Lords Sitting of 8 November 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.
The Lord Kilmarnock—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

PRESIDENT CEAUCESCU OFFICIAL VISIT
2. 36 p. m.
Lord AUCKLAND: 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 have any plans to invite President Ceaucescu of Romania on an official visit to the United Kingdom.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, an invitation to President Ceaucescu to visit Britain was extended by the previous Government
2
and confirmed when the present Government took office. There has so far been no discussion of precise dates.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. Is she aware that the President has visited all the other EEC countries? Bearing in mind the exchange of visits of Ministers which, under both Governments, has already taken place between Romania and ourselves, would it be feasible for another invitation to be sent to the President at a time when some very useful discussions could take place, particularly in view of the recent visit by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, to that country?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords, we are aware of the interchange of Ministers and we are indeed very glad about it, because it is very much Her Majesty's Government's policy to open up relations with Eastern European countries. I do not think that there will be any need to send another invitation, I think the position is understood by the President. And we very much look forward to a useful visit.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, at this stage is this not a matter which can best be settled through diplomatic channels?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords.

MEDICAL CERTIFICATES AND DOCTORS' STATEMENTS
2. 38 p. m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I be 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 the replacement of medical certificates by "doctors' statements" which may now be issued "until further notice" is likely to lead to abuses and claims covering a longer than necessary period for sickness benefit claims.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the revised arrangements for the provision of medical evidence for the purposes of claims to incapacity benefit, which came into operation on 4th October, are unlikely to result in abuses and longer claims. It will be exceptional for doctors' statements to be issued "until further notice"; and the Department of Health and Social Security's system of supervising claims to benefit will continue to apply.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask him what advantages there are and to whom in this change from medical certificates to doctors' statements? Secondly, who will vet the unscrupulous applicants for benefit who could apply, obtain a certificate "until further notice", work and still draw benefit?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to the first question put to me by my noble friend, the doctors themselves felt that the previous form of certificate was not adequate from their point of view, and this change has come about as a result of discussions with the medical profession. It is mainly designed to stop people—I was about to say a vast army of people—who are unfit for work continually going to their doctors to renew their certificates and taking up a tremendous amount of time, and very often to stop doctors having to visit them for the purpose of giving them a certificate. Now the doctor will be able to set out in the certificate what his views are and the minimum period, in his view, that a patient will need to remain off from work.
4
In reply to the second question put to me by my noble friend, for a very long time the Department at regional level has had an office that continually looks at claims from people sending in certificates which seem to be renewed over an unduly long period. If a person is suffering from a certain type of complaint, the Department has some idea how long it will last; and, if the certificates tend to go on being renewed, the regional office has the right to ask the claimant to come for an independent medical examination, and the person's own doctor is informed.
Lord PEDDIE: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the primary purpose of this change is to effect some saving in doctors' time, and in consequence there is the likelihood that there will be a reduced check upon those who would seek to take advantage of the system?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to the first part of my noble friend's question, the answer is, Yes. I do not think that there will be a reduced check—unless I have misunderstood his question—because the checking will still go on.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what is the estimated annual saving from this change?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am sorry; I just do not know.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the system of issuing medical certificates has been in being ever since many of us can remember since we first started work? On the part of the medical profession of this country, it is absolutely scandalous to put forward this proposal to counteract this system, by a form of examination. Is my noble friend further aware that in certain industries firms have their own doctors? If a workman has an accident at work and is off work for any period of time, he is brought in front of that medical officer of the firm for a medical check, and that is supplemented by the examination of his own doctor.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the only thing I can say in reply to my

5
noble friend is that this matter was discussed in some depth with the medical profession and furthermore it was recommended—and I would emphasise this—by the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, if the doctor puts on the statement the minimum time for which he thinks the patient might be ill, is there not a danger that conscientious workers, men or women, may feel that they must return to work after that time has elapsed although in fact they are not fit to do so?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I suppose that that is a possibility. I understand that the doctor will certify that the patient should refrain from work for a particular period. If at the end of that period the patient feels that he, or she, is not fit for work, then there is nothing to stop the patient from going down to see the doctor and getting it extended if the doctor agrees.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in the household where a man has been at work for some years and the wife perhaps is out at work also, and the man is not fit to return in this minimum time, undoubtedly pressures are brought to bear on these people. It seems to me rather unfair, rather unjust, that the time that the man (I am putting the case of the man because he is more likely to be sensitive in this respect) has to stay at home will be necessarily limited in the eyes of a family. Is there not an element of cruelty in this?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the doctor is of the opinion that the patient really is not fit for work for a prolonged period, then he would give him in the first instance a certificate which would last six months and thereafter could give him a certificate until further notice. This, we imagine, will not be done in very many cases, but I think it would mean that if a patient felt that he was under pressure from his family and he was not really fit, and the doctor felt he was not fit, the matter could be dealt with by one of these "until further notice" certificates.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, can my noble friend make clear to me who should be the final arbiter in regard to the
6
medical examination of an employee who has been certified by his own medical doctor, after a valid means of diagnosis, to be suffering from a certain form of complaint and the employer's doctor disagrees with the findings of the employee's doctor? Who is the final arbiter in that situation?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, so far as I understand the situation, the employer's doctor does not come into this at all. If a patient is unwell he goes to his doctor. The doctor gives a certificate for one, two, three, or four weeks, one month, or so on. If the nature of the complaint is such that the Department feels there ought to be another medical opinion, it is the Department which informs the patient's general practitioner that it is going to call the man up for an independent medical examination by a medically qualified person connected with the regional authority.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will not this new system enable doctors to devote more time and attention to people suffering from acute and sometimes serious illnesses?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is what we hope, and what the doctors hope.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, in view of the obvious misgivings from all parts of the House on this scheme, are the Government willing to reconsider the matter after it has run for a reasonable period of time?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think I can say in all sincerity that matters of this kind are automatically reviewed. I would take issue with the noble Lord when he says that there are widespread reservations so far as people in your Lordships' House are concerned. I do not think there are. I think there has merely been a searching questioning of the matter.

ARMAMENTS: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
2. 47 p. m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress was made at their recent meeting with officials of the United States Defence Department concerning progress in implementing the memorandum of Understanding on mutual interchange of armament sales.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the discussions which took place last week with the visiting team of high level United States Department of Defense officials were very satisfactory. A full and frank exchange of views too place and we believe that as a result there is a better appreciation on both sides of how the Memorandum of Understanding can be most effectively implemented.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that helpful reply, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind that 13 months have elapsed since the original Memorandum of Understanding was signed and there may be suspicions that, for good commercial reasons, the United States is dragging its feet until this directive is not only signed but reaches the working level where action should be taken? When can we expect the directive now to be signed and circulated?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think that the delay is not surprising because of the switch in United States' policy which it entails. The United States' team has informed us that it was expected that this directive would be signed within the next few weeks. It would then be widely distributed throughout the Department of Defense and United States' companies. This assimilation of the objectives and terms of the Memorandum of Understanding sould greatly facilitate the efforts of United Kingdom companies.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, is the Minister in a position to say whether these recent high level discussions in any way covered the transfer of know-how to the United States Government relating to the material used for armour plating of tanks?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will put down a Question I will answer it. This is rather beyond the present Question.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am much obliged.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is this matter really beyond the Question, which refers to the "mutual interchange of armament sales"? Is the noble Lord aware that we gave to the Americans the know-how on how to make what is now known as Chobham armour plating? Presumably we should have got something in return for this very valuable know-how. Would the noble Lord care to make a comment on it or inform the House on this subject?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, speaking from personal knowledge and not from a brief, I can tell the noble Earl that there is an agreement for the exchange of military information between the United States and ourselves. Information about Chobham armour was given on the basis of the agreement and that is not a one-way process; there is always an interchange of information. If I am wrong about that I will let the noble Earl know.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is it not a fact that, despite the good will on both sides, there remains still a substantial imbalance between what we purchase, which is much greater, and what the United States purchases from us? Would it not be a good idea to have regular reports so that we may see what progress has been made under this Memorandum of Understanding?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the starting point of the noble Lord's earlier supplementary question was the imbalance. I agree that it would be of interest to all of us if progress under the new Memorandum of Understanding could be monitored by this House and another place. It is contrary to the policy of successive Governments to publish the details of arms sales, but there would be no objection to a general indication being given from time to time on progress under the Memorandum of Understanding.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to say whather the next stage in implementation on the other side of the Atlantic to which he referred will come before the definitive trials of main tank armament which take place next month?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I would be grateful if the noble Lord would put down a Question on that matter.

UN RESOLUTION: ARMS SALES TO SOUTH AFRICA
2. 52 p. m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action their representative took at the United Nations Security Council meeting on 19th October 1976, when a resolution was submitted calling for a mandatory embargo on all arms sales to South Africa, and how the delegates on the Council voted.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the UnitedKingdom Acting Permanent Representative to the United Nations, in company with his French and American colleagues, voted against a resolution which would have paved the way for a whole range of mandatory sanctions. Italy and Japan abstained. For the convenience of the House, and my noble friend, I have had the British Explanation of Vote placed in the Library.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that the British action on this vote has shocked many of us in this country? Is it not contrary both to Labour Party policy and TUC policy? Is it not the case that this counrty is now being regarded in a large part of the world as collaborating with South Africa? Was not this indicated by the vote of the General Assembly on 5th November when, by 93 votes to nine, a resolution was carried condemning this country and the West? Is this not a deplorable situation?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am indeed aware that my noble friend does not always share the views of Her Majesty's Government on these questions. Nevertheless, the Government believe that their way of doing things is the best way. I deeply deplore my noble friend's reference to
10
the word, "collaboration" on the part of this country with South Africa. Many many times we have deplored the racial attitudes of the South Africans, very many times we have sent démarches and messages to them; we have combined with other United Nations countries and with the European Community in urging the quick peaceful independence of Namibia. I very much hope that my noble friend will reconsider what he said about collaboration with South Africa.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, whatever may be the policy of any particular party, group of the General Assembly, would not the noble Baroness agree that the real test of these matters is the Charter of the United Nations? Before we make allegations against Her Majesty's Government, would it not be wise to see how far their policy is in conformity with that Charter rather than with any particular policy?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I have a new and doughty champion, my Lords.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: Not new, my Lords; really very old.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I maintain that Her Majesty's Government are acting in conformity with United Nations policy. We take our arms embargo on South Africa very seriously indeed and we always act on these questions in accordance with the United Nations Charter.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, is it not a fact that the form of the Question is quite out of order? Standing Orders lay down that Questions should be asked for information. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said he knew the answer.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am quite prepared to take the advice of the Clerks at the Table and enjoy answering any Question my noble friend puts to me.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, when this matter came before the Security Council, was any reference made to the provision of arms by the Russians, Chinese and other members associated

11
with the United Nations to countries other than South Africa? Was there any condemnation of the Russians, Chinese and the others?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have not read the reports of the full debate in the Security Council, but to the best of my knowledge that was not in the resulotion. The sad thing about this is that there was a unanimous resolution, No. 385, in January which I think put pressure on the South Africans. We agreed with the main parts of most of the resolution which in the end we had to veto. We want a free Namibia soon. We want a single electoral process; we want it under United Nations supervision and we want the political prisoners freed in Namibia. All these things were there. We could have agreed with nearly all of it, but we could not agree with mandatory sanctions.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I did not suggest that this country was collaborating with South Africa? I said that that was now becoming a view over a large part of the world. May I ask my noble friend to agree that the Security Council asked that South Africa should withdraw from Namibia by the end of August? As that has not happened, is not some action necessary?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am very glad that it was not my noble friend who thought so and I hope he will support his Government in helping to deny any such rumour. To answer the second part of his supplementary question, time and again we have urged on the South African Government that time is running out. We do not think that the Windhoek Conference—the two and a half years transition period proposed there—is nearly soon enough. We have urged it on them and we cannot do it single-handed, but we are in spirit with my noble friend in trying to get a free and independent Namibia.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, what is the purpose of prohibiting the sale of strategic weapons systems to South Africa while we rely on the security of the maritime routes around the Cape of Good Hope?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I really think that, when it comes to answering one's own question, the noble Lord can answer that best himself.

DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
2. 58 p. m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Jacques.)
Viscount ST. DAVIDS Viscount ST. DAVIDS rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion for the Third Reading, to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months"). The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as your Lordships know, I am an Independent and in this matter I speak for myself. There may be many other noble Lords who perhaps envy me that freedom. When, as I have every intention of doing, I later divide the House on this matter there will be a number of noble Lords who will not accompany me into the Lobby, not because they are friends of the Bill but because they feel it inopportune to vote at this moment, because they are afraid of some constitutional consequences, or because they wish to take part in what I think will be a particularly useless battle between the two Houses on the Amendments.
In my view, if the Bill is read a third time today we shall waste a great deal of time, and I am no time-waster. I should like to see the Government's time put to better purpose and saved for other matters which I know they wish to use time for. I moved gradually to the point where I acted to table this Motion. I addressed to myself a set of propositions; when I came to the answers I decided to table the Motion. I think the best thing I can do for your Lordships is to explain the set of propositions which I addressed to myself and see how far you might agree with them. Some few noble Lords may agree with all. I expect many noble Lords to agree with most. I expect even the noble Lords who support Her Majesty's Government to agree with some.
When the Bill came to this House it was a bad one. There, I am sure, I have wide agreement. That is not of course a reason for throwing it out. We have passed many bad Bills through this House, many of them when asked to do so by the Commons; some, I am afraid, of our own proper motion. But it is something to remember. That is one point. It is not such a bad Bill now, but looking at the Bill as it was when it first entered this House, we know what the Government would like to replace in it. This must give us pause. How is the Bill now? I know that I shall have the agreement of just about the entire House, including the Government Benches, on the proposition that the Bill as it is now is a load of rubbish. It has been amended until it has practically no use. If that is so, and if the major part of the House agrees, I wish to ask: "Do we want to put rubbish on the Statute Book"? I admit that we have done so in the past, but is it a process which we should do happily? I believe the answer is, No. This again was a point which weighed strongly with me.
Have we the right to do what I intend this afternoon? The answer is legally, Yes. It has not been done very often, but then, on the other hand, we have seldon found ourselves in the kind of position we are now in. It is not something that ought to be done often. But it is something that ought to be done sometimes, particularly when the position demands that it should be done. There is another reason why we should just do it sometimes, say once in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years, and that is a legal device called desuetude. Many rights have been lost simply by not being exercised. For example, Her Majesty is now legally believed not to have the right to say, "No" to a Bill. There are many things which on paper we can do, but which in practice have not been done for so long that everybody says, "This has not been done for so long, you should never do it again." I believe this is a bad habit. Occasionally we need to use our old rights, simply so that we retain them, because some day we may need them very badly. That is our legal right.
The question is: Have we the democratic right to do this? Well, my Lords, we are not a democratically appointed House.
14
Throughout my time here for a number of years I have always resisted the proposition that this House should be some kind of mock Opinion Poll, and that when opinion polls go up or down it should in some way affect what we do with Government Bills. That, I think, is a good and sound proposition. We are not in a good position to judge public opinion here. You may look into the eye of the public and think you know what the public means, when in fact what you are seeing in the eye of the public is only a reflection of your own face. This happens too easily.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, would the noble Viscount give way? He is making an assumption based possibly on his own experience. Many of us work very actively with all kinds of people and are as much in touch with the public as any Member of the other place.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I am delighted for the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. To some extent she is making the case which I am now proceeding with. In the course of making my speech, with a little careful dragging of cloaks, I thought that I might get some assent from the Government Benches, so let me continue. Last week something happened which was so different that it is out of scale with a mere public opinion poll. Last week the Government suffered three smashing defeats. This was not a mere murmur of disapproval; it was a shout from the people of Britain, from three widely spaced places, bitterly disapproving of what the Government are doing. I believe it to be right that this House should be a little deaf as to the movement of public opinion polls and, there, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, would agree. She would not like to see the House doing whatever it saw fit with Bills just because it thought opinion polls had gone slightly up or down. But, in a matter as grave as this, where movement as strong as this has been made, where people have so stoutly voted, I think we have not only a right but a duty to act. I believe that in this House we are all democrats and lovers of democracy. I do not believe we have a right to deafen our ears to shouts of that character. This matter has strongly moved me to table my Motion.

15
Now I want to come to another subject. There have been what I call so-called threats against this House if we take strong action. I do not believe there is any such threat. If by threats is meant some bipartisan change to this House, then I think almost the totality of noble Lords in this House would agree with me. But that is not what they mean when they threaten us; they mean a single Party change to this House. I believe this to be physically impossible. It would be impossible for this reason. Any Party which tried it would be opposed by the other side who would quite rightly say that it gave them the right on some future occasion to do the same. What is more, the Conservatives here have an enormous power which will never fall to the Labour Party. It is this: if the Labour Party carried out a unilateral change in this House and the Conservatives then proceeded to carry out another one at a later date, the Conservatives have the power to give this House the power to delay on any further constitutional change which would prevent this action from ever being taken again. The Labour Party must know this, as must the Conservative Party, so obviously there is no threat.
Now let us move to a more pleasant subject. What I suggest will actually help the Government. They will say that it will not. Of course, they must say that. They will say all sorts of things against what I am doing, but behind their hands they will say that it is a help. Many noble Lords on the Government Benches, and other Labour Party supporters else-where, are not happy about the existence of this Bill. The time that remains for us to deal with these five major Bills is devilishly short. Is it so terribly short that all kinds of extraordinary things have to be done if we are to get this business through at all? It would help the Government greatly if we could save them the time that is to be spent shuffling this Bill back and forth. And at the end of that time, are we going to give them their Bill? We do not know yet. We may even then throw it out, and if we throw it out then we will have wasted all this time. If that is to happen, it would be much kinder for the Government to chuck it out now.
There is a further point which certainly will help the Government. The Government would be very glad to see some part
16
of their programme go, but if they threw it overboard there would be loud complaints from some of the Benches behind them, whereas if we, the wicked Lords, do it they will be able to say, "We didn't do it. We would have been happy to put it all through. It is those horrible Lords; they have chucked it out." That would strengthen the Government's hand considerably with their own supporters. obviously the noble Lords on the Government Front Bench must not say whether they agree with this. They must shake their heads off. It is their duty to do so; it is the only way that they can help themselves. Nevertheless it is a serious argument which, undoubtedly, they will have taken on board.
My Lords, what is the best that we can do with the Bill? Have we really to go through all the slow process of still more Amendments today, followed by all the remaining processes of shuffling it back from one House to another? What is to happen to the Bill when this occurs? Are our Amendments to receive careful, slow and serious consideration? No, they are not. We know already that the guillotine will come down, and that much stuff that has never been debated will be thrust back at us. Will the Bill come back any better than it is today? No, it is rubbish now; it will come back as harmful rubbish, if we let it. It would be very much kinder, it would be very much better for the country and it would be more in line with what we should do as a House and what we should do as democrats if we said this afternoon, "No further with this one. You have enough on your plate. Put this one to one side. Forget this one for the moment. Spend your remaining time on the rest of your legislation." Those of us like myself, who feel that this Bill is a horror, say that it is really time that something as bad as this, thrust through this House at a time like this, dividing the country, as this Bill does, should be thrown out of the window. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That, as an Amendment to the Motion for the Third Reading, to leave out ("now") and at end to insert ("this day six months"). —(Viscount St. Davids.)
3. 14 p. m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think it is right that I should intervene at the beginning of this

17
debate because I take very seriously the action proposed by the noble viscount. I did not take his speech too seriously, but I take seriously what he may intend to do later. I expect that the House also senses the importance of this. After all, the noble Viscount's argument touches the whole constitutional standing of this House, our relations with another place, and our duty in a Parliamentary democracy. His is an argument to which noble Lords on every side of the House ought to give really critical examination and which I would urge you, without hestiation, to reject.
I shall leave detailed points about the Dock Work Regulation Bill to my noble friend Lord Jacques, and I am sure that he will answer them to the House's satisfaction. What I challenge is the noble Viscount's proposal that this House, unelected and not representative, should reject the Third Reading of a Bill passed by another place and put forward by the elected Government.
May I remind your Lordships that there is on the Order Paper for tomorrow a second Motion standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, and that he will then seek to reject the Third Reading of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Bill? His action, in other words, has little to do with the merits of the Bill we are debating. It is a direct challenge to the elected Government and to the view expressed by a majority in another place. It ignores the constitutional traditions which have been built up to ensure the efficient working of a two Chamber Parliament. For we must be clear about this. If the Amendment is carried today the Bill is dead. There is no chance for second thoughts. It is just as if we had rejected the Bill on Second Reading. We should be saying that another place was wrong to pass it and that the Bill cannot be improved, even with the combined wisdom of both Houses.
Those are serious allegations indeed. If the noble Viscount feels so strongly, why did he not speak on Second Reading? What, after all, have we been doing since Second Reading on 30th September? The House has spent 21 hours in Committee and 12 hours on Report of the Bill. We have debated 200 Amendments, many of which have been agreed. I do not think it would be useful to comment in detail
18
on the Amendments, some of which are of such a radical nature that they have mutilated the Bill. We on this side of the House are fundamentally opposed to many of the changes made. But I would ask the House whether noble Lords feel that they have done nothing useful in the seven weeks since Second Reading.
The House has, after all, agreed 60 Amendments to the Bill put forward by noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, the Liberal Benches and the Cross-benches. Although my noble friends argued against them, the Amendments were acceptable to the majority of your Lordships. The House in its wisdom must obviously regard these Amendments as improvements. What then is the sense of the House rejecting on Third Reading a Bill which it has passed on Second Reading and since tried to improve?
I do not think that I need labour this point. Those Members of the House who have taken part in debates on this Bill more energetically than the noble Viscount, will know that our debates have not been a waste of time. Your Lordships have very properly given the Bill close examination, and have done so in order that another place can look again at the points we have raised. For I must stress what I believe to be our constitutional role. It is not to reject. It is to revise. Everyone who has supported arguments for a second Chamber—and I am one—has emphasised its value for revision of Bills brought from the Commons. This House, if it acts responsibly, can complement the work of another place and share the burdens of Parliamentary democracy. But a two Chamber system will not work without certain conventions to cope with disagreements between the Houses. In the last resort confrontation leads to breakdown. So we have evolved these conventions.
We accept that in the event of disagreement it is the will of the elected Chamber which must prevail, subject only to narrowly drawn exceptions. Of course, we believe in the right of the people to choose their own Government. Whatever the arguments about that Government, that Government is there. Whatever the results of by-elections, that Government are still there. I am sure that the noble Lords opposite will be wise enough not to support the noble Viscount, however

19
little they like this Bill. But the Motion would be seen as the weapon of the built-in Conservative majority if it were to succeed.
Briefly, the position is this. The Bill has now been passed by a majority in another place. The Bill has been heavily amended here, and yet the Commons have not even had a chance to consider the Amendments. It would be wholly wrong for your Lordships to throw this Bill out today. It would not be revision; it would be destruction.
Noble Lords may of course recall that the Opposition have already seen fit to throw out one Bill on Third Reading; that is, the Felixstowe Bill. That was an action with which I disagreed, but my one reason for referring to it today is to say this to noble Lords opposite. They justified themselves in throwing the Bill out on the grounds that it was not a Public Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said that it was nationalisation by the back door and that the Government should have proceeded by Public Bill.
While not in any way accepting his allegations about nationalisation or about the propriety of the British Transport Docks Board's actions, I am glad to know that things would have been different on a Public Bill. For this today is a Public Bill, and I should be driven to question the sincerity of any Member of the House who voted against the Third Reading of the Felixstowe Bill with the excuse that it was private and who now votes against the Third Reading of this Bill.
So, in conclusion, I urge your Lordships to see the Motion before the House for what it is: a naked attempt to override the elected House and to do away with the acknowledged role of the second Chamber. I say to the Cross-Benchers, who pride themselves on their enlightened independence, that they should beware of supporting the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids. A vital role was foreseen for them in recent proposals for Lords reform, but I think they will betray the confidence placed in them if they carry this Motion. To all noble Lords opposite who have complained of guillotines and another place, I say that this Motion would cut off every chance for further debate there, and would be the cruellest guillotine of all. In the light of these arguments,
20
I hope the noble Viscount will be willing to withdraw his Amendment; but if not, I must ask all your Lordships to vote against the Amendment and for the Third Reading.
3. 22 p. m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is a terrible Bill. It is wrong, and it is unpopular. Most noble Lords opposite do not like it, either, as we know from what has happened during the Committee stage and the Report stage. So most of us in this House are agreed about that. I am not so sure, though, about what the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, is doing. I have some doubt about the wisdom of his tactics, not about what he seeks to do. I think that if we follow his advice we would be adopting rather a curious Parliamentary procedure: not, of course, that what he is suggesting is not proper. I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will not use all his ammunition about the naked attempt to frustrate the will of the people, the inbuilt hereditary Conservative majority and how wrong everything is, because he has a long way to go before the end of the Session, and before long we may find these phrases becoming distressingly familiar unless, of course, he can find some new ones which express the same thoughts. I would not agree with the noble Lord the Leader of the House that it is improper to throw out a Bill on Third Reading. There is nothing improper about this House using the constitutional powers it has been given. Otherwise, why was it given them? Whether it is wise is another matter; but there is nothing improper about it.
My Lords, why I do not agree with the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, is this. We accepted this Bill on Second Reading, not because we liked the Bill but because usually we accept Bills on Second Reading, whether or not we dislike them, in order that we may examine them at our leisure, if the Government allow us to have leisure to examine them. We amend them and we alter them, and we think we improve them; and this is done at Committee stage and at Report stage of the Bill. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House has reminded us, we have had some long debates and some good debates, and I think some useful debates, at the Committee stage and the Report stage of this Bill; and, as he has said, the House has passed 60 Amendments.

21
Now we get to the Third Reading. It seems to me that it is perfectly possible, and possibly quite right on occasions such as the Felixstowe Bill, to say that, despite all that, your Lordships do not like the Bill and are going to reject it on Third Reading. But what does not seem to me very sensible, if I may say so, is to spend a very long time and a great deal of energy—we on this side, at any rate—in trying to improve and alter the Bill, and then to say that, in spite of all that, we are going to reject it; because if we do that I really do not know what on earth we have been doing all this time. If we do not send this Bill to the other place so that they may have a look at what we have done, then I really do not know the purpose of it all.
Of course, it is quite true that the Government intend, Whips willing, to pass a guillotine Motion in the House of Commons today limiting the discussion on Lords Amendments to six hours, I think, on each of the five Bills that we have been discussing over these last six weeks. I for one think that is disgraceful. We in this House have spent a very great deal of time discussing these Bills; and, indeed, in the case of one Bill—I think it is the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill—the Government themselves have made 40 Amendments of their own in this House. I think it disgraceful that they should limit discussion of Lords Amendments to six hours on each of the Bills. I think that that makes a farce of Parliamentary Government. Nevertheless, they will discuss some of our Amendments if we send the Bill back, and that will be better than nothing.
It would seem to me that what we ought to do is to send this Bill back to the House of Commons with the Amendments which we have made and to make up our minds what we are going to do when we discover what they are going to do with the Amendments, and whether they are going to discuss them. Of course, we shall have the interesting prospect of finding out how the House of Commons are going to give Reasons against accepting the Lords Amendments when they have not even discussed them. This will be an interesting political exercise which we shall watch with great care. But when that has been done and the farce has been gone through, then it seems to me that your Lordships will have to make up your minds what to
22
do on the Amendments which we have sent to the other place. But, my Lords, to reject the Bill at this stage seems to me to be a waste of your Lordships' time, and I advise your Lordships not to support this Amendment.
3. 27 p. m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I must begin by saying that I agree very much with the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, that this is a wretched Bill. There is, indeed, a very serious problem which the Government sought to face, but in my opinion—and I think I have said this before—they tackled it in the wrong way. I would be tempted to advise the House to support the noble Viscount's Amendment if I thought that the six months would be used by the Government to get down with all the people really concerned and produce a better Bill; but I am afraid I do not think that is a very hopeful thing, and in those circumstances I find myself very largely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
We have spent a lot of time in your Lordships' House trying to improve this difficult Bill, and I think we have made some substantial improvement to it. I have recognised—I think that we on this side of the House have all recognised—that the Ministers in charge of the Bill here were really under compulsion to resist everything that was proposed, but I do hope that when the Amendments go back to another place, even though so little time is being provided, some guardian angel will select the Amendments which are really important, which really affect the working of this Bill, and will find time, not only to discuss them but to agree them. Otherwise, my Lords, we must await what comes back here and, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, see what we can do about it.
I am not in any way an authority on the constitutional position, but I thought the noble Lord the Leader of the House went rather far in his constitutional arguments. After all, the last Parliament Act was passed by a Parliament in which, in the House of Commons, the Labour Party had a majority, and when there was a Labour Government in power. What were they doing in giving power to this House to send whole Bills back to another place, to invoke the Parliament Act, if they

23
did not mean it ever to be used? I quite agree with the noble Lord: the convention is a wide convention and is used very sparingly, but I find it hard to accept that there is a convention that in no circumstances is a Bill rejected on Third Reading or, for that matter, even on Second Reading, if it became necessary.
This question does not arise at this moment because I have a feeling that the House will not accept the noble Viscount's Amendment and that we shall proceed to discuss all the Amendments, send the Bill to another place, and await the decision as to what they propose to do about the Amendments. In conclusion, I should like to say once again that I hope that the Ministers here who have heard the debate, who know the strength of feeling and, If I may say so, the strength of argument against many of the provisions in this Bill, will urge on their right honourable and honourable friends in another place that they should look at this issue seriously and see whether some of these Amendments should not he accepted.
3. 31 p. m.
Lord GEORGE-BROWNMy Lords, in so far as I have heard the debate, we seem to be arguing classics, as the great Mr. Bailey once called it—tactics. In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whom we were told on Sunday was holding his frisky Peers on a tight rein, Conservative Peers seem to think we are dealing with it as a matter of tactics. I do not understand the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. There are issues of great principle here which I will state shortly without arguing at great length, although I would be very willing to do so at any Labour Party or trade union conference called in the country. I think this is more than a matter of tactics between the two Houses. En the first place—as I think every one of us who has been in the Labour movement for a long time well understands—this is an arrangement between the Government and one trade union leader who is powerful enough to be able to dominate. This has been called, and is, the Jack Jones special responsibility Bill. Yet as an official and a member of the union of which Mr. Jack Jones is the general secretary I know that most of his members are against it. It means transferring jobs from others of his
24
members to the small group from which he himself came and to whom, I suppose quite properly, he feels a special responsibility.
But why should we enact a Bill because it makes Mr. Jack Jones—coming from the dockers, leading the dockers—a very special case in return for his having helped the Government to get their Social Contract through the union? It means that those sections of the same union whom I have the honour to represent are going to lose their jobs so that Mr. Jack Jones's special section can pinch them. I see no reason for this. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, I have voted for those Amendments that I thought right on their merit, but I have always been against the Bill on what I saw to be its demerits. I am therefore free to go on saying that I think it is a demeritorious Bill which no free Legislature should ever pass.
This would not be the first Government to give special favours to their supporters and friends. That has happened through many of the years in which I have been in politics, and I have no doubt through very many of the years before I came into them. So I start with that as the least meritorious but still a very strong argument against it. I move up in order of ascendancy. Other trade unions are going to lose their rights; other workers, equally good trade unionists, are going to lose their rights. Members of the National Union of Railwaymen, members of the General and Municipal Workers' Union are going to lose their rights because of the fact that at the end of the day their jobs are also going to be taken by this small group of men for whom Mr. Jones speaks. Although we have reduced the five miles to half a mile we know very well—and I look straight at the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who will find equally good tactical arguments for not fighting when this Bill comes back—that the five miles will be put back. The five miles will apply to Bletchley just as much as to Southampton; it will apply wherever any inland waterway runs and leads from a port. It will apply not to the docks nor to the installations of the docks alone but to anywhere where containers are unloaded and re-loaded, and millions—well, hundreds of thousands—of my fellow workers, my fellow trade unionists,

25
are because of the passage of this Bill, going to be denied their just rights in jobs they have been doing under trade union agreements.
In the trade union movement we have something called the Bridlington Agreement which I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, or the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, know very much about but which I would expect many of my friends on the Labour Benches to know a lot about. This was introduced almost 50 years ago to stop one union poaching on other people's members. This Bill breaks the Bridlington Agreement because it poaches one union's members' jobs, not for another union but for another section of that same union. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I regard that as much more than tactics; I regard it as totally intolerable. There are trade union friends of mine in this House who may not think it politic to say so, but who know as well as I do that it is so. We take Transport and General Workers' Union members' jobs for a section of the transport workers. We now take other union members' jobs for a section of the Transport and General Workers' Union. I repeat to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that I would happily develop this argument in any forum of the Labour movement that he could organise and I would develop it at much greater length.
I now move up to the last point which, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, cannot possibly be a matter of tactics. If this goes through we are handing over to one very small section the ability to hold this whole nation up to ransom. I happen to think that Mr. Heath was wrong to pick the fight with the colliers at the time he picked it and over the issue on which he picked it. My Lords, Mr. Baldwin knew better than that. I am told that we are shortly to have an interesting new biography of Baldwin by a rather interesting little ex-colleague of mine. It is going to come out, so I am told, to say that Baldwin was rather better than he is normally thought to be. Like everything else that Sir Harold Wilson thinks, I always thought it a little bit sooner. But one thing I am told that he is going
26
to say is that Mr. Baldwin was better than he is alleged to be, and the one thing that Mr. Baldwin knew that Mr. Heath did not know—and neither did Sir Winston Churchill then—is that you do not pick a fight with the colliers in February.
The only reason for my making this point is this. If on the grounds of tactics the Conservatives and Liberals abstain and this Bill comes back to us under the guillotine provisions downstairs, are we then going to throw it out? I suspect that there will be another tactical argument on why we do not do so. I want to make it quite clear that you could never have a Baldwin situation of May, 1926; you could always have a Heath situation in every month of the year—because any moment that the very tightly knit, very tightly organised, very small docks group of the Transport and General Workers' Union decided that nothing was going into or coming out of any depot—not just port—in the country, the country would starve within a week.
My Lords, ultimately I oppose this Bill on those grounds. I oppose it on the other two as well; but I have moved up in order of importance. As it seems to me, this House, exercising its proper and due rights, should really see my noble friend's Amendment as a serious invtation to the other place to re-think what they are doing. I know that a large number of the members of our Party are against it. I say "our Party"—the Party to which I used to belong but of which naturally I still think of myself as a member. We know that large numbers of our trade union members—and I am most certainly still a trade union member—are against it. We know that it cannot but hand over our responsibilities, our future, to a very, very tiny, very tightly knit, rather questionably directed, section of the community. This is the case of the mensheviks handing over to the bolsheviks in 1917.
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: Yes, my Lords. This is exactly the way it happened. This Bill is coming under the guillotine downstairs this afternoon. Should we postpone a decision or should we actually say: "It is out for six months. You can have your way at the end of the

27
day, but you have to operate the Parliament Act in order to get it. Just guillotining 40 or 60 Amendments (or whatever is the number we are said to have moved) is not the answer."
I feel passionately about this. There are many libertarian, radical Socialists in this House who should feel the same way as I do. We do not hand over this to a Government in the other House which may or may not have a majority there—which has no majority in the country as well—in order to allow it to push it through; and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others will discuss whether tactically it is sensible for us to oppose it the next time round. It is wrong. I believe it as a trade unionist. I believe it—and please will the "holier than me" on the Labour Benches realise this—as a Socialist. It is wrong. It is no part of our business to let one small group have the power to throttle the country. If we say in answer to my noble friend Lord St. Davids today, "Not now, but in six months' time", then we are really making sure that they will take care of it. If everybody on that side of the House retires on tactical grounds, then I hope that some of us will stand up on grounds of principle against something which has no possible defence at all.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, may I say two things to your Lordships' House. First, I apologise for not putting my name down on the list of speakers. Secondly, I dislike this Bill as much as the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, or my noble friend Lord Carrington. It is a Bill of privilege, a Bill of special pleading, a Bill to enable the more powerful of the Government's friends to have special and effective power over the rest of the country. I feel strongly that the Amendments must go back to another place. If they then do not agree with them, are stupid and guillotine them, that is a different matter. As we must allow the Constitutional processes to go forward, however much I dislike the Bill—and I dislike it as much as any of my noble friends—I regret to say that I find I must vote with Her Majesty's Government this afternoon.
3. 51 p. m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, very few points have been made criticising the Bill
28
and therefore I have a very light task. First, I should like to deal with two points made by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. He said that other trade unionists were going to lose their jobs to dockers. That is not true. This Bill so protects the workers already doing the job that out of the 200 Amendments moved in this House there has not been a single Amendment trying to improve the protection given to other workers. The Bill gives the workers doing the job complete protection. The noble Lord also said the Bill was going to take away the rights of unions and mentioned in particular the NUR. If he looks at the Bill, he will find that the dock railways are excluded from the Bill because we are satisfied that there are adequate arrangements made between the employer and the trade union concerned. The noble Lord also said that the Trades Union Congress was opposed to this. The Trades Union Congress has expressed its approval of the Bill through its Transport Committee. My Lords, I would ask the House whatever it does to take no damned notice of George Brown.
Several noble Lords: Order! Withdraw!
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I may say so, I think it is a pity if, even in the heat of the moment, we do not observe the usual courtesies of the House, and particularly from the Front Bench.
Several noble Lords: Hear! Hear!
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I withdraw that. In its place I say that I hope this House will take no notice of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I make no objection to either phrase. My Lords, —
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: By leave of the House!
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: By leave of the House, and just raising a point, my Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that Alma Birk, said exactly the same to me about Felixstowe Docks, and look what happened.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I think I should start by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, who said that I

29
had not spoken on the Second Reading of this Bill. If he wants me to start speaking on the Second Reading of all the Bills of which I disapprove, I shall do so; but I do not think it would be altogether what he would wish, nor what the rest of the House would wish. There is a good reason why noble Lords should limit the number of speeches that we should make in this House. I carry out a self-denying ordinance and I speak with great care only on those Bills where my own personal expertise is known to the House, and the House therefore knows the value of what I am saying. In this matter, I am not speaking on personal expertise, I am speaking on a platform of public revulsion. This is a horrible Bill. There are three things your Lordships can do. You can follow me through the "Contents" Lobby simply because the Bill makes you feel sick. You can, if you disapprove of the Bill as I know many do on all sides of the House, simply abstain, or if you feel you really love the Bill, that you clutch it to your heart or so love the Government, you can vote against the Amendment and
ultimately for the Bill. These three actions are all possible. It is up to your Lordships.
What is going to be interesting on this Division is not so much the numbers as the names on the paper. This is what is going to be very interesting. I am going to take this Amendment through the Division Lobby simply so that we can see where everybody stands. I imagine that there will be very thin Lobbies, except possibly on the Government side. My own Lobby may not contain many, but it will contain those who are willing to stand up and say that they are sick of this Bill, who are willing to stand up publicly and say it and have their names down on the Paper as saying just that. I beg to move.
3. 56 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 87.

CONTENTS

Arran, E.

George-Brown, [L. Teller]

Hayter, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Monson, L.

Clancarty, E.

Greenway, L.

St. Davids, V. [Teller]

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Spens, L.

Dudley, E.

Hanworth, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Effingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hale, L.

Pannell, L.

Aylestone, L.

Halsbury, E.

Pargiter, L.

Bernstein, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Parry, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Phillips, B.

Blyton, L.

Hughes, L.

Platt, L.

Brimelow, L.

Ilchester, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacobson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brown, L.

Jacques, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Janner, L.

Russell, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kaldor, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Burntwood, L.

Kennet, L.

Serota, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Shepherd, L.

Caradon, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Castle, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Listowel, E.

Snow, L.

Collison, L

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller]

Soper, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L

Stedman, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Darwen, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McCarthy, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McCluskey, L.

Summerskill, B.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Vaizey, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Walston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.]

Noel-Buxton, L

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Onslow, E.

Winterbottom, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly

On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 1 [Reconstitution of Board as body corporate]:
4. 6 p. m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 20, after ("State") insert ("from among persons not represented on the National Joint Council").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment will be that subsection (4) will read:
"The remaining eight members of the Board, and the chairman and vice-chairman, shall be appointed by the Secretary of State from among persons not represented on the National Joint Council…".
The object of this Amendment is to secure a well-balanced and widely representative Board which can reach sound and fair decisions. We have already carried an Amendment during the earlier stages of the Bill to ensure that there will be eight members appointed by the Secretary of State to balance the eight members nominated by the National Council for the Port Transport Industry, those consisting of four representing dock employers and four representing dock workers. There are two lots. Those I have mentioned now are the eight members appointed by the Secretary of State upon the nomination of the National Council for the Port Transport Industry. There will also be eight members who are appointed, as I have read out, which are the remaining eight members.
We have had considerable discussion in Committee as to whether the CBI and the TUC should nominate the eight people between them. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that if that were done there might be no outsiders at all on the Board, because the CBI and the TUC would come under pressure to appoint people from within the industry so that the industry should have a majority on the Board. We are now all agreed that nomination should be restricted to the eight National Joint Council members and that the chairman, vice-chairman and the eight other members should be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the National Joint Council itself, the TUC and the CBI.
It is precisely to avoid the possibility that the Secretary of State, who has to make the appointments, would come under
32
pressure to appoint these ten members from within the industry itself, including the National Joint Council organisations already represented by the eight NJC nominees, that I am moving this Amendment. It will prevent the Secretary of State coming under such pressure. The Amendment makes it clear that the chairman, vice-chairman and the eight other members should not be appointed from among members already represented on the NJC; that is under subsection (3). It therefore relieves the Secretary of State from any pressure such as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, feared and it ensures a well-balanced and widely representative Board. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this Amendment is not entirely clear because it leaves open to doubt whether it means that the remaining eight members of the Board are not themselves also to be members of the NJC or that they are not to be members of particular interests represented on the NJC or that they are not to be members of the unions and employers' associations which together form the NJC.
There are already very great difficulties in requiring the Secretary of State to determine whether particular interests are or are not to be represented on the NJC. To mention one, the National Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers has members in some ports and is represented on local joint councils for certain ports. But it does not have an actual member at the national level. The wording of the Amendment would leave some doubt as to whether a NASD member could or could not be appointed to the Board. It is not the intention that either the chairman and vice-chairman of the Board, or any of the members not nominated by the NJC would be appointed from among those on the present National Dock Labour Board who are nominated by the NJC—that is, the National Association of Port Employers and the Transport and General Workers' Union.
However, the Bill could give rise to changes in the negotiating arrangements within the industry. One reason for providing (before the Bill was amended) for a period of up to two years on the extension registers for workers whose work is classified under the procedures of the Bill, was to take account of the

33
views of the parties about the need to change their collective bargaining arrangements to take account of the new situation. While the Bill specifically provides in Clause 6(7) that no obligations of any kind can be imposed on employers and workers in the matter of collective bargaining arrangements, they could voluntarily decide that it was sensible to seek to join the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry. Thus, other trade unions, and just possibly employers' associations, would be in a position where they might wish to seek representation on the NJC. However, the main intention of broadening membership of the Board is to ensure representation for the unions and employers' associations with membership among those whose work could be considered for classification as dock work. The Amendment could lead to a situation where a union could have a small group of its members in one part of the country covered by the NJC. It could, therefore, have some form of representation at national level—possibly, in conjunction with other unions—and yet it would automatically be precluded from having a representative among the appointed members on the National Board.
It would be possible to envisage a situation arising in the future where all the trade unions, which had any real interest in work which might be considered for classification, were debarred from having a representative on the Board among those appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation, because they could all be said to be represented on the NJC. That would be most undesirable. So far as the chairman and vice-chairman are concerned, while it is unlikely that it will seem desirable to appoint people closely associated with either side of the NJC, it seems unnecessary to rule out the possibility altogether. These are most important matters, but we believe—as the Opposition do when they are in Government and drafting legislation about appointment to public boards—that they can safety be left to the good sense of the Secretary of State and those whom he consults.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I am afraid I did not find that explanation very satisfying, because the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is to see that these other eight are neutrals. I appreciate
34
that there are difficulties and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said, unions might wish to join the National Joint Council if they are not on it. We now have the problem that we are on Third Reading and there is very little that we can do. But forgetting for a moment the difficulties in another place, which are their problem and not ours, would it not be a good idea to pass this Amendment and then let honourable Members think of a better definition if they want one? Surely it would be very advisable for these eight additional members to be neutral.
The noble Lord said that it would not be the intention of the Secretary of State to appoint people who were already deeply involved through the National Joint Council. This would apply equally to members of smaller unions which were seeking to join the National Joint Council. I am just wondering whether, if we passed this Amendment—I do not know whether the House will wish to do so—it could be looked at in the very short time that appears to be left before it goes to another place, to see whether a suitable form of words could be thought out which would give effect to what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, himself wants to achieve; that is, that these eight members should not simply be replicas of the National Joint Council members.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may point out that I have already said that it is not the intention of the Government that the eight appointments should come from the National Joint Council.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has given us the kind of assurance that this Amendment sought to achieve. I am not certain that his reasons for rejecting the Amendment are very sound, although there may be some possibility of misunderstanding in the Amendment as there is in a good deal of this Bill. For example, one is either represented or not represented, but one cannot be indirectly represented and the object of the Amendment was to ensure that those unions which were not directly represented on the NJC had an opportunity of being represented.
I doubt whether there is any great misunderstanding about this, and in a

35
case like this we are tempted very much to press the Amendment for the very good reason which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, gave, and I am grateful for his support. But, on the whole, at this stage it seems that we have got enough from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. He has one or two conciliatory Amendments down, and I think we have enough from him for me to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [General duty of the Board]:
4. 18 p. m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("adequately") and insert ("effectively").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 and will speak, to some extent, to Amendment No. 3 at the same time. I admit that we have had some assurances, on points such as the one raised by this Amendment, resulting from discussions on earlier Amendments, particularly those to which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, replied at column 721 of the Official Report for the Committee stage and at column 1245 for the Report stage. What we were pressing on the noble Lord at those points, and at many other points, was the fact that the public at large have an interest in the docks, as the noble Lord has recognised by a Government Amendment to Clause 2 to insert the words "having regard to the public interest". We are glad to have that, and I hope that the other place will be glad to see it there.
However, the chief interest of the public is that the docks should be efficient, and that the Board should recognise them not just as an arena in which they umpire a private scrap between the dockers and the employers. We have also sought to persuade Her Majesty's Government that the resources of capital and manpower should be effectively deployed in the interests of efficiency—that is the reason behind my Amendment No. 2—and that unnecessray cost burdens should not be permitted, whether they fall on employers, consumers or public funds. That last thought is the one
36
comprised in my Amendment No. 3, a different version of which I moved at Report. As I say, we have had assurances on some of these points, but we were not satisfied with the assurance that we received on Clause 7 and therefore we had to press our point of view to a Division. Perhaps I should say that the former Clause 7 is now Clause 8. We contented ourselves with a rather weak explanation and assurance that was given at col. 1245 of the Report stage, an assurance which fell at the stroke of midnight last Thursday when we were discussing what was then Clause 7. At that point we did not press the Amendment, but looking back, I think that was more out of compassion for the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, than because we were convinced by his argument.
In the course of the present stage we have another opportunity to strengthen the Bill in this respect by Amendment No. 17 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. However, my purpose in moving this Amendment now is to find out whether the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, can add any more to his assurance that the Secretary of State, the Board and the local boards will have regard to the general propositions which are expressed by these two Amendments of mine, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, and by the Amendment expressed by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, Amendment No. 17. If the noble Lord were able to give us such an assurance I, for my part, would not feel that it was necessary at this point to press the Amendments. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, can help me. Would he wish that I should reply to the two Amendments, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, to which he has spoken or is he hoping that my noble friend Lord Jacques will say something in connection with Amendment No. 17? It seems to me to be a little difficult to range over the whole question of cost and efficiency in relation to these two Amendments, but I do not know what is the wish of the noble Lord.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, may I say, with the leave of the House, that I appreciate the noble Lords' difficulties; no doubt they have separate briefs on these Amendments.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, they are quite consistent.
Lord SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, I am sure that they are. I want an assurance that our anxiety, which is a general and also a consistent one—that the public's interest that the docks should be run efficiently and be cost effective and that productivity should loom large in all that the Board does—is not well-founded for reasons which I do not think have been fully deployed by the Government. We were not satisfied at Committee and we moved an Amendment to Clause 7. We were only partially satisfied on Clause 8 and now I rather regret that we did not press our Amendment. However, it would be valuable if noble Lords could draw on their briefs and do their best to assure us that where efficiency and cost effectiveness are stressed in the Bill this is adequate to ensure that efficiency and cost effectiveness will be given the necessary priority.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his indication. My response must be that I should prefer to reply to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Then the noble Lord must either decide what he wishes to do in respect of those Amendments or wait until he has heard my noble friend on a later Amendment. I do not think that I need to take very long over Amendment No. 2 which has been moved by the noble Lord. To some extent the word "effectively" which the noble Lord seeks to move into the Bill in place of "adequate" is an improvement on the word "efficiency" which he sought to move into the Bill during the Report stage. However, as I listened to the noble Lord I heard him again use the word "efficiency" and I noted that he made very little reference to his Amendment, which is to insert "effectively". I gather that it is still the noble Lord's intention that this Amendment should bear a relationship to his general thesis about costs and efficiency throughout the Bill, but at this stage may I say that although "effectively" is, as I have indicated, a somewhat better word than "efficiency" from the Government's point of view, it is not good enough.
According to my researches into the dictionary the word "adequate" means "sufficient" or "such as meets the case." If one puts those phrases into the clause
38
it conveys the sense that we have in mind, whereas the synonyms for "effective" do not read so smoothly and do not have an adequate or suitable meaning. They are "having power to effect". "causing something" or "successful in producing a result or effect". If the noble Lord cares at some point to weigh up those synonyms, I believe that he will regard the word "adequately" which is contained in the Bill as more suitable for this purpose. I am not pre-empting any discussion that the noble Lord may wish to have later about costs, but in relation to this Amendment I think I must advise the House to reject it and to retain the word "adequately".
Since the noble Lord spoke to Amendment No. 3 as well, may I say a little more because it might be helpful if I illustrated what the Government have in mind. At the Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, moved an Amendment which would have required that consumers' and public costs should be reviewed and I explained why that was not acceptable to the Government. In moving the insertion of the word "particularly", I suppose that the noble Lord still seeks to meet the same end that he had in mind at the Report stage.
I undertook to look at the position which has been reconsidered and, as I say, perhaps a specific illustration may help to explain the difficulties that we face in accepting the Amendment. If as a result of their review under Clause 2 the Board were to conclude that a new training course should be introduced to provide skills which were in insufficient supply, the Board could properly be expected to cost such a proposal. That is why at the Report stage I said to the noble Lord that we should have been more sympathetic to an Amendment which made Clause 2(4) (c) read something like
"the probable cost of implementing the proposal",
which is a more general phrase. However, the noble Lord has not moved that kind of Amendment.
As the subsection now reads, the Board would have to do more than take into account the probable cost of implementing the proposal. If the Board proposed that employers should pay for the cost of the training course that I have instanced, then the Board would have to set out the effect on the levy or specify the charges

39
which they would propose to make to employers when they sent their dock workers on the course. But if one considers the sort of specific detailed proposals which the Board will be making to the Secretary of State under Clause 2, then it really does seem to the Government that the existing phrase, "the probable cost to employers" is as far as it is reasonable to go. What the Board cannot do, for example, is to form any view on how each individual employer will respond to any increase in the levy or to a charge payable for improving training facilities, because that depends on the individual decision of each employer.
If, on the other hand—and I think this is the case—the implication of the Amendment is that broad costs, such as the cost to the consumer, should be examined, then I recall that I explained the Government's attitude to that proposition during the Report stage. As I said then, overall labour costs are one element in port charges; port charges are but one element in the transport costs; and transport costs are one element, and a small element, in the final cost of goods to a consumer. Therefore, since the effect of the Amendment that the noble Lord has moved would be to widen the requirement beyond what we consider to be practical of implementation, I am afraid I cannot recommend your Lordships to accept either of these two Amendments.
4. 31 p. m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, if I might speak briefly to Amendment No. 2 only, I must say to the noble Lord that without poring over a dictionary it seems to me that, "effectively" is a far better word than, "adequately" in this sentence. What is the purpose of deploying skills, aptitudes and experience unless you deploy them effectively? Otherwise, the deployment achieves nothing. "Adequately", on the other hand, is a word which really requires to be qualified by saying adequate for what purpose. I would have thought that if the noble Lord would look at it again he could hardly fail to agree that, "effectively" is a better word here. If we put that word in, I can hardly believe that another place, busy as they will be with the Bill, will even notice that we have made a difference and put in a much better word.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, if I may follow the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, I must say that I disagree with him entirely. On a previous occasion I raised the point in regard to the word, "adequately" that you could take different dictionaries and probably get different interpretations for that word. He will probably know more about this than I do because his standard of education is much higher than mine. I followed what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was saying, and I began to wonder what he wanted from people engaged in this type of industry. He did not put forward a case. He is already challenging them, before this Bill is passed, as to whether they are going to be efficient, as to whether they are going to pull out every stop they can to achieve that productivity which we talk about in industry, which employers, whoever they may be, would like to see. To me that is a sort of insult to the people engaged in these forms of industry. It does not do any good to any type of industry if you challenge at the beginning whether people are going to do everything possible to make the industry in which they are engaged efficient, so that it will show positive results on behalf of those responsible for their employment in their particular capacity and for the running of the industry.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I were a member of the Board—which I hope I shall not be—I would be very puzzled to know exactly what was expected of me under subsection (3)(a). The word, "deploy" has different meanings, as the word "disposition" to which I drew attention also has different meanings. What are we to understand by this? Are we to understand that the Board is to keep under review the extent to which dock workers are adequately deployed, or are we to understand that it means the extent to which dock workers adequately deploy their skills, aptitudes and experience? There are two entirely different meanings of "deploy". It may be indeed that there is a sort of combination between these two, and what is really meant is the extent to which dock workers are adequately deployed having regard to their skills, aptitudes and experience. It is very difficult to know exactly what this is intended to mean. I think if you put in the word, "effectively" it makes the interpretation a little easier, because we

41
are then talking about the extent to which the skills, aptitudes and experience are effectively deployed, and this is related to the skills, aptitudes and experience of dock workers as a whole. It is a difficult bit of drafting. All I would say is that I think it is easier to understand if the word, "effectively" goes in rather than if the word, "adequately" goes in.
I should like to comment on the next Amendment, also. The words here are,
"the probable cost to employers of implementing the proposal".
We are talking here mainly about a proposal either for deployment or for adjusting the strength and disposition of the labour force, as I understand it. So I would have thought in this case the noble Lord may be right in his interpretation. We are not talking about the cost of implementing proposals dealing with classification; we are talking about proposals for adjusting the strength and disposition of the labour force and deploying the skills of the existing dock workers. In this case what seems to me to be the important consideration is the probable cost to employers of implementing proposals for those purposes. I think the noble Lord was quite right to suggest that we should leave the other question of the costs of doing the work for later consideration.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, if I might have leave to speak again, I do not think the meaning of this clause is nearly as difficult as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, makes out. It seems to me that what the Board are asked to keep under review is that the skills, aptitudes and experience of dock workers are effectively deployed. By that I take it to mean that if you have some dock workers who are particularly skilled in loading containers, using container cranes, which requires a very high degree of skill, you do not put them on to some other job. Equally, if you have men skilled in stowing the old fashioned type of cargo, which is again a very highly-skilled job, you do not put them on taking bundles of timber off ships. That is what I would take it to mean, and it seems to me a very sensible provision.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I had hoped, having listened to the noble Lord's explanations, at this and at other points in the Bill, at the two previous stages, and having adjusted the Amendments we
42
had originally proposed to meet the Government's wishes, that they would find no difficulty in accepting this one, and from what the noble Lord says it sounds as though he nearly did. But I was also hoping for some rather more robust assurances about the general stress on effective deployment and efficiency, and something in response to Amendment No. 3. I do not think that this is the moment to have a lot of Divisions on the matter. I am sorry that the Government have not used this opportunity to respond with a more robust statement of their attitude at this point, but I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Secretary of State to prepare new Scheme]:
4. 41 p. m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert ("but the whole of any area so designated must be comprised within a definable dock area")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4, and at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 19 and 20. These last minute Amendments are, I am afraid, the result of having had to handle this Bill at such indecent haste. I think it has been a travesty of proper Parliamentary procedure. In all the 30 or 40 Bills I have handled from this or the other Dispatch Box, I can never remember one where the pressure of time has been worse than on this one. I recall last Session dealing with the Community Land Act, a massive Bill of far greater complexity than this, but that was really quite straightforward compared with dealing with this one and the pace with which we have had to contend. For instance, last Friday the Hansard for the night before was available at about 9. 30 in the morning. That covered our proceedings up to 10 o'clock, but they actually went on until 12 o'clock, so with no record of what had happened for the last two hours we had to consider what Amendments we wanted for this stage and have them tabled by 4 o'clock in the afternoon.
In those circumstances, it is extremely difficult to have time to reflect and read through the Bill thoroughly to see the

43
precise effect of what one is trying to do. But I have to go on and say that I am indebted for the help of the noble Lord's Department in putting into workable shape the general proposition which we imported for the first time at Committee stage; namely, of a more limited dock area of half-a-mile extent round an existing harbour as opposed to the enormous five mile wide cargo zone. That was the work we did at Committee stage when we introduced this geographically much more limited idea of the half-mile round the harbour which could then in due course become a Dock Labour Scheme area.
In using those words, we adopted a term that was already in the Bill. But I must confess that we overlooked that the same consideration applies to the definition or designation of these dock areas as applies to the definition and classification of dock work; that is to say, you have to provide in the Bill for two stages in each category. In the way that Schedule 3 lists what may and may not be classified as dock work, other processes in the Bill (culminating in classification orders in Clause 11, as it was, which is now Clause 13) specify in point of policy and in particular cases that what are the things that can be classified, are to be classified.
In exactly the same way, in dealing with the dock areas we need two definitions. One is in this set of Amendments I am now introducing and which we want to see inserted in the Bill, which prescribes the limit of what may be designated a dock labour area and in which various parts of the Bill will apply in Clauses 6, 7, 8, 9 and Schedule 3. But again as with classification orders, in respect of dock work it will be the new Scheme and the Amendments thereto which will actually designate the dock labour area within the definable area that may be defined in due course as a Dock Labour Scheme area.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that if we have this concept in we need to have the same two stages in respect of areas as is already provided in the Bill in respect of work. That is the purpose of these Amendments. They do not add or subtract anything from the general concept we have added. We have checked the
44
general line of our thought with the Department and had some help in working out with them how it should be done in order that the general idea which has been incorporated in the Bill at Committee stage is workable. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am sure we all appreciate the clear and acceptable way in which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has explained this Amendment and those which are similar to it and which he listed. He prefaced his remarks by a complaint about the time-table. Without entering into the whys and wherefors of the general Parliamentary situation in which we are, within those limits I accept what he said about it having been a particularly tough job which he and his colleagues and I and my colleagues on this side and others elsewhere have taken on board.
I use the word "acceptable" about the noble Lord's introductory speech. I should not like that to mean that the change upon which these hinge is in any way acceptable. Of course we maintain the position that the basic Amendments which were made during Committee stage are entirely unacceptable to us. But having regard to the fact that those Amendments were made then, as the noble Lord has explained, these Amendments are necessary because, as the Bill now stands without them, it would be impossible to look at work in an area to see whether it should be classified as dock work without having previously applied the Scheme by order to that area. It is a sort of horse and cart situation, and we cannot be sure which is the horse and which is the cart. I would say that the Amendment appears to us to remedy this situation. Beyond that, I do not think that the Government have any further comment to make.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I think it behoves the House as a whole to send back to the other place Amendments which, however unpalatable they may be to the Government, in fact actually work.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 5:

45
Page 4, line 7, leave out from beginning to ("comprise") and insert ("A definable dock area shall").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendments No. 6:
Page 4, line 14, leave out from beginning to ("within") in line 15 and insert ("A definable dock area shall not include any small harbour or any place").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Objects of the Scheme]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendments No. 7:
Page 5, line 49, leave out ("dock labour scheme area") and insert ("definable dock area").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4. 50 p. m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 8, at end insert—
("() The Scheme shall not impose any obligations on dock employers who do not for the time being employ workers on classified work.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has been tabled to meet concern which has been expressed that, because there is no definition of dock employers as used in Schedule 2, it might be possible for the Scheme to impose obligations on employers in the docks who are not undertaking classifiable work. On Report it was explained that the Government did not believe that there would be any reasonable doubt about the enabling powers in Schedule 2. But the Scheme does impose obligations and requirements which are backed ultimately by criminal sanctions and is concerned with the raising of a levy. Therefore, it seemed right to put the matter beyond doubt, whether reasonable or otherwise, which is what the Amendment does.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, we are always grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, when he introduces Amendments so kindly and pleasantly. We are grateful for this one, which establishes beyond peradventure that the Bill means what it is intended to mean, and I hope that he will accept our grateful thanks.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Review of what is now dock work]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 8, line 7, leave out ("any dock labour scheme area") and insert ("any definable dock area").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Loading and unloading operations]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 8, line 16, leave out ("dock labour scheme area") and insert ("definable dock area").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 9, line 24, after ("(b)") insert ("after considering any representations received from employers and trade unions concerned and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to make it clear that the Board must consider any representations made by employers and unions before reporting to the Secretary of State under this clause. This brings the clause into line with the procedure under Clause 9 and Schedule 4, where the Board are required to consider representations made in response to the first and second notices.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, once again we are grateful for this point of clarification. This is a helpful and important Amendment and we are grateful to the noble Lord for it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 9, line 34, leave out from ("premises") to end of line 36 and insert ("outside a definable dock area").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Cargo-handling operations in general.]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 10, line 42, leave out ("dock labour scheme area") and insert ("definable dock area").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4. 54 p. m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendments No. 14:
Page 11, line 32, leave out ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if, at the same time as we discuss Amendments No. 14, we discuss Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17. This group of Amendments is simple in purpose but rather difficult to explain. The clause relates to recommendations to the Secretary of State by the Board that work be classified if it comes within Schedule 2(1) as being work which may be classified for the future as dock work and if it is work that is done or is to be done at premises in a Dock Labour Scheme area. The Board may also recommend that not all the work, but some specified part of it, may be so specified. Subsection (5) lays down three grounds in particular which the Board may treat as prima facie grounds, subject to the next subsection, for recommending classification. These grounds are that the work
"… is, or is to be, done by way of substitution for other work previously done by registered dock workers, whether at the same premises or elsewhere …"
within a Dock Labour Scheme area. Your Lordships will recall that the Bill as originally drafted said "within the cargo-handling zone", which covered all premises within five miles of the sea or within any major inland waterway. As the Bill stands—we must constantly remind ourselves of this—it is a good deal more restricted in scope. The second ground is that the work
"… is such that those employed on it need training, aptitudes and experience the same as, or similar to, those of registered dock workers …"
And the third ground is that the work
"…is for the time being done wholly or mainly by workers employed as casual labour. "
The next subsection provides that none of these three grounds and no combination of them is sufficient by itself to justify classification and requires the Board to take account of other considerations "appearing to them to be relevant", in particular the considerations set out in that subsection. The fact remains that as the Bill stands the Board may proceed to consider work for classification if any of the three criteria I have mentioned is satisfied.
Bearing that in mind, I ask: does it make sense to consider work for classification merely because those employed on it need training, aptitudes and experience similar to the training, aptitudes and experience needed by registered dock workers? No wonder, for example, it was necessary to exclude the railways from the Bill, otherwise they would have been caught here. That expression would cover all forms of the handling and movement of goods—loading and un-loading at factories, marshalling yards, warehouses and cold stores—even if the goods were going to another inland destination, and it would even cover the movement of goods within factories, warehouses and so on. Who can tell whether such goods would never be shipped abroad? Is it sensible that all forms of cargo handled wholly or mainly by casual labour should be eligible for consideration by the Board for classification?
We have frequently argued in our debates on the Bill that there are many ports dotted around the coasts, particularly in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, where the work always has been done by casual labour; men brought from their other activities—not necessarily unemployed men—when they are needed to load or unload cargo. In these places the work has never been wholly or mainly done by registered dock workers. There are many warehouses within five miles of the sea where nobody has never heard of registered dock workers. It is obvious that both of these criteria should be taken in conjunction with lie first criterion—this is so dear to the hearts of the Party opposite, or at any rate to some of them; I would not say "all" by any means—namely, that the work is done or is to be done by way of substitution for work previously done by registered dock workers.
We do not accept that criterion. We require, however, that it is fundamental to the Bill and that is why we are opposed to the Bill. But given that fundamental criterion, we believe that it should be the basic one for considering whether or not work should be classified. My Amendment would make it so. We understand the Government's wish to decasualise, but only in appropriate circumstances. We have pointed out that there are many circumstances in which it would be wholly inappropriate to do so. I appreciate that

49
the subsection says that the Board "may" treat such cases as prima facie grounds. It is not bound to do so; it does not say "shall". Nevertheless, we believe that it should do so only where there has been, or is to be, what the Bill calls substitution.
Lord JACQUES: I explained at Committee stage the Government's reasons for believing that any one of the grounds should constitute prima facie grounds for making a recommendation. This Amendments would make it obligatory for work in question to be in substitution for work previously done by registered dock workers. This would prevent groups of workers who have a very good case for having their work classified from being able to do so. We return to our old friends, the Liverpool tally clerks and their employers, who believe their work should be registered work. They work in close association with registered dock workers. But their work is not in substitution for work which is previously done by registered dock workers. Even though they and their employers think their work should be classified, it could not be classified if this Amendment were carried.
This applies similarly to our friends in fish bobbing at Hull. As I explained at earlier stages in the Bill, the work of fish bobbing is classified or registered work at all the North-East ports except Hull. There, fish bobbers say that they have been left out as an accident of history and feel badly done by. If this Amendment were carried, the fish bobbers at Hull are not doing work in substitution for work done by registered dock workers and, therefore, it would prevent their work from being classified. Also, if any new installations were opened at existing Scheme ports away from existing installations that is not covered by the existing classification, and the trade to be handled by these installations was new, then the work could not be in substitution for work at present done by registered dock workers and could not therefore be classified even though it has to be done by casual labour. For these reasons, we would hope that the noble Lord would not press his Amendments.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, before my noble friends reply, may I say that I am not clear about one thing the noble
50
Lord, Lord Jacques, said? It seems to me that subsection (5) says,
"The Board may under that Schedule determine that there are prima facie grounds for making a recommendation …"
I cannot see anywhere in the clause that they cannot make a recommendation unless there are prima facie grounds. Am I wrong in that interpretation? If so, where does it say so? It would seem that the exclusion of tally clerks, or these other people the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, talked about, would not be the case if it were possible for the Board to make a recommendation when there are not prima facie grounds. It seems to me that subsection (6) rather encourages that view. It seems to encourage the Board to look more widely than the prima facie grounds in subsection (5). Therefore, if subsection (5) is tightened up, it would seem that no great harm would result and it would not spoil the cause of the tally clerks. Perhaps the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, needs changing.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, could enlighten us at this stage. In most debates on this issue, the noble Lord appears to be something of a conjurer. He always mentions the Liverpool tally clerks, but he produces these work people who I understand go by the name of fish bobbers". Can he indicate what they do? Do they load fish, gut it or fillet it? Is this an example of the Monty Python show, or what? Clearly they are an interesting category of workforce, but so far in my researches, or indeed in reading through the Bill, I have not been able to decipher exactly what these people do. I should be more than interested, indeed grateful, if the noble Lord could enlighten the House.
Lord JACQUES: Fish bobbers? They bob! I think it is clear that they do some-to the fish as distinct from merely handling it as cargo. They are responsible for gutting. They load and unload and are then responsible for gutting the fish and seeing it to the market.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation.
Lord JACQUES: The answer required by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is in Schedule 4, paragraph 7:

51
"If after considering such representations the Board determines there are prima facie grounds for making a recommendation under section 9 …"
and so on.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I also have some misgivings about the experience and aptitude of the noble Lord in returning always to the tally clerks. The trouble about tally clerks, as an example, is precisely illustrated by what I am trying to do, because the experience, skill and aptitude of tally clerks is not by any means confined to dock work. They may have grown up alongside dock work, but they could be equally useful in a wide range of other activities. This tally work is not particularly the sort of skill that one expects of a docker. They may have very good claims, but this is an a ordinary claim of one body of men who want to be recognised in a particular context. I do not think that the noble Lord's quotation of tally clerks as an example is a good reason why we should not have as a pre-condition the question of sub-situation.
The same really applies to training, aptitudes and experience similar to those of registered dock workers. A very wide range of people in the transport industry have training, aptitude and experience similar to registered dock workers. It follows that if we leave the Bill as it is, the range of people who could be classified is almost infinite; certainly anybody who is involved in loading, where any export consideration arises at all. We think this is far too wide and that is why we propose the Amendment. I suspect that fish bobbers is a red herring and I am sure that tally clerks are red herrings, too. I am inclined to think that the noble Lord should allow this to go forward for consideration by another place.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I regret that we could not possibly do that. Making it obligatory that there has to be a substitution for work done by registered dock workers will have far-reaching effects for the future. There is any amount of work closely associated with dock work that ought to be classified, but this Amendment would prevent its classification, no matter how closely associated it was with dock work. In our opinion this Amendment is an undesirable one which we could never accept.
5. 10 p. m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in answering me referred to Schedule 4, but I have looked at Schedule 4 and it does not really satisfy me at all. I should redirect him to subsection (6). It seems to me that all this play on prima facie is not comprehensive because the Board are encouraged to look much more widely, and I cannot see that the main line of his argument against my noble friend's Amendment is a valid one. I think that this matter needs to be looked at again and that it should perhaps be allowed to go through at the moment so that it can be looked at in another place.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is wrong in saying that it places an obligation on the Board because subsections (5) starts with the words, "The Board may …". It includes another phrase which gives them some flexibility:
"if it appears to them that…"
There is no clear, certain obligation at all. There is plenty of discretion.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, first, with the leave of the House I wish to comment on what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has said. If there are no prima facie grounds, the Board cannot send the second notice and therefore the procedure would come to a halt. There would be no recommendation. A recommendation can be made only when the Board, after they have received the first group of representations, are satisfied that there are prima facie grounds.
I should now like to comment on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.
"The Board may under that Schedule determine that there are prima facie grounds for making a recommendation if it appears to them that the work …is, or is to be, done by way of substitution for other work previously done by registered dock workers, whether at the same premises or elsewhere …"
We start with that. The other two points come later. This is obligatory; it is obligatory in the sense that they cannot move unless they are satisfied that it is by way of substitution.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Surely that is one of three alternatives —if there are such things?
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, may I, again with the leave of the House, make a suggestion to the noble Lord? The word, "may" governs the whole subsection and there is no question of there being an obligation from which the Board cannot escape. Furthermore, they have discretion to determine what they have to determine,
"if it appears to them that the work…"
But there is no need to refer to some hard and fast criteria. It is against that background that my noble friend is arguing. All he is arguing is that the Amendment should be put in so that another place can have another look at it. He is not saying, though he might well do, that it would make a clear improvement to the Bill, although I believe it would. His only reason for doing it is so that another place should have another look at it. I think that to have a massive number of Divisions at this stage is not a good way to proceed, but it is very provoking if the noble Lord is not able to answer my noble friend more efficiently than that. I think that the case which has been made out is a very strong one and I urge the noble Lord to accept it. It really cannot do any harm. The noble Lord certainly has not shown that any harm can be done, and this would enable another place to have another look at this point.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, I must insist that if we have this Amendment then it is obligatory that the work must be in substitution of work previously done by registered dock workers.
"The Board may under that Schedule determine that there are prima facie grounds for making a recommendation if it appears to them that the work is …"
But it must be in substitution, otherwise they cannot do it. Therefore everything I have said is absolutely right.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the question is, on the one hand, to what extent there is work which is dock work that is not at present being done by dock workers, and secondly there is the extent
54
to which there is work which is likely to be classified which has not been treated as dock work in the past. I do not understand what work this second class of work is. The noble Lord has not given any examples to show that there is any such work. I should have thought that the only work that is entitled to be classified is work which is being done in substitution for work which was previously done by registered dock workers. I cannot see any reason why any other work should be classified. We are talking of work which,
"is, or is to be done, by way of substitution …"
We are not talking of work which is to be done in the future and which would be classifiable, because obviously in a case like that the work would be classified—if it is classified and it is to be done in the future and it is certainly classifiable. I do not see how that can be a second class. If it is work that is to be done in substitution, then that is the first class we are talking about, but if it is entirely new work which is not being done in substitution, then I cannot see what kind of work that would be. If it were clearly dock work it would he classified as dock work and this particular question would not arise. I think it is worth having another look at this, where it is very difficult to see what the future would be and the way in which in practice these various provisions would be interpreted in circumstances which cannot be foreseen. It is for that reason that I am suggesting that it would be a wise course to look at this again.
Lord JACQUES: With that I cannot agree.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in that case I feel bound to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
5. 18 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 88.

CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Netherthorpe, L.

Amory, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Newall, L.

Ampthill, L.

Faithful, B.

Norfolk, D.

Atholl, D.

Ferrers, E.

Northchurch, B.

Auckland, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Onslow, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gainford, L.

Orr-Ewing. L.

Belstead, L.

George-Brown, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gisborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Boothby, L.

Glendevon, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gridley, L.

Reay, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Redesdale, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Harcourt, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Caccia, L.

Narmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Davids, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harvington, L.

St. Just, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Carrington, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandys, L.

Chalfont, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Savile, L.

Clancarty, E.

Kemsley, V.

Sharples, B.

Clwyd, L.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Stamp, L.

Colville of Culross. V.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Long, V.

Tenby, V.

Craigton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

Cross, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tranmire, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trefgarne, L

Daventry, V.

Marley, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Davidson, V.

Mersey, V.

Vickers, B.

Denham, L.

Monck, V.

Vivian, L.

Derwent, L.

Monson, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Drumalbyn, L. [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Dudley, E.

Morris, L.

Wardington, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mottistone, L. [Teller.]

Wolverton, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Northfield, L.

Aylestone, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Oram, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hale, L.

Pannell, L.

Beswick, L.

Hanworth, V.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Phillips, B.

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Bowden, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brimelow, L.

Hughes, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brown, L.

Jacobson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Castle, L.

Jacques, L.

Segal, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Serota, B.

Chorley, L.

Kagan, L.

Shepherd, L.

Collison, L.

Kaldor, L.

Shinwell, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Kennet, L.

Slater, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stedman, B.

Darwen, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Leatherland, L.

Store, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Stow Hill, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Douglas of Barlock, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Vaizey, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Walston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Weidenfeld, L.

Foot, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Gardiner, L.

McCluckey, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Garner, L.

Maelor, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

5. 26 p. m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 11, line 34, leave out ("or (b)") and insert ("and (a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, No. 15, is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): My Lords, I now have to call the first unnumbered Amendment in the name of Lord Airedale, and I have to inform your Lordships that, if this Amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 16.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved his first unnumbered Amendment:
Page 11, line 40, leave out from ("not") to ("make") in line 41.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient to discuss together the two Amendments which appear in my name on the separate sheet, because undoubtedly they sink or swim together. Subsection (6) seems to be extremely accident prone, but even as amended on Report, and even if it is going to be amended back in a few minutes' time to what it was in Committee, I still suggest to your Lordships that the first line and a half of subsection (6) really does not mean very much or get one very much further. In particular, I should have thought the words "and without more" are superfluous, following, as they do, the words "not on … those grounds alone". My Lords, if I am right about this, I wonder whether it would not be clearer simply to leave out this first line and a half and allow subsection (6) to come straight to the point and say that the Board shall not make a recommendation without considering, in particular, the matters which are then set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, at the Report stage the noble Lord suggested these Amendments. We have given this matter very careful consideration, and I could go into technical reasons why we cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment; but suffice it to say that we believe the present wording helps to emphasise that the prima facie grounds are not
58
sufficient and that the Board must carry out a two-stage consultation procedure. As things happen, there is another case against the noble Lord which I had not expected to have, and that is that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has carried against the Government Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. If the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, insists on his drafting Amendment, he will frustrate Lord Drumalbyn, who has to move Amendment No. 16 as a consequential Amendment. I think that so far as the opinion of the House is concerned it is more important that Lord Drumalbyn should be able to move his Amendment.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, the last thing I would wish to do would be to frustrate the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the second last thing I would wish to do would be to divide the House on what is only a drafting Amendment. I do not think subsection (6) is quite as clear as it might be. I have done my best to improve it, but I have not succeeded and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 11, line 40, leave out ("more") and insert ("both").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for his kind remarks. That makes Amendment No. 6 consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5. 31 p. m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendments No. 17:
Page 12, line 14, at end insert—
("() productivity in the performance of the work.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, throughout the earlier stages of the Bill we have been trying to impress on the Government that not only in present circumstances but at all times in a competitive world economic factors have to be considered. They cannot and must not be ignored. In considering whether work should be classified or declassified, as we are doing in this clause, we believe it is essential that the Board should be obliged to take into account

59
whether classification would adversely affect the cost of doing the work. The Government seem to regard "cost" as a rather dirty word not be to mentioned in public. One would have thought that, in their view, it runs counter to the concept of the Bill. Moreover they have argued that it will be beyond the capacity of the Board to consider cost in its wider aspect. But, however productivity is calculated, surely the Board must at least consider whether classification is likely to increase the value added per worker per year, per week, per day or per hour, however it is calculated, or whether it is likely to reduce it. This is not a difficult calculation to make and it would be well within the capacity of the Board, but even if it were difficult we would still regard it as essential that it should be made in each case. In this case we are not considering matters, recommendations and proposals which are initiated by the Board but matters which are referred to them, and one would have thought that the recommendation contained in the report that they are going to send to the Secretary of State should be complete and that they should have considered everything. If they have not considered everything they can hardly make a recommendation. Therefore I should have thought that they must consider the question of productivity. The thought that changes could even be considered and recommendations made without counting the cost seems to me to be economic lunacy. I urge the Government and I urge your Lordships to accept this Amendment which merely requires that in considering what recommendations to make to the Secretaty of State they should look into the question of whether classification of the work would adversely affect productivity. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, we would suggest that there is no way in which classification of the work could affect productivity in the performance of the work. During the course of the Bill it has been made clear many times that there is no intention that either the Board or the Scheme should interfere in any way with collective agreements. The Opposition Amendment to Schedule 2 made in Committee would preclude the Scheme from saying anything about terms and conditions of employment. There
60
is no way in which classification of work could alter any productivity arrangements under collective agreements. On the other hand, other productivity measures, for example, the purchase of new equipment or the introduction of new procedures, are in our view entirely matters for management.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I must say it is curious how the Front Bench opposite changes its ground in considering matters of this kind. It is now telling us that the relative cost could not be changed, at least so far as productivity was concerned, by classification where at the present time the work is not regarded as dock work. I cannot follow this. Clause 12 indicates what is going to happen if the work is classified. Of course you are not going to have a great change in the cost overnight; we accept that. The work force in a ware-house will no doubt remain the same, but the work will be classified. But because the work is classified the cost per head of work done is bound to vary because the totality of the cost per head in respect of wages and conditions will have to be taken into consideration. Am I not right in thinking that as soon as the work is classified the levy will he payable in respect of the workers there, or is it the case that that will not happen until all the workers move from the extension register to the register of dock workers? In either case, it is plain that in the long run the cost of the work is bound to be affected. Am I wrong about that? Will the levy not by payable; will the terms and conditions upon which men are employed not vary?
We all know that once a man is on the dock work register he is on for life. If the employer is going to have to employ the same number of men who are on his books at the time of classification, whether or not they are all needed, it will be difficult to reduce the staff. That is going to change the productivity per head. At the present time he can say, "I am sorry you are not needed" and make a redundancy payment. That is a different calculation altogether. There must be some changes involved here. We have never got to the bottom of what is intended. We have heard from industry what they think is intended and what they think the effects will be and there is

61
no doubt that in many cases the cost of the work force to the employer will increase.
Of course, there is the additional factor whether so much work will be done with the same force or not. It seems to me an extraordinary statement to make that it is not going to make any difference whether or not classification takes place. Surely we are right in thinking that the purpose of bringing the establishments which ask to be classified under the Dock Labour Board is to ensure similarity of conditions and terms of employment and to assimilate them to those being applied in the docks at the present time. Is that not so? This is the explanation we have had in the past. If that is so it cannot possibly be said that classification will not affect productivity.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies for the Government, may I ask him whether he would not agree that the financial cost is very much a part of modern cargo handling? Surely, to reduce cost as far as possible without affecting other labour practices and also to improve measurable productivity, must be a matter for pride and something which the Board should aim to achieve when they wish to advise on classification. The Government, in both Report and Committee stages, have spoken of the non-relevance of cost and about new procedures and other labour procedures. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn mentioned "lunacy". Why do the Government always take the dark side of the moon and totally ignore the brighter side of the question?
I read of one example in the earlier proceedings in another place. At Alexandra Docks in Liverpool, where I understand work is carried out by registered dock workers, cargo can be landed at …6.30 a ton as opposed to London loading and unloading with the same equipment dealing with the same type of cargo where the cost is …11.30. I believe that is a matter for pride. I understand that Alexandra Docks, Liverpool, is carrying out work which under the new Scheme would be classified. The Government have run away from any thought of cost. They look at the dark side. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has twice produced the argument that
62
in seeking to produce cost effectiveness we are somehow seeking to encourage more casual labour. We are not. I think my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has presented a reasonable case, and the Government having produced the same argument twice are now producing another argument which is still shaky and doubtful.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to Clause 6(2)(a). It sets out the objective of the Scheme. It reads:
"to securing stability of employment for dock workers and the creation and maintenance of a permanent labour force of a size and composition appropriate for the efficient performance of dock work;"
That is the object laid down in the Statute that the Secretary of State must aim at in preparing the Scheme. The levy has nothing to do with the rates of pay or manpower usage. They are matters for collective bargaining and are outside the Bill.
So far as the levy is concerned, I am prepared to defend that, as I did on Second Reading. The levy for the administration of the Scheme, for training and welfare, for pensions and for severance pay or redundancy, whatever you wish to call it, is 11 per cent. in total. That is not high. I was able to show that it compared favourably, for example, with the chemical industry. I would not regard that as a heavy charge on the employer. The employer is already doing some of these things obligatorily under the State Schemes. For example, he is making redundancy contributions. He will be relieved of those if instead he is paying towards the Dock Labour Scheme. I do not think that the levy is a matter which is going to make any real difference.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is consistently missing the point. The question is not whether the terms and conditions are more favourable or not; the question is simply whether in considering whether the work should he classified the Board should take into account productivity and the difference that is likely to be made in that respect by classification. That is all that this Amendment provides for. It seems to me absurd to say that they should not take it into consideration. However great

63 the advantage may be in one way or another, the possible disadvantages (or it might be advantages) from the point of view of productivity ought to be taken into consideration. I cannot see how the Government can resist this. It seems to me so obvious and so fundamental in making changes of this kind. For Heaven's sake! let us know what we are doing when we are making changes of this kind. That is all I ask, and I think the noble Lord should concede this.
We have done our best to find a formula which will get away from the difficulties that were made in the past about the problems for the Board of calculating the costs. Productivity is not a difficult thing to calculate. It is already in the Bill that they have to consider whether the efficiency of doing other work is likely to be adversely affected. We are asking here about the efficiency of the work in question. Surely that too should be considered. I cannot see any argument against it whatsoever.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, may I venture to disagree a little with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn? He says that productivity is an easy thing to calculate. In fact, in this industry it is extremely difficult to calculate because there are so many different things involved. Apart from that, what he is asking should be calculated is the productivity of some future arrangement which has not yet started to operate. I do not see how you can calculate that when all that you will have are assurances from trade unions that this or that will be done and from employers that this or that will be done. You will never be able to measure the productivity until you see what actually happens.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 12 [Registration after work is classified]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 14, line 39, leave out ("(which shall be a minimum of 2 years)") and insert ("(not to be more than 2 years)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18. I have to say that when we last discussed this on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, put forward one view and I another. He asked me to reflect on it. I have done so and I have to say that he was right and I was wrong. This Amendment restores the Bill to what it was before the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Descriptions of work which may, and those which may not, be classified as dock work]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
Page 28, line 7, leave out ("dock labour scheme") and insert ("definable dock").
Page 28, line 28, leave out ("dock labour scheme") and insert ("definable dock").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are consequential Amendments. With the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
5. 48 p. m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 28, line 46, at end insert—
("18. The work of persons wholly or mainly engaged in the storage of perishable foodstuffs under controlled temperature conditions, except—

(a) where such goods are discharged directly from a ship into a cold store or onto the quayside adjacent to a cold store, and where by custom and practice the handling of such goods has been dock work; or

(b) where a cold store or other premises for the storage of foodstuffs under temperature controlled conditions is or is to be established within a dock labour scheme area as an integral part of the cargo handling operation.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21. I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, because at Report stage on a similar Amendment I undertook to look at his remarks and if necessary modify my Amendment in tabling it; but for the reasons explained by my noble friend Lord Sandford earlier, the particular section of the Official Report which

65
included the debate on this issue was not available at the latest date by which we have to table our Amendments. After seeking advice outside the House, I decided that the best course of action was to table the Amendment at the Report stage.
I have now had the opportunity of reading the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, at that stage which appear in col. 1607 of the Official Report. Regarding Lord Jacques's comments on exception (a), as I see it the answer is in the quay and the Amendment seems to make this clear. Regarding the noble Lord's comments in col. 1608 of the Official Report on exception (b) he misses out the significance of "integral". In his reference to the cargo handling zone, he gives point to the paramount need—I stress this— not to revert to that mistaken concept. If one forgets the cargo handling zone and one takes due account of the phrase, "as an integral part of the cargo handling operation", exception (b) seems clear.
Having dealt with the points that I said at Report stage I would bring forward, I should like briefly to make only two points to emphasise the need for this Amendment. I do not wish to repeat all the arguments made by myself and my noble friends in earlier stages of this Bill, but to limit myself to making two specific points. First, it seems to me that cold stores have unfortunately become a particular target for the dock workers. Perhaps this is because of their association with containers and because of the particular events in 1972 touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, on the fourth day of the Committee stage, at col. 382 and again on the second day of the Report stage at col. 1608 of the Official Report. It seems that, because the cold stores have become a particular target and entered what I called in an earlier speech the mythological area of this discussion, their position is treated in almost paranoic terms, and not always entirely rationally.
We on these Benches accept that, in relation to the exceptions (a) and (b) in the Amendment, it is reasonable for dock workers to extend their work into cold stores at the dockside, but we suggest most strongly that it is not reasonable for them to do this as a generality. This
66
view has been endorsed by many trade union members who have telephoned from outside, and this day a workers' convenor from Leeds telephoned in to say how important he thinks it is that there should be no arrangement by which dock work jobs can be extended to his part of the world.
At this moment in time, registered dock workers are working in only six cold stores out of the 184 operating in this country and there is no good practical reason why this should be extended beyond the terms of the Amendment. Work in cold stores away from the docks, which is being done by other types of worker, has no connection with the main historical task of dock workers, the loading and unloading of ships. If there had been such a connection, there would be an argument for dock workers to claim a right to pack all the packaging cases and fill all the sacks throughout the land, which they will eventually handle. That is plainly nonsense.
We all have to accept that as conditions change, jobs do as well. Why should a particular group of workers get guarantees in a totally different environment? It was, for example, never suggested, at the time of the Beeching cuts in branch railway lines, that railwaymen should have an automatic right to drive the buses that replaced the trains in country districts.
My second point relates to the question of a split labour force. Because of their history and the nature of their main work, dock workers treat jobs differently from all other groups of workers. It is indeed often the case that groups of persons with a specialised task have their own particular attitude to their work and, in general, we all accept and indeed usually respect this. A seaman, for example, will see life differently from, say, a Bishop—except possibly in the case of my noble friend Lord Sandford. What is undesirable, both in the interest of cohesive management and of the contentment of the work force generally, is to import tightly organised persons with strongly held ideas, which may be alien, into a hitherto smooth running organisation. Dock workers unfortunately have acquired a reputation for neither integrating with the existing work force nor adapting themselves to the existing situation. This often leads to excess manning to do work

67
which dock workers reasonably could, to the detriment of efficiency and costs, and to demarcation disputes to the detriment of the interests of other workers. This, from what I have discovered from talking to people, is what other workers fear more than anything else. They fear the introduction of this alien attitude into an otherwise reasonably contented work force.
We are all agreed that the overriding need of the country is for conditions to be established for harmonious labour relations. There is no difference of opinion anywhere in this House on that. It seems that the Government say that good labour relations can only be established if we give the dock workers all the opportunities they wish to press as a group for the maximum extension of a right to take on work of the types listed in Part I of Schedule 3 in cold stores wherever they are. We say this is not reasonable and indeed it is unfair to other workers, unless the cold stores are at the dockside or are an integral part of the cargo handling operation, and hence that the Government solution will lead to worse labour relations, not better. Continuing harmony is rarely established by giving into sectional pressure groups. Thus, my Lords, I ask you most emphatically to support me and my noble colleagues in this Amendment. I beg to move.
5. 58 p. m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I beg to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend, Lord Mottistone. In the debates on the issue of cold stores, we have never had an answer from the Government in relation to the division between home produced goods that may equally be held under controlled conditions, and goods which are imported. With the enormous development of the use of frozen foods, cold storage and fresh foods, we find ourselves in the position that there must be many of these units where a substantial proportion of their goods are produced in this country which never, under any classification, would be cargo. Are we to have two sets of employers with the rigidity that some will deal with the imported goods and others will deal with the home produced goods with undoubtedly increases in costs? Then of course if there have to be redundancies
68
those will not fall on those under the registered scheme, but on those belonging to other unions.
We are entitled to know what proportion of these new, very large and very vital centres throughout the country are handling exclusively imported goods. Will the Government not look again at the very realistic Amendment put forward by my noble friend which seeks to give genuine cargo handling to those who traditionally have done it in the immediate vicinity of the docks, and take a realistic view of this tremendously expanded new and different industry where it is inland? In our view it should not be treated to be taken over by registered dock labour as of right.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I think he has done everything possible to meet the objections raised by the Government at all stages. I find more and more confusing the arguments raised by the Government in reply to what I regard as a very reasonable and, above all, very practical proposal put forward by my noble friend. During the course of our concluding debate on Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, made allusions to how the Government hoped to achieve some peaceful means of settling disputes with dockers in the warehouses and cold stores that we are discussing. One thing that he, and indeed, no other member of the Government, has been able to explain is why the Government are dealing with dock workers alone and thus causing unnecessary grievances on the part of other workers at the cold stores. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that cold stores are miles and miles inland and have nothing to do with cargo, and they do have these worries and grievances.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, surely the noble Lord will appreciate that we are concerned about dock workers only in those cases where the operation has been moved from the dock side but is still within the cargo-handling zone. It is work which was dockers' work, and until someone deals with that problem there will continue to be bad industrial relations.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I had not finished: I was coming to that point. Just a little patience might have covered

69
this point. I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates, along with other people, that cold stores are different from port-side warehouses, cargo sheds and the like because cold stores have mostly grown up since 1957 and there is increasing flexibility of labour and especially of the equipment which is needed to use that labour most economically and to achieve the greatest productivity. During the Report stage the noble Lord replied to a question regarding vacancies arising at a cold store which was operating a closed shop agreement. The noble Lord went so far as to say that this closed shop agreement could be modified between trade unions.
I am sure the noble Lord meant well; and he went on to say that there was a Committee, operating under the aegis of the TUC, which had been so far very successful in settling inter-union disputes. I believe we shall have to give them prayers and wish them good luck and benevolence all the way if what the noble Lord has said should come to pass, because if he really believes that a closed shop can be "modified" at the behest of one union, what can he say to the existing workers in cold stores inland? Let us not forget—this, I think, will go some way towards replying to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques—that under the Bill as it was originally worded these cold stores were classifiable at the wish of the Secretary of State. It is for that reason that I support my noble friend Lord Mottistone most strongly.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, first, in order to strengthen what I said about industrial relations. I have here a report from a panel of investigation into
"The current difficulties affecting the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Dagenham Cold Storage and associated companies"
That investigation arose entirely out of the kind of problem I mentioned, and it is that which we are trying to avoid. To turn to technicalities, in our opinion, the wording of the exceptions seems technically inadequate to achieve the intentions of the noble Lord. On exception (a), because of the uncertainty as to whether such work was to have been dock work by custom and practice, the noble Lord has satisfied himself. We say it is not clear as to where it was done, whether it was at the quayside or at the port generally. The noble Lord has said that he
70
is satisfied that it means the quayside. As to exception (b), we do not think it is clear, because in Part I of Schedule 3, even though a cold store was away from the dockside it would still have to be regarded as an integral part of the cargo-handling operations. The definition of "cargo" in paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 applies to both Part I and Part II of that Schedule.
More importantly, we oppose this Amendment as a matter of policy. The Government consider that it must be possible to consider the classification of work in third party cold stores away from the immediate dock area. It has been the movement of such cold stores away from the docks and the refusal to employ registered dock workers in the new location that has been responsible for many of the industrial relations problems in the docks. It was also very largely responsible for the strikes we had in 1970, 1972 and 1975. I might add that the 1975 strike was referred to ACAS, and their recommendation to the Government was clear: the Government should proceed as soon as practicable. That was the advice given by ACAS to the Government and that is exactly what we are doing by means of this Bill.
The noble Baroness raised the question of having regard to the places where there were home-produced goods. I think I am right in saying that the Bill in its original state said that the Board, in considering any recommendation, must have regard for the proportions. I think I am also right in saying that since then the Opposition have carried an Amendment which says the Board cannot consider classification where the proportion is less than a half. The noble Baroness also raised the question of redundancies. As I pointed out earlier today, the protection of existing workers is so great in this Bill that of the 200 Amendments not one has been made to give further protection to the workers because everybody believes they were adequately protected. If they do not believe that I would say to them: "Move your Amendments: you have had plenty of opportunities." But the Bill goes as far as it is possible to go to protect existing workers, and that is why nothing has been done.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way?

71
How can he say that none of our Amendments has been put for the purpose of protecting workers, when Amendment after Amendment has tried to see that work either in small ports or in these cold stores is done by people who currently belong to other unions? The whole purpose of the Amendments has been to protect those very workers. I really cannot see how the noble Lord can allege that we have moved no Amendments to protect any classification of worker.
Lord JACQUES: To protect existing workers, my Lords: you are concerned with protecting existing workers. In the Bill, we protect existing workers, and that protection is so good that not a single one of the Amendments produced by the Opposition has been put forward to improve that protection. Not a single Amendment has been made to improve that, because the protection was adequate when the Bill came to the House and I challenge anybody to deny that. What I am saying is fact. There has not been a single Amendment to improve the protection of existing workers, because that protection was already adequate. Therefore, it seems strange that it should be thought that, if there were redundancies, it would be the existing workers who would be redundant and not the dock workers. The safeguards in the Bill against that are perfectly adequate and they have not been the subject of Amendments to improve them.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the safeguards are perfectly adequate, but they have to be proposed by the Board. We do not know what they are. We cannot very well argue about whether they are adequate, until they have been proposed by the Board.
6. 10 p. m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that is not so. The safeguards are not all made by the Board. The safeguards are that they can continue to work, or they can be put on an extension register, and if they do not go on to any register at all they can be left to do their job without any interference. There is adequate protection in the Bill. If the protection was not adequate, noble
72
Lords would have been moving Amendments to give protection. They cannot have it both ways.
May I deal with the trade union points which were raised both tonight and on Report? During the Report stage in discussions on this Amendment, and again tonight, both the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, expressed special concern about the position of existing trade unions and, in particular, about what would happen when a vacancy occurred and the job had to be offered in the first instance to a registered dock worker, when there was a closed shop at the premises for one union and all the registered workers available were members of another union. This is a matter which needs to be considered before any decision is taken as to the classification of the work. There is full opportunity under the procedures for all the parties concerned to express any worries which they have on such matters. Clause 9(6) requires the Board to consider industrial relations questions, while paragraph 13 of Schedule 4 especially provides for a reference to the ACAS by the Secretary of State. The Bill specifically prevents the Scheme from interfering in any way with collective bargaining arrangements, or the membership or non-membership of a union. The TUC supports the Bill, and if there were differences between unions the Bridlington procedures, which have worked well, would in our opinion be relevant.
My case rests mainly on the question of policy, on the need for cold stores which have moved away from the docks, but which are within the cargo handling zone, to be classifiable—not to be classified but to be classifiable—and for the option to be there for it to be considered. It is by this means that we are providing proper, peaceful machinery for settling disputes. That is what we want to do, and that is why I said earlier that if noble Lords will not accept this peaceful method, they will be leaving the dockers to do what they can within the law, including all the picketing.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to paragraph 8 of Schedule 3, which includes the definition of "cargo". Looking at paragraph 8(c), would I be right in thinking that when cold store goods start from a ship and are handed over by the stevedore to an agent of the

73
receiver, who then takes them to a cold store four or five miles away—such as the Dagenham cold store—by the time they arrive at that store they have ceased to be cargo?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I believe that that is in consequence of an Opposition Amendment, so that the question ought to be addressed to them.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, the answer is, Yes. But that is not what I rose to say. I merely wanted to respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said about the action which we have taken to protect the interests which feel affected by this Bill. If the noble Lord and his friends are saying that there are no work-people or trades unions who do not feel threatened by this Bill, it means that his Party have lost touch with the union movement to an extent which I can hardly believe.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I did not say that,
Lord SANDFORD: But, my Lords, the noble Lord did say that we have done nothing to protect the interests of people affected by this Bill. I just confine myself to what we have done to Schedule 3. We have moved Amendment No. 58C on Report, we have moved Amendment No. 88 on Report, we have moved Amendment No. 92 in Committee, we have moved Amendment No. 62 on Report, we have inserted Amendment No. 63, with the agreement of the Government, which deals with protecting the interests of lorry drivers vis-a-vis dockers within the Transport and General Workers' Union, we have moved Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 on behalf of the riggers' association of the seamen, and the boiler-makers on behalf of the shipwrights, and we are about, I hope, to move an Amendment on behalf of two other unions whose members work in the cold stores. So that it is quite untrue to say that we have not taken any action to protect the interests of people who feel threatened by this Bill.
In addition to that, we have tried to ensure, by the new clause which we put in concerning appeals, and by the several Amendments which we put in concerning public inquiries, that where people's interests are affected by proposals and
74
processes under this Bill the issues will be handled in public in the from of a public inquiry, and disputes can be referred by the Secretary of State to appeals machinery. I should have thought that that acquitted us of any inaction on behalf of the large number of interests who feel threatened by the Bill.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would say that the noble Lord is talking about an entirely different matter, because that happens to suit his argument. What was under discussion was whether people already doing the work could be ousted by dockers or made redundant, and I said that the protection of existing workers was so good that no Opposition Amendment had been moved to improve that protection. I was absolutely right, because there has been no such Amendment. The noble Lord is dealing with other issues.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that if we had tried to introduce Amendments to ensure and solidify the rights of lorry drivers, we should have been told that they were out of order on the Dock Work Regulation Bill?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I cannot understand why the noble Baroness uses that argument, because the Opposition moved an Amendment not to protect lorry drivers against loss of their jobs, but to protect those who were driving their vehicles into the docks, and we accepted it. So I cannot see how the noble Baroness can say that an Amendment would not have been considered, because one has been moved and accepted.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I do not think we want to waste too much time on what we have or have not done, but I think that when the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, reads the Report of our discussions he will find that he has been batting away on the wrong wicket, and that he has been grossly exaggerating. I hope that he has not misled the House. There are two main issues. One is the question of the wording of the Amendment which might have been better handled if the Government had given us more time between the second day of Report and today.

75
But it seems from what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said, and from what I said, that it is a matter of opinion as to whether or not the wording is absolutely perfect, and I accept that it might not be. However, I am sure that it conveys the main sense of what we want to convey, which is that dock workers should be entitled to consider jobs in cold stores for classification, if the cold stores are closely associated with where the dockers traditionally work. The main issue between us is whether it is reasonable for the dock workers to say that they should be given the right for their jobs to be classified within cold stores that are remote from the sea front and have only a very tenuous connection—I would say no connection —with the main work that dock workers have always done throughout the centuries.
We cannot pursue the argument because it is a matter of opinion. People will say
one thing on the one side and something else on the other. But above everything this is a matter which, we now find, is so close to the heart of so many trade union members who work in cold stores all over the country, quite apart from the concern of employers in those cold stores who fear greatly the split labour force and the inefficiencies which are invariably introduced by the introduction of dock workers into their stores, that it is our duty as a House to give the other place a chance—whether they ever give themselves time to do so is another matter— to consider it. Therefore, I beg to move.
6. 21 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 77.

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Ebbisham, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Airedale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Onslow, E.

Amherst, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Amory, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Pender, L.

Ampthill, L.

Faithfill, B.

Penrhyn, L.

Amulree, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Atholl, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Auckland, L.

Gainford, L.

Reay, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gisborough, L.

Redesdale, L.

Banks, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Robbins, L.

Barrington, V.

Gowrie, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenway, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Belstead, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Davids, V.

Berkeley, B.

Harcourt, V.

St. Just, L.

Boothby, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sandford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hawke, L.

Sandys, L. ([Teller]

Broadbridge, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Savile, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Seear, B.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Seebohm, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sharpies, B.

Byers, L.

Kemsley, V.

Simon, V.

Caccia, L.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Campbell, of Croy L.

Kinnaird, L.

Stamp, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Carrington, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, F.

Swansea, L.

Chalfont, L.

Long, V.

Tenby, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Clwyd, L.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

Coleraine, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mancroft, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Marley, L.

Vickers, B.

Craigavon, V.

Mersey, V.

Vivian, L.

Cross, V.

Monck, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monson, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Daventry, V.

Morris, L.

Wardington, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Mottistone, L.

Winstanley, L.

Derwent, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Wolverton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Newall, L.

Young, B.

Dudley, E.

Northchurch, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Northfield, L.

Ardwick, L.

Grantchester, L.

Oram, L.

Aylestone, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pannell, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Peddie, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Phillips, B.

Blyton, L.

Jacobson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Bowden, L.

Jacques, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brimelow, L.

Janner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brockway, L.

Kagan, L.

Segal, L.

Brown, L.

Kaldor, L.

Serota, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kennet, L.

Shepherd, L.

Castle, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Shinwell, L.

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Slater, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller]

Cudlipp, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Longford, E.

Vaizey, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

McCluskey, L.

Walston, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fletcher, L.

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller]

Gardiner, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Schedule 4 [Procedure for recommendation unders. 8]:
6. 30 p. m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 30, line 37, leave out ("18th September 1967") and insert ("3rd December 1975").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22. Here, at any rate, is an Amendment to protect the workers.
What we are talking about is the classification of work as dock work on the recommendation of the Board under Clause 9 and Schedule 4. It is provided that the Board may consider proposals for a recommendation with regard to work which comes within Clause 9, and in particular subsection (5), which we have just amended. Paragraph 8 of the Schedule provides that the Board shall not proceed further with consideration of these proposals if a qualified independent trade union which has entered into a recognition agreement in respect of the premises concerned before 18th September 1967 objects to the classification. The agreement must have continued in operation from the date of its conclusion to the time when the trade union objects. It should be noted in passing that this power to veto classification is conferred
78
by the Bill only on the trade union and not on the other party to the agreement, the employer, though the employer is allowed, I understand from the Bill, the right to make representations. We do not object to that in this case.
It follows that the right of veto applies only in respect of agreements entered into some nine years or more ago—what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, calls a long-established agreement. The validity of agreements, I should have thought, however, does not normally depend on the length of time they have been in operation. Indeed, the more recently an agreement has been made, the stronger, if anything, is its claim not to be interfered with, since circumstances are less likely to have changed in the meantime.
My Lords, this Amendment which we are now moving replaces the date 18th September 1967 by the date 3rd December 1975, which was—I have looked up and established—the date on which this Bill was introduced into the Commons. An Amendment of this sort was discussed both in Committee and on Report. It was not possible to reach a conclusion, because we received no advice or assistance on the appropriate date, given that, as we had made clear, the date in the Bill was quite unacceptable to my noble friends and myself. We invited the noble Lord to suggest another date if he thought it more appropriate.
The point I made on Report was that recognition agreements freely and lawfully entered into—indeed such agreements have been encouraged by the Government—ought not to be over-ridden by any Minister of the Crown for entirely extraneous reasons. If, however, the agreements were entered into in order to avoid the effects of intended legislation of which the parties to the agreement had had notice, it would not be wholly unprecedented to provide that immunity from interference would only apply to agreements entered into after the date on which the parties would be presumed to have had notice of the intended form of the legislation. It seems to me that perhaps for that reason the 3rd December 1975, the date on which the Bill was introduced into the House, would be a more appropriate date than the 10th February, which was the date when it was first discussed in the House of Commons.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has claimed that acceptance of this Amendment would frustrate a principle of the Bill. The implication is that one of the principles of the Bill is precisely to override agreements—not, if I may say so, a very respectable principle. I would not, of course, go so far as to say that agreements should never be overridden—even recognition agreements—by legislation, but they should surely be overridden by legislation only when the agreements are not and never have been in the national interest, even though lawful at the time. I would submit to your Lordships that this could rarely, if ever, be argued in the sort of case likely to arise under this Schedule.
Once the whole or part of the work done on particular premises was classified, then to that extent the employer would be bound by the rules to be made under the new dock labour scheme, with all its provisions, including allocation of dock workers, redundancy, dismissal and so on; the recognition situation would be bound to change in time, probably quite quickly. In particular the implications for good industrial relations would be very serious, especially with only part of the work done on the premises being classified. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has maintained in effect that work which was once done by registered dockers and which has been replaced by work of a different
80
character ought to be returned to registered dock workers; and if the Secretary of State so decides, those who are now doing the work should become registered dock workers, possibly via the extension register, whether or not that is what the workers concerned want. This is what he is arguing for. The noble Lord has said the Bill provides a sensible means of seeking the best solution to difficulties which have arisen through changes in the nature and location of dock work in recent years.
The difficulties that have arisen, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone has been pointing out, are difficulties that have always arisen whenever technological change has taken place. Of course, those who suffer from such change are bound to resent and resist it. The Luddites resisted, as my noble friend said; the railwaymen protested as freight went from the railways to the road, the miners protested as coal was replaced by oil, gas and nuclear power. Of course, new processes can replace the old on the same premises, with the same employer and the same workers, in some circumstances, given careful planning and good industrial relations and a favourable competitive situation. But that is not what has happened in the case of the changes we are considering. We have to look at things as they are and not as they might have been. We simply cannot turn the clock back.
I ask this: Are we in this Bill to establish the principle that wherever technological change takes place, the workers in the old processes should always operate the new processes? Is that the principle the Bill is seeking to establish? Or is the so-called principle which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, says this Amendment would frustrate a special case in circumstances where, as the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has said today, pressure is being brought to bear on the Government by powerful interests which find their privileges and their monopoly threatened?
If it is intended that in all cases the workers who have been doing the whole process should do the new process, it is wholly impracticable as a principle. The world simply cannot stand still until workers in the old processes are trained to do the work in the new processes. This would not be possible even if this country were halted in its tracks. It is quite

81
unfair both to the employers who have had the initiative and enterprise to start up new processes and to the workers whom they have employed and trained to operate them that the industrial structure that they have together created should be replaced, or overlaid, as they are bound to be in the long run —and I have already argued this this afternoon —by terms and conditions of employment prevailing in organisations operating the old processes.
Where recognitions were already in existence before the Bill was printed and introduced in Parliament, the workers should be permitted, through their trade unions, to prevent classification if they do not want it. We have heard much talk about industrial participation and industrial democracy. Are the wishes of the existing workers not to he followed merely because the Government think it right to ignore them? There can be no possible justification for restricting the right of veto to those trade unions which entered into recognition agreements before September 1967, which was before the technological changes of containerisation, roll-on, roll-off, and the rest came to fruition. The operative date should be 3rd December 1975. I beg to move.
6. 42 p. m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the objections to this Amendment have been fully deployed both in Committee and at Report stage. The Government are convinced that its effect would be to frustrate a principal objective of the Bill, which is to make possible consideration of the classification of work which was done under the 1967 Scheme but has subsequently been transferred outside the port area and undertaken by unregistered workers. It would not be consistent with this objective to give the automatic right of veto as the Amendment proposes in respect of such work, and thus preclude thorough examination by the Board to determine whether it would be sensible in all the circumstances to recommend classification. The veto provision was made solely to ensure that long established warehousing, storage, packaging and cold storage Operations not related to work transferred from the docks and which are not connected with port operations should not be classified as dock work and therefore not subject to the Scheme.
82
The question was raised in Committee as to the extent to which the new techniques which have been developed in recent years have been in substitution for dock work. Without a detailed examination of the particular work and circumstances no meaningful assessment can be made. It is therefore all the more important that the Board should not be precluded by the veto from making a thorough examination of such work so that they may make an informed assessment under Clause 9(6). The fact that the right of veto is not accorded to a trade union, not recognised continually since 18th September 1976, has and will have, no effect on its recognition agreement or collective agreement in respect of terms and conditions of employment with an employer. It is again emphasised that the principles of the Bill as drafted have the support of the TUC Transport Committee and there has been so suggestion from that source that the Bill should be amended as the Opposition proposes.
Finally, I should point out that this Amendment is, in the present state of the Bill, quite superfluous, because under Schedule 3, paragraph 11, as added at Report stage, the agreement of both employers and unions is required before work can be classified whenever there is a collective agreement, irrespective of its date. I would suggest that you should rest upon the Amendment you have got through at the Report stage and not duplicate it at this stage.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to support this Amendment. In attempting to deal with perhaps a few particular cases the Government, in drafting this Bill, have thrown their net very wide indeed. The only unions which are in a position to comment on a proposal for classification, it is said here, must be subject to a recognition agreement since September 1967. That is over nine years ago. Surely in many premises where work of this kind is going on the work was started after that. It might have been started in January 1968. That is again nearly nine years. Are we saying that if an employer and his employees formed a collective agreement in 1968, that it can he overthrown because it was not created in 1967 when perhaps the premises had not even been built?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, we have not mentioned anything being overthrown. We have just said they cannot get a right of veto.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, why should the trade union which has been working for all this long time not have the same right as one that has been working a few months longer? I do not understand any magic in the date of September 1967.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that was the date when the 1967 Scheme came into operation.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I am obliged. That establishes what the date was, but what its relevance is I cannot see. It is perfectly reasonable for any business which has been created since 1967 up to the time of the Bill being introduced for the employers to be entitled to make a collective agreement, and for that collective agreement to continue. The noble Lord says that this can still continue, but the work can be classified. I think that is the noble Lord's argument. But does he say that the classification of the work makes no difference at all? My noble friend Lord Wigoder, who put his name to the Amendment, asked that question at an early stage at Second Reading, and asked whether it was a fact that people would not be affected at all by classification. I do not recollect that the answer was entirely satisfactory.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I cannot answer that question unless I know what is meant by "people".
Viscount SIMON: The people working. We are in a dilemma here, and I am trying to understand this. Either the effect is that other people are going to be able to get this work or it has no effect at all. If it has no effect at all, what is the purpose of preventing people from keeping outside classification?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have replied to this question certainly twice, and probably three times. The people already doing the work are not affected in the sense that they would lose their job or be made redundant first. They are affected only in the sense that they could go on the extension register, and then on the main register and become registered dockers.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, what would happen if people did not want to become registered dockers? Or is it because of severance pay, and all the other special privileges the dockers have, that it is thought that all the people concerned will want to join them? Is that the case? Is it perhaps the case that this date has been selected because the thinking was, "Well, an awful lot of cold stores have been built in the last 10 years. We have had a lot of roads built. Dockers' jobs have disappeared out of all recognition in that time. We must be rather careful how we handle it. Let us think of a suitable date", and 1967 comes up as being a date for which you can find some justification. It seems to me that it is rather like that, and not a good fundamental reason. I strongly suggest to my noble friends that it is much better to have a date with a good fundamental reason; for example, the date from which the Bill started to be considered seriously I therefore hope that my noble friend will press the Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN:My Lords, we have gone over this ground a good deal and a similar Amendment was moved in the other place and carried with a very small majority. In view of the Amendments that have been made to the Bill, it is right that we should send this Amendment on for further consideration. It is especially right when one bears in mind that it is proposed that in some cases only part of the work should be classified, which would mean having in the same factory, warehouse, depot, cold store and so on, part of the workforce under one set of rules and part under another. That is totally unacceptable and is a prescription for industrial trouble.
I hope the House will feel that it is not right to attach too much importance to inter-union disputes or disputes between workforces at different premises. The important thing above all is to get good industrial relations within each set of premises. If good relations persist at present, it would be a great mistake to interfere with them in any way. Workers in premises where good relations exist should have the right to say through their trade unions, "No, we do not want classification". Remember, work may be considered for classification when it is work not only for export but for internal

85
trade. It would be the greatest mistake in cases of that sort to classify either the whole of the work, because that would give rise to trouble, or part of the work, which would give rise to even more trouble, and therefore this veto should be reconsidered in another place.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

6.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

O'Hagan, L.

Amory, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Onslow, E.

Ampthill, L.

Faithfull, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Amulree, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pender, L.

Atholl, D.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Auckland, L.

Gainford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Banks, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Reay, L.

Barrington, V.

Gowrie, E.

Redesdale, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenway, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Belstead, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Berkeley, B.

Harcourt, V.

St. Davids, V.

Blakenham, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Just, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandford, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Kemsley, V.

Savile, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Killearn, L.

seear, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Seebohm, L.

Caccia, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sharples, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Simon, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Long, V.

Somers, L.

Carrington, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stamp, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Strathspey, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tenby, V.

Coleraine, L.

Marley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Colville, of Culross, V.

Merrivale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mersey, V.

Vickers, B.

Craigavon, V.

Monck, V.

Vivian, L.

Cross, V.

Monson, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Daventry, V.

Morris, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Winstanley, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Nelson of Stafford. L.

Wolverton, L.

Dudley, E.

Newall, L.

Worcester, Bp.

Ebbisham, L.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

Ellenborough, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bernstein, L.

Hale, L.

Peddie, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Popplewell, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bowden, L.

Janner, L.

Segal, L.

Brimelow, L.

Kagan, L.

Serota, B.

Brockway, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brown, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B.

Castle, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Champion, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

McCluskey, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Maelor, L.

Vaizey, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Melchett, L

Wallace of Coslany L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Walston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Northfield, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gardiner, L.

Pannell, L.

7. 1 p. m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass. —(Lord Jacques.)
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, it is interesting that the noble Lord can find nothing to say in support of the Bill that now leaves us, but perhaps not surprising. I should like to spend a minute or two, first with some courtesies to thank my noble friends behind me for their exceeding hard work through all stages of the Bill, and to the two noble Lords opposite who have done their best to make something useful of the past two or three weeks in the very trying circumstances in which we have found ourselves. But after those courtesies, which are quite sincere, I must also be candid. Here we send on its way a Bill which is totally irrelevant to rectifying the parlous economic condition we are in and, in many respects, more than likely, even though we have improved it, to add to the cost of food coming in through the ports and to the selling prices and delays borne by exports going out through the ports.
We have a divisive and partisan Bill in nature greatly increasing and enlarging the rights and benefits of one powerful and favoured group of work people, as the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, said earlier, against a number of smaller unions, with more skilled men but less important politically to the Party opposite. We have a Bill which together with four or five others has been hustled through this House with a haste which has made it impossible to consider its details thoroughly or to properly consult with the interests outside, people whose numbers and whose concern has grown as they have realised what is about to be perpetrated.
It is true that there are references in the Bill to the Labour Manifesto indicating some support from the Party opposite. But, despite that, though today has been an exception, on average there have been no more than 45 Labour Peers supporting their Government in the Lobbies, out of the 150 who should be available to them. The last noble Lord opposite, with whom I discussed this Bill because I valued his experience and who was at one time distinguished general secretary of one of
88
the largest unions, many of whose members we know—even if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, does not—feel threatened with this Bill, said that he was leaving on a long sea cruise. And by now he has left.
But it is not just a matter of lack of support and disarray in the Party opposite. Their claims to govern were never very strong from the start. Those claims have got weaker and weaker as time went by and now, since last week, the last faltering confidence of the electorate in their present Government is seen to have snapped altogether. But, as the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal was saying, the Government are still there and we have to be content with our revising role.
In that respect I think we were heartened by the words of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal this afternoon when he stressed the importance, as he saw it, of this revising work that we have done on this Bill. He enumerated the Amendments which we have made and he went on to attach importance, as a senior member of the Cabinet, to the consideration that our changes will now receive in another place. But this same afternoon that same Government in another place have put the guillotine on all those Amendments. So what do we make of those remarks and assurances? All I can say is that we have done our best in the short time allowed to us to improve the Bill, to limit its worst effects, to give more emphasis to the public interest in the docks and, above all, to protect the interests of the work people who believe their livelihood to be threatened by this Bill and who show no sign whatever of being reassured by any of the reassurances that have been given so far.
Another place may well take a different view from us on some of the content and substance of the Bill. But I am certain it would be the view of all your Lordships, especially those who have taken an active part in discussing this Bill, that these Amendments, especially the last group to Schedule 3, the purpose of which has been to protect the interests of people who feel threatened by the Bill, should at least be carefully considered and discussed in another place if Parliament can ever deserve the confidence of the people it is supposed to protect.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said by expressing our thanks to the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite who have been extremely patient and courteous throughout difficult debates, sometimes putting us right. After all these weeks I still find this an extremely complicated Bill to understand and the noble Lords opposite have been very kind in putting us right when we were obviously wrong, sometimes putting us wrong when we thought we were right.
As regards the substance of the Bill, our views were expressed on Second Reading and are not in the least changed by what has been done. We have made some improvements and, if I thought some of them were going to stick, I would feel happier than I was when the Bill started its career in this House. I repeat what I said earlier to the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I hope the more important Amendments, and there are some of obviously great importance, will be given careful consideration in another place. I should like, because it is partly my own child, to recommend particularly that Amendment which removed from the scope of the Dock Labour Board the question of terms and conditions of employment. When I mentioned this aspect originally, I had very welcome support from the noble Lord, Lord Brown, whose judgment on these matters I always regard very highly. I hope that the Government will ask the Members of another place to look very carefully at that, and I hope they will not reinstate the Bill as it was.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I add my brief remarks in sending this Bill happily on its way—if that is a good phrase. I wish to add my thanks to the courtesy and good humour of the noble Lords opposite, Lord Jacques and Lord Oram, as we have battered them from time to time through the late hours. If it is in order, I also wish to thank and congratulate the shorthand writers and compilers of the Official Report, whom I feel in the Committee stage, which was more than we normally handle in this House, did a wonderful job, as indeed at all stages, but particularly then.
With regard to the Bill, there is much that I could say. Personally there is one point on which I entirely agree with the
90
noble Lord, Lord Jacques; namely, that the dock work regulations require updating and therefore a Bill is necessary. It seems to me that this Bill meets even now the main points which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, spelled out on Second Reading; to wit, the meeting of the ILO Convention No. 137. He specified that Clauses 2, 5 and 8 were the key ones which did this and we have scarcely amended those at all; indeed such Amendments as we have made to Clause 2 were in agreement with noble Lords opposite. The other point was that there should be some kind of equation between the terms and conditions of dock workers and white-collar workers, in relation to which, for some reason, the noble Lord said that this Bill was necessary, whereas it seems to me that the Employment Protection Act should be perfectly satisfactory. We had an interchange on this at one stage in Committee and I think that the noble Lord agreed that perhaps there are certain facets of the Employment Protection Act which would do but that the dockers wanted their own Bill. It would seem to me to be in character if that were so, but regrettable all the same.
The other point which the noble Lord made was that it was necessary for the Bill to cover an updating in the sense that it took account of all the previous Reports—Bristow, Aldington-Jones and so on. I would suspect that this has over-coloured the issue. Most importantly, I implore the Government—and certainly even recently it does not appear that they have very open minds on this point—not to be too wedded to the cargo-handling zone. It seems to me that the improvements we have made collectively in this House are improvements which make the Bill more palatable and more acceptable to people at this time. What the Government must do is avoid an updating which is more extensive in the direction of meeting the aspirations of the dock workers than the rest of us, expecially other workers, can accept.
All too frequently in recent years—and my own Party has not been blameless in this respect—legislation affecting human relations has gone further and faster than ordinary people can adjust to it. There are facets in the race relations legislation and the equal opportunities legislation—just to pick out a couple of examples—which are really disturbing people, and it

91
does not matter that their disturbance may be unfounded; it does not matter that it may be misplaced. They are disturbed, and more than a certain amount of disturbance is not only bad for the country as a whole but is making life intolerable to live for various groups of people. The Government must not be in such a hurry to push us all in directions which a relatively small number of people think are theoretically good for us. Even if such people are right—and many of us have grave doubts about that—they will not achieve their aims by pressing ahead too fast, but will merely cause disquiet and unrest.
So I believe that the Bill is about as good as it can be. I think perhaps that it goes a little too fast, certainly it does not go too slowly, in the direction of making the adjustments, which the noble Lords opposite quite genuinely and rightly want, to update the dock work regulations. I absolutely implore the noble Lords, Lord Jacques and Lord Oram, with whom we have had so many discussions over these weeks and indeed months now, to try to convey to their friends in another place that they really must put out of their minds any sense of false pride. They must forget the politics; my noble friend Lord Sandford made clear what the situation was there—
Lord JACQUES:But he did not forget the politics.
Lord MOTTISTONE: No, that is right; he made clear what the situation was there. I want to put in my point on the grounds of common sense and common humanity. I honestly believe that it would be worth noble Lords opposite making real effort to persuade their friends in another place not to be carried away by their own dogma but to see this as a genuine attempt by people who have been spending a lot of time and hard work to try to get it right, in a situation in which politics has weighed far less than it does in another place. This should be seen as a genuine attempt to improve what is a difficult human relations situation, with as good an understanding as we can make it of the problems of the dockers and of the others. For Heavens' sake! let them pay attention and please make this move as I implore them to do.
7. 16 p. m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I should like to add briefly to the congratulations expressed by my noble friends to the noble Lords, Lord Jacques and Lord Oram. However, I feel that we started off badly by suggesting that dockers were a privileged group, and we end our consideration of the Bill with that position absolutely confirmed. In whatever way the Bill has been amended, there is one thing that it has not done; namely, to bring dockers within the framework of the law. Within the past three days on the South Coast an unofficial committee has dictated for the second time in 12 months what work will come into and what work will not come into a port. When that position pertains other groups of people can hardly be expected to take much heart from a Bill of this kind. The Bill, even as it has been amended, sets one group above another group. It does nothing to encourage greater endeavour, greater productivity in the dock industry, an industry which is so essential to our very survival.
It has been said, somewhat emotively, that the dockers can hold the country to ransom if they have this Bill. I do not believe that the Bill has anything to do with that. Any group can do this if they so have a mind. I believe that it is the Government's job—the Government of the day—to set conditions that are such that that threat should not be necessary. Too often it is the case that the Government have not encouraged the total and full use of our resources to a common end, and that is because of these divisive and restrictive practices which are built into Bills of this kind.
I believe that the Bill fails quite disastrously to reflect the general feeling of the country in so far as this Government's current programme of legislation is concerned. I think that whatever the other place may do to the Bill and whatever we may do when it returns, there will remain a mark against one particular industry, and this cannot be in our general interest.
Lord DRIJMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words as a kind of valedictory message for the Bill, to send it on its way. No doubt we shall see it again, at any rate in part. My

93
noble friend Lord Mottistone said he thought that the Bill was about as good as it could be. I cannot agree with that because I do not think that we have had enough discussion on it. The discussion at any rate has been compressed into too short a time. I believe that we could have done better with the Bill had we had more time to get to know what it really meant.
Let me say this. It is well known, I think, that when we are engaged on a Bill of this kind consultations go on behind the scenes. Such consultations have been utterly impossible in the case of this Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would have been as willing as anybody else to have had such consultations, but they just have not been possible in the time-scale. I must say that, in view of the fact that in many cases during the time we have been considering this Bill the first time the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, saw Amendments was on the very morning of the day on which they had to be discussed, they have done a very good job. Perhaps I may say this, too. We have Lord Jacques here, and I believe that this may well be one of the last Bills that he has to deal with in this House. I could have wished that the had had a Bill that could have produced more unanimity in this House; but, having said that, I must join with my noble friends on this side of the House in congratulating him on the way he has handled this Bill, and in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Oram, too. We are accustomed to the cheerfulness of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in dealing with these Bills, and to the kindness he shows. Lord Oram has not been with us quite so long, but he has been meticulous and extremely kind in the way that he has dealt with matters that have come along.
My Lords, there are just three or four points I think I want very quickly to make. Perhaps the major problem in this Bill has been the cargo-handling zone. The Amendments which were made rendered it impossible, because the rest was moved out of the Bill at the same time, to consider the power to extend the zone. I think we ought not to take leave of this Bill without saying that we would oppose very strongly that power to extend the zone, whatever it may be. One must reach finality somewhere, and, for heaven's sake!, once we have decided what the zone should be, let us leave it at that. The second
94
major change we have made is on the definition of "cargo"; and the third is on the whole subject of classification. These are extremely important changes, but there is one point to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention, and that is the structure of the Bill and the way in which trade union affairs are being dealt with under this Bill.
One has to look back to In Place of Strife to find any kind of parallel to the powers of the Secretary of State to decide trade union affairs. It is true, of course, that the Secretary of State has to make orders, that they have to be laid before the House and that they are subject to the annulment procedure except in the case of the new dock Scheme itself. But if the two Houses of Parliament are to consider each set of premises covered by an order then we shall have a positive torrent of orders and representations made to Members of either House, and it will be impossible for Members of either House to keep up with this torrent of orders. It may be that the Government will decide to combine a lot of work done in different premises in a single order, and will bring it along in that form. In that case the opposite will occur, of course, and it will be impossible on such a composite order to discuss the circumstances of the various premises concerned. We seem to be in a complete dilemma here. Either there will be a torrent of orders, when they will come so thick and fast that it will be impossible for either House to examine them, let alone to discuss them, or else they will be grouped together in such a form that we cannot have a meaningful discussion about them.
There is something structurally wrong with this Bill and the one thing I do not like about it is the tendency towards bureaucracy that it shows. For a long time the trade unions have argued that, subject to the general law, they should be left to run their own affairs. Here is a step in a totally different direction. I do not know whether or not the trade unions have taken this sufficiently on board, but I am sure they soon will do so if and when the Bill comes to be worked. My Lords, I thought it worth while to make these comments because these are things we have not had an opportunity to discuss, particularly the question of the extension of the zone and the general bureaucratic tendency which this Bill shows.
7. 26 p. m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, before we come to an end it might be in order for me to congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Jacques and Lord Oram, for the tireless way in which they have answered our questions and kept at it hour after hour, day after day. I think all of us admire them. Ever since I came to these Benches my own work and that of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, seem to have been inextricably linked. I seem to remember that together we have been over many small orders, measures and other things before. All of us on these Benches, particularly, will hope to see him in the future, but possibly not so late at night, and possibly able to enjoy his work here more than might have been the case. But perhaps I might also intervene at this late stage in the Bill's progress to consider one or two of the major points that we have dealt with during the two periods on Report stage and the four on Committee that we have had in the case of this Bill. They have been extremely long and tiring, but I hope worth while.
The first main factor we considered was the public interest, and in this matter we were particularly pleased that we had powerful support from the noble Lords, Lord Shinwell, Lord George-Brown and Lord Wigg. We were also particularly pleased that the Government were able to agree an Amendment that allowed this particular interest to be incorporated in the Bill. We also felt that we should like to link to the public interest the matter of public inquiries, and we are pleased that this is now in the Bill and will at least be able to be discussed and considered further in the other place. The second major point which has been covered by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend, Lord Drumalbyn, far more eloquently than I can is the matter of the cargo-handling zone. Of course, this has given rise to much uncertainty and confusion, but, nevertheless, we shall look forward to hearing what another place have to say about this concept.
We have also looked at costs and cost efficiency, and I am afraid that swords have been crossed at these Boxes and in the Lobbies. As to appeals against classification, we feel strongly about this matter. I am sure noble Lords opposite do and that the Government do as well.
96
However, this has been one of the major points on which we stuck in the case of this particular Bill, and we shall be very interested to see what has happened to this concept when the Bill returns from another place.
My Lords, we have spent long hours here and elsewhere in dealing with this thorny Bill, which, as so many noble Lords have pointed out this evening, and indeed before, is irrelevant and also, we believe, the cause of much worry and concern. We have had representations from employers' organizations. from whole groups and deputations from the entire workforce at ports and docks. Some answers we have had from the Government but regrettably some we have not. However, in all that we did we from these Benches, at least, sought to improve the Bill. Whether we did or not has to be left to the judgment of the other place and, indeed, of the Government. All the Amendments, we believe, ought to have been discussed, and certainly it is regrettable that already at this stage, before the Bill has left us, the guillotine has been trundled out at the other end of the corridor.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, may I just say to my noble friend that I hope it was a slipped word. I should not like to leave everything that has happened to the other place. In view of all the reactions we have had, I hope we retain some freedom to do something about it.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I would add my support to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I think this Bill will be on its way back, and that the next round of the contest will be on us sooner rather than later. We have sought to improve this Bill. We are most grateful to the Government and I should add a word of gratitude to my own Front Bench. I have been very much in the position of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, the junior partner. I have had three different partners for the doubles match on the Front Bench and I have been happy to receive instructions from all of them. I shall look forward to having many future contests with the noble Lord, Lord Oram. When this Bill is finally dealt with, we all hope that the noble Lord, Lord

97
Jacques, will be able to continue, possibly in a more restful vein.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.31 p. m. until 7.45 p. m.]

HEALTH SERVICES BILL
7.45 p. m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Stedman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIE in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Purpose of ss. 3 to 5.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord PLATT: Before we finally leave Clause 2, in the Committee stage at any rate, I would remind your Lordships that this is the important clause which really declares the intentions of the Bill. What I want to question are the really remarkable words—I am sorry to say so— of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, during the first day of the Committee stage; namely, on November 4th last and reported in the Hansard of that date in col. 1496 in which he said inter alia:
"We are not opposed to private medicine. I do not think we shall ever be opposed to private medicine, but what we say is that if people want it they must pay for it. It really is as simple as that."
Is it not a fact that private patients pay enormous sums to the hospitals for private beds and private attention and that, in addition, they pay their physicians' fees or their surgeons' fees? The sum which is charged nowadays can amount, I am told, on some occasions to £200 or £300 a week.
98
This is worked out on a basis which is supposed to be an economic basis of what it costs to keep such a person in hospital. If that basis is not right and they should be paying more, well, that can be put right without an Act of Parliament because it has been increased many times. So I do not understand the meaning of the words; "that if people want it they must pay for it". They are paying for it in full measure and they are paying their Health Service contributions in addition. I should like clarification on that point.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If the noble Lord had referred to my Second Reading speech he would have seen that I there dealt with the matter rather more fully. There is no question that people who require the services of consultants privately and who wish to have a pay bed do, in fact, pay the consultant. That has never been in dispute. They also pay whatever the National Health Service considers to be appropriate in respect of the bed they are occupying. What I was trying to make clear was in answer (if my memory is correct) to the suggestions which have been made, not explicitly but implicitly, in this House that this is the thin end of the wedge on the part of the Government to get shot of private medicine altogether. I have said on at least two occasions, and this will be the third, that that is not the Government's intention. The Government have no intention of doing away with private medicine. They have no plans—and when I say that they have no plans I do not wish to imply "no plans at the moment"—for getting rid of private medicine.
I think that my words on that occasion—and I am trusting entirely to memory— were that we believe in a mixed economy; we believe that there should be a place in our society for State intervention, State ownership and for private enterprise. All I was trying to say is that on the one side we shall have State enterprise which is the National Health Service and that, as I cited at the time about those people who have feelings about the educational field and who want to send their child or children to independent schools, people should have a right of choice and should have the right to pay. This is our philosophy so far as medicine is concerned.
Lord PLATT: Why should they not have that right in a National Health Service hospital? It seems totally irrelevant to the Bill. If the intentions of the Government are that they should pay for their treatment—and they are paying for it—I do not see that the Bill has any particular purpose.
Baroness YOUNG: I would support the noble Lord, Lord Platt. I think he has made a valuable point. I do not think anybody doubts the word of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, when he says that he certainly does not believe in the phasing out from the Health Service of private medicine. What I think is disturbing to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, to other doctors, to those of us on this side and indeed to a great many people in the country, is that an enormous number of undertakings were given at the inception of the National Health Service that it would be a partnership between the two; that doctors could practise and have their pay beds within the National Health Service. That undertaking is disappearing under the present Bill and people are doubtful of what credence can be put into guarantees that private medicine will be allowed to exist.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Is the noble Baroness really suggesting that things that were mentioned by her Party 30 years ago would hold good today? She knows very well that circumstances change with each decade. With each generation you have to look afresh at things. Her Party has done this time and time again. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I do not quarrel with it at all. I know that the difference between the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the Government is not going to be reconciled. We are wanting to separate private practice from the National Health Service because we believe that by having private practice within the National Health Service certain people get a measure of priority. In the National Health Service hospitals people are not given pay beds because of urgency. They are very often dealt with for social and personal reasons. Because they have the money to go to a consultant for a private bed they are taken over and above a long list of people who have been waiting for treatment for some considerable time.
Lord PLATT: There is a rhetorical device called the ignoratio elenchi, in which one side of the argument takes a long time to prove something which the other person never contested.
Lord SANDYS: We have had a debate on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill?, and I believe that this marks a stage in our discussions on the Bill. The Committee will be grateful to the noble Lord Lord Platt, for what he has said because it has crystallised the view expressed at Standing Committee. The right honourable friend of the noble Lord, Mr. Ennals, quoted what he said to the COHSE conference in the latter part of the summer. I quote:
"We are in the realm of a political debate. This Government was elected on a Manifesto calling for the phasing out of pay beds. We have introduced a Bill to do just that and the Conservatives are determined to block it if they can. "
That is a statement in the baldest possible terms.
When we look at Clause 2 we have an extraordinary incompatability of the two Parts of the Bill. When we addressed ourselves to our Amendment, we endeavoured to demonstrate to the Government that there was an incompatibility between subsection (1) and subsection (2). Subsection (1) states the Government's present policy and subsection (2) proposes to restate the rights of National Health Service part-time consultants. What the Government are giving with one hand, they are taking away with the other. We feel that Clause 2 is an unsatisfactory clause in that as a declaratory statement it says something which is both incompatible and difficult to appreciate. We have addressed ourselves to these Amendments. We consider that this clause would be very much better left out of the Bill and I think that we can leave it at that.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: We shall make a great deal of progress if the Opposition understands clearly that the purpose of this Bill is to separate private practice from the National Health Service based on what has come to be known as the Goodman proposals. It is all very well for the Opposition time and time again to pursue a policy of non-co-operation. We understand this. But they are repeating themselves and nothing can be done about the matter. I would

101
remind your Lordships that when the Goodman proposals were drafted they were sent by the British Medical Association to 12,200 consultants (and I may say the question posed was heavily weighted by the BMA) who asked whether the consultants would be prepared to see these proposals in the legislation or prefer to resign from the National Health Service. As I said on Second Reading, over 5,000 consultants did not bother to reply, so one is entitled to assume that they were not very stirred up about it.
Lord O'HAGAN: No!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Of course noble Lords opposite will not agree. If people are stirred up about something, presumably they will say so. I am not going to give way to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. I am sorry about this. If noble Lords want to waste time—I realise that this is part of their policy—we will find other ways of dealing with it.
Lord PLATT: Threat!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No, that is not a threat; that is a promise. However, 7, 039 consultants were in favour of embodying these proposals in legislation. Out of 12,200 consultants only 21 per cent. voted against the proposals. Can noble Lords opposite really say that the Government have failed to discharge honourably their undertaking to embody the Goodman proposals in the Bill? They know very well that the Government have acted honourably in this matter. They have included all the Goodman proposals in this Bill. We have done precisely what Goodman was able to arrange between the BMA, who spoke on behalf of the consultants, and the Government. What more can your Lordships want?
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Immediate duty of Secretary of State as regards withdrawal of NHS beds. from resident private patients]:
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): Before I call Amendment No. 10, I should point out that if it is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 11
8 p. m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 10:,
Page 3, line 1, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) Within 12 months after the passing of this Act the Board shall submit to the Secretary of State proposals for reducing, in the case of each Area Health Authority, Health Board and group of preserved Boards in Great Britain, the number of beds at NHS hospitals administered by that Authority, or by Boards within that group, authorised under section 1(1) of the 1968 Act to be made available to resident private patients, provided that the total number of beds proposed for such reduction shall not exceed 1,000.
(2)It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to give effect to the said proposal.")
The noble Baroness said: Perhaps might preface my remarks by saying that we shall make better progress on this Bill if we assume that both sides are acting in good faith. Some of us were disturbed that the Government did not see fit to put down any Amendments at all. The fact that we have gone through the Bill very thoroughly and put down a number of Amendments that we are concerned about should not be attributed to the desire to spin out proceedings on the Bill. We believe this is a very important matter which concerns a number of highly controversial issues.
If I may give my interpretation of what have come to be called the "Goodman Amendments", it is perfectly true that the Government are bound by those because, as I understand it, they were introduced to stop the doctors striking. But the House of Lords need not necessarily feel themselves bound by the Goodman Amendments. We are, after all, one of the Houses of Parliament and it is our job to look at legislation. This is the point, as I understand it, that came up last time. We were told that we could not move at all because of the Goodman Amendments and I said that the Government treated them rather like a Hebrew scholar looking at a Biblical text. There is a very good purpose for that kind of study and I should be the last to deny it; but legislation should not simply be considered in that way. Of course, the wording must be correct, but so must the principle.
The Amendment I am now moving has a very important principle behind it. Its purpose it to try to ensure that it will be the Board and not the Secretary of State which will be responsible for phasing

103
out the first 1,000 beds. We are by no means clear why it is the Secretary of State who has to do that and perhaps the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, will tell us why that is so. We have simply been given Schedule 2—to which we shall be turning later—with a list of those beds that are to be phased out. I. have discovered in conversation and from correspondence that an enormous amount of work is already being done on the 1,000 beds that are being phased out without, once again, waiting until Parliament has decided to pass the Bill before the whole thing is put into effect. Of course, the Government have given themselves an absurdly tight timetable on the phasing out and we shall be looking at that again in later Amendments. The fact is that it is very difficult for the Government to say they can phase out 1,000 beds in six months.
How can they foresee that the beds they have phased out or that they propose to phase out, are the right ones? How do they now that something may not happen? Let us suppose there is a terrible disaster; for example, a fire in some hospital. If the hospital is burned down, does that mean that the whole situation will have to stand or will alternative arrangements have to be made? In the case of a shifting population, will alternative arrangements also have to be made? All sorts of things can happen.
However, the most important reason for this Amendment is that if the Government believe, as I assume they do—and certainly it is my reading of the Goodman Amendments that that is the intention—that the Board should be the key to the success of the working of the private and the National Health Services, then it must be seen to have certain functions. It seems to me that in Clause 3 it would be right for the Board to be given the function of phasing out the first 1,000 beds, as proof on the part of the Government that they believe it should have the power and that if it has the power to phase out the remaining 3,500 beds it could perfectly well phase out the first 1,000. I hope the Government will feel able to accept this Amendment. It does not in any way damage the principle behind the Bill because everyone agrees that the first 1,000 beds shall be phased out, so they have the principle as it stands. But surely it is
104
more sensible for the Board to be responsible, and not the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
8. 5 p. m.
Lord HILL of LUTON: I am glad the noble Baroness emphasised the point that what we are considering are the Government's proposals and not the compromise put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I am getting a little weary of hearing the name of the noble Lord, for whom I have a great admiration, just as I have for Henry Kissinger—and they have something in common—but we are not here to bow the knee to the Gospel according to Saint Arnold; we are here to consider specific proposals on their merits. And what is the proposal that is contained in this clause? It is that from above, whether it be the Secretary of State or the Board, there is this decision that there has to be at the outset a reduction of a 1,000 beds, without considering whether that is the right figure or whether it will reduce the amount of private bed accommodation, to the worsening of public services.
It is an arbitrary decision from above; and I should like to know how that number was arrived at. Please do not say in reply that it was arrived at by the workings of the intricate mind of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. We are considering the public interest, or should be. What are the arguments in terms of the public interest for selecting this figure of 1,000 beds and then in Schedule 2 arbitrarily dividing it up between the various areas? It seems to me that we need to be convinced that that is the right figure. Perhaps it has been chosen for purely political reasons, following pressure by various trade unions. If that is so, then I hope the noble Lord, with his customary candour, will say so. Otherwise I hope he will explain to us why it is 1,000 and not 900, or why it is 1,000 and not 1,100, for we are considering provision for sick people, even though they are people who are willing to pay for privacy and private attention.
I suggest that although in the case of subsequent reductions criteria are to be applied, as laid down in the Bill—criteria of the adequacy of services and so on—in this case there is an arbitrary fixing of the figure of 1,000. I think this Chamber,

105
is entitled to know upon what human medical and social grounds that figure of 1, 000 was determined. Do not, please, tell us that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in his omniscience divined that figure. He was fixing things to avoid a strike. He was preparing a compromise, and very skilled he is at that business. But the fact that in his fixing he tries the figure of 1,000 does not prove that it is right, that it is in the public interest or that it is one we should support.
Lord PLATT: I do not want to intervene too often and I shall not repeat the arguments which have already been put so well by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Hill. But is it not very unusual for a Bill of this kind to contain, before we have had any time to discuss it, an actual list of all the hospitals it is proposed to close? Are we supposed to be taking each hospital into account if we pass this Bill? I suggest this is the wrong way to go about it.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I should like to support this Amendment because I have an extreme dislike of direction from the Secretary of State or other officers who are divorced both in position and influence from the grass roots, concerning things such as how many private beds are wanted in any given area or how many of the beds can be phased out in a given area. Such things must depend on the conditions where an arrangement is to be carried out.
I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that whether it is 1,000 beds, 800 beds or 900 beds, we do not know why the figure was chosen. It is just a figure which has been put forward. But what we ought to know about, and ought to be able to have some influence on, is the way in which this phasing out is to be done. It should not just be done by the Secretary of State, when boards are being appointed to supervise and run the scheme, and when it is said that they are the people who will do it. The people who will do it are those in Whitehall. That is all very well, but it is a long way away from the hospitals mentioned in the Bill in these different areas of the North of England, Scotland, West Wales and so on. The conditions are so very varied.
There is aleady a list in Schedule 2, stating the number of pay-beds that will be
106
withdrawn. Who suggested that? Was it the local people, was it the people in Cleveland, Cumbria, Durham, Northum-berland, Gateshead, et cetera, or was it the people in Whitehall? What we want to be certain about is that the operation of the Bill, which none of us likes, shall be as close to the hospitals, to the doctors, to the nurses and to the patients as it can possibly be, because the local conditions can be known only by the Board and its subsidiary companies running the different areas, and not by the Secretary of State. Therefore, I support this Amendment most wholeheartedly.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: I, too, should love to support this Amendment, but before I say why I should like to say something about the great play which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has made of this ballot that went out to all members of the medical profession, and of the fact that only 21 percent. voted against the Goodman proposals. I am very worried that unless we think about it very carefully, this matter will go by default. If you know that you are faced with a Bill of some kind, you will obviously accept the better part of it that you are offered, and the Goodman proposals enabled an enormous number of the medical profession to accept it as better than they originally hoped they would be offered. On the other hand, I cannot envisage an enormous proportion of the medical profession, with their dedication to looking after their patients, resigning from the National Health Service as an alternative. In my view, it was an unfair question to ask in the ballot and that was the fault of the BMA. So when we are talking about these figures we should keep that in our minds, because they do not create a fair picture of the medical profession.
On Second Reading, I appealed to the Government, now that we have a Royal Commission, to send this problem to them. It is for the same reason that I want to support this Amendment. We seem to be setting up bodies of various kinds, and then taking the decision-making out of their hands. We are setting up the Health Services Board in order for it to make sense out of the proposals, and I believe that in future we should avoid taking decisions for the bodies which we are setting up under the Bill. The

107 same arguments apply for the whole Bill vis-ù-vis the Royal Commission, and the 1, 000 beds vis-ù-vis the Health Services Board.
Baroness VICKERS: I, too, should like to support this very practical Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, may be interested to know that I have never been a patient in a pay-beds hospital, and the only time I went to hospital it was to the Middlesex Hospital where I was in a public ward. The noble Lord will re-member that we were talking about various aspects, and I thought I should like to learn for myself, and, therefore, I have some knowledge of the care that can be taken in a public ward. Also, of course, I have visited friends in private wards in order to see how they were treated. I have no complaint to make, but I understand that not everybody wishes to go into a public ward if they want privacy. Though I booked my bed some time ahead, I felt rather guilty that I was perhaps taking a bed that could have been used by somebody who could not afford to pay.
I think that this Amendment is very practical and worthy of consideration, because I should like to know how some of the decisions stated in Schedule 2 have been made. I have to take an area known to me, which is the County of Devon, which is now the biggest administrative area in the Kingdom, and Schedule 2 just states that 25 beds will be taken away from 70. There is no indication of where these will be taken from. This is very interesting, because Plymouth has by far the largest population of over 250,000, and it is also the catchment area for East Cornwall and North Devon. Then there is the Torbay area, where there are a great many elderly people. If there are to be no pay-beds for them, they will therefore fill as long-stay patients other beds which should be given to people who need them. In that area there are only four district hospitals, and we do not know whether the new one at Derriford will come to fruition and have any pay-beds. Furthermore, in the whole area there are only two small BUPA hospitals. It is also suggested that a hospital for women is to be closed, and we wish to know what is to happen in future.
108
In another place, it was said that the district administrators or the hospitals concerned have confirmed that they have resources available to use the beds for NHS patients. I am sure that the Minister does not want to be accused of having empty beds, rather than have them occupied by private patients. Also, many of the hospitals have private wings which are quite separate, and which makes administration very difficult. As the Minister will know, many of these beds are now serviced by agency nurses. Furthermore, I read in the newspapers that the North-West Thames Region will have to find annual savings of £2 million next year, and that is only one region. So I should have thought it was much better not to cut the number of pay-beds too quickly, because they will bring in some income. In the East Bucks district, there are 100 nurses who must be axed if staff levels are to be kept at the numbers which they can easily afford. Here, again, it will help if we have pay-beds. So one fears that because of these cuts the NHS patients will suffer, and already in some areas there are waiting lists of three years for minor operations, while in one area of which I know there is a waiting list of six years.
It is stated by the Royal College of Nursing that 2, 000 newly qualified nurses cannot get jobs, and it has been suggested in another place that they might become mobile. But that is not possible, because most of them are married. Therefore, if the number of pay-beds is cut too quickly those nurses will be out of work and many will not be encouraged to train for the future. We realise, too, from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that there may also be overall cuts. With £20 million cut off capital spending on the Health Service next year, it would surely be more helpful to phase out these beds more slowly and continue to get the income. That would also give the Government an opportunity to find out whether there is a real need for pay-beds, and also to consult local people. Many of the hospitals are well-known to foreigners who come here in large numbers, and if they cease to come the Government will lose that income.
I gather that the Department of Health and Social Security discussed in a document the occupancy rates at April, 1976,

109
and that the Royal Marsden had 95·5 per cent. of occupancy and the Maudesley 75 per cent., with only eight pay beds. In another place the Minister stated at col. 1442:
"In none of the areas will there be elimination of all pay beds".
I should like this fact to be confirmed, because once the figure of 1,000 pay beds has been passed they may gradually eliminate the others. None of the cuts needs to result in any private patient or any consultant losing access to pay bed facilities within six months of Royal Assent, but I do not think that this is very helpful because we do not know what will happen after that period of six months.
I should also like to ask what is to happen to the endowed beds; quite a lot of beds are endowed. Are the endowed beds also to be taken off the list of beds available to private patients? I should like to suggest that the Amendment, so very well put forward by my noble friend Lady Young, is practical, not political, and that it would be in the interests of both patients and the National Health Service if it were accepted.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: May I support what my noble friend Lady Young has said. We have been told over and over again that the country is practically broke. Also we have been told that the Health Service is not paying its way. It is Socialist Party political dogma, which was apparent in the Manifesto, that pay beds must be withdrawn. However, their withdrawal does not make sense. Nobody who can add up two and two can believe that to phase out at great expense beds which represent an enormous amount of money per week to the Service makes sense. These beds are to be withdrawn for purely political purposes. When the National Health Service is not paying its way, surely it does not make sense to withdraw pay beds.
I notice that in the list of hospitals in Schedule 2 there is an Area Health Authority for Calderdale where no pay beds are to be taken away. There are 32 pay beds in that area. I should like to know why this has been prearranged. I agree with other noble Lords who have spoken that already the Department have tied the hands of the Board, a Board which is not yet in being, by telling it what it
110
shall do. I think that this is very wrong. It will be difficult to get people of great eminence to serve on this Board. They will want to do other jobs, and I doubt very much whether the Ministry will be able to find people of eminence who will be willing to give up their time to do something which the Department has already decided upon in advance. With other noble Lords I believe that this is a bad principle and I should like to hear what the noble Lord has to say about it. I will not make any comment on my own area where half of the pay beds are to be done away with. However, Calderdale, where no pay beds out of the 32 are to be withdrawn, sticks out. I suggest that all 32 pay beds should be kept in that area.
Obviously we are going to fight this right the way through. For the reasons I have given, I believe that the concept of phasing out pay beds, when people want to pay money for privacy, is wrong. I support the noble Baroness in her Amendment.
Lord AUCKLAND: I do not wish to become embroiled at this stage in too much argument over Schedule 2 because we shall be coming to it later, but I had occasion at Second Reading to mention one area with which I am acquainted; namely, Cambridgeshire which includes Addenbrooke's Hospital, one of our leading provincial teaching hospitals. It contains a kidney unit, and at Second Reading I mentioned that 20 out of 56 pay beds there were being phased out. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, no doubt on advice from his Department, mentioned that there are a number of private institutions around Cambridge; but surely this argument applies to many other areas, too. I should have thought that, of all areas, Cambridgeshire—which contains one of the leading provincial teaching hospitals and which will have a great need for nurses, doctors and consultants in the future—was an ill-chosen area for the noble Lord to take.
May I return to the "teeth" of the Amendment. According to the Bill, the first 1, 000 beds are to be phased out within six months. This puts a very onerous task on to a Board which is to have only five members. We on this side of the House tried to make it seven members in Clause 1, but five have been

111
accepted for the time being. Those five members will have enormous decisions to take within a very short time. Leaving aside the mathematics, which the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, very properly mentioned, this is going to put the Board into an impossible situation. I think that it would be in no way wrecking the Bill, which is in its early stages of discussion, if the time limit proposed in the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Young were to be studied again. After all, 12 months would give to the Board a much longer period of time in which to hold consultations up and down the country—in the North of Scotland, in West Wales, in the extreme South-West—where developments are taking place and where there will be a need for more hospital beds. I hope—and I say this in no partisan, political spirit—that the Government will consider this matter very carefully.
8. 28 p. m.
Lord SANDYS: I should also like to support my noble friend's Amendment, although for a reason I did not mention at Second Reading. It is a quite different reason which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will consider. The noble Lord will be aware that every year the principal medical officer lays before the Department and produces for the public service a document, which in 1974 was entitled On the State of Public Health in the Year 1974. No doubt the document had the same title in 1975 and 1976. That document, On the State of Public Health in the Year 1974, which bore the signature of the principal medical officer, as he then was, raised a number of important issues.
It is an interesting document which very properly considers the problems of administration within the National Health Service. A number of issues concerning administration were raised—for instance, the question of blood transfusions and of industrial unrest—but at no point in this report for the year 1974 was the question of pay beds raised. I believe that it is highly significant that the principal medical officer should not make a point of mentioning pay beds as an issue which the Secretary of State and his or her advisers should consider. Further, I believe that in examining a report of
112 considerable length and value in regard to the structure of the Hospital Service as a whole, it will not be found—at least on my reading it will not be found—that this matter was at any time put forward as a paper for discussion within the Ministry. This may have been not raised as a matter of policy, and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, can tell us about this report. It is important.
Secondly, I think it is of great importance to consider the county plans for emergencies. Each county is under an obligation to the Home Secretary to produce a plan, and to up-date it from time to time, on emergencies within their area. They can be emergencies of the magnitude of Flixborough; they can be of the magnitude of that which took place about 18 months ago only a short distance outside London when a very large plane crashed. These issues demand very substantial consideration in the areas of local authorities. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has regarded this matter worthy of consideration in looking at the question of 1,000 beds. The figure does appear to be arbitrary, and I do believe that in the Amendment as set out my noble friend has made a very positive suggestion, that the Board shall undertake it and not the Secretary of State.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I can accept what the noble Baroness says about the fact that she and her friends are not bound by the Goodman proposals. We, the Government, are bound by them, for the simple reason that this was the outcome of discussions which took place between the Government, the consultants and the medical profession, with Lord Goodman being present to give what assistance he could. I should have thought that as this was an agreement between all parties this was a reasonable thing to put in the Bill. If the noble Baroness feels that it is not incumbent upon her to support the medical profession, who apparently are in agreement with the proposals, I am tempted to ask who she is representing in your Lordships' Chamber.
Baroness YOUNG: If the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is asking me who I represent. I, and we on this side of the Committee, represent all the people at present in National Health Service hospitals, the patients, and others in private

113 hospitals. We are interested in promoting a good medical service. That is our interest.
Lord PLATT: May I intervene to say that I wish the noble Lord would not refer to the noble Baroness and her friends. We are all her friends. So far there has been a notable speech from the Liberal Benches, several from the Tory Benches, two from the Cross-Benches and none from the other side.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: There are none from the other side because the other side happen to agree with the Government's proposal in this matter. I should like do deal, so far as I can, with the questions that have been raised. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hill. The Government are not suggesting that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is infallible; nor do we suggest as a Government that what have come to be known as his proposals are holy writ, although from my point of view I might feel inclined to say they are. I think the mistake that a large number of your Lordships make is in overlooking the fact that Lord Goodman did not devise the proposals which bear his name. They were the result of negotiations, as I have said time and time again, between Her Majesty's Government and the medical and dental professions, in which Lord Goodman acted as an intermediary.
Lord HILL of LUTON: If the noble Lord will forgive me, he keeps referring to the agreement. He should, I think, tell the Committee of the last paragraph of the then Prime Minister's letter to the medical profession, in which he referred to this as an agreement, and also made abundantly plain that, even though this agreement had led them not to proceed with industrial action, they were free, as he assured them, to express critical, indeed adverse, views of the Goodman proposals.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I accept every word the noble Lord has said, but he admits that there was an agreement; and if there was an agreement, which the vast majority voted should be included in legislation, it seems to me the Government have carried that out. The noble Lord also asked about Schedule 2 which sets out the pay beds which are to be phased out within the six months. I would point out
114
that they are quotas for areas and not individual hospitals, so when the time comes to phase them out that number of beds will be withdrawn from a particular area; the hospitals they are to be withdrawn from will then be decided upon. The noble Lord, Lord Hill, quite rightly, raised the question, "Why 1,000 beds?" "Why not 900?", I think he said. The reason is that it was felt, not by Lord Goodman but during the discussions, that 1,000 beds could be withdrawn within a comparatively short period without in any way damaging the private sector. One has to bear in mind that there are 4,444 pay beds in this country. The average bed occupancy for private beds throughout the country is less than 50 per cent. per annum—49 per cent, in point of fact—which means to say that 1, 000 beds can be withdrawn without having any damaging effect; and on the quota basis per area it can then be decided which of the hospitals can best release one, two or three, as the case may be.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I am not quite sure I understand the formula of the quota, how this was worked out.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: By the bed occupancy of private beds in each area. As I say, taking the country as a whole, the 4,444 beds were used on average for only about 49 per cent. of the year; so less than half that total number were fully occupied. I accept that some are occupied more than 49 per cent. and some less. In the areas that are set out in Schedule 2 careful inquiry and discussion took place to see which areas could release private beds without upsetting the demand for them, and the number arrived at will be withdrawn from the hospitals in that particular area. I do not think I can put it more simply than that.
Lord WINSTANLEY: If the noble Lord would allow me to intervene on the point of private bed occupancy rates, would be acknowledge that many of the private beds which were not occupied by private patients were in fact being occupied, quite properly, by National Health Service patients, and it would be quite impossible to shove in a private patient at the other end.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am not going to say that this did not happen from

115
time to time, but when one has a certain number of private beds in a particular hospital for the exclusive use of consultants one has to be very careful about putting a Natonal Health Service patient in them unless there is a very real emergency.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, raised the question of the Royal Commission. She will forgive me if I say that I do not intend to deal with that in detail. I thought I dealt with it in detail at Second Reading. We regard this as a political decision. This is not a matter for a group of people to get round a table and discuss. This is a political matter, a political policy. Like all political matters and political policies it must be decided by the Party that wishes to see it in being. Because it is in our view essentially a political matter we took the political decision to say this is what we are going to do, but we have done it, I venture to suggest, with agreement and with understanding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, raised a similar question about the wisdom of doing this, but I notice that she did not say that she knew of a single hospital which had in fact informed her that they were opposed to this. The Secretary of State's decision to phase out 1,000 beds within the first six months was taken at the beginning of this year. It has been known since then to the hospitals concerned, to all the Area Health Authorities, that these beds were going to be phased out. They have known for months the number of beds that were going to be phased out in their particular area. Apart from a few rumblings in various places there has been nothing at all. When the Bill is passed, which may be a month or two yet, there will still be six months before those beds will be phased out, so they will have had upwards of one year's notice of the Government's intention.
There is only one other point I want to add, and I am not sure whether the noble Baroness raised this or not. I think perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, who spoke about putting a tremendous responsibility on the Board to do this in the first six months. The Board has nothing to do with the phasing out of these 1,000 beds. This is a decision which has been taken by the Secretary of
116
State, subject to the agreement of Parliament. The Bill has not yet passed and is not on the Statute Book, so it must be subject to the decision of Parliament. But it was made perfectly clear at the beginning of the year that 1,000 beds would be phased out.
This is the Secretary of State's decision. It is his responsibility. It has nothing to do with the Board, and the Board will have no responsibility for it at all. The responsibility of the Board will be to concern itself with the gradual phasing out of the remaining 3,444 beds. The conditions under which they will be phased out are clearly set out in the Bill. It will be the responsibility of the Board during its first six months to send a report to the Secretary of State saying how it proposes to start on this task. I think your Lordships will find in the Bill that if for any reason it cannot complete its task to produce a first report within six months, it can ask the Secretary of State for an extension.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, rightly referred to the loss of income. But there will be, so far as these 1,000 beds are concerned, very little loss of income, because they are the beds which are considerably under-utilised. I am not going to say that when the other beds are phased out there will not be a loss of income—there will be a loss of income—but immediately the loss of income will not amount to very much. As they are gradually phased out and the various conditions and provisions within the Bill come into being, the National Health Service will earn, I imagine, a considerable amount of money as a result of making available to the private sector certain facilities within the National Health Service which will not be available in the private sector and which the private sector will want to take advantage of. So this loss of money is not necessarily as serious as some noble Lords think.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: Is the noble Lord serious when he tells us that 1,000 beds paying £250 a week is chickenfeed to the Health Service? It is a considerable amount of money.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If 1,000 beds were paying £250 a week to the National Health Service their withdrawal would be a considerable loss, but I have been at

117 some pains to point out that they are 1,000 beds which are hardly used by private patients. It is no good noble Lords shaking their heads and smiling. This is one of the facts of life. Facts of life are not always pleasant, but this is a fact of life.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred to there being no reference in the 1974 Report by the Chief Medical Officer of Health to pay beds. I hope there would not be. The Chief Medical Officer of Health is an official. He is a servant of the Departmant, and he would have known, as the whole of the Department knew in 1974, what the Government's intention was. I should have thought that it was improper for somebody holding a position such as he held to make a comment on this subject without being invited to do so.
Lord SANDYS: In saying that the noble Lord has acknowledged that the intention expressed by the Government in the Bill is a purely political intention, which we know already, but further it is a grossly misleading factor in the Government's policy to suggest at any stage that it is for the benefit of the Health Service as a whole.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The noble Lord knows that if we were to stand here for the next year and discuss this matter we should not agree.
Lord SANDYS: We certainly would not.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: We think that it is going to be a very good thing for the National Health Service, and if the noble Lord were to talk privately to a good many of the consultants and members of the medical profession I am sure they would tell him that they too regard it as a very good thing for private practices as well.
Lord SANDYS: Nonsense.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: No. The only other point I want to refer to is the one raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who asked what happens if there is a fire at a hospital after the withdrawal of 1,000 beds had been settled. I think she will find that the answer is probably in Clause 5, which
118
allows the Secretary of State to authorise beds temporarily for private use if there is some misfortune—that is not a very good word: some emergency. If there is an emergency, due to almost any cause whatsoever, then the Secretary of State is able to authorise pay beds on a temporary basis.
We cannot accept—and I imagine this is perfectly clear to your Lordships—the Amendment before the Committee. As the Principal Deputy Chairman said, if Amendment No.10 is accepted or carried then she cannot put Amendment No.11, but with the greatest respect I would suggest that what I have said applies also to Amendments Nos.12 and 13. I think we would be going over the same ground again, because the principles involved are much the same, so when I attempted to answer Amendments Nos.10 and 11 I was in fact speaking to 12 and 13.
8. 50 p. m.
Baroness YOUNG: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his reply but, as he will appreciate, there are very great difficulties for us in view of what he said. I am grateful to all those who have supported me in the Amendment, in particular the three noble Lords who are doctors and for whose advise we are always grateful and the many noble Lords who have spoken from personal experience. It is useful to have my noble friend Lady Vickers talk of Devon, my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve talk of Hertfordshire and my noble friend Lord Auckland talk about Cambridge. It brings reality to the discussion when noble Lords speak about places they know. I think we would all agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, said; that we only wish the whole matter could have been referred to the Royal Commission, and I am surprised that the Government do not think so, too.
It is clear from what Lord Wells-Pestell said that the Government are in great difficulties over the Bill. He has explained time and again that the Bill is the outcome of the agreement reached through the good offices of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and discussions with the medical profession. But nothing can take away the fact that it is, as he said, a political policy; it has brought politics into the National Health Service and into

119 medicine in a most undesirable way. Thus, he cannot object when we raise points about it. We are deeply concerned about the Bill because when I said in reply to his earlier remark that the Government gave undertakings to the doctors in 1946, I was pointing out that this was not just a change of matter on a political policy; like, for example, reorganising the National Health Service, which could be subject to change in the light of events. This was a fundamental principle about the right of a professional person to sell his skill in the market place after he has fulfilled his contract to the NHS, and to change one's mind on that is a very serious matter indeed.
We have talked about Schedule 2 and the noble Lord explained that there will be quotas for areas. This is a subject to which we shall return later because nowhere is "area" defined in the Bill. I was interested to hear that the details have not yet been decided because the Committee should know of a letter which I have received from a consultant dermatologist at Farnborough Hospital in Kent, who writes:
"First of all, we are told that the cuts have been agreed after consultation. As far as my colleagues and I know, no consultations have occurred. There may have been consultations up at the Elephant or with some remote BMA committee, but the people on the spot who are going to be affected have not been consulted at all. Secondly, the cut in bed numbers is about a third of the total which, apparently, is the average over most of the country. In our locality there are virtually no private beds available outside the Health Service, yet our beds are cut as severely as everyone else's. It is clearly unrealistic to expect our patients to be treated by us in nursing homes up in the West End of London."
This is the consequence of phasing out the 1,000 beds in this arbitrary way, and to argue that the patients will be better served as a result seems extraordinary. I am pressing the Amendment because we think it would be far better, in the interests of
both the NHS patients and others working in the Service and private practice, if it were the Board rather than the Secretary of State who was responsible for phasing the first 1,000 beds. We might then get some shift on this arbitrary figure in an arbitrary time-scale.
Now that we know the reason why the figure of 1, 000 was fixed on—because Lord Goodman thought that, 1,000 beds could be withdrawn without harming the Health Service—one is bound to ask how much detailed preparation there was before the figure was arrived at. I am extremely sceptical about average figures for bed occupancy. I am sure that Lord Wells-Pestell was speaking the truth when he said that pay beds had an occupancy rate of 49 per cent., but an average rate conceals a great many things; many will be above average and many below and, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, rightly pointed out, many beds will be occupied at intervals by NHS patients, many will be kept for specialist subjects, specialist illnesses, and must be kept pending those cases arriving, and many will always be kept empty for emergencies.
However, if the argument on the whole of the Bill is the occupancy rate, there is no doubt that the Government will accept our Amendment No.16 which insists that the 1,000 beds shall be used for NHS patients, and we will return to that and the arguments to be adduced when we debate that Amendment. In the meantime, I cannot withdraw the Amendment we are discussing because I believe it to be a matter of importance and I therefore urge noble Lords to join me in the Division Lobby to support it.
8.54 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No.10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents 40.

CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Gisborough, L.

Amulree, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Gowrie, E.

Auckland, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Greenway L.

Balerno, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Hanworth, V.

Belstead, L.

Elles, B.

Harmer-Nicholls, L.

Berkeley, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Henley, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Faithfull, B.

Hill of Luton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ferrers, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Carlisle, Bp.

Gainford, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Garner, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Morris, L.

St. Just, L.

Inglewood, L.

Mottistone, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Kemsley, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Seebohm, L.

Killearn, L.

Newall, L.

Stamp, L.

Kinnaird, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Swansea, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Onslow, E.

Tranmire, L.

Long, V.

Pender, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Lyell, L.

Platt, L.

Vickers, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Vivian, L.

Marley, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Merrivale, L.

Redesdale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Monson, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Winstanley, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Plurenden, L.

Blyton, L.

Kagan, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Castle, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

McCluskey, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Northfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Oram, L.

Walston, L.

Hale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Wells-Pestell, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peddie, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller].

Jacques, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
9. 3 p. m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No.12:
Page 3, leave out from beginning of line 13 to ("due") in line 18 and insert ("In making such proposals the Board shall have").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this Amendment, which is consequential.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No.13:
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No.13 and will speak at the same time to Amendment No.14, because, of course, Amendment No.13 is a paving Amendment. We come now to a series of Amendments which, for want of a better title I shall call the "Goodman Amendments". Those of us who heard the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, speak on Second Reading, will know that he himself asked the Government whether they would consider looking further at the definitions of various parts of the Bill to see whether it was possible to tighten up the arrangements that had been made. This is the first of a series of Amendments that we have tabled to that end. As the noble Lord will appreciate, they in no
122
way go against the principle of the Bill. They are Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, suggested ought to go into the Bill, and, indeed, the noble Lord, with whom I discussed them last week, had hoped to be here. However, shortly before we entered the Committee stage I had a note to say he was ill. The note says that he is in a pay bed and he hopes that the pay beds will last. I simply quote his note. I hope that that commends the particular Amendments before the Committee.
Amendment No. 14 adds to this clause the very important words, "at a satisfactory standard". It will be seen that the point of this matter is that as the pay beds are phased out subsection 3(b) states:
"the extent to which, in the case of each NHS hospital in Great Britain, alternative accommodation and facilities for the private practice of medicine and dentistry are reasonably available …"
We wish to add the words after "facilities", "at a satisfactory standard". It will easily be seen, therefore, that this is in no way a wrecking Amendment, but is designed to ensure that the alternative facilities which will replace private beds in hospitals will not only be facilities but facilities "at a satisfactory standard". On reflection, I would add the words, "and at a reasonable cost". We shall have to return to this matter at Report stage

123
because I do not wish to add a manuscript Amendment at such short notice.
The noble Lord will agree that the last thing anyone would wish to do would be to provide alternative facilities that were providing a second-class service or facility for private patients. Not only is this of course undesirable on medical grounds, but it would be grossly unfair that people who had not been party to the agreements, and who might have expected to have a private room in a hospital, have now to have a private room in a nursing home. They must expect the facilities to be "at a satisfactory standard". But even if we were not concerned with the patients, it would be equally important that the facilities should be "at a satisfactory standard" for the consultants and doctors.
Nothing would be worse for them than to find that what they had expected as a result of the Goodman agreements, which were facilities for private practice entirely in keeping with what the Government have said they wish to preserve—that is, the private practice of medicine—were facilities at a standard lower than they would have had had the facilities been in a hospital. It is because we want to make quite sure that the alternative facilities are of a standard equal to those that have been phased out that we have put down the Amendment. It is in line with those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, on Second Reading. It does not go against the principle of the Bill, and I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
9. 9 p. m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am sorry to hear of the indisposition of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and I am glad that he was good enough to let somebody know that he would not be here this evening. With regard to Amendment No. 13, I do not see how the removal of the requirement to consider both criteria in Clause 3(3) together would help the task of the Board. The effect of the Amendment would be to allow either one or the other of the criteria in Clause 3(3)(a) and (b) to be ignored by the Board. Frankly, I do not see what the purpose of that is, or what use it would serve. The clause as drafted is, I believe, a fair and honest interpretation of the compromise—if I may use
124
that word—which is before us this evening. It was the essence of that compromise that the only way of determining the distribution of the reductions which is fair and reasonable to both viewpoints was by having regard to both criteria as envisaged in the proposals of 15th December, and six months was the time allowed in that compromise. It is because we do not see that this will help in any way—it will not improve the situation—that we certainly cannot accept it.
With regard to Amendment No. 14, the effect of the Amendment would be to alter the statement in subsection (3) of the criteria followed in determining the distribution made by Schedule 2 of the overall reduction of pay beds required by the clause to the extent that the alternative facilities referred to in paragraph (b) would be those whose standard was satisfactory. The Bill, as drafted, corresponds to paragraph 3(b) of the proposals of 15th December. The criteria were there stated as:
"the extent to which the pay beds are being used and the reasonable availability of alternative beds and facilities for the practice of private medicine"
The terms of Clause 3 subsection 3(a) and (b) fairly reflect this, to the extent that the legal drafting allowed.
The proposed Amendment covers ground that has largely been covered in previous debates in another place. The Amendment seeks to incorporate into the terms of the criteria at subsection 3(b) the concept that the reasonable alternative facilities shall be, "at a satisfactory standard". The Committee in another place debated a similar Amendment to Clause 4(7). It was explained on that occasion that the Government did not think it was desirable or necessary to add these words to the criteria, which do not appear in the 15th December proposals. My right honourable friend said on that occasion, as reported at cols. 883 and 884 of the Official Report:
"I am aware of the concern of the medical and dental professions, and, in particular, of the Royal Colleges, that the Health Services Board should be required to take into account the standard of alternative facilities in the private sector when considering its proposals for progressive revocation of authorisations of pay beds and other facilities for private practice in NHS hospitals; and discussions have been taking place with them on this. There are two points to be made. First, the Government accepted in the 15th December proposals that in phasing out pay beds and facilities the Board could have regard to the

125
intention of the Government to allow occasional admissions of patients privately to specialised National Health Service facilities if these particular services could not reasonably be provided in the private sector to a satisfactory standard, and that this would not disadvantage the National Health Service patients. This, of course, is embodied in the provisions of Clause 8 of the Bill, which we shall be discussing later. This means that there is no question of the private sector being driven to duplicate, possibly in an unsatisfactory way, every sophisticated feature of the National Health Service.
The second point is that, in determining the programme for phasing out, both the Secretary of State, in relation to the 1,000 beds, and the Board are obliged to look at the provision which is reasonably available in the private sector. I want to emphasise that this will inevitably involve a reasonable degree of matching up the nature of what is provided by the pay beds or other facilities at present as compared with the nature of what the private sector can already, or will in future be able to, provide. On the other hand, the Government have never said that they intend pay beds to remain until it can be guaranteed that private practice will be everywhere available as fully and completely as it might be while pay beds and private facilities remain authorised in the National Health Service hospitals."
The Secretary of State had several meetings with the BMA on this matter, and this is really what transpired at those meetings.
"The Government are allowing time for a measure of development and improvement of private sector facilities. The process of matching up will take reasonable account of the character of the private sector provision, and therefore of the kinds of medical practice which could be satisfactorily carried out in it. The private sector is subject to control by registration under the Nursing Homes Act 1975, and if it were shown that this control did not sufficiently maintain standards the Government have made clear—my right honourable friend and his predecessor—that they are prepared to consider, in consultation with the professions, what improvements there might be. Primarily, of course, it is for the professional people who work in private hospitals and nursing homes to maintain professional standards."
The criterion in the Bill already requires the exercise of judgment as to the extent of alternative accommodation reasonably available. It would make for greater uncertainty to bring in specifically the further concept of "satisfactory" standards. I would not have thought that there was any need for this Amendment, because I would have thought that the two things would go together automatically. For that reason, the Government are not able to accept the Amendment.
Lord WINSTANLEY: Before the noble Lord sits down, could I ask him one question in the light of the explanation
126
which he has given of this clause and of the clauses which it is proposed to amend? In the light of what he has said, could he tell me, looking again at the Bill, in line 28, what is the purpose of the adverb, "reasonably" in the phrase, "reasonably available"? If the adverb "reasonably" applies merely to availability, surely things are either available or not available. What does "reasonably available" mean? Or is the noble Lord now saying that the adverb, "reasonably" there should relate to the nature of the facilities in the line before? Could he explain to me what that adverb, "reasonably" is doing in this paragraph? What does it mean? What are we to interpret from it?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I should have thought the question of distance. Presumably you cannot hold that a thing is reasonably available unless it is very accessible.
Lord O'HAGAN: I listened to the explanation of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, with great care, and I did my best to understand the complex argument that he deployed. I am not sure that I followed him in all his remarks. I think we are in the realms of textual criticism and scholarly debate about the exact interpretation to be put on the words used in the Goodman proposals,
"… reasonable availability of alternative beds and facilities"
These occur in paragraph 3(d) of the document issued on 15th December. As I understand it the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, maintained that the word, "reasonable" applied to distance only and that the question of standards, as mentioned in the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Young, is not relevant, or if it is relevant is already sufficiently contained in the word "reasonable". If that is his position, I do not follow the logic of his argument because when the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was in better health and able to attend your Lordships' deliberations and spoke on Second Reading he said that he hoped that the word, "reasonable" would be interpreted as meaning reasonable in every sense, which I would understand not to be restricted wholly to matters of geography but also to the question of standards.

127
So we are in the realm of biblical disputation as to what the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was in using the word "reasonable" in the context in which it is now being used. If your Lordships are asked to choose between the interpretation offered by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I hope that you will incline towards the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who intended a wider meaning than did the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. The logic of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is that the alternative facilities may be of an unsatisfactory standard. If he does not wish to include the words, "at a satisfactory standard", it implies that he may consider that the alternative will be at an unsatisfactory standard and still acceptable under the terms of the Bill.
Clause 2 is declaratory and explains things which it is not necessary to explain fully in the law and outlines the general intention of the Board. If we are going to have explanatory proposals, let us include this one because it is in the spirit of the Goodman proposals. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will see fit to accept the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman.
Lord HILL of LUTON: May I support what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has just said. It may be increasing senility, but I fail to grasp the meaning of much that the noble Lord said. It sounded like departmental "gobbledegook" Look at the simple issue: the facilities should be reasonably available. The adverb qualifies the adjective "avail-able". To my mind that refers to physical access to the facilities. When it comes to the alternative accommodation and facilities is it not reasonable to ask that before you reduce the number of pay beds in National Health hospitals you have regard to the satisfactory or other character of those facilities? What is it all about? No wonder Parliament is often accused of spending wasted hours in obscurities. The simple fact is that, if for an important decision you are to take account of what is alternatively available, surely it is right that the facilities said to be available should be facilities that are satisfactory. That is the simple and unambiguous issue and I should hope that the noble Lord,
128
Lord Wells-Pestell, unless he is under strict instructions to accept nothing, will accept this reasonable proposition.
Lord PLATT: What worries me is the alternative accommodation. We have heard that it has to be reasonably accessible; I will accept that. There seems to be an argument about how good the facilities should be. Nobody says how good the doctors are going to be. The fact is that anybody who goes into a pay bed in an NHS hospital knows that his surgeon or his physician is a consultant and has reached a fairly high degree of proficiency. Whatever the facilities of a private nursing home, nobody is going to monitor its work, whereas in the NHS hospital everybody knows what everybody else is doing, what their standards are and what their ethical standards are. This is why I dislike this Bill so much.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: To my mind one of the weaknesses in the Goodman proposals is how we are to define and provide satisfactory and reasonable alternative accommodation and facilities in the many small hospitals which are suggested. I believe that good accommodation will be easier to supply in these small hospitals than good facilities. A comfortable bed in a nice room is not too hard to give a patient; but to give him and his consultants access which is as good as they have at present to pathology, x-rays, nursing, physiotherapy and so on, is much more difficult. Will they have a resident house physician or house surgeon to help them care for their patients in these small hospitals? I know from personal experience how difficult it is to find resident medical officers for even the best of the smaller private hospitals which exist at present, hospitals such as the King Edward VII Hospital for Officers (Sister Agnes) or the BUPA Hospital in Bryanston Square.
I submit that it is a nonsense to suggest that it will be possible to provide facilities in all these smaller hospitals of anything like the standard that the consultants and their assistants now have for their patients (and for which their patients pay) in the larger National Health Service hospitals.
9. 27 p. m.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sorry to have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell,

129
that I thought that he gave a completely deplorable answer to my Amendment. It seems to me that he might look very carefully at his own Bill, where he will see that the words "at a satisfactory standard" are in fact taken from Clause 8(2) of the Bill at the top of page 10. There it says:
"In this subsection 'privately available' means available at a satisfactory standard otherwise than at an NHS hospital."
If it is possible to use this definition in one part of the Bill I should have thought it was not asking too much to use it in another part of the Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and my noble friend Lord O'Hagan made clear, this was a definition that Lord Goodman himself felt ought to be included in the Bill because it made much clearer what were the intentions behind the agreements which were reached. The fact is that as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, indicated to the Committee, the Government are quite happy that private facilities will not always be as good as those that existed in National Health Service Hospitals. I shall read carefully what he has said in Hansard tomorrow, but I think that this is a deplorable statement. It means that by this Bill we are committing
a lot of people to what could be a secondclass situation—not only the patients but, of course, the doctors as well. I think therefore that this is not a matter which I can leave as it is.
As I have said, it is the first of a number of Amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, felt ought to be included in the Bill. It is one that clearly has the support of a number of our medically qualified colleagues who have spoken this evening. I am grateful for what the noble Lords, Lord Hill, Lord Platt and Lord Hunt of Fawley, have had to say. To argue that a private room that may be a comfortable room is an equal facility is simply not good enough. It must mean medical facilities at a satisfactory standard which is implied in Clause 8 and should be stated consistently through the Bill. I cannot withdraw this Amendment, and I will therefore press the matter to a Division.
9. 31 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Gowrie, E.

Newall, L.

Ampthill, L.

Greenway, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Amulree, L.

Hanworth, V.

Onslow, E.

Auckland, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Pender, L.

Balerno, L.

Henley, L.

Platt, L.

Banks, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Belstead, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Redesdale, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Carrington, L.

Inglewood, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kemsley, V.

St. Just, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Killearn, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Craigmyle, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Seear, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Seebohm, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Stamp, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swansea, L.

Elles, B.

Marley, L.

Tranmire, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Faithfull, B.

Monson, L.

Vickers, B.

Ferrers, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Gainford, L.

Morris, L.

Windlesham, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Janner, L.

Blyton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kagan, L.

Brockway, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Kaldor, L.

Castle, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Champion, L.

Hale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Collison, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

McCluskey, L.

Maelor, L.

Plurenden, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Popplewell, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Northfield, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Oram, L.

Stedman, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Peddie, L.

Stone, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
9. 38 p. m
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No 14:
Page 3, line 28, after ("facilities") insert ("at a satisfactory standard").
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
9. 47 p. m.
Viscount LONG Viscount LONG moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 30, leave out ("area") and insert ("district").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, and with the leave
The noble Baroness said:I beg to move.
On Question, whether the said Amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70: Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Greenway, L.

Newall, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hanworth, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Amulree, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Onslow, E.

Auckland, L.

Henley, L.

Pender, L.

Balerno, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Platt, L.

Banks, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Belstead, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Berkeley, B.

Inglewood, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Carrington, L.

Kemsley, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Killearn, L.

St. Just, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Craigmyle, L.

Long, V.

Seear, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Stamp, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Swansea, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Marley, L.

Tranmire, L.

Elles, B.

Merrivale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monson, L.

Vickers, B.

Faithfull, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Ferrers, E.

Morris, L.

Windlesham, L.

Gainford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

Gowrie, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Kagan, L.

Peddie, L.

Blyton, L.

Kaldor, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Castle, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCluskey, L.

Stone, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Maelor, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Fisher of Camden, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hale, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Northfield. L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jacques, L.

Oram, L.

White, B.

Janner, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

of the Committee I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 40, 44 and 88. All these Amendments relate to the same word. The difficulty here is to define the word "area"—how large that is in practice—and I should like the Government to give us their definition of that word. The sensible course to take would be to try to break down areas into districts because they would then be much easier to operate economically and also much more personal.
At this stage, it is preferable to disregard London and the other major cities and to look at the countryside where a much larger mileage has to be covered. May I take as an example the County of Cumberland or Yorkshire where perhaps there will be a National Health Service hospital at one end of the county and a private hospital at the other, with a top gynaecologist or consultant having to travel between the two hospitals. if this large mileage in Cumberland or Yorkshire could be broken down into districts it would be much less expensive for that consultant, especially when one considers the cost of petrol, at nearly £1 a gallon, the travelling time of the consultant and the speed at which that consultant would have to travel between the hospitals in those counties. We want to try to help consultants to narrow down the area.
Therefore I should like the Government to give us their definition of the word "area" I would be very interested if they could explain what an "area" consists of, whether it is so many square miles. As yet I do not think anyone has been able to define "area". I am probing to investigate how big an area is in the minds of the Government. When looking at a large county such as Cumberland, one immediately thinks of the patients and their relatives. I had the experience, when my boy was in hospital, of visiting quite often the orthopaedic hospital in Bath. It was in the 1960s, when the new Areas took over, and I believe it was the orthopaedic hospital at Taunton—I stand to be corrected—which was broken up and moved into the orthopaedic hospital at Bath. It is a very difficult road from Taunton to Bath at week-ends for parents visiting their children or relatives visiting one another in hospital. The best thing is a small area so that people can visit their relatives and friends easily. I hope the Government can see that.
I have known of great hardship among people in the country districts trying to get about at week-ends, and not everybody has a car. Economically this is an extravagant way of going on. Your expenses for your consultants are bound to rise over a larger area with larger mileage. I should like to see these huge areas reduced down to smaller districts. It works, if I understand rightly, with district councils; it certainly brings the personal touch into the district. I am still
134
trying to find out how big this "area" is in mileage. I should like the Government to give us their views and the reason why they want this word "area" in the Bill. At this moment it could well be something of a disaster to the efficient working of the hospitals. I beg to move.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: I should very much like to support the noble Viscount in questioning the meaning of "area", and I support the change to the word "district" for perhaps a slightly different reason. It is only two years since we reorganised the Health Service and we based the whole structure of the Health Service on the district within the Area, and that district is, on the whole, co-termininous with the local planning authority. Much of this Bill is concerned with planning permission when we get further on, and I should have thought we ought to be exact and use the same terminology. It is for that reason that I should like the word changed to "district".
9. 54 p. m.
Baroness STEDMAN: I share the concern of noble Lords opposite about the use of "area" and "district", and I think we all probably agree that we have had more than our fair share of reorganisation of one form or another. There are various meanings for "areas" and "districts" in all the forms of reorganisation we have had. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said earlier that she could not find "area" defined anywhere in the Bill. In fact, the area in Schedule 2 to which she was referring is the Area Health Authority, which is mentioned and interpreted in Clause 11. I think perhaps the noble Baroness was confused with Schedule 2 and the "area" with a small "a" we are now discussing in Clause 4. Amendment No. 15 is one that could indicate that the private sector facilities that have been taken into account in the preparation of Schedule 2 are only those that are allocated in the same management district of the hospital. This Amendment I could not commend to the Committee, because it would be to negate the basis on which the Goodman proposals for the 1, 000 beds in Schedule 2 were drawn up.
The term "district" has no statutory backing in the National Health Service, and has come to be equated with a sort

135
of unit of management within an Area Health Authority's area. For instance, in the case of Great Ormond Street, which serves as the Hospital for Sick Children, it would be impossible to define an area. It serves in a dual capacity, and is the specialist hospital for children for the whole of the country. In the same way, in Camden and Islington the Area Health Authority is divided into two districts for the purpose of management, and I think no one in the authority would claim for one moment that the area or district served by University College Hospital, or the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, had to be confined to the South Camden District.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: We are not talking purely about teaching hospitals and post-graduate teaching hospitals. I am concerned with the picture all over the country, and in the countryside certainly "district" has an enormous meaning. I agree that in London it is confused, but then we know that the National Health Service in London, the hospital distribution in London, the number of teaching hospitals, have been creating a problem for as long as I can remember, and are likely to go on creating a problem. We are trying to legislate for the whole of the country, and "district" has a meaning in the National Health Service all around the country. What I said originally is that it is largely coterminous with the local authority, and that this is very important for planning purposes.
Baroness STEDMAN: Although the district is co-terminous with local authority districts, it is not necessarily the right sort of area for a hospital. I do not think that we can confine a hospital to a district in the meaning of "district" under local authority organisation. It is rather more like the schools having their catchment areas. I prefer to think of an area being a catchment area; the area served by the hospital, but not having any closely defined boundaries or districts, or being parts of an Area Health Authority's administrative areas.
What we have to look at in Amendments Nos. 15 and 88, which go together, and the ones to which the noble Viscount spoke, Amendments Nos. 40 and 44,
136
is the fact that they have a relation to the criteria which were laid down in the Goodman proposals. I know that noble Lords opposite do not like the reference to the Goodman proposals, but the Bill before the House incorporates the agreement that was arrived at through the offices of Lord Goodman, and the phrase, "area served by that hospital" in the subsection is not synonomous with the area administered by the Area Health Authority. Nor will it necessarily be the same as the district in which and by which the hospital is primarily managed. Not all the hospitals in the district serve the whole of the district, talking of districts in the terms of local authority districts.
Lord WINSTANLEY: The noble Baroness's noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell has already told us that the words, "reasonably available" which appear in the clause immediately adjacent to the words we are discussing mean "accessible". If that means "accessible", why do we need the words, "in the area served by that hospital"? Are they not redundant? Are they needed at all?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, because some hospitals serve a wider catchment area than others, and are not necessarily the same as part of the Area Health Authority's area. They may have some sort of speciality that they can offer in that area which has to be open to a wider number of people in a wider acreage than we have in the ordinary sense of "area" as in Area Health Authority
Baroness SEEAR: This is all madly confusing. Cannot the Government think of a better word? When "area" is spelt with a capital "A" it means one thing but when it is spelt with a small "a" it means something else. When one is talking one cannot articulate a small or capital "a" and naturally people become confused. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Government, even at this late stage of their career, to think of a better term to describe "area" with a small "a". While on my feet, let me register a protest against the idea that Parliament is here to confirm an agreement arrived at between the noble Lord, Lord Goodman —for whom I have the greatest respect, well or ill—and the Government outside the walls of Westminster. We have protested throughout this Session that

137
arrangements fixed up outside Parliament with any bodies, however virtuous they may be, are not appropriate ways of presenting legislation to us for Parliament to receive, approve and agree. Parliament is not a rubber stamp, especially over something which Lord Goodman and the Government have fixed up in private.
Baroness STEDMAN: The proposals embodied in the Bill are to give power to implement decisions which were arrived at following consultations with the medical and dental professions in which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, acted as an intermediary. I would be the last person to yield that Parliament does not have the right and duty to have the final say as to what should be in their legislation. But the Bill was introduced and embodies the agreement that was reached with the professions. I know that noble Lords opposite dislike it and that they do not accept that the Goodman proposals have any significance, as it were, in your Lordships' House. Nevertheless, the Government have brought forward the Bill to separate pay beds and private practice from the NHS and, in so doing, are embodying the principles that were within those agreed proposals.
I go along with the noble Baroness in wishing that we could find another word that would mean the catchment area of the hospital without having to use the word "area" and I am sure that the Department has given great thought to this. If noble Lords opposite can come up with an alternative word which means the same as a catchment area and will not confine us to absolute boundaries for all hospitals, I am sure the Government would be happy to consider it; but at the moment I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: This is a difficult Amendment to discuss because while the Bill deals with the phasing out of pay beds—about which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, had quite a lot to recommend, with most of which I did not agree—I suggest that we should, in discussing this subject, go back to the question whether we have sufficient hospitals in every area to deal with the population who use them. In doing that, we should discuss the Amendment in connection with the relevant Schedule.
138
In Durham County, for example, we must consider whether we have sufficient hospitals to cater for all the accidents that occur in the mining areas, and in a way that has nothing to do with the phasing out of pay beds. I want as many hospitals as we can get and I find it difficult to discuss the Amendment in these terms because, with great respect, it seems to have nothing to do with the phasing out of pay beds. I do not want the Committee to get into a bigger muddle than the Government are already in but I felt that I had to make this point; in a way I am saying something rather nice about the Government, something I do not often do.
I know Cumbria very well. I think that in Cumbria we might probably require some more hospitals. That would not fit in either with the pay bed issue or this Amendment. I find this a difficult Amendment. I would rather discuss it when we come to debate the Schedules with the areas and the question of whether we ought to have more hospitals before starting to phase out pay beds.
Lord SANDYS: I believe my noble friend Lord Long has brought before your Lordships an Amendment which needs much greater perseverence because the reply given by the noble Baroness—and of course we welcome her to the Committee as she is making her first contribution to the Committee stage—was highly unsatisfactory from our side of the Committee, because she referred to Clause 11 which deals, of course, with the interpretation. She told us that Area with a capital A means what is set out in that clause. She added that she did not think we could confine "district" to the interpretation given in local authority legislation— I believe I took down her words correctly.
However, there is the strongest argument —and I think many of my noble friends set this out—that the context in which we should discuss this Amendment is a local context; that is for the district. The noble Baroness referred to the catchment area which is not precisely the same. She dealt in some detail with the situation in London and I think was taken to task, quite correctly, by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, on the question of catchment areas for teaching hospitals. But I think

139
our concern is in the broader context of districts throughout the country.
One principal difficulty about the word "area" is its vagueness. It is undefined in Clause 11, and the Government know perfectly well that their principal reason for not accepting this Amendment is that it conflicts with Schedule 2. Schedule 2 as set out does not concern districts at all. Therefore, we are saying to the Government, "In order that Clause 3 shall be satisfactorily drafted in this very unacceptable Bill, so far as we are concerned it is of no importance whatever at this stage that it should conflict with Schedule 2 in regard to their arrangements". It is of far greater importance, as mentioned by my noble friend, that in small areas parents should be able to visit children in hospital, and similar matters; and the economic factors are of course overwhelming, especially the high energy costs which affect everything involving the hospital problem. I do not think it is necessary to say anything further except that I believe this Amendment is most important to the Bill.
Viscount LONG: This Amendment seems to have had a very good airing. My noble friends and noble Lords on the Liberal side have expressed great interest in it. But if I might tell the noble Baroness and noble Lords opposite why we do not
140
like this Bill, it is because of the poisonous way politics were placed into it. We are dealing with a profession in the medical world, a very old-established body of people going back thousands of years, who do not know about the roughing-up or viciousness of politics. This situation has been placed in their camp, and I find it sad that all the time we on this side of the Committee are accused of not liking this or that. We are trying to defend the doctors, nurses, consultants and patients.
Having said that, I am still no nearer as to what is the definition of an area. It struck me just now that we had in Wiltshire certain hospitals called district hospitals in small areas. I believe they are still district hospitals. Some of them were previously known as cottage hospitals. But all the time we are coming up against the idea of London and the cities. But in the country people have to travel many more miles, and at night and during the snow and other bad weather it can be very difficult. There is also the cost and other problems. I know that parents and relatives already find it very difficult travelling long distances to hospitals around the county. However, we have expressed the point and have aired the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10. 11 p. m
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 3, line 30, at end insert (";and
(c) the extent to which, in the case of each NHS hospital, the resources exist to put the beds so withdrawn to good use for resident patients who are not private patients.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this Amendment it may be helpful to the Committee if I try to put us procedurally slightly further back on the track. I have spoken already to Amendment No. 13, which is necessary for Amendment No. 16, but Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 16 go together. It will be apparent that Clause 3(3) is a declaratory clause, setting out in relation to the Area Health Authorities and the preserved Boards how the phasing out will be arranged. Amendment No. 16 will come in as paragraph (c), and it means that it is necessary to take out the word "and" in paragraph (a) in order that it reads grammatically. The effect of this procedurally is that Amendment No. 16 is dependent upon the paving Amendment No. 13.
This we regard as another important Amendment because it seems to me very necessary that the beds that are phased out of National Health hospitals should be for use for patients who are not private patients but who are other patients in the National Health Service. There is no guarantee at all in the Bill that the beds phased out will be so used, and at any rate in one case known to a number of noble Lords the accommodation resulting from phased out beds has now been used for offices. Therefore, if this happens it is very unlikely that there will be any alteration to the length of the queue. This is important to the argument, because as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said on Second Reading, at column 1472 of the Official Report of 12st October:
"In short, it is a widely held belief that the continued existence of pay beds has conferred, at the expense of the majority, an unacceptable degree of privilege on those who can afford to pay a premium for jumping the queue."
He went on to argue that this was the main purpose behind the Bill. If this is the purpose which was behind the whole of the Goodman proposals, behind the Bill—to prevent queue jumping—so that those who went into a hospital bed should do so only on medical grounds, and not
142
because they could afford to pay, it is absolutely essential that the phased out beds should be used by National Health Service patients.
Therefore, I hope very much that the Government will accept the Amendment. When we were talking about Amendment No. 10, the first talked about, it became quite clear that the Government felt that the 1,000 beds that will be phased out at first ought to be used by National Health Service patients. At any rate, one of the reasons for not accepting this Amendment, so far as I could see, was that this was part of the Goodman agreement and it would therefore satisfy those who felt that there was something very unfair about the present system. If there is something unfair about the present system, the only way you could put it right would be to make quite sure that those at present in the queue will get into the beds pay now being occupied by private patients—and that is what this Amendment is intended to do.
I think it becomes even more important if one looks at the figures which have been given, showing a decline in the number of hospital beds in the National Health Service over the last 10 years. These figures, which were given by the Department of Health and Social Services in their Annual Report of 1975, show that the number of available beds in National Health Service hospitals in England has decreased over the last 10 years by 11 per cent. In 1965 there were 437,000 beds, and in 1975 only 387,000. There has therefore been a steady fall in the number of beds in National Health Service hospitals. This is undoubtedly a fact, and one way at least of being constructive in what really is a very difficult situation is to make sure that those beds which are phased out will be used by National Health Service patients.
I cannot see any reason why the Government should not accept this Amendment. It seems to me to be entirely in line with what they would want to see. It certainly cannot be considered against the principle of the Bill. It does something which I am sure everybody who cares about the Health Service at all would want: it tries to put all the available capital equipment to the best possible use, and it ensures, I hope, that the queue would get shorter, because there would be,

143
within six months if the Government do not accept our Amendments in another place or at any rate within a very short time, 1,000 more beds for the National Health Service. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept this Amendment, because it seems to me a constructive suggestion. I beg to move.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: I should like warmly to support this Amendment. Like many noble Lords in this Committee, I know a great many hospitals from the inside—as a patient, in connection with leagues of hospital friends and in other capacities. All noble Lords will know that in the past there have been what have been called amenity beds, which are beds which have been made available to National Health Service patients and which, very often, are beds only curtained off at the ends of wards. They are in no way private beds at all. My reason for supporting this Amendment is that I also know that the private beds which have so far been used in hospitals are in private rooms. They are in properly constructed rooms which are not always very nice but which have been used for private patients in the past. It is because they are rooms that they are private, because they are unable to be got at by other people in the wards.
In other words—and I have a lot of knowledge of this—if somebody of importance (be it a Minister in the Government; be it somebody who is very important in industry; be it anybody whom the Press, for instance, want to get hold of) is in hospital, the only way of ensuring that they cannot be got hold of is by putting them in a private room. That is not an amenity room, as I have said, because an amenity bed is hardly ever private. As most people will know—at least, all of us who have been patients—if the patient is very important (as I know to my cost with my late husband) then directly he comes out of an anaesthetic there is a secretary waiting, there are the television people waiting.
Everybody wants to know how you are and the only method of keeping people away is by putting you in a room, now called a private room. I urge that those rooms should in future be amenity rooms. That would be the right way to use these
144
rooms which have in the past been used for private patients. It is vitally important that all hospitals should be urged to use these rooms correctly. Waiting lists are now far too long. In the foreseeable future, if this Bill goes through Parliament, the use of these rooms would enable waiting lists to be cut down. The people who need privacy as the result of an accident or illness, and who have not booked, should be able to have these rooms. They should not be turned into offices as they have been in some hospitals. I hope the Minister will accept this Amendment. I believe it is vital for the future of those rooms in the hospitals.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I feel in some sympathy with the point of view put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, but what disturbes us is the use of the word "resident". The effect of this Amendment would be to add a further condition, that no pay bed authorisation should be withdrawn unless each hospital affected has sufficient resources to put the beds to good use for resident patients who are not private patients. This is the substance of the Amendment. It also seeks to ensure that any resources released are directed to the benefit of patient services rather than used, for example, for administrative purposes. Obviously it would seem quite reasonable and proper that all beds released from being pay beds should be made available for the use of patients but the Amendment says, "for resident patients".
Generally pay beds as single wards attached to general wards will fairly readily be absorbed into the general pool, while those in larger traditional pay bed wings may not lend themselves so readily to adaptation for general National Health Service use. One also has to take into account the fact that a good many of our hospitals need fundamental reorganisation and that accommodation in some of our National Health Service hospitals leaves much to be desired. In some places there are too many beds in one ward and beds are much too close together. When the pay beds are gradually phased out we have to look at the whole picture. Living and working conditions in some of our hospitals leave much to be desired. I do not say that that applies to every hospital but certainly to a good many. We have

145
to look at it from the point of view of making more room available not only for patients but also for nursing, medical and doctors' use. One often hears complaints of the close proximity of working. All that has to be taken into account.
Coming back to the purpose of the Amendment, with which I find myself in some considerable sympathy, if one has the word "resident" one is immediately tied down to using it for resident patients. Our casualty departments are dealing with more and more patients. It would be a very good thing if we could use beds perhaps for day patients. Our out-patient departments are doing more and more surgery. I am not saying that they are doing surgery of a particularly onerous kind, but they are doing various forms of surgery where it would be a good thing to be able to put somebody who had some minor surgery in the morning into bed for the rest of the morning or the rest of the day. I think, too, that our out-patient departments need recovery rooms. Bearing all this in mind, the word "resident", I think, means exactly what the noble Baroness intends it to mean; that is, not somebody who is going to occupy a bed for an hour or two in the morning but for a whole day.
I do not think that in principle there is anything between us because, obviously, we have got to see that, so far as is humanly possible, these beds are put to the best possible use. Bearing in mind that people are working in conditions where they may need more room, there must be some kind of reorganisation to provide more room; but, having said all that, I think that an increasing number of beds will be used for day patients recovery rooms, out-patients or people who can stay in the hospital for a morning or an afternoon. I would ask the noble Baroness to take that into account when considering whether, in the light of what I have said, this is an Amendment which she ought to press.
Lord O'HAGAN: I understood from what the noble Lord said that he was in general in sympathy with the objective that the Amendment tries to achieve. My noble friend's paragraph (c) would add a third criterion to the two already in the subsection. All these criteria are qualified by the words, "the extent to which", so there is some degree of qualification for
146
each of these three criteria because the authorities and boards called upon to examine these beds in question under these criteria do not just have to examine, as it were, bed by bed or item by item; they have to take a general view of the "extent to which". There is some degree of flexibility in the two paragraphs already in the Bill and this degree of flexibility is retained in the additional subsection introduced by my noble friend.
What I want to ask the noble Lord is this. Given that the same freedom of manoeuvre to deal with particular circumstances is contained in all three paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), consistently; and given his only real objection is to the word "resident", is he saying to the Committee that he would be prepared to accept this Amendment in some other form or that he would be willing to look at it again and perhaps hope to introduce his own Amendment?—because the burden of his remarks was not at all against the spirit of my noble friend's Amendment, but in fact the reverse. Yet at the end I was waiting for him to say something about how he would prefer to have the objective which he shares achieved by words added to the Bill.
10. 30 p. m.
Lord WINSTANLEY: I should like to follow that point. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, made it utterly clear that he is in sympathy with the spirit of this Amendment, and, indeed, he would like to think that the facilities made available through the withdrawal of private beds from NHS hospitals were going to be used for the broad interests of non-paying patients. I have total sympathy with that aim and objective. He has implied that the only difficulty is the presence of this unfortunate word, "resident". I take some of the points he has made. There are occasions where casualty departments or out-patients operations require beds for purposes which could hardly be described accurately as "resident". That is a real point.
I wonder whether his expression of sympathy is quite as real as it may seem. I should like to follow the question already put to him. know that boble Lords on the Front Bench are not given to answering hypothetical questions, but I should like him to tell me whether, had this Amendment been set down without

147
the word, "resident", he would have accepted it. I wonder whether the noble Lord will tell us. It is beginning to become my suspicion that he has not the slightest intention of accepting any Amendments. If that is the case, I wonder why we are going to discuss all these Amendments and why we do not just vote on them.
Lord KINNAIRD: I do not know whether I am speaking out of turn. I am certainly not knowledgeable about the Health Service. What has struck me from listening to this debate is that in this Amendment it says:
"…the resources exist to put the beds so withdrawn to good use…"
The Minister has said that what they need is more room, more use of space. I suggest to the Government that what they need is more money. They are very short of it. Yet, in withdrawing these beds from the Health Service they are doing away with millions of pounds. Can they afford to do this? This means a loss of millions of pounds of revenue from private patients.
Lord SANDYS: I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, that the expression of sympathy which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, addressed to the Committee had a somewhat synthetic flavour. I should like to link Amendment No. 16 with Amendment No. 9, which my noble friend Lady Young moved, concerning no detriment. The two Amendments are closely linked in matters touching upon the trades unions. The staff implications contained in this Amendment, as indeed in Amendment No. 9, are important. The following have special interests, so far as the staffing is concerned: COHSE, NUPE, NALGO, the General and Municipal Workers' Union and the smaller unions. Of course also very important are the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Mid-wives, the BMA and British Dental Association.
Another point is Lord Wells-Pestell's attitude on no detriment. I must confess I thought he was far from sympathetic at column 1509 on Thursday, 4th November, in the Official Report. The noble Lord
148
referred to no detriment, and he cast doubt about the suggestion that it was very important. He said at the end of the column:
"When one talks about detriment in the trade union world that means loss of jobs, and very often the loss of a large number of jobs".
We do not know, and cannot quantify from outside, what number of jobs may be concerned either in the initial phasing out—does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Can the noble Lord tell me what this question of detriment has to do with the present Amendment?
Lord SANDYS: Yes. It is very closely associated with the question of resources, and resources principally concern the aspect of staffing and equipment. I believe this to be very closely cognate with the Amendment we are discussing.
Finally, I concern myself with the "swap" arrangement, under which private beds were made available to the National Health Service, and have been over the last 30 years or so. That has been strongly to the benefit of the National Health Service, because on many occasions private beds have not been fully occupied. Occupation levels are referred to in a very considerable document published by the Department. I will not go into details here, because it is a lengthy, tricky and technical matter; but I will say that one situation has been overlooked by the Government. That is where a charity has over a period, either long or short, endowed either a single bed or a group of private beds, and those beds or groups of beds in wards or wings of hospitals are to be phased out. There could be a breach of charitable law there, and there is a case for concerning ourselves on Amendment No. 16 with this very important aspect. I have not chosen to raise charitable law hitherto, but I suggest to the noble Lord, in the kindest possible way, that the Government should look on this as a matter of some seriousness.
Baroness YOUNG: I am afraid I find it very difficult to follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on my Amendment. The whole time he spoke about the need to use the rooms

149
and the beds to be phased out for a whole variety of uses, most of which were for out-patients. He quoted—and I hope I understood him correctly—the instance of someone involved in an accident and needing a bed for the morning, and someone else needing to stay in hospital for one day, together with rooms that are in general use, and so on. Yet, if the noble Lord looks at Clause 3, he will find it is not concerned at all with out-patients but with in-patients. That is my under-standing of it, having looked at the 1968 Act. Section 1(1) is concerned with in-patients. Therefore Clause 3 is concerned with the phasing out of resident patients. When the noble Lord wants to talk about the phasing out of private out-patients, he needs to refer to Section 1(2) of the 1968 Act. He does that in Clause 4. We cannot possibly amend Clause 3 to make it apply to out-patients. It can apply only to in-patients, which are perhaps more correctly described as "resident patients". That is why the noble Lord referred to it in these terms.
When we come to Clause 4, we have Amendments to meet the point about out-patients, which is just as important a matter of principle as the matter concerning resident patients. But I do not think he could really criticise the Amendment on those grounds, because his reply does not seem to be relevant to Clause 3 at all. What in fact we got into, if I may say so with respect to him, was a very delightful philosophical discussion about "when is a resident not a resident?" It reminded me very much of the kind of essay I was asked to write as an under-graduate: "How do you know that you arc not now dreaming?"—which in fact seems a rather suitable topic for some of the proceedings of this Committee.
When we are dealing with a clause which refers entirely to resident patients, and I put down an Amendment which refers entirely to resident patients, only to be told that I should be talking about out-patients, I find myself somewhat confused. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, and my noble friends Lord O'Hagan and Lord Sandys all made clear, there is a case here for using the beds flexibly. I am not at all against that, and if I could get an undertaking from the Government that they would redraft the Amendment so that the beds could be used by out-
150
patients as well as by in-patients, I should be perfectly satisfied.
What will not satisfy me or, I believe, any of my colleagues—and I think I speak here for those on the Cross-Benches and the Liberal Benches—is that we should go through this whole performance of phasing out beds, only to discover that they would be better used for offices, which is one of the uses to which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said they could be put, which seems to me a fantastic reason when the Government have said that the reason for having the Bill is to shorten the National Health Service queues. The whole thing is so inconsistent as to defy imagination.
As my noble friend Lady Macleod said, there is a great need for more amenity beds. They could be used for that reason, and we should not be averse to anything like that. I concluded from what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said to my noble friend, that he is not prepared to take this Amendment back and redraft it to meet these very real points. If that is the case, I found his reply so unsatisfactory that I shall press this Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It is obvious that either I am not making myself clear—and I thought I had done so—or the noble Baroness chooses not to follow what I have been saying. The Amendment states:
"…the resources exist to put the beds so withdrawn to good use for resident patients".
All I said was that if the word "resident" was left in it would make it difficult—and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, agreed with me—to use them for persons who, although attending hospital for help and treatment, would not be resident patients. I see nothing inconsistent in that, and I am astounded that the noble Baroness seems to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, talked about things which, with the greatest respect, had no bearing at all on the Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: With due respect to the noble Lord—and, of course, I admire his knowledge of this subject—I sincerely suggest that matters affecting detriment touch upon this Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: On that we must disagree. My difficulty is that the phrase "resident patients" would make it impossible to use the beds for any other

151
purpose whatsoever. Before the noble Baroness was so insistent about putting this to the Committee, I was prepared to say that I would take it back and look at it, but I must say that, as it stands at the moment, we could not accept the Amendment. I do not know whether it is possible to find a phrase other than "resident patients", to include persons who will not he resident. I must leave it to the noble Baroness to decide what she wants to do.
Lord STONE: Might I suggest that the common term "in-patients" would suffice?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Why is the noble Lord so choosy about the questions he answers? He has answered part of the questions, but the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, put a very clear one. He asked: is the sympathy of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, strong enough for him to say that if the word "resident" is left out, or if some other words are added to allow day or temporary patients to come in, he will find the Amendment acceptable? That is the kind of answer which I am certain my noble friends are waiting to hear. The noble Lord offered to take back the Amendment. Is the noble Lord able to say that he will take it back with a view to finding words which will remove the restriction on residence? If the noble Lord could say that, I have no doubt that my noble friend would think twice about putting the Amendment to the Committee; but he has not done so. Will the noble Lord answer the question which was put by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, instead of the other questions which were not pushed with the same emphasis and clearness?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am not prepared to say to your Lordships that will take it back "with a view to finding words", because I am not sure that words
can be found which will enable these beds to be used for in-patients as well as out-patients. I am quite prepared to take back the Amendment and have a look at it but I can make no promise other than that.
Baroness YOUNG: I do not think that the noble Lord has made a very satisfactory offer. The noble Lord has said that he would like these beds to be used, yet he criticises my use of the phrase "for resident patients" although Clause 3 makes it perfectly clear that the 1968 Act, to which reference is made, speaks of making beds available to resident private patients. I do not believe it is good enough if the noble Lord, with all the skills which are available to him, is unable to say, "I sympathise with your point; the Government would like to make the best possible use of these beds and we could redraft the provision so as to include out-patients as well as in-patients". After all, it is not a major matter of principle but what we all want to do. I think, however, we are going to be told that it is not the Government's intention that these beds should always be used for patients. That is the reason why the Government are not prepared to accept this draft.
In the circumstances, I shall press my Amendment, although I should find it quite acceptable if the Government came back with an Amendment of their own on Report. I would willingly withdraw the Amendment we have moved today if it were found to be inconsistent with anything that the Government were prepared to do.
10. 47 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 39.

CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Carrington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Ampthill, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gainford, L.

Amulree, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gisborough, L.

Auckland, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Gowrie, E.

Balerno, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Belstead, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Harvington, L.

Berkeley, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Henley, L.

Blakenham, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Elles, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Faithfull, B.

Kemsley, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Newall, L.

Seear, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Stamp, L.

Long, V.

Onslow, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Lyell, L.

Pender, L.

Swansea, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Platt, L.

Tranmire, L.

Marley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Vickers, B.

Monson, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Winstanley, L.

Morris, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Young, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Saint Oswald, L.

Sandys, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Janner, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birk, B.

Kagan, L.

Peddie, L.

Brimelow, L.

Kaldor, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Castle, L.

Kissin, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCluskey, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Morris, of Kenwood, L.

White, B.

Hale, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Northfield, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Oram, L. [Teller.]

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
10. 56 p. m.
Baroness YOUNG: Now that we have moved a number of what we regard as important Amendments to this Bill, we hope that the clause will stand part of the Bill in another place. Not only have we the Amendment that we have just moved whereby the beds phased out will at any rate be used by National Health Service patients and not turned into offices, or something like that, which has been the fate of some of them phased out, and that at least the interests of the patients will come first, but we shall have produced a much more realistic timetable in Clause 3(1), and put in an important Amendment that it should be the Board and not the Secretary of State who shall decide on the first 1,000 beds to be phased out. This seems to us on this side of the Committee to cover two very important matters of principle.
Thirdly, we have put in an Amendment which Lord Goodman wanted, that the alternative facilities should be at a satisfactory standard. None of these Amendments is in any way against the principle of the Bill, but all of them are designed to see that all patients, whether they are in the National Health Service or as private
154
patients, have the best possible treatment that is available. That is the principle that we wish to see carried out throughout this Bill. Whether it is based on the narrow definition of the Goodman agreements or not, it is after all the patients whose interests should come first, and it is that which has motivated us to move the Amendments as we have.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Functions of Board as regards withdrawal of NHS facilities from private patients]:
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 38, leave out ("progressive") and insert ("grant or").
The noble Baroness said: The Board and its functions are an integral part of the proposals under this Bill. Amendment No. 17 is designed so that power shall be given to the Board not only to phase out private beds from National Health hospitals but, where it thinks right, to increase the number. This Amendment received a tied vote in another place. It was never debated at all on Report because it was guillotined before it was reached, and this is the first opportunity for anybody to express a further opinion on it and to say what is wanted. It would be unfortunate if, as seems likely, the proceedings of this House are to be guillotined

155
in another place when they go back and possibly there might not be an opportunity to debate this matter again in another place.
The functions of the Board as at present proposed have what can only be described as a ratchet effect. It progressively phases them out, and there is no provision at all for increasing the number anywhere at any time.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, took me to task earlier for saying that on one issue the Government had changed their mind. He replied that all Governments changed their minds because circumstances change. I put it to him on this matter that many circumstances could change in the NHS. After all, who could have foreseen 15 years ago that we would have a Bill like this, that the doctors would ever contemplate going on strike or that the trade unions would feel the way they do? Perhaps we should all have been more farseeing, but in the event probably most people did not expect many of these things. I will, therefore, put to the noble Lord some of the things that might occur in the next 10 to 20 years.
If Lord Wells-Pestell looks at the Registrar General's forecasts of population he will see that already they have changed enormously. Ten years ago the Registrar General was forecasting a large increase in the population. Now we know that we have a declining birth rate but that we have an enormous increase in the population in the age group 75-plus. I am not an expert in these matters, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that, with the largest growth in the population of those over 75, the need for hospital care for them will increase. The Government have argued that the 1,000 beds being phased out will not necessarily be used for those patients. Is it not possible that some of them or their relatives may wish to make private provision for an elderly relative who perhaps has some long terminal illness and will want that provision in hospital? And when the statistics—we cannot argue about this; it is a fact stated in the Government's own publication Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England—make it perfectly clear what the problems of the future may be, how are we to know that those people will not want private provision? The
156
document, in paragraph 11, also highlights two problems:
"… the extent of unsatisfied need in the provision for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped and the pressure on services due to the rising numbers of elderly".
What about provision for the mentally handicapped, now living longer than ever? Suppose a family wishes to make provision for a mentally handicapped child or adult in a long-stay hospital as a private patient? What about new medical developments? Who is to say that there will not be some startling new medical developments that cannot possibly all take place in private hospitals but will take place in others? What about the change in the population? We already have down an Amendment on the question of new towns.
Consider, for example, the way in which the noble Lord's colleague, the Secretary of State for the Environment, has now changed his view, as has his Department, on what should happen in inner cities. Far from trying to take industry and offices out of inner cities, he has discovered that because of what has been the policy and the building up of new towns, inner cities are becoming denuded. That policy is to go into reverse and people are to be encouraged to return to live in the inner cities. Surely that means that there should be provision for private medical facilities where the population goes. Should it not sometimes be the case, in order to meet the Goodman proposals, that that provision should be within the Health Service? It could be in a hospital in a separate block, if that would satisfy everybody's feelings about it. As the useful and important document Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England makes clear, there are to be cuts in capital expenditure and more in domiciliary provision. Is it not sensible that there might have to be more provision for private patients because there will be less provision in NHS hospitals?
I put these as hypothetical questions, but when one is legislating one tries to take a view of the kind of things that might happen in the future, and it seems not unreasonable to assume that for any of these reasons, or even for one of them—or for none of the reasons I have given but for some others I have not suggested—we might at some future date need to make provision for more private patients.
It is for that reason that this Amendment has been put down which would make it the duty of the Board to submit from time to time, only when it thought necessary, not only that the number of private beds in hospitals should be reduced, but that they could, if it was considered necessary, be increased, not generally, but in a particular part of the country at a particular time if the circumstances arose. I do not press that they should. I am not asking that the number of beds should be increased. All I ask is that a provision should be written into legislation to make it possible, simply because no Government can foresee all the eventualities in the future. This at least would be playing safe on a number of complicated issues which will affect many individuals. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: Perhaps this is a suitable moment to remind the House of "Ferrers Law" because, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers has been at pains to remind the House from time to time, the purpose of almost every piece of legislation is ultimately confounded by what turns out in the end; in other words, its purpose is reversed.
I believe those of us who have frequently argued passionately for things which have now disappeared into oblivion can perhaps regard the situation with some care. May I perhaps refer to certain events in the past? There was the Severnside Study, argued passionately during the sixties; the South-Eastern Study, a document of great technical specification and very considerable expertise. Both have been thrown into the waste paper basket. There was the Third London Airport at Foulness, a subject which your Lordships have discussed on many occasions and in very great detail. But who today would stand up from the Government Benches and propose a Bill?
I think it was the noble Baroness who proposed the withdrawal of the final portions of the initial legislation. So we do change our minds in a short space of eight or nine years. Therefore, what my noble friend Lady Young has said is of very great significance in this context; that is, that the legislation must be flexible. It must aim at providing for circumstances unforeseen but which may
158
occur within quite a short space of time, perhaps 10 years or less. I do not think it is necessary to emphasise the obvious any further, but I believe that the Amendment is highly desirable.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I should have hoped that the noble Baroness who will reply would keep in mind the clear advice given by the longest-serving Prime Minister in this century. He made it clear on many occasions that the thing to do in Government or in Opposition is to keep all of your options open. What this Amendment does is to keep an option open, to grant or to remove. I do not think one can do better than urge upon the noble Baroness in replying for the Government that the Government who initiated this legislation was led by the same Prime Minister who always said, "Keep your options open." I hope that in those circumstances she feels that this is an Amendment which does just that. It need not be used if one's principle does not think it right that any extra provision should be granted, but it is an option, I believe, that, whoever the Government may be, they should keep in their locker as being one they may want to use.
11. 10 p. m.
Baroness STEDMAN: Far be it from me never to try to keep all my options open, but on this case I am here to present this part of the Bill which the Government are putting before your Lordships. The effect of the Amendment which the noble Baroness has moved would be to remove the Board's duty to make proposals for the progressive revocation of authorisations under Sections 1 and 2 of the 1968 Act, and to impose on the Board a duty to make proposals to the Secretary of State for the grant of authorisations of pay beds and facilities for private non-resident patients as well as for their revocation.
I must remind your Lordships of what my right honourable friend, a former Minister of State, said in another place; namely, that the private sector would have to stand on its own feet, and that the Government are in the business of providing a separation of pay beds from the National Health Service. I accept that the forecast that we are given today on population shows that there will be quite a shift in the age groups of our population.

159
I accept that there are people with all kinds of disabilities, mental and physical, and there are many more elderly people who may require pay beds. But there were Government Amendments tabled to Clauses 4 and 5 at the Committee stage in another place which took into account the representations which were made to them by the medical profession, and these provide for pay bed authorisations to be granted where a hospital with pay beds is permanently or temporarily closed.
So far as new towns are concerned, where a new hospital is built in a new town, and where this involves the closure of an existing hospital in the area, then any pay beds which existed at the original hospitals could, if the Board recommended, be re-provided in the new hospital. But where there were no existing pay beds in the area, any new demand for private practice which arose from the expansion of population would have to be satisfied by the private sector. I should be failing in my duty if I did not again remind your Lordships that the purpose of the Bill is not to perpetuate the existence of pay beds in the National Health Service, but to provide the machinery for effecting the separation of private medical practice from National Health Service hospitals in a reasonable and orderly manner. I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: I always enjoy listening to the very clear and concise way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, makes her points, and I only wish that I could agree with her. She says that it was maintained in another place that in matters of this kind the private sector must stand on its own feet. One of my concerns about the Bill is that I think that in many instances the private sector will stand on its own feet, with difficulty in places, but very successfully. The question which the noble Baroness needs to ask herself is: Will the National Health Service be able to stand on its own feet? It is rather wobbly in places and it is hardly likely to be improved by the Bill. That is our concern about it.
The argument of the noble Baroness about new towns is the kind of argument
160
that rings every single alarm bell on this side. She said quite fairly that any pay beds that already exist in new towns could be re-provided in some other form of hospital, but that any new demand would have to be provided by the private sector. As the noble Baroness knows far better than I do, new towns take a long time to develop. Her own new town of Peterborough would be one example. There may not now be a demand for private beds. There may not be a big enough population. It is most unlikely that there was a private nursing home, for example, in Peterborough new town. I should be very surprised to hear that there is one. But neither she nor I can say that into the indefinite future there will never be one.
In the meantime, any pay beds phased out mean that the inhabitants there will not have the options. I should remind Members of the Committee who talk as if it is very easy to get a good bed in hospital, that if you live in London you are very fortunate; you are very well provided with all kinds of facilities which do not necessarily exist in other parts of the country, and people are perfectly entitled, if they so wish, to make private provision for them.
My argument does not rest merely on new towns. I quoted this as one example; and I was very glad that the noble Baroness recognised that there is a very real problem with the ageing population that we have. I think that before very much longer we shall find ourselves in increasing difficulty with the number of very old people in the population for whom provision will need to be made. As I cannot see that it is at all unreasonable to ask in this matter that the Board should have powers, either to increase or to decrease the numbers of pay beds, I feel that I cannot withdraw this Amendment.
11. 16 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 53; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Gowrie, E.

Newall, L.

Belstead, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Berkeley, B.

Harvington, L.

Onslow, E.

Blakenham, V.

Henley, L.

Pender, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hill of Luton, L.

Platt, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Carrington, L.

Kemsley, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Long, V.

Sandys, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Seear, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Elles, B.

Marley, L.

Swansea, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Vickers, B.

Faithfull, B.

Morris, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Winstanley, L. [Teller.]

Gisborough, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Oram, L.

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brimelow, L.

Kagan, L.

Peddie, L.

Castle, L.

Kaldor, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shepherd, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. chancellor.)

Morris of Kenwood, L.

White, B

Fisher of Camden, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Northfield, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
11. 23 p. m.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Henley): Would I be right in supposing that Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 20 and 21 are consequential on the Amendment which has just been agreed to?
Baroness YOUNG: That is so. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 18 to 21 en bloc.
Page 3, line 39, leave out first ("the")
Page 3, line 41, leave out from ("patients") to ("and") in line 43.
Page 3, line 44, leave out ("the")
Page 3, line 46, leave out from ("patients") to end of line 2 on page 4.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 9, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve")
The noble Lord said: This group of Amendments is concerned with the timetable of the working out of the Bill and proposes to omit the period "six months"
162
and insert "twelve months". It was the group of Amendments previously referred to as "the Goodman proposals" and was the subject of a tied vote in the House of Commons. For that reason, I think it is very important that we should pay particular attention to this opportunity of re-examining the situation because, as I understand it, none of the three Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 was reached on Report in another place and were subject to the guillotine. The question of the timetable in the Bill is of vital significance. In the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State was required to phase out the beds within six months, and the Board in the present drafting are required to produce their proposals. But this really is quite impossible within the very narrow limits of six calendar months provided by the Government timetable.
Let us consider what the Board are expected to do. On being convened as a Board by the Secretary of State, they will presumably receive their appointments and meet on the first occasion. They will have to decide on their method of working; they will have to appoint their secretaries and set up their administrative procedures and organise their

163
staff at such a place and in such a way as to be most economical and to facilitate their operation. But it is not purely a matter of setting up an office, because they have a very clearly defined job to do in a very short period of time.
We ought to see what those jobs are once they are administratively organised. One of the first things they must do is to establish working relations with a Scottish and Welsh Committee. These Committees have to be set up; as indeed the four lists of assessors which are set out in Schedule 1(5) on page 23 of the Bill. There are many further problems they will have to examine, because the centre of it lies in the review of investigations of facilities in the private out-patient consultation department and facilities for accommodation. Here really lies a very particular problem for the Board. It is a matter of receiving reports from authorities tabulating equipment and, above all, recognising what equipment is located in which hospital.
It is a technical matter of the first order to identify the location of equipment: first, for radio therapy; secondly, for diagnostic pathology; thirdly, for diagnostic radiology; fourthly, for scanning; fifthly, for ultra-sonics and methods using radio isotopes. Of course, there are several hospitals in London specially skilled in this particular facility, but remarkably few in other parts of the United Kingdom. Hammersmith is well known to have been the leading hospital in this particular field for many years; but how many other principal centres of population can say, "We are as well equipped as Hammersmith"? Apart from specifying what equipment is installed in hospitals, one of the very important things to recognise is the age of the equipment, its suitability, the way in which it has been used in the past and, "Has it been perhaps underused?" There is the question of whether the catchment area to which the noble Baroness referred (highly significant in this whole field) relates to particular facilities.
The Board are being asked in the period of six months to investigate the beds after the first thousand. Of course, the Bill as drafted now has been revised after the Amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Young. We hope that that
164
Amendment will remain in the Bill. But the problem which will concern the Board is the post-Schedule 2 situation—which beds from which hospitals? This really is a particularly difficult task.
My noble friend Lady Young has referred to the demographic problem, where centres of population change. Here one can see a very difficult task facing the Board. They will have to organise themselves in such a way as to collate information from both the Department of Health and Social Security and also from the Department of Environment. Quite substantial parts in the catchment areas referred to change comparatively quickly in areas where redevelopment has taken place.
I believe that the collection of tasks to which I have referred is impossible to carry out within a period of six calendar months. During that period it will be possible to establish the initial procedures—that is, for the Board to get to know one another (a very necessary proceeding); to establish lines of communication; to recognise what their role is and to identify their relationship with both the Department of Health and also their other roles in connection with the Scottish and Welsh Committees and the assessors. Their roles with the BMA, and their consultants, and with the other organisations concerned in the whole operation is very significant.
Private practice will be very strongly affected. It is one of the tasks of the Board to so enable the smooth transition between the phasing out of pay beds in the National Health Service in such a manner as it will not affect patients in the National Health Service hospitals. I hope they will achieve their task in a satisfactory manner; but surely a period of six months is grossly inadequate. I believe that this Amendment, and its successor Amendments, are most certainly necessary to the Bill. I beg to move.
11. 32 p. m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I should like to emphasise from practical experience, as I know the noble Baroness has had from her local government days, that six months is a short time. When you are dealingwith anything as bureaucratic as this, six months amounts only to minutes. If you take into account holiday periods,

165
the time when people whose advice is essential are away doing other jobs, six months is asking for this important task to be done in a slip-shod way. If it is not done in a slip-shod way, it is asking for decisions to be made by one official in order to fit in with the timetable, and you are not going to have the collective wisdom of the Board with their special contacts.
The noble Baroness has sat on planning committees, as I have. She knows that things which are not as intricate as this have been submitted, and she has found it impossible to give either planning approval or disapproval within 12 months, 18 months and two years. I sympathise with her in the advice she has to give and I hope that she can officially recognise tonight what a short period six months is and will put that on the record. I do not think that 12 months is long enough. I would leave it as open as possible to make certain that the job is well done. There is no merit in having it done in six months or 12 months; the merit is having it properly done. It will not be able to be done well in six months.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My attitude as to whether this should be six months or 12 months depends on the ultimate fate of the group of Amendments we have just passed. If this clause is going to read:
"… in accordance with this section proposals for the grant or revocation of … the authorizations …"
that makes rather a difference. If one of the roles of the Board is to alert the authorities to possible dangers and damage to the service, I should like them to do that at the earliest possible stage.
I make no secret of the fact that I have spoken in these debates on this Bill from the point of view of one who is anxious, above all else, to protect and defend the National Health Service; and because I wish to do that I should like to see National Health Service specialists spending as much time as possible in the National Health Service. One of my fears in the phasing out of private beds is that they will go a long way away—"somewhere in the catchment area" as the phrase has become. Frankly, I should like to see National Health Service specialists in the National Health Service
166
hospitals. A measure such as this will take many of them away from these hospitals for certain periods, and at a very early stage it will have a damaging effect on the Service. If those damaging effects are apparent, I should like the Board to alert the authorities at the earliest possible moment so that steps can be taken. I know this is permissive rather than obligatory, but my attitude to whether the period is six months or twelve months rather depends on whether the Amendments which have gone through this Committee ultimately remain in the Bill.
Viscount LONG: In support of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Sandys, I must say that after he had read out some of the things the Board would have to do in this six months' period, I have come to the conclusion that the Government are really pressurising the Board members to fulfil their task, especially as most of them are expected to be in private practice. I really do not see how they will be able to form themselves into a Board and carry out this work (bearing in mind also that there will be Scottish and Welsh Committees), and still be in their own practices at the same time. Six months, in my view, is much too short, and I think it would be better to leave it open rather than pressurise them in this way, or else to leave it at a year, if not more.
Baroness STEDMAN: The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will not expect me to support him in his views tonight, and he will have got used to the fact that over a period of 25 years I have not supported him as my Member of Parliament. I have not changed my views during the time he has been in this Chamber, and therefore shall have to oppose the view he has given tonight.
So far as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, is concerned, he would not expect me to give any assurances as to what will happen to Amendments made to this Bill when they get to another place. Therefore, I cannot satisfy him as to whether this is the right period of time in his view. What I can say is that the extension of this interval would unnecessarily and unacceptably prolong the period of withdrawal from the National Health Service of pay beds and of authorised facilities for private out-patients.

167
The Government accept the principles enunciated in the proposals of 15th December for determining the phasing out of pay beds and facilities from the NHS, which are listed in Clause 4(7). Those principles were, first, that for the retention of beds or facilities for private practice in NHS hospitals there should be reasonable demand for private medicine in the areas of the country served by those particular hospitals. Secondly, that for the abolition of beds or facilities for private practice in NHS hospitals there should be available sufficient accommodation or facilities for the reasonable operation of private medicine in the areas of the country served by those particular hospitals. Also, in those areas of the country presently served for private practice by a particular NHS hospital, all reasonable steps had been or were being taken to provide private beds or facilities outside NHS hospitals and that this would be kept under continuous review; and also, that where all reasonable steps to provide in the area of the country concerned alternative private beds and facilities outside an NHS hospital that could be taken were not being taken, this would, after due warning, be itself grounds for recommending the withdrawal of facilities for private practice in that particular NHS hospital. While showing a proper understanding of the difficulties which developers may encounter in seeking to provide alternative facilities, the Board should none the less approach this part of its remit with an appropriate sense of urgency.
In the Government's view, a requirement on the Board to look at the state of play every six months is a reasonable interpretation of these principles. It puts the onus on developers, and those who believe there is a substantial public demand for private practice, to demonstrate their conviction by taking steps to provide facilities to meet that demand promptly, though not of course with undue haste or without adequate preparatory planning. None the less, it is foreseen that a point could be reached when, after thorough review on a particular occasion, the Board might not be able, in following the principles in Clause 4(7), to propose any more beds or facilities for phasing out, for the time being. In that case, it can report that no proposals are at that time
168
necessary. This is allowed for in Clause 4 (2)(b). It is up to the chairman to make a case to the Secretary of State, if he thinks it unreasonable that he should submit his first report in six months. Since the object of the Bill is progressive phasing out, we should be losing the impetus in doing the job which we have set ourselves if there were too long an interval. Therefore, I must ask the House to reject these Amendments.
11. 42 p. m.
Lord SANDYS: I must confess that if I were appointed chairman of a Board, which is highly unlikely, my first recourse would be to Clause 4(2)(b), which is what any chairman would do, faced with an overwhelming situation wherein it would be totally impossible to reach the conclusion of his work in that period. The noble Baroness used the phrase, "unnecessarily and unacceptably prolonging the process of withdrawal" and she did not, I regret to say, convince me that there would be a satisfactory argument, because the phrases which followed from her brief, which she read with an assumed conviction, carried with them all the arguments which we know so well, and the phraseology which we know from another place. That phrase, which has such a familiar ring to it, "kept under continuous review" is a term of art which is so well known that it brings shouts of laughter in another place when a Minister attempts to use it.
I believe that the situation is this. The Government are attempting a piece of window-dressing in trying to force the programme unnecessarily fast. If they seriously think that this Amendment is either a wrecking or disruptive one, they have cause to reconsider it, because any reasonable chairman reading Hansard, and looking at the list of operations which he would have to complete, would say straight away, "It is out of the question that this could be fulfilled".
There is one final point, which I believe is a practical one. I make no complaint about the postal arrangements. I merely make the observation that, now that weekend collections have been discontinued, the whole operation of a week's mail has changed its cycle. It means that for someone writing a letter on a Friday or a Saturday, and failing to

169
get it into the post, the whole cycle is thrown out of phase. I believe that there is a point here, and I also feel that communications with these Welsh and Scottish Committees will take a great deal longer than the Government believe.
House resumed.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
11. 45 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26: Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS

Colville of Culross, V.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Newall, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kemsley, V.

Norwich, Bp.

Craigmyle, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lyell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Sandys, L.

Gisborough, L.

Morris, L.

Swansea, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vickers, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Henley, L.

Oram, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peart, L. (Privy Seal.)

Brimelow, L.

Janner, L.

Peddie, L.

Castle, L.

Kagan, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Champion, L.

Kaldor, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCluskey, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

White, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Northfield, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.