Lords Sitting of 22 November 1976

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock:
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

MINERALS EXPLORATION REPORTS
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will publish an up-to-date report on minerals exploration in Scotland undertaken by the Institute of Geological Science on behalf of the Department of Industry.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, as a result of work carried out under the current programme of Mineral Resources Investigations in Great Britain, seven reports have so far been completed and are available for public inspection; three of these relate to Scotland. Fifty-two further reports are due to be completed by the end of July 1977, of which 18 relate to Scotland.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Can the noble Lord say whether those reports which are available for inspection can be obtained in the Printed Paper Office, or are they so bulky that one would need a slim volume to summarise them?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, they are available at the relevant IGS Libraries, and I am advised that these are to be found at—surprisingly perhaps—Exhibition Road, London, Gray's Inn Road, London, at Leeds, at Exeter, and at Edinburgh in Murtchison House, West Mains Road.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord make arrange-
1652
ments so that the Houses of Parliament might also be a repository for these documents, so that Members of both Houses can consult them?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I shall certainly give consideration to what seems to me to be a relevant point which the noble Earl makes.

THE SVALBARD ARCHIPELAGO
11.7 a.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their view concerning the potential strategic and economic importance to the West of the Svalbard Archipelago and the Barents Sea.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, Svalbard and the Barents Sea to the east of the Archipelago constitute a region of strategic importance for East/West relations, but the area has been one of low tension for many years, and we hope that it remains so. Under the 1920 Treaty, Norway undertakes not to create or allow the establishment of any naval base in the territories of Svalbard, or to construct any fortifications there, and the territories are not to be used for any warlike purposes. In accordance with the Treaty, the parties have certain rights to exploit the natural resources of the Svalbard Archipelago.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is anxiety in the Western World regarding the Soviet's particular interest in this area?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are aware of certain concern by the Norwegians about the situation in this area, and we sympathise with their concern. We expect that activity in this area will not in any way either infringe the terms of the 1920 Treaty or conduce to an impairment of the political and strategic situation in this very sensitive area.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm whether there is a civil Soviet airfield on Spitsbergen, which might be a potential infringement?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, I can confirm that. There are regular flights between Svalbard and the Soviet Union and between Svalbard and Norway, of course. There are also mining communities from both countries exploiting the coal resources of the Archipelago.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, can the Minister confirm reports that the Russians are firing rockets over the sea area which is in dispute in that part of Norway?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Soviet Union has conducted training operations involving missiles in the high sea in this area.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does my noble friend think it is wise for us to go searching for items upon which there can be disputation between Britain and the Soviet Union?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords, I do not think so, and I do not think that the noble Baroness thinks so, either. We are, of course, as a responsible Chamber of Parliament entitled, and indeed have a certain duty to look at these important matters from time to time—and, I hope, always in the spirit which the noble Baroness and my noble friend have shown today.

AGRICULTURAL LAND
11.11 a.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many acres of farm land have been taken over for housing, factories and other buildings in the years 1975 and 1976.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I regret that I am unable to give a reply in the precise
1654
terms used by the noble Baroness. Using figures for the five-year period ending in June 1975, which is the latest information available, about 39,000 acres of agricultural land in the United Kingdom were lost each year to urban, industrial and recreational use, excluding mineral workings. This information is taken from the returns in the annual agricultural census.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Has a survey been made of derelict lands and open spaces in cities and towns, to see whether these could be used for building of factories and houses in the future, which would thus save good agricultural land?
Lord PEART: My Lords, no precise survey of that kind has been made, but there have been independent assessments, such as that by the Centre for Agricultural Strategy, which I assume the noble Baroness has read. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, highlighted in a statement the loss of agricultural land. But the Ministry of Agriculture is naturally concerned that good agricultural land is not lost, if this can be avoided.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend give us any information with regard to the acreage which has been taken up during this period for new roads, motorways and similar purposes; and, if he has not got the particulars, would he get them and circulate them in the Official Report?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I shall see if I can get them and I shall reply to my noble friend.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will encourage local authorities, when they are building schools, to build two-storey schools, or even three-storey schools, instead of having sprawling one-floor buildings all over good agricultural land? It does the little children no harm to run upstairs.
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked me to do certain things concerning the question of the height of schools which I do not think any Government have ever agreed to. I think we must accept that at every

1655
stage of development there must be a careful look at the situation from the point of view of the needs of agriculture.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, is not the worrying thing about the figures which the noble Lord has given the fact that the majority of this acreage is usually good agricultural land? Are statistics kept to say how much of the 39,000 acres represents good agricultural land as opposed to relatively poor stock?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I cannot give a figure today without notice, but I will get it for the noble Earl. Around 0·3 per cent of the total agricultural area of the United Kingdom is lost to other use each year. As the noble Earl knows, under the Government's strategy for the development of agriculture, food production from our own resources is expected to rise by about 2½ per cent. per annum on average, so I do not think we should be too pessimistic.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, would that be from the existing acreage or from the decreasing acreage?
Lord PEART: From the decreasing acreage, my Lords.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, what was the point of all the work we put into the Community Land Act if no hope is to be derived from this measure in reducing the amount of good agricultural land that is taken for urban development?
Lord PEART: My Lords, the policy for protecting agricultural land applies equally to land acquired for development under the Community Land Act, and I believe that such productive use of land should be continued as long as possible.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, would the House be right in assuming that if 3 per cent. of land is taken for development every year it will be 33 years before—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: It is 0·3 per cent.
Lord KENNET:: —it will be 330 years before there is no grass left in England?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not think
1656
I shall be Minister then, so I cannot answer my noble friend.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
11.15. a.m.
THE MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons and Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons and Amendments in lieu be now considered.—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS TO WHICH THE COMMONS HAD DISAGREED AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS ON WHICH THE LORDS HAVE INSISTED
[The page and line refer to Bill (314) as first printed by the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU
1 Clause 30, page 42, line 12, after" if" insert:
"(a) it is a transaction the effect of which is to transfer or grant to any person any property or rights belonging to the company effecting the transfer, being property or rights used by the company in connection with the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships carried on by it at a place which is not a shipyard or other works in which the company had an interest in the possession on the initial date, or
(b)"
2 Clause 31, page 44, line 28, at end insert:
"(dd) it is a transaction the effect of which is to transfer or grant to any person any property or rights belonging to the company effecting the transfer, being property or rights used by the company in connection with the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships carried on by it at a place which is not a shipyard or other works in which the company had an interest in the possession on the initial date; or"
3 Clause 56, page 79, line 23, at end insert
"or any factory, dry-dock, graving dock, or other premises or land situated in the United Kingdom in which an acquired company was entitled to an interest in possession or a licence to occupy and which on or at any time after the initial date was being used for repairing, refitting or maintaining ships unless—

(i) that factory, dry-dock, graving dock, those premises or that land is or are

1657
wholly appurtenant to the shipbuilding undertaking carried on at a shipyard or other works in which the acquired company had an interest in possession on 31st July 1974 or is or are mainly appurtenant to property or rights which are wholly appurtenant to that undertaking; or

(ii) that factory, dry-dock, graving dock, those premises, that land, that property or those rights, as the case may be, cannot reasonably be severed from the shipbuilding undertaking."

The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for which disagreement they have assigned the following Reason:
4Because they would undesirably exempt certain transactions from the safeguarding provisions of the Bill.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. I to 3 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4. I will, with the leave of the House, also speak on Lords Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6, and Lords Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9, to which the Commons have disagreed and proposed Amendments in lieu Nos. 10 to 19 inclusive.
My Lords, I wish to make it clear at the outset that the Government will make no concession on their proposals for ship repair. The Amendments carried last Thursday in another place reaffirmed our commitment to vest in British Shipbuilders the nine privately-owned and three privately-owned ship repair companies named in Schedule 2 to the Bill. Those Amendments also set out the timescale for vesting—no less than three months, and no more than six months, from Royal Assent. Ship repair is now the sole remaining issue between this House and another place. My Lords, it must now be clear beyond doubt to everyone in this House that the Government's commitment on ship repairing is as firm as our commitment to bring aircraft, shipbuilding and slow speed marine engines into public ownership.
Ship repairing was included in both the February and October 1974 Manifestos. It was also specifically mentioned, in some detail, in the discussion paper which the then Secretary of State for Industry laid before Parliament on the 31st July 1974. The discussion paper set out the reasons for the Government's proposals on ship repair. The arguments for public owner-
1658
ship of the larger ship repair companies were powerfully made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry in another place last Thursday. I do not intend going into them yet again in full. Instead, I wish to concentrate on three misconceptions about our proposals which I believe may have seriously misled noble Lords opposite, and possibly even one of my noble friends.
First, it was never the intention to nationalise the smaller ship repair companies or those for whom ship repairing is only a sideline. This was stated explicitly in paragraph 11 of the 1974 discussion paper. Instead, I was the Government's intention to nationalise two main groups of ship repair companies: first, the ship repair subsidiaries of groups like Swan Hunter and Scott Lithgow, where shipbuilding and ship repairing complement each other to a great extent, and where separation would cause loss of flexibility and inefficient use of resources; and, second, the large independent ship repair companies who operate significant dry dock facilities on the main estuaries. These were included to give British Shipbuilders an adequate industrial base for its ship repair interests, and to ensure modernisation and development of the industry in all the main port areas of the country, as was recommended in the PA Management Consultants' report.
The criteria defining the ship repair companies in Schedule 2 were deliberately chosen to fulfil the Government's intention to include only the larger companies with major facilities on the main estuaries, and not the smaller companies carrying out mainly voyage repairs, nor those companies carrying out ship repair as a sideline. The analogy which has been trade that the difference between shipbuilding and ship repairing is like the difference between garages and car manufacturers bears no relation whatever to the Government's proposals in this Bill and is completely misleading.
The second misconception I want to correct is that the workers in some ship repair companies are against nationalisation. This mistaken belief was destroyed conclusively by the evidence presented last week in another place, including the letter from three-quarters of the workforce in one of the yards of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited affirming that they

1659
fully support the Bill, and the inclusion of their company.
The third misconception is that ship repair will not suffer like shipbuilding from delay in carrying out the Government's proposals. This is not true. The ship repairing industry is also facing a bleak period when work will be hard to find. Delay and uncertainty about nationalisation will make it more difficult to get through this period intact. Many companies have been planning on the basis that British Shipbuilders will be taking over soon. Indeed, one independent ship repair company has told the Department of Industry that even if ship repair was to be removed from the Bill they would still want to come under British Shipbuilders as soon as possible.
My Lords, I would like now to turn to the more general consequences of delay. But before doing so I want to deal with the spurious argument that the responsibility for delaying the proposals for aircraft and shipbuilding will be with the Government. This argument is completely false. I have shown clearly that the Government have a commitment for the ship repair proposals from the 1974 Manifestos. The proposals were clearly set out in the 1974 discussion paper and embodied in the Bill. I have explained the industrial logic behind these proposals. The proposals in the Bill have now been endorsed many times in another place. In these circumstances, the Government would be failing in their duty if they did not do everything in their power to carry out their policy.
If this House continues to insist on its Amendments to delete ship repair from the Bill, this Bill will fall in the current Session. I have to tell your Lordships that the Government will reintroduce the Bill at the beginning of the new Session. It will be the same Bill as came to your Lordships' House from the other place after Third Reading there, together with those of your Lordships' Amendments as were agreed to by the other place on 11th November. The compensation terms will remain the same. The safeguarding provisions will remain the same, with the same effective dates, and they will therefore continue in effect.
My Lords, this House does not have the power to stop this legislation being
1660
enacted. Under the Parliament Acts, your Lordships' power is restricted to delaying the enactment of a Bill for a period which can extend to the end of next Session. It is that power of delay this House will be exercising if we fail to agree with the Commons today. It is clear that the responsibility for this delay will be with this House, and your Lordships cannot escape it.
What will be the consequences of such delay? Last week in this House I called them catastrophic. The effect of delay on the British aircraft industry make it very likely that the industry will wholly or partly miss out on the next round of civil aircraft collaboration and that many thousands of jobs will be lost permanently in consequence. But I would like to concentrate on the effect of delay on the problems facing the merchant shipbuilding industry, perhaps the most serious industrial problem facing the country at this time.
This country has a long tradition of merchant shipbuilding. The industry, although its share of world markets has declined dramatically, is still vitally important in certain sensitive areas. In these regions it provides productive employment for a wide range of skills of both management and work people, which go to building some of the best ships in the world. It also provides considerable employment for workers in the marine equipment industries. It is no exaggeration to say that the effect of a collapse of merchant shipbuilding would be catastrophic for whole communities in regions such as Clydeside and Tyne-side.
For many years merchant shipbuilders in this country have had to struggle for existence in the face of severe and sometimes unfair overseas competition. Governments of both parties have tried various measures of support, none of which has had a lasting effect. Some£300 million of public money has gone to the industry over the past decade. Now because of serious world overcapacity, this country's merchant shipbuilders are facing their most severe crisis, possibly in this century. Work in some yards will start to run out next year. New orders have to be fought for against cutthroat competition. Everything possible must be done to help the industry get work.

1661
The Government are sure that the best hope of surmounting the problems is to vest the merchant shipbuilders as soon as possible in British Shipbuilders. The Organising Committee has already begun to introduce a new type of enterprise to the problems of the industry. Once the Corporation is established it can plan a strategy for the industry as a whole in an orderly way. The alternative is a process of disorderly unplanned crises, which have infortunately been experienced in this industry in the past.
But, my Lords, time is short. The seriousness of the situation may be judged by two quotations from a statement made earlier this month by an experienced and practical shipbuilder. I refer to the new President of the Shipbuilders and Repairers National Association.
He said:
"In taking up the reins of office I am—in common with every shipbuilder in Britain—deeply concerned about the effects which the current uncertainty is having on our ability to meet the pressing problems which confront us."
And again:
"As an Association we have always said that if and when nationalisation were to become a fact of life we would do our best—in the interests of the industry and the people who rely on it for their livelihood—to make it work. My point tonight is that our ability to keep the industry vigorous is being negated by uncertainty and that the shipbuilders of Britain are in need of a positive policy which would encourage cooperation in this country among shipbuilders, shipowners, trade unions and Government in their mutual interest."
My Lords, the Government are completely convinced that by far the most effective way of bringing that policy quickly into action is to set up British Shipbuilders without further delay. The shipbuilding industry has for too long been a subject of intense political interest. It has now become almost a political football between this House and another place. But it is time to look at the stark realities which lie behind all this. The responsibility for further delaying the Bill rests, as I say, squarely with noble Lords opposite—that is all, as I have said, that this House now has the power to do. If the consequences of delay will be, as I firmly believe, to place in jeopardy the welfare of very many families and whole communities depending on shipbuilding, this House must take care to discharge this responsibility with full regard to the consequences. I have no doubt that the
1662
many thousands of people who are likely to lose their livelihoods and the opportunity to employ their productive skills if this Bill is delayed will lay the blame fairly on noble Lords opposite for insisting on their disagreement with legislation proposed by an elected Government and endorsed by the House of Commons. My Lords, the blame will lie on this House, and this House alone.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 4—(Lord Melchett.)
11.30 a.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has confirmed that the Government have not accepted your Lordships' Amendments, which would drop the ship repairing industry from the Bill but would leave the rest of the Bill intact. The additional Amendments which the Government have offered, and which have come to us from another place, simply provide a separate vesting date for the ship repairing industry, nothing more or less. Those additional Amendments numbered 10 to 19 would contribute only a cosmetic gloss because the time proposed for vesting, between three and six months, is about what is expected in timing in any case. So the effect of the Commons Message is therefore that the Government reject this House's Amendments and have produced others which make no material change.
This House has not insisted on any Amendments other than those to remove the ship repairing industry. The Amendments would leave the rest of the Bill fully operative and comprehensive. The nationalisation of shipbuilding, aircraft and marine engine manufacture is not affected by these Amendments, much as we on these Benches dislike those proposals for nationalisation of these three industries. The Government could have obtained the Bill last week with the nationalisation of those industries included in it. The Cabinet can still today obtain Royal Assent for it, leaving open the option to introduce a short Bill on ship repairing at the beginning of the next Session if they persist with the ntion of nationalising that industry. Whatever may be said about other industries, the

1663
question of nationalising ship repairing is not an urgent one. But the Government seem to have decided that it must be all or nothing, and that decision presumably was taken by the Cabinet last Thursday morning.
There appear to be three possible explanations. The first is that Ministers have taken leave of their senses. Another is that after what happened to the Docks Bill and at the recent by-elections, the Cabinet feel that any apparent concession would give the impression that the rot had set in even more than it has. There is a third explanation, a deplorable one if it is right. It is that the Government are determined to blame your Lordships for any reverses or distress which the shipbuilding and aircraft industries might appear to suffer during 1977, even though this Bill can be passed today with everything concerning those industries in it. There have been some signs that this could be the Government's ploy, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, added to them today.
On Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, stated that further delay would be catastrophic for the industries. That was repeated by the Secretary of State for Industry, Mr. Varley, in the debate in another place on Thursday. In that debate, the Minister of State, Mr. Kaufman, spoke of the aircraft industry missing out on the next round of civil aircraft collaboration with other countries if the vesting date had not been reached by then. Many will argue that he is wrong. But where merchant shipbuilding is concerned, there is a world crisis because of the shortage of orders and overcapacity. The Governments of all shipbuilding countries have been helping their industries financially and in other ways. The Government may be using the words "catastrophic" and "disastrous" without much thought, except to try to attach the blame to this House. But if the Government are correct, if they believe what they are saying, then their failure to go ahead with the Bill, minus ship repairing, is, by their own words, an unprincipled act of cynicism.
No one can seriously contend that the question of nationalising the ship repairing industry is urgent, or that delay would matter much there. Here then are the
1664
Government delaying all the rest of the Bill, where they say that delay would cause disastrous consequences. One or two Ministers have in speeches pretended in public that this House is delaying the whole Bill. The noble Lord said that again today, and I refute that categorically. If the Government are planning to lay the blame for any ills allegedly caused by delay to this Bill at the door of this House, that would be as shabby and squalid a device as ever resorted to in British politics.
I am sure that no noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite would acquiesce in such a course of action. I find it difficult to believe that Ministers in the Commons would stoop to what, from their own statements, would be destructive folly, deliberately to cause delay which they consider would be catastrophic for the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, industries for which this Bill can be passed today. But the Government have not themselves moved with any marked celerity in decisions that have to be taken by them to accompany the Bill. For example, there is still no decision yet, even today, in what part of the country the headquarters of the British Shipbuilders' Corporation is to be. The noble Lord was speaking just now about the urgent need to get British Shipbuilders going. But they have not yet decided on where the headquarters should be. On the Second Reading at the end of September the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that he hoped it would be decided while the Bill was before this House. It is well known that there is competition between several development areas for the headquarters of the proposed Corporation. The selection of one area will disappoint the others. It would help to remove the suspicions of cynicism if the Government could tell us today the decision, if it has been taken; otherwise. it will look as if the Government are withholding an unpopular decision because delay would make it unnecessary.
The fact is clear: ship repairing is a most unsuitable industry for nationalisation. The reasons have been given more than once during the passage of the Bill. Anyone with any knowledge of the industry knows this. Most Ministers must by now know it. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, knows it, and has told Ministers in no uncertain terms. I suspect that he knows

1665
more about the ship repairing industry from his days in Clydeside than the whole of the Cabinet put together. Every informed observer knows it, as the Press has shown. The team from the IMF knows it. Our ship repairing competitors in Europe know it, and they would be content if the industry were to be nationalised.
Ship repairing is a service industry which has to take many decisions and actions, at short notice and in different places. Its units have direct and special links with the customers, the world's shipping industries. Both the British ship repairing industry and the British shipping industry believe that their interests would be damaged by the nationalisation of repairing.
I have not at any stage during the Bill suggested that ship repairing was not mentioned in the proposals for public ownership in the Labour Party Manifestos. What I have pointed out is that it has only been there in attendance upon shipbuilding, not on its own account. The Government would not suffer from any serious accusation of bad faith if, 2½ years later, shipbuilding were nationalised but not ship repairing. In any case, they could propose ship repairing again on its own merits next Session. That would indeed be a more realistic test of the merits of their case, which have so far been invisible. This House has not exceeded its powers which are limited. It has been working within the Act passed in the late 1940s when a Labour Government were in office.
Furthermore, these Amendments have been strongly supported by the Liberal Peers and a large number of Cross-Bench Peers. To speak as if only Conservative Peers have been involved, as some Ministers have in recent days, is thoroughly misleading. We are aware also that there is little enthusiasm from the Benches behind the Government for the nationalisation of shiprepairing. Far from being a conflict with the inclinations of the people, it is clear from every available opinion poll that the sense of this House's Amendments is supported by the large majority of the electorate. The Government are being given the opportunity of second thoughts. I hope that your Lordships will support my noble friends
1666
in opposing the Government's Motion and insisting upon our Amendments.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has put the case for the ship repairers very well and in great detail. I shall speak only very briefly and on one or two generalities. Today we are faced in your Lordships' Chamber with two alternatives: to climb down and give way to the Left Wing or to stand form and to do our constitutional duty. If we climb down, we are climbing down to the will of a minority Government elected by about 25 per cent. of the electorate—a Government which stagger, punch drunk, from one disaster to another, a Government, alas! controlled by their Left Wing whose ideological and nonsensical policies are totally against the wishes of the majority of people of Great Britain. We have only to listen to the voices of these extremists, who want not only to abolish the House of Lords, but to do away with a Second Chamber as well. By this, their way and purpose for governing Great Britain might be made possible; but as long as we stand firm, my Lords, our country, our freedom and our democracy will stand.
Most noble Lords will, I know, not shrink from their responsibilities for, if they do, this Chamber, which has for so long over the ages fought for the freedom and liberty of the individual citizen, might just as well not exist. Reformed in some way, we ought to be; but let us not forget the whole of Parliament in this reformation. Before the turnult of "Abolish the Lords!" has died down, let the moderate and sane democratic Members of all Parties in another place take a close look at themselves, for they must be blind or bent on self-destruction if they do not realise that it is as certain as the sun will rise that if we do not have some form of electoral reform in our ancient country we shall, in the not too distant future, become just another Iron Curtain satellite like those other unhappy countries who once—
Several noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: So, my Lords, I wholeheartedly support the idea of not yielding to the blustering outbursts from another place. If I should have a

1667
regret, it is that as well as removing the ship repairers from this Bill we cannot also remove the aerospace companies as well. This is a bad, malevolent and harmful Bill and, if it should ever be finally passed, future generations will live to regret it bitterly.
11.44 a.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the speech we have just heard from the Liberal Benches was to reflect the view of your Lordships' House, whichever way it decides to vote, then I think a very grave situation confronts us; because if that were so it would be a confrontation between the two Houses not on the merits of the legislation under consideration but representing a direct political attack on the Government of the day and the House of Commons. But I suspect that is not the view and that is not the approach of most noble Lords in the Chamber this morning. I had not intended to speak in this part of the debate. I thought, as one who had been leader of your Lordships' House and had so recently resigned, that it would perhaps be best to remain silent, but the two grave issues which confront the House are such that I thought I ought to participate, because one of them is an issue that I, with other noble Lords from all sides of the House who have had responsibility for leadership, have sought to avoid: that is, confrontation and conflict between the two Chambers.
There are two issues, both very grave. There is the shipbuilding industry in particular; there are thousands of jobs at stake and companies which could collapse in a matter of weeks or months, with consequent unemployment and other economic consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said it would be quite easy for the Government to say: "All right, we will take the Bill as it stands. We will accept the view of the House of Lords. We will merely nationalise the aircraft industry and the shipbuilding industry." But what the noble Lord is asking the Government to do is to accept the view of an unelected Chamber as against the view of an elected Chamber. My Lords, I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that that is not a position I would ever take; nor do I believe it is one the noble
1668
Lord himself would take if he were sitting on this side of the House.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord just one point: is he really saying that this House has no right to exercise the rights which were conferred upon it by the Parliament Act back in 1948?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have only just got to my feet and I will face that issue when It comes. The issue really is conflict between the two Houses. Of course, this House has a constitutional position. It has power; we have been reminded on a number of occasions, and again this morning, that it has the power of delay, which was given to the House through a revision of legislation by a Labour Government. I believe that power of delay is right and proper. Indeed, I rather disagreed with the proposed reforms in 1969 which would have reduced the period of delay.
I believe it is right that a Second Chamber should have the power of delay, but I happen to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his predecessor, Lord Salisbury, that these powers are vested in the House of Lords, the second Chamber, for issues of very great principle—and I repeat, for issues of very great principle. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has on a number of occasions put very clearly the position of himself and his own Party. I have not got the exact words to hand, but he will correct me if I am wrong. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has always taken the position that your Lordships' House should exercise that power of delay only on issues of great principle. So the question that is before the House and which divides the Commons and the Lords today is an issue of very great principle.
I cannot help but reflect on events that happened about this time last year. I was involved in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill. I recognised that there was a genuine concern. I recognised, too, that there was an issue of principle—the question of the freedom of the Press. Your Lordships' House took a very strong view, and the House will know that I was not only conciliatory but went out of my way to see whether it was possible to meet the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and those who supported him. This House declined to pass the Trade

1669
Union and Labour Relations Bill, but it is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, when opposing it on the last stage, said that if the House of Commons were to pass the Bill in the next Session then he would be content and would raise no further opposition to it. It is interesting to note that that Act has been on the Statute Book for some months, and, whatever may have been the great principles, there has been little change, if any, to the freedom of the Press, fears about which were then expressed with very great passion. But is this an issue of principle?
If there were an issue of principle, surely it would have been on the entire nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry. What we are discussing today is not an issue of principle; it is a conflict of opinion about what fragment should be nationalised with the others. If this were a great issue of principle, I would not disagree with noble Lords going into the Division Lobby and opposing the will of another place, but it is not. It is a matter of detail, and it has been built up in such a way that this House, with its Conservative majority—and do not let us burke the issue—stands shoulder to shoulder with colleagues in the House of Commons to oppose the intentions of a Labour Government. There can be no other construction put upon the action of those noble Lords who may insist, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said today, upon their Amendments to the Bill.
I ask the House to consider what will be the consequences, because the House knows that this Bill will become an Act of Parliament as the Government intend and wish. Your Lordships have made your views clear, and you have made the House of Commons consider it again and again. But what will be the consequences? I believe that they will be profound. I believe that the relationship between these two Houses will be shattered, perhaps for all time. I have no doubt at all that one day they will bring about a reform of your Lordships' House, and none of us would wish to see the way in which it is brought about. I now share with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, a desire for an early reform of your Lordships' House, but a reform of this place as a consequence of the act that is contemplated today would be a reform of the very worst order.
1670
I want to make one other point. We have gone through our legislative programmes, whether Labour or Conservative, with a great deal of understanding. We have had our First Readings, our Second Readings and our Third. Readings, whether there has been a Labour or a Conservative Government, with the knowledge that those stages would be proceeded with without difficulty. Neither Party has ever felt it necessary to keep a quorum. As the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, will know, on one occasion he failed on a Bill and the Liberal Party wanted to defeat the Tory Government at that time. But the noble Earl will remember that it was the Labour Opposition which made it very clear to the Liberal Party that we were not prepared to see that kind of relationship being built up, where legislation introduced by a Conservative Government could be defeated on Second Reading.
What would happen if the majority of this House were to use its power and its strength in overcoming this legislation? A new situation would arise, apart from the bigger one. It would mean that in future no Leader, no Chief Whip, could ever be sure of getting legislation through because there would be a new atmosphere, and I certainly would not wish to be party to it. I can well see that if one day Labour were back in Opposition, the Chief Whip and the Leader of the day would have very great difficulty in persuading their colleagues not to vote or to have wrecking Divisions at any stage of a Bill That would mean that the Conservative Party always had to keep a large number of Peers here at any stage of the Bi l, merely to ensure its position. That would be part of the change in all our relationships in this House. I believe that it would spoil all the good that we have been able to do in the past. I hope that w can see reform, and that we can see it in the right atmosphere, and not, as I suspect it will be, in a spirit of vindictiveness towards this House, because I passionately believe in the need for a second Chamber, but one which works not in conflict with but in support of another place.
11.56 a.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I rise to make a plea to the Leader of the House, but before I do so I want to make two points to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. First,

1671
we are constantly told when there is any kind of conflict between the two Houses that we are dealing with a situation in which we are an unelected House, and down the corridor is an elected House. I am not going to bother about whether it was 28 per cent. of the electorate, or whatever it was. But this situation was known in 1948 and 1949, when the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and I passed the Parliament Act in another place. We knew that this was an unelected Chamber and there were no proposals to make it anything else. Yet we were given this power, so do not let us hear too much about the exercise of this power which was legitimately given. It is significant that when we are in conflict on a matter of principle we are told "This is a time when you should never use your power, not on a matter of principle."But when we are in conflict on a matter of detail we are also told "This is not the time when you should ever use it."
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the changes that have taken place since the 1948 Act up to the present day. He will accept that the 1948 Act changed the delaying power of the Chamber from two years to one year. It was a try-out to see whether, under the hereditary principle, noble Lords here would agree with that reform and they have done so up till now. But they have now diverted away from that principle which has operated the whole time; hence the need for another change.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I was one of the architects—if that is the right word—of the proposed change in 1969, which was defeated b y Mr. Michael Foot and Mr. Enoch Powell in an unholy alliance, and in that reform we reduced the delay to six months in the event of conflict between the two Houses. That is what was to be done, and that is what we could have done in regard to this Bill. But my real purpose in intervening at this point is to make a plea to the Leader of the House. I really do not believe that the Government's decision is a sensible one. I do not like any more nationalisation in the present economic climate, and I think it is wrong. But there are five different industries in this measure, and four of them have been accepted for
1672
nationalisation. There is no dispute on aircraft, on merchant shipbuilding, on naval shipbuilding or on marine diesel engines. I ask the noble Lord: is it sensible to stick only on this question of ship repairing? If the Government accept the exclusion of ship repairing, they will have four-fifths of what they want and I do not think that that is a bad deal. In our view, ship repairing is the one industry which is not a proper candidate for nationalisation—certainly not at the present time.
If ship repairing is excluded, as I hope the Government will agree even at this late stage, there is nothing to prevent any company which wants to be nationalised, or which wants one of its associated ship repairing companies to be nationalised, from doing a separate commercial deal tomorrow. That is what is done in business all the time. There is nothing to prevent the Government today from proceeding immediately with Royal Assent to the nationalisation of the other four industries, which, as I say, we deplore. That is why I find the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to be illogical and specious, because if the Government choose to use the Parliament Act the ensuing delay—and there will be delay, because they will have to reintroduce the Bill—will be their responsibility and not ours. Any uncertainty and any unemployment which arises from this delay will be on account of the Government, not the Opposition.
The Government say that they are determined to carry out their duty. Their duty to whom? I believe that they have a duty to think again. They still have time today not to take up a petty minded attitude against this House but to get this Bill, with the four industries in it, and exclude ship repairing. I hope very much that even at this stage the noble Lord the Leader of the House will take it back to the Cabinet. It is a wrong decision, for the sake of one-fifth of the Bill, to cause delay for another six months or so. That delay is properly laid on the shoulders of that side of the House.
12.1 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, the proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has made is not so absurd as at first sight it appears. It seems to have

1673
been overlooked in the course of our debates on this subject that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government, nor is it their intention now, to nationalise every ship repairing company. Many of these companies are to be left out of the Bill. For what reason are they to be left out of the Bill? Because it is not worth while including them. Therefore if some of the ship repairing companies wish to be included in the nationalisation scheme and make application, it is possible, even now, for the Government to accept it. That would avoid anything in the nature of a confrontation and everybody would be satisfied. It is up to the Government.
I am less concerned about that aspect, although I would welcome a settlement avoiding confrontation, than I am about some of the speeches to which I have had to listen not only this morning but on previous occasions. I listened with respect to a very vigorous speech made by my noble friend Lord Shepherd which contained an appeal to the Members of your Lordships' House and the Opposition Benches. He spoke as though this confrontation—he used the term; I have not used it myself—would shatter the relationship between the two Houses and would be a complete disaster. But that is precisely what some members of Her Majesty's Cabinet are demanding.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn—I am sorry to mention names but I read them in the newspapers—is one, and even Mr. Michael Foot, the Leader of the House in another place, in his speech the other day described your Lordships' House as decrepit. I presume that includes me! I do not want to be at all difficult, awkward, belligerent, bellicose or many of the other adjectives that I could use, but I think that I could engage in a confrontation with Mr. Michael Foot, not intellectually but physically, which would not present much difficulty, even before breakfast. This is the kind of criticism we have had to put up with for some time. Indeed, that is the language I have read in Hansard's report of the proceedings in another place and in the newspapers. This, and what has been said of us in some of the letters I have received—some in admiration, although very few, and several of another character—describing us as traitors and disloyal is enough to make me stand firm. When the animal is bitten he likes to bite back. I was taught that in the
1674
Labour Party long before my noble friend Lord Shepherd was born, and even before his father was born—a man for whom I had great admiration and who was national agent for the Labour Party. I have been trained in this business. I believe in giving knocks and I am ready to take them, whatever anybody says. It is not a personal matter.
I agree that if one is a member of a political Party one is expected to be loyal to that Party, but excessive loyalty can be dangerous. My noble friend Lord Melchett in that vigorous speech, that stern challenge to the other Side which, in the circumstances, was inevitable and natural, referred to "commitments". Commitments where? Are they contained in the Manifesto of 1974? I shared in the Election campaign at the request of several constituency parties. Nobody ever mentioned ship repairing. I never had a question upon it. I go so far as to challenge my colleagues on these Benches who took part in that campaign to say how many questions were levelled at them about ship repairing. I would bet that ship repairing was never mentioned. Ship repairing is minor in comparison with the nationalisation of shipbuilding itself, a quite different subject.
In the course of one of our debates and in reply to my noble friend Lord Lee of Newton I referred to what happened in the Labour Cabinet of 1945 to 1951 when we decided to embark upon steel nationalisation. The question then arose of how far we were prepared to go: with the nationalisation of steel or whether we should include subsidiaries like Guest, Keen and Nettlefold, the nuts and bolts. It was regarded as a frivolous suggestion. Of course they were not to be included.
This is precisely the situation with which we are now confronted. Do not forget what the Government have gained; namely, the nationalisation of shipbuilding which is a fundamental issue. How it is going to work out is another matter. More than once I have ventured to remark that this is a highly speculative undertaking. In his speech about ship repairing, my noble friend Lord Melchett said that there was a very bleak outlook for ship repairing. What are we doing? Are we looking about for more lame ducks? Is that what we are after? Have we not other problems on our plates? Of course we have.

1675
What are we expected to do about it? The decision does not rest with me; it rests with the Opposition. Is their attitude constitutional? What is the answer to that question? The answer has been given by my noble friend Lord Shepherd. Of course, it is constitutional. The Opposition have the right to delay. Is it acceptable that they have the right to delay? The situation, the constitutional principle, is that they have the right to delay and that is all they are doing. The Government have decided, in any event, that they are going to go ahead with the Bill, not immediately but later on, and that they will use the Parliamentary procedure, the relationship between the two Parties and the constitutional situation is not affected, in order to reintroduce the ship repairing element and then defeat the House of Lords. So it is just delay.
Who is going to suffer as a result? Not the shipbuilding industry because it will take some considerable time before they can get down to the business. It will not affect the ship repairing industry because they will carry on as usual. Some will falter by the wayside, some will carry on; some will be prosperous and some will go bankrupt. But that is in the ordinary course of events. So the Government will get all they want; delay—and that is all your Lordships' House is doing. Your Lordships are merely delaying something they dislike. I have no desire to enter into a conflict with Her Majesty's Government; nor do I wish to assist anybody to destroy the Labour Party. They seem to be able to do the job themselves. Your Lordships are laughing, but I do not regard it as a laughing matter; it is very serious. In our Parliamentary democracy we must have a strong Government and a strong Opposition, otherwise democracy will vanish from the scene, and I do not want to see that happen.
What is one to do in this situation? It is for the noble Lord the Leader of the House to say whether the Government will accept the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, or whether they will stick to their own decision or whether noble Lords will vote against the Government. Even if the whole of your Lordships' House decides to oppose the Government will not suffer—except to affect their amour proper. That is the
1676
trouble. They cannot stand defeat—though they can stand a defeat from the Left Wing, they cannot stand a defeat from noble Lords. Ho, none of that! In the circumstances, it is for the Opposition to decide but I do not believe that the relationship between the two Houses will be shattered. I shall tell your Lordships why. I read in the newspapers over the week-end that one Member of the Cabinet said, "We are going to abolish that abominable Assembly, the House of Lords. We are going to get rid of it and have no more nonsense"—to shouts of applause from his audience of 25. Then he said it would take five to ten years to do it. That will last my time, anyhow. What a lot of nonsense it all is!
In a minor matter of this kind, the question of whether or not we should take over a small ship repairing industry that in any case has a bleak outlook, are we going to have this intransigence either on one side or the other? The Government can give way without any loss of amour proper; without any loss of dignity. There is no reason for that. Even if they are attacked by the Left Wing that will not matter; they will have to deal with them sooner or later anyhow. Certainly before the next Election—or else. There are no doubts about that. So in the circumstances obviously the right course of action is to stand firm. Once you make a stand, whatever the consequences stand firm. What can happen as a result? So far as I am concerned, what can happen? They could decide to expel me but I do not think they will do that. What can they do? They will go on attacking the House of Lords, threatening to abolish it. I do not think we should worry ourselves unduly about it.
I think we should say to Mr. Callaghan and company, "Look here, you are getting a great deal out of this. You are getting the nationalisation of shipbuilding, and that is something. Make the best of it. Don't bother about this subsidiary, this minor element in the situation. Take it and if you want to proceed again after some delay and carry ship repairing through both Houses of Parliament you will have the opportunity. There is no need for confrontation; there is no need to shatter the constitutional element in our Parliamentary democracy." I say again: what we ought to do is to stand firm. It is probably the kind of shock

1677
that the country needs. I really believe that. It needs some kind of catalyst thrown into the works in order to convince the people of this country that sometimes the Government must be corrected. There is no harm in correcting the Government. I do not think it will do much harm and it might do a great deal of good.
12.16 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said so well some of the things I intended to say that I shall be extremely brief but it would be rather cowardly if I said nothing at all, as someone who led the House for three years and initiated some of the moves on which the Party talks so nearly reached agreement. There seems to be some dispute as to whether there is or is not a crisis or confrontation, but in the Daily Telegraph today, which I am sure is impeccably Conservative, we find this main heading: "Lords fight Labour to finish". So when the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—and whatever else we might say about him, we cannot call him decrepit after his efforts this morning—says "We ought to stand firm" apparently he means that the Tory Peers ought to stand firm against the Labour Party.
Lord KINGS NORTON: My Lords, it is not only the Tory Peers.
The Earl of LONGFORD: Well, my Lords, the Tory Peers with some assistance from people like the noble Lord sitting near me. Everyone knows that without the Tory Peers this would not have happened. If they get some allies that is their affair, but it was the Tory Peers who reached the decision in this matter and it is a decision which is very unlike the kind of decision that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has been reaching in past years. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, indicated, some of us prefer the statesmanlike Lord Carrington of yesterday to the Lord Carrington of today; and when there is all this talk about pressure on our own Party—one thinks of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—we know only what we read in the papers, and we read that Lord Carrington has been pressed by Mrs. Thatcher to take these steps. That is what we read, and we are entitled to read the newspapers as much as anybody
1678
else. What the noble Lord is doing is quite out of character but the decision has been taken, the challenge has been presented, as the Daily Telegraph points out, and it is a challenge which no self-respecting Government, whether it was Labour or whatever it was, could possibly fail to pick up.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, if I may intervene for a moment on the point just made by the noble Earl, I should like to ask him whether he has examined the voting list wher this issue was last raised?
The Earl of LONGFORD: No, my Lords, I only want to speak for three or four minutes and I do not think it would help to give way to a series of questions. I have no emotional bias in favour of the House of Commons. I never made my way there, through the grace of God and the obstruction of the honourable Member for Oxford City, now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. I am an unrepentant House of Lords man. I greatly value the work that we have all tried to do here in our different ways over the last 30 years, but that work has been based on the assumption that in the last resort, whatever the view of the majority, this House would give way to the elected Chamber. That has been a fundamental assumption, otherwise the achievement of tins House would not have been possible during these last 30 years.
When we come to the question of what is constitutional, of course constitutional "is an ambiguous word Constitutionally the House of Lords could do this and could make use of the delaying power on every Bill that came up here. It is a question of what is prudent. I am only expressing my conviction that the House of Lords now is cutting its own throat and is in fact embarking on a course which must seem disastrous and utter folly to many of us who love this House quite as much as any noble Lord opposite, and who believe that this House of Lords, if it is not sabotaged in this way, has a tremendous service to perform for the nation.
12.20 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not know whether I should be interpreting the wish of most of your Lordships

1679
in suggesting that perhaps we might bring this towards an end, because we have had a discussion on these matters over a considerable time and, indeed, your Lordships will no doubt observe the haste with which Her Majesty's Government are trying to get this legislation through by looking round the House—with noble Lords on the Labour Benches seeking to look like ambassadors, the Official Reporters sitting on the Cross-Benches and things of this kind; so I think the sooner we get on, the better.
My Lords, I do not intend to intervene at this late stage on the merits or otherwise of the exclusion of ship repairing. My noble friends and, indeed, all noble Lords who have supported this Amendment, to my mind have made an irrefutable case against the inclusion of ship repairing in these nationalisation measures. To my mind, the Government have made no industrial case for it, and we remain as unconvinced of the rightness of their case as we did at the outset.
I rise just to say two things very briefly, first on the consequences if your Lordships should insist on your Amendments, and, secondly, about the right of this House to use the power they have to delay these measures. It has been said by noble Lords opposite, was said by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, earlier this morning, and it has been said in another place, that to insist upon our Amendments would lead not only to uncertainty in the industries concerned, but also possibly to bankruptcies and unemployment. I think that nothing in that accusation could be further from the truth, or if I may say so—and I use the mildest terms I can think of—nothing could be a less straightforward argument. Should the Government, even at this last moment, accept our proposal they can, if they so wish, end all uncertainty. They can nationalise the shipbuilding industry; they can nationalise the aircraft industry, and if they want to, they can introduce a Bill next Session, which starts the day after tomorrow, to nationalise ship repairing. The shipbuilders would be nationalised; there would be no uncertainty. The aircraft industry would be nationalised; there would be no uncertainty. The ship repairers would not be nationalised; but since they do not want to be and will fight to the last to prevent it, they would still have a chance of avoiding
1680
such a fate. Everything in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, pointed to the fact that the Government want to do that, and should do it, to avoid the consequences that they see. I have an idea that when the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, comes to read later on the speech that he made this morning, he will not think it is one of his better efforts.
My Lords, if, however, the Government are not prepared to accept our proposals, then during the time that it takes to get their Bill through the House of Commons next Session, they can use the powers they have under the Industry Act in exactly the same way that they have used those powers in other circumstances to help other industries. In this present situation, if there is any uncertainty, it is uncertainty created by the Government, by their own choice; and to pretend otherwise is to stretch too far the credulity of your Lordships and of anybody else.
I heard Mr. Foot speaking on the radio yesterday morning. He said that if the House of Lords decided to insist upon their Amendments, it would be an act of the gravest irresponsibility. In my judgment, the grave irresponsibility lies in a minority Government introducing a measure of this kind at this moment, a measure which will involve the expenditure of£1,000 million at a time of grave economic crisis for no national advantage; at a time when we are seeking a loan from the IMF, at a time when Government expenditure and borrowing are clearly far too high, and at a time when it is patently obvious that the British people want no more nationalisation. To talk of irresponsibility of this House in that context is ludicrous.
As for the right of the House to use their powers, there can equally be no question. There is no question of confrontation. The Parliament Act takes care of that. I remember the debates in 1948 to 1949 when the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble Lord the Leader of the House were in another place. I was in this House, and remember those debates very clearly. I remember the Labour Party and the Labour Government in this House and in another place accepting the fact that the second Chamber must have some power, otherwise its usefulness would be marginal. I have two quotations which are quite interesting, one from

1681
Mr. Morrison, as he then was, who subsequently became the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, who lead noble Lords in the Labour Party in opposing the Second Reading of the Greater London Bill. On the Second Reading of the Parliament Bill in 1947 he said:
"If the position were that the Lords sent their Amendments to the Commons but the Commons could indifferently ignore them and pass the Bill into law without further ado, then the Lords would be entitled to say that there was no guarantee that any serious consideration would be given to their Amendments and that we might as well resort to single-Chamber government. The present Bill"—
the Bill under which your Lordships are now operating, which gives a delay of one year—
"adequately safeguards the reasonable rights of the House of Lords".
My Lords, a predecessor of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, Lor d Jowitt, when the Bill was passing through this House, said:
"I believe the arrangement in this Bill is one which enables the Second Chamber to perform its functions and give sufficient time"—
that is, one year—
"to enable the opinion of the electors to be ascertained and to enable the electors to be instructed in what is taking place."
At that time, your Lordships had no Life Peerages, no women as Members, and very few Members of the Party opposite. The Labour Government of that day decided that that totally unreformed House would have power to delay for one year measures coming up from another place.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is quite right; that power has been used very sparingly. But it is in exactly such a situation as we now find ourselves, that it was envisaged that the House would act when, in a period to put it at its lowest, there is uncertainty as to the reaction of the public to what the Government are proposing. The argument then, as now, was that there should be a brief period of delay, during which time the Government could reflect on what has happened, and the people could express themselves on the merits. So far from your Lordships acting unconstitutionally, we should, and I hope we shall, be acting precisely in accordance not only with the Parliament Act, but with the thinking of that Labour Government which led to it.
1682
Many of your Lordships will remember the discussions we had nearly ten years ago on the reform of this House. In the end, the Government of the day (again a Labour Government) agreed to a proposal for the reform of this House. Your Lordships overwhelmingly voted in favour. As we have said often, but not too often, it was thwarted by an Opposition combining the talents of Mr. Foot and Mr Enoch Powell. Let me remind your Lordships of the essential elements of that reform.
The House, which was to be nominated, was to be composed in such a way that the Government Party had a small majority over all the other political Parties, but there was to be quite a substantial element of Cross-Bench independent Peers, whose approval of Government legislation would be necessary for the Government, in face of the Opposition of all the other Parties, to pass their Bills. In other words—and I hope the noble Lord will listen to this, because it is quite important—the Opposition plus the Cross-Ber ch Peers outnumbered the Government Peers. This was an idea, a proposal, accepted by the Labour Government of the day and in point of fact negotiated by Mr. Callaghan, the Prime Minister, as one of those who were doing the negotiations; and the noble Lord, Lord Peart, was not unconcerned with it.
What has happened on this Amendment? The Conservative Party is wholly against the Government, the Liberal Party is wholly against the Government, almost all the Cross-Bench Peers have voted against the Government What would have happened if the House had been reformed? All the Opposition Parties are opposed to the Government, the independent Peers are opposed to the Government, and under the proposals of 1968 this Amendment would have suffered exactly the same fate as it suffered in this unreformed House.
The truth of the matter is that the Government are in a minority on this issue but are determined to go their own way, and in order to go their own way they will accuse your Lordships of unconstitutional behaviour, of he hereditary intransigence and all the rest of it, and, of course, they will threaten your Lordships with abolition, extinction and hellfire. In my judgment there is no point in having a Second Chamber which gives

1683
way to blackmail and to threats in order to save its own existence, for what use is it if it dare not use the powers it has in order to reserve them for a future occasion when it would not dare to use them either? I hope your Lordships will disregard these threats and do what you think is right.
12.32 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think it is the general wish of the House that we should now conclude the debate. Much has been said on both sides. I want to make a short speech; indeed I want to follow the precedent of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, although I think I gleaned part of his speech from the Press either at the weekend or two or three days ago. No argument that I put forward will ever convince him to change his point of view, and I do not think any arguments today will change the views of noble Lords who are here on both sides. So I do not want to argue the details of the Bill; I think this has been done very fully on many occasions by my noble friend Lord Melchett, and my other noble friends. I doubt whether there is anything new to say on the subject of aircraft, shipbuilding or ship repairing that has not been said many times over in recent weeks.
Nor do I have anything to say about this House as a revising Chamber. I believe that its role basically is that. I believe in a reformed House of Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Carringtpn, is quite right; I was then Leader of the House, having succeeded the late Richard Crossman, and I took part in discussions with their noble Lordships here. I was sorry that that Bill was frustrated, even though there may have been defects in it—if I were to indulge in the hypothetics of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. All I am saying is that I am reasonable and sensible on this matter, and I have nothing to say about this House as a revising Chamber. We have also covered that subject recently.
I am unable to accept that there is any question of revision before the House at the moment. The proposal to leave out one of the main parts of the Bill is not revision. I know my noble friend Lord Shinwell seems to think that ship repairing is not of such consequence as the national-
1684
isation of the aircraft industry, to give one example. I believe it is an integral part of our policy, the policy of the Government. That is what I believe in.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords—
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord has made his contribution. I said I wished to be brief. I did not interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I want to make my point. I will not convert the noble Lord. He knows it. Let me make my speech. Nor do I want to use threats about the House. I do not accept the views of those who make threats; I do not like people who threaten. First, I am certain that all those who are arguing that we should disagree with the Commons recognise the seriousness of what we are doing. I know one can argue that the Government are a minority, but so was the Government of the Conervatives after the 1951 Election. It was a minority Government; it had fewer votes than the Labour Opposition polled in that Election.
Secondly, I think we have reached the present position, at least in part, because there has been too much emotion involved at the end of a long Session, and so much concentrated lobbying, that the House are reluctant to change their mind about the stand they have taken. I would prefer to do away with some of the emotion and look forward to the future in a calm and rational way. I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has tried to be rational, sensible and constructive, unlike what I thought was the dreadful speech of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley. I think he will regret it when he reads it. So I want to avoid this emotion. I would prefer to do away with the emotion and look forward to the future in a calm and rational way. After all, when seen in the cool light of day—and it is really cool light at this unexpected time on a Monday morning—the issue is a narrow one. In the event of a fundamental disagreement between the two Houses, whose will really ought to prevail? This is what we have been arguing about today. Should it be the Commons or the Lords?
To begin with, I accept that the Parliament Act has laid down the basic rules. If the Commons pass a Bill in two successive Sessions, then the Bill will be enacted,

1685
whatever we do in this House. The Parliament Acts recognise that this House should be able to suggest to another place that they think again, and there may even be circumstances when the electorate might want the chance to express an opinion on a really exceptional disagreement. I accept that. But I must also point out that the Commons have already thought again. In addition to the many hours spent on the Bill before it came to this House, they have now thought again not once, but twice. On each occasion the majority in another place have confirmed their decision that the ship repairing industry should be nationalised together with the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. I do not see the value of asking them to take this decision a fourth time.
Secondly, the people of this country have also expressed their view on this subject. It is all very well for my noble friend Lord Shinwell to say that he had few questions about this during the Election campaign. The people expressed their views; as my noble friend Lord Melchett said, there was a specific promise in the Labour Party's Manifesto, in both February 1974 and October 1974, to nationalise the ship repairing industry. The electorate therefore also had a chance to think again and did not change their minds.
I urge the House to look at the effect of what noble Lords opposite are asking us to do. There is a built-in Conservative majority in this House. I say this as a statement of fact, not in any way as criticism of noble Lords opposite, many of whom, I believe, share my wish that they had no such majority. But the majority is there and it does not change. To cope with this, our Parliamentary system relies on conventions to guide us when the majority in the unelected House is different from the majority in the elected House. My noble friends Lord Shepherd and Lord Longford stressed this eloquently. Among these conventions one of the most important, if not the most important, is the theory of the mandate. As a theory, it is not, I agree, very refined, and there are times when it may be pretty blurred at the edges, but the basic principle is well established all the same. When a Party is brought to power at a General Election, it comes in with a programme set out in its Manifesto. The electorate, intending the consequences of their actions, accept
1686
the programme of the Manifesto—at least, so long as their elected representatives in another place vote in favour of the measures included in the programme. The unelected House is bound by this. We can, and should, question the Government, of course, raise points of detail and make considerable improvements to Bills brought before us; but where a Manifesto commitment is clear-cut, as it is in this case, the unelected House should not challenge the principle of the commitment. In 1974 the Labour Party's programme said:
"We shall also take shipbuilding, ship repairing, and marine engineering, and the aircraft industries into public ownership and control."
It did not say that we shall take some of these; it said we shall take each of them. So if the House insists on disagreeing with another place it is contradicting a clear programme, and it is undermining the conventions under which this House operates. Without these conventions, Parliament, as we know it, will not work.
I have not been long here in this House, even though it feels like a lifetime from my point of view, and the eight weeks since my introduction may not be the most typical that have ever been seen. But I believe I have—and I think this sincerely—a true understanding of the way in which this House has worked. I know that, if the conventions on which our Constitution is based are to be broken like this, this House will become unworkable. This convention is, as I have said, one of the most important, and once it is broken I do not see why any of the others should be secure. I am not going to forecast, and I do not forecast, anarchy overnight, but I expect a gradual breakdown of our Parliamentary system as we know it if this House is to pick and choose between those Manifesto pledges which it will accept and those which it will reject. In conclusion, I urge your Lordships to think again and not to insist on your Amendments. I ask this, first, to respect the will of the electorate. I ask it, secondly, in the interests of the House for the reasons I have just given. Thirdly, I ask it in the interest of the industries which we have been discussing. As my noble friend Lord Melchett explained at the beginning of the debate, this is a Bill of crucial importance for the shipbuilding and aircraft industries. I want there to be no misunderstanding about that or about the

1687
risks involved in delaying enactment of the Bill any longer. If this Bill fails and damage comes to these industries as a result, it will be noble Lords opposite who will be responsible. It is they who have broken the traditions of our democracy.
Several noble Lords: No!
Lord PEART: And it is they who are forcing the industries to wait. I earnestly hope they will not come to this. I still trust that noble Lords opposite will not put the interests of some pressure groups before the interests of nationwide industries. If my trust is misplaced, I still hope the
industries will survive the damage, but I stress that the stakes are very high and that noble Lords opposite will have a lot to answer for in the industries in this country. I ask them therefore to ignore the lobbying to which they have been subjected and to think about the far wider issues at stake. If they do so, they will recognise that the right course would be to accept the decision of another place and not to insist on their Amendments.
12.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 90; Not-Contents, 197.

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pargiter, L,

Ardwick, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Parry, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hacking, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Bernstein. L.

Hale, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Platt, L.

Blyton, L.

Hayter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L

Bowden, L.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brimelow, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rhodes, L.

Brown, L.

Jacobson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kagan, L.

Segal, L.

Burntwood, L.

Kaldor, L.

Serota, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kennet, L.

Shepherd, L.

Caradon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Snow, L.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Soper, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Stedman, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Listowel, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cudlipp, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.[Teller.]

Stone, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Darwen, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Vaizey, L.

Diamond, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCarthy, L.

Weidenfeld, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

White, B.

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

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gardiner, L.

Northfield, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Oram, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Barrington, V.

Byers, L.

Airedale, L.

Bathurst, E.

Caccia, L.

Aldenham, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Camoys, L.

Amherst, E.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Berkeley, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Amory, V.

Birdwood, L.

Carrington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bolton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Amulree, L.

Boothby, L.

Chelwood, L.

Argyll, D.

Bourne, L.

Chesham, L.

Ashdown, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Clancarty, E.

Astor, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Auckland, L.

Bradford, E.

Clwyd, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Braye, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Banks, L.

Brock, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Barnby, L.

Burnham, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hood, V.

Reigate, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Renwick, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Howe, E.

Robbins, L.

Daventry, V.

Hunt, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Davidson, V.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

de Clifford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rochdale, V.

De Freyne, L.

Ilchester, E.

Rochester, L.

De La Warr, E.

Inglewood, L.

Romney, E.

Denham L. [Teller..]

Kemsley, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Deramore, L.

Killearn, L.

Sackville, L.

Derwent, L.

Kilmany, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Digby, L.

Kimberley, E.

St. Davids, V.

Dudley, B.

Kings Norton, L.

St. Helens, L.

Dudley, E.

Kinnaird, L.

St. Just, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Salisbury, M.

Ebbisham, L.

Leathers, V.

Sand ford, L.

Eccles, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sandys, L.

Effingham, E.

Long, V.

Seear, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Loudoun, C.

Sempill, Ly.

Elles, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sharples, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

McNair, L.

Shinwell, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Shuttleworth, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Margadale, L.

Sligo, M.

Exeter, M.

Merley, L.

Spens, L.

Faithfull, B.

Merrivale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mersey, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Forbes, L.

Molson, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Monck, V.

Strathspey, L.

Gainford, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Garner, L.

Monson, L.

Tenby, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Terrington, L.

Glasgow, E.

Mottistone, L.

Teviot, L.

Glendevon, L.

Moyne, L.

Thomas, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Munster, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Thurlow, L.

Goschen, V.

Newall, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gray, L.

Norfolk, D.

Trevelyan, L.

Greenway, L.

Northchurch, B.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Gridley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vickers, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Vivian, L.

Haig, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Onslow, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hampden, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wardington, L.

Hankey, L.

Pender, L.

Waverley, V.

Hanworth, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Westbury, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Polwarth, L.

Wigoder, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Porritt, L.

Willingdon, M.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wolverton, L.

Hawke, L.

Rea, L.

Young, B.

Hereford, V.

Reading, M.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Redesdale, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

A Committee appointed to prepare Reasons for the Lords' insistence; the Committee to meet forthwith.

LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
5 Clause 38, page 53, line 45, at end insert:
"() If, pursuant to a transaction falling within section 30(2)(a) or section 31(2)(dd) above, any property or rights such as are therein mentioned have been transferred by the company in question, then, for the purpose of determining, in accordance with subsection (1) above, the base value of the securities of the company, it shall be assumed that, immediately before each of the relevant days,—

(a) the property, rights or liabilities so
1690
transferred were not vested in the company, and

(b) in place of that property, those rights or liabilities, there were vested in the company funds equal to any consideration which passed to the company as a result of the property, rights or liabilities being so transferred."

The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for which disagreement they have assigned the following Reason:
6 Because it might involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
12.55 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lord, I beg to move that this House doth not insist

1691
on their Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6.—(Lord Melchett.)

LORDS AMENDMENTS ON WHICH THE LORDS HAVE INSISTED
7 Schedule 2, page 81, leave out lines 19 to 30.
8 Schedule 2, page 82, line 12, leave out ("a shiprepairing company")
9 Schedule 2, page 82, line 42, leave out paragraph 3.
The Commons insist on their disagreement to the above Amendments but propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof:
10 Page 21, line 40, leave out "Part I" and insert" paragraph 1, 3 or 4".
11 Page 21, line 41, leave out "fulfilled the conditions in Part II of that Schedule" and insert—

"(a) fulfilled the conditions in Part II of that Schedule, and

(b) fulfilled the condition specified in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 5 of that Schedule as being for the purposes of that paragraph shipbuilding companies, manufacturers of slow speed diesel marine engines or training companies,"

12 Page 21, line 43, at end insert—
"(2A) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, on the shiprepairing industry vesting date all securities of the companies which on that date were known by the names specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to this Act, being the companies other than any excepted company which on that date—

(a) fulfilled the conditions in Part II of that Schedule, and

(b) fulfilled the condition specified in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 5 of that Schedule as being shiprepairing companies for the purposes of that paragraph

shall, by virtue of this section, vest in British Shipbuilders free from all trusts and incumbrances."
13 Page 77, line 15, after "Shipbuilders "insert" by virtue of section 19(2) of this Act"
14 Page 77, line 16, at end insert" and
(c) in relation to a company which becomes, or would but for the provisions of section 27 of this Act become, a wholly owned subsidiary of British Shipbuilders by virtue of section 19(2A) of this Act, the shiprepairing industry vesting date;"
15 Page 77, line 34, at end insert—
""shiprepairing industry vesting date" means such date not less than 3 nor more than 6 months after the passing of this Act as the Secretrary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify for the purposes of section 19(2A) of this Act;"
16 Page 80, line 44, at beginning insert—
"1. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2) above as being shipbuilding companies for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—"
17 Page 81, line 18, at end insert—
"2. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2A) above as being shiprepairing companies for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—"
18 Page 81, line 31, at end insert—
"3. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2) above as being manufacturers of slow speed diesel marine engines for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—"
19 Page 82, line 1, at end insertߞ
"4. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2) above, as being training companies for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—"
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 19 inclusive en bloc in lieu of the Lords Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 inclusive on disagreement with which the Commons have insisted.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 19 en bloc in lieu of the Lords Amendments Nos. 7 to 9, on disagreement with which the Commons have insisted.—(Lord Melchett.)

HEALTH SERVICES BILL
Returned from the Commons on Friday last with certain of the Lords Amendments agreed to; with certain other Lords Amendments disagreed to but Amendments proposed in lieu thereof; and with the remaining Lords Amendments disagreed to with Reasons for such disagreement; the said Amendments in lieu and Reasons printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 47.

HEALTH SERVICES BILL
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons and Commons Amendments be considered forthwith. I am in a little difficulty, because I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is not at the moment in her place. I would therefore ask for the

1693
indulgence of the House because your Lordships have shown indulgence to me in a similar situation on more than one occasion.
Lord THORNEYCROFT: There is no necessity for any apologies, my Lords. The Opposition Front Bench is represented and will listen with the greatest interest to the noble Lord.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons and Commons Amendments in lieu thereof be considered forthwith.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS PROPOSED IN LIEU OF CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (340). Commons Reasons and Amendments are printed in italics]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out "five" and insert "seven"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
2 Because it would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2. This Amendment was considered at length both here and in another place. When we discussed it, I did not advance the Reason to which the Commons have now drawn attention, that of privilege. Perhaps I should have reminded your Lordships that as the effect of Amendment No. 1 would have been to increase the expenses of the Health Services Board to the Exchequer, the size of the Board is very much a matter affecting the privilege of the Commons. I do not think that there is any need for me to say anything more, other than that the Commons Reason is that this would involve charges on the public funds and that the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that their Reason may be deemed sufficient by your Lordships.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which
1694
the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I suppose that the only thing that can be said on this matter is that we should congratulate the Government on having thought up this Reason which was not produced during the Committee or the Report stages. We shall of course accept what has been said, but I am bound to comment that, on the question of the use of public funds, if one considers the amount of money that will be lost to the National Health Service by the phasing out of pay beds and the terrible loss to teaching and research which will be a tragedy for the country, I find it extraordinary that it should be thought that there could be financial reason for not having two extra members of the Board.
On Question, Motion agreed .

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 2, page 2, line 43, at end insert—
"(3) Nothing shall be done under or by virtue of this Act, and nothing in this Act shall be construed, so as to operate to the detriment of any person (whether or not a consultant), who was on 12th April 1976 employed whole-time or part-time in one or other of the national health services or concerned with the interests of patients at NHS hospitals, whether or not such detriment occurs under, by reason or in consequence of the terms of his employment."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
4 Because provision against detriment is unnecessary.
1.2 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4. Your Lordships will remember that the effect of this Amendment required nothing to be done under the Act that would cause detriment to National Health Service employees. This Amendment is drafted in rather broad terms and acceptance would put the Secretary of State at risk of being challenged in the court in attempting to implement the Act. I mentioned this when this matter was before your Lordships. There is little danger, in our view, that any employee will suffer serious detriment as a result of the pay bed phasing out authorisations. Maximum part-time consultants will be entitled to exercise their option

1695
to convert to whole-time contracts and it is highly unlikely that any National Health Service staff will lose their jobs, although I should be the first to admit that that cannot be guaranteed. The Commons have taken the view that they cannot accept your Lordships' Amendment because provision against detriment is. in their view, unnecessary.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we find it deeply disappointing that the Government feel unable to accept this Amendment. My colleagues and I think it very unlikely that there will be no one who is employed in the National Health Service or who is a consultant who will suffer. Therefore, not to make any kind provision for this in the Bill is disturbing and could have very serious consequences for a number of individuals. However, we shall not insist on our Amendment.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
5 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 proposals by revoking the authorisations for those beds, and to make those beds available for use by resident patients who are not private patients."
6 Page 3, leave out from beginning of line 13 to "due" in line 18 and insert "In making such proposals the Board shall have"
7 Page 3, line 25, leave out "and"
8 Page 3, line 28, after "facilities" insert "at a satisfactory standard"
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
9 Because the Amendments represent a major change in the proposals which were discussed between the Government and the medical profession, and which were announced to Parliament on 15th December 1975.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 9.
The Commons point out that the Amendments represent a major change in the proposals discussed between the Government and the medical profession. We have so often been through the Goodman Proposals that I am sure that it will not be your Lordships' wish to go over that ground again.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 9.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is quite right in saying that we have been over the ground of the Goodman Proposals too often to wish to repeat them. We find it disappointing that the Government have taken such a very narrow interpretation of what could have been done in the Health Services Bill, but we shall not insist upon these Amendments.

LORDS AMENDMENT
10 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 Commons disagreed to the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
11 Page 3 line 30, at end insert—
"(3A) The Secretary of State shall so far as is practicable ensure that the beds released by the reduction made under this section are made available for the use of patients other than private patients."
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 10 but propose Amendment No. 11 in lieu thereof. The Amendment provides that the Secretary of State shall, so far as is practicable, ensure that the beds released by the reduction made in this part of the Bill are made available for the use of patients other than private patients.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, but agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11 in lieu thereof.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we on this side of the House are at any rate grateful that we have half a loaf as a result of the discussions that we have had in this House. I feel that this proves that there is some point in a revising Chamber and of course we are grateful for the Amendment that has come forward. I would be the first to say that it is better drafted because it enables the beds to be used for out-patients as well as for in-patients. I entirely accept that. The drafting of our Amendment was not as good or as clear as it should have been and I feel that the present wording has the advantage. I am sorry that there is any question that the phased-out beds could be used for anybody other than patients in the National Health Service but this is not a point over which we shall quibble at this late stage, and we are glad that the Government have gone at least part of the way towards accepting our Amendment.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, this was a question on which, although I sympathised with the views of the Opposition, I felt that their Amendment was too restrictive. I was not alone in that and I think that the Commons Amendment is a reasonable compromise, though perhaps it does not go quite as far as we should have liked.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that the only point that I want to make is that I was glad that we were able to go some way towards meeting the noble Baroness.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
12 Page 3, line 38, leave out "progressive" and insert grant or"
13 Page 3, line 39, leave out first "the" line 41, leave out from "patients"
14 to "and" in line 43.
15 Page 3, line 44, leave out "the"
16 Page 3, line 46, leave out from "patients" to end of line 2 on page 4.
17 Page 4, line 38, after "the" insert "grant or"
18 Page 5, line 6, after "the" insert "grant or"
19 Page 5, line 21, after second "the" insert "grant or"
20 Page 5, line 36, after "be" insert "granted or"
21 Page 5, line 38, after "necessary" insert "grants or"
22 Page 6, line 42, leave out from "granted" to end of line 45 and insert "or"
23 Page 6, line 48, at end insert "or subsection (4) below, or on a temporary basis by virtue of subsection (5) below."
24 Page 7, line 3, leave out from "granted" to "to" in line 6 and insert "or"
25 Page 7, line 7, at end insert "or subsection (4) below, or on a temporary basis by virtue of subsection (5) below."
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
26 Because the Amendments represent a significant departure from the proposals announced on 15th December 1975.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 12 to 25 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 26. This is similar to a Reason given earlier. I want to take the same point as I took before; that is, we have been through Goodman Proposals time and again and I think that no useful purpose would be served by covering that ground again. Therefore the Commons state that they are unable to accept the Amendments because they represent a significant departure from the proposals announced on 15th December, 1975.
Moved, That this House Both not insist on the said Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, we are not going to insist on these Amendments. Here again we have gone over the ground in great detail on both Committee and Report.
On Question, Motion agreed t

LORDS AMENDMENTS
27 Page 4, line 21, leave out "and"
28 Page 4, line 30, at end insert"; and (c) give its reasons;"
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
29 Because it is unnecessary to require the Board to give the reasons for its proposals, having regard to the principles and factors on which the Board is required to base its proposals.
1.10 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not sist on their Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 to which the Commons have disagreed for

1699
the Reason numbered 29. Your Lordships will notice that it is the view of the Commons that,
"it is unnecessary to require the Board to give the reasons for its proposals, having regard to the principles and factors on which the Board is required to base its proposals."
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 29.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, this is one of the Amendments which we felt extremely strongly about and I feel that I will not be taking up over much time of the House, and certainly I will not be taking it up for an unnecessary reason, if I speak to this matter at a little further length. First, the Government took issue with us on this matter. In the Reason given it is stated:
"Because it is unnecessary to require the Board to give the reasons for its proposals, having regard to the principles and factors on which the Board is required to base its proposals."
I should like to refer to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, as reported at column 1342 of the Official Report of 17th November. The noble Lord said:
"In this case there is a set of principles, or four criteria. The Board has got to work to them; it cannot depart from them. When it reaches a decision, it is based on criteria which have been prearranged, to which it must keep. Because of that, we feel that there is no need for it to give its reasons. We want the Board to be completely independent. The noble Lord himself has pointed out that it must submit a report to the Secretary of State, who in turn is responsible to the House of Commons. I do not think one can have any greater safeguard than that. I should have thought that that is all one needs."
The noble Lord went on to tell us about the report which is to be published, and he said (also as reported at column 1342):
"The Board is, in effect, answerable to Parliament by virtue of its annual report, which the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament."
Here is an issue which we consider to be of the greatest public importance, when public boards are not answerable in any other shape and form than in an annual report. I would in no way impugn either the chairman or the members of the Board with the information which they are to supply in their first annual report, but from practical experience of reading the annual reports of other boards I can say that we are supplied in the reports with
1700
the following information. We are given the membership of the board, and then a very substantial exposition, couched in language which is not always easy to read for any length of time without a weariness overcoming the reader, about the practices which have been adopted by that public body. But nothing of any real importance is ever disclosed.
I believe that the Government, in ensuring that no Minister is going to be answerable in another place for this Board, are not making the Board in any way accountable in a public manner. We believe that this Amendment was vital so far as the public accountability factor is concerned. We felt that when the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred to four criteria his argument was not a very sound one. A little later in his speech, at column 1343, he said:
"The Board will not have to have a Minister answering for it, because in the long run the supremacy will rest with Parliament itself, and for that reason we do not see the necessity for these Amendments."
The answer does indeed lie to some extent with Parliament, but unfortunately the Parliamentary procedures are somewhat slow, and the Board may take its decisions rather more rapidly than Parliamentary questioning or procedures can allow.
In the first of our group of Amendments which have been rejected by another place, we dealt with the situation relating to the membership of the Board, which we felt to be of great importance so far as the substantial management of the Board's affairs is concerned. One of our problems, which we aired copiously on both Committee and Report, related to the situation regarding deputies, and I acknowledge that the Government, in one of their Amendments, have made the position clearer. However, we believe on this Amendment that there is a point which the Government have manifestly overlooked, and that they have been totally unwilling to listen to reasonable arguments advanced both in another place on Standing Committee and in this House. I feel that this is a matter of very considerable regret.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I want to remind the noble Lord—because I am sure he has read Hansard—that the matter was debated at considerable length and the Divisions in another place show very clearly that the Opposition's point of

1701
view was rejected by quite substantial majorities. I am not trying to make anything out of that; all I am saying is that the Opposition's proposals were rejected by quite substantial majorities because the matter had been ventilated. I want to add a word to what the noble Lord has said, although we have covered this matter very carefully. It is not necessary to require the Board to give its reasons, because under Part II of the Bill it is not acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and it is not the normal practice to require reasons to be given for decisions which are administrative in character; and this is largely the function of the Board, certainly in respect of the matter that we are discussing. It is certainly unnecessary and undesirable to place an obligation to do so on the Board because under Part II of the Bill it is to prepare proposals for phasing out strictly and in every case having regard to the principles under the Bill which are clearly set out in Clause 4(7), as the noble Lord knows. The Board cannot depart from that. When it reaches the decision it is based on criteria which have been prearranged. That plainly distinguishes this Board, making proposals within a set of principles approved by this House, from many other bodies taking administrative decisions. The Board's reasons for making its proposals will always be that it is satisfied that it has met the requirements of the Act in respect of the function. The reasons to which I have referred, although I am sure unacceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, are we feel valid in our objection to the Board being asked to give its reasons.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord because I was not in my place when he began the discussion on this Amendment; I did not realise that we had gone ahead so fast. I think he will remember that during preceding stages I took part in the proceedings on this particular additional duty being imposed on the Board. The question I want to put to him is this: Can he imagine himself answering questions in this House on these matters? I ask this because under Clause 10 the Secretary of State has to publish and submit to Parliament,
"every set of proposals submitted to him under section 4 or 5 above",
so presumably the Government are answerable to Parliament for those proposals. But these proposals are not the
1702
Government's proposals, as the noble Lord has told us: they are the proposals of the Board. The Board puts forward the proposals, which the Government cannot alter—that is part of the Goodman compromise; the Government have to accept them—but the Government do not know the reasons for the proposals, because those reasons are the business of the Board, and the Board is not obliged to give its reasons.
The answer of the noble Lord is that the reasons will be self-evident because the criteria under which the Board work are laid down in the Bill, and therefore it will be obvious what the Board's proposals are aimed at, because the Board can only be trying to carry out its duties under the Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, can imagine himself in the position of having to come to this House to answer questions from, let us say, my noble friend Lady Ward of North Tyneside about what is happening under the Board's proposals for the revocation of authorisations in North Tyneside, he will have to say that he is not able to speak for the Board because he has not taken the decisions, the Board is not allowed to give its reasons for the decisions it has taken, and the Government do not want it to be allowed to do so. That answer will not satisfy my noble friend Lady Ward of North Tyneside; she will want to know the reasons.
My Lords, I am sure that there is good precedent for the Board not being allowed to explain what it is doing and why, and no doubt it may seem to those who prepared this Bill and to those who work in the Department that what the Board does will be self-evidently wonderful; but there may be others who do not agree. Are the Government not preparing difficulties for themselves when a Minister will be called to account for decisions when he does not know the details of them and when the Board which has taken the decisions is not under a duty to publish its reasons? I still have not resolved this dilemma in my mind. Will we not end up in the situation in which we end up so often in the case of the Post Office, when everybody in this House gets increasingly dissatisfied because no concrete answers can be given by the Minister? And, whereas the Post Office is quite capable of explaining what it is trying to do, and does so, as I understand it the Health Services

1703
Board will not be allowed to do so. Does the noble Lord not see some future difficulties here?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this may well be so, but I think it is quite impossible, in any legislation at all, to guard against or provide for everything that is likely to happen. We know this. Every Bill produces difficulties and problems which sometimes have to go to the High Court for a decision. What we are saying here is that the Board's activities are clearly set out and defined in the Bill; and the Board is a competent body which, if I may say so, has a comparatively simple job to do in the sense that it has to work within guidelines which have been set down. It may well be that at some stage or other somebody is going to question its decisions—I do not know—but I recally cannot say at this stage how that can be dealt with. They have got to report to Parliament, and in the case of anything which is reported to Parliament it is within the competence of a Member of either House of Parliament to question it; but I cannot take it any further.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, it had not been my intention to intervene on this particular point, but as this is really not a Party political matter—it is not the centre of the Bill at all, but is really just a matter of judgment about these affairs—perhaps I may say this. I always find that if one can understand the reasons oneself one can attempt to explain them to someone else; and I still, I think, have not quite understood the Government's reasons for not accepting this Amendment. One completely accepts what has happened in another place, and that is fair enough; but let us take the two reasons which the noble Lord has given. They are, I understand, first of all, that guidelines for the way in which the Board shall reach its decisions are laid down in the Bill; and, secondly, that the decisions are themselves administrative in character. I would have thought that in both cases the question arises: What happens if the Board (in the opinion of at any rate some people) has not kept to the guidelines and has not in fact explained why it has not kept to the guidelines because it has not been asked to give its reasons?
Secondly, if it is simply an administrative
1704
matter, although, as my noble friend Lord O'Hagan has said, administrative matters are not matters that will be answerable for in Parliament in any event, they are matters which can be questioned by the parties involved. I do not myself expect to be in the position of having to question the Board's decisions, but there will be people who will, either people who are interested in phasing out the pay beds or those who are interested in providing private facilities, and I would have thought that under both those sets of circumstances there would be occasions on which it would be helpful for either party to know why the Board reached the decision that it did. It is because I cannot understand why the Government should object to asking for this that I would find it very difficult to explain to anybody why the Government have declined to bring forward an Amendment on this point.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think I can take it any further. I can see that where there are 4,444 pay beds involved it is going to take an enormous number of meetings and quite a substantial number of decisions, and if the Board is to be asked to give its reasons on every decision it makes then those decisions are obviously going to have to be considered by somebody, or a group of people, and there is going to be a tremendous amount of delay. Let us face the fact: there is going to be not only a tremendous amount of delay but a tremendous amount of work because, the Board having arrived at these decisions, the decisions have themselves got to be considered, and there is going to be a great deal of protraction. I think we are right in saying that we want to avoid this.
My Lords, it is a competent Board; people will not be appointed to it unless they are; and, as the noble Baroness has said, more often than not nothing will arise. Let us assume that something does arise. Let us assume that there are consultants who are dissatisfied. Let us assume that there are people on the other side—there may be a community health council, or all sorts of people—who are dissatisfied. I cannot for the life of me think that if there is very real dissatisfaction about a decision, whether it comes from the medical consultants or whether

1705
it comes from the lay side, then it will not find its way on to the table of the Secretary of State; because in the last analysis I suppose everybody, if they are very aggrieved about something that is happening in the National Health Service, has access to him—and when I say that I do not mean physical access. I would have thought that if there was something very serious you could not keep it within the knowledge of a few people. It would be bound, I think, to find its way to the Secretary of State, and my submission is that presumably, because he is Secretary of State, he would have to do something about it.

LORDS AMENDMENT
30 Page 5, leave out lines 29 to 33.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
31 Because it is desirable that there should be a time limit for the Board's report on private diagnostic out-patient facilities.
1.30 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 30, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 31. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 31.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, we believe it may be that the Board may take a very long time over its affairs and I refer to Clause 4(2)(a) which tells us that the Board:
"… shall submit its first proposals under this section within the initial period or such longer period as the Secretary of State may allow …"
This Amendment refers to the latter part of the clause—to subsection (6)—and is contingent on the subsection which I have read out. I referred to this at a much earlier stage of our debate when we were considering what the Board were going to do.
We on this side of the House believed that at the very first meeting the chairman would want to seek the advice of his colleagues on the Board to make a different time-scale for the programme. We believe that what shall take place within the first 12 months should be subject to
1706
considerable review. The phasing out of equipment mentioned in the Amendment which another place has rejected refers to just this. It refers to a situation which the Board may find it much better to organise in a different fashion. The Government want to pre-empt that. They want to ensure that a rigid time-scale is adhered to. It may be totally inconvenient for many people but, for political reasons, they believe that the time-scale should be stuck to. Neither I nor my noble friends consider it in the best interests of the Health Service as a whole that it anyone other than the chairman of a Board shall decide; but here is a set of pre-empting arrangements under Clause 4 which will make the life of the Board quite unnecessarily difficult.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would suggest to the noble Lord that not having a time limit could create not only the very thing he said might happen in respect of the Board only but could lead to a great deal of chaos and confusion. The noble Lord knows as well as anybody how desirable it is in most things to have a time limit if you want to get something done. It is very desirable in matters like this in which there are going to be some fundamental changes—and I accept that they are fundamental changes—that this kind of situation should not go on indefinitely.
I would remind noble Lords that in the Standing Committee there was a great doubt in our minds whether, when it came to looking at private out-patient facilities, the Board had set a sufficiently fastpace for phasing out. The Bill at Second Reading included provision for an early report from the Board on phasing out consulting room suites—that is Clause 4(5)—a report within the initial period—which, as the Bill left the Commons, was six months. There was nothing so definite relating to other out patient facilities, but we wanted to ensure that after a reasonable (but not too long) interval a report would be prepared by the Board on other outpatient facilities. That was provided for in an Amendment which the Government moved on Report as your Lardships will remember.
The Government have considered what was said in another place on the matter of a time-tabling report but are satisfied

1707
that they were justified in putting this provision (which noble Lords opposite wanted to remove) into the Bill. I end where I began that in matters of this kind if something is to be achieved a time limit must be set otherwise one is facing a good deal of chaos and confusion in letting things go on and on without a decision being made.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, to bring a lighter element into the debate, you will remember the story of Samuel Johnson listening to some music not too well performed by the daughter of a lady he knew. She said, "You must realise, Doctor, that this is very difficult". He said, "Difficult? Madam, would that it had been impossible!" As a note of satisfaction to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, I may say that I think this will make the Board's work almost impossible and that will be greatly to the advantage of the Health Service.

LORDS AMENDMENT
32 Page 6, line 8, after "facilities" insert "at at satisfactory standard"
33 Page 6, line 9, leave out "available" and insert "accessible to patients and the practitioners of their choice"
34 Page 6, line 10, after "hospitals)"insert "and available at reasonable cost"
35 Page 6, line 13, leave out paragraph (c).
36 Page 6, line 22, leave out paragraph (d).
37 Page 6, line 30, at end insert—
"() that the authorisation of any such accommodation or services under those provisions for use in that connection should be revoked only if in the opinion of the Board those attempting to provide alternative accommodation or services have met with no unreasonable obstruction from any local authority or other organisation;"
38 Page 6, line 30, at end insert—
"() that the authorisation of any such accommodation or services under those provisions for use in that connection should not be revoked if the revocation would result in a substantial reduction in the freedom of resident or nonresident hospital patients to engage the services of medical or dental practitioners of the sex, race, colour, language, religion or national or social origin of their choice."
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
39 Because they considerably alter the four principles which were an integral part of the proposals announced on 15th December 1975.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 32 to 38 inclusive en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 39.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 39.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I am surprised that the Government have stated their Reason in the terms that the Amendments "considerably alter". It is a matter of judgment, but in this case we did offer Amendments which we felt were going to ensure that both the spirit of Goodman was preserved and the drafting was greatly improved. On the drafting point I should particularly refer to page 6, line 13 and our Amendment to leave out paragraph (c). I should like to refer once again to the grammar here. It is a most astonishing piece of English to be written into a Statute. The Government intend to write it into the Statute because it is the wording agreed in the Goodman Proposals but I think that there is a very unfortunate precedent being set here, that when a Government of the day agree a principle with another party in whatever English, however hastily it has been drafted, the words are still retained. The words are these, and I must say that we find them incomprehensible. Paragraph (c) reads:
"that the continued authorisation of any such accommodation or services under those provisions for use in that connection should depend on there having been or being taken all reasonable steps to provide, otherwise than at NHS hospitals, sufficient reasonable accommodation and facilities for the private practice of medicine and dentistry to meet the reasonable demand for them in the area or areas served by the hospital or hospitals in question."
What we object to here is this astonishing use of the impersonal passive in a Statute, to the phrase: "there having been or being taken all reasonable steps …" It is very difficult to appreciate quite how this is going to be interpreted. This will be interpreted with great care at some stage before the courts, or it could be interpreted before some other legal body. Nevertheless, I have stated our objection to that and, indeed, to paragraph (d), which I will not weary the House in reading. That is equal nonsense so far as its drafting is concerned. It is a great

1709
pity that the Government have not listened to our arguments in this connection, because the Bill could have been re-drafted, the Government could have introduced their own Amendments which would have adhered to the Goodman Proposals and taken the main sense from our suggested improvements. This is not a Party matter; it is a drafting matter. The Government should have listened to reason which was put forward with universal concern in this Chamber.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord does the Government an injustice. He starts off by saying that he is astonished that the Government did nothing about it. We were equally astonished that the noble Lord and his friends should seek to alter substantially the principles to which the Board is to have regard when drawing up proposals for the progressive phasing out of pay beds. Nothing has been said in your Lordships' House during Committee and Report stage, and, if I may say so, the few Amendments on Third Reading, that has not been looked at very carefully. If I say that I know that the noble Lord will take my word for it. As I tried to explain at the end of the Third Reading, in our view we have struck the right balance. We are just as astonished that the noble Lord should feel that his view in this matter is any better than the Government's because the Amendment would substantially alter the principles of the Bill. He must not say that the Government took no notice; we took a good deal of notice—in some respects perhaps not enough—and we have been able to make certain Amendments which noble Lords have put forward.

LORDS AMENDMENT
40 Page 8, line 45, at end insert—
"(4) The Board shall make no recommendation which (were it to be carried into effect) would or might require any medical or dental practitioner to disclose to any person any information obtained by him in confidence from any patient (whether resident or non-resident and whether private or not) and the Secretary of Sate shall not carry into effect any recommendation which would or might require any such disclosure."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
41 Because it is unnecessary to introduce a statutory requirement in order to ensure that confidentiality of medical records is maintained.
1.43 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 40, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 41 which, as your Lordships know, is because it is unnecessary to introduce a statutory requirement in order to ensure that confidentiality of medical records is maintained. I know how strongly certain noble Lords opposite feel about this. There is no one in your Lordships' House who is more concerned over the question of confidentiality than myself. It has been a concern in my own professional social work field for a good many years. This Amendment would impose on the Board an undertaking which requires the presentation of the confidentiality of medical information. This would be without precedent, for it has never been considered necessary to deal with this highly important issue by Statute. We ought to look at this carefully.
I can readily understand the anxiety that doctors may feel about he paramount need to preserve the confidential relationship between their patients and themselves; and equally I understand and sympathise with any anxiety that there may be among potential patients on that score. The House will recognise it does not require a statutory undertaking to ensure that the confidential position of medical records is maintained. The Amendment places on the Board a requirement not to make recommendations about common waiting lists which could require doctors or dentists to disclose to anyone confidential information given by patients.
Since the beginning of the National Health Service not only doctors but many others, such as hospital staff, have handled the medical records of NHS patients and have faithfully observed their confidentiality. I do not want to go over the ground time and time again, but I am almost tempted to say there is a vast army of people in our hospitals who, of necessity, have access to confidential records, but I know of no instance at all where there has been any serious breach. I cannot think of any breach.
I can assure the House categorically that there is no question of any recommendation made by the Board on the

1711
best way of achieving common waiting lists and requiring confidential medical information about patients on waiting lists to be made available to people who have not been accustomed to handling such information responsibly in the past. Let us face the fact that it really has worked very well. If I may say this without being misunderstood, members of the medical profession over a long period of time have handled this situation very well. We see no need for it to be put in a Statute. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 41.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord PLATT: My Lords, the situation about confidentiality of records gets more difficult day by day and year by year. I could, if the noble Lord wished me, cite some instances where confidentiality has been broken; and of course there is the Road Traffic Act of 1947 which places a duty on a doctor to expose certain information to the car licensing authorities, and so forth. This is a subject which needs eternal vigilance. The Amendment was a good one, although no doubt we shall not press it.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I intervene for the reason that, having read what the Minister said in the Commons I do not think that he grasped the objective of the Amendment; and while the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has, it was not apparent from his answer. We are dealing with Clause 6 which covers common waiting lists. This Amendment should be seen, in the context of Clause 6, with the aim of this Bill to make sure that admissions to NHS hospitals are on the basis of medical priority alone. When the Minister in another place said that he was not sure how it could be argued that the situation will be a new one, I think he was wrong because the situation is a new one; the preparation of common waiting lists is the novelty.
This Amendment attempts to deal with a situation created by the introduction of these common waiting lists which are to be based solely on the grounds of medical priority. If these waiting lists are introduced, somebody may get it into their heads to question whether a patient has
1712
been admitted as fast in their view as his medical condition demands, or whether somebody else has been admitted too fast. He may question some person outside the medical profession who may think that the intention of the Government in introducing common waiting lists has not been observed by a doctor in a particular case. He may think that, in spite of the introduction of common waiting lists, a doctor has not carried out the Government's intention of having a waiting list based on medical priorities alone. Somebody may say, "Why have you not done X or Y?"or, "Why have you done that?" and the person involved will find himself under considerable pressure to show that he has been carrying out the objective of the Government in introducing a common waiting list. Therefore, while I agree that what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said about the way in which the medical profession have observed the tradition of confidentiality in the past and I would not dissent from that in any way, I am saying that the Government have introduced a new factor. It is to cope with the additional stresses imposed by the Government's own proposal that this Amendment was put forward: at least, I supported it for that reason.
I wonder whether the noble Lord envisages a situation in which doctors will be questioned as to whether or not they are carrying out the Government's intentions. A doctor may be criticised for not admitting somebody solely on the basis of medical priority, but it would be different if he could turn to the Statute, or knew that he could quote it and say, "I am not allowed to explain this. It is the custom we have always observed, but I also have this additional protection in the law which puts me under an obligation to introduce a common waiting list." I believe that this Amendment would have preserved what both sides of the House wanted to preserve, and I wonder whether perhaps the noble Lord does not recognise that there is a new situation here—a situation of the Government's own making—which this Amendment was designed to improve by giving additional protection to those who would be called upon to carry out the Government's wishes.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: My Lords, as an example of how difficult it may be for a doctor to keep confidentiality, a

1713
case came to my notice the other day of a young man who had committed some petty felony. He was not sleeping well and went to his doctor, who gave him sleeping pills and asked a social worker to help the young man. He was indeed helped; but the social worker's notes went to be filed in the local authority offices where, by some means, they came to the notice of the police. The next thing the doctor heard was that the young man had been charged with the petty offence. That was not the fault of the doctor or of any one person, but the fault of the system. It is an example of how difficult it is for a doctor to be sure of confidentiality.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am quite sure we all accept the good faith of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in this matter and that he is as concerned as we are about the question of confidentiality. I entirely take his point that it has not been on the Statute Book before, but I do not think that anyone could have put the case better than my noble friend Lord O'Hagan, because this is in fact a new situation. I accept absolutely in good faith, as we have all accepted, the point about the common waiting-list, but the fact is that if admittance is based entirely on medical need there will be people who will question who should be in hospital, because there are going to be a lot of people looking at lists and seeing who is admitted. It is a matter to which I believe the Government ought to give very close attention, because it is absolutely fundamental to the relationship between a doctor and his patient that there should be medical confidentiality. It is the most fundamental of points and has existed for, I should say, thousands of years now. Once it gets about that this could be broken in a number of new circumstances, it will be very undermining to the Health Service. Therefore, although regrettably we must accept that the Government are not going to look at this, I would end by making a plea that when the Government issue their circular about the Bill they will make some observations about confidentiality in the new situation.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think we ought to get away from the feeling that this is something new. There is actually nothing new about this at all.
1714
In every hospital, every day of every week, decisions are being made as to whether A or B should be accepted, and it is done on medical need or medical priority. What we are grumbling about is that it does not happen in the private sector; and because it does not happen in the private sector one can go in for social purposes and not always need. In the National Health Service, by virtue of the number of people waiting to go into hospital, this is being done every day by doctors deciding, "This person ought to go in before that person". One hears, "I get a notification putting me off for a week because they have discovered that somebody else is more important." It is not a new situation; it has been going on for a long time, and there is no reason for people to have reservations about it.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the noble Lord may complain of that particular situation obtaining in the Service, but I venture to suggest it is really an administrative problem, because statutory powers already exist. If the noble Lord turns to the Public Health Act 1968 he will read the following words in Part , Section 1(6):
"Nothing in this section shall prevent accommodation from being made available for a patient other than one mentioned in subsection (1) above if the use thereof is needed more urgently for him or medical grounds than for a patient so mentioned and no other suitable accommodation is available."
The statutory powers are there but are not being used.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
42 Page 9, line 19, leave out "satisfied" and insert "advised by the Board".
43 Page 9, line 21, leave out" to a significant extent "and insert "substantially".
44 Page 9, line 25, leave out "to a significant extent" and insert "substantially"
45 Page 9, line 28, leave out "otherwise than as private patients".
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
46, Because the Amendments lead to a weakening of the safeguards which the Bill requires for the interests of NHS patients.
1.57 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 42 to 45 en bloc,

1715
to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 46, which, as your Lordships will have noted, is:
"Because the Amendments lead to a weakening of the safeguards which the Bill requires for the interests of NHS patients."
I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 46.—(Lord Wells-Pestell)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I find it very difficult to accept that Reason, that by including these further provisions damage would be done to National Health Service patients. On this side of the House we have believed all the way through—and I think the future will prove it to be true—that as a result of this Bill the National Health Service will be worse than it was beforehand. We are not going to insist on these Amendments, but I find it very extraordinary that the Government should give that as the Reason for not accepting them, when in fact they are out to damage National Health Service patients by this Bill in any event.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
47 Page 9, line 38, leave out "satisfied" and insert "advised by the Board"
48 Page 9, line 41, after "skills" insert "or that the need for specialised equipment or skills is reasonably likely to arise during the course of treatment for another condition"
49 Page 9, line 45, after "patient" insert "and to the practitioner of his choice".
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
50 Because the Amendments go significantly beyond the proposals announced on 15th December 1975.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 inclusive en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 50:
"Because the Amendments go significantly beyond the proposals announced on 15th December 1975."
I do not propose to make any comment upon what those proposals were. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not
1716
insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 50.—(Lord Wells-Pestell)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I do not think we wish to go over all the Goodman Agreements once more. I feel quite certain that this will be subjected to enough textual criticism in the future, no doubt books will be written about it, no doubt legal cases will be based upon it and no doubt doctors and patients alike will look to see whether the comma was really there, or whether it should have been somewhere else. It is so extraordinary, that perhaps we on this side of the House must be forgiven for wondering what on earth it was that persuaded everyone to agree with the doctrine contained in the agreements drawn up last December without any alteration being accepted at any time, in any particulars at all. However, we are not going to insist on these Amendments. I am bound to say that they were the kind of Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, thought would be an improvement on his first thoughts in December, but clearly the Government are not going to have any further thoughts on this matter and, once again, history will tell whether or not these were the right words.
2.1 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
51 Page 10, line 10, leave out "his" and insert "the"
52 Page 10, line 10, after "opinion" insert "of the Board"
53 Page 10, line 17, after "not" insert", save on the advice of the Board"
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
54 Because it is inappropriate for the Board to be concerned with the exercise by the Secretary of State of his discretionary powers under the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 51 to 53, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 54, which reads:
"Because it is inappropriate for the Board to be concerned with the exercise by the Secretary of State of his discretionary powers under the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968."
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 54.—(Lord Well-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, this is the kind of reason which I should have thought aroused all the suspicions of everyone concerned with this Bill. It is precisely because the Government clearly consider it inappropriate for the Board to be concerned with the exercise by the Secretary of State of his discretionary powers that we wonder how much of the trust on which the Goodman Proposals are based will, in fact, be fulfilled, because there can be no alternative facilities at all and no alternative use by doctors of NHS facilities, if the charges are so high as to be uneconomic. Again, we shall not insist on our Amendments, but I am bound to say to the Government that if they are seriously interested in getting this scheme to work this, again, is a matter which the Secretary of State will have to interpret reading carefully the Goodman Agreements, and making quite sure that any charges fixed will not make it impossible for private patients to use the facilities.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot let the comments of the noble Baroness pass without making some myself, because we must get this into the right perspective. Quite apart from the fact that another place did not seem very excited about this, it is necessary to remember that the Secretary of State has at present, and has had since 1968, discretionary powers under Section 31 of the 1968 Act. The Amendment, by taking away the Secretary of State's discretion and transferring it to the Board, would involve the Board in deciding how the day-to-day provision of services in National Health Service hospitals should be organised. That was never intended to be a function of the Board which is not equipped to do that; nor, in my view, will it ever be equipped to do that. The Board will nave no locus whatsoever for deciding in what circumstances patients should be admitted under Clause 8, and to take away this power, which is a crucial power of the Secretary of State, whoever he may be, would not be right
1718
and proper when it involves somebody in making day to day decisions.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
55 Page 10, line 42, at end insert "provided that the Secretary of State shall not determine the charges for the services of any consultant"
56 Page 11, line 7, leave out paragraph (c).
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
57 Because the Amendments remove important elements contained in the proposals announced on 15th December 1975.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 55 and 56, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 57, which reads:
"Because the Amendments remove important elements contained in the proposals announced on 15th December 1975,"
I am sorry that we are back on that date.
Moved, That this House cloth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 57.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I think that the easiest way to deal with these Amendments is to refer the House to what I said on Amendments Nos. 47 to 49, because, although this is unlikely to be the last word on the Goodman Agreements, it is likely to be my last word on this set of Amendments.

LORDS AMENDMENT
58 Page 13, line 41, at end insert "'district' shall have the meaning set out in section 9(7) of the National Health Service Re-organisation Act 1973".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
59 Because it is unnecessary.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 58, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 59, which reads:
"Because it is unnecessary."
My understanding of the situation is that the Amendment is consequential on

1719
Amendment No. 15, which was carried in the Lords Committee.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 59.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Viscount LONG: My Lords, we come back to the argument about the word "district". But, as the noble Lord said, this Amendment is consequential, so we feel we shall have to leave it at that. No doubt there will be a problem later about the words "district" and "area", and distance to be travelled. However, we will leave it at that.

LORDS AMENDMENT
60 Page 14, line 1, leave out "six" and insert "twelve".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
61 Because this Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment made by the Lords in page 3, line 1, to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 60, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 61, which reads:
"Because this Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment made by the Lords in page 3, line 1, to which the Commons have disagreed."
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 61.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
62 Page 17, line 9, leave out from "means" to end of line 12 and insert "premises which would be controlled premises but for the fact that the number of beds which they provide or will provide is smaller than that specified in section 12(2) above;"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
63 Because the definition provided by the Amendment is undesirably restrictive for the purposes of the notification system under the Bill.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 62, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 63, which reads:
1720
"Because the definition provided by the Amendment is undesirably restrictive for the purposes of the notification system under the Bill."
The Amendment defines "hospital premises" as premises which would have been controlled premises but for the fact that they provide fewer than 100 beds in London, or 75 beds outside London. The purpose of the notification system is to provide the Board with a body of information about the scale and nature of private sector developments, to enable it to perform effectively its duties under Parts II and III of the Bill. The Government are consulting on a definition which goes slightly wider than the definition in the Amendment, which would provide the Board with valuable and necessary additional information. We have been through this on two previous occasions and I hope that the House will accept the Commons Reason for disagreeing to this Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to comment upon this matter. We laid particular emphasis on this Amendment when we were discussing the definitions in Part III. When the Bill was introduced we believed that the definition of "hospital premises" was much too widely drawn and proposed an Amendment which was rejected. An alternative suggestion was then put forward. I think that the wording set out on the Marshalled List is still unsatisfactory. Therefore we revert to the original situation. We believe that the definition is unnecessarily widely drawn and that "controlled premises" is a much better definition.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
64 Page 18, line 33, leave out paragraph (d).
65 Page 19, line 26, leave out "including" and insert" excluding"
66 Page 19, line 27, leave out "the Secretary of State considers" and insert "are".
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
67 Because they undesirably restrict the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers in relation to Part III of the Bill.
2.11 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth not insist on

1721
their Amendments Nos. 64 to 66 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 67. This Amendment removes from the Bill the Secretary of State's power to make provisions in regulations for the quorum and procedure of the Board in relation to applications for authorisations. The Secretary of State intends to carry out the required consultation, which includes the Board, on regulations which would not lay down what the Board quorum should be when it meets to perform any of its functions under Parts II and III of the Bill but which would lay down, for the benefit of applicants and other interested people, the procedure the Board would follow when dealing with authorisation applicants. The Government wish to provide the Board, so far as is possible, with the independence which was proposed for it in the Goodman Agreement while ensuring that people with an interest in an authorisation application should have information available to them enabling them to be quite clear what steps they should take to apply for an authorisation or to make their views known to the Board.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 67.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
68 Page 20, line 41, leave out "and (2)".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
69 Because it should remain an offence to give a notice under Clause 14 of the Bill which does not contain the prescribed information.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 68, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 69. The effect of this Amendment is to remove from Clause 18, concerning offences under Part III, the offence of failing to comply with the requirements of Clause 14(2). This is the requirement to submit a notice containing the prescribed information for the purposes of the notification system. This Amendment was limited to a number of other Amendments which were withdrawn in another place but which would have removed the provisions of Clause 14 for a notice in a prescribed
1722
form containing prescribed information. However, since the Bill still contains the requirement that under the notification system a notice should be supplied to the Board in the appropriate circumstances and should contain the prescribed information, it is clearly necessary to replace in the Bill the penalty for failing to comply with this requirement. If it is not replaced, there is no sanction at all on those who do not choose to comply with the requirement.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 69.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we have always considered that this is an unnecessary requirement. Furthermore, the penalties which go with it seem to us to be particularly severe. Again, we are not going to insist upon the Amendment, but it seems to us that in a number of cases it will duplicate a great deal of effort on the part of those applying both to the Board and for planning permission.

LORDS AMENDMENT
70 Page 24, line 42, leave out "two' and insert "twelve"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
71 Because it creates an unacceptably long delay before Part III of the Bill can come into effect.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 70, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 71. The Amendment brings Part III of the Bill into effect 12 months after Royal Assent. The Bill as it left the Commons provided that Part III should come into effect two months after Royal Assent. This was considered to be the minimum period necessary to carry out the required consultation on and to make the regulation, under Clause 16. Longer delay than this would place developers in an intolerable position because no authorisations could be given until late 1977.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 71.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, under this Amendment, Part III of the Bill is, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will agree, in a rather different situation from the rest of the Bill. It is not a matter which was contained in the Labour Party's Manifesto, nor was it in the Queen's Speech of last year. It was added to the Bill at a later stage. In those circumstances I should have thought that before it was brought in it was not unreasonable to have a longer period than simply two months. This is not a matter upon which we are going to insist, but it is a part of the Bill which it is very difficult to maintain is not a new issue.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, can I exact a promise from the noble Baroness that her Party will never introduce anything unless it is either in a Manifesto or in the Queen's Speech?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I do not know that I can speak on behalf of my entire Party but I hope that we shall never reduce ourselves to Government by Manifesto.

LORDS AMENDMENT
72 Page 25, line 10, leave out "two" and insert "three"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
73 Because it would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons o not offer any further Reason, trusting the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.
2.20 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hope we may be in complete agreement with regard to this Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 72 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 73.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 73.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
74 Page 25, line 13, leave out "two" and insert "three"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
75 Because it would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 74, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 75, which is similar to the last one:
"Because it would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting the above Reason may be deemed sufficient."
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 75.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
76 Page 25, line 14, at end insert "of whom one shall represent the interests of nurses and the professions supplementary to medicine, and one shall represent the interests of hospitals patients generally".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
77 Because it affects the members of the Board in an unacceptable way.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 76, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 77. Perhaps I should just say one or two things about this. This Amendment and the following two Amendments were consequential to Amendment No. 1 and were carried at Report stage, to increase to seven the size of the Board, consisting of a chairman three medical practitioners and three other members, one of whom would represent the interests of nurses and the professions supplementary to medicine, and one would represent the interests of patients generally. The Amendment runs counter to the proposals which we have come to regard as the Goodman Proposals, and we feel that it would in fact disturb the balance of the Board.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 77.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, this of course is consequential on the situation

1725
in Clause 1, but I should like to say that, in taking the line they have and in making no arrangements for the voices of the interests of nurses and the professions supplementary to medicine which we dealt with in the earlier stages of our discussions, the Government are making a mistake. Only last Thursday on the Third Reading of the Bill a very unhappy event took place in the North Thames Health Area, the taking out of commission of no fewer than 4,600 beds. This will inevitably occasion some unemployment among nurses and, further, although the noble Lord has stoutly denied that the removal of 4,444 private beds under this Bill will affect the situation, there will inevitably be some unemployment among the staff. Therefore it seems that the nurses and the professions supplementary to medicine, which include all those professions concerned with the management of the Health Service other than the consultants and general practitioners, should have a voice on the Board.
This is yet another example of the restrictive way in which the Bill is drafted and of the restrictive thinking behind the construction of the Board as a whole. We have discussed it at length; we are not going to insist on it, but we are perfectly certain that the voices of those concerned will not be heard even though the noble Lord has stressed the fact that it will be done through the Whitley Council.
Lord HACKING: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I have been wholly persuaded by his argument and I should like to ask him why he is not insisting upon the Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I think in the course of one's life in this House there are many things on which one would like to insist, as indeed there are in many other circumstances; but for a whole variety of reasons we feel that if we were going to insist on Amendments this would perhaps not be the first one we should choose in any event. It happens to be one that we believe to be important, and it is one that we greatly regret the Government themselves have not felt able to meet, as it would not cut across the principle of the Bill. However, we feel that in the circumstances we cannot insist upon it, much as we should like to do so.
Lord HACKING: My Lords, what are the circumstances?

LORDS AMENDMENTS
78 Page 27, line 26, leave out "or deputy member" and insert "and deputy members"
79 Page 27, line 28, leave out "or deputy member" and insert "and deputy members"
80 Page 27, line 31, leave out "or deputy member" and insert "and deputy members".
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
81 Because they are unnecessary.
2.27 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in moving en bloc, as I shall do in a moment, Amendments Nos. 78 to 80 inclusive, I think that Amendments Nos. 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 and 89 probably come within the same field so, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 78 to 80 inclusive en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 81.
These provisions relate to deputies, about which we had considerable debate both in Committee and at the Report stage. Although the Government have not accepted the Opposition Amendments, they have, as your Lordships will see, attempted to meet their point by proposing clarifying Amendments in lieu, namely, Amendments Nos. 85, 87 and 89 on the list. For that reason I do not propose to say anything more.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 81.—(Lord Wells-Pesrell.)
On Question, Motion agreed o.

LORDS AMENDMENT
82 Page 28, line 33, after "Board" insert "for the taking of any final decision shall be 7 (including deputies)".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
83 Because it is undesirable to fix the Board's quorum by statute.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 82, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 83.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 83.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the quorum and the setting of the right numbers concerned us very much at all stages of this Bill. I should like to refer to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, at the Report stage of the Bill, because I think he made the case for us. He had to rely on an assumption. We were dealing, of course, with the question of deputies and the broad issue of how the Board should reach its decisions and manage its affairs, and he said this,
"We should assume—I know that is a dangerous word to use in your Lordships' House—and I think it would be made quite clear, that the chairman of the Board would, if a decision of some importance had to be made, postpone that decision for a few days until that other member could attend so that there would be a full attendance of the chairman and the four members of the Board."—[Official Report, 17/11/76; col. 1291.]
Here is a situation in which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is casting his mind into the future. He casts it with an assumption. He is so right here in suggesting it is dangerous, because this danger could well occur. Further, the danger would be overcome if the noble Lord had advised his right honourable friend to adopt this Amendment, and the Government had thought fit to make further arrangements whereby no important decisions were reached unless a sufficient number of people were present.
The situation is acknowledged by the Government—indeed, in the terms which I have quoted—that there is a doubt, a dubiety, a hesitation, a possibility, that important matters should be decided without a sufficient number of people and without the backing of a statutory number within the quorum. I think this is an omission from the Bill.

LORDS AMENDMENT
84 Page 27, line 27, leave out "a" and insert "any".
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
85 Page 27, line 26, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
'(a) a deputy chairman to act in place of the chairman of the Board and, for each other member of the Board, a deputy member to act in his place;'
2.31 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 84, to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree to Amendment No. 85 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof. Amendment No. 85 reads:
"Page 27, line 26, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
' (a) a deputy chairman shall act in place of the chairman of the Board and, for each other member of the Board, a deputy member to act in his place;'."
I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed but agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 85 in lieu thereof.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, before commenting on this, could I make it clear that what the noble Lord has read is what is in my printed list? My printed list says, "a deputy chairman to …"; the noble Lord said, "a deputy chairman shall act in place of the chairman of the Board …" I take it the noble Lord means," a deputy chairman to act …".
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if I said "shall" I was incorrect. The noble Baroness. Lady Young, has read it correctly.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we are very grateful for this Amendment and the two which follow, which made points we raised on report. It is important to make quite sure that there is a deputy for each member of the Board and for the chairman of the Board, because the Board have only five members and will have to make very important decisions. The Amendments clarify the position and therefore, make it much better. We are glad about this. We are also glad to recognise that the House of Lords have an opportunity to work in this revising function and are in fact able to achieve three Amendments.

LORDS AMENDMENT
86 Page 27, line 29, leave out "a" and insert "any".
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
87 Page 27, line 28, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
' (b) a deputy chairman to act in place of the chairman of the Scottish Committee and, for each other member of that Committee, a deputy member to act in his place;'.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 86, to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree to Amendment No. 87 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof which reads:
"Page 27, line 28, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
(b) a deputy chairman to act in place of the chairman of the Scottish Committee and, for each other member of that Committee, a deputy member to act in his place;'."
I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 87 in lieu thereof.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
88 Page 27, line 32, leave out "a" and insert "any".
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
89 Page 27, line 31, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
'(c) a deputy chairman to act in place of the chairman of the Welsh Committee and, for each other member of that Committee, a deputy member to act in his place.'.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 88, to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree to Amendment No. 89 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof, which reads:
"Page 27, line 31, leave out paragraph (c) and insert․
' (c) a deputy chairman to act in place of the chairman of the Welsh Committee and, for each other member of that Committee, a deputy member to act in his place.'."
I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, but agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 89 in lieu thereof.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
90 Leave out Schedule 2.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
91 Because this Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment made by the Lords in page 3, line 1, to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 90, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 91, which reads:
"Because this Amendment is consequrntial upon the Amendment made by the Lords in page 3, line 1, to which the Commons have disagreed."
I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 91.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is making a Statement in another place this afternoon on the Official Secrets Act. The Statement will be repeated in this House by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 3.40 p.m. when the Statement will be made.
[The Sitting was suspended at 2.37 p.m. and resumed at 3.40 p.m.]

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a Statement on the Government's intentions on the reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. This section, which makes it a criminal offence to disclose official information without authority, has for some time been regarded as too broad in its scope—it has been described as a 'catch-all'—and there has been uncertainty about its interpretation and

1731
enforcement. The Government have concluded that this section should be replaced by an Official Information Act on the broad lines recommended by the Franks Committee. The Committee, whose membership included representatives of Parliament—including myself—and the media, and who presented a unanimous report, recommended that the sanctions of the criminal law should be strictly limited in their application. It is, of course, with the criminal law that we are here concerned, and not the practices and rules about disclosure of information in the public service. The normal sanctions of the rules of conduct against disclosure of official information will continue to apply.
"The Franks Committee recommended that the criminal law should apply to disclosure of information relating to foreign affairs, defence and internal security, and currency and the reserves when that information is classified 'Secret' or above or in the case of certain defence information classified as 'Defence—Confidential:' and also to the disclosure of Cabinet documents, confidences of the citizen and certain information in the field of law and order, such as information that would facilitate crime. Information in these three last categories was to be protected regardless of any security classification.
"The Government accept the Committee's general approach to the problem, but in considering the categories of information that ought to be protected by the criminal law we think it right to draw a clearer distinction between home and economic policy on the one hand and security and intelligence, defence and international relations on the other. The unauthorised disclosure of any official information is wrong because it is unauthorised. But in the domestic field it will generally result in embarrassment to the Government of the day and not in serious damage to the national interest. In the fields of security and intelligence, defence and international relations, on the other hand, such damage may well result.
"In the economic field the Government have reached the conclusion that
1732
a criminal sanction is not justified. It is relevant that the Franks Report was prepared at a time of fixed exchange rates. In any case it would not in the Government's view be appropriate to distinguish between currency and the reserves and, for example, domestic interest rates and monetary and fiscal policies. Faced with a realistic choice between applying criminal sanctions to a wider economic category and the exclusion of economic information from their ambit, it seems right to us that the criminal offence should not extend to economic information.
"The Government also propose to depart from the Franks recommendation that there should be a criminal sanction for the disclosure of Cabinet and Cabinet Committee documents, irrespective of their content and security classification. The Committee rested the case for inclusion of this category on the need to safeguard the collective responsibility of the Cabinet. The doctrine of collective responsibility is fundamental to our system of government, and the Government totally accept that the documents of the Cabinet and its Committees deserve special protection. They do not, however, consider that that protection should consist of applying criminal sanctions to the disclosure of documents irrespective of their content and classification. The bulk of Cabinet and Cabinet Committee documents deal with domestic affairs. The protection of these documents is a matter basically of trust and good sense among colleagues. It is also a matter of ensuring that the principles and special procedures for distributing and handling Cabinet documents are properly observed and improved where necessary; and in that connection the report of Lord Houghton's Committee on Cabinet document security will be published shortly and the Government's conclusions on it made known at the same time.
"The Government have therefore concluded that Cabinet and Cabinet Committee documents should be protected by criminal sanctions only when by their content and security classification they fall into one of the other categories so protected.
"The Government accept the need to protect by criminal sanctions the

1733
Franks Committee's proposed categories of confidence of the citizen and certain law and order information, as well as that of disclosure for gain (to which the report of the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life is relevant). These depend upon special considerations for which we believe that the Committee has made a case.
"In the fields of security and intelligence, defence and international relations, the Government have concluded that some rearrangement and extension of the Franks categories is required. Information relating to security and intelligence matters is deserving of the highest protection whether or not it is classified. The Government propose therefore that this should form a separate category. In the defence field the Franks Committee recommended that confidential information relating to military weapons and equipment should be given the special marking of 'Defence—Confidential' and be protected by criminal sanctions. The Government have concluded that confidential information of a sensitive and potentially damaging kind goes rather wider than this in both the defence and international fields. It extends to certain areas of defence policy and strategy and of international relations where unauthorised disclosure would be prejudicial to British interests, to relations with a foreign Government or to the safety of British citizens. The Government therefore propose to extend this Franks concept to become 'Defence and International—Confidential' and to define it somewhat more widely than Franks.
"The Government believe that their conclusion represents a system more liberal than that proposed by the Franks Committee, but one which secures the highest degree of protection for information whose disclosure may cause serious harm to the interests of the nation. Legislation on this basis will be introduced as soon as is practicable, but it cannot be during the coming Session. Although much detail remains to be worked out, I thought it right to inform the House of the Government's broad intentions."
3.48 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Well, my Lords, there is scarcely a dull moment, is there? I am sure that the House is deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for retailing this Statement to us. The Government on this occasion are not exactly racing into improvident legislation. We heard, and probably it is the main thing that emerges from this document, that we are not going to legislate next Session. I suppose the Government are too busy putting ship repairing back into the Bill we have been discussing this morning. But on the other hand, one recollects that the report to which this is a commentary was signed, so far as I remember, in August 1972. Therefore the Government, and indeed their predecessor, have had ample time to consider what they were going to do about it.
I think it is obvious that after the Sunday Telegraph prosecution something had to be done, and on the main recommendation of the Franks Report that Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act should be replaced by a narrower and more specific set of provisions to be known as the Official Information Act, I think that there will probably be very little dispute in either House of Parliament, and certainly none between the Parties. Nor do I think that there will be much complaint about the priority given by the Government to defence and foreign affairs security information. But are the Government quite right in saying that economic information is so unimportant nowadays?
The Franks Committee reported that the Official Information Act should apply to official information relating to any
"… proposals, negotiations or decisions connected with alterations in the value of sterling or relating to the reserves, including their extent or any movement or threat to them".
Unless I am mistaken, the only reference I find to that recommendation in what the noble Lord just read is the sentence:
"In the economic field, the Government have reached the conclusion that a criminal sanction is not justified".
They back that up by saying that of course in the old days of Franks, many years ago, there were such things as fixed foreign exchanges.
Are the Government really satisfied that if, for instance, one disclosed information which would affect the value of

1735
sterling, in these so much more enlightened times that would not be something which should not be governed by a criminal sanction? Are they really sure that is right? Does their new-found liberalism carry them that length? What about Budget secrets? That is economic information and I always thought that the documents relating to it were protected by a very high degree of secrecy.
One is left with the conclusion that the Government would have been very much better, as they have proceeded in this leisurely fashion—a leisurely fashion for which I must accept my own measure of responsibility when I was a member of their predecessor—if they had produced a White Paper on the subject being much more precise and detailed in the arguments which they approached. I wonder whether, regarding the Committee's recommendation about discussions with the media, such discussions have taken place at any time in the last four years, before this announcement was made. If so, with whom were the discussions held and what was the result of them? At any rate, we shall at some time during the next 12 months have time to discuss the matter, as there will be no legislation, so I will not detain the House with any further comment.
3.53 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the fact that at long last the Government have adopted the view of Mr. Justice Caulfield in the Sunday Telegraph case that it is time that Section 2 of the 1911 Act should be pensioned off. It was an absurd situation under which, if that Act were interpreted strictly, a civil servant and a journalist would be committing a serious offence if they exchanged information about the colour of the carpet in the civil servant's room or about the time at which he took his tea break; and we welcome very much the fact that a somewhat more realistic view will be taken in future as to what information is important and what is trivial.
I have three queries to raise about the Statement which has been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. My first query, which has already been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, is
1736
whether on reflection it may not appear that economic information may not be at least as important, and indeed in some circumstances even more important, than military information and should not come within the provisions of the new Bill when it is drafted.
Secondly, the question of the classification of Government documents, because a great deal of trouble arises at the moment because of the inevitable tendency of civil servants to classify their documents in grades of confidentiality several degrees higher than are really necessary. Indeed, I remember well that in the Sunday Telegraph case it emerged that the very document giving instructions to the Civil Service on how to classify documents was itself classified as confidential, and the civil servant who was giving evidence was therefore reluctant to inform the court of its details. Does Lord Harris accept the finding of the Committee presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Franks that the whole question of classification should be looked at with care, that the civil servant's view of the correct degree of classification should not be accepted as final and should be subject to the certificate of the Minister in an appropriate case to the effect that the classification had been properly carried out?
Thirdly, may I ask Lord Harris whether he agrees with the view of the Franks Committee that the mere receipt by a person of classified information should not in itself be an offence under the new Bill, whenever it is prepared? Lord Hailsham pointed out that the Franks Committee reported in September 1972. The Government appear to be adopting the attitude of Saint Augustine, who prayed in Latin in the words:
"Give me chastity and continence, but do not give it yet."
May I ask the noble Lord to consider very carefully whether it might not be possible for the Government to introduce a measure to reform the present Act in the immediate future during this coming Session? Would it not perhaps be an appropriate Bill to introduce into your Lordships' House while we are doing nothing but awaiting the return of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Bill?
3.55 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble

1737
and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, have said. It is sometimes rather difficult to give pleasure to your Lordships' House. There has been a constant stream of reproaches to this Government and—and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would no doubt agree—to the previous Government that there has been over-hasty legislation and far too much of it. Undoubtedly, it has been the case in this matter that both the previous and the present Governments have taken some time to reflect before coming forward with proposals.
I must say at the outset that it will be quite impossible to fit this into the programme for next year's legislative timetable. There is a substantial programme of legislation that will be set before Parliament in the gracious Speech and I must make it clear, as did my right honourable friend in his Statement in the other place, that we could not possibly fit an important measure of this sort into the programme for the next Session of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, both referred to the Sunday Telegraph case, where Mr. Justice Caulfield made a number of very critical references to Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. Indeed, that is why the Franks Committee was set up and why I have made the Statement that I have made today. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, both asked whether it was not the fact that economic information should be protected, and suggested that there should be some fairly harsh restriction, with breaches being dealt with rather more seriously than the Government were proposing. Certainly, I do not for a moment suggest that disclosure of economic information cannot be damaging. Of course it can. The question is whether there should be a criminal sanction. It is the Government's view that there should not be a criminal sanction.
On the question raised by the noble and learned Lord as to what is the position if there is disclosure of a Budget secret, I believe that the answer to that is that there are other disagreeable consequences if there are disclosures of Budget secrets and that the criminal law is not necessarily the best way of dealing with that problem.
1738
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, put the point—which was covered by the Franks Committee—about whether the mere receipt of information should be a criminal offence. It is our view that it should not be so, and that will be part of our proposals.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord to go a little further into the possibility of having a White Paper on this subject, as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham? These are complicated matters, as I remember well from some discussions that I had to have many years ago about the matter at the Home Office. It seems to me that a lot of points could be thought about and discussed with advantage before we get to the point of legislation and that a White Paper might therefore be very useful.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord and I shall certainly discuss that matter with my right honourable friend.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, may I supplement what the other speakers have said about the economic aspects of this matter? Clearly, we cannot expect the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to produce a detailed reply, but it may help him if I suggest that there will have to be some kind of borderline between international affairs that are deemed to be economic, and international and economic affairs that may touch upon international affairs yet not be international. It does not seem possible to say simply "economic" under one system and "international" under the other. There really are very delicate questions which affect our international relations and which are substantially economic, and somebody will have to decide, not only ad hoc but also on definitions.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, while completely endorsing what the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, has said, I should like to suggest that even as regards the domestic scene there are lines which should be drawn. I imagine that most of us, certainly most members of my profession, will welcome the increased elbowroom for the discussion of economic affairs in general. But it is very easy to imagine partial disclosures which enable people to make large sums of money,

1739
which I suggest should still be the subject of criminal prosecution. I think that that could be enlarged upon a great deal, but the time now is not appropriate.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think it is perfectly right that there are going to be a number of difficult dividing lines. The noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, is quite right; I take the point he has just made. But of course this is a matter which can be discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill, which will be an important measure for that reason and for the reason which the noble Lord has just given. I welcome, too, the general welcome given by the noble Lord because I think it is important to try to move out of the area of criminal law so far as discussion in the areas he has just mentioned is concerned.
Lord CLITHEROE: My Lords, will the noble Lord be so good as to tell your Lordships whether any change at all is contemplated in the 30-year rule?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this is not covered by the Official Secrets Act.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, when we consider this Bill would it not be possible to link it with what in many countries is called the "Right to Know Act" or something equivalent, so that in general the ordinary citizen has an access to the files of the Civil Service if they bear upon his own private affairs, as a matter of right instead of as a matter of privilege? I suggest this so that something could be done to remove what I have always felt to be the obsessive security and the obsessive sense of secrecy which envelops all the operations of the Civil Service.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think that that matter goes substantially wider than the Statement I have made this afternoon.
4.2 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn until 5.15 p.m. when a Royal Commission for Prorogation is expected. My Lords, after all the disagreement and hard words of the last few weeks I am glad to be able to take this opportunity of saying something with which I am sure noble Lords
1740
in all parts of the House will agree. The period since the Summer Recess has been one of the hardest that the House has ever gone through. I feel that we owe a very real debt of gratitude to all those in the House who have worked so patiently for our benefit. I hope, therefore, that I have the support of the whole House in saying "Thank you" to the staff. First, I should mention the staff of the Parliament Office and I should like to make particular mention of the Public Bill Office. This is only because I know that the burden on them has been even greater than on every-one else.
Secondly, I should mention the Hansard staff, who have coped unflaggingly with a very heavy task. Thirdly, there are the staff of the Refreshment Department who have fed and watered us and kept up our spirits. We have also imposed greatly on them and relied far more than we should on their devotion to duty to keep the Refreshment Department working. Next I can thank the Doorkeepers and the rest of Black Rod's staff who have kept the watches of the night with us.
Last, but not least, I should like to add a mention of my own secretarial staff in the Leader's Office. One of the best known and prettiest members of that office is leaving at the end of this Session, and I know that the House will miss her very much and wish her well. To all the staff and to all your Lordships I can say that I hope that the next few weeks will be rather quieter than the last few.
Moved, That this House do now adjourn until 5.15 p.m.—(Lord Peart.)
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, all of your Lordships would join with the Leader of the House in that tribute, and all of your Lordships, wherever you sit, will look to the Leader of the House to see that nothing as awful as the past eight weeks will ever happen again. I think that a certain tribute is also due to your Lordships on all sides of the House; we have kept our tempers and we have been courteous and polite, whatever our disagreements may have been. Only very rarely have there been flashes of temper, which in the circumstances were only too understandable. My Lords, both Front Benches have had to put up with a great deal of hard work and do a lot, and I think we ought to acknowledge that.

1741
Of course I agree with what the noble Lord has said about all the various categories of people whom he has mentioned: the Table, that has to listen to the interminable argument; the Official Reporters, who have to take down the interminable argument; the Doorkeepers and the Custodians, and those behind the scenes who work so hard; and not least, as the noble Lord has said, the Refreshment Department. Where would we have been without Miss Wilson and the Refreshment Department? If I may pick out, invidiously, one particular person, where would we have been without the Bishops' Bar? The cheerful and efficient dispenser of spirits there, who has have kept our spirits up and, incidentally, enabled them to go down as well, if your Lordships follow me, has really been invaluable to us in these last few weeks. My Lords, I think that we in this House are particularly fortunate in the people who work here with us. Whatever the circumstances, we are always greeted with a cheerfulness, a courtesy and a kindness which we have absolutely no right to expect but always get.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to support what has been said by the two noble Lords who have preceded me. The whole House is of course extremely indebted to all the members of the staff who have worked so hard and so long in recent weeks. I only hope—and I think I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—that it will not become part of our Parliamentary life. That this should be the pattern for the period at the end of every Session is too much to bear.
My Lords, I do not know whether we have had to recruit a considerable number of new staff or whether the burden of the last few weeks has taken its mental toll, but this morning I was handed my Order Paper by a very courteous Doorkeeper. He took a good look at me and said, "It is very good to see you again, my Lord; we do not get that pleasure very often nowadays". I am still trying to work out with which particular Liberal backwoodsman he confused me! My Lords, we wish to support the Motion which has been moved by the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
House adjourned during pleasure until
5.15 p.m.
House resumed.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
Report from the Committee of the Reason to be offered to the Commons for insisting on the Lords Amendments in lieu and for disagreeing to the Commons Amendments in lieu, read and agreed to; Bill returned to the Commons with the said Reason.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I understand that the business in another place has not yet been completed as we had hoped. I very much apologise for having brought your Lordships here earlier than was perhaps necessary. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to move that we adjourn during pleasure for another half-hour, until a quarter to six.
Moved, That this House do adjourn during pleasure until 5.45 p.m.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I fully understand how this situation has arisen. In the circumstances we can do nothing other than accept the Government's proposal.
House adjourned during pleasure until
5.45 p.m.
House resumed.
5.46 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am afraid that I must apologise to your Lordships once again because business is not yet completed in another place. I think it may be best and for the convenience of your Lordships if we adjourn during pleasure until a time which will be announced on the annunciator, which I hope will not be too far distant.
Moved, That this House do adjourn during pleasure.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments in lieu agreed to; and with the Amendment to the Lords Amendment not insisted on.
EDUCATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment in lieu agreed to.
AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
Returned from the Commons with their Amendments in lieu insisted on; and with their disagreement to the Lords Amendments in lieu insisted on, with a Reason for such insistence; the said Reason to be printed.