Lords Sitting of 24 January 1978

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

BRITISH RAIL: DELAYED SERVICES
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: 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 why the stock excuse from British Rail to passengers alighting at their destination from a train arriving late is, invariably, "shortage of staff".
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, this is not the stock excuse. Although during the last two months of 1977 some of Southern Region's services were badly affected by staff problems resulting from industrial action, the most common cause of train lateness is equipment failure. May I add that fewer than 10 per cent. of British Rail's passenger services arrive over five minutes late and that the dispute on Southern Region has now been resolved.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, may I ask whether she is aware that the other day I received a letter from a lady who applied for a situation in a Government Department? The location of the work was near a railway station and she was told that no applicants for the job would be considered if they travelled by British Rail. Therefore, would the noble Baroness not agree that British Rail must be rather unpunctual on occasions?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I was not aware of the letter in question, but if the noble Viscount will let me have the information I shall certainly take it up with British Rail.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and I can show her the letter.

CROSSBOWS: UNLICENSED USE
2.38 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: 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 whether they will reconsider their refusal to legislate to make the licensing of crossbows compulsory.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, we have no evidence that crossbows have been used for the purpose of serious crime or that they are misused to any significant extent. A licensing system would impose additional burdens on the police, which would be disproportionate to the scale of the problem.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, while rather lukewarmly thanking the noble Minister for his reply, may I ask whether he is really aware how lethal these weapons are? Is the noble Lord aware that modern crossbows are fitted with telescopic sights and fire a mechanically propelled steel bolt on a flat projectory, and are capable of killing a man at a distance of up to 100 yards? Moreover, would the noble Lord not agree that such a weapon, being silent and relatively cheap to buy, is tailor-made for criminal activities, apart, of course, from being highly dangerous in the hands of irresponsible or young people? Finally, does the Minister realise the hazard to wildlife and domestic stock made possible by these weapons in the prevailing lawlessness in this country?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the situation is that there is very little evidence that crossbows are used for any criminal purposes. The noble Viscount says that they can be misused. Indeed they can, but so can many other articles, including carving knives. However, that is not an argument for a licensing system.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether these crossbows could not be supplied to engine drivers on the Southern Region so that they could protect themselves against passengers who ask silly questions?
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will the Minister not agree that the real point about the crossbow is that, although it is an extremely dangerous weapon—and on this point I agree with the noble Viscount—it cannot be put into one's pocket, and that that is what really makes it not very useful as a criminal weapon and therefore not needing licensing?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in fact, a man was shot by a crossbow not so long ago? Is the Minister further aware that I have seen two animals with these bolts in them? Only a short time ago I saw a young stag that had a crossbow bolt through its neck—it must have died a very unpleasant death.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have no doubt that crossbows can be misused. However, I am saying that I do not think that a case for licensing has been made out.

COAL OUTPUT
2.43 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have been advised that output of coal has not reached the target set by the National Coal Board, what adjustments must in consequence be made in our energy estimates, and what action is being taken.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, there is no formal target set for coal output for the current financial year, ending March 1978, but production is expected to be some 117 million tons. The National Coal Board are aiming at the Plan for Coal target of 135 million tons by 1985.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Govern
270
ment are constantly and accurately being informed on what is happening about output? May I ask whether the incentive scheme which is now in operation—although some coalfields have refused to operate it—has proven successful, and to what extent? Further—in order to save me asking another supplementary question, unless the Minister's answer is unsatisfactory—perhaps I could ask when the Government will make up their mind about an energy policy, so that rather than just talking about energy, they telescope together coal, oil, nuclear energy and everything associated with energy and inform the public of the target and the estimate for the future.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, investment projects covering some two-thirds of new capacity under Plan for Coal have already been approved. Although these projects will take a number of years to yield full benefits, the National Coal Board consider that there is no technical reason why the target should not be reached. Furthermore, although it is too early to quantify the benefits that they will bring, it is expected that incentive schemes will make a significant contribution. On incentive schemes—as my noble friend asked—it is a little early to say, as the first payment for properly measured production will be made on 27th January. With regard to the general question, as my noble friend may know, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy set up a high-powered Energy Commission, and there is, of course, an important debate in your Lordships' House next Wednesday which will give us a further opportunity to explore these questions.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, although there may be no technical reason why the planned output for 1985 is not likely to be achieved, is the Minister at present advised that industrial relation; in the coal industry are such that only the 135 million ton target can be achieved? If not, what steps will the Government take to try to improve relationships with the unions in the mining industry?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that relations with the miners are much better than they were in early 1974, All but one of the National Coal Board's areas have now accepted the principle of local productivity schemes, and in all

271
cases agreements have either already been signed or are in the course of being negotiated. The exception is the South Wales area which is holding a ballot for the membership tomorrow.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that on average coalface workers have increased their output by 4 per cent. on each coal face throughout the country? Is he further aware that the target of 135 million tons could have been reached if we had not had the mad policy that we have had in the last 10 years of closing pits right, left and centre? In the face of the troubles—which are now being settled—that we have had with various coalfields, would it not be far better to allow them to fix the norm of output at the pits and the incentive schemes and to allow the men to reach agreement quietly, without raising any controversy over this matter?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with his great experience of these matters, I believe that there is a great deal in what my noble friend says. He is, of course, perfectly right. One of the great difficulties was the low level of investment in the coal industry, which started in the 1950s, and also the present amount of effort being devoted to development of pits for future exploitation. I agree with my noble friend that the policy at that time to rely mainly on Arabian oil and atomic energy was mad.
The EARL of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is any technical reason why the target for 1985 and beyond should not be raised well above the 135 million tons now proposed? Will he not agree that that target is way below the kind of target that we shall need towards the end of the century? Will he not agree that this target, in turn, will call for far greater investment in research and development in extraction without undue use of manpower?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, there are, of course, many reasons; as I have said future increased output depends on incentive schemes, modern, new mines, a higher proportion of capital investment per coal face, investment on the surface in coal preparation plants, less labour intensive
272
pits and investment in movement underground to save travelling time to the coal face. These are all factors which are being developed by the National Coal Board in partnership with the Government. I may say also that the target for the year 2000, which is 170 million tons, we believe will be met.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, if the target of 135 million tons a year is reached by the mid-1980s, can my noble friend say whether the coal can be sold? Is the Central Electricity Generating Board prepared to increase its consumption of coal by something like 40 per cent., which would be the amount required in order to use the coal that would be produced by the mid-1980s?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, coal will, of course, also be used to replace North Sea gas—natural gas—and North Sea oil.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, would my noble friend find it convenient to state the Government's present policy on underground gasification?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the National Coal Board have reviewed progress in this field since publication of their report in 1976. They note that some progress has been made, but work is not at a stage where a decision can yet be made about underground gasification in the United Kingdom. The position will be clearer in two or three years when the results of certain experiments taking place in the United States and on the Continent are known, when a decision will be made.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, following on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, about the quantity of coal, I am apprehensive that we shall have too much coal before very long. If we get to that position, will we produce coal at a price that will be competitive in the European area?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think that is a very speculative question to try to answer at this time. It is one we perhaps could return to next Wednesday.

UN: COMMON FUND CONFERENCE
2.50 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on what grounds the UNCTAD conference of one hundred developed and developing nations was suspended on 1st December, thus terminating its proceedings.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the second session of the United Nations negotiating conference on a Common Fund was suspended on 1st December 1977 at the request of the developing countries—the Group of 77—in the absence of agreement on the Fund's scope and financial structure. The developed countries of Group B, in expressing their regret at this decision, made clear their readiness to continue the negotiations as soon as all groups can agree to do so. In his concluding remarks, the chairman of the Conference, Ambassador Walker of Jamaica, commented that the Group of 77 did not regard the suspension as a final breakdown; and the Secretary-General of UNCTAD has subsequently been invited to undertake consultations with a view to a resumption of negotiations at an early date.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister, as always, may I ask him this? Is he aware that many of us were deeply disappointed that the British representative should not have identified himself with seven Western European countries and should have identified himself with the three hardliners, the United States, Japan, and Germany? Is not the real issue here whether the Common Fund should have comprehensive functions for co-operation rather than becoming just a banking agency?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, my noble friend has not, I think, put quite correctly the grouping within the conference. It is true that the United Kingdom, when the final statement was made, was in association with what my noble friend has called
274
the "hard-liners", the United States and Germany, but this was the opinion of a majority of the developed countries. The developed countries which were dissenting from that view of Group B as a whole were the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. I agree that the position of those countries was nearer to that of the Group of 77.
As to my noble friend's second question, of course a main part of the issue is about the functioning of the proposed Fund and the sources of its finance. But it is a view, which I think my noble friend would do well to study, that the existing range of agencies in the United Nations, including a recently established agricultural development agency, is capable of doing many of the things that the Group of 77 would want this common Fund to do. It is not that it is to be just what my noble friend calls a banking organisation. There is an important point of view that I think perhaps he would do well to examine further.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that I shall be returning to the broader subject in a Question tomorrow? Meanwhile, may I ask him this. Cannot this very important matter be considered at Cabinet level so that when the Commonwealth Ministerial Conference meets on this subject we may not be in a minority, as we have been before? Is it not important not merely to raise the standard of life in the Third World but, by increasing its purchasing power, to reduce unemployment in this country?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I of course understand that my noble friend is likely to pursue this matter, and it is certainly not for me to decide what matters are considered by the Cabinet. However, I assure him that the attitude of the United Kingdom to this question of the Common Fund has been considered at the very highest level and given the most serious consideration. I do not think at this stage that I can go further than that, except to say to my noble friend that I am with him, as indeed are the Government, in wanting to do all that we can to help the dew loping countries lift up their living standards. If he will consult, for example, the recent White Paper on public expenditure he will notice there that the Government are

275
putting those sentiments into practice for the coming years.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us when there will be available to this House, and to Parliament generally, either an analysis or an approximation of the costs and benefits to the United Kingdom of the Common Fund in the form in which it is presently proposed? Secondly, will he assure us that we will not in this round of conferences do what we did at the last; namely, defend our right to reject the principle—in that case of the Common Fund; in this case of the second window and the source fund—to the last possible minute and then, when all good will has been lost from the other side, suddenly give way on it?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I do not think that that is fair. It is true that the position of Her Majesty's Government was what might be termed nearer to a hard-liner position if one looks at the situation a year ago, but we should not underestimate the change of emphasis in our policy and the acceptance during the North/South dialogue of the principle of the Common Fund, and the fact that we have put forward, together with our associates in Group B, practical proposals for the implementation of the Common Fund, which we have accepted.
As regards the noble Lord's first point, he will understand, from the suspension of the negotiations at the moment, hopefully to be renewed as soon as preparations can be made, that this is not the time for the laying of papers explaining the position. I shall take note of his anxiety that as soon as possible Parliament should be informed of the position, but I would assure him that the position of the negotiations is not yet at that stage.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the British Mission and our delegates there—the men who deal with this matter in the British Mission at the United Nations—are men of exceptional quality with long experience, and that there is no need at all to pass this over to Cabinet level, because they would have to rely upon the experience of the people at the United Nations in dealing with it?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I appreciate what my noble friend says about the
276
quality of our representatives. I think my noble friend Lord Brockway, in raising this Question, was just anxious that the matter should be considered at the highest possible level, and I gave him that assurance.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, would my noble friend advise noble Lords that they can obtain information from the utterly inspired report of their own Select Committee on this vital question, and that in its report that Committee in fact advocated that Britain should be a little more forthcoming so far as the Common Fund is concerned?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend has called attention to that report, which we had the opportunity of debating. However, the comment in the report—and he was a member of the Select Committee—was in relation to the United Kingdom's attitude in March last year. As I pointed out in answer to other questions, that attitude has changed, and I would hope that the Select Committee, if it were now meeting, would comment favourably on that change of emphasis.

PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 47; read 1a.

BLASPHEMY (ABOLITION OF OFFENCE BILL) [H.L.]
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to abolish the statutory and common law offence of blasphemy. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. (Lord Willis.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MEDICAL BILL [H.L.]
3 p.m.
Report received.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY Lord HUNT of FAWLEY moved Amendment No. 1:

277
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Guidance on professional conduct or medical ethics.
(" .The powers of the General Council shall include that of providing, in such manner as the Council think fit, guidance for members of the medical profession on standards of professional conduct or on medical ethics.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the long list of Amendments tabled in my name must seem formidable, but I promise not to delay your Lordships for long. Many of them have been agreed; others are to be taken in groups. I shall speak only to three of them at any length and then for only a few minutes on each. Noble Lords will recall that on 13th December we discussed in Committee three Amendments which I put forward on the functions of the General Medical Council, the duty of its education committee and on the experience required for full registration. On behalf of the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, accepted those Amendments of mine in principle, on condition that they were examined carefully and redrafted as necessary by Parliamentary Counsel and reintroduced on Report.
That has been done and the redrafted versions, in effect with the same meaning as the originals, are before the House today as Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 and 11 to 24. I spoke to them in Committee and your Lordships discussed them then, so I shall say very little about them now, except that I am of course prepared to accept the revised wording of them all. I wish to thank Lord Wells-Pestell and my noble friend Lord Sandys for all their help, patience and kindness to someone like myself who is comparatively new to the intricacies of Parliamentary procedure. I also wish to thank Parliamentary Counsel for their forbearance and co-operation in redrafting these Amendments which I know have given them much extra work.
The purpose of my first Amendment is to make it clear that the General Medical Council should not only have a judicial role in relation to professional conduct but also he entitled to give guidance to members of the medical profession on standards of professional conduct and medical ethics. I am sure that this power will, by helping the Council to
278
promote high standards of professional conduct, both serve the public interest and contribute to the efficiency of the medical profession.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I support the Amendment, which was ably moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Fawley. I join with him in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the great amount of time and trouble he has taken with Parliamentary Counsel, to which my noble friend referred, and his colleagues in the Government, because this has been a formidable task and it has beer achieved in the short time between Committee and today.
An analogy has been drawn between the Highway Code and what is proposed in this Amendment, and it appears that this would be one of the best forms of guidance to which the GMC could direct its attention in the important matter of professional conduct on medicine and ethics. The Amendment follows closely on the report of Sir Alex Merrison, paragraph 268, and I think it meets all the requirements to which he and his colleagues referred. I do not think it is necessary to add to the argument, but I believe that as a result of what was said in Committee and of the further discussions which have taken place the matter has now been set in the right context.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I too commend the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, for all his efforts to improve and strengthen the Bill, and I join with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his extremely conciliatory and co-operative attitude towards the attempts to improve the Bill. Having said that, I am bound to say that I have considerable reservations about this Amendment. This matter was discussed very briefly in Committee, and at that time the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, drew a parallel between the General Medical Council and the Law Society and Bar Council, and rightly pointed out that lawyers in difficulty could seek advice in advance from their respective bodies, could find out the right course to pursue and not suddenly find themselves in jeopardy at a later stage, as has sometimes happened with doctors. However, there is a difference. Those two bodies, the Law Society and Bar Council,

279
are entirely under professional control, whereas the GMC has been set up by Parliament to exercise functions which are primarily not professional functions but are functions for the protection of the general public. My fears about the Amendment are lest it should encourage the GMC to intrude into the making of decisions which have not yet been firmly made and which are, in my view, more properly decisions for Parliament or the courts.
In this connection, I would remind the House briefly of two cases, and no doubt others will come to mind. Noble Lords will recollect the case of Dr. Alec Bourne who, many years ago, performed an abortion on a girl who had become pregnant as a result of rape, and later the courts upheld his action and, by so doing, the law on that matter—the law in relation to rape and the law in relation to the consideration of the mental health of the mother—was changed for all time. There is not the slightest doubt that had Dr. Bourne sought the advice of the General Medical Council at that time as to whether he should do what he did, they would have replied, "No"; and knowing of course that the GMC was to be the body that would later decide whether or not he had acted professionally and properly, a wise doctor would heed that counsel if it was given.
Another example: a distinguished surgeon from my area, Manchester, Mr. Wilson-Hay, many years ago took it upon himself to provide morphia and syringes to members of mountain rescue teams and indeed to put morphia in mountain rescue first-aid posts for use in emergencies with extremely shocked casualties. At a later stage his action was upheld in the courts and, as a result, mountain rescue teams are now able to have morphia. There is not the slightest doubt that had Mr. Wilson-Hay at that time put to the GMC the question, "Can I give these people morphia?", they would have replied "No", and probably Mr. Wilson-Hay, as a law-abiding surgeon, would have acceded to their reply.
Noble Lords do not need me to prompt them about possible future cases, so I will merely refer to a few. We now have doubt as to what actually is the law regarding the determination of death in
280
relation to the taking of human tissue and human organs for transplant purposes. That matter will undoubtedly have to be decided firmly and finally. But surely it should be decided by Parliament and the courts and should not be left to a decision to be taken by a GMC which has not been specially constituted and which is not necessarily properly equipped to take that kind of decision. No doubt in the future we shall have arguments about euthanasia and matters of that kind. Maybe further arguments will arise on the abortion law. Again, in my view these are matters to be decided by Parliament or the courts, and not by the GMC.
I appreciate that the Amendment is loose and does not require the General Medical Council to take those decisions; but my feeling is that if it is once invited to do so, the likelihood is that it will take those decisions. If it subsequently transpires that the GMC gives firm advice only to those doctors who seek advice about matters which have already been firmly decided, that is one thing; but if the newly-constituted GMC should then take it upon itself to tell a doctor, "You may do this" or "You may not do that", when these matters have not been finally decided in the proper way, then that seems to me to be a rather different thing.
I hope your Lordships will have those thoughts in mind when considering this particular Amendment, and if the Amendment is later accepted then I hope that those remarks of mine will be considered at a later stage, especially when the GMC are deciding what note to take of these particular powers if they are later given them.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, the wording of this new clause states:
"The powers of the General Council shall include that of providing … guidance …".
Would my noble friend state when he comes to reply, perhaps, what action, if any, the General Medical Council are expected to take if any doctor does not comply with the guidance that they may give? It is simply a directive to provide guidance, and does not impose any penalties upon a doctor who does not necessarily follow that guidance.
3.12 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I

281
wish to crave your Lordships' indulgence for just a few minutes before I attempt to reply to those noble Lords who have just spoken and before I say anything with regard to the Amendment now before your Lordships' House. It must have occurred to those of your Lordships who have very carefully followed this Bill through both Second Reading and Committee stage that a very fundamental change in the character of the Bill itself has taken place. I have already been reminded that at Second Reading I was very forthright in so far as I said, not only that this was a simple Bill which was acceptable in toto to the General Medical Council and various other people concerned but that the Government could not see their way clear, for a whole variety of reasons—and I gave your Lordships those reasons at the time—to extending the Bill. I mentioned that many of the proposals would have far-reaching and deep-seated consequences, and that it would take time to discuss with the various bodies concerned what really ought to be done; and I repeated this at Committee stage. Those of your Lordships who have looked at the Bill and, since, at the Amendments before your Lordships' House this afternoon will have seen that it appears that either I or the Government, or both, have done a complete turnabout, and I feel I owe it to your Lordships to explain what has taken place.
What I said on that occasion was that the Government could not contemplate including certain matters in the Bill. I said that, not because the Government wished to be obstructive or to drag their feet over this important issue but just because there were a lot of important questions to be settled, agreement on which had not at that time been reached and as to which there was some reason to believe agreement might not be reached. The Government said as long ago as July of last year that they accepted the Merrison recommendations on this issue in principle, but did not wish to rush into legislation if there was any danger that the General Medical Council or the medical profession, including, of course, doctors from overseas, were not content with the various proposals. However, during the last month circumstances have changed dramatically and, I am inclined to say, at an unprecedented speed. I have never known so much agreement to be achieved in so little time. The General Medical Council,
282
the British Medical Association and the Overseas Doctors' Association felt it so important that the Bill's provisions should be extended to implement Merrison's recommendations on a variety of matters that an unexpected consensus has emerged on these matters among these groups as to the form the provisions should take.
This consensus is to son e extent reflected in the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt; and, as he himself has been good enough to say, the Government have given a great deal of time to a consideration of them. We have been able—and I speak now on behalf of the Government—to satisfy ourselves, not only that these Amendments reflect the Government's views on these matters but that they are also acceptable to the various bodies concerned, some of which had serious reservations about some aspects of the Merrison Report when they first came out. It is because of these changed circumstances, because there has been this consensus and because there has been a good deal of work done, particularly by my Department and by Parliamentary Counsel, that I was able to say at the Committee stage that certain of the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we accepted in principle, but they needed redrafting. That promise has been fulfilled. In the spirit of all the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we have redrafted the particular Amendments he will be moving today, and there is no Government opposition to them. In fact, if I may be permitted to say so, there is no Government opposition to any of the Amendments before your Lordships today, with the exception of the one in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I felt I owed this explanation to your Lordships because noble Lords may have wondered (as some did, because they so indicated to me privately) at the changed nature of this Bill.
Now, my Lords, the Amendment which is before us is one of the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, put down at Committee stage which we accepted in principle and said we would redraft. This we have done; and the Government's attitude towards it has not changed at all. We accept this Amendment, which, as I say, we have redrafted. If I could attempt to answer the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, briefly, as I understand it there is nothing in the new

283
clause which will prevent matters of the kind which he described still being for the courts to decide if there is a question of transgression of the law. I think this must always be an overriding factor in any legislation which comes before Parliament: that in the last analysis, if there appears to have been any transgression of the law, it is for the courts to decide.
As to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Segal, I think I can only say that the purpose of this Bill, or perhaps one of the purposes of this Bill, is to give the General Medical Council an opportunity (I hope this will not be misunderstood) to, I was going to say, put their house in order. I do not really mean it in that sense, but to give them an opportunity to do things which they themselves, I think, consider long overdue and which certainly the British Medical Association consider to be long overdue; and I think one must give them an opportunity to do what they feel is required to be done to meet the needs of the day. It is on those grounds that the Government offer no objection to this Amendment. In fact, they accept it, my Lords.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend answer another point? Will the General Medical Council automatically have to take action in the case of a doctor not observing the guidance given to him by them?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I had the feeling that there was something I had not answered. With respect, I suggest that this matter is one entirely for the General Medical Council. If they issue certain instructions or certain directives which are considered by the General Medical Council, as a body, to be relevant to the practice of medicine and the conduct of the doctor, then, if any member of the medical profession decides to ignore it, I would suggest that it is for the GMC to decide whether there should be some kind of disciplinary action.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [The Education Committee of the General Medical Council.]:
3.20 p.m.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY Lord HUNT of FAWLEY moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 5:
284
Page 16, line 36, at end insert ("having the general function of promoting high standards of medical education and co-ordinating all stages of medical education").
Page 17, line 4, at end insert—
(" (3A) For the purpose of discharging their general function under subsection (1) above the Education Committee shall—

(a) determine the extent of the knowledge and skill which is to be required for the granting of primary United Kingdom qualifications and secure that the instruction given in universities in the United Kingdom to persons studying for such qualifications is sufficient to equip them with knowledge and skill of that extent;

(b) determine the standard of proficiency which is to be required from candidates at qualifying examinations and secure the maintenance of that standard; and

(c) determine patterns of experience which may be recognised as suitable for giving to those who have passed a qualifying examination general clinical training for the purposes of the practice of their profession.

(3B) The determinations of the Education Committee under subsection (3A) above shall be embodied in recommendations which may be directed to all or any of the universities or other bodies which are concerned with medical education.
(3C) In the Medical Acts 1956 to 1969—

"the prescribed knowledge and skill" means knowledge and skill of the extent for the time being determined under subsection (3A)(a) above and embodied in recommendations under subsection (3B) above;

"the prescribed standard of proficiency" means the standard of proficiency for the time being determined under subsection (3A)(b) above and embodied in recommendations under subsection (3B) above; and

"a prescribed pattern of experience" means any pattern of experience for the time being determined under subsection (3A)(c) above and embodied in recommendations under subsection (3B) above.")

Page 17, line 5, after ("below") insert ("and to the amendments made by Schedule 5 to this Act,")
Page 17, line 23, leave out ("this section") and insert ("sub-section (4) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 en bloc. These correspond to Amendments that I moved at Committee stage. They are intended to give a general function to the education committee of the reconstituted General Medical Council to promote high standards of medical education, to co-ordinate all stages of medical education, and to provide a more flexible machinery for the determination of the standards to be required during the undergraduate curriculum and on qualification. The

285
Amendments, as redrafted by Parliamentary Counsel, are considerably longer than those which I originally moved. I am, however, assured that the new wording is intended to achieve the same results, but in places it uses a different phraseology.
In particular, the proposed new Clause 14(3A)(c), in Amendment No. 3, proposes that the education committee should
"determine patterns of experience which may be recognised as suitable for giving to those who have passed a qualifying examination general clinical training for the purposes of the practice of their profession".
I understand that this refers to the suitable combination of posts to be held by the young doctor during his pre-registration year and not to any subsequent period of general professional training. This is important because we do not want to interfere in any way with the work of the universities and the Royal Colleges. If any noble Lord should feel any doubt as to the clarity of this wording, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will bring the matter to the attention of his colleagues for consideration in another place.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I should again like to support my noble friend Lord Hunt of Fawley in these redrafted Amendments. Your Lordships will recall that they follow very closely on the pattern of Amendment No. 3 in Committee and, of course, on paragraphs 67 and 70 in the Merrison Report and the later comments by Merrison on this highly important subject. Great skill has been displayed—if that does not sound too patronising a comment—by those concerned in the Parliamentary Counsel office, because these Amendments now skilfully enable those bodies concerned, including the Royal Colleges, to accept them as they stand. I feel that a great many people should be heartily congratulated on achieving agreement in this difficult field.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there is no need for me to detain the Committee longer than to say that this has been looked at very carefully by Parliamentary Counsel even since the redrafting. It is our view that there is not likely to be any conflict between the
286
phrase "general clinical training" and "general professional training". We would hold that it is patently clear that they are two entirely different things. What we are going to do, notwithstanding the fact that we have already looked at them since they were put down, is to look at them again and will get further advice, if it is necessary and if there is the remotest chance of confusion, so that steps can be taken to provide the necessary Amendment in another place.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY Lord HUNT of FAWLEY moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 14 insert the following new clause:
".—(1) In section 15 of the Medical Act 1956
Experience required for full registration
(pre-registration experience) the following amendments shall be made.
(2) For subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(3) A person who has been employed as aforesaid may apply to his examining body for a certificate under this section, and if that body are satisfied—

(a) that during the time he his been so employed he has been engaged in at least two branches of medicine prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph for the minimum period prescribed for each branch;

(b) that the terms on which he has been so employed were such as to provide him with the experience required by a prescribed pattern of experience recognised by that body as applicable to persons for whom they are the examining body; and

(c) that his service while so employed has been satisfactory,

they shall grant him a certificate in the prescribed form that they are satisfied as aforesaid".
(3) After subsection (3), there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(3A) The Education Committee may, if they think fit, appoint persons to visit any approved hospital or approved institution.
(3B) It shall be the duty of visitors appointed under subsection (3A) above to report to the Education Committee on the extent to which the general clinical training given by employment in a resident medical capacity in the hospital or institution is such as to provide the experience required by one or more prescribed patterns of experience.
(3C) If the Education Committee is of the opinion that—

(a) an approved hospital or an approved institution does not provide experience required by any prescribed pattern of experience; or

(b) a pattern of experience recognised as applicable to persons by then examining

287
body is not a prescribed pattern of experience; or

(c) employment of persons on terms of a particular description which is accepted by their examining body as providing persons employed on terms of that description with the experience required by a prescribed pattern of experience does not in fact provide that experience,

then the Committee shall notify their opinion to the university or body concerned and that university or body shall have regard to that opinion in discharging their functions under this section.".
(4) Subsections (4) and (5) shall be omitted.
(5) In subsection (6) for the words "surgery or midwifery required" there shall be substituted the words "a branch of medicine prescribed" and for the words from "medicine" to "in his case" there shall be substituted the words "some other prescribed branch of medicine (whether or not one in the practice of which he has already had experience)".
(6) In subsection (8), in the paragraph defining the expression "approved", after the words "this Act", there shall be inserted the words "as providing experience required by one or more prescribed patterns of experience", in the definition of the expression "prescribed", after the word "means", there shall be inserted the words" (except in the expression "prescribed pattern of experience")" and, in the paragraph construing references to employment in a resident medical capacity, for the words "medicine, surgery or midwifery" there shall be substituted the words "any branch of medicine prescribed for the purposes of this section"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6 which stands in my name on the Marshalled List. The first purpose of this Amendment is to strengthen the powers of the universities in supervising their graduates during the pre-registration year which follows graduation and precedes full registration. The clause also gives to the education committee of the new Council more explicit powers to control the nature of the experience to be gained during this part of the young doctor's training.
The clause also removes the option of midwifery at this stage of the doctor's training but leaves it open to the education committee and to the universities to arrange, if they think it right, more flexible patterns of experience.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think I can usefully say anything other than what I have said earlier: that this is an Amendment which has been redrafted and that we are perfectly satisfied that it meets what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, intends.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY Lord HUNT of FAWLEY moved Amendment No. 7.
After Clause 14 insert the following new clause:
Requirement of linguistic knowledge for the registration of overseas qualified doctors.
" . In section 18(1)(b) of the Medical Act 1956 as amended by the Medical Act 1969 the word "and" shall be inserted at the end and the following paragraph shall be added—
"(c) that he has the knowledge of English specified in section 7B(1) of the Medical Act 1956 as amended by the Medical Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1977."."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment which stands in my name. Your Lordships will recall that at the Committee stage of this Bill I withdrew at the suggestion of the noble, Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, four Amendments about the language difficulties of some overseas-qualified doctors and about the part that the General Medical Council might play in their registration. I did not then speak to these Amendments and they were not debated because it was said that they concerned "matters dealing with a complex situation". I told your Lordships I had intended to put them forward as probing Amendments and Hansard reported me as saying then:
"I hope that some of the difficulties may be ironed out and that it may be possible, perhaps on Report, to introduce one or two clauses about the registration of overseas-qualified doctors."—[Official Report, col. 2049; 13/12/77.]
That is what I am doing now in the next three Amendments which are before the House for consideration. I should like to speak to each of them separately for a very few minutes because they impinge upon some very important matters which we have not debated so far and which I think it might be helpful at this stage to put on record. It is possible, if your Lordships wish, that a short discussion on each might prove helpful.
This Amendment No. 7, refers to the linguistic difficulties of overseas-qualified doctors. A whole chapter of the Merrison Report was devoted to criticisms of the present arrangements for the registration of doctors who had qualified overseas, with suggestions for remedying this situation. Many of these doctors, as we all know, speak English extremely well and have done magnificent work for us. Our National Health Service could not

289
have developed as it has, and might even not exist now, without the help they have given us.
The Merrison Report, two and a half years ago, said that a number of them had been admitted to registration in Britain when their ability to speak English was seriously in question. In putting forward this Amendment, I am trying to help our patients and their doctors together; and as soon as possible. Our patients must have first priority. It may be felt that they have not been considered quite enough in our deliberations so far on this Bill. So far as I can tell, they were mentioned only once during our two and a quarter hour debate in Committee. A language barrier between patients and their doctors may be extremely frustrating for both when they misunderstand one another, and find themselves talking at cross-purposes; sometimes it may be a very serious matter indeed, if a patient is gravely ill.
A person, especially a shy young woman who is nervous, with an embarrassing and personal complaint, may do her best to avoid going to her doctor anyway. If she feels that he is unlikely to understand or follow properly what she wants to tell him, and that she, in her turn, is likely to be unable to grasp his advice, she may never go at all. I, myself, have every sympathy for patients and their doctors in these situations. I was born in India, and I am told that when quite young I learnt more Hindustani from my "ayah" (my Indian nannie) than I did English from my parents. I have forgotten it all now. I suspect that I should be more than unhappy and unsure of myself, even after a six-month language course, trying to take a complicated medical history in Hindustani (especially colloquial Hindustani), or advising a patient on a very personal problem in that language.
Colloquialisms are common enough in English medicine, such as: "It's my water-works, doctor", "My ticker is playing me up"; and the more subtle misunderstanding of a patient of mine when she attended an eye hospital for early cataract: "What's the trouble, madam?" the doctor asked. "I can't see quite so well in the dark", she replied. Whereupon the doctor went to the
290
window, drew the curtains across, and said "None of us can, can we?".
In June last year the Medical Acts were changed by the Medical Qualifications (EEC Recognition) Order 1977 (Statutory Instrument No. 827 of 1977) which required that a British- or EEC-qualified doctor applying for full registration must satisfy the Registrar of the Council
"that he has the necessary knowledge of English, that is, the knowledge which, in the interests of himself and his patients, is necessary to the practice of medicine in the United Kingdom".
This requirement now applies to doctors qualifying in any Member State of the EEC, such as France, Germany or Italy, including the United Kingdom and Ireland. But it does not apply to doctors seeking full registration from other countries, such as India, Sri Lanka, South Africa and other African States, or anywhere else overseas. The General Medical Council, through reciprocal agreements, still has, by law, to grant full registration to doctors holding recognised qualifications granted in India before May 1975, however much or little English they can speak. During 1976 it registered 1,750 such doctors, and last year 1,335. None of these could be required to take a language test. This will go on until the law is changed.
I must make it quite clear that in this Amendment I am not seeking to discriminate against overseas-qualified doctors from any country in the matter of language, but merely to ensure that they all meet the same requirements. I understand that almost everyone concerned with the medical profession in this country has now accepted that such arrangements are desirable.
My Lords, I am most anxious that neither our patients nor their doctors should have to wait too long for help over this matter of language. In this Bill we have a good chance to put things right quite soon, rather than having to wait for a second Bill to reach the Statute Book; something which we know may take a considerable time. I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am in some difficulty because I thought that the arrangement with the noble Lord

291
was that he would move Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 together as they relate more or less to the same matter, and then would reply to all three. I did not want to give the same reply to each of the Amendments in turn. I do not know whether the noble Lord is prepared to agree to this arrangement. If so, I shall make the one reply covering all three Amendments.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, may I interrupt? The next Amendment, Amendment No. 10, is in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. I happen to know he is on his way here because we flew down in the same aeroplane from Scotland, and if we can "spin out" the discussion he may be in his place at any moment for the next Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, Lord Kinnoull's Amendment is Amendment No. 10. I am now talking about Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9.
Lord FERRIER: Exactly.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: My Lords, I am very happy to move Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 now, if the House agrees.
3.36 p.m.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY Lord HUNT of FAWLEY moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9:
After Clause 14 insert the following new clause:
Limited registration of overseas qualified doctors.
(". For section 25(1) of the Medical Act 1956 as amended by section 12 of the Medical Act 1969 there shall be substituted—
"25.—(1) Where a person satisfies the Registrar:

(a) that he holds, has held, or has passed the examinations necessary for obtaining, some Commonwealth or foreign qualification or qualifications recognised for the time being by the Council for the purposes of this section: and

(b) that he complies with such other requirements as to proficiency in English, professional knowledge and competence, good character, and experience as the Council may think to impose,

the Council may if they think fit give a direction that he shall be registered under this section for such period, and in relation to such employment or range of employment as may be specified in the direction.".")
292
After Clause 14 insert the following new clause:
Progress from limited to full registration.
".After section 25 of the Medical Act 1956 there shall be inserted—
"25A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section no person shall be granted registration by virtue of the foregoing section after the appointed day for any period which exceeds five years or which, when added to periods of such registration granted to him after the passing of the Medical Act 1978, would in the aggregate exceed five years.
(2) Where a person satisfies the Council:

(a) that he holds a qualification recognised by the Council for the purposes of the foregoing section, and

(b) that he has the knowledge of English specified in section 7A of the Act, and

(c) that it would be proper to grant him full registration having regard to:

(i) the standard of the qualification referred to in paragraph (a) of this subsection and of any further qualification of qualifications which he may possess, and

(ii) the range and nature of the professional experience which he has acquired while employed either in the United Kingdom or overseas or both and the standard of professional knowledge and skill which he has exhibited while so employed,

the Council may, if they think fit, direct that he be granted full registration by virtue of this section."."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. Amendment No. 8 deals with the limited registration of overseas-qualified doctors. It seeks to give effect to important recommendations in the Merrison Report that the present system of temporary registration should be replaced by a new and more flexible system of limited registration. Arrangements for temporary registration were first introduced by the Medical Practitioners and Pharmacists Act 1947. For some years after that few overseas-qualified doctors took advantage of these arrangements but, recently, the number of doctors seeking temporary registration has increased very substantially.
During 1977 the General Medical Council granted no less than 11,186 periods of temporary registration to overseas-qualified doctors. The number of such doctors holding temporary registration at the beginning of 1978 was 5,982. Amendment No. 8 would change the present statutory arrangements in the following ways. It would enable the Council to continue to adopt a flexible

293
attitude in recognising qualifications for the purpose of limited registration; at the same time it would specifically authorise the Council to impose requirements as to proficiency in English, professional knowledge and competence, good character and experience which at present can be used only by the Council exercising its general discretion for this purpose. In this respect, Amendment No. 8 would simply be tidying up the present law and bringing it more into line with practice.
The present legislation is restrictive in that temporary registration can be given only for the purpose of holding a specific appointment. Accordingly, it needs to be renewed every time the doctor changes his job. This gives rise to a great deal of work, and the cost of this has to be recovered from the fees charged to doctors holding temporary registration. It is of course desirable that the Council should be able to ensure that temporary or limited registration is granted only in respect of work which the doctor is capable of performing: but it is not necessary for this purpose in every case to limit the grant of it to a particular job. Very often the doctor's training and experience are such that he could safely be permitted to engage in a special branch of medicine—for example, paediatrics or anaesthetics—in which he may do several jobs, up to an agreed level of responsibility in the National Health Service, so long as he does not seek to hold appointments in other branches of medicine for which he has not received appropriate training and experience. Amendment No. 8 would therefore enable the Council to be more flexible in this respect. This would save the doctors concerned a great deal of trouble, and benefit them financially; it would help the hospitals for which they work, and it would lighten the burden of the General Medical Council, enabling it to perform its functions more efficiently in this field.
I have been assured on good authority from several sources that the General Medical Council, the executive of the BMA and the Overseas Doctors' Association approve of these Amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, suggested. I should like to express thanks for all the help I have received from them. In a letter to the editor of the British Medical Journal just over a month ago —17th December — the general secretary of the
294
Overseas Doctors' Association in the United Kingdom wrote:—
"I welcome any suitable and just method of assessing the standards of overseas doctors before entry to Britain and the National Health Service…
"Temporary registration should be abolished and a more flexible system of registration adopted. After the Temporary Registration Assessment Board test overseas doctors should be able to pursue their training and career objectives without the inconvenience or hindrance that results from the system of temporary registration, and should also be able to progress to full registration after some time in the light of their experience obtained in this country…"
And he continued in his letter to the editor:
"As you say, it is still not too late to include this clause in the present Bill, and I only hope and pray that the Government is able to do it; otherwise overseas doctors are going to be terribly dissappointed."
Amendment No. 9 deals with progress from limited to full registration. It seeks to implement another recommendation in the Merrison Report—paragraph 197— and is designed to be complementary to the two which I have moved earlier. Like those Amendments it has the support of the General Medical Council, of the British Medical Association, and also of the Overseas Doctors' Association. This Amendment is directed to two different purposes. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause would impose an overall time limit to the period for which, after the passing of the Bill, a doctor could hold limited registration. The purpose of this Amendment is to avoid the perpetuation of a sort of second-class doctor, holding limited registration only, as a permanent feature of the medical profession in this country.
The original idea of temporary registration was to meet the needs of doctors who came here temporarily for postgraduate study. It is certainly not my intention to place any obstacle in the way of this entirely legitimate and most desirable practice. Indeed, if my Amendments are accepted, the majority of doctors who will be granted limited registration in future, will be here temporarily before returning to their own countries to practise. The precise length of time which is necessary for this purpose of postgraduate education is open to debate. I do not think that it should be less than five years, which is the period mentioned in this clause.
Many programmes of postgraduate training would require up to that time.

295
However, if it were thought that five years is an insufficient period I personally would have no objection if it were extended to, say, seven years. But I think there is general agreement that there ought to be some limit of time beyond which it is not open to the Council to grant limited registration to any overseas-qualified doctor who intends to stay in this country for good. This Amendment will have the effect of compelling those who wish to make a permanent career in this country to equip themselves for full registration.
The second part of this clause provides a much more practicable and sensible avenue for this purpose than exists at present. Now, a doctor whose qualification is recognised only for the purpose of temporary registration can obtain full registration only by entering and passing the examinations for a primary medical qualification such as the MRCS, LRCP of the Conjoint Board, a general medical and surgical examination which is appropriate for a young graduate leaving his medical school. This can be a very real and rather unreasonable hurdle to a doctor in the middle of his career, especially if he has been working for some years as a specialist in one particular subject.
How many of us professional men—doctors, lawyers, accountants and so on—would relish the idea, in the middle of our careers, of going back to the beginning to take our qualifying examinations once again in another country? And yet this is what we are now asking some of our overseas-qualified doctors to do. At the present time the General Medical Council can recognise an overseas qualification for the purpose of full registration only if the country in which it was granted makes available reciprocal privileges of practice to British-qualified doctors—recognising each others degrees and diplomas, which, briefly, is what reciprocity means. As a result of this the Council is unable to recognise for full registration many reputable qualifications granted in the United States of America or in Canada, and doctors holding those qualifications, however good, can become eligible for registration here only by taking again a qualifying examination.
The Morrison Report recognised that this was unsatisfactory and the second part of my Amendment is designed to
296
remedy that situation. It provides that the Council may grant full registration to a doctor holding limited registration if he can show that he has the necessary knowledge of English and if he has obtained a higher degree or diploma such as, for example, the MCh or FRCS, the MRCP, the MRCOG, or MRCGP, which can be taken into account. He or she must also show that the range and nature of professional experience (acquired either in this country under limited registration or overseas, or both) and the standard of professional knowledge and skill exhibited while so employed are sufficient.
Before leaving the subject of full registration I should mention that the Merrison Report recommended the discontinuance of the system of reciprocity. While I agree with that recommendation I have not on this occasion put down an Amendment to implement it, as I understand that the Government take the view that this must be preceded by consultations with the other countries concerned. Needless to say, if and when the Government introduce a clause to cover this point I should welcome it.
If this Amendment No. 9 is accepted it would mean that all those overseas-qualified doctors in this country who are at present confined to temporary registration would, if their individual qualifications and attainments justify it, but not otherwise, be permitted to proceed to full registration. So far as registration is concerned, this would place them in a position of equality with their British-qualified colleagues and with doctors in the EEC and other reciprocating countries with no discrimination against any group. The decision whether a particular doctor could properly be granted full registration would lie with the only body with which it could properly lie; that is to say, the reconstituted General Medical Council.
My Lords, as I have indicated, these last three Amendments are closely related. If they or smilar provisions, are included, in this Bill the task of the reconstituted General Medical Council in relation to the registration of overseas-qualified doctors will be made much easier and those doctors will receive much fairer treatment than is possible under the present legislation. Therefore I very much hope that, subject to any minor modifications which they think desirable, the

297
Government will agree that these matters, which really are urgent, should be included in this Bill. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend Lord Hunt of Fawley on these three Amendments taken together I should like once again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and his colleagues for their very swift and helpful attitude to these three Amendments. It has been a matter of great concern how the 19,000 overseas qualified doctors should be placed in the situation as it stands today, especially in regard to the EEC recognition procedure.
This series of Amendments, as my noble friend has said, enables the position to be obtained whereby overseas qualified doctors are on all-fours with colleagues in the EEC. Let us look back at the position prior to the Merrison Report. We had on the Statute Book the whole of Part III of the Medical Act of 1956. If one reads through Sections 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 25 of that Act, one realises what a formidable set of qualifications would be needed and, further, the intricate pattern which had been developed hitherto. The process has now been made more flexible and very much more sensible, in our belief, by having the process referred to; that is, limited registration. We believe that the Merrison recommendations are ones which required early implementation and we are particularly grateful to the Government for acceding to this. Further, we are very pleased that the Secretary of State, in his discussion with the Overseas Doctors' Association only last Friday, reached such a measure of agreement and that it has been possible to proceed on this basis.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I rise merely to express my delight and astonishment on learning that agreement has been achieved on this very complex matter so very rapidly. It always seemed to me that the situation concerning overseas doctors was probably one of the most urgent with which this whole business dealt. At the same time, with many other noble Lords, I was well aware that there was considerable disagreement among all the different parties concerned about precisely what ought to be done. I am sure that your Lordships
298
are aware that you have only to have three doctors together for five minutes for them to arrive at a situation of total disagreement about almost anything, and when in addition they come from different countries perhaps disagreement a dses even more rapidly. But there is no doubt that there were very considerable divergencies of opinion among the many bodies who had a legitimate interest in these proposals The matter is urgent. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, it is very urgent from the point of view of the patient, and it is also urgent from the point of view of the many overseas doctors who have had to continue in a situation of great uncertainty for far too long.
I am delighted to hear that we are now coming towards the end of that situation and I am sure that everyone will benefit. It is not only a question of the language problem: that affects many things. It is a fact that many British doctors with no linguistic ability whatsoever in certain particular disciplines—for example, anaesthetists and radiologists—who do not greatly depend on actually talking to patients, are disappearing to Holland and West Germany almost daily. In those disciplines, they are coping perfectly satisfactorily with their jobs. So the language problem varies according to the discipline, and though there are many areas, of course, in which linguistic ability is crucial there are other matters in this field which are of ever greater concern. The position which has compelled many highly competent and able doctors from overseas to remain in an almost continuous state of uncertainty is not one which I think ought to be tolerated much longer, and I am delighted to hear that we are now coming to a time when it will not have to be tolerated.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, one matter has already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley; that is, the question of reciprocity. Perhaps my noble friend could, to some extent, enlighten the House on this, although I can fully understand, of course, if this question is put to him somewhat prematurely. The new Clause 25(b) requires:
"… that he complies with such other requirements as to proficiency in English … ".
I wonder whether my noble friend could inform the House whether other countries

299
of the EEC such as France, Germany and Italy have already laid down any requirements for proficiency in their respective languages with regard to English doctors who may wish to settle in their countries. If any such legislation has been or is to be carried through in those countries, ought not some degree of uniformity to be reached by all the countries of the EEC as to the language requirements, before any doctor rather precipitately expresses a wish to settle in one of those countries?
Lord PLATT: My Lords, just before we decide on these Amendments, I should like to say on my own behalf that I think they are on the whole very wise ones and that I am really surprised at the way in which they seem to be woven into this present Bill: that is something I never thought would be possible. I hope, and indeed have reason to understand, that the Government will accept them, at any rate in principle, perhaps with some minor modifications. I am sure they will ease the position of the overseas doctors very much indeed, to the benefit of ourselves and of the doctors themselves.
3.56 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, knows that these three Amendments are similar to the ones he tabled at Committee stage. At that time I made it perfectly clear that the Government could not then accept them. We have had the opportunity of looking at them again and I would say, not only to the noble Lord but to your Lordships as a whole, that we are unable to accept these three Amendments in their present form.
A number of details remain outstanding as the noble Lord knows; but I have already informed the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that, so far as these three Amendments are concerned, we accept them but not in their present form. We accept the spirit and the principle behind each of them, but it will be necessary for Parliamentary Counsel to give them very careful consideration. That has not been possible up to the present moment and it will not be possible in the foreseeable future because of the pressure under which Parliamentary Counsel have been working. We have had to take up a great deal of their time in order to deal with the other Amendments about which we have already
300
spoken and which the Government have accepted. I want to give not only the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but also your Lordships the assurance that the Government will be putting down these Amendments when they have been redrafted, preserving, as I say, the principle and the spirit of them, when the matter comes before the other place. I believe that position is in fact acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
I think the only thing I need to mention is this: my honourable friend the Minister of State for Health did meet representatives of the Overseas Doctors' Association and discussed this matter with them at some considerable length. Your Lordships will know that Amendment No. 7 contains a requirement of linguistic knowledge for the registration of overseas qualified doctors. Amendment No. 8 deals with limited registration of overseas qualified doctors and No. 9 deals with progress from limited to full registration. As these matters have been dealt with fully by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I do not intend to cross his t's or dot his i's. I think the explanation given has been quite full. We are glad that this has been possible. It is another instance where we did not expect, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said—and if he can say this, as a doctor, perhaps I can be forgiven for saying it too—such complete agreement in so short a time from members of that profession. But we got it, and I am glad that we have got it. As I say, if the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will be good enough to withdraw these Amendments, as he knows that this is what the Government want, we will put them down in another place when the Bill reaches there.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Segal, the position with regard to the EEC is that, as your Lordships know, any doctor is entitled to come to this country and, as I understand the situation, we cannot impose any test whatsoever, under the Treaty of Rome. As matters stand at the moment, doctors are entitled to come here for a period of six months before any test is applied. I do not know whether that will stand up in the future, because it has been thought by some people to be contrary to the terms of the Treaty of Rome. But this is a matter which will have to be dealt with as and when the time arrives. However, the position is that doctors

301
are permitted to come from the EEC without their having any test, other than the fact that we ourselves apply one after six months.
With regard to reciprocity, we are planning to introduce an enabling clause in the House of Commons to terminate reciprocal agreements, after consultation with the countries concerned. I do not think I need say anything further, other than that, following the conversations that we have had, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw these Amendments, on the undertaking which I have given not only to him but to all of your Lordships.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: My Lords, I am happy to withdraw these three Amendments, in view of the Government's acceptance of them (subject to redrafting by Parliamentary Counsel) and their undertaking to include them in this Bill. But before doing so, may I say, with your Lordships' permission, that I think the addition of these and my other Amendments has strengthened this Bill enormously. The great majority of the recommendations of the Merrison Report are now in it, and I feel sure that this will please many members of the medical profession. On their behalf, I should like to thank your Lordships. I beg leave to withdraw these three Amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 [Short title, citation, commencement and extent]:
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 18, line 27, after ("day") insert ("(not being later than one year after this Act shall have received the Royal Assent)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for not being in my position at the start of the proceedings on the Report stage. This Amendment is familiar to the House, since it came up in identical form during the Committee stage when it was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. He described it as a probing Amendment, but I am sure the House will agree that it tackles a very serious principle. The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, was good enough to support it at the time. I hope
302
that my raising this Amendment again will give a chance to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to say a little more on the timing and, eventually, to agree some limit.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, pointed out in Committee that there is now an increasing feeling that the Executive is taking far too much power in these Bills, and that the power of Parliament is decreasing. What he was really citing was the fact that we are passing Bills which allow the Minister in charge to bring them into force when he wishes to make an order. He referred, in particular, to the Bail Act and I think the whole House will agree that that is a very sorry state of affairs. That Act was brought in in 1976 to meet the overcrowding problems of prisons, but not one section of it has yet been brought into force. Despite the probing of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, we are told from time to time that the Government have still been unable to appoint various boards in order to proceed with the Act.
I am sure that this House, and Parliament as a whole, will agree that the principle of some time limit is an important issue. I think it was of interest when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, disclosed to the Committee that he had discussed this matter with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, whose words were:
"It is entirely Parliament's own fault; they ought not to let these clauses go through but should insist that there must be a limit." — [Official Report, 13/12/77; col. 2058.]
This Amendment suggests one year, but I do not necessarily suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that one year is satisfactory, as I understand that the appointment of the new General Medical Council will take time. But I think that there should be a limit, and I suggest to the noble Lord that, if one year is not satisfactory, two years might be inserted into this Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
4.6 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, this is a matter which was raised initially by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, who put down an Amendment in, I believe, precisely the same terms. I

303
think that many of us share the view of my noble and learned friend about this kind of provision being in Bills, as a general run. But I think that this is perhaps somewhat different from the normal run of Bills which come before your Lordships' House. We looked at this matter and considered it very carefully, and I wrote to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, sending a copy of that letter to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull.
I think that the position is this. Because this Bill is an enabling Bill and its provisions are rather broad, there are a number of orders which can be made under it which will require consultations not only with the General Medical Council but with the profession as a whole. Some rules are to be drawn up by the General Medical Council—this is really what the whole Bill is about: to give them an opportunity of being able to change certain practices and to introduce others—and we have to take into account the fact that they will lose no time over this, because this is what they want. Therefore, the point I want to make is that the speed with which this Bill is implemented is not in the Government's hands; it is rather in the hands of the General Medical Council. Therefore, in the circumstances, it would be unreasonable to impose a condition that could not possibly be met, and it raises the question: if a time limit is imposed but is not met, what happens then? I just do not know. What happens to that part of the Bill which has not been implemented?
Within the time scale of two years, it should be possible to reconstitute the General Medical Council on the lines set out in Clauses 1 and 2; it should be possible to set up branch councils under Clause 3, and it should be possible to appoint members of the education committee under Clause 14. It should also be possible to set up the three new committees to deal with professional conduct and fitness to practise. I would remind your Lordships that there are no fewer than eight clauses dealing with this matter alone. It is not something that will be done very quickly.
As regards Clause 4 and the 1927 Agreement with the Republic of Ireland, this is a matter between the United Kingdom and Eire Governments and I cannot give any undertaking that that
304
clause would be implemented within a specific period. Most of your Lordships know how long it takes Government Departments to come to some kind of decision, and it takes even longer when one is dealing Government by Government. Therefore, I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that we are aware of the position. If there is anything that the Government can do to expedite matters, once the Bill gets on to the Statute Book, I rather imagine—whichever Government are in power—that they will do so. But this, as I say, is primarily a Bill to enable the General Medical Council to reconstitute itself. One imagines that because this is what they want they will get on with it. In the light of the fact that I seem to have satisfied the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I hope that the noble Earl will feel that I have satisfied him, too, if only with reservations.
The EARL of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord has satisfied the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, but as he is not here to challenge that remark I cannot speak for him. I was hoping to receive as satisfactory an assurance as that which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, received on his previous three Amendments. The noble Lord is sympathetic towards the issue but has pleaded a special case for this Bill. He asks what would happen if a time limit were imposed which was not then enforced. I should have thought that there was a simple answer to that question. The Minister responsible would have to come to Parliament to amend that time limit, and that would be an excellent thing to happen. I do not intend to press the matter, but I hope that the noble Lord accepts that this is a strong principle which other Bills must follow.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the noble Earl is thinking of withdrawing this Amendment, may I say to him that in view of the fact that he has raised the matter today I will ask my right honourable friend to look at it to see whether anything further can be done along the lines suggested.
The EARL of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am most grateful for the noble Lord's assurance, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments of enactments]:
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY Lord HUNT of FAWLEY moved Amendments Nos. 11 to 24:
Page 29, leave out lines 7 and 8 and insert ("MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO EDUCATIONAL FUNCTIONS").
Page 29, leave out lines 25 to 31 and insert— ("2. In section 9(1) of the Act of 1956 the words "not being members of the Council" shall be omitted.
3.—(1) In section 10 of the Act of 1956 the amendments specified in this paragraph shall be made.
(2) Subsection (1) shall be omitted.
(3) In subsection (3), for the words preceding "may appoint" there shall be substituted the words "For the purpose of securing the maintenance of the prescribed standard of proficiency the Education Committee".
(4) In subsection (4), for the words preceding "may attend" there shall be substituted the words "Any member of the General Council and any person deputed for the purpose by the Education Committee".
3A.—(1) In section 11 of the Act of 1956 the amendments specified in this paragraph shall be made.
(2) In subsection (1), in the words preceding paragraph (a) the words "in medicine, surgery and midwifery" shall be omitted and in paragraph (d) for the words from "a qualification in medicine" to the end of that paragraph there shall be substituted the words "a primary United Kingdom or primary Irish qualification in a branch of medicine prescribed for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Education Committee and one at least entitled to grant such a qualification in a different branch of medicine so prescribed".
(3) In subsection (2), for the words from "a qualification in medicine" to "so registrable" there shall be substituted the words "a qualification registrable under this Part of this Act in a branch of medicine prescribed for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Education Committee and one at least is entitled to grant a qualification so registrable in a different branch of medicine so prescribed".
(4) In subsection (3), the words "in medicine, surgery and midwifery" shall be omitted.
(5) In subsection (4), in paragraph (b) for the words from "standard" to "qualifying examinations" there shall be substituted the words "prescribed standard of proficiency" and at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be added the words "with the approval of the General Council".
3B. In section 13 of the Act of 1956 the following amendments shall be made—

(a) in subsection (1), for the words from "secure" to "profession" there shall be substituted the words "equip persons going through the course and examinations with the prescribed knowledge and skill"; and

(b) in subsection (2), for the words from "in medicince" to "insufficient" there
306
shall be substituted the words "required from candidates at any qualifying examination does not conform to the prescribed standard of proficiency".

3C. In section 14(1) of the Act of 1956, for the words "medicine or surgery" there shall be substituted the word "medicine".
3D. In section 16A of the Act of 1956, for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(b) is the holder of a primary United Kingdom or primary Irish qualification and also of a qualification granted outside the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland which is recognised by the General Council for the purposes of this section as furnishing a sufficient guarantee of the possession of knowledge and skill corresponding with the prescribed knowledge and skill";
and for the words "medicine and surgery, or medicine, surgery and midwifery" t acre shall be substituted the word "medicine".
3E. In section 20 of the Act of 1956, for the words from "the requisite knowledge;" to the end there shall be substituted the words "knowledge and skill corresponding with the prescribed knowledge and skill".
3F. In section 22(2) of the Act of 1956 the following amendments shall be made—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "paragraphs (a) and (b)" there shal be substituted the words "paragraphs (a) and (c)" and after the words" that section" there shall be added the words" and that the terms on which he has been so employed were such as to provide him with the experience required by one of the prescribed patterns of experience"; and

(b) in paragraph (b) for the words "medicine and surgery, or medicine, surgery and midwifery" there shall be substituted the word" medicine".

3G. In section 25(1)(b) of the Act of 1956, for the words from "the requisite knowledge" to the end there shall be substituted the words "knowledge and skill corresponding with the prescribed knowledge and skill".
3H. In section 26 of the Act of 1956, for the words from "the requisite knowledge" to "midwifery" there shall be substituted the words "knowledge and skill corresponding with the prescribed knowledge and skill".
3J. In section 27(1) of the Act of 1956, for the words "medical or surgical" there shall be substituted the word "medical".
3K. In section 28(3) of the Act of 1956, for the words "medicine or surgery" there shall be substituted the word "medicine".")
In sector 28(3) line 38, at end insert ("and in paragraph (b), for the words "a sufficient" there shall be substituted the words "the prescribed"")
Page 30, line 9, leave out ("place in alphabetical order the following definition") and insert ("places in alphabetical order the following definitions")
Page 30, line 11, at end insert—

("" the prescribed knowledge and skill" has the meaning assigned to it by section 14(3C) of the Medical Act 1978;

307

"a prescribed pattern of experience" has the meaning assigned to it by section 14(3C) of the Medical Act 1978;

"the prescribed standard of proficiency" has the meaning assigned to it by section 14(3C) of the Medical Act 1978; ")

Page 30, leave out lines 16 to 19 and insert—
("7. In section 11(4) of the Medical Act 1969 (in this Schedule referred to as "the Act of 1969") for the words from "medicine, surgery and midwifery" to "or surgery" there shall be substituted the words" any branch or branches of medicine".
7A. In section 18(1) of the Act of 1969 the following amendments shall be made—

(a) for the words "the General Council" there shall be substituted the words "the Education Committee";

(b) the words "in medicine, surgery and midwifery" shall be omitted; and

(c) for the words from "qualifications" to "Act of 1956" there shall be substituted the words "United Kingdom qualifications does or will conform to the prescribed standard of proficiency "and for the words "that Act" there shall be substituted the words "the Act of 1956.")

Page 31, leave out lines 1 to 3.
Page 33, line 5, at end insert—
("24A. Section 56(3) of the Act of 1956 shall cease to have effect.")
Page 34, leave out lines 9 and 10.
Page 34, line 14, at end insert—
("42. In paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the Act of 1969, after the word "primary" there shall be inserted the words United Kingdom or primary Irish".")
Schedule 6, page 35, column 3, line 5, at end insert—
("In section 9(1) the words "not being members of the Council".")
Schedule 6, page 35, column 3, leave out line 7 and insert—
("Section 10(1) and (7)
In section 11(1) and (3) the words "in medicine, surgery and midwifery".")
Schedule 6, page 35, column 3, line 17, at end insert—
("Section 56(3).")
Schedule 6, page 35, column 3, leave out line 32, and insert—
Schedule 6, ("In section 18 in subsection (1) the words "in medicine, surgery and midwifery" and subsection (3).")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move Amendments Nos. 11 to 24 which stand in my name. They have all been drafted by Parliamentary Counsel under arrangements kindly made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and they are all consequential on the earlier Amendments which noble Lords have accepted concerning the functions of the education committee of the reconstituted General
308
Medical Council and related matters. Their purpose, as I am advised, is to make the various corrections necessary in the provisions of the present Medical Acts and the Bill in order to be consistent with the Amendments which noble Lords have already accepted. With the leave of the House, I shall move them together. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 11 to 24 en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 25 and 26:
Line 1, after ("constitution") insert ("and functions")
Line 2, leave out from ("Council") to ("and") in line 10 and insert ("and certain committees of the Council and to amend or provide for the amendment of the Medical Acts with respect to medical education, the registration of medical practitioners and their professional conduct and fitness to practise")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendments standing in my name. I can deal with them very simply. It will be apparent to all noble Lords who have followed consideration of this Bill that, because we have gone beyond the contents and the intentions of the present Long Title, it is necessary to change that Title. In order to make what we have done fit the situation. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 25 and 26.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS (RESTRICTIONS ON STATEMENTS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1978
4.14 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, apologise that my noble friend Lord Oram is not in his place. He had reason to believe that we would not finish this part of the proceedings so quickly, and this may account for the fact that my noble friend is not here. I do not know whether I am required to go on speaking to your Lordships until he arrives?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, would it not be better if we were to adjourn during pleasure for a few minutes?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if that is the wish of your Lordships, I beg

309
to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until twenty minutes past four o'clock.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
4.20 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM rose to move, That the draft Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) (Amendment) Order 1978, laid before the House on 17th January, be approved. The noble Lord said: First, I must apologise to your Lordships for not having kept pace with the rapid progress that was made on the previous matter, but I can assure your Lordships that this particular item of business which I now move will not take up much of your Lordships' time. I beg to move that the Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) (Amendment) Order 1978 be approved. I seek the approval of the House for this order which makes certain amendments to an order called the Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) Order 1976.
They are merely consequential amendments to that order, as a result of the passing of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Broadly speaking, the purpose of the 1976 order is to prohibit people who sell goods from misleading their customers by means of notices displayed in the store which purport to avoid certain legal obligations and deprive a customer of his rights. For example, the goods supplied to him must be of merchantable quality, and a notice cannot be displayed such as, for instance, "no money refunded", in an attempt to avoid this obligation.
The 1976 order was made under Section 22 of the Fair Trading Act 1973. It implemented the first report of the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee. The Director General of Fair Trading had referred to that Committee certain undesirable practices by retailers, like the one I have described. A notice telling customers that no money would be refunded could have no legal effect by virtue of Section 55(4) of the 1893 Sale of Goods Act. The Committee recommended that this practice (as well as other similar practices also referred by the Director General) should be stopped.
310
Hence the 1976 order which prohibited these practices. A similar prohibition was applied to similar notices affecting hire-purchase agreements which are covered by Section 12(3) of the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973.
I turn now to the actual terms in which the 1976 order is drafted. The basic prohibition is in Article 3(a)(i). It refers to a term which would be void by virtue of Section 55(4) of the 1893 Act or Section 12(3) of the 1973 Act. Reference is also made, in the definition of a consumer transaction in Article 2(1), to a consumer sale within Section 55(1) of the 1893 Act and to a consumer hire-purchase agreement within Section 12(6) of the 1973 Act.
When the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 was passed last October it implemented the recommendations of the Law Commissions concerning the control generally of contract terms which exclude or restrict liability. In enacting the new general controlling provisions the similar provisions already in the 1893 and 1973 Acts were combined with them. Thus all the provisions relating to the same subject-matter were brought within the one new Act. Accordingly, the relevant provisions of Section 55 of the 1893 Act and of Section 12 of the 1973 Act, were re-enacted in the 1977 Act and consequentially repealed by it. The re-enactment, which made no change of substance to the existing law, was achieved by mans of restating those provisions. This was done by Section 6 of the 1977 Act as regards the law for England and Wales and by Section 20 as regards the law applicable in Scotland.
In making the re-statement and the consequential repeal of the old provisions, the 1977 Act did not amend the 1976 order so as to secure that the references in it to the old provisions were to be construed as references to the corresponding new provisions of the Act. The present references in the 1976 order are to provisions which will be repealed on 1st February 1978; that is the date when the Unfair Contract Terms Act comes into force. Therefore, in order to ensure the continued effectiveness of the 1976 order, this present order is necessary. I assure your Lordships it does no more than to continue the effectiveness of the 1976 order.
Article 4 of the present order changes the definition of "consumer transaction", and Article 5 changes the references to void terms, both changes having been made necessary by the passing of the Unfair Contract Terms Act. I am sorry if this is all a little technical and confusing, but I assure your Lordships that the basis of it is quite a simple continuation of an order which your Lordships approved two years ago. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Consumer Transactions (Restrictions on Statements) (Amendment) Order 1978, laid before the House on 17th January, be approved.—(Lord Oram.)
4.27 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for explaining, in his usual clear and helpful way, this somewhat, as he called it, technical and complicated measure. Despite that, I must confess that one needs to do a bit of homework to get to the bottom of it. Nevertheless, I think I can confirm what the noble Lord has said, that in essence this order does not change the legal position, except in two small respects arising out of the passing of the Unfair Contract Terms Act at the end of the last Session. That Act, as the noble Lord said, comes into force very shortly, and it is therefore necessary for us to pass this order before the end of the month. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by my endeavouring to pursue the noble Lord on any of the points contained in the order. I would simply commend it to your Lordships and hope that we shall pass it right away.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ECC REPORT: SOCIAL SECURITY AND SEX EQUALITY
4.29 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR Baroness SEEAR rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Equality of Treatment for Men and Women in matters of Social Security (R/48/77) (Fourth Report (HL 23)). The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is a report on a draft Directive from the EEC dealing
312
with equality of treatment in social security. It has in fact ducked some of the more difficult questions which will no doubt emerge, if not in the discussions which will take place before the Directive is finally accepted, certainly subsequent to that.
The draft Directive as it stands requires very little from the United Kingdom—barring one point to which I wish to refer later; the United Kingdom really does in fact comply with the requirements laid down by the Directive. This is partly because the really controversial issues have been left out. By "the really controversial issues" I mean, for example, the question of retirement ages; the difference in the retirement age as between men and women. That is not a matter that can be swept under the carpet indefinitely. It also leaves out the question of qualification—to what extent periods not in employment because of maternity for example, can or cannot be counted towards pension benefit. It leaves out the question of the equality of treatment for dependants derived from the contributions of the woman equally with the man. Those are the controversial areas. They are excluded, no doubt in part, because they are controversial, but I suggest that they are not matters which can be totally ignored in the discussion of this draft Directive, and if they are they will certainly arise again.
Had the question been one merely of the Directive as it stands, we should not have suggested that this issue be debated in your Lordships' House. Indeed, judging from the attendance this afternoon, it seems as if many noble Lords are of the opinion that it should not be debated in your Lordships' House. However, quite apart from the controversial measures excluded, the draft Directive in fact raises one matter of considerable principle which could well be aired on this occasion because undoubtedly we shall have to return to it in the future.
There is one respect in which our provisions are discriminatory and that is concerned with the position of married women and their dependants in relation to social security and supplementary benefit for children. This might, at first sight, seem a relatively minor matter, although it is not a minor matter to married women who are heads of households

313
but who cannot, none the less, claim supplementary benefit for their children. The principle behind it is quite fundamental and one which I am sure, at present, people are not yet ready to change. However, we shall have to consider it later.
Our social security payments and our supplementary benefit payments are based on the conception of the family with the man as the head of the household. If we were to move away from that idea and towards the idea of benefits payable to individuals rather than to families with the man as the head of the household, many of the issues which arise in this connection would not occur. There are many reasons why we might well be advised to think about a move in this direction, but I shall put it no stronger than that at present. We shall be required to make further steps in this direction, and we need to note that we are not acting in conformity with equal treatment between the sexes as long as we have this difference in the way in which we treat married women who are heads of households.
There is, of course, a supplementary point also of considerable importance which, although it is not directly connected with whether we regard benefit as being paid to the family or to the individual, is related to that matter. I am referring to the size of child benefit. Under our regulations the question of whether the married woman gets supplementary benefit for the child is very important, because the wellbeing of the family and of the child depends so much on that supplementation. If we had here the policy which operates in some Community countries, that we pay very much higher child benefits and do not rely on supplementation in cases of need, then this issue would not be so acute. What is more, a further benefit which would derive from this is that the poverty-trap would be very much less of a problem if our regular payment of child benefits was on a scale more compatible with that paid in some other countries. As will be well known in your Lordships' House, the scale of child benefits in France, for instance, is incomparably higher than the scale here. We, by the provision that we make and the standards we adopt, complicate these problems unnecessarily.
314
Of course, additional money would be required, but it would not all be money lost and it would solve some very difficult social problems to which, at present, we have found no answers.
In the discussions which should take place in connection with this draft Directive, there are one or two other points which we should have liked to raise, but which are not covered as it stands at present. No reference is made to support for low income groups. There is in this country no benefit comparable with FIS. We are also discriminatory as regards FIS in relation to the married woman who is head of the family, because she does not get the supplementary benefit for the child under FIS, which again is paid only to the man, assumed to be the head of the household.
Another small but not unimportant benefit which we should like clarified and as regards which there is an element of discrimination concerns the invalid care allowance. No other country in Europe has that allowance, and so it is not included in the draft Directive. However, there is an element of discrimination because the married woman who gives up employment in order to look after an invalid husband does not qualify for the invalid care allowance. Therefore, I think that, although it is a benefit peculiar to ourselves, one can say that there is an element of discrimination in this connection.
One cannot consider a Directive of this kind without coming back—I mentioned this at the beginning of my remarks—to that major discriminatory element: the differences in retirement age. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who will be replying to the debate has thought a great deal about this matter and we have discussed it on many occasions. I merely say, perhaps slightly out of order in the context of this draft Directive, that this is a very serious form of discrimination. As the noble Lord will know, the possibility of doing anything about realigning retirement ages was ruled out of court on grounds of cost. As I think the noble Lord agreed, the calculations by which the cost was estimated when this was discussed on a previous occasion, based on a publication from the Department of Health and Social security, did, to put it mildly, raise questions as to

315
accuracy. This is a matter of great importance. So, will it not be possible to have a more soundly-based examination carried out as to what the cost in reality would be, so that we can then review, in the light of accurate knowledge, what in fact would be involved in equalising retirement ages? I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Equality of Treatment for Men and Women in matters of Social Security (R/48/77) (Fourth Report (HL 23)).—(Baroness Seear.).
4.39 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I am glad to offer a few observations in this debate, because I was so closely concerned with these matters a long time ago when I was in the Government. The first point I should like to raise is how long some of the primary changes in relationships between men and women as regards social security have taken to accomplish. When I first put forward the outline of a review of the Social Security Scheme in 1965 I never dreamed that it would take 13 years to accomplish the removal of discrimination in such matters as unemployment benefit and sickness benefit as between married women and men. Indeed, I believe that on an earlier occasion I mentioned to your Lordships' House that when I prepared the draft of the review of the Social Security Scheme I put women first.
It seemed to me that it was desirable to remove the discriminatory conditions between men and women, and especially married women, in the old scheme before we embarked upon a new one because, as I have so frequently said, and it is still true, social security is mostly about women: widows, war widows, industrial widows, civilian widows, divorcees, separated wives and other conditions. There are about six conditions of women and probably only one of men: men are men; women are single women, married women, divorced women, separated women. There has been discrimination between members of the several groups.
When Mr. Crossman brought forward his National Superannuation Scheme—the extension of work which I had begun—I expressed the profoundest disappointment
316
that there was so little in it to redress the discriminatory conditions between men and women in social security. In my opinion it was not because of difficulties about money, because on the whole the money was to be obtained by a levy on employers and employees—it was to come from contributions. What was lacking at that time—which we have had since—was the courage to take some awkward political decisions. One of them, of course, was to discontinue the married woman's option; that is, to require all women—whether married or single—to come within the Scheme and to have benefits attached to their personal contributions.
As the report of the Committee indicates in paragraph 12, much that the Directive requires us to do will be embodied in the conditions of the new Social Security Scheme due to begin in April. So we have just avoided being run out. I notice how jubilant we appear to be that what they want we have already done, but others have done it long ago, and we should have done it long ago.
Of course, this concept of the head of the household, to which the noble Baroness referred as being the crux of this matter, extends far beyond social security. The present conditions of the taxation of married women and husbands are positively disgraceful. But there again, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplates giving away, as the saying goes, so many thousand million pounds in personal taxation to all and sundry, surely the opportunity should be taken of removing some of the penal clauses of our income tax legislation relating to married women. Fancy in 1978 requiring a wife to declare her income to her husband so that he may include it in his return, and any failure on his part to disclose the full income of his wife renders him liable to punishment.
I shall never forget that years ago when a change in the Finance Act gave the joint stock banks, and the Post Office Savings Bank the duty of disclosing untaxed income on deposits above a certain amount, a number of married women were found out—they had a little nest egg which they had kept secret from their husbands. They had probably saved a little money from the housekeeping and put it aside to have a little financial independence;

317
they had not declared that they had £600 or £700 in the Post Office and, therefore, were receiving interest in excess of £15 a year, which was then the borderline above which the Post Office had to disclose. I remember one occasion when the local tax office discovered this. They wrote a letter to the husband, giving their reference number, requesting that he call to see them:
"Will you please bring this letter and your wife with you".
These are the ridiculous conditions under which a married woman may be placed for the purpose of taxation. But I shall not prolong my remarks on that because, however belatedly, we have a discussion booklet from the Equal Opportunities Commission giving various options, which I outlined at least 20 years ago, for dealing with this question of separate taxation.
Bear in mind that as recently as the Royal Commission of 1955, the late Lord Radcliffe was pontificating upon and defending the principle of aggregation. That is really what we want to destroy. It will have to be done in taxation; it will have to be done in social security, if women are to have their separate personality, their separate dignity and their separate economic resources. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not overlook the taxation side when he looks at his Budget proposals shortly.
Returning to the Directive and the report, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to the real problem that now confronts the Social Security Scheme—the attempt that must be made to give the wife a separate position in the scheme of supplementary benefit. That will be most complex because different attitudes will be necessary. So much of this is not concerned with administrative difficulty, the intricacies of insurance or even the amount of money involved; so much of the problem is over attitudes towards the position of women. Regrettably—and the noble Baroness, with her record of work in this field, will surely agree with me—we have been up against the conservatism of men and the submissiveness of women.
The fight has not been the fight that one would have expected from the large numbers of enfranchised women, who, after all, virtually hold the political power
318
in this country in their hands. However the movement to obtain the emancipation of women was scarcely ever a working-class one; it was mostly a middle-class movement. Indeed, a great deal of it was the spearhead of reform which was demanded by many thousands of talented women who were left without menfolk in the First World War.
But I think that this attempt must be made to give the wife a separate standing in the system of social security where means-tested benefits are involved as well as where statutory benefits are concerned. I shall not go into the details of a possible scheme but, as the noble Baroness said, the main provision that must be made, if one is to deal with this problem in terms of equality between husband and wife, is for the children. I suppose that if marriages were universally childless, apart from the demographic consequences, it would not be very difficult to deal with the relationship between husband and wife in economic terms. But when there are children, obligations rest upon both parents to maintain them, and the State must ensure that in whatever scheme of benefits is provided the children will be taken care of. If we can only press ahead with this—and I understand from the report that the review of the Supplementary Benefit Scheme is now in progress—I think we can make a move forward with part of the Directive. But, my goodness! we shall have to be quicker next time than we have been in the past. Wt are not given 14 years in which to do this; we are given only four years, so we have to get a move on.
When the Labour Party says "Labour gets things done", my answer to that in one particular respect is, "Yes, but it took 14 years". I think that we are likely to get a certain reluctance to make haste with this because of the complexities of the position and possibly the difficulty of political decisions to be taken. I conclude by saying that I welcome the Directive. I especially welcome the report of the Committee upon it. It does the Committee great credit to have looked at this in a spirit of reform and realism, and I think that this is one more mark in favour of the retention of your Lordships' House.
4.52 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, five years ago the first British delegation to the

319
European Parliament arrived, and I was the junior member of it. I chose from the beginning to sit on the Social Affairs and Employment Committee. It was a time of great optimism and hope. It was before the quintupling of oil prices and in the era of Heath, Brandt, Pompidou. There was genuine confidence that the social consequences of the economic development and integration of the Community could at last be tackled. Commissioner Hillary, now the President of the Irish Republic, initiated the Social Action Programme, of which we are debating one of the fruits today. Therefore, for me this particular Directive is part of the expression of social concern of the Community that is something new to the 'seventies. I believe that it is something whose intention we should all welcome, even if we may criticise the detail.
Since those days the impetus behind the EEC has died away as a result of the world recession, but that makes it no less necessary, if the European Community is to continue—as I believe it should, and as we in this country confirmed in a referendum—but perhaps even more necessary, to update, overhaul and integrate our social security systems. In some ways the chances of doing so have increased. Without casting any aspersions on the President of the Irish Republic, the new Commissioner for Social Affairs is a rumbustious character, Mr. Vredeling, who has made for himself a distinguished career in the European institutions and has a long record of knowing how the Community works and how to make it work. If our Government are to be constructive and positive, there is a chance that we can build sensibly on the impetus of the early 'seventies.
What I want to know from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is whether he can update the situation as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and her Committee. There was a debate in another place on 13th December in which they discussed the Directives we are discussing today in your Lordships' House. I have been told—and it would be helpful to have it confirmed—that the proposals of the Directive debated then and discussed today have been altered by a subsequent Directive numbered R/57/58. That is not available in the Printed Paper Office; I checked half an
320
hour ago. However, I was told on the telephone from Brussels that it altered the time-limits under which Member States have to complete the rearrangements of their social security provisions, and that it made some alteration in the scope, or ambit, of the Directive.
It would be helpful for your Lordships to know whether the proposals which Lady Seear's Sub-Committee discussed have been overtaken by events, and, if so, whether the new proposals dilute the Directive that she was discussing with her colleagues, or strengthen it. It would also be helpful if we could be told whether the Government have come to any firmer conclusions than they revealed in another place on 13th December. What is their view of the Directive now? When do they think it will be implemented, and what sort of arrangements in the Council of Ministers can we anticipate? Is it going to be something that will go on being discussed for years and years, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, might expect, or is it something that is going to be decided soon? If the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is able to give us some idea of the time scale, it would be very helpful.
If I may be allowed to intervene for a moment as a member of the Select Committee rather than as a Front Bench spokesman, I think it is useful for debates on instruments that have become out of date to be updated by the Government during the debate. Sometimes in matters like this the Committee may feel that it is necessary to go back to the same subject later on to see whether progress has been as much as they hoped, or as little as they feared.
Before going on to one or two points about the actual report itself, may I ask the noble Lord whether he could say whether it is the Government's plan to extend the ambit of the Directive, or not? As I understand it, the draft proposals from the Commission are unlike normal Government Bills. They usually pass with a great deal of amendment, and if amendments are made by Member States who argue their case well, they often become incorporated in the Directive. Indeed, it makes it very difficult for the scrutiny committee to carry out its job when these amendments are copious.
It would be interesting to know, if the

321
noble Lord is able to tell us, whether the Government plan to deal with any of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in the working groups or in the Council of Ministers itself. Do the Government intend to extend or strengthen this Directive in any particular way? If so, could we be told, because surely it cannot harm the Government's case to state it out in advance.
I am not an expert on social security in Britain, let alone at Community level. I have found it a subject almost as intractable as the new maths on which I attempt to help my daughter sometimes in her homework. But I should like to know whether it is correct that one of our difficulties is that we have a more comprehensive, if not necessarily a more generous, range of benefits and that this Directive is only directed at equality within benefits rather than the equality of benefits themselves, or whether the range is wide or narrow, so that our position is made more awkward by the fact that we have tried hard, in that there are more benefits here than there are in other Member States and we have to introduce equality into all of them. This Directive does not lay down any extension of the ambit of social security provisions; it merely lays down that they must all be equal as between the sexes.
I should like to know whether the Government have come to a view as to whether this is a wholly satisfactory way to go about correlating social security systems within the Community. If there is equality of treatment for both sexes within provisions that are themselves wholly different between Member State and Member State, it can be an equality between sexes that is more apparent than real if the extent of the provision within the different States is not comparable.
Some anxiety has been expressed about the effect of this Directive on pension schemes. I should like to know from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, what consultations the Government have been able to arrange on this subject. I wonder whether they are of a mind to agree that a code of practice or persuasion might be equally as desirable as legislation itself, because the whole method by which this Directive seeks to work is a series of steps.
I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said—
322
as I always am—and I was impressed with the range of his comments and the sincerity with which he drew the points from the wealth of his experience. But I wonder whether he would not agree with me that, if an outside agency like the Brussels Commission is to attempt to herd the Member States in a similar if not the same direction on a matter like this, where there are long traditions of different ways of looking at things, surely it is better to start by setting a series of gradual steps which each country can reach in time rather than to put forward target dates by which everything must be settled to perfection, when some may fall back altogether; whereas, if it had gone more slowly, gradual progress reaching the same ultimate end could have been achieved. I take it as a tribute to the new wisdom of the Commission that they are less prone to say that black must be white tomorrow; if they want to change black to white, or if they get it into their heads that it may be a good idea to make changes in the customs of Member States, they consult and they are open-minded and they suggest a gradual series of steps. I think in this field any other method would be bound to fail.
Nevertheless, I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the feeling that the pensionable age is an issue which cannot be avoided. Indeed it is an essential one and I do not think it is necessary to approach it in a partisan manner. Indeed, I read with great interest—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has done so too—what my honourable friend Mrs. Chalker, speaking for the Opposition in another place, said on this subject on 13th December last. Without quoting her, at that time she was calling for a bipartisan approach to this matter and hoping that even if agreement could be reached there would be flexibility for those who wanted to continue to work beyond whatever date was settled.
I am looking forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has to say, but I wish to support what the Committee has called for in paragraph 17, when they suggest that the Commission,
"…undertake an inquiry into the changing attitudes to retirement within the Community"—
that is, the European Community. If the Commission in Brussels is to make sensible proposals which we have to discuss and

323
debate, then it must be better if they base their proposals on a wide-ranging inquiry into the practice of Member States on these matters. They are a tiny bureaucracy. As the President of the Commission said recently, they have fewer staff than Wandsworth Borough Council and it is necessary for them to undertake inquiries to make sensible proposals. I hope that those who criticise the occasional absurdities which they perpetrate will also be prepared to be constructive and to say that we must support the Commission in their attempt to have inquiries on certain matters because that will stop them being so silly the next time. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will be able to express the enthusiasm of Her Majesty's Government for making the Commission better informed on this subject, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has called for in her report.
This has been a debate of great interest in which I have certainly learned a lot. I feel that there is a danger of these debates turning into a perpetual seminar on the subjects of rights and equality between the sexes. I am equally aware that when I speak there is certainly a danger of the debate turning into a perpetual debate on the virtues of Europe. These debates on proposals from the Scrutiny Committee are, I feel, most valuable when they are closely tied to the proposal which is under discussion. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will be able to tell us how the Government have seen that the proposal has altered since the Sub-Committee looked at it and what progress the Government hope to achieve during their discussions in the Council of Ministers.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I should like to ask him a question. He was speaking about equal provision throughout all the nations of the Common Market; but Germany, for instance, has double our gross national product. None of the countries has the same gross national product and I do not see how we could have equal provision for social security in all the countries owing to that difference in gross national product.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say
324
that I quite agree with my noble friend. He is absolutely right that the different economic health or illness of the various Member States makes it extremely awkward if any attempt is made to compare social security arrangements between one country and another and to attempt to arrange for them to become equivalent or even equal. To achieve that would be something that the wildest dreamer in Brussels at the moment would feel, with the diverging economies, would probably take a long time. If I may briefly repeat one remark that I made previously, the importance of what we are discussing today is that this Directive is not attempting anything as ambitious as that. It is merely focussing on the equality of treatment for men and women and between men and women in matters of social security, and I think that more limited objective is something for which we can all work.
5.10 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as was to be expected, the debate has to a large extent referred to matters which are outside the scope of the present Directive. However, it is desirable that we not only look at what is in the Directive but also have in mind various other things which a good many of us want to see happen. May I state the obvious?—at least, I hope it is the obvious. We in this country have one of the, if not the, most comprehensive systems of social security in the world. In most areas there is no discrimination and there has not been any for a good many years. Our health care arrangements are universal and apply not only to the working population but to everyone.
In terms of National Insurance benefits, we are abolishing the last two provisions which impose on married women a reduced rate of benefit, or tougher qualifying conditions. In April of this year a married woman will quailfy for the standard personal rate of unemployment and sickness benefit instead of the existing lower personal rate, and in April 1979 the retirement pension half-test, which applies only to married women, is also being abolished, so we are making some progress in terms of the matters which have been raised. Our own proposals for legislation in the occupational pensions field would go a long way towards satisfying the EEC Directive as at present drafted, and

325
the current review of the supplementary benefits scheme is examining, among other things, ways of achieving equal treatment between the sexes. As I said, these are all matters covered by the draft Directive.
The debate has been much more about what we in this country should be doing on equality in social security than about what the Directive actually says, and that is not a bad thing. That is what we should be doing; we should be looking at tomorrow rather than at today, to see what we can do. We are committed to some sort of directive, as noble Lords know, by the social action programme of 1974 and the text before us by no means represents the full measure of steps which will need to be taken; it does not cover many points of interest raised by your Lordships or by Members in another place. Nor is it perfect. We have some broad reservations about some of the points in it.
The Government agree with the principles underlying the Directive. In our discussions in Brussels we are concerned to ensure that when the Directive finally emerges—and nobody can say when that will be; it has been under discussion for the best part of two years—it will be in a form that will be acceptable to the Government and the people of this country, and in a form that will not make too much of an impact on legislation.
There is only one major area in the Directive which the Government cannot regard as satisfactory. This is the provision which would allow married women to claim increases for the children of the family, in the same way as their husbands do, each time they are sick or unemployed. This is a very difficult problem. When I say we cannot agree with it, what I mean is that it is not something capable of easy solution. If a man is in full-time employment, and I know he has paid his national insurance, and he has a wife who is also in full-time employment, and I know she has paid her national insurance too, on the face of it it seems simple to say one should treat one like the other. However, under such a system many people would not need it because of the full-time employment of the other. I think it would be very difficult to devise a scheme under which one could say that either partner, if sick or unemployed, should be able to claim dependant benefit
326
in respect of the children when the other partner is in full-time work. As I say, in many instances the money would not be needed for the welfare and benefit of the family. Our child benefit scheme, because it will find a more important place in our way of life, will, one of these days, probably, overtake dependency benefits; I do not know, but at least some of us would like to think that will happen.
Returning to what I was saying, so far as we can tell—I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that it is extremely difficult to make accurate forecasts in terms of either money or individuals—it would cost an additional £10 million annually. That may not seem a great sum, but it would rise over the years to about £50 million at current benefit rates as more married women became insured. Virtually all this additional expense would go to families—I have made the point already but I make it again—where the husband was in full-time employment and his earnings were continuing without interruption. One must ask whether that would be reasonable.
As your Lordships know, there are major differences between the social security system in this country and in Ireland and in the rest of the Community, particularly with regard to dependency benefits. Broadly, the other countries do not have dependency benefits as we know them, but they have much higher levels of family benefits, which, as I say, we are moving towards. Our view is that, since we pay dependency benefit only for children so as to supplement child benefit during periods when there is an interruption of earnings, these dependency benefits should be excluded from the scope of the Directive for the present, just as family charges—which, for the purpose of the Social Protection Accounts, have always included dependency benefits for children as well as family allowances—are excluded. This would ease our difficulties considerably.
I think I can say that we are sympathetic to the case in which the husband is not the breadwinner and is not himself entitled to benefit, but since principal legislation is involved, we will need to see precisely what is required under the provisions of the Directive as it finally emerges before embarking on changes in our own social security arrangements for

327
dependants. Meanwhile, the phasing-in of child benefit and specifically next April's substantial increase in child benefit, will mean much reduced rates of dependency benefit for children.
So far as occupational pension schemes in this country are concerned, these are diverse in scope and application. The elimination of certain differences of treatment between men and women must be a gradual process and we agree with our colleagues in the European Community that there should be some exclusions from the scope of this Directive. There are other minor but not insignificant changes to the Directive which we would like to see made and these are being discussed in Brussels.
Perhaps I should say, for the benefit of those noble Lords who do not know what the situation is—and I mention it only for their benefit—that the present Directive is in fact being discussed at official level (I think we tend to use the term "officer level") between the officers of the various countries, and submissions will be made to the Council of Ministers by our own Minister on that Council in due course.
Having discussed some of the points that are within the scope of the Directive, I will now turn to deal with other aspects of equality in social security which I know are of particular interest to noble Lords but are not included in it. The Directive does not apply to provisions for widowhood, maternity and family allowances, and Member States would not be bound to change arrangements whereby women can retire earlier than men, count for benefit periods outside employment—for instance, during pregnancy—and derive rights from their husbands' insurance. I understand that the view taken by the Commission is that the draft Directive would apply only to the present and former working population, including the self-employed and the unemployed, and not to the benefits designed for other groups.
The Directive has been considered by the European Assembly and the European Economic and Social Committees. Both these bodies are fully aware that this Directive does not go as far as your Lordships would perhaps like it to, but this is the first Directive, and in all
328
probability others will follow. In any event, the existence of the Directive would not prevent us from moving further in these directions unilaterally if that were possible. But there are complex problems to be overcome in other countries as well as here, and the Government think it right that we should proceed deliberately one step at a time, and with due regard to the structure of our schemes as a whole.
I do not know whether I shall be able to answer all noble Lords as adequately as they would wish—I want to be brief about it—and if I do not touch on anything I hope noble Lords will let me know, and then, perhaps, I could write to them. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, raised the question of supplementary benefit payable to individuals instead of to households. The problem with this proposal is that many more people would be brought on to supplementary benefit who could not really be said to be in need. This is the Government's view. If we ceased to aggregate the requirements and resources of the family—that is, parents and children—as we do now, it would be possible for a married woman living with her husband, who could well be earning a considerable wage, to claim and receive supplementary benefit. The proposal would therefore cost a lot of money, which would not necessarily go where there was social need. Whether one ought to take that kind of thing into account and say that it is the principle that matters rather than the effect of it, I do not know; but one has to take it into account particularly when there is, and will be for some considerable time, a good deal of money shortage. The amount that we are able to spend on social security must have some relation to the amount of money we earn. I think the two must go together. If they do not, then, of course, if we spend too much in one direction we shall have to cut very severely in other directions.
I think the noble Baroness also raised the question of periods of maternity. Periods of maternity are taken into account for pension purposes. Maternity allowances give rise to credits, and subsequent periods during which a woman or a man stays at home to care for children will entitle her or, for that matter, him to have basic pension rights protected

329
from 1978 onwards. I acknowledge that 20 years' contributions will still be needed before anybody can get a full basic pension.
A noble Lord raised the question of the inability of married women to receive invalid care allowance. The cost of extending invalid care allowance to married women is not an expense which the Government are contemplating—and let me say that quite frankly. In any case, invalid care allowance is not a benefit which is generally available in other EEC countries. It seems likely that it would be accepted that the draft Directive, which is intended to cover people in the employment field and those who are sick, unemployed or retired from work, does not apply to married women, since they are regarded as not being in the employment field at these times.
I wonder whether I ought to say something—I am tempted not to do so—about the question of the equalisation of retirement ages. It is a very complex matter. One could take women up to 65 or bring men down to 60, or try to find something between the two. A good deal of thought has gone into this. Again, I can only give the noble Baroness and your Lordships some figures, and I know they are always subject to contradition, but my Department did publish a memorandum on pension age. We published it in September 1976, and copies were supplied to all Members of Parliament. I know there was a considerable consensus of opinion which challenged a good deal of the memorandum—I remember, I think, the noble Baroness talking to me about it—but it was the best forecast that we could make. The memorandum considered four possible solutions. The first was reducing a man's pensionable age to 60, which we thought would cost approximately £2,000 million a year in the long term, although I know many people do not accept that. The next possible solution was increasing a woman's pensionable age to 65—and, for the life of me, I cannot think that women would agree to that for one moment.
Then there was the question of trying to work out a common pension age somewhere between 60 and 65; and to do that and not involve the country in extra cost would mean that you could not do it much below 64½. Then there was the
330
flexible pension age. A good deal of thought has gone into these matters, and obviously a good deal more thought has to go into them. I will not say it defies solution; what I am saying is that it is extremely difficult.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, asked whether we knew anything about a new Directive. The answer is that we do, but, to give a perfectly frank reply to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, how soon the Directive emerges from the Brussels discussions depends on the priority given to it during the Danish presidency and subsequently, which I think started this month and goes on until June 1978. Until it comes out, the Government's attitude to it cannot be finalised, and we will not know all the details. Its existence is certainly known to us, but, as I say, there is that particular problem at the moment.
Mention was made of occupational pension schemes. I think the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, touched on this. The Government have informed occupational pension schemes of the requirement to give equal pensions, and they have sent out a Paper on this—I will not say a Directive. I think it is also true to say that to enforce this it would be necessary to have legislation, and the Government are contemplating, at the appropriate time, introducing legislation to deal with this situation, so I understand, within the field of occupational pensions.
I was asked whether we are preparing to extend the ambit of the Directive. I think that the answer to that is, no. I was also asked whether the Government intend to strengthen the Directive and, if so, in what way. At the moment, I can give no indication at all that we want to strengthen the Directive in any way. The matter is still under discussion. We shall have to examine what comes out of the discussion at what I would prefer to call the "officer level". What we aim to do is to change the Directive so that it is in a form that we can reasonably adhere to; and that is about as far as I can go.
My Lords, I do not think that I have left anything out but, if I have, I hope that noble Lords will let me know, and I will endeavour to write to them and cover the points they have raised. May I say, on behalf of the Government, that we are

331
grateful—and I say this with real sincerity—to the noble Baroness for introducing this Motion. We are not unmindful of the contribution that she has made as the chairman of this Sub-Committee which heard a good deal of evidence and which spent a great deal of time on this matter. I have, obviously, read the report and, I may say, learned a great deal from it.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I should like to thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his reply and for the kind things that he said at the end of his speech. I am bound to say, however, that I am not that susceptible to flattery and that I do not feel that many of the points raised were dealt with satisfactorily. I am fully aware that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, personally might well want to go beyond what it is possible for him to do at the present time. I accept that; but it is disappointing that the Government are not even prepared to look at the position of the woman who is head of the household and who is claiming supplementary benefit. Although not necessarily conceding the point, I can see the difficulties in this connection of granting equal rights to the dependants of both men and women; but where the woman is the head of the household this is, surely, a different situation and it is not one that will involve the same amount of cost.
May I say also that it seems to many of us that even if you cannot take the more radical approach—and, in this case, I think the word is used correctly—towards changing the basis from a family to an individual system, surely with the introduction this year of the child benefits payments, we want to monitor very carefully whether we cannot go along that line and make the child benefit adequate so that supplementation is not necessary. This, as I have already said, would deal with two problems. It would deal with the problem of women's claims to dependants allowances and also, more importantly perhaps, with the question of the poverty trap; because the child benefits would be paid whether the people involved are or are not in work. Can we not ask the Government to keep this very
332
much in mind, to see whether or not they can make a move along these lines, with the reduction in supplementation and the increase in child benefit.
My Lords, before I sit down, I really cannot resist coming back to this question of the report by the Department of Health and Social Security on which the costings for the pensions, the voluntary reduction of pension age to 60 for men, is based. I thought that it was well understood in the discussions at that time that it was agreed by the Department that those costings were based on the assumption that a man of 60, given the option to retire, would behave in the same way as women had behaved when given the option to retire at 60—forgetting two very important factors. They are that women, in fact, to a large extent, do not have the option to retire, for a good many of their jobs terminate at 60 and, therefore, they are not compatible in that respect; nor was the fact taken into account that the personal pension schemes for which many men qualify would give them a considerable incentive to stay on. I protest that those costings were wrongly based and that before assumptions are made about the cost of retirement age, those sums should be done again. I do not believe that it is beyond the ability of the research department of the Department of Health and Social Security to do a better job than they did in that report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.