my interpretation rather than that of anybody else; I wish the noble and learned Lord had the Act in front of him—
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, what I have heard is possibly what is going to happen—an appeal to the Privy Council.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I wonder if I might read from Section 11 of the Act to get it on the record, mainly for the benefit of noble Lords who are interested and who have not participated in this debate:
"If it appears to the Privy Council, either in consequence of representations made to them or for any other reason, that the Council"—
that is the Council responsible for the statutory boards—
"or a board has failed either generally or in a particular case to do, or to do satisfactorily, any thing which under this Act that body has a power or a duty to do, the Privy Council may if they think fit, subject to subsection (3) of this section, direct that body to do the thing in such manner and within such period as may be specified by the directions; and any such directions should be enforceable by mandamus on the application of the Privy Council".
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I interrupt him once again. Does what he is saying now also apply to the osteopaths if they chose to apply to the Privy Council?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my understanding of the Act is they would have to apply to the Council for the professions supplementary to medicine for acceptance as a statutory body. If they were turned down then I am suggesting that they would have a right of appeal to the Privy Council. The one has to come before the other.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, may I make it clear that, so far as I know, the osteopathic profession does not want to be included in the same way as the chiropractors evidently do. They are very happy with the arrangement as it now stands.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am being very good tempered. I am supposed to be replying to an Unstarred Question. This is not really a debate. I think I must continue otherwise I shall lose the thread of what I am saying. It would, in the Government's opinion, breach the spirit of the Act of Parliament to present the professions who are currently covered with an amended Act which
1038
would encourage or compel the Council to accept extensions they may feel unable to accept as the Act stands, or solely designed to make its provisions more acceptable to other professions who are seeking a system of registration. It could certainly not be done without the fullest consent and consultation with the Council itself and with the professions. The Government's view is that, if a new profession is not or cannot be brought within the scope of the 1960 Act by means of the machinery already provided, a solution to that profession's problems must be sought by means other than legislation. I think this was the point which the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, was making a moment ago.
Mention of the principle of self-governing professions prompts me to suggest an alternative line of approach. There is nothing to prevent any group from beginning themselves the process of self-regulation; indeed, this is commonly the way in which professions set about establishing themselves. The other particular profession referred to in the noble Lord's Question but, as I said, not in his speech, the osteopaths, are certainly a case in point. There already exists the non-statutory General Council and Register of Osteopaths set up in 1936, following a recommendation by the then Ministry of Health to a Select Committee of Inquiry of the House of Lords into a Bill introduced by the late Lord Elibank to regulate osteopathy. The objects of this register are threefold: first, to establish and maintain standards of education for practitioners of osteopathy for the protection and benefit of the public; secondly, to promote, assist, approve or co-operate with any institutions or establishments which may conform with the standards of the Register and to grant to such persons the right to use after their names any letters or additions showing that they are admitted to membership of the Register. So far as the Government are aware, the Register is fulfilling its original aims to the satisfaction of its practising osteopathic members.
I am aware that there are practising osteopaths who are not on the Register, and some of them would welcome statutory registration. This was the point which the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, raised. But I have to say in fairness that differences of view on this and on standards of training

1039
issues for the osteopathic organisations themselves, and before anything further can be done they have to resolve their own difficulties on this matter. A broad measure of agreement within the profession as to what is required seems to me to be a prerequisite to any detailed consideration of proposals for statutory registration. As the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ash-bourne, pointed out a moment ago, they do not want to be a statutory board; they are content to go on with things as they are now.
I want to try to answer one or two matters which have been raised which I have not dealt with, although in my main reply I have dealt with a number of them. There was the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and by my noble friend Lord Soper about the Royal Commission. My understanding of the situation is that the Royal Commission has an authority to look at anything and everything that impinges not only on the National Health Service, but upon what is good for people. I have before me a statement made recently by the Chairman of the Royal Commission, Sir Alec Merrison, which says:
"Our terms of reference cover all—and I stress the word—matters which are properly the concern of patients and National Health Service Workers…It will be of crucial importance to our work to get the views of all those concerned with the National Health Service".
And this may be helpful to both noble Lords:
"Consequently we want to involve the public as far as possible in the exercise. We hope therefore that anybody who has opinions to offer will not hesitate to write to us."
I can see no reason at all why the British Chiropractic Association should not submit a Memorandum to the Royal Commission. I do not know whether it would be acceptable. I say that I see no reason why anybody who feels they have a contribution to make to the National Health Service in the future should not be asked to be seen and heard. I must leave this to both noble Lords to pursue if they think it desirable to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier—I am speaking from memory—mentioned the cost of something like £100 million a year.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, the figure was mentioned by Dr. David Owen, the
1040
Minister. He said something over £100 million a year.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have the statement in front of me now. I could not remember whether or not the noble Lord mentioned it. Among other things, my honourable friend the Minister of State said, on 5th May:
"We are…worried that, for instance, things like backache which can cost the nation as a whole anything up to well over £100 million a year is a very under-researched problem…"
My Lords, one may say, "What are the Government doing about it?" I said I wanted to avoid making any judgments about the two matters which are before us this afternoon, I am only concerned with the Question. We feel, both as a Department and a Government, that there has to be fundamental research into this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, emphasised that, whatever we think we may know, we have to know a great deal more. I think that I am at liberty to say that my honourable friend the Minister of State for Health wants more and more public debate on this matter.
Some time ago, although not as a result of this Question, we approached the Medical Research Council with a view to having some planned research done in depth into this matter. I mention that because we feel this is the way to go about it; and I mention it also so that noble Lords may be assured that these are not just pious words expressing the Government's intention, but that they have been translated into action. My personal feeling is that the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, if I may say so without impertinence, has served a very useful purpose this afternoon, because he is doing what my honourable friend the Minister of State wants; in other words, enabling more and more public debate to take place on this matter.

TYNE AND WEAR BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, together with a Special Report; Bill recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee, and the Special Report to be printed.