Sitting of 23 April 1968

Preamble
The House—after the Adjournment on 11th April for the Easter Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
    THAMES VALLEY WATER BILL
    Read the Third time and passed.
    COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Capital Allocations
    Sir C. Nabarroasked the Minister of Power what further curtailment of investment, having regard to the Budget, he now proposes to arrange with nationalised fuel boards, including coal, gas and electricity; and by how much he has reduced investments in these nationalised industries during 1968–69 to meet con-
    2
    temporary economic needs and conditions.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. R. J. Gunter): Reductions of£17 million,£10 million and£4 million in the capital allocations for 1968–69 of the electricity industry in England and Wales and the gas and coal industries respectively were announced by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 21st December last. A further reduction of£16 million has since been agreed with the Electricity Council and Boards in England and Wales, primarily in the light of revised estimates of the trend of demand.—[Vol. 756, c. 488.]
    Sir G. Nabarro: May I be the first on this side of the House to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new appointment? As there is now a good deal of dubiety as to what are the investment programmes of the nationalised fuel boards, changed since 21st December, not further changed on account of devaluation, and with no White Paper republished, could not we have more detailed figures circulated?
    Mr. Gunter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. The cuts in the capital expenditure of the nationalised industries announced after devaluation were an integral part of the policy pursued in the Budget of restraining private and public consumption. I will certainly give thought to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, if he has any doubts.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I, too, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and express the hope that we shall receive more direct

    3
    answers to direct questions than we did from his predecessor. My recollection is that part of the£17 million saving for the electricity industry was due to the postponement of one power station. Which one?
    Mr. Gunter: I cannot answer that question offhand. I am grateful for the hon. Lady's congratulations.

    Domestic Fuels (Price Increases)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Power, having regard to the need for stability of prices as set out in the Budget, what steps he is taking to have urgent consultations with the boards of nationalised industries to prevent further price increases for domestic fuels, including coal, gas, electricity, fuel-oil and petroleum products, including paraffin; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gunter: Price changes by fuel producers in the public and private sectors are subject to the criteria set out in the White Paper on Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy in 1968 and 1969 (Cmnd. 3590). The White Paper lists the products for which arrangements are being continued for fuel producers to give me early warning of proposed price increases.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Has not the right hon. Gentleman noted that the nationalised boards, notably electricity and gas, are leading the field in price increases since devaluation and that all these boards are now knocking up their prices steeply? What action is he taking?
    Mr. Gunter: The price increases announced by my predecessor were considered justifiable.

    Capital Expenditure
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Power by how many million pounds, and by what percentage, he expects the aggregate capital expenditure of the coal, gas and electricity industries to increase in each of the next two years, compared with the immediately preceding year.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): On present information and at constant prices, I do not expect any increase.
    Mr. Lane: That is gratifying, but will the Parliamentary Secretary keep a
    4
    doubly careful eye on the future trends of these estimates so that there is no tendency for them to slip upwards?
    Mr. Freeson: All capital expenditure programmes of the nationalised industries are very closely examined before they are approved.

    British Steel Corporation
    Mr. Michael Shawasked the Minister of Power when he expects to lay an order increasing the borrowing powers of the British Steel Corporation.
    Mr. Gunter: Probably before the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Shaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is considerable concern about the amount of money which is being lent to the Corporation? Has he any idea when the first interim accounts will be published?
    Mr. Gunter: I am not quite sure of the correct answer to the last part of the supplementary question, but I understand that there will be a report covering July to September, 1967, and then another report later in the summer before we go into the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the Minister recognise that this new borrowing will be considerably in excess of what was envisaged at the time the Bill was going through? Does he not recognise, therefore, that it is essential that the House should have accounts before it before it is asked to approve increased borrowing?
    Mr. Gunter: I fully understand that there is that degree of interest. My predecessor pointed out in the course of the debate that the£75 million, which I imagine that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, was a very wide estimate.
    Mr. Michael Shawasked the Minister of Power if he will give details of the£252 million drawings of capital by the British Steel Corporation.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power why the British Steel Corporation draw£175 million of Government advances and£77 million of temporary borrowing, in view of the previous estimate that it would only require£75 million of capital during 1967–68.
    Mr. Gunter: I will, with permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Shaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a feeling that a considerable amount of the money which is being lent to the Corporation is going to cover current losses made by the Corporation; and will he tell the House what is the present net monthly loss being made by the Corporation and its subsidiaries?
    Mr. Gunter: The hon. Gentleman's assumption is quite wrong. If he will read the detailed Answer which is to appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will appreciate that.
    Mr. Ridley: How does it come about that a public corporation can budget for£75 million capital expenditure and then incur£252 million? Is it not lacking somewhere in financial discipline, so that this runaway expenditure can take place on the capital side?
    Mr. Gunter: I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in his suggestion about runaway expenditure. The great addition to the figure has been caused by the desire of the Corporation to establish firm financial control. [Interruption.] Just a moment. The Corporation decided to eliminate bank overdrafts and other short-term finance and to replace this finance, which at vesting date totalled£126 million, with borrowing in its own name.
    Mr. Lawson: Will the Minister consider that a large part of the money going to the Steel Corporation should take the form of equities rather than fixed interest bearing stock and securities?
    Mr. Gunter: I should doubt that, but I do not know enough about it to give the answer.
    Following is the information:
    Of the£252 million borrowed by the British Steel Corporation to the end of March, 1968, about£57 million was used to finance expenses of the Corporation arising after vesting date, including substantial payments by way of terminal interest and dividends under the revived Section 19 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1949, and by way of interest on the commencing capital debt. The balance of about£195 million was applied in paying off loans and overdrafts and other short term commitments incurred by the companies before vesting date. Refinancing on this scale was not envisaged at the time of
    6
    the original estimate of borrowings from the Exchequer.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Power if he will give a direction to the British Steel Corporation to ensure that production continues in the steel industry in spite of the bricklayers' strike within the industry.
    Mr. Gunter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Lewis: Why not? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the very serious situation that could develop not only for the steel industry but for the country as a whole? Is it not justifiable that we should ask him to try to do something to improve the situation so that we do not have a strike?
    Mr. Gunter: There is a vast difference between asking me to do something and instructing me to give a direction to the Steel Corporation. The handling of the dispute is a matter for the Corporation and I have no intention of directing the Corporation to act against its own judgment. However, if, behind the scenes, I can do something to help, I certainly shall.
    Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. The Minister must realise, Mr. Speaker, that the only way I could table a Question on this matter was to ask him to give a direction.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Lewis, Question No. 33.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Power what proposals he has to reduce interest charges to the British Steel Corporation on its capital commitments.
    Mr. Gunter: None, Sir. The terms of the Corporation's commencing capital debt have not yet been settled.
    Mr. Lewis: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Steel Corporation is likely to make a loss this year unless it is relieved of some of this debt? Will he assure us that it will honour the commitments it has?
    Mr. Gunter: I can only repeat the Answer I gave; that the commencing capital debt has not yet been settled. When it has been, we will be able to deal with the other matters.
    Mr. Lawson: May I again remind my right hon. Friend that, in considering

    7
    this matter, he should remember that the capital debt need not necessarily take the form of fixed interest bearing securities but might take the form of equities on which dividend is payable, if dividend is earned?
    Mr. Gunter: In any case, that would involve legislation.

    Capital Expenditure (Test Discount Rate)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power by how much the capital programmes of the coal, gas and electricity industries would be reduced by an increase in the discount cash flow rate of 10 per cent.
    Mr. Freeson: An increase in the test rate of discount could be expected to lead to some reduction in capital expenditure, for example, through the effect it might have on the prices of coal, gas and electricity; but no realistic estimate of the reduction is practicable at present.
    Mr. Ridley: As nationalised industry borrowing is giving grave concern not only to hon. Members but to Mr. Schweitzer as well, ought not the Government to know what the effect would be of applying their own policy of raising the test discount rate, when the total gets out of hand? Why do they not know the answer?
    Mr. Freeson: Raising the test discount rate would have the effect of increasing supply costs and would, therefore, have certain implications for pricing policy.

    Nationalised Industries (Capital Programmes)
    Mr. Emeryasked the Minister of Power whether, because of the high level of public expenditure, he will give a general direction to the fuel and steel nationalised industries to prepare contingency plans, showing the effect of cuts of 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. in their capital programme.
    Mr. Gunter: Substantial cuts have already been made and of course the need for stringent economy will continue to be taken fully into account.
    Mr. Emery: Taking the figures already published, which would work out at over£5,000 million capital expenditure in the
    8
    next five years, does not the Minister think that a 10 or 15 per cent. reduction in this sum would be of major benefit in meeting the capital programme with which this country must deal?
    Mr. Gunter: That is a matter for continuing review. When the annual reviews take place the need for stringent economy must be accepted on both sides. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not give the idea, which I am sure that he does not want to give, that there must be excessive zeal in dealing with this capital expenditure, which is so essential for the future well-being of the country's economy.

    Oil Supplies
    Mr. Emeryasked the Minister of Power what is the machinery for consultation between his Department and the Defence Department regarding the maintenance of oil supplies to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Freeson: The Department is in constant touch with other Departments, including the Ministry of Defence.
    Mr. Emery: Will the Minister assure the House that in any consultation he makes quite clear the vital rôle that Simonstown has to play in the whole question of getting oil through to this country safely?
    Mr. Freeson: Questions of that kind are best directed to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for Defence. But I would point out, as a matter of information, that tankers sailing round the Cape are not dependent on South Africa for bunkering or repair facilities.
    Mr. Emery: But would not the hon. Gentleman agree that at the moment a large number of oil companies use those facilities, and they are a vital part, from the commercial aspect, of the oil lines to this country through the sea lanes?
    Mr. Freeson: I think that I have already answered the question quite clearly. Tankers do not require bunkering or repair facilities in South Africa. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting some kind of military experiment there, he should direct his attention to other Departments, not the Ministry of Power.

    Electricity and Gas Industries (Consumer Consultative Councils)
    Mr. Gardnerasked the Minister of Power what action he intends to take to strengthen the Consumer Consultative Councils associated with the electricity and gas industries following the recent report by the Consumer Council.
    Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend is considering the recommendations made in the report in consultation with the Consultative Council Chairmen.

    Ironfounders (Circular)
    Mr. John Hyndasked the Minister of Power why his circular of 18th March, 1968, alleging that inaccurate information was being supplied to his Department and drawing attention to the penalties for knowingly or recklessly making a false statement, was circulated to all ironfounders and was specifically addressed at the same time to individual firms implying that these firms were guilty; and what steps he proposes to take to remove the misapprehensions this has aroused amongst reputable firms.
    Mr. Freeson: My right hon. Friend's predecessor and I have written to my hon. Friend and the Department has written to the few ironfounders who complained about the circular to remove any misapprehensions it may have caused.
    Mr. Hynd: Will my hon. Friend be good enough to make it quite clear to all concerned that this rather inept circular was wrongly addressed to the wrong people, and that this kind of exercise will not occur again?
    Mr. Freeson: We thought that it would be right not to single out particular companies about whose figures there were some doubts. Therefore, there was a general circular, though we agree that a mistake was made in having individual names and addresses added to it at the dispatch stage.

    Seaton Carew (Proposed Power Station)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Power what are the series of studies being held regarding the proposed power station at Seaton Carew; and by whom the studies are being carried out.
    Mr. Gunter: These studies cover the need for new power stations to meet the expected load; the relative costs to the economy of production from coal and nuclear power; and the effect of power station orders on the economy and on the industries concerned. They are being carried out by my Department in consultation with the other Departments concerned.
    Mr. Willey: In view of the public concern and debate about this power station, will my right hon. Friend assure me that when a decision is taken he will make available the full facts on which it is based?
    Mr. Gunter: Yes, Sir. That will be done.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we in the North-East are particularly concerned about this projected power station? Is he aware that there exists a strong suspicion that the Government have already taken a decision? Would he deny that and say categorically that such a suspicion is unwarranted?
    Mr. Gunter: I assure my right hon. Friend that the suspicion is unwarranted. When the decision is made, I will announce it.
    Mr. Lubbock: Do the cuts mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman earlier—relating to investment in electricity supply—assume that the Seaton Carew power station will not be started in the financial year 1968–69? If so, will he ask the contractors to re-tender so that advantage may be taken of the technological developments which have occurred in the present year?
    Mr. Gunter: I am not sure, to begin with, that I agree with the hon. Gentleman's assumption. I might add that the Electricity Council recently reduced its load forecast and that I am now examining the implications of that.

  COAL

    Price Structure
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Power what steps he has taken in his consultations on the National Coal Board price structure to ensure that the

    11
    Central Electricity Generating Board is allowed to compete on level terms with all other potential coal users interested in long-term supplies of cheap coal.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Power, in view of the coal stocks in Scotland, whether, in the course of his discussions with the National Coal Board on pricing policies, he will raise the matter of future market trends.
    Mr. Gunter: All important matters bearing on the price structure will be discussed, but I cannot say how long the consultations will take.
    Mr. Osborn: Is it not a fact that Alcan has been offered coal at prices below those available to Seaton Carew and Longannet, and is not this creating an undesirable distortion?
    Mr. Gunter: The C.E.G.B. already receives substantial supplies of cheap coal from the National Coal Board, and the Board is anxious to increase long-term supplies of cheap coal to its biggest customer.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is mounting criticism against the selective coal-pricing policy, and, in the light of increased coal stocks, will he not consider doing something, where the Government are concerned, to influence market trends?
    Mr. Gunter: That matter is now under discussion between the Coal Board and myself.

    New Aluminium Smelters
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the additional potential use of coal through the establishment of new aluminium smelters in Great Britain.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the extent to which, and areas in which, the plans for pit closures will be affected by the establishment of new aluminium smelters in the development areas.
    Mr. Freeson: I would ask the hon. Gentlemen to await the statement which has been promised by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Lane: Could the hon. Gentleman urge his colleagues to announce a decision as soon as possible, because the continuing uncertainty is damaging?
    Mr. Freeson: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will note the hon. Gentleman's observation.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend give an idea when this long delayed statement, on admittedly an intricate problem, will be made, and can he say at this juncture how many aluminium smelters there will be, where they will be sited, and how they will be fuelled?
    Mr. Freeson: All the points in that question would not be for me to answer today. It will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and the timing of such a statement will also be a matter for him, not for me.
    Mr. Monro: Why cannot the hon. Gentleman answer today? Are the Government actively supporting the application of Alcan to have a coal-fired smelter at Invergordon?
    Mr. Freeson: I can only repeat that this is not a matter for me or for my Department. Hon. Gentlemen will have to await the statement by the President of the Board of Trade.

    Collieries (Subsidies)
    Sir J. Edenasked the Minister of Power up to what level of cost per man employed he proposes to pay subsidies under Section 5 of the Coal Industry Act, 1967, in order to keep a colliery open.
    Mr. Freeson: Such a ceiling would not be appropriate.
    Sir J. Eden: As the cost is already reported to be working out at about£40 a man, would it not be a better investment for the nation and better for the men themselves if the Government were in these cases to embark on a really imaginative programme of retraining for more productive work?
    Mr. Freeson: That is not directly a matter for this Department. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should study the facts of the situation in relation to other Departments. A considerable

    13
    amount of work is being done on retraining, and the redeployment of manpower in the industry.
    Mr. Ridley: To repeat my hon. Friend's question, will the hon. Gentleman pay assistance to the Coal Board in respect of pits where it is costing£40 a man a week to keep a pit open, as at Harrington No. 10 pit? Is it his policy to support pits like that?
    Mr. Freeson: There is nothing new in this. The question has been asked and answered before, both in debate and at Question Time. The answer is that we are pursuing the policy laid down in the Coal Industry Act, 1967, which was debated some time ago in the House.

    National Coal Board (Subsidiary Companies)
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Power what has been the capital expenditure during the last financial year, and to date during the current year, incurred on the purchase of fully owned, and partly owned, subsidiary companies of the National Coal Board, respectively, and in total, not directly concerned with the gaining of coal.
    Mr. Gunter: I am informed by the Board that there has been none.
    Mr. Osborn: First, how much has been spent on the acquisition of builders' merchants, particularly Sankey-P.G.W. Holdings? Second, for the future, will the Minister arrange for full details of capital expenditure and expenditure on new subsidiaries to be published in the annual accounts of this and other nationalised industries?
    Mr. Gunter: Details of expenditure on such developments will be reflected in the Board's accounts for 1967–68. But the question asked is clearly answered, as the Board says that there has been none.

    Coal Distribution
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Power if he will make a further statement on the rationalisation of coal distribution.
    Mr. Freeson: Last November the N.C.B. and the trade completed a report on further rationalisation and I asked them to put the proposals into effect as
    14
    soon as possible. Detailed consultations are now taking place throughout the country and I expect adoption of the policies in the report.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that the pace of rationalisation of coal distribution is far too slow? There is mounting anger among miners and consumers that it is still costing as much to distribute coal as it is for the miners to produce it from the bowels of the earth.
    Mr. Freeson: I agree that there is a need for speeding up rationalisation of distribution methods. But since the report to which I referred was published, there has been an increase of 55 coal concentration points for rail-borne fuel throughout the country, 19 of them in Scotland.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman look very carefully at the effect of distribution costs on the price of smokeless fuels, bearing in mind the subtantial differentials between one part of the country and another?
    Mr. Freeson: All aspects of distribution costs are being taken into account.

    South of Scotland Electricity Board (Coal Charges)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Power whether he is aware that the higher prices for coal charged to the South of Scotland Electricity Board will add£4,000,000 to fuel costs; and whether he will refer these prices and the price charged for supplying the Lon-gannet Power Station to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    Mr. Gunter: In its February, 1966, Report on Coal Prices (Cmnd. 2919) the National Board for Prices and Incomes recommended, and the Government agreed, that prices should reflect more closely the costs of individual production areas.
    It would not be appropriate to refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the price to be charged to a single power station.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that that decision of the Prices and Incomes Board acts against the interests of Scotland? Is he aware that the price of coal for the S.S.E.B. is£1 a ton more

    15
    than for that supplied to the Central Electricity Generating Board? Is not that unfair? Can he do anything about it?
    Mr. Gunter: The Prices and Incomes Board drew attention to the fact that the price of coal in Scotland was on average much higher—and that it was more costly to produce than was English coal. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the N.C.B.'s pricing system for industrial coals is designed to reflect the cost of production and technical characteristics of each coal. That has its effect on Scotland.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the Minister carrying on the investigation which his predecessor started into the pricing policies of the Coal Board? Will he give an undertaking to tell the House when he has reached a conclusion about it?
    Mr. Gunter: Yes, indeed. We are continuing that course and I give that undertaking.

    Pricing Policy
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Power if he will refer the National Coal Board's pricing policy to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    Mr. Gunter: No, Sir.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the people of Scotland are very dissatisfied with the situation whereby they pay£1 a ton more for their coal and 24 per cent. more for their gas? Does he realise the implications of that for Scottish development, and has he closed his mind to any change?
    Mr. Gunter: As I have already said, we have accepted the Prices and Incomes Board's Report. The National Coal Board has accepted it and the Government have accepted it, and I offer no hope of changing that policy.
    Mr. Lane: Will the Minister undertake that if the National Coal Board is seen to be following an increasingly discriminatory pricing policy he will remind it of its statutory duty?
    Mr. Gunter: Of course I will. I am always a bit surprised at the zeal with which hon. Members opposite always
    16
    want me to interfere with the management of nationalised industries.
    Mr. Eadie: Will my right hon. Friend tell hon. Members opposite that this is the policy they started, although there is no good reason why he should cultivate their bad habits?

    Pit Closures
    Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Power what further arrangements he has now made with the National Coal Board on the slowing down of pit closures.
    Mr. Gunter: None, Sir.
    Mr. Shinwell: In order to banish the insecurity existing among miners everywhere, particularly in the North-East, would my right hon. Friend venture to advise the Chairman of the National Coal Board to make an early announcement about future closures?
    Mr. Gunter: I am very conscious—as conscious as my right hon. Friend—of the insecurity in the North-East and in my own country. I shall certainly undertake to talk to the Board, as I have already started to do.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Minister bear in mind that historically the insecurity arose from the vacillating policy of his predecessor, who presented a White Paper to the House and then withdrew it, and then refused to publish the rate of rundown in the pits?
    Mr. Gunter: I have no comment to make.
    Sir C. Osborne: Will the Minister tell the House how many pits are due to be closed down, and where most of them are situated?
    Mr. Gunter: I could not say at the moment, but I will undertake to find out from the National Coal Board what its plans are.

    Disused Colliery, Bolton (Fatal Accidents)
    Mr. Robert Howarthasked the Minister of Power (1) if he will require the National Coal Board to furnish him with a full report of the accident which cost four lives on 16th April last at the old Brackley Colliery,

    17
    Bolton; and if he will take steps to ensure that all reasonable measures are taken to prevent a recurrence of such an accident.
    (2) how many derelict colliery workings exist in the North-West area; and if he is satisfied that all reasonable precautions are being taken by the National Coal Board to protect people, particularly children at holiday time, from hazards at such sites; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Thorntonasked the Minister of Power if he will cause an investigation into the circumstances in which three Farnworth children and a Bolton fireman lost their lives in the disused Brackley Colliery, Bolton; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeson: I apologise for the length of my Answer.
    Both my right hon. Friend and I greatly regret this accident and would like to express our sympathy to the parents of the children who lost their lives and to the relatives of the fireman who lost his life in a rescue attempt.
    Under the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, the owner of an abandoned mine is responsible for providing and maintaining an efficient device to prevent accidental entry into any of its shafts or outlets. If the device is not provided or is not properly maintained, the shaft or outlet is deemed to be a statutory nuisance under the Public Health Act, 1936, and the local authority has powers to effect a remedy.
    The National Coal Board tells me that the outlet in question had been sealed off by brickwork and was believed to be safe. However, a careful investigation is being made by the Board into this accident.
    The Board owns about 57 derelict colliery sites in the North-West area, and ensures that its old shafts are regularly inspected, adequately protected, and the devices properly maintained.
    Mr. Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and particularly appreciate his expression of sympathy for the parents of the children and the relatives of the fireman who lost his life when trying to save the lives of the children. In response to his remarks about the number of such sites, may I draw his
    18
    attention particularly to Question No. 28, since this is a particular problem in the North-West? Will he consult with the Minister of Housing and Local Government to see if additional steps might be taken to protect people in general and children in particular?
    Mr. Freeson: The point to remember here is that in the North-West there are thousands of such shafts outside the ownership of the National Coal Board. Although these do not come within the purview of my Department, I will certainly undertake to consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
    Mr. Thornton: While appreciating my hon. Friend's expression of sympathy, may I ask him to look very closely indeed into the circumstances in which only a part of the shaft about which we are speaking was bricked or concreted and why it was possible for a small opening to be made by soil erosion or by the scraping of the soil, thereby enabling these crildren to gain entry to this lethal chamber?
    Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the possible ways in which this opening was effected. That will be a matter for investigation. As I have indicated, the N.C.B. has already embarked on the necessary investigation.

  GAS

    Natural Gas (Conversion of Appliances)
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Power what total extra sum will have to be invested in the gas industry to convert existing consuming appliances for the burning of natural gas.
    Mr. Freeson: The total cost is estimated at about£400 million.
    Mr. Palmer: Will this be met by extra Treasury borrowing if it has not been covered already or, alternatively, is it proposed that the sum should be met by increased self-financing? If the latter, will it result in price increases to the consumer?
    Mr. Freeson: The question of where the capital is to be obtained for this kind

    19
    of expenditure is one of the factors taken into account by this Department and the Treasury in due course in considering the allocation as between self-financing or borrowing. As regards self-financing of expenditure for this purpose and its effect on prices, we have already had the recent Report of the Prices and Incomes Board, and there is nothing further to add to its recommendations and their application.
    Mr. Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this sum of£400 million is likely to be only about a quarter of the total capital requirement of the Gas Council over the next five years, and will this not have a serious effect on the way in which the money is raised?
    Mr. Freeson: In response to the Question which has been put down, I can only confirm that this is expenditure for conversion, which excludes a number of other aspects of expenditure in relation to the introduction of natural gas into the system.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the Prices and Incomes Board, it will cost, on average, about£30 to convert a consumer's domestic appliances? What steps is the Ministry taking to encourage the production of appliances which can be more readily and more simply converted when the time comes, so that this expenditure will not fall on the consumer?
    Mr. Freeson: This is already in hand in the industry. All equipment now being put on the market is so designed as to be easily adaptable over the 10-year programme. As regards the carrying of the cost by the consumer, as I have already said, prices will not be affected.

  ELECTRICITY

    Overhead Lines and Underground Cables
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Minister of Power whether he will state the cost per mile since devaluation of installing overhead and underground cables, respectively, to carry electricity; and the approximate total mileage in Great Britain to date of such overhead and underground cables, respectively.
    Mr. Freeson: As the Answer contains a lot of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Is it not possible to make better use of underground cables in areas of great natural beauty? Surely the very high cost which has already been given could be reduced when the lines are in the rural areas?
    Mr. Freeson: I am not quite sure of the point of that supplementary question in relation to the Question on the Order Paper. The industry has a pretty good record in this respect. Every effort is made, within the bounds of economic considerations, to pay attention to amenity aspects of cables.
    The following is the information:
    Costs per mile vary according to voltage, but between 11 kV single circuit and 400 kV double circuit range from£1,100 to£5,000 for overhead lines and from£5,000 to£930,000 for underground cables. The circuit mileages in England and Wales at 31st March, 1967, for overhead lines and underground cables are 106,752 and 66,005 respectively for voltages above 650. For voltages at and below 650 separate figures for overhead and underground construction are not available and the combined total is 157,339 circuit lines.

  HOSPITALS

    Broadmoor Hospital
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Minister of Health whether he has now arranged for some patients at Broadmoor Hospital to be transferred to Rampton as recommended by the Estimates Committee's Report on the Special Hospitals.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): No such transfers have been made since publication of the Report but the possibilities are being actively considered.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: In view of the cogent arguments put forward by the Estimates Committee, can the right hon. Gentleman forecast when he expects such transfers to take place?
    Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that in the past four years an average of 15 male patients a year have been transferred from Broadmoor to Rampton or Moss Side. There are at present only 18 unoccupied beds for men at Rampton Hospital.
    Mr. Bellenger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some apprehension among residents in the near vicinity of Rampton about this transfer from Broad-moor? Will special security arrangements be made when the transfer takes place?
    Mr. Robinson: My right hon. Friend and his constituents should appreciate that no transfers will be made to Rampton except of patients who are suitable for treatment there; that is, patients who are broadly similar to those who are already being treated at Rampton.
    Mr. Dean: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the conditions at Broadmoor are very disturbing and that the staff there are working under exceedingly difficult conditions in trying to treat the patients?
    Mr. Robinson: I accept that there is an undesirable degree of overcrowding at Broadmoor. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is planned to build a further special hospital in the North of England to relieve the pressure on Broadmoor.
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Minister of Health when he expects the rebuilding of Broadmoor Hospital to begin.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The rebuilding of Broadmoor, which will necessarily have to be phased over several years, began last January, when work on the new workshops started.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: While I welcome that Answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that during the process of rebuilding very special care will be taken for the security of the comparatively small number of patients who are extremely dangerous and in respect of whom there might be anxiety during the rebuilding process?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir. I can certainly give an assurance that full regard will be had to security arrangements during the rebuilding.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Members of the Estimates Committee who went to Broadmoor were shocked to see the overcrowding there—with one day-room holding 40 people as a dormitory—and that the new building work should be undertake as quickly as possible? Is he aware
    22
    that 100 years ago the Victorians managed to build Broadmoor in two years and that a Socialist Government should be able to do at least as well as that?
    Mr. Robinson: The rebuilding of Broadmoor, which is full, and perhaps—as I know both the hon. Gentleman and I agree—is overfull, is a more complicated operation than building it for the first time.

    Royal Commission on Medical Education
    Mr. L. Pavittasked the Minister of Health if he will accept in principle paragraph 500 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Decisions on this and other recommendations of the Royal Commission must await the examination referred to in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) on 4th April.—[Vol. 762, c. 141–2.]
    Mr. Pavitt: As successful integration of teaching and regional hospitals has gone on satisfactorily in Scotland, and because of the time which it will take to implement this decision, will my right hon. Friend make an early decision about this aspect of the Report?
    Mr. Robinson: There will obviously have to be a good deal of discussion about this, as about many other recommendations. My hon. Friend will be aware that this is a subject relevant to the Green Paper on administrative structure, which, I hope, will be published fairly soon.
    Mr. Dean: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that teaching hospitals have a worldwide reputation and that no changes should be made in their status without the fullest possible consultation with all concerned?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes. I said in a previous supplementary answer that there was bound to be considerable discussion of this proposal.

  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Overseas Visitors (Treatment)
    Mr. Wilkinsasked the Minister of Health why statistics are not available in his Department as to how many foreign

    23
    visitors receive free medical and/or hospital treatment in Great Britain in any one year, and the costs of such treatment to his Department.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): The number of overseas visitors receiving free treatment is not thought to be large enough to justify the work involved.
    Mr. Wilkinsasked the Minister of Health what is the annual average amount of money recovered in fees from foreign visitors who receive medical and/ or hospital treatment during their sojourn in Great Britain.
    Mr. Snow: This information is not available.
    Mr. Wilkins: Is not this an extraordinary omission? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the great public interest in the cost to the National Health Service of treatment of foreign visitors, especially at a time when we must impose prescription charges on our own people?
    Mr. Snow: I think that my hon. Friend must be speaking from information which is not at the disposal of my Department——
    Mr. Wilkins: Oh?
    Mr. Snow: —about the incidence of the use of the National Health Service by foreigners. If he has specific cases which we could identify, we would be glad to hear about them. Both hospitals and doctors have received guidance on this matter to determine whether or not free treatment is justified.
    Sir J. Rodgers: As the Parliamentary Secretary has no idea of the number of foreign visitors who receive treatment free, nor what amount of money is expended on that treatment, how can he say that it is negligible?
    Mr. Snow: Because we have had no representations from the hospitals about this matter. I think that most hon. Members will deplore the xenophobic tendency by some elements of the population.
    Dr. Miller: Would not my hon. Friend agree, however, that reciprocal arrangements are developing in other countries
    24
    permitting treatment to be given free to British citizens there?
    Mr. Snow: Yes, that is perfectly true. Unfortunately, our system has a basis different from those abroad, and in this country identification by means of an identity card, which would make checking possible, is not available.
    Mr. Dean: While no one would wish to deny treatment to foreign visitors, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that there is no abuse of our National Health Service by them? In view of his rather vague answers this afternoon, will he have another look at this matter?
    Mr. Snow: My answers were not intended to be vague. We have received no representations from hospitals where the burden of this type of treatment might be expected to fall. However, if the hon. Gentleman has any cases which can be identified, we shall be glad to look at them.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: I agree that the problem is apparent rather than real. However, would not my hon. Friend agree that the solution lies in the extension of reciprocal agreements with other countries, such as those with Scandinavia and Yugoslavia? What progress has been made in this respect?
    Mr. Snow: Progress is slow, largely because of the difference of the services in those other countries, but the ambition to achieve more reciprocal agreements is ever present in our minds.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Ordnance Survey Maps (Revision)
    Mr. Peter M. Jacksonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many revisions of the 1 inch and 2½inch ordnance surveys have been undertaken during the course of the last 30 years; and on what date it is proposed that future revisions be undertaken.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington):The 1 inch maps are fully revised at intervals of 7, 15 or 25 years according to the amount of change and the demand

    25
    for individual sheets. Between these full revisions, partial revision is made to take account of significant changes. The 2½inch maps were first published in the immediate post-war years and have since been extensively revised, though not all sheets have been brought up to date. Further revision of this series will be restricted to major changes pending gradual replacement by a new series.
    Mr. Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he give an assurance that these provisions will be coordinated with local authority annual or quinquennial reviews of footpaths? As he knows, it is the intention to publish 2½inch and 1 inch footpath maps and it would be helpful if there were to be co-ordination between the Ordnance Survey and the local authorities.
    Mr. Skeffington: I do not know whether I could go so far as to say that it would be co-ordinated with each quinquennial review, because it depends on the amount of change and the demand for the particular sheet of the Survey. However, the Survey is always in close touch with local authorities and all significant changes are incorporated, not only in the major revisions, but also in the reprinting which takes place usually between revisions.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    United Kingdom Foreign Debts
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total of United Kingdom foreign debts; and what interest they carry.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): As to the total of United Kingdom foreign debts I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by me on 29th March, 1968, to a Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). As to the interest they carry, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which my right hon. Friend the former Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) on 27th November, 1967.—[Vol. 761, c. 359–60; Vol. 755, c. 22–4.]
    Sir C. Osborne: Would it not have been much simpler and shorter for the
    26
    Financial Secretary to give the figures instead of the references? Have these overseas debts been increased substantially since the Labour Government came to power? If so, by how much?
    Mr. Lever: These debts have increased in various ways—[Interruption.]—including the meeting of a£800 million deficit—[Interruption.]—I am seeking to score a statistical rather than a party point, but the fact is that£800 million of foreign currency had to be found. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Answers to which I have referred, he will see that it is far from simple to give such compendious and detailed information in reply to an oral Question.

  PRICES AND INCOMES POLICY (DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the present economic situation, he will transfer complete responsibility for the prices and incomes policy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): As the House knows, responsibility has been transferred to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State.
  Mr. Marten: Is the Prime Minister aware that a certain amount of confusion has arisen because of this spread of responsibility between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Ministry of Productivity? To make it quite certain, can he confirm that the Government policy on wages is in fact a nil norm unless the criteria set out in the White Paper are justified?
  The Prime Minister: Government policy is exactly as set out in the White Paper. There is no change from that. I considered very seriously whether Departmental responsibility should go to the Treasury as part of demand management, but having considered the matter very seriously and having discussed it with my right hon. Friends, I thought it right that responsibility for the co-ordination of prices, incomes and productivity policy should go to the Department which had to deal with the industries concerned.
  Mr. Park: Is my right hon. Friend aware that bad policy is not improved by a change in either the personalities or the Departments responsible for its administration? Will he look again very carefully at the Government's present incomes policy and consider the real dangers of a serious clash between the industrial and political wings of the Labour movement?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware that a necessary policy remains necessary no matter which Department is carrying it through. I felt the linking the general co-ordination with the day-to-day work of dealing with individual wage settlements would be more likely to get the right answer in individual cases and to make it more possible, particularly if one could start early enough in a particular wage claim, to link productivity with any wage settlement.
  Mr. Heath: In view of some of the things recently said outside the House, will the Prime Minister confirm that 3½per cent. is not the norm and that the norm is nil and that other additions ought to be contained within the 3½per cent.?
  The Prime Minister: The matter is set out in very great detail in the White Paper, and we stand firmly by the White Paper. We have set out the conditions in which we feel it to be possible to afford a 3½per cent. increase, and the criteria are all set out very clearly in the White Paper. What I have been doing in this transfer to the new Department is to stress the productivity criterion.

  DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister whether, in the interests of economy, he will now reabsorb the Department of Economic Affairs into the Treasury.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Both Departments have an important function to perform and it is a fallacy to think that amalgamation would save any significant sum of money.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Now that the Department of Economic Affairs has lost the prices and incomes policy, what other
  28
  purpose does it serve, apart from providing the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) with a car, an office and a fat salary? If the Prime Minister needs his right hon. Friend's support in the Cabinet, would it not have been more economically provided by making him Minister without Portfolio?
  The Prime Minister: The short answer is that my right hon. Friend has an extremely important portfolio. It is ensuring by the co-ordination of the industrial Departments that the real resources are available to meet the requirements of the Chancellor's budgetary policy, both as regards productivity and as regards exports and import replacement. That is a very important function which could not be left in the Treasury.
  Mr. Moonman: Will my right hon. Friend resist the political overtones of that supplementary question and give consideration to the qualitative analysis of other Departments on the lines recently announced for further restructuring?
  The Prime Minister: I have given a great deal of thought to this, not least in the past few weeks, but it is extremely important that the sponsoring Departments should be responsible for dealing with particular industries and that the Department for Economic Affairs should be responsible for the general allocation of real resources and the co-ordination of industrial policy. That is what the present set-up means.
  Mr. Thorpe: Could the Prime Minister take his preceeding answer a little further and tell us why it is that the jobs discharged by the D.E.A. cannot be discharged by the Treasury?
  The Prime Minister: For the reason that I have just given. The Treasury has an extremely full-time job to do, not only general financial policy, budgetary policy, but expenditure policy and international liquidity policy. We have found over the past years that when the Treasury was also responsible for industrial co-ordination, the work of "Neddy" and the rest, that work was not done but was sacrificed to purely financial considerations.
  Mr. Maudling: As I understand the Prime Minister's previous answer, the D.E.A. will in future co-ordinate the work

  29
  of the other industrial Departments. Surely this is a job for the Prime Minister, not the D.E.A.?
  The Prime Minister: The detailed work is a job for this Department, and this has been the position since 1964. I have felt—and recent events have rather confirmed this feeling—that the work which the D.E.A. has been doing on prices and incomes has derogated from the work it has in connection with investment and export policy and import replacement. Now it will be free to concentrate on that work.
  Mr. Lipton: Is there not some case to be made out for transferring the D.E.A., if not to the Treasury, then to the Ministry of Productivity, if not now, then in the not-too-distant future?
  The Prime Minister: A theoretical case can be made for all these groupings and others besides, but I am satisfied, having gone into it extremely carefully, that there is a very important job of work to be done, which will extend the fullest resources of my right hon. Friend in the Department—[Interruption.]—of Employment and Productivity. I do not think it right to add to the work of that Department the work of investment, exports and the other things that I have mentioned, which will be the function of the D.E.A.
  Mr. Peyton: Does the Prime Minister recall that he took over responsibility for this Department with a great fanfare of publicity? Will he now explain why he has left it so secretly? Was his leaving meant to be a confession of failure, uncharacteristic of him?
  The Prime Minister: I was not aware of any great fanfare of trumpets last August—[Interruption.]—nor of any secrecy a fortnight ago. As I explained to the House, I took on that responsibility at the time to make quite sure that both through the work of the N.E.D.C. and in other ways the Departments were adequately co-ordinated. Now I am satisfied that they will be. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the general responsibility of the Prime Minister, as First Lord of the Treasury, for co-ordinating general economic policy, not just industrial economic policy, which is the job of that Department.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that shortly before Easter his right hon. Friend justified the 15 per cent. increase in the staff and cost of his Department by his increasing responsibility for prices and incomes? Now that that responsibility has gone, cannot the staff go too?
  The Prime Minister: It was explained to the House before Easter that the staff dealing with the prices and incomes policy had already been transferred to the Department of Employment and Productivity, and to that extent the staff is reduced. My right hon. Friend will still be responsible for some very important work on industrial development, which was never done when the right hon. Gentleman was at the Treasury.

  HOME SECRETARY (SPEECH)
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department on devaluation at Blackpool on 23rd March represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Did not the Home Secretary on that occasion liken devaluation to jumping off a cliff? Since the Lord President has said that it was a giant stride towards Socialism, is it not about time that the Prime Minister told us which it was—or are the two methods of progress synonymous?
  The Prime Minister: There are other Questions, which I have already answered, about the speech of my right hon. Friend in Birmingham in January. What my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his speech at Blackpool was what the difficulties were following devaluation, and then said that it was something we had to do in the end but not something that anyone would enjoy doing, any more than jumping off a cliff. I agree with what he said.

  BRITISH SHIPPING FEDERATION AND NATIONAL MARITIME BOARD
  Mr. Ian Lloydasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to improve the co-ordination between the

  31
  Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Social Security on matters affecting the British Shipping Federation and the National Maritime Board.
  The Prime Minister: The Departments already consult closely on these matters, Sir, and no new steps are needed.
  Mr. Lloyd: Is it not quite intolerable that both sides of this major industry should have been kept waiting for 10 months while the Government made up their mind; that they should then have been informed that the industry would be receiving no assistance and should be given seven weeks in which to find a current expenditure running at the rate of£500,000 per annum?
  The Prime Minister: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always pressing us to increase Government expenditure. In our view, the right place for the cost of training is in the industry concerned. Unemployment benefit has been withdrawn this month. We feel it is right that the industry should bear the cost of industrial training since it gets the benefit of it. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State is currently discussing these issues with both sides of the industry. She has a meeting this afternoon, and we had better wait until she is able to report further on her discussions.

  UNEMPLOYMENT
  Sir C. Osborneasked the Prime Minister on what statistical evidence he based his official forecast placed before the Trades Union Congress in July, 1966, that there would be 2 million unemployed if the Government's wages freeze and squeeze policy failed.
  The Prime Minister: The figure of 2 million unemployed was an estimate of what could happen in the event of a breakdown in world trade comparable to that which occurred between the wars.
  Sir C. Osborne: The Prime Minister was reported by the Labour correspondent of The Times—the most respected man in Fleet Street for that type of work—to have given this figure of 2 million unemployed if the wages and prices and incomes policy failed. What is his estimate today?
  The Prime Minister: It was not a question of what was reported by even the most distinguished industrial correspondent. What I said privately to the T.U.C. in July, 1966, I later said publicly when I addressed the Trades Union Congress in Blackpool. I set out there in full detail what was at risk if this country and others were involved in a series of protectionist and other measures which led to a fall in world trade.
  As to the present situation, I have already answered Questions to the hon. Gentleman about the meeting that the Chancellor and I had with the T.U.C. recently. Clearly, if the prices and incomes policy were to fail and the Chancellor's Budget policy were to fail, there could be the most serious effects in terms of our earnings abroad and, therefore, on our employment. It is not possible to quantify what it would mean, but it would be a very heavy price indeed.
  Mr. Barnett: Would the Prime Minister at least make clear that the legislation will be used only as a last resort, giving the voluntary system a chance to work? Would he not agree that the prospective legislation could jeopardise the long-term prospects for a viable economic policy for a very doubtful and small amount of short-term gain?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot agree with the second part of my hon. Friend's Question. As to the first part, I would refer him to the White Paper. As to the question of integration between the voluntary system operated by the T.U.C. and our own legislation, I dealt with this at some length last Friday at the Scottish T.U.C., and I shall be placing a copy of what I said in the Library.
  Mr. Heath: What is to be the underlying trend of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, for the rest of the year?
  The Prime Minister: It is a little difficult, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, after the last two months and some doubts about the seasonal correction, to ascertain exactly what the current trend is. I would not like to make a forecast, but the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that when he spoke last autumn to the Old Bexley Conservative Ladies—[Interruption.]—Old Bexley is,

  33
  I think, the name of a place—he said, referring to this winter:
  "When we get to the three quarter of a million mark, as it will do…"
  The right hon. Gentleman knows it did not, and I hope that he will be very pleased that it did not.
  Mr. Macleod: The Prime Minister says that he is unwilling to make a forecast on this most important matter. Is he aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in response to a question from me in the Budget debate, did make a forecast of the trend, presumably seasonally adjusted? He said that it would be downwards. Is the Prime Minister contradicting that?
  The Prime Minister: It is certainly our view that trends, seasonally adjusted, will be downwards, but for the last two months the figures have not been falling as sharply as in the previous six months. That is why I do not want to try to make a detailed forecast. When export orders now being won are turned into production, we expect a seasonally corrected downturn in unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that unemployment this winter turned out to be less than it was when he was Minister of Labour, eight years after his party took office.

  FORMER FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE (DUTIES)
  Sir F. Bennettasked the Prime Minister whether he will specify the Ministers to whom the duties previously carried out by the then First Secretary of State have now been allocated.
  The Prime Minister: The House knows of the long standing convention whereby the duties of Ministers without Portfolio are not normally specified. The hon. Member can, however, be assured that they have been reallocated in the most appropriate way.
  Sir F. Bennett: In the light of that Answer, and many similar ones in the past, including some about the Paymaster-General, would the Prime Minister now like to clarify the position and tell the House whether those Ministers who previously did duties which were afterwards allocated to others with Departmental
  34
  duties were overworked then or are underworked now?
  The Prime Minister: The amount of co-ordination work and non-Departmental work in any Government is very considerable, and there will always be in any Government a number of Ministers without Portfolio and Ministers known by other titles who do these jobs. Unlike our predecessors, however, we have not a full-time party chairman on our staff.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Will my right hon. Friend explain what amount of work or any other activity these Ministers have engaged in in order to get their knighthoods?

SHACKLETON AIRCRAFT (ACCIDENT)
Mr. Corfield Mr. Corfield (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the accident to a Shackleton aircraft on 19th April, 1968 and whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the findings of the boards of inquiry into the earlier Shackleton accidents.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing profound sympathy for all who have been bereaved by these tragic accidents.
As hon. Members will realise, a Board of Inquiry has already been appointed to investigate the accident on 19th April, and it would be wrong to say anything which might prejudge the findings of the Board. All I can say at present is that the aircraft, which was a Mk 2 Shackleton, crashed near Machrihanish in bad weather while flying at low altitude. I regret there were no survivors. No evidence has been found so far to suggest any mechanical malfunction or failure.
As regards the other three accidents, inquiry proceedings in the first two cases have now been completed, and they are sufficiently advanced in the third case for me to be in a position to make a statement on the findings.
The first accident, on 4th November, 1967, involved a Mk 2 Shackleton on a transit flight between Gan in the Indian

35
Ocean and Singapore. The firm conclusion has been reached that this accident was caused by a failure of No. 4 engine which resulted in uncontrollable over-speeding of the propeller and fire. The engine fell out but with great skill the pilot brought the aircraft down on the water with the result that the lives of three of the 11 on board were saved.
The second accident, on 19th November, 1967, concerned a Mk 3 Shackleton in the South-Western approaches 200 miles off the Cornish coast. Two of the 11 on board were saved. The aircraft stalled at low level while exercising with a submarine, and there was no evidence to suggest technical failure.
The third accident in Inverness-shire on 21st December, 1967 involved a Shackleton Mk 3 in transit to an exercise area. This struck the ground at high speed in a near-vertical dive from a height of 8,000 feet. There were no survivors of the 13 on board. It has been established that there was no structural, engine or propeller failure, and there was no fire or explosion before the crash. The most likely cause of the crash is thought to have been unexpectedly severe airframe and propeller icing which resulted in loss of control.
From the findings of the inquiries into the first three accidents and from what we know so far about the fourth, no common factor can be discovered. There was, however, one previous case in 1964 which was similar in many respects to the accident in the Indian Ocean. I would point out that two of the aircraft were Mk 2 and two were Mk 3—a different and later type.
Inquiries into these accidents are always carried out with great thoroughness. In the first two of the present cases they included the evidence of survivors; in the third, the debris of the aircraft was available for examination.
The aircraft involved in these four crashes had flown respectively 5,971, 3,620, 3,814 and 2,525 hours. These are low figures in relation to the fatigue life of the aircraft. In any case, all four of these aircraft had had recent major refits. The routine replacement of aircraft parts means that the effective age of an individual aircraft is normaly much less than the date when the type entered service
36
would suggest. There is no evidence that the age of the aircraft had anything to do with any of the accidents.
When there is evidence of a serious technical defect in one aircraft which might recure in others, or if there is a series of unexplained accidents in similar circumstances, the Royal Air Force does not hesitate to ground an aircraft type, as it did recently with the Whirlwind helicopter, and with the Hastings three years ago. In the case of the Shackleton, however, in the light of the findings I have described there is no valid reason at this stage for grounding the type.
Mr. Corfield: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with the Minister's expressions of sympathy with the bereaved?
I am sure that the House and the country will be relieved to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been unable to find any common cause in the previous three accidents. We appreciate that it is far too early to ask him for any definite information as to the cause of the fourth accident, but when that information is available will he make a statement to the House, and also, in view of the fact that there is bound to be a certain amount of anxiety over these crashes, undertake to see whether the Nimrod cannot be brought into service at a somewhat earlier date than at present expected?
Mr. Rees: I will, of course, make a statement as soon as possible. The Nimrod is due to come into service during next year and the Shackletons will phase out a little beyond that date. The Nimrod is going faster than anticipated, but I cannot promise more than that.
Sir A. V. Harvey: The Minister has given a very detailed account of this unfortunate accident. In reviewing the matter further, in respect of the two cases where the aircraft hit high ground when flying at a low level, will he review carefully the training system of the crews? I do not wish to reflect in any way upon their ability, but will the Minister look into the system?
Mr. Rees: We have done that recently, and the advice that I have been given is that the crews are well trained and know

37
what they are doing, and that there is no need to alter the training programme.
Mr. Roebuck: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the fact that age had nothing to do with these crashes is made well known in Coastal Command? Can he say what is the state of morale in Coastal Command as a result of this series of crashes?
Mr. Rees: The morale in Coastal Command has traditionally been high. Naturally, there has been grief over the loss of so many friends and comrades, but I can assure the House that there is no evidence of lack of morale.
Mr. Lubbock: May I, on behalf of my party, also join in extending our deepest sympathy to the relatives of those who have been killed in this latest crash? Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister has said that there is no common factor between the four crashes, is it not a cause for very great anxiety that four crashes should take place within such a short time? Will the Minister therefore inform the House as soon as he can what steps can be taken to speed up the introduction of the Nimrod into service, and whether the date can be advanced?
Mr. Rees: On the last point, I can assure the hon. Member that the order was placed soon after October, 1964, when the Government came into office, and that it is going extremely well. The fact that it is going extremely well is the reason it gets no publicity.

BUS STRIKE, LIVERPOOL
Mr. Eric S. Heffer(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour what action she is taking to intervene in the bus strike in Liverpool, and whether she will set up an immediate independent inquiry or, alternatively, convene a meeting of all bodies concerned so that an early settlement can be reached.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): The pay of Liverpool busmen is being examined by the National Board for Prices and Incomes and it would not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to intervene or to appoint an independent inquiry; nor do we con-
38
sider that there is scope for conciliation at the present time. The corporation has indicated to the unions that as soon as work is resumed it would be prepared to negotiate a productivity bonus for all platform staff in return for a firm agreement on one-man operation.
I hope that the men will return to work on this basis.
Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a most disappointing and complacent reply? The people of Liverpool have now been walking the streets without transport for the last six weeks. The strike is now entering its seventh week. Is it not time that my hon. Friend reconsidered the possibility of an intervention, or at least put the maximum pressure on the local transport committee to reach a settlement satisfactory, both to the employees and the transport committee?
Mr. Hattersley: I am very conscious of the hardship and inconvenience caused to the people of Liverpool. My right hon. Friend, like me, regrets this state of affairs, but we are also conscious of our obligations and the corporation's obligations to the ratepayers of Liverpool. Clearly, it is not in the city's interests, or in the interests of our economy, that an agreement should go forward which cannot be justified according to the criteria of our prices and incomes policy.
Mr. Tilney: Is the Minister aware that the Conservative local administration of Liverpool would welcome an inquiry because it believes that this is a quarrel between Her Majesty's Government and the union concerned, a quarrel which is causing great hurt to the people of Liverpool, especially to the sick and old? Why did the Ministry, which had this problem before it for about three months, take that time before referring the matter to the Prices and Incomes Board?
Mr. Hattersley: If the council simply wants an inquiry, an inquiry it is getting in the form of an examination of the Committee's specific agreement with the National Board for Prices and Incomes. I am also aware, as I hope the hon. Member is, that the corporation is prepared to make an award for certain productivity agreements for one-man operation of buses. This is an award on which

39
the Minister would look with some sympathy. I hope that the men take that view as well.
Mr. Alldritt: Is my hon. Friend aware that it was not possible to reach an agreement on one-man operation until the law was changed by the Minister of Transport and that there is a basic agreement in existence which cannot be implemented? Is my hon. Friend not concerned with the fact that many of our primary public services in Liverpool may break down if this dispute is allowed to continue?
Mr. Hattersley: Yes, I am concerned about that, and so is my right hon. Friend, but her task is to decide a series of priorities. The first priority which she and her predecessor saw was to make sure that the pay of Liverpool busmen, and consequently of busmen throughout the country, was based on some realistic economic criteria.
Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman did not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) about the reasons for delays by the Government in this matter. Has not the delay largely contributed to the present unfortunate situation and is not that delay by the Government alone holding this up and causing the trouble?
Mr. Hattersley: One of the contributory factors to delay, if delay there be, is that my right hon. Friend and her predecessor thought it right to try to obtain a voluntary agreement whereby this demand was not made rather than to use compulsory powers. As I understand that that is the prices and incomes policy of the right hon. Gentleman, he should be applauding rather than criticising it.
Mr. Simon Mahon: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great degree of hardship in the Port of Liverpool today? Most people in Liverpool are of the opinion that the set of circumstances I speak about would not be tolerated in the great Port of London? Therefore, we are asking the Government to display a greater sense of urgency in bringing this very difficult and trying dispute to an end. I am speaking personally to the Government when I say that I am very disap-
40
pointed. I expected better results and immediate intervention by the Government.
Mr. Hattersley: I am happy to say again that we are most conscious of the inconvenience and regretful for it, but there is no point in comparing one agreement which might have been accepted with another which by the standards of my right hon. Friend is unacceptable. One must look at these proposals on their merits, and on their merits they are not and cannot be acceptable.
Mr. Fortescue: In view of the conditions in Liverpool during the strike and after, when a great number of platform men will have found other jobs, will the hon. Gentleman recommend to his right hon. Friend that the decision she took to close a suburban railway line in Liverpool should now be reversed?
Mr. Hattersley: That is not a question for me.

EUROPEAN SPACE POLICY
The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): With permission, I should like to make a statement about European Space Policy.
As the House will know, the Government have been considering the report of the Advisory Committee on Programmes set up by the 1967 Rome Space Conference to make proposals for the development of a European space programme. This Report—known as the Causse Report—is due to be discussed at the European Space Conference to be held in Bonn this summer, and all the Governments concerned were asked to make their views known on its recommendations in time for preliminary discussion by the Committee of Alternates at a meeting which had been fixed for today.
Our examination of the Causse Report has paid particular regard to its evaluation of the economic benefits of the proposed programmes. On the main issues raised, our conclusions were as follows.
First, as to launchers. A further development programme of the E.L.D.O. launcher, beyond that to which we are committed, and which ends in 1971, cannot now be justified. The development

41
and production costs of E.L.D.O. launchers would have been prohibitive; and the potential applications for them, both limited and speculative. We therefore decided not to undertake any additional financial commitments to E.L.D.O.
Second, as to the C.E.T.S. project for an experimental T.V. relay satellite. The Causse Report states clearly that this could not yield a commercially viable project unless at least all the research and development costs, both of the satellite and the launcher, were completely and totally written off. Whatever the long-term merits of such a project we consider that in present circumstances it would not be an economically justifiable use of scarce resources, and that for this reason it would not be right for us to participate in the project.
Third, as to the scientific programme. We decided to agree some increase in expenditure in this field over the next three years—though not to the full extent recommended by the Causse Report. Allowing for other claims on the funds available for science, we can support an average increase of not more than 6 per cent. per annum on the 1968 E.S.R.O. budget of 250 million francs.
Having reached their conclusions, the Government decided that it would be right to let them be known as soon as possible. They therefore communicated these to the other Governments concerned, and to E.L.D.O. and E.S.R.O. last week. Because of the likelihood that this would then become public knowledge, I thought it right to issue a short statement at the same time.
The Government realised that these decisions would be a disappointment to some and would be criticised by others, but it would be quite wrong to conclude from them either that we were opting out of space or turning our backs on Europe. Every Government is having to decide for itself whether these proposals represent an economically justiable use of scarce resources. In our view, it really would not make sense for Europe to develop its own total independent capability, regardless of cost and benefit. The Government have, of course, weighed the political arguments in favour of the Causse proposals for E.L.D.O. and C.E.T.S., but do not consider that they outweigh the strong economic arguments against them. We shall all have to think
42
about what limited capability in space technology will enable us all to take up economically justified applications as and when they emerge.
These decisions follow directly from our general approach to European collaboration and the problem of the technological gap between the United States and Europe. We are concentrating upon the development of industrial policies which will promote collaboration between European industries. The efforts of Government should be directed to reinforcing the industrial potential which Europe already possesses.
European scale industries are essential if we are to generate the vast sums required for research, development and marketing to allow Europe to compete industrially on more or less equal terms with the advanced technological industries of the United States. This need is urgent and critical to the very existence of certain industries with a great growth potential, such as computers, electronics, airframes and nuclear energy.
The Government's proposal for a European Centre for Technology is expressly designed to explore the further possibilities of collaboration between industries and to identify the obstacles to the development of European industrial capability designed to meet the assessed needs.
Joint inter-governmental projects on many of which we are engaged have a rôle, provided that they are soundly based, promise benefits commensurate with the expenditure involved and are relevant to Europe's broad industrial objectives, but projects which are economically unsound do not become desirable merely because they are undertaken internationally. The Causse proposals did not pass the necessary tests of cost and benefit and we believe that they are inconsistent with the need to concentrate limited technological and financial effort on those areas which will contribute most to strengthening Europe's industrial capabilities, which must be done if Europe is to develop its economic and political potential to the full.
Mr. Corfield: In view of the fact that the Minister has told us that the Causse Report is due to be discussed at the European Space Conference in Bonn later this year, is it not abundantly clear that a definite statement by the British

43
Government in advance of those discussions cuts right across the concept of any idea of European co-operation in technology or anything else? Will the Minister say what consultations he has had with British industrial firms concerned in relation to redeployment of resources concerned? What assurances has he had from the American Government that American launcher facilities will remain available? Will he use his good offices with the Leader of the House to ensure that we may debate this matter at a later date?
Mr. Benn: A debate would be for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I will convey the hon. Gentleman's point to him.
I had consultations with my right hon. Friends and my European opposite numbers. We were urged by all those who were participating to make their views known to the Causse Report as soon as possible. Indeed, in the House I was asked to allow it to be known as soon as possible what view the Government would take. The industrial interests concerned have made their views known to us about the development of space and we took them fully into account in taking the decision.
We have had launchings by the United States but its attitude towards launchings could not by itself be decisive.
Mr. Wyatt: Is the Minister aware that he is wrapping up a thoroughly unsatisfactory decision in a pseudo commercial mumbo-jumbo? That does not conceal the fact that£135 million will have been spent by us on Blue Streak and in other ways by 1971 and that we are now jibbing at making a payment of£10 million a year from then on to keep a project going in which all our money will otherwise have been wasted?
Mr. Benn: I hope that my hon. Friend is not blaming me for Blue Streak, but the answer to his argument is really this, that when it becomes apparent that a programme cannot be economic even if the research and development is written off it makes a lot more sense to do what we are doing and put money into an airbus engine, shipbuilding, computers, machine tools, or any technology which leads to a return on our balance of payments.
Mr. Marten: Referring to the question my hon. Friend asked, could the Minister confirm that he had no direct consultations with the National Industrial Space Committee before the decision was taken, that Committee having been set up precisely for this purpose? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman say how long Blue Streak remained in production and what effect this decision has on Black Arrow, if any?
Mr. Benn: On the first point, the decision was a decision for the Government to take. The views of industry were represented to us consistently, and the most recent views were conveyed to us before the decision was taken. The future of Blue Streak in part depends on the decision to be taken by the E.L.D.O. Council in May and in part by the conference on space due to be held in June. As far as Black Arrow is concerned, this programme is continuing.
Mr. Palmer: Could my hon. Friend say whether the engineering departments of the Post Office and the British Broadcasting Corporation were consulted on the Government's decision? If so, are they happy about the decision?
Mr. Benn: All the Governmental interests concerned, including, of course, the Post Office, were brought into discussions which took place about this particular programme, but the application of a television satellite in Europe was considered against the likely needs of Eurovision itself, which incorporates and includes the broadcasting authorities in this country, and would not have justified the expenditure involved.
Mr. Lubbock: While it is very disappointing for us to have to opt out of space launchers, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we think that the worst service he could possibly do to European technology would be to embark on projects which have no economic justification? In his studies of the costs and benefits did he take into account the long-term application for launching systems beyond those proposed by C.E.T.S.? Can he say whether, if E.L.D.O. decides to continue, we shall be able to sell it Blue Streak launchers?
Mr. Benn: I cannot answer the latter part of the question because it will be

45
for the E.L.D.O. Council to decide what to do. As far as the long-term application of space is concerned, there is no doubt whatsoever of its importance. The question for us to decide was whether or not the proposed programme as put to us was economically justifiable. By all the tests, we decided not to support the proposal.
I would strongly agree with what the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks, that the worst disservice one could do to European collaboration would be to go forward with an uneconomic project and justify it simply because it is being paid for by a number of other countries.
Mr. Moonman: In reaching his decision, did my right hon. Friend take into account the total commitment to European space and science technology? If not, would he consider setting up some priorities which would be a great advantage to politicians and specialists in Europe?
Mr. Benn: Yes, we did give very full consideration to European technological collaboration. It was for this reason that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister brought forward his proposals for a European technological institute at the Guildhall last November, which are now being followed up actively by C.B.I. and its sister organisations; and I have had the opportunity of discussing them with the European Ministers concerned. We believe strongly that it is in the direction of industrial collaboration in advanced technology that Europe will be able to make good the gap between itself and the United States.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would the right hon. Gentleman make available in the form of a White Paper the Causse Report so that we could have an opportunity of assessing its full merits and importance in the same way that we had an opportunity over the 300 GeV accelerator?
Mr. Bean: As the hon. Gentleman must be aware, the Report was published some time ago.
Mr. Robert Howarth: While appreciating the disappointment in scientific and industrial circles, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would confirm
46
that the limited resources would be better spent on developing a V.T.O.L. inter-cities aircraft for which there is a clear European and British requirement?
Mr. Benn: It was, of course, by trying to balance up the alternative advantages of investment in different fields that we reached the conclusion which we have reached. I have citied some of the examples of Government commitments to advance technology. There will be about£50 million for RB211 launching aid, for shipbuilding about£52½million; for computers,£17 million, as recently announced; and, of course, there is the work on the surface transport side as well, including£2 million for the hover train, which may have an inter-cities application, quite apart from the possibility of a vertical or short take-off feeder aircraft for the 'seventies.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does not the Government's decision mean that France will be the only space Power in Europe? Does it not also mean that in a few years, when there is world television, it will be dominated by United States, with all the implications of that? How does this square up with the Prime Minister's speech to the Council of Europe, at Strasbourg, about Britain's taking a lead in a technological community?
Mr. Benn: I think, if I may say so, that the hon. Gentleman really misunderstands technology. He thinks that anything which is advanced is by itself, regardless of economic consequences, worth pursuing. There could be no greater disservice to technology than to suggest that anything which is technological should be supported, or that this country, or even Europe, can necessarily take on every possible advanced field.
The European space position will have to be considered by the Governments concerned. I would not accept that the result of this decision will be to leave France alone as the major space Power.
Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us support what he has done as being realistic, but can he say to what extent we envisage supporting E.S.R.O.—to the extent outlined in the Causse Report?
Mr. Benn: I tried to answer that in my original statement. The Departmental responsibilities lie with my right hon.

47
Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Broadly speaking, we have agreed that within a growth ceiling of 6 per cent. for the existing programme—that is, up to 1971, the current three-year programme—we shall be prepared to see an increase in expenditure. The Causse Report as a whole recommended an increase of 10 per cent. for European space, and we believe that this is a realistic total.

BROADCASTING EXPERIMENT
Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, about the odious glass cage on my left and the reason for its making its appearance underneath the Gallery. On whose instructions was it placed there, without the House of Commons as a whole giving its approval? What is its purpose? Is it intended as a safe place for Ministers answering Questions, or is it, and perhaps better, intended as a permanent resting place for and memorial to the last Leader of the House?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer the emotive part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The Services Committee made a recommendation to the House, which the House approved. I cannot give the date.
Mr. Peyton: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we to understand that if the Services Committee, in its wisdom or otherwise, makes a recommendation to the House, the House thereafter must expect that recommendation to go through, without having an opportunity to debate it?
Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate now something which the hon. Gentleman had
48
an opportunity to debate when the recommendation came before the House.

BROADCASTING EXPERIMENT
  THEFT BILL [Lords]
  Referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Peart.]
  SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
  Ordered, That the Matter of Gale Damage in Scotland, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for their consideration.—[Mr. Peart.]

  SCOTTISH ESTIMATES
  Estimates set out hereunder referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:

  Class III, Vote 2, Scottish Home and Health Department;

  Class III, Vote 4, Scottish Home and Health Department (Civil Defence Services);

  Class III, Vote 6, Police, Scotland;

  Class III, Vote 8, Prisons, Scotland;

  Class III, Vote 10, Child Care, Scotland;

  Class III, Vote 15, Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland;

  Class VI, Vote 2, Scottish Development Department.

  Class VI, Vote 8, Rate Support Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland;

  Class VII, Vote 2, Scottish Education Department;

  Class VII, Vote 4, Teachers Superannuation (Scotland).—[Mr. Peart.]

  EXCHANGE OF YOUNG PERSONS
  4.1 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Foundation to promote the exchange of young persons between Great Britain and Europe; and for connected purposes.
  Obviously, the House is impatient to get on with what it rightly regards as more important and serious business, but it is, nevertheless, a strange coincidence that this afternoon I should be asking leave to introduce this Bill, for it is at least equally concerned with the involved legacies of race, nationality and religion which have vexed the peoples and statesmen of Europe for centuries and will doubtless continue to do so, quite apart from the novel complications of colour. They will continue to do so unless we do something about it, and what my Bill does is to propose what a small part of that something might be. All I can hope to do today is to convince the House that it is essential, constructive and nonpolitical. Inevitably, it would cost some money, and it must be part of my purpose to justify that cost. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The House decided some time ago that Bills coming forward under the Ten Minute Rule should be introduced at this time. It must listen to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Lloyd: It is my belief that the cost also can be justified.
  I hope that, after the Easter disturbances, the House will not be totally unsympathetic in its mood towards youth. Youth is concerned, passionate and often irresponsible; and it is the view of many that those qualities apply to this House, too. But, whatever our views of modern youth or Parliament may be, the legislators of tomorrow must be drawn from the youth of today, and both parties are under notice that they must improve on their present performance. Hounded as we are by dogma and stereotyped thinking, the victims of historical and political prejudice built into our education systems, it is surprising that we succeed in governing at all.
  We succeed, I suppose, in the great Parliamentary democracies because truth
  50
  and common sense have managed to maintain survival courses and have, therefore, survived. But there is a profound and widespread feeling that some of the problems which we consider in this Chamber ought never to reach us here at all if only Governments would act with courage and conviction and permit others to do so as well.
  Two extremely promising new weapons will shortly be making their contribution to the battle against national and racial prejudice, prejudice which was, as I think the Prime Minister will agree, largely responsible for our present exclusion from Europe. These are the non-nationalist history textbooks and the language translating computer which may be in general use by the year 1980. But we must do something before then.
  The reason I am bringing this problem before the House today is that in 1963—I emphasise the date—the Governments of France and Germany jointly adopted a policy which has had and will have the most profound and far-reaching effects on relationships between their peoples and their Governments. The order is important, for, in the last resort, it is the broad pattern of relationships between peoples which determines and sets limits to what Governments can do.
  What those Governments did was to set up an international foundation to promote the movement of French and German youth across their frontiers and to endow this foundation with a joint income of about£4 million equivalent a year. In no more than three years, it has arranged for nearly 1½million young French and Germans to visit Germany and France. It has been an outstanding success, and the identical Act passed by both the French and German Parliaments is the direct inspiration of my Bill.
  What I propose is that we should pass a similar Measure which will enable Great Britain, first, to link directly on a reciprocal basis into the French and German scheme, since, however important all the other facets of European co-operation may be, these two countries, France and Germany, must always play a central rôle in the development of Europe, as we intend and deserve to do. Here is an opportunity to make our intention plain.

  51
  I cannot believe that there are any conceivable grounds on which such a move could be opposed either here or on the Continent, since the object must surely be to make us better Europeans by almost any acceptable standards on which that term is judged. But we must demonstrate at the outset that we take a wide view of Europe and of our obligations to all its peoples. I have, therefore, suggested that the Bill should include—while not in any way limiting us to it—the promotion of youth exchange between Britain, France and Germany. Europe is an elastic term, and, since one object of the Bill is to render geographical frontiers unimportant, I can see no point in a limiting geographical definition.
  We already have in this country several organisations which are doing splendid work in this field, in particular, the Central Bureau for Educational Visits—a largely Government organisation—the British Council and innumerable voluntary organisations operating on a local, professional or special interest front. The first question which hon. Members may rightly ask is: are not these enough? Would we not be merely duplicating their work? There are three short answers. First, these organisations themselves would argue that they are barely scratching the surface of the problem, and, further, that they are missing untold opportunities. Second, they would point to the vast gaps in the whole field of youth exchange where we are being left behind seriously by developments in Europe, particularly in the exchange of young workers as opposed to those in the academic sphere. Third, we cannot possibly hope, with a national expenditure in this field which certainly does not exceed£100,000, to achieve a fraction of what France and Germany each considers to justify a budget equivalent to£2 million.
  May I attempt to dramatise the problem by placing it briefly in the context of the city which I have the honour to represent. Young representatives of two Portsmouth schools have been involved
  52
  in this project from the outset and are here in this building this afternoon. The City of Portsmouth has a population of about 250,000. Its Youth Organisation Committee attempted last year to promote educational and exchange visits on a total budget which could not have exceeded—for a city of 250,000££1,300, including a British Council per capita grant of£1 to£2 per person. This works out at the staggering sum of 1½d. per person per annum. Other cities may do better than this, but the evidence suggests that financial support from both central and local government is piteously inadequate.
  As Mr. McNamara once told his interrogators, "enough" is a function of what else is important. Doubtless, the Government will tell the House that for every£1 which they save on the defence budget, on E.L.D.O. or otherwise, there are at least five claimants. I have no hesitation in becoming the sixth, for, if Her Majesty's Government were to decide that they would spend 1 per cent. of what they save in that direction on promoting the exchange of young people, this would be one of the best investments or insurance premiums which this or any other Government ever made.
  A widening perspective of European achievement is the best guarantee we have that the young people of this island will respond in a fitting and constructive manner to the challenge which lies ahead of us all.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ian Lloyd, Dame Irene Ward, Sir Geoffrey de Freitas, Mr. Dodds-Parker, Mr. William Hamling, Mr. Peter Bessell, and Mr. Gwynfor Evans.

  EXCHANGE OF YOUNG PERSONS
  Bill to establish a Foundation to promote the exchange of young persons between Great Britain and Europe; and for connected purposes, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th May and to be printed. [Bill 133.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RACE RELATIONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: May I announce that I have selected the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) and his right hon. Friends.
  May I also say, at this stage, that today, as on so many occasions, many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak—more than 50, in fact—and that we can have a true picture of the varied opinions of the House on this important topic only if those called will speak briefly.
  4.11 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill was foreshadowed last summer by my predecessor, who indicated then that the Government intended to legislate further on race relations, and his intention was confirmed in the programme set out in the Queen's Speech.
  The House has rarely faced an issue of greater social significance for our country and our children. We are discussing a subject which is heavily charged with emotion, in which there is nothing easier than to fan the flames of suspicion and resentment or of fear. That is not the responsibility, I suggest, of the House of Commons today. We are called upon to lead the country and our fellow men and women away from a prospect of strife and enmity and towards a society in which we shall live in freedom and in peace with each other, no matter what may be our race or our colour.
  This is a time for responsibility, for leadership and, if I may dare to use the word, for nobility. My starting point is that a society is most healthy and most free from tension when it is based on the simple principle that every citizen within its boundaries shares equally in the same freedoms, the same responsibilities, the same opportunities and the same benefits. The history of the British people is a story of struggle to achieve full citizenship in our own country. It would be a denial of our own history if, having won
  54
  these freedoms for ourselves, we were now to exclude other groups who have come to live here as full citizens.
  None of us can shrink from the challenge of racialism. It is a live force in this country, but I believe that it is not yet deeply rooted, and this Bill puts to the test what our response is to be. Legislation, of course, cannot stand alone. I have frequently said—the Leader of the Opposition has also taken this view—that it needs to be supported by effective social policies, but, on the other hand, social policies by themselves will not be sufficient without legislation.
  I outlined to the House on an earlier occasion what the Government are doing, particularly in financial assistance for local authorities with special immigrant problems. Those with more than 2 per cent. of immigrants within their areas have a prima facie claim for special grant; last year, 57 such authorities submitted claims in respect of expenditure totalling more than£3 million, and I expect that figure to be higher this year. The Government will keep this aspect of the matter under continuing review, being mindful of the great pressures to which a number of local authorities are subject in matters of education, housing and training.
  The Government have also set in hand studies of a number of other problems connected with immigration. These studies are concerned with both social and economic questions. In this work, we hope to enlist the aid of universities and other institutions, and I intend to take an active part myself in overseeing the assembly of the necessary information, much of which is lacking at the moment, and the programme and nature of the research work which needs to be done. In matters of race, so much of our prejudice springs from ignorance and from fear. Knowledge and understanding are the essential prerequisites, and are, therefore, the enemies of prejudice.
  It is argued by some that legislation will do more harm than good. I might find this argument harder to rebut if we did not have the evidence of the 1965 Act to call upon. The same criticism, that it would do more harm than good, was made before that Bill reached the Statute Book—made, indeed, by some

  55
  senior Members of the House who are present this afternoon. They said then that it would do more harm than good, but they would be bound to admit now that experience has proved them wrong.
  It is clear from the evidence of the Race Relations Board in its annual Report, and from other quarters, that legislation has proved of value in the limited field to which the 1965 Act applied. Let me quote from paragraph 22 of the Report, on the mere declaratory aspect of that law:
  "The mere passage of the law probably decreased the incidence of discrimination."
  Again, in paragraph 26:
  "The Board is satisfied that conciliation would have been virtually imposstible were it not for the sanctions provided in the Act."
  There is also the evidence from the United States that the very declaration of what the law is tends to lessen discrimination in practice.
  Mr. Anthony Lewis, the chief correspondent in London of the New York Times, wrote in the London Times yesterday, referring to the United States:
  "…the legislation works because most people in our two countries are basically law-abiding and will adjust to a changed legal framework."
  I attach great importance to the declaratory nature of the first part of the Bill. I believe that what Mr. Lewis said is profoundly true, and that the very process of giving the law brings an instinctive response from the great majority of our citizens.
  The legislation which I am proposing does not seek to put any group in a privileged position. There is evidence that coloured people suffer from grave disadvantages on matters like housing and jobs. To remove those disadvantages and place them on the same footing as their fellows is not to create a privileged class. What the Bill is concerned with is equal rights, equal responsibilities and equal opportunities, and it is, therefore, a Bill for the whole nation and not just for minority groups. Its purpose is to protect society as a whole against actions which will lead to social disruption, and to prevent the emergence of a class of second-grade citizens.
  Of course, legislation cannot make us love one another. Nor can it change our hearts. One cannot legislate prejudice
  56
  out of existence, but legislation can ensure that prejudice does not show itself overtly in acts of discrimination which provide a favourable breeding ground for resentment and bitterness.
  The Bill comprises three main elements. There is, first, a declaration of public policy that discrimination is unlawful on grounds of race, colour, ethnic group or nationality. The second main element is a process of conciliation. Under the Bill, machinery is provided for hearing all parties and all sides to the argument with a view to reconciling the differences. The third main element in the Bill is the enforcement provisions that will come into play if, and only if, the process of conciliation breaks down and the Race Relations Board decides to take further action. These three elements depend upon each other; they form a common pattern.
  I shall now describe some of the Clauses. Clause 1 is the definition Clause. Clause 2 does two things. First, it extends the range of public places in which discrimination on racial grounds will be unlawful, and it also extends the scope of the legislation to cover the provision of goods, facilities and services. The Bill, therefore, covers all the situations in which people meet for the common exchanges of ordinary living, in shops, in public parks, in hotels, public houses and boarding houses, in the cinema and the holiday camp, in buses and trains, in interviews with the bank manager, in negotiations with an estate agent, as the purchaser of an insurance policy, or an applicant for a mortgage.
  These are examples of the areas in which discrimination on grounds of race or colour will be unlawful under the Bill. But the Bill will not inhibit the exercise of proper commercial judgment in, for example, situations such as the assessment of insurance premiums or the consideration of individual creditworthiness.
  Clauses 3, 4 and 8 deal with employment. There are some encouraging signs that coloured people are being accepted in industry on their merits; but on the evidence it is abundantly clear that coloured people are handicapped in their search for work despite their qualifications. Some of them are refused the promotion to more responsible posts to

  57
  which their qualifications entitle them. Perhaps some of the first generation immigrants are resigned to this. But there will be growing tension if coloured youngsters leaving school in the next few years cannot readily get jobs for which they are qualified on the same terms as their white contemporaries. There is evidence that this is happening now; and these are the children who are, and who will be, the product of our own education system, brought up in our own traditions. It hardly needs me to underline the danger to our society if intelligent, high-spirited young people are marked down as second-class citizens because of their colour.
  There is a great deal of industrial statemanship among employers and trade union leaders and many are concerned to prevent this problem. While I very much welcome the voluntary efforts which they are making, I propose to strengthen those efforts by legislation. Therefore, discrimination in employment matters will, under the Bill, become unlawful.
  Clause 8 contains certain exceptions which deal with such matters as domestic employment and sleeping accommodations for ships' crews. In neither instance, given the personal nature of the relationships involved, does the Bill place legal obligations on the persons concerned.
  An exception in Clause 8(1) provides that the employment provisions of the Bill shall not apply during the first two years to employers with not more than 10 employees and in the third year to employers with not more than five employees. This is a temporary and precautionary provision.
  In drafting the legislation I have proceeded on the basis that for practical reasons industry should make the maximum use of its own machinery for conciliation. I have a considerable knowledge of that machinery and a great respect for it and I have no doubt that complaints of racial discrimination will be best settled by using industry's own procedures. But, regretfully, there are still considerable areas in the employment field where no effective joint industrial machinery is available or in prospect. Clause 15 and Schedule 2 therefore introduce statutory procedures for dealing with complaints which take full account of the present methods of
  58
  conciliation where they exist and cover the situation where they do not.
  Complaints made to the Race Relations Board on matters of employment will be referred by the Board in the first instance to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary. If she is satisfied that the industry concerned has suitable machinery for dealing with the complaint, she will pass it on to that machinery. If there is no suitable machinery, the complaint will be investigated by the Board with the assistance of its conciliation committees as necessary.
  Where the voluntary machinery settles the complaint, it will be required to report the terms of the settlement to the parties concerned and to the First Secretary; and it must also report to the First Secretary whether or not it has settled the case, not later than four weeks after receiving the complaint. It is the Government's expectation, and that of industry also, that the great majority of cases can be settled within this period, but there will be provision for further time to reach a settlement if that seems necessary. My right hon. Friend will keep the Board informed of the nature of the settlements reached.
  Should the voluntary industrial machinery report that it has been unable to settle a complaint to the satisfaction of all parties, the First Secretary will report that fact to the Board. It will then be open to the Board, if it sees fit, to discuss the case with the voluntary machinery, to refer the complaint back to it for further consideration, or alternatively, to make its own investigations.
  The interaction between the voluntary conciliation machinery that already exists in industry and the work of the Board is of the greatest importance. I am, therefore, glad to inform the House that Sir Roy Wilson, the President of the Industrial Court, has agreed to serve on the new and enlarged Race Relations Board. His unrivalled knowledge and experience will be invaluable to both sides in this field.
  I further propose, after consultation with the First Secretary, the Confederation of British Industry and the T.U.C., to appoint two other members to the Board, with special knowledge of industry. This procedure will need to be kept under review, but I believe that,

  59
  with the co-operation of both sides of industry, we have forged a workable and practical scheme.
  In approving the Board's arrangements under Clause 13(3), I shall require the Board to ensure that complaints about employment are dealt with under the general direction of the Board by a subcommittee which includes these two members and has Sir Roy Wilson as its first chairman.
  I turn now to Clause 5, which deals with the discrimination that is practised in the matter of letting and selling property. The scope of legislation to make discrimination in housing unlawful presents perhaps the most difficult problem of all.
  First, it is important that local authority housing should be covered. Many local authorities are already making great efforts to deal with their own problems in this field. I believe that the House will agree that it would be wrong to deny any citizen whose need is established the kind of council house available to anyone else merely on grounds of his race or his colour, especially as such housing is supplied through public funds.
  But the majority of immigrants do not look to local authorities for their housing and the Government have, therefore, had to consider very carefully the question of bringing private housing within the scope of the Bill. This is a very personal and sensitive matter. Clearly, a person must be free to decide to whom he will sell his house and this Bill does not require a person disposing of his house to sell or let it to a particular individual. But it is a different matter to refuse to sell a house on grounds of racial prejudice or to deny anyone the right to buy on those grounds alone. The principle of making racial discrimination unlawful must, therefore, apply in this field as in others.
  This is a field in which conciliation must have and will have a major rôle to play. It is not an area in which the ultimate power of the law is likely to be an appropriate weapon in any but the most blatant and flagrant case; within the terms of the Bill I shall expect the Race Relations Board to use the full scope of its conciliation procedures to
  60
  reconcile the differences referred to it, and to secure equality of treatment between those who are disposing of their property and those who are seeking no more than decent homes for themselves and their children to live in.
  Therefore, it is not my intention, because I place great weight on the conciliation procedures of the Board, to provide the Board or the courts with power to issue interim injunctions to require the sale of a house to a particular person. It will be open to the Board—not to the complainant—to take the vendor to court to obtain damages for the complainant, both in respect of his material loss and in respect of loss of opportunity of obtaining the benefit of buying the house. But I would expect this to be done only in extreme cases of blatant refusal to sell on openly expressed racial grounds.
  The main effect of Clause 5, as I see it, is that the public in general will be guided in the conduct of their affairs by the principles laid down in the Clause; and that the ordinary business of negotiation between individuals will not be influenced by considerations of race or colour.
  Clause 25 provides that the new legislation shall bind the Crown, and thus makes Government Departments account-table to the Board. The public service has an exemplary record of non-discrimination, but the Government consider that to give a lead to the country as a whole on this matter members of the public service who might feel they have a grievance should be free to take their cases to the Board. But as Ministers are responsible to Parliament for the conduct of their Departments, it is sufficient that I should make arrangements with the Board under which allegations of discrimination against a Government Department will be referred to the appropriate Minister.
  The Minister will investigate the complaint and endeavour to satisfy the Board that it has been properly dealt with. If the Board is not satisfied with the action taken in a particular instance, it can refer to the case in its annual report, which I am required to lay before Parliament, when it can be debated and discussed and the conduct of the Minister concerned can be called into question.
  Clause 10 provides that anything done for the purposes of safeguarding national

  61
  security will not be unlawful under the Bill and that a certificate signed by or on behalf of the responsible Minister shall be decisive in indicating to the Board that national security is involved. The security procedures apply equally to all who have access to Government classified information, irrespective of race or colour.
  The Crown will retain discretion in the case of those engaged on secret work, particularly those concerned with defence. The Crown will also retain discretion to apply nationality rules to employment in the Civil Service, the Armed Forces, and the Diplomatic Service. This is provided for in subsection (6) of Clause 25. The United Nations Handbook on Civil Service Law and Practices points out that most countries have rules of this sort. In essence, they provide that established recruits to the public service must be British citizens. They are not discriminatory in the racial sense.
  Although the police are not, as a matter of law, employees, the House will note a provision in subsection (2) of Clause 25 applying the employment provision to them as though they were.
  The House should also know that I am about to consult the Police Advisory Board on a proposed regulation amending the Police Discipline Code to provide that it shall be an offence for any police officer to discriminate against anyone on grounds of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins. I am in no doubt that under the existing code of conduct chief officers of police would have taken disciplinary action against any officer guilty of such discrimination, but the proposed regulation will ensure that specific provision is made for this type of offence.
  The Bill provides that the legislation will be administered by a Race Relations Board. The present Board, to whose work I should like to pay a warm tribute, consists of only three members. Clearly, with the considerable extension of its operations which the Bill proposes, it will be necessary to increase its membership, and subsection (2) of Clause 13 provides that the new Board shall consist of a chairman and not more than 11 other members. I hope that with a Board of this size it will be possible to select members who can command the confidence of all those with whom it will have to deal.
  62
  In addition to appointing Sir Roy Wilson and two representatives of industry, I propose that one member of the Board, whom I would appoint after consultation with the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the local authority associations, should have a special knowledge of local authority housing. I intend to select the other members of the Board on as wide a basis as possible, including members of the immigrant communities.
  Clause 13 also provides for the continuation of the system of conciliation committees under which the Board at present operates, and which, because they are drawn from leaders of local opinion, are doing such good work.
  Clause 14 emphasises that the first duty of the Board and its committees is to attempt to settle cases by conciliation between the parties concerned. I lay considerable emphasis on this procedure, which seems to me to be the key to the success of the legislation.
  Clause 18 provides that proceedings for enforcement in England and Wales may be brought by the Race Relations Board in specially designated county courts. These courts will sit with two assessors having special knowledge and experience of problems connected with race and community relations. Similar provisions for Scotland are contained in Clause 19.
  Clause 18 also empowers the Board to seek an injunction and to seek damages, either separately or together with an injunction. Damages provide an appropriate remedy against single acts of discrimination which have resulted in an individual suffering material loss. The Bill provides not only for payment of actual expenses incurred but for what is described as "loss of opportunity"; that is, the loss of any benefit which a person might have expected to receive but for an act of discrimination. I do not expect that the amount of damages involved would normally be very large but there may be cases in which a claimant can demonstrate substantial loss as a result of an act of discrimination, and I think that this should be payable in full if the case can be proved.
  Clauses 18 to 22 have been criticised because they do not give powers of enforcement to the Race Relations Board

  63
  itself or enable it to summon witnesses or demand the production of documents. I shall, of course, listen to what is said in Committee on this point, but I would remind the House that the essential task of the Board is to settle cases of discrimination by conciliation, and at present I think that it would be inconsistent with this to give the Board judicial authority or compulsory powers. Nor do I believe that the Board will be unduly limited in its conciliation procedures by the absence of compulsory powers. The possibility of court proceedings will always be in the background, and this will be reinforced by the fact that under Clause 18 the Board, and not the Attorney-General, as under the present Act, will be empowered to bring proceedings to the courts.
  Clause 23 constitutes a statutory commission to be known as the Community Relations Commission, and sets out its terms of reference. This Commission will replace the present National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, which was appointed in 1965 by the Prime Minister, with the Archbishop of Canterbury as chairman. The functions of the Commission will be broadly the same as those of the existing Committee, whose task has been to foster good race relations in this country but, with the Committee's agreement, I have taken the opportunity of altering its name and revising its terms of reference slightly to take account of the changing situation.
  As time goes by, the Commission will be more concerned with the problems of the second generation—those born and brought up in this country who are distinguishable from the rest of us only by the colour of their skin. The new terms of reference, therefore, direct the work of the Community Relations Commission to the more general question of community relations in a multi-racial society. The Government attach the utmost importance to voluntary effort in that connection, and it is our intention, by creating this new body on a statutory basis, to give added point and emphasis to its work.
  In deference to your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have tried to keep as short as possible my description of the main points of the Bill. There will be a great deal to be said in Committee on these
  64
  and many other matters that I have discussed, but I have endeavoured to set out the broad outline upon which the Government believe it right to proceed, having regard to our experience to date.
  Before I conclude, I wish to refer to the Amendment put down by the Opposition, and to their attitude to the problem of race discrimination. The Amendment itself is obscure, and on a matter as important as this, especially in the light of recent events, I do ask for a precise and clear statement of the Official Opposition's policy. Let me see how far we move together in this matter. The Amendment says that racial discrimination is to be condemned. We all fully accept that. The Leader of the Opposition told us in the letter he wrote to Mr. Humphry Berkeley last week that more and better housing should be provided for immigrants, there should be more school places and improved health facilities. This we accept, too. It is already part of Government policy, although it hardly chimes with constant Opposition calls for reductions in public expenditure. However, that is an argument for another day. We march together so far in our desire in this matter.
  Then I understand that the official Opposition want to control the numbers of immigrants coming into the country. That, too, is not only the policy of the Opposition, but of the Government. What is more important, it is being carried out. It is a matter of degree. The number of voucher holders arriving has been limited. Let me give the figures to the House now, and they will see what the pattern of arrival of voucher-holders is. In 1963, 30,125 voucher-holders arrived; in 1964, 14,705; in 1965, 12,880; in 1966, 5,461; in 1967, 4,978. There has been a most remarkable decline in the number of voucher-holders arriving in the country.
  How, then, to explain the large number of dependants arriving in these islands? It is larger than the number of voucher-holders would seem to justify. The explanation is a clear one. The backlog of dependants are now arriving in this country whose breadwinner arrived several years ago and who has by his work and his savings been able now to afford to send for them.

  65
  I understand from what the Leader of the Opposition has said that he would regard it as inhuman to keep families separated. I agree with him. It must surely provide family stability when they join the breadwinner and he is able to provide for them. But, over the next few years, it must be clear, with the tightened provisions that have been contained in legislation and practice, that the number of dependants reaching this country will decline, because the number of voucher-holders itself has been sharply reduced.
  So far, I do not think that there is any difference in principle on all these issues, although there may be some differences of emphasis between the Government and the official Opposition.
  I come now to the final question, and it is this. I want to address a question to the spokesman for the Opposition. It is one to which I think the country is entitled to have an answer and about which the Amendment is singularly cloudy. It is a basic question of principle. Do the Official Opposition believe that it is right to legislate to make discrimination unlawful? It is essential to have a clear answer from the Official Opposition on this subject. Either they are in favour of the principle or they are against it. They cannot be modern Laodicians—neither hot nor cold.
  Tonight, they will seek to reject the principle of the Bill. The Bill will fall if their Amendment is carried. The principle embodied in the Bill is that racial discrimination should be made unlawful. What is impossible for me to understand is why they take a different attitude to industrial relations from the attitude that they take to race relations.
  Let me quote the official Conservative pamphlet which was issued with the authority of the Leader of the Opposition:
  "No Act of Parliament will make people like each other or understand each other. But acceptance of this does not mean that the Government can therefore do little to influence the situation; that it should just sit on the sidelines exhorting people to change their attitudes and habits and providing voluntary conciliation machinery when disputes arise. The concept of freedom under the law is fundamental. But if that freedom is abused by irresponsible elements to the detriment of the nation or to the basic rights of the individual, the Government has the right to step in."
  66
  That is the justification advanced by the Official Opposition for a framework of law in the field of industrial relations.
  I hope that the Opposition's official spokesman will tell us what is the difference in philosophy between that and the framework of law for the preservation of good race relations. This is the justification for accepting the principle of the Race Relations Bill. I do not ask the Opposition to accept the details, but tonight they will be voting against the principle. Why? If the Official Opposition wish to amend certain provisions in the Bill, either to modify or to strengthen them, then let us consider them in Committee. That is what Committees are for.
  Some people on both sides of the argument believe that the Bill is not perfect, and that there should be Amendments. Let us start a discussion. If they regard certain provisions as likely to make the law unworkable, let them try to prove their case in Committee and make them workable, not destroy the Bill. The Official Opposition will never be able to do it in Committee because they are going to vote against the Bill. There is no case for voting against making discrimination unlawful, nor for voting against the principle of settling racial disputes by a process of conciliation to be followed by the process of law. It is hard to construct a rational case for casting a vote on that subject tonight.
  After the events of the weekend in which the Leader of the Opposition acted in a very firm manner, it is doubly important that votes should not be cast against the Bill on points of detail. This is a historic day. Parliament is being asked to outlaw racial discrimination. I still cannot believe that it is right for the Official Opposition to vote against that principle.
  I suppose that the Amendment that was put down was originally stitched together in an attempt to preserve party unity. It is not for me to discuss the rights or wrongs of that. I certainly know the difficulties of trying to preserve party unity in a matter of this sort. I was in opposition long enough on our own Parliamentary Committee. I think that I am the only hon. Member on this side of the House who served on the Parliamentary Committee from 1951 to 1964, including my right hon. Friends here. But, since

  67
  this attempt to stitch party unity together, events over the weekend have changed the position.
  It is important that we should have a declaration of principle from Parliament, and I wish to make this offer to the Opposition parties. If it would assist, I would be ready to discuss with them both the setting up of an all-party Select Committee or a similar Committee of this House. The purpose of such a Committee could be to oversee the operation of the 1965 Act and of the new Act; to keep the Race Relations Acts under review; and to make reports of its conclusions and recommendations as often as it considers necessary, so that the House as a whole might be involved in coping with the problem.
  I make that offer because I care, as so many hon. Members do, about the future development of our country and about the necessity to preserve peace and harmony among all the races. It is on that basis that I ask hon. Members of the other parties to consider what I have said. I earnestly appeal to the Official Opposition, if possible between now and 10 o'clock tonight, to consider whether they must go on record for ever as having voted against the principle of outlawing racial discrimination. But, whatever the response, it is the Government's duty to give leadership in this matter. Every one of us in the House knows the contribution that these new citizens are making to the prosperity of our nation and to the work of our essential public services.
  The Bill offers the opportunity to Parliament, on St. George's day, to declare that we shall extend in full measure to these same citizens the privileges and responsibilities that we fought for and won when we were excluded from them.
  4.52 p.m.
  Mr. Quintin Hogg: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I told the right hon. Gentleman when we happened to see each other last night that, although I recognised that he would be in a position to present the House with a coherent and ordered exposition of his Bill, I would think it my duty to listen very carefully and to address my remarks very much to what he said when I heard him and, therefore, that I could not ex-
  68
  pect to come here with the same admirably prepared speech and with the same exactly moderated phraseology to cover each distinct point.
  Quite obviously, I must answer at once the proposal about a Select Committee with which he almost concluded his remarks. His suggestion was that we should consider such a project. In the heat and flurry of a Second Reading debate, obviously I cannot say whether we should ultimately want to say yes or no to the project. However, his request was that we should consider it, and to that I can give an unequivocally affirmative reply. We must consider it. As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am not a tremendous friend of the new trend in favour of Select Committees, but, if it will tend to make relations sweeter, calm opinion and assist in the oversight of policy, certainly I do not wish to turn it down. I will consider it most carefully.
  Its success or failure will depend much less upon what I say than upon the willingness of hon. Members in all parts of the House and of all shades of opinion to work in co-operation with such a body. I can only ascertain that by inquiry. I do not think that I should be unreasonable if I asked the right hon. Gentleman to take that as an interim reply and added that I will cause an answer to be made later when we have had an opportunity of consulting with our various hon. Friends in all parts of the House.
  I agree very much with what the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech. I think that the House agreed, because it listened to a speech which at the end was reasonably contentious with patience and with obvious attention. It deserved both. It would be a disaster if either of the great organised bodies of public opinion upon which the country depends for its successive Governments sought to exploit or to gain political advantage from the deep feelings which are held about this topic. I think that I can honestly say that I have not done so in the past. I promise sincerely that I shall try not to now or in the future. But it has always been my philosophy that, when one is considering the Second Reading of a Bill, the contribution which a responsible Opposition can make to debate is not necessarily to oppose but to

  69
  provide an independent assessment of the value or otherwise of the Government's proposal. That also is what democracy is about.
  I was both pleased and perhaps a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman made an oblique reference to what we said and did in discussing the Race Relations Act, 1965, when it was still a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman reminded us that we said that it would do more harm than good. He said that, when it became an Act, it did more good than harm. With respect, I agree with both those propositions. But, on Second Reading, when we were faced with a totally different Bill from that which became law, we were right in saying that it would do more harm than good, and so we divided against it on a reasoned Amendment. When it came back to the Floor of the House, after what I can only describe as a most revolutionary but constructive Committee stage in which the whole conciliation procedure was substituted for a criminal procedure, we let it through without a Division, and I spoke from below the Gangway to give it a welcome. Therefore, I agree that it did more good than harm, and I hope that history may repeat itself.
  Again we are proposing to divide the House on a reasoned Amendment. Again we will seek to improve the Bill in Committee. Again, if some of our objections are met, there may be a chance of passing the Bill on Third Reading. It depends upon the force of our arguments and the attitude with which our objections are met. But I cannot accept the implicit assumption in the contentious part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech that, when the bishop offers the curate an egg which is only good in parts, he must eat the egg or, at any rate, spoon out the bad bits in order not to offend the bishop.
  There are hon. Members who do not want eggs for breakfast at all. I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) would object to being included among that company. He has no moral problem in being faced with a Bill of this kind. I have other hon. Friends—and perhaps I had better not enumerate them—who are so afraid of offending the bishop that they would eat almost anything that he put before
  70
  them, notwithstanding that the egg had got past the point of no return. But the great mass of us, faced with the dilemma in which we have been placed, say in all humility to the bishop, "We like eggs, but we would like a fresher one rather lightly done. Please take this one away and give us another nearer to our specification". I see nothing either offensive or immoral in that particular attitude towards the Parliamentary process.
  No one thinks that the Bill is altogether a good one. Speeches were made by prominent persons over the weekend. I am, of course, referring to the Lord President of the Council and to no one else. He said that when the Bill became law it would "probably be uneven in application and partially ineffective". I am bound to say that when after that he went on to appeal to the Opposition not to divide on a reasoned Amendment, he was going a little beyond the degree of responsibility which a responsible Opposition ought to observe. We think this subject is so important that Parliament ought not to be asked to pass a Bill which will "probably be uneven in application and partially ineffective". If a Bill is partially ineffective it will bring the law into contempt. If it is uneven in application, which is what the Lord President said, it will certainly exacerbate racial relations, not improve them. Although I welcomed the view of the Lord President that religion and race are far better not discussed in party political terms—and I welcome it now—I could not help allowing the thought to pass momentarily through my mind that it would have been of vast assistance to us in 1962 if he had announced his conversion when the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill was going through the House.
  I am reminded that I have not moved my Amendment, which I must do formally at the end. I am told that if I do so I shall be in order. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) for keeping me straight on that.
  To respond to the right hon. Gentleman's demand for a statement of Conservative policy, which is the purpose of my speech about the Bill, I have been the official Opposition spokesman for Home Affairs for nearly two years now,

  71
  and this has been one of the most difficult and delicate of my tasks. I sometimes found it a little difficult during the weekend to realise that I was the official Opposition spokesman and that no one else was. But I have endeavoured in that period of time to establish three broad principles of policy. I do not know that they differ enormously from those of the right hon. Gentleman. I only know that they were arrived at independently.
  The first is that because this country is not self-evidently under-populated at the moment and evidently has a higher standard of life than many other countries, strict control of immigration on the lines of the 1962 Act must continue to be imposed. Although I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that I could never find it in my heart to say that a man should not be reunited with his wife and young children, the proportion which the number of dependants appears to bear to the male voucher holder suggests that there is a good deal of evasion and perhaps a certain amount of abuse.
  The second principle—and I beg not the right hon. Gentleman to take this personally, because he knows it, but some people who communicate with me do not—is to realise that this is not a problem which will disappear. We may want some immigrants to go away. If I were allowed to select some of the demonstrators in Grosvenor Square recently I should not be sorry to see their departure. But we are talking about a group of people who will be with us for the indefinite future and the question is: how are we to treat them? The right hon. Gentleman asks me for an unequivocal declaration of principle. I give him what I regard as an unequivocal declaration of principle. We should forget the colour of their skins and treat them as equals. I say that not for the sake of the immigrants—I should not have called them "immigrants" because many of them are and many will be British subjects and citizens. I say that not for their sake alone, but for ours. We are trying to create a Britain of which all its inmates may be proud. All the evils and sicknesses of a divided society are such as will bring a curse upon us if we do not take this, the only road to safety.
  Let us remind ourselves for a moment that it is a policy to which, in law, this
  72
  country is committed. We signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That was not a pious aspiration. It was a legal instrument. We endorsed it by adhering to the European Convention, which largely reproduced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 2 of the Declaration states:
  "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status."
  That seems to be a declaration which is unequivocal and binding on this country both as part of the fabric of international law, which we are seeking to build up, and, incidentally, as a practical policy which we must seek to perform.
  There is set out in the preamble to the Declaration of Human Rights:
  "it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law."
  Is that unequivocal enough for the right hon. Gentleman? It is something to which I can adhere without any kind of qualification.
  If one goes on to inquire what human rights are so protected, one finds that they include a right to a house, a right to employment, a right to a pension, social security, and, perhaps most important of all, a right to education. Those are the rights about which we are mainly talking, although the Bill does not list the last specifically. I can accept that unequivocally.
  Perhaps I might pause for a moment in the logical development of my argument. I am sure that in the course of the debate reference will be made to American experience and American tragedies. I was not happy about the reference in the right hon. Gentleman's speech to American experience, because I do not think that the story is one of unmixed admiration, much as I love my mother's people. What I say to the House about it, and this has a definite bearing on the kind of legislation which we support, is that I am not trying to under-estimate the importance of the spark of race as the factor which explodes into violence in the streets of American cities, but that the explosive mixture is caused by under-employment, by ghetto

  73
  housing, by inadequate Federal social security, by the absence of medical care, and by differential education. I say that because anyone who knows anything whatever about America—I do not claim to be an expert, but I am half-American—realises that on every American shoulder there is a little black dog which says, "What will happen to you when you get old, or when you fall out of work, or when you are ill, or if you cannot afford to keep your boy in college?".
  We are very fond of denigrating ourselves in this country, but I believe that we have set ourselves on the right road when we have provided those things. I believe that to try to cure racial prejudice without an adequate sub-stratum of social policy on a basis of universal provision in case of need, where there is no reference to race at all, is like trying to carry water in a bucket with a hole in the bottom.
  I start from there, but before I come back to the main line of my argument I should like to say that there is a second feature of policy which must be accepted, and indeed I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was accepting it. I think that the Government must be quite sure that they set their own house in order first, by administrative action if need be. I see not the slightest need for a special reference to race in the instructions to the police. I should have thought that that was covered by the general instructions. When one is dealing with racial prejudice, I should have thought that one of the wisest precepts was to refer to race as little as possible, and to make rights universally applicable. I shall come back to that when I deal with the declaratory Clause.
  Why should not Government contracts, which have a fair wages clause, have a non-discrimination clause of some kind? Why should not local authority housing, obviously by far the most important where individual sources of private accommodation are concerned, be dealt with by the Government through their general authority of the general grant? We must set an example in that way if we are to expect other people to follow in our footsteps, and still more if we expect compulsion to be operated against them.
  74
  I come, now, to say a few words about compulsion, although I shall have to deal almost entirely with this in what remains for me to say, and I am afraid that there is a good deal for me to say. Compulsion is the sanction of the law, but we must be sure that our instrument of compulsion is workmanlike, effective, and enforceable, or the law will be brought into disrepute. We must make it equal in operation, and be seen to be just. It must be based on a coherent theory which is seen to be just. We must carry people with us.
  The Lord President's speech, and the last part of the Home Secretary's speech, leads me to say this at this stage. We cannot paper over the differences in the debate which is going on, not in this House, in perfect order, but all over the country, in every public house, in every street, in every household, and in every club, and in which it is idle to pretend that the party opposite is any more united than the party behind me. It has to be a very small party indeed to command 100 per cent. support for any particular policy in this sphere. I name no names.
  That brings me to the third broad principle, because I said that there were three things which I had been trying to labour to produce for two years. We cannot achieve unity about this in a short time either between parties or between individuals, or inside parties. What we have to learn is how to debate these contentious matters without losing our own tempers, or causing other people legitimate offence. I have laboured that more seriously than I have laboured any other part of the things that I have been trying to do. I really have. It is as much a part of my policy, and of the Conservative Party's policy, as the two more substantive principles which I have been trying to elaborate.
  I said that I would have to speak about my right hon. Friend's speech over the weekend. This is where I fall foul of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I am bound to say so, for this reason. There is nobody that I admire more in this House than I do my right hon. Friend. We have so much in common. We have the same love of Greek literature. We have the same devotion to the same political party. We have the

  75
  same religion, the same religious beliefs. But if one is going to say—and this was my right hon. Friend's analogy, not mine—that we are living in a roomful of gunpowder, and if one is going to say—and this was his analogy, not mine—that this Bill, which in many ways I think inappropriate, and which we have said in our Amendment will, on balance, do more harm than good—is like lighting a match to the gunpowder, it might be thought a little careless to go about with a lighted cigarette in one's mouth, flicking the ash all over the place. That is the modern equivalent to the mote and the beam, and the gnat and the camel.
  If one is going to say, and goodness knows many of us have thought, that the streets of our country might one day run with blood—and make no mistake, it is usually the innocent, usually the defenceless, and sometimes just the ordinarily good, who are the victims of that kind of violence—then surely one ought to consider whether, in the more immediate future, one's words are more likely to make that happen, or less likely to make that happen.
  It was not as if my right hon. Friend did not know what the effect of his remarks would be. He did, because he said in terms that he could imagine the outcry he would cause. He did not come to me. He did not give me a sight of what he was going to say. He did not ask my advice, though, goodness knows, that advice is fallible enough. He summoned two television networks so that I could see him saying it. He sent a hand-out to the Press, by-passing the Conservative Office. He said what he said without a word to any of his colleagues that he was going to say it.
  With the utmost charity in the world, I am bound to say that this is not what I mean by loyalty to colleagues, even if there is no more serious charge to be levelled against him. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had not anticipated it, I should have gone to the Shadow Cabinet yesterday and told my colleagues that they must choose between my approach and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, because I attach every bit as much importance in this sphere to the way things are said as to what is said in them.
  76
  In this world we have got to be ready to take knocks. We have got to be prepared to be called "limeys" and "pommies". Rude remarks are constantly being levelled at us. We must learn to bear them, even if they are offensive. However, there comes a point at which things are dangerous. Then it rests for public opinion in this House, not to create a false unity which does not exist, or to paper over real differences, but to create a pattern in which controversy can take place in a civilised way, remembering that the purpose of controversy is to grow together by the discussion of differences and not, by accentuating differences, to grow further apart.
  That brings me to the actual terms of the Bill, which I hope to deal with shortly. If anybody had told me beforehand—I make no reproach at all against the Government for not doing this; I think that Governments are wrong to consult Oppositions; I think that it deprives Oppositions of their independence of movement if they are consulted—that the Government would introduce a Bill which would have the precise declaratory Clause which it has, plus insurance and credit in its scope, plus no adequate exclusion for small operators in employment and housing, plus a right to claim for damages, plus the removal of the constitutional officer—the Attorney-General—who is questionable in the House, within certain limits, from his rôle in relation to the Race Relations Board, I could have told them in advance that there was no chance of an unopposed Second Reading.
  If people tell me that these are all Committee points, I say two things to them. First, although each one of them may be capable of amendment in Committee, the totality of them amounts to a great deal more than a Committee point or a Committee objection. Secondly, these various defects are, at any rate in my personal opinion, defects which reflect a weakness in the constitutional theory behind the Bill, and not just chance defects due, perhaps, to bad draftsmanship or compromise or inattention.
  I come now to the actual defects—or some of them, because I do not want to take up an inordinate length of time. First, the declaration. I thought, and I think now, that it was a major defect in

  77
  the Race Relations Act, 1965, that in effect it confined its declaration against discrimination to race discrimination. That is not what the Declaration of Human Rights does: it includes religion; it includes class; it includes many other things.
  This is not a minor matter. If I wished—God knows that I do not—to discriminate against the Southern Irish, I could do so by an attack on Roman Catholicism as easily as I could by an attack on their Irish ancestry, which is common with my own. If I wanted to attack the Jews—I have seen it done; I have heard it done in Parliament, in another place—I could attack their dietary laws, their methods of slaughter. I could invent some imaginary political conspiracy of rabbis. I have seen it done. When the trouble arose with the Sikhs, it was not their Indian origin that caused the bother. It was their turbans, their topknots and their beards—all points of religious observance.
  If we are to go in for declarations—I must say that up to a point I am sceptical of them; I think that they are rather a sign of the formative period of law than of a refined and sophisticated period of law—let us stick to the Declaration of Human Rights and not modify it.
  Secondly, scope. I do not believe that there is any case for including insurance and credit in the Bill. I will say why. I think that the economic laws operate in that field against discrimination. Underwriters, it is true, discriminate against fighter pilots, who are amongst the most noble members of the community, and did so against my son when he was an undergraduate. I believe that actuarially fighter pilots and undergraduates are more apt to have motor accidents. If I am wrong, I hope that I shall be forgiven for saying so.
  I do not know, because I have not inquired—and I do not propose to inquire—what the actuarial risk attached to a newcomer from another country is. It would not surprise me if those who come from a place where there is less motor traffic had an actuarial risk greater than those of us who have been brought up with the internal combustion engine in their Christmas stockings.
  If I were on the Race Relations Board—may I say in passing that I welcome
  78
  the appointment of Sir Roy Wilson, who is known to me—one of the very first things I would do would be to go round to the very highly competitive syndicates at Lloyds or to one of the insurance companies and try to make them write a beneficial policy for London bus drivers who had been in service for more than six months. I reckon they would make more on it. I reckon that that would be a much better way of dealing with discrimination in insurance matters than by passing a law to say that the whole thing has got to go to Mr. Mark Bonham Carter and one of the series of selected county courts with two assessors.
  In housing and employment, which, I agree with the Secretary of State, are amongst the most delicate of the fields in which we have to operate, it was chivalrous of the Secretary of State not to remind me, but I will remind him, that I said some months ago that I had come to the conclusion that some action was necessary. I do not propose to unsay now what I said then. On the contrary, I propose to say again what I said then, although I know that some of my friends do not agree with it.
  I want to say why I thought it and then why I think that the Government have acted wrongly. I was convinced in the end by the evidence of the P.E.P. Report and the Street Report and various other documents that, whereas in matters of insurance and credit it was safe to leave discrimination to the economic laws to destroy it, in the fields of housing and employment there were circumstances in which the economic laws would operate in favour of discrimination and against human rights. I thought so because, with the best will in the world and without casting aspersions at anybody, employees can form up against an employer and say, "If you employ this man or this type of man, we will go on strike". Tenants can form up against a landlord and say, "If you admit this tenant, we will not pay our rent". The inhabitants of a district can go to a house agent and say, "If you do not discriminate, we will not use your services". They may do so in some cases for, if not laudable, at least morally indifferent reasons. The effect, however, would be to create a social condition which requires the attention of Parliament.

  79
  As to the employer, the landlord and the house agent, the law may be a protection and not a threat, because one of them might be able to say, "I cannot do that now because Parliament has passed a law against discrimination." I was always willing to accept that, or, at least, I became willing to accept it.
  Although the experimental evidence in favour of that conclusion is, I am sorry to say, lamentably small, it is not nonexistent. In the experimental evidence, the notable case was that of a Mr. Levitt, who said that he owned property all over the United States of America. Where there was no anti-discrimination law, he discriminated and did not lose money because he discriminated, but he would have lost money if he had not. Where there was an anti-discrimination law, he did not discriminate and he did not lose money because the law was obeyed. That is a sound basis for legislation.
  What it is surely necessary to do is to differentiate between two quite separate sets of consideration. The first is the haphazard effects of individual prejudice which may be morally objectionable but which are socially without significance and which, if it is attacked, confronting the two individuals concerned, almost always exasperates both and satisfies neither. The other is the mass effects due to the systematic operation of individual prejudices which, although in origin they may be perfectly legitimate or, at least, morally indifferent, creates social evils against which one may have to deal by act of Parliament.
  Secondly—and I add this because it is a cognate point—if we are to do it, we must surely recognise that we are embarking on a new, or almost new, field in legislation and law enforcement. Our methods of law enforcement are traditionally based upon the division into the criminal, which carries a penalty and is enforced in practice by a public body, and the civil, which gives a remedy but not a penalty and is enforced in practice by a privately wronged individual.
  In recent years, however, we have been developing a third field. Notable examples are in the Restrictive Practices Act, the Resale Price Maintenance Act, the monopolies legislation and also the
  80
  legislation proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) for trade unions, to which the Home Secretary referred. The essence of it in those cases, however, is that the initiation rests with the public body. The remedy rests with that public body and does not consist in a penalty. In the ordinary course—again, I am over-simplifying—we do not give rise to an individual right to damages or confront the victim with a defendant in such a way as to exasperate relations. In the field of race relations, this may be of importance.
  Those of us who have practised at the Bar know what a terrible weapon of oppression damages can be and how it can embitter both the complainant and the defendant for the rest of their lives, especially when what is given to the court to estimate is not an actual loss but a purely suppositious or guesstimated sum for lost opportunity, which is what is proposed in the Bill.
  I implore the right hon. Gentleman, if he wants this legislation to be a success, as, I know, he does, and as I would like it to be, too—I hope that he believes that—to consider very carefully whether the legislation in this critical sector of housing and employment would not be much better if he made vastly greater exemptions for a small employer, a small landlord, a person letting his house or part of it and an owner-occupier not using a house agent, and if he tried to operate against the mass effects, at any rate at this stage.
  As I have said, the Government will not improve matters in this field unless they can carry the people with them. Some of us flatter ourselves about being progressive. But the more progressive we are in this field, and the more progressive we think ourselves, very often the more surprised we are at how our constituents say that we are out of touch with them. And so it may be the case.
  I do not want to say much more—I have outstayed my welcome—but I hope that I have responded in the spirit in which it was meant to give the Home Secretary a fairly clear idea of what I would do and why I say that the Bill may be good in parts but I ask him, please, to take it away and give us a better one.

  81
  I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  This House, reaffirming its condemnation of racial discrimination and accepting the need for steps designed to improve the situation, nevertheless declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, on balance, will not in its practical application contribute to the achievement of racial harmony.
  5.36 p.m.
  Sir Dingle Foot: The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has just delivered a speech of studied moderation. It was a speech which in parts commanded the assent of hon. Members on this side of the House. I particularly welcomed what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about colour prejudice and our obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention, on Human Rights. In passing, however, I would like to express the hope that we shall hear similar references and sentiments from the Opposition Front Bench when next the House debates Southern Rhodesia.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman delivered an extremely moderate speech, but at the end of it I was completely at a loss to know why his name appears to the Amendment. I gather that he did not dissent from the aims of the Bill. Its aims are set out in Clause 2, from which I quote:
  "It shall be unlawful for any person concerned with the provision to the public or a section of the public (whether on payment or otherwise) of any goods, facilities or services to discriminate against any person…"
  I leave out the rest. That is the aim of the Bill.
  I gather that the right hon. and learned Gentleman—I do not know to what extent he speaks for his colleagues—does not dissent from the aim of the Bill. If so, does he say that it should never be embodied in legislation? If the answer to that question is in the negative, what form of enforcement would he prefer to that which appears in the Bill? That is the crucial question which the party opposite have to answer.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to envisage a different kind of procedure. He referred to the monopolies legislation and the work of the Monopolies Court. Here, however, there is a fundamental difference. When deal-
  82
  ing with monopolies, one is dealing with the public interest and with large corporations. In the Bill, we are dealing with something quite different. We are dealing with individual grievances. It is the protection of individuals with which this whole Measure is concerned.
  I join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his welcome to the recruitment of Sir Roy Wilson to the Race Relations Board. The members of the Board have done admirable work since it was formed in 1965. Its last published Report is a masterly document containing quite unanswerable arguments in favour of the Bill or similar legislation. We should acknowledge what the Board has done while welcoming the addition of Sir Roy Wilson.
  In the past few days a great deal has been said and written on race relations. Some letters and articles have very clearly implied that there is a natural incompatibility between peoples of different races and colours. We on these benches utterly reject that notion, and it is also rejected by a good many hon. Members opposite. It is manifest nonsense. There are many communities in the world—some nations and some communities inside nations—where different races live and work quite amicably side by side. It is true in the West Indies, and in various Commonwealth countries.
  In our own country we have the example of our student population. We have thousands of overseas students, and one cannot go to any university or technical college today without seeing students of different races and colours mixing with complete freedom and complete lack of embarrassment. One can see the same phenomenon elsewhere, and I see it every day when I go to the Inns of Court. There is no problem of clash of race or colour so long as there is equality of status and what used to be called parity of esteem.
  The House must ask itself two questions on the Bill. Is there a problem which requires to be solved? If so, can we help to solve it by legislation? Everyone would agree that the first question admits of only one answer. There is the evidence which was contained in the P.E.P. Report last year and which is referred to in the Report of the Race Relations Board. No one can have any doubt that in many parts of the country

  83
  there is widespread discrimination in housing and employment. Of course, we all agree that that cannot be wholly solved by legislation. It depends on the climate of opinion, but the climate can alter. Sometimes it can alter very rapidly.
  When I paid my first visit to Kenya in January, 1952 there was in hotels and other places of resort in Nairobi a colour bar hardly less rigid than that which now prevails in Pretoria or Salisbury. I arrived late one evening at the airport and was met by two coloured friends. One was a member of the Legislative Council and the other was a West Indian lawyer in practice in East Africa. We drove to a hotel in Nairobi where accommodation had been reserved for me. My two friends went in first, carrying my suitcases. They were refused admission by the manager at the door and a moment later he refused to admit me. My first experience of East Africa was being out on the street at 10 o'clock at night.
  That was in 1952. In those days it was practically impossible for an African or an Asian to go into any of the principal hotels in Nairobi. I continued going there, and only three or four years later things had completely changed. My wife and I could go into a hotel and ask any of our African or Asian friends to join us and nobody batted an eyelid. That is an example of how quickly these things can change.
  Indeed, we saw a change in the climate in this country between the General Election of 1964 and that of 1966. In Smethwick and elsewhere, and even to some extent in my own constituency, racial prejudice played a very considerable part in the 1964 election. In the 1966 election it had almost entirely disappeared. Part of the credit for that is due to the Leader of the Opposition for the attitude he adopted in the 1966 election. I want to emphasise that there was a complete change of climate between 1964 and 1966.
  But now the question we must consider when we are thinking about the racial discrimination which undoubtedly exists at present is whether the climate can be altered in some degree by legislation. I am one of the very few Members who was here in 1936. We then had a very similar problem. There was a very ugly situation, as we had the Blackshirt processions through the streets in the
  84
  East End of London. In those days the provocation came from Sir Oswald Mosley, who made the same sort of speech then as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) makes now. The only difference was that in his case the venom was directed against the Jews. We were faced with appeals to racial prejudice in 1936 and Parliament passed the Public Order Act. I shall not remind the House of all the details now. There have been very few prosecutions under that Act, but that means that it has in large measure achieved its purpose. It brought about a very considerable transformation in the circumstances that then prevailed in London.
  Here we are dealing with discrimination, and I suggest to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone that we cannot ignore the American experience. We know the events that have taken place in the United States during the past few weeks. In that kind of situation there are not only differences of race and colour but social differences which coincide. The Street Report, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, seems to me to contain the most convincing evidence as to what can be achieved by legislation. On page 41 it refers to changes in the attitude of industry, and states:
  "Further evidence of changes in public opinion which can be directly related to legislation is to be found by examining changes in the attitudes of industry, the unions and other bodies towards legislation. When a bill was introduced in the Massachusetts legislature to outlaw employment discrimination in 1945, it was fiercely opposed by industry, the unions, the churches, the legal Profession and other groups, on the grounds that it would interfere with freedom of choice, and would ultimately increase prejudice. In time the law ceased to be opposed, and on the contrary, industry began to develop its own schemes to co-operate with the commission and to further its aims. This pattern of opposition followed by acceptance and then active co-operation was reproduced in many States. The final stage is exemplified on a national scale by 'Plans for Progress' and by the vigorous support given by the leaders of trade unions to the introduction of Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act, 1964."
  That was the experience in the United States, and the result described there would not have been brought about without legislation.
  I shall not at this stage go into the details of the Bill. I agree with the right

  85
  hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Marylebone that it is necessary to examine the Clauses with great care. But the question which some of my hon. Friends and I ask ourselves is whether the Bill will be really effective for its purpose. I turn for a moment to one of the enforcement proposals. Under Clause 14, if a complaint is made, the Race Relations Board must make inquiries, it must send the conciliation officer, and then, only if he fails, can the Board as a last resort go to the courts for an injunction.
  I agree that in many cases resort should be had to conciliation before anyone makes an application to the court. But there must be some cases in which it is obvious that conciliation can produce no effective result and in which time runs on. Time may be extremely important for the man who wants to buy a house, get a job, or whatever it may be. Therefore, the one point on which I criticise my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is in his reference to interim injunctions. In my view, it ought to be within the discretion of the Board, in a proper case, after receiving a complaint, to apply to the court right away for an interim injunction. An injunction is always a discretionary remedy. It is not something which the court must grant, and in each case the judge would grant an interim injunction only if he thought that it was justified in all the circumstances.
  In my view, it is of the utmost importance that we pass the Bill now. I say that for two reasons. First, as the Home Secretary said, we are reaching a stage when we have here children who either came to this country at a very early age or were born here and who are now leaving school and coming on to the labour market. This is happening in my constituency, and I suppose that it is happening in many other places as well. They are not discriminated against at school. There is no sense of race or colour among school children. But these young people may have to encounter discrimination when they apply for jobs. This is why it is extremely important that we legislate at this stage.
  There is an even more compelling reason. If we did not pass the Bill, or if it were watered down in Committee, this would be interpreted throughout the
  86
  Commonwealth and the world as a surrender to racialism. If there were no other, that would be the reason why we should pass the Bill, and a very heavy responsibility will rest upon those who vote against it or who try to impede its progress.
  5.53 p.m.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: As the Home Secretary reminded us at the outset, the Bill deals with a difficult and contentious social subject. Unlike some hon. Members, I do not find it in the least surprising, therefore, that it should tend to divide parties within themselves or even colleagues one from another. Indeed, I should think it surprising if it did not have that effect, though I must add that, for most of us at least, the brilliant speech delivered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) will have helped to restore a little perspective to the scene.
  The Home Secretary was quite fair, but he was critical of our attitudes to the Bill. In my view, one is entitled to begin by being a little critical of the Home Office's and Government's approach to and handling of the Bill. The Home Secretary passed rather lightly over the preliminaries which have led to the arrival of the Bill at only 14 days' notice so far as the public and the House of Commons are concerned. No one can read the sober account by Mr. Norman Fowler which appeared in The Times this morning—which from my knowledge of the facts I know to be true—without accepting that the Government's handling of this Bill during the past year or so leaves a great deal to be desired. The Government have elected, virtually, to keep the public in the dark.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): indicated dissent.
  Mr. Deedes: The hon. Gentleman may dispute that later, but the Government have undoubtedly kept a great part of the public in the dark about it. There have been very few attempts by Ministers to convince, to justify or to explain, and the simple outcome is that the Government, having given themselves 14 months to prepare a Measure of enormous import, have given the country and the House 14 days in which to digest it. I

  87
  regard that neither as defensible nor as an emollient approach to this difficult subject.
  What matters now, I suppose, is how we grope our way to the right answers, not the quarrels which may occur on the way. I only wish that I felt that the Bill would help to redeem the history of mistakes which we have all made, at least during my time in the House. Because I fear that, on balance, it will not redeem those mistakes but may well add one more to them, I shall tonight have no hesitation in supporting the Amendment. I say "on balance" because the history of our endeavours in this field suggests that a note of diffidence, even of humility, on the part of anyone who addresses himself to the subject from either side of the House is not out of place at this point. None of us can afford to stand here in a white sheet and point the finger of reproach at anyone else.
  I say at once that we on our side havered over the question of immigration control as far back, within my knowledge, as 1954. I held the hon. Gentleman's job at the Home Office, and I remember the history very well. But we acted eventually in 1962. The party opposite, with passionate sincerity, assailed what we were doing. On taking office, it felt it necessary to adopt the same policy more rigorously. Perhaps "policy" is the wrong word. In the minds of many people in this country—I am not sure that they are far wrong—we have no immigration policy, or not one which is clearly understood, not one which we understood ourselves last February. I speak here of both sides. We have tended to scuttle from one expedient to the next, as we did in February, without coherent thinking and thus without any really convincing pretext for enlisting public co-operation at this critical point. We did nothing about race relations until the Bill of 1965, and then, as my right hon. and learned Friend reminded us, with a Bill that would have been disastrous if it had not been radically altered in Committee.
  The present Bill has been painfully threaded together and thrown to the public without rehearsal by Government White Paper, announcement or statement of any kind and without any real pre-
  88
  paration on the issues involved. It incorporates new and, to some, astonishing principles of law. I take the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend, as a lawyer, about the constitutional aspects of it, and I only regret that some of these points are in danger of being lost—I hope that they will not be—in the emotive arguments about race.
  What appals and saddens me is that those elements of truly liberal opinion in this country which ought to regard this sort of law making vigilantly and critically have—or many of them have—simply assailed the Bill's critics as, if not racialists, something not much less. We are being told, in effect, that to act against racial discrimination is so strong a cause as to justify methods which, in my view, would not be contemplated for a moment outside this sphere by the House. For example, I understand from reading the Bill that the Race Relations Board is to be given inquisitorial powers to investigate complaints or, without complaint, allegations of racial discrimination—and, it appears, not publicly but privately—and that it will then determine whether to bring legal processes against someone whom it decrees has offended. That takes us some way beyond where the law stands now. That is not a detail which can be blinked over here and then mulled over in Committee. Speaking as a layman and not as a lawyer, that to me goes to the root of English law. I genuinely fear the note of almost religious fervour in some attitudes towards the Bill, and this may make a proper vigilance of its detail difficult. I hope that we will approach the Committee stage in a different state of mind.
  It may well be—and here I attempt to answer the question posed by the Home Secretary—that the law must be enlisted to help us stamp out racial discrimination. I cannot believe that bad social practices can be remedied by the law made in this Bill, so much of which is bad. Rather, I fear that in some respects they will flourish in an atmosphere of resentment.
  We are told—and Professor Street argues this forcefully in his Report—that America has found the law necessary and useful. I am sure that that is true as far as it goes, but nobody can have read the United States Riot Commission Report, produced under the distinguished

  89
  chairmanship of Otto Kerner—which I spent part of my Easter reading; it must be one of the most remarkable State documents of our time—without realising that the law does not go nearly as far as some might wish to think; that legislation even of this kind can really only scratch the surface of the problem. How we plan and build our cities, towns and suburbs, how we educate our people, particularly the young, and how we enlist and use the agencies which every civilised country has at its disposal are some of the bigger, harder and decisive issues which must be faced. We have hardly begun to think about these things. We have had no lead on them and I do not believe that the Bill will promote serious public thinking about them.
  What I resent above all is our total failure to give voluntary effort encouragement and a fair trial. It is fair for hon. Gentlemen opposite and others to ask, "What would you do?"
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Like the right hon. Gentleman, I spent part of my Easter reading the American Report to which he referred. Would he agree that it emphasises, particularly in housing and similar matters, the need for legislation to be extended?
  Mr. Deedes: It is perfectly true that, within that sphere, it advocates an extension of legislation, and I agree that to some extent that contradicts what I was saying. However, if one sees the social scene as set by the Report one realises that there are other elements involved besides legislation.
  As I was saying, those of us who support the Amendment might reasonably be asked, "What would you do?" For my part, I would have made a much stronger approach to what is, after all, the greatest asset we in this country have—the enormous network of agencies and voluntary organisations—and I would have sought to enlist them, as we have not tried to do in this case. We are the most organised race on earth. We have at our hand not simply voluntary organisations but bodies like the T.U.C. and confederations of employers, some of which have already attempted to do valuable work here.
  Why not present them first with a stronger challenge and give them a
  90
  chance to meet it? Perhaps we could make it clear to them that if they fail, legislation would become the alternative. If we do not believe that that approach might be possible and could work, then this Measure is foredoomed, for without that approach the Bill will prove unworkable, remembering the degree of public co-operation which will be needed to make sense of the Bill and that voluntary effort, to which the Home Secretary rather late in the day referred, will be crucial to its success or otherwise.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York) rose——
  Mr. Deedes: I will not give way because I wish to be brief and because I am trying not to be contentious.
  It is legislation pitched upon us in this style to which I object, because I fear that it will not foster this voluntary spirit but rather the reverse. We are really saying that the British people cannot be trusted to act properly in this matter—this after they have not been told very much about it—and that now they must be coerced. We are passing a vote of no confidence on our own people and organisation, and I cannot accept that.
  Collectively we have wholly failed to produce an immigration policy which is convincing and calculated to inspire public confidence and co-operation. We have a large share of the blame and, for our failure, we are now, it seems, blaming them—to an extent which the survey published this morning indicates is far from justified. Discrimination is not a natural instinct of the people of Britain. It arises largely, where it arises, from fear and from lack of confidence—and for that we in Parliament hold a considerable share of responsibility.
  We have a particular duty in Parliament to look beyond the immediate issues, which are so emotionally exciting to some, and to pay some regard to the kind of law which we are promoting, and then to the kind of people for whom we are promoting it. I do not believe that one can achieve justice for a minority by inflicting injustice on the majority—not in this country, no matter how good, how noble the cause. Indeed, history suggests that the nobler the cause, the more likely it is ultimately to lead

  91
  to cruelty and injustice. It is on that, above all, that we in Parliament have a duty to be watchful and to try to see a little further than the rest. This will be a very hard test for us, but, in my view, it is unquestionably the only test by which we can now attempt to redeem our record in this matter and ourselves.
  6.8 p.m.
  Mr. Paul B. Rose: I welcomed the restrained and statesmanlike tenor of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I also welcome the scope and breadth of the Bill. I begin by reminding the House of this passage in the Street Report:
  "There is no necessary correlation between the quality of drafting a code concerning racial discrimination and the effectiveness of that code in operation. The machinery to implement the law is as important as the substantive law itself."
  In an Adjournment debate which I initiated on 27th May, 1966, I proposed certain methods of remedying the deficiencies of the 1965 Act, a Measure which I described as lacking teeth and guts. It sems that we have now got some guts injected into that Act, although the teeth need sharpening.
  The machinery relating to the Race Relations Board is much improved, the strengthening of the Board in size and in power is to be welcomed, and I hope that future appointments to it will be imaginative. With its conciliation committees, it is right that it should take over the powers of the Attorney-General to bring recalcitrant discriminators to the courts. But without power to subpoena witnesses and order the production of vital documents, its functions may be undermined. It is not good enough to say, as the Home Secretary says, that this power is unnecessary because the courts have such a power and because the Board's object is primarily that of conciliation. We want conciliation rather than action before the courts, and, without the appearance of the parties before the Race Relations Board, it is impossible to have any conciliation. This above all other defects in the Bill must be remedied.
  Nor, as was pointed out earlier, is there any interlocutory relief. For example, when a person is denied a house or job
  92
  and the sale goes through, or the job is given to someone else, if he goes to the Board something in the nature of an interim injunction should be obtainable at short notice when there is prima facie evidence of discrimination. Something of that nature would remedy that defect, because there is scant satisfaction to a complainant if the job or house has already gone when he succeeds in his action before the Board or court.
  The damages awardable by the court should also take into consideration the distress and the humiliation and the affront to human dignity to the person who is discriminated against, and that does not appear to be provided for. Some of the exemptions in the Bill will have to be questioned in Committee, and I expect a whole series of probing Amendments for explanations of the purposes of various Clauses, particularly Clause 8(2) which refers to preserving a balance of different racial groups. At the very least, an assurance must be given that this subsection will not be used to provide a loophole to evade the provisions of the Bill. This may well be done by leaving the judgment of whether exceptions are bona fide on the part of an employer to a decision by the Board rather than action before the county court.
  It is interesting that clubs should not be included by the Bill. Some by their very nature cannot be included. Some clubs are set up to bring together people of a particular background, but when clubs purport to be open to the general public and the only criterion for membership is ability to pay membership dues and abide by the rules, then only those factors should be considered when dealing with an application.
  It is rather ironical that the Opposition should oppose this Bill only a week or so after the passing of the Civil Rights Bill in the United States of America. American experience above all should demonstrate the need to act quickly in this matter before the problem solidifies. If the Americans had acted in this way 20 years ago, they might have been excused some of the problems which have occurred recently. Certainly, far from exacerbating tensions, as some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say, this is the way to avoid tension and to avoid the ghetto situation which has arisen

  93
  in the United States. It is discrimination outside the ghetto which creates the ghetto, and that is what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) purports to fear when he talks of whole areas of a city being taken over and of whole cities being taken ever. Of course that can happen if discrimination goes on. One of the results of opposing discrimination and taking action against it by law is to prevent that situation, to prevent the concentrations which lead to this kind of tension.
  It is also ironical to note in this debate the criticisms made at the time of the 1965 Bill, when Mr. Peter Thorneycroft, then leading for the Opposition, said—and I well remember that speech—that the then Home Secretary was
  "tackling a very narrow area of discrimination. If one asks those with any knowledge of the subject what the areas are, they will say that the most important are employment and housing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1965; Vol. 711, c. 946.]
  Much of the criticism of that legislation seemed to be that it did not go far enough, but this goes much further and we are still waiting for the support of the Opposition. Mr. Thorneycroft went on to say that the 1965 legislation dealt with the extreme outer edges of the target. Happily, that criticism is not justifiable today, and to oppose the Bill is to fly in the face of the evidence which has been given by the Race Relations Board itself, by the P.E.P. Report, and by the Street Report on anti-discrimination legislation.
  There are some people who see opposition to the Bill as a rather cynical piece of political manoeuvring, who put the exploitation of the crudest political clamour of the bigots before principle. I do not dissent from the view that legislation alone cannot solve the problem. The Street Report itself said:
  "Protection against discrimination must be buttressed by an extensive educational programme."
  But those who oppose the Bill are usually precisely the same people who do nothing to educate and who do nothing to stimulate positive action to promote harmony between different communities. Rather like the biblical injunction to love the stranger as thyself, quite apart from the effect which it may have in law, the Bill is largely a declaration of
  94
  public policy and a declaration of public morality. It backs up those who might otherwise yield to social pressures, who do not want to discriminate themselves, but who are nevertheless not willing to stand up and who therefore discriminate.
  Public attitudes all too often are determined by and derived from public actions. Discrimination, therefore, is not merely caused by prejudice, but itself also causes and contributes towards prejudice.
  As has been stressed, this is not a Bill merely for the sake of the minority; it is a Bill for the sake of the majority as well. It allows for the humiliation, this pent-up humiliation, to express itself in a lawful form, rather than in the uglier forms which might otherwise occur.
  I do not propose to go into all the details of the Bill. I have already drafted a large number of Amendments and I promise to keep this speech short, but I should like to mention one or two matters. First, the time limit of two months for an application seems to be remarkably short. Many applicants will not know the law and, by the very nature of this problem, they will need advice.
  Secondly, the incitement provisions of the 1965 Act are left entirely untouched. The loophole for those who publish offensive literature, by allowing them to form a book club, is not touched by this legislation. This is at a time when the chain of racialist and neo-Fascist groups in this country under the surface is a frightening aspect of the danger which lies in the kind of speech to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. The road from humane repatriation to the final solution by other means is not very far to tread, and those of this generation who know a little about that ought to beware of making the kind of statement which can lead in that direction. The terms of the 1965 Act on incitement should be extended in order to cover the deliberately offensive material which is still published in spite of the 1965 Act because that wording was not strong enough.
  Religious discrimination is not included. A special problem which has come to light in connection with the Sikh community, for example, may be capable of solution only by including religious discrimination. In Committee on the 1965

  95
  legislation, I referred to the possibility of avoiding those provisions by saying that one's motives were religious. Perhaps my misgivings were overcome to some extent after the Colin Jordan case, but religion might well be used as a subterfuge for racial discrimination and incitement, and this matter should be seriously considered.
  There is another subject which is always considered to be taboo in the House. I cannot see why this legislation should not be extended to religion and made to cover Northern Ireland. The Human Rights Bill was put forward by Sheila Murnaghan in Stormont and rejected. It is up to this House to take action to implement the Conventions signed by us. I am sick and tired of one Home Secretary after another trotting out the excuse that we have a convention that we must not interfere in Northern Irish affairs. Yet hon. Gentlemen from Northern Ireland come to this House and will vote against this Bill tonight. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will be supporting it, I know. However, the Bill does not apply to the Northern Ireland constituencies.
  This is Human Rights Year, and the Bill will make a fitting contribution to it. If I were to leave Parliament and if I had done nothing more than contribute something to this Bill I would be satisfied. I am not unaware of the unpopularity of this view in certain quarters, nor am I unaware of the strength of irrational feeling being whipped up. I for one would rather not be a Member of this House than yield to bigotry, prejudice and racialism.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: We can all agree that we have listened so far to four remarkably effective, interesting and moving speeches. It would be proper to refer to one speech not so far referred to in this House, and that is the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Whatever one may think of that speech, good or bad, there is no question but that it has made a great change overnight, and catalysed the various views and opinions held throughout the country. It should be taken into account when the House debates the Bill.
  96
  Speaking personally, I cannot see that the reasoned Amendment of my Party is intellectually acceptable. Speaking generally, I believe that the Amendment, politically and practically, to be inept. My right hon. and learned Friend for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), in a speech of great charm and interest, scarcely referred to the issue of whether legislation can play a part in the amelioration of race relations. This is the question which we must all have at the forefront of our minds. Small though this part may be, it is an important part.
  I am reinforced in this view not only by the two important reports published in this country, and the much more voluminous report published in the United States, but also by the Report of the Race Relations Committee. Like the Home Secretary, I am also reinforced in that view by the article written by Mr. Anthony Lewis, of the New York Times, in the London Times yesterday. I cannot but believe that this issue is one which must be dealt with. Last night, on television, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition suggested that legislation could be important. I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, or what is left of it, will look at this again, withdraw the Amendment and leave this to a free vote.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said, this is a matter of individual views and consciences. There must be differences between members of a political party and I do not find it odd that there should be. I find it healthy that this debate should be before the House and the country. The important thing is to take action now, because in many areas it is still a peripheral problem and should be dealt with before it becomes a national one. That is why I am in favour of legislative action.
  The Amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends really rejects legislative action and says that it is not important. If one takes this attitude one moves to the next step, that the real solution to the problem is some form of repatriation. I do not believe this to be a practical solution. We have to deal with numbers in this country running into many hundreds of thousands. The question of stopping more coming in is different.

  97
  We have to deal with the problem now, and it cannot be dealt with by a scheme of repatriation. To say that the American case does not apply is not true.
  These people are here just as much as Welshmen are here, just as much as a North of Scotland aborigine like myself is here. Here we are—the Jutes and the Angles and all these people, right through history. We come here because it is a good country and we must be protected under the law. I very much hope that the idea of repatriation of people here as a possible policy will be rejected. It is simply not on.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will consider dropping this Amendment. It is important that there should go out a message from a House which is united on this issue. The proposal for an all-party watchdog committee put forward by the Home Secretary is important, but I would like to go even further. As Mr. Lewis said in his article yesterday, we are moving into a new realm of legal relations. After the Government have won their Bill tonight, as they will, and before it goes into the normal Committee, it should go to a committee consisting of the leaders of all three political parties, so that when it goes into Committee proper it can have the imprimatur of this House and country as a whole.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Orbach: I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with almost everything said by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser). I admire very much the stand that he has taken and the moderate words he has used in putting his point of view. While I congratulate most of the speakers who have contributed to the debate, I do not want to go over the ideology behind the arguments. I have appreciated everything that has been said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I could not, however, understand the latter's attitude in opposing the Bill when, in all but one or two minor matters, he seems to be very much in support of legislation and action.
  One of the issues that the right hon. and learned Gentleman took up was that of insurance. He said that this was an
  98
  area in which we ought to let the insurance actuaries operate. I want to speak of my experience in dealing with the question of prejudice in the insurance market. For 28 years I have been the general secretary of an organisation called the Trades Advisory Council. This is the only body which has been dealing with the question of economic discrimination. It has denied discrimination against the Jewish community wherever it has found it.
  Very early in the history of this body I discovered that the Jews in our business community were being discriminated against by almost every insurance company. I made the sort of approach that I believe the new body that has been set up will make in respect of coloured people or people of other ethnic origins. I approached the insurance companies, and from them was referred to the actuaries who had declared that Jewish businessmen in the rag, gown, furniture and food trades were serious risks. From the insurance companies I went to the Institute of Actuaries, which told me that it was definitely correct, statistically, that Jewish traders were poor risks.
  When I asked how it was possible to designate a person as Jewish I was informed that it was easy; it was only necessary to look at his name to know whether he was Jewish. I instanced a letter that I had received from a man named Abraham Levi, who was living in Abergavenny at the time and had written to me saying that he liked the idea of the Trades Advisory Council but that it would not apply to him because he was not a Jew; he was a Welsh Methodist and his people were Christians. After two or three weeks of argument the insurance companies agreed that Jews should not be discriminated against, and they have not been except in isolated instances, which we have been able to clear up without any difficulty.
  Everything that has been said by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) about the attitudes that people are adopting towards coloured people was said about my parents, 60 years ago. A Royal Commission Report exists, and can be read, in which witness after witness testifies to the fact that the Jews were dirty and shiftless; that they created slums and were blacklegs, and that in all ways were

  99
  as bad as some of the black barbarians that the right hon. Gentleman described in his notorious speech. The Jews have proved that they can be integrated in this country and during the 28 years in which I have been working on this problem I have found no difficulty in conciliating either employers or employees to accept Jews in trade unions, trade associations or in employment generally.
  During that very ugly period for the Jewish community—1947 to 1949—I found no difficulty in approaching employers who had exercised discrimination, or whose employees had exercised discrimination. For years I meditated upon this fact and considered that I was a very bright, charming gentleman who happened to be able to get beyond the irrationality of the person whom I was addressing and show him the logic of accepting a person on the basis of merit rather than religion.
  I now turn to an entirely different reason for the success that I have achieved. I have dealt with about 6,000 cases of discrimination and I doubt whether 0·01 per cent. has been unsuccessful. The reason is that there was a sanction behind my approach. When I approached an employer and said that I represented the Trades Advisory Council, an organisation of Jewish businessmen, industrialists and professional people, including firms like Marks and Spencers and—at that time—Unilevers, or whatever the other firms might be, I conjured up in the mind of the anti-Semite whom I was approaching a picture of the world Jewish conspiracy that he had adopted as a prejudicial link, and he was for the moment worried about the economic effects of any sanctions that he thought I might want to introduce. In fact, no such sanctions were ever contemplated.
  I bring up the question of the Jews, because in my opinion religion must be included in the Bill, not because of the Jewish community but because, even going about the Lobbies of this House, apart from going around outside, I hear too much about a minority called the Romans. I detest the word, and also the attitude in which I am spoken to by people who are referring to a minority with a religious faith which does not happen to be mine. I therefore hope that the question of religion will be
  100
  introduced in Committee because, although under the term "ethnic origin" we can include Jews of all kinds, whether religious or non-religious, we cannot include under that term the religion of a certain person——
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I speak as a Roman—whatever that may mean. Does the hon. Member realise that not only I but the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster has made it quite clear that he does not wish the Roman communion to be covered by the terms of this or any other Bill?
  Mr. Orbach: I am not sure how many Roman Catholics would agree with that sentiment. At any rate, it does not apply in respect of the agitation which we had recently against the Sikhs.
  Clause 8(2) of the Bill sets up a quota system. I find that more unacceptable than complete discrimination. It means that we accept the idea of racialism. In the circumstances, I hope that the Minister will withdraw this provision in Committee.
  Clause 9(1) provides that
  "Nothing in this Part of this Act shall render unlawful an act which is done in order to comply with the provisions of any enactment passed or other instrument made for charitable purposes…"
  Many schools operate as charitable trusts, having been set up originally for the indigenous poor but now being used for the children of the useless rich. This Clause will need examination before we can accept it.
  Clause 25(6,a) raises the question of public service. This provision should be spelt out more precisely. We shall want much more information from the Home Secretary because certain Ministries have laid down regulations not only concerning the birth of applicants, but the birth of the applicant's parents and, occasionally, grandparents. Under those circumstances, there would be discrimination not only against British subjects but against British subjects who are the children of British subjects.
  I am disturbed about the question of conciliation, because I have found that it can be a very explosive subject. The division that I previously represented—Willesden, East—was the first in the country to set up an International Friendship Council. Although Willesden, East

  101
  probably has more coloured people, or people of different ethnic origins, than any other constituency, there has been a complete absence of difficulty because of the efforts made during the past 12 years to integrate coloured and other people who live in that division.
  I ought to call the attention of the House to the fact that when I first stood as a candidate at Willesden, East I could appeal to the Welsh miners who had settled in the district. When I was elected as a Member of Parliament I found them complaining about the Irish who had come along and were looking for jobs. Later, the Irish complained about the Indians who were moving into the district, and then the Indians complained about the West Indians who moved in later. Willesden has learned the lesson. People have integrated and are getting on well with one another and I hope that others may learn from that.
  What I deplore about the speeches we had over the weekend from hon. Members opposite was that they were turning the clock back. Over 100 years ago the Governors and other administrators of our Colonies and territories received this instruction, forbidding them from creating any ordinance whereby persons of African or Asiatic birth might be subjected to any disabilities or restrictions to which persons of European birth or descent were not also subject. If we could agree upon that as an administrative act well over 100 years ago it is disgraceful that at this stage learned Members of the House should be opposing a Bill which has such great importance at a time when we have seen that the absence of Bills and Acts of this description has led to a great deal of difficulty in other parts of the world.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: I wish at the outset to refer to an aspect of the Bill which has, I think, received as yet very little consideration. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), in a speech to which I listened with considerable interest, illustrated this by asking the question whether legislation can play a part in the amelioration of race relations. It seems to me that that is not the right question. The right question is, should it be used? That is
  102
  the one to which neither my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) nor, up to now, anyone else has given very much consideration.
  In my view, the Bill before the House would make very deep and damaging encroachments into the proper sphere of personal decision. It happens to be about race relations, but my attitude to it would be quite unchanged if it were about anything else, because to each subject as it has come before the House in the past, whether it was about divorce or homosexuality or abortion or anything else, I have tried to apply exactly the same criterion. After all, we are at present hearing agitation for a sex discrimination board supported by legislation.
  The trouble is that everyone thinks that his own particular interest is of unique importance and justifies this kind of interference with personal freedom, and the hard-working words like "injustice", "prejudice", "irrationality", "human rights", "human dignity", "basic decency" are by their nature omnidirectional and can be trained on any target by any set of dedicated cranks.
  Here I think that it is necessary to establish in our minds a clear distinction between what has been the experience in the United States and the position over here. In the United States the civil rights movement—if I may use a convenient expression—was in the past, before 1945 certainly, concerned with securing for Negroes political and legal rights, and for that purpose the law is the appropriate instrument. In this country every immigrant, the moment he steps over our shores and is accepted as an immigrant, steps at once into full political and legal rights and nothing whatever needs to be done in that field. So that, in fact, the Bill which is before us is concerned solely and exclusively with the intention to achieve social equality.
  Unless that distinction is grasped and never lost hold of I think that false analogies may be drawn, and that a degree of urgency and priority may be put forward for the provisions of this Bill, which appear to justify the encroachment on personal freedom which it represents. I do not wish in what I hope will be a very short speech to go into the question of

  103
  privilege which has been so much canvassed in many speeches. I believe it to be a legitimate criticism of the Bill. If the Bill is calmly considered it will be seen that it does, in fact, employ legal inequality with the intention of creating social equality.
  In the case of adults it seems to me that, in general, an educative use of the law is objectionable. We have heard a great deal from the Home Secretary and from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone about the declaratory part of the Bill. I think that I should object to it if it were indeed merely declaratory, but, of course, it is the foundation for the coercive part of the Bill. I think that in matters of this kind one is either a dirigiste or one is not. I hold one point of view and I respect the other. I cannot, however, respect those who claim the widest freedom of dissent and protest for themselves, but wish to regulate by a close and vengeful prescription the words and behaviour of others.
  Of course, it is sometimes said, "Well, it is not the first encroachment upon personal freedom in the interests of—" various aspirations. Well, it is not. I do not want to check back over the others, with which I have not always agreed, but I would put this question to the House: are we, each time such a proposal comes up, to answer the moral question, the constitutional question, by saying, "Well, it has been done before"? Because, if so, that is an argument for unlimited encroachments upon personal freedom in this process of using the law as a declaratory and educative instrument.
  The line is, of course, hard to define. The line must somewhere be drawn but I would draw it, and it must be, in broad terms, on the grounds where public order is involved or contemporary necessity. Now public order is not involved here, and the question is whether contemporary necessity is involved. It must be, I would suggest, a very compelling contemporary necessity to make so deep an encroachment upon personal freedom in such sensitive areas for a purely social purpose.
  The Home Secretary did seek to justify this. He said that jobs, education, houses, and so on, were the basic elements of life. But all these people enjoy those freedoms
  104
  and opportunities already. They are not without housing. They may not always be able to buy the house they want. Nor, of course, very often, do members of the indigenous population have the jobs they want. Many people have ideas of their suitability for jobs with which other people do not agree. This has even been known to happen to Members of Parliament.
  I know that two reports have been published on which great stress has been laid. I would only say about them that I regard much of the evidence in them as suspect. One has only to look at the way in which some of it was obtained. In one case, two coloured girls were sent to say that they had higher qualifications than two other girls who were also sent to apply for the job. At the interview, they were rejected. It was, therefore, said that there was a clear case of discrimination. The purpose of an interview, surely, is to judge a person when one sees and speaks to him or her.
  The two coloured girls in that case, by definition, did not have the qualifications which they claimed to have. Secondly, they were lying, Thirdly, they went in bad faith, not seeking the job but to make a report to an organisation. If I were interviewing two girls in those circumstances and I did not finish up with some kind of adverse sense, I should regard an interview as a wholly useless operation. I mention this only because that agent provocateur system is always open to that objection where an interview is involved.
  Reference has been made to insurance, to which the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) also referred. This illustrates precisely the fallacy of this kind of Bill and the attack on prejudice. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said, university graduates as a category are penalised. That is very unfair to some undergraduates who may be sober and discreet drivers, but in their first year the insurers do not know who is sober and discreet and who is not. They therefore take them as a category based upon experience. That is quite lawful.
  If the Bill is passed, it will be unlawful to take coloured people as a category even though actuarial experience may show that a significant line of category may be drawn around a coloured community. Since insurance proceeds by

  105
  categories and by experience, it is wrong that it should be forbidden by law.
  I turn at once to the mechanics of the Bill, to which not enough attention has been paid. Let us get it clear that we are here borrowing an American procedure and taking it over virtually lock, stock and barrel. It is interesting to see what the American propagandists over the past few years have been telling us that we ought to do and why, because we have it in the Bill.
  The first principle on which the American propagandists insist is that the legislation must cover everything. The Bill is indeed comprehensive. The second principle is that enforcement must be mainly administrative so as to overcome the reluctance of individuals to make and prosecute complaints, but to put it in the hands of a board which is amply provided with public funds. That is the system of the Bill.
  The third principle is very interesting. The Home Secretary referred to the mildness of the civil procedure and the conciliation procedure. It is interesting to see what is the American commendation in this respect. The Americans say that the civil, and not the criminal, procedure should be used, for the following reasons. In the criminal procedure, proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. There may be trial by jury. The fines may be too small and it has been found that judges are reluctant to imprison in this class of case, whereas, it is said, the civil procedure has the following advantages, and I list them.
  First, the damages in the civil procedure provide an incentive of possible economic gain which will encourage complaints. Secondly, proof is by the preponderance of the evidence. Thirdly, exemplary damages are a far greater detriment to the defendant than any fine could be. Fourthly, the expense of defending a civil action is always very high and a person who defends unsuccessfully may have an order for costs made against him, whereas the costs of the Board are always paid for out of public funds. Fifthly, there is available in the civil procedure the remedy of perpetual injunction as a matter of course, enforced by unlimited imprisonment. Sixthly—I am still quoting—not being technically penal, the provisions will be broadly interpreted.
  106
  That is the procedure in the Bill, and those are the reasons why it was chosen. In an interview with The Times some months before the Bill was published, the Chairman of the Race Relations Board said that we should be drawing heavily on American experience and that the American system included a system of escalating deterrents. We have it in the Bill. A person may have an order made against him although there is reasonable doubt of his guilt. In any event, one would scarcely dare to defend because of the cost. On this balance-of-evidence procedure, the penalties can be crushing and irresistible and bind a person's behaviour as long as he lives. It will be like being on permanent probation. It is no wonder that conciliation is such a success. The American writers observe that in those states where the enforcement procedure is sufficiently fierce, conciliation is almost invariably successful, whereas in those states where it is less fierce many people remain obdurate.
  I finish this part with a quotation which is very common among those writers. It says:
  "Conciliation in this context is a mixture of coercion and educational persuasion."
  The purpose of conciliation is to get the house or the job, with back pay. In the Bill, there is provision to extract a written assurance from the defendant that he will never discriminate again and the terms of settlement may include anything, including back pay, an apology or anything that the complainant chooses to insist upon. The person complained against dare not resist because the process of the law under the Bill is crushing if he tries to do so.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. and learned Member says that the process of the law is so crushing that the person complained against would not dream of opposing an application to the Board. Surely, he fails to understand that before the matter gets to that stage it has to go through the whole conciliation procedure. The Race Relations Board has to be persuaded that there is a prima facie case of racial discrimination. It is only in the case which requires that kind of burden upon the person complained against that this would ever happen.
  Mr. Bell: Perhaps the hon. Member was not listening carefully. Of course, the Race Relations Board will have found that there was a prima facie case before even the conciliation procedure comes into operation. The point which I was making was that the conciliation procedure is coercive, because it has behind it the formidable engine of the civil method of enforcement.
  What will be the effect of the Bill on race relations? In the United States so many people have spoken and written about this that it is presumptuous to dogmatise. I can but offer, therefore, a personal opinion, based upon some little evidence, that it was when the American legislation, after the war, moved into the social field out of the political and legal that the tensions rose, and that it will be the same for the same reasons here.
  May I take one example to show what I mean? Suppose that now a coloured man wants to buy a house and he is not able to buy it. He will be disappointed; he may suspect it is because he is a coloured man, but he will not be sure, and the matter will probably end there. If the Bill becomes law, he may be tempted by the prospect of damages to make a complaint and then, if there is held to be a prima facie case, the seller will be dragged through the conciliation procedure. The seller will cave in at that point and sign a somewhat humiliating document. He will probably agree, indeed he may be forced to agree, to sell the house to the complainant. If he does not, he will go through the court procedure that I have described.
  In that case that man, his family, his neighbours and his friends will all be deeply resentful for ever. The coloured man will for the first time have taken a formal hostile step against the native community, with psychological consequences which will remain with him for ever. It is the accumulation over the months and years of thousands of such cases that builds up the tensions from which a flash of violence comes. It is necessary to know what is in store for us in the Bill.
  I ask how it came about that such a Bill could be proposed to the British Parliament. There has been a skilful and persistent campaign by a resolute minority. One American principle is,
  108
  "Use all disciplines", by which is meant promote or commission legal, sociological, psychological and scientific articles, blind your opponents with slanted science.
  A columnist writing in The Times this morning claimed to know the recent history of this. The Government, he says, carefully avoided any major reference until after the General Election. Then it set up two inquiries. First came the P.E.P. Report and then, 10 days later—he says the timing was carefully planned—the Race Relations Board published its annual report asking for extended powers. Then, in July, we were told about the Bill. The once great Times, now owned by Lord Thomson, would twist no facts against the Bill. Its attitude to the subject is most kindly described as obsessional, and in the last week one wonders what has happened to its journalistic integrity.
  The Director-General of the B.B.C. has openly said, and so informed Members of Parliament, that impartiality on the B.B.C. does not extend to what he was pleased to call racialism. One knows how the public mind can be assailed under cover of entertainment by such programmes as that featuring a character called Alf Garnett. I do not want to be unkind to the intellectualist Left, the Liberals. I have a lot of respect for the party, but their part as catalysts of tragedy is too great for mere oblivion. With unction on their lips they embalm and seek to embody the death wish of the British people. I can only trust that in this they fail.
  The subject of coloured immigration is separate and distinct from the Bill, but its relevance is obvious. It was about this that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made the speech over the weekend which has been the subject of controversy. He called for a reduction in immigration and some movement towards repatriation, which appears to have obtained approval. But it has been condemned today by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone and others for intemperance of language and for the tone in which it was uttered.
  I would ask hon. Members, my hon. Friends in particular, looking back over

  109
  the history of the matter, where those who have used muted language have got us. For example, what part have those who condemn strong language played in procuring the passage of the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act? Those who were afraid to take any unpopular line, or to utter what 90 per cent. of the population thought at that time, are responsible for the problem that we have on our hands now. What sort of country should we be living in if they had prevailed in 1962?
  It is so easy and so rewarding in the short term to steer a middle line in politics, leaving it to others to trace the boundary. But those who trace the boundary define the line of progress. At present two taps are running. There are 50,000 coloured immigrants coming in and 70,000 native British going out in a year. If the present Government stay in power for much longer, there will be a lot more than that. When one looks at those two contemporaneous processes and estimates how great and how fast a change in the composition of the community is represented by that, then I must say that tentative anxiety and modulated euphoria are inapposite to the nature of the problem.
  The problem is so great that if my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West had used language less vivid it would have been inadequate to the needs of the moment. If what we need is not to be reminded but to be jolted, then nothing less would have done. I believe that we need to be jolted, because time is short. It is easy to say that repatriation is impossible and that they are here and must have the same rights as others. They have the same rights as others, and we do not need this Bill. But must we accept it as axiomatic that everyone who has come here in the last 10 years must stay here? Is it inhuman to offer a free passage home with a resettlement grant on a voluntary basis? Has anyone an objection in principle to that?
  If it is to be done, and it is to make a useful contribution to the problem, it must be done within the next 10 years. When one considers that the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was passed in 1962 and that there are 50,000 coloured immigrants coming in in 1968, it is time for a jolt. Having given that jolt, my right hon. Friend deserves and will obtain in increas-
  110
  ing measure the thanks and recognition of the country.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said in his opening remarks that he would make a short speech. I do not know whether he surprised himself, but certainly it did not seem that way to a good many of us.
  In the course of his remarks, he said in substance that only the dedicated cranks need worry, because nothing need be done. That seemed to me to be somewhat in contrast to what was said by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who appeared to think that there was a powder keg and that there would be rivers of blood. We are in a certain amount of confusion. After all, we are considering an Amendment of which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West were joint authors. They have each made speeches saying what they think that it means. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is either very good or very bad, but who was very good today, gave his explanation of what the Amendment meant. It meant that we had produced an imperfect egg and should take it away and bring back a better one. On the other hand, another co-author, going straight from that Shadow Cabinet meeting, believed that what his colleagues had decided was that it was necessary to stop the Government lighting a powder keg and causing streams to flow with blood. These are very odd and wide differences as to the meaning of the same words.
  The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West often surprises me. We are told that he appears in the rôle of the high priest of Toryism, yet his sentiments generally strike me much more as those of a Manchester school little Englander. He is derived much more from Richard Cobden than Benjamin Disraeli. Certainly his escapade into racialism has little to do with Toryism, whatever one may think of it.
  This racial fear of the man who is coming in and who will take the bread out of one's mouth is the fear of the poor white and of the very lower middle class

  111
  shopkeeper and tiny business man. He is the man who fears the competition of the incomer. That is not the attitude of a Tory, to whom I should have thought that the pigmentation of the labouring classes was a matter of some indifference.
  I should perhaps express an interest here, because I come of immigrant stock. The fear of the incomer is not a new one. It was said of my forebears:
  "The time has come to speak out. We are told that these aliens who come here, springing themselves upon the public expense, taking bread out of the mouths of honest Englishmen, overcrowding, stealing and cheating, arousing disgust and loathing wherever they go…we are told that these aliens are fellow-Christians and that we must endure their insolence and their outlandish ways in a Christian spirit… Let us not put up with them any longer. If the French do not want them, neither do we. And if the Lord Himself chastises them, why should we oppose Him? Let us admit that they richly deserve it. And let us tell them to go where they belong—if not to France, then to Hell…"
  That was said in 1688, when the Huguenots came, from whom my mother's family springs.
  We have had the Flemings, the Huguenots and the Jews all coming here, generally oppressed and always arousing antagonism. After the war, we had the Poles and the Balts, and recently we have had West Indians and others. But, right through, they have enriched our community. We must absorb them and bring them in, because it is in the very variety of mankind that lies its genius.
  As long ago as 1946, I wrote a series of articles in the now defunct World Review designed to analyse full employment, which at that time was a new conception. The point that I made then was that full employment involved an immigration policy, because full employment meant a choice of jobs. I argued that a choice of jobs meant that there would be jobs which would not be chosen, and that we would not have an effective policy of full employment unless we opened the doors for people to come in and take the jobs which our people would not choose because progress and education had promoted them above the jobs which were still suitable for people coming from less developed communities.
  I made the point, too, that at the other end, as the educational system developed, inevitably there would be a promotion
  112
  block at the top so that there would have to be what is now termed the brain drain, with people from an advanced community with full employment going to the less advanced communities, taking with them the benefits of the education which they had obtained in our community.
  In 1946, I conceived that that was what full employment was about, and I urged that the immigration system should be a planned one. The tragedy is not that it has happened but that it has been unplanned. We have allowed concentrations to take place which have had a socially disruptive effect in certain parts of the country. That is what is wrong. There is nothing wrong with immigration. We need it, and we shall go on needing it, but it must be planned, providing the necessary services, opportunities and equality of treatment.
  I believe that this Bill is on the right lines, and it will do a lot of good. It is a charter of aspirations, and those aspirations could not be enforced by ordinary methods. A lot of immigrants have chips on their shoulders. If ever anyone else gets the job, the house or the insurance policy which one of them seeks, they will consider it to be racial discrimination, when in many cases it is not. If they bring actions based upon that, racial good will will not be created. Therefore, it is right that, between the immigrant and his grievance, there should be the Board, and the Board's job is primarily conciliation. That is what I conceive as the number one priority: conciliation boards finding and explaining what is wrong and clearing matters in that manner.
  Secondly—and this will be most important—where conciliation has not worked and is resisted there should be an inquiry by the Board, and that should be the real sanction. It is that inquiry that should be given all the teeth. The Board should hold the inquiry, or, if necessary, appoint commissioners to take the inquiry. It should be a public inquiry with the right to subpoena, the right to interrogate in public and the right to examine documents. As the hon and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South said, that will be a formidable deterrent.
  This will only work if it is something which public opinion feels is right. I am

  113
  sure that that is so now. Whatever may be the feeling of the general public towards immigrants or immigration, there is a great feeling in the English people that one ought to be fair and that when they are here they should be fairly treated. If they are not being fairly treated, that is a dirty thing to do and anyone treating them unfairly should be pilloried, made to stand up in public and have his mean conduct pointed out, exposed and examined.
  This is an important deterrent. But behind it, in case of total defiance, I suggest there should be criminal prosecution. I do not believe that this county court arrangement can possibly work. In a case of damages the person damaged must be entitled to claim. If one allows that Part I is unworkable. If one does not allow it and says that only the Board may claim the damages, even though they are paid to the damaged people, what is the feeling of Jones who get substantial damages because the Board brings his case and Brown who feels he has had the same treatment and does not get any damages because the Board does not bring his case?
  Mr. Ronald Bell Mr. Ronald Bell rose——
  Mr. Paget: This seems to me to raise an impossible position. The courts will only deal with injunctions where matters are specific and the courts can supervise and inspect. That inevitably means that the courts, to apply injunctions, will continually restrict the broad requirements of Parliament. If we are to get the breadth we require we cannot have an injunction procedure, because the point of that procedure and the way it works out will be that it gets narrower and narrower.
  Again, behind the injunction procedure is imprisonment for contempt of court. That is the worst form of imprisonment, because it is indefinite, and a stubborn man may make it difficult for the courts to let him out and the whole procedure is brought into disrepute. It will happen in the rarest circumstances, but when necessary we should have a definite sentence by a criminal court. I do not think that quasi-civil compromise can work. However, we can work all this out in Committee. Surely that is the place to do it.
  114
  We do not know whether what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton. South-West said was or was not Conservative policy. Whether his crime is heresy or letting the cat out of the bag, nobody knows at this stage. I hope that with the opportunities being given by my right hon. Friend we shall hear no more of this Amendment, which can only do us harm.
  7.25 p.m.
  Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member has a great deal that he or she would like to say on the Bill. I am no exception. I also have the burden of putting the views of my colleagues in the Liberal Party. Nevertheless, I will do my best to cut out Committee points and to shorten my speech as much as possible. Hon. Members who have spoken have been co-operative in making short speeches and I am not anxious to be the exception.
  I was glad to find that at least the point of view of the Liberal Party on this important subject has penetrated the somewhat closed mind of the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). He spoke about the responsibility for the present situation. I agree with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that no one has the right to throw stones. We have all made mistakes. However, I do not accept what the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South said about the responsibility for the present situation laying solely at the door of those who have taken this or the other view during the past two, three or four years.
  The matter goes back a great deal further than that. Much of the responsibility for the situation in which this country finds itself rests with those who were responsible for imperial policies at a different time and those who did not take the necessary steps to develop some of the communities from which the immigrants have come. For instance, had the opportunities of jobs and improved standards of living been made available in the West Indies, the passage would probably have been in the opposite direction across the Atlantic. If we are to spend time apportioning responsibility, let us not forget those who, in the past, neglected to raise the standard of living

  115
  in and bring to maturity those countries from which people come to the better standards of living here.
  No one will deny the importance and seriousness of this occasion but I suggest that it is also an unusual occasion in that the speeches so far have obviously been made with the intention of influencing the views of those listening and of influencing the vote. We have not had the sterile kind of performance—a long speech to which nobody is listening and of which everybody knows the end. We have had speeches from both sides genuinely trying to influence views.
  It is clear from what has been said that divisions on a matter such as this do not lie along ordinary party lines. Such disagreement as exists crosses party lines. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) said that a small party had smaller difficulties in arriving at a unanimous point of view. I accept that it is easier for a party of 12 Members to reach a unanimous point of view on a Bill such as this. But, in passing, I reject the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) in the debate on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill that we were expressing certain views because we did not have this problem in our constituencies. I assure him that many of us are in constant contact with this problem in many ways. I have lived and practised in areas where this problem exists and, in any case, we all have hospitals in our communities in which we have a very large number of immigrants and coloured people upon whom we depend. I mention that as the other side of the coin, because what we are concerned about here is not merely the under-privileged immigrant who comes here and lives in under-privileged circumstances, but those who come here and make a major contribution to our affairs. We must ensure that they, too, get equality of treatment.
  I hope that when the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West suggested that we were taking this view because we did not have the problem in our constituencies he was not suggesting that we ought to take a different view merely because of local pressures. I hope that he was not suggesting that we should be more diligent in safeguarding our seats
  116
  than in safeguarding our principles. I hope that no hon. Member would wish to stay in this House under false pretences. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends would not wish to bend to the winds of prejudice.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) is not here, but I am sure that I am speaking for him when I say that although I do not agree with his opinion in this matter, he would accept that when we are dealing with immigrants who are here this is an entirely different question, and that there should be no discrimination against them.
  Dr. Winstanley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it leads me to my next point. What we were discussing on the previous occasion was immigration. It is essential to make clear that today we are not discussing that subject. What we are discussing is the sort of treatment which should be afforded to those who are here now. We are discussing what can be done by the use of the law to ensure that they have equal rights and equal opportunities as equal citizens. We are discussing the rights of citizens of this country, not immigration. It is important to make that clear because it would be regrettable if, at the end of the day, it was thought that the vote, which I hope will be overwhelmingly in support of the Bill, was for unrestricted immigration.
  Unfortunately, we have a somewhat confusing system of politics. It has been arrived at by an evolutionary process over the years, and in some ways it is divisive. If the Government think one thing, it is necessary for the Opposition parties at least to appear to think the other things. The result is that the country is constantly in doubt about various issues. I have difficulty in recalling a time when we had a Government in which the public had confidence. There is an almost perpetual state of confusion about whether the right thing is being done.
  There are certain areas of politics in which it is essential to give a clear lead. When we are in that kind of territory—and we are with this Bill—we must jettison certain of our procedures to ensure that we get what is often objected to,

  117
  a consensus. I should like a clear message to go out from this House at the end of the day, because I think that the racial problem is one upon which we cannot afford to equivocate. It is a problem which must be solved.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Sir Dingle Foot) posed two questions is. He asked, first, whether there was a problem, and, secondly, whether the Government could give any assistance in finding a solution to it by the use of the law. There is a problem. I am sure that we all agree that there is a problem which must be solved. We cannot leave it to solve itself. There has been the odd hesitant suggestion that there is a problem, but that as long as we leave it alone everything will be all right in the end. I do not think that it will.
  There is a tendency—and I am sorry to say this—for politicians to assume that there is nothing wrong with humanity, that people are nice, and will always behave in the right way provided we give them the right environment. This is not necessarily true. Human beings have weaknesses. They have certain innate tendencies which are less attractive than others. On the whole, human beings are insecure. We are easily frightened, and our security is easily threatened. It is because of this that the whole problem of racial discrimination arises.
  It arises from our resentment, our fear, of things that are different. We see it with country dwellers objecting to town dwellers. We see it towards people who wear different clothes, who do their hair in different ways, who eat different foods, or use different forms of speech. We see it most clearly with people whose skins are of a different colour.
  Discrimination arises essentially from fear and insecurity, and it can be overcome in only two ways. First, it can be overcome by getting accustomed to the differences so that in the end they seem to disappear: by familiarity breeding a healthy contempt for the differences. Secondly, it can be overcome by getting rid of the differences by absorption. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), whose speech I enjoyed immensely, spoke about the Angles, the Jutes and the Saxons He was right to do so, because our routs are very broad-based. It is
  118
  difficult for anyone to say who is a Roman, who is a Jute, who is a Celt, a Scot, a Pict, a Norman, or a Dane, although originally between these peoples there must have been profound resentment of the kind that is felt today. The different peoples have become asborbed into one community by inter-marriage and by intermixing. This is one solution to the racial problem, but not necessarily the only one, and certainly not a practicable one here and now, but I think that we can look forward to a remote future in which inter-marriage between the various races in the world has become so complete that nobody knows precisely what colour he is or once was.
  It must be emphasised that there are no biological objections to inter-marriage between the different races. No evidence has ever been produced that damaging or dangerous biological tendencies have arisen from that kind of inter-marriage. I mention it merely as a long-term solution, as a means of getting rid of the problem altogether but here and now we have to look for a more immediate solution. If we do not find it in the short-term, no long-term solution will be possible.
  The short-term solution, surely, is to get accustomed to the differences, for people to become familiar with them to such an extent that they cease to matter? It is in this respect that the House must give a lead, and I come now to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone. I listened to his speech with profound respect, and with enjoyment and interest. I agreed with most of what he said, but at the end of his speech it became difficult to see why he was taking the position that he did. He explained his attitude in detail. Indeed, he has done so before, and he has always been consistent. On at least three occasions I have heard him make clear his view that, irrespective of the problem of immigration, once people are here they must be treated as equals in every possible way. I also understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he was in favour of using the law to ensure that there was equality of treatment in certain respects, particularly housing and employment. If he is in favour of the use of the law to ensure complete equality in these two important fields of human activity,

  119
  why on earth is he not supporting the Bill?
  I said that I thought there should be a consensus, but it ought to appear to the country that this House very substantially, with a very small minority against, is in favour of legislation on this subject. It may be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in favour of that and that when the Opposition spokesman winds up for the Amendment he will say that they are in favour of that. I want to give him a warning as a member of a party which has certain difficulties in deciding how to vote.
  Sometimes we are against a Conservative reasoned Amendment and people say, "You voted with the Government". Sometimes, in order to oppose the Government, we have to support a reasoned Amendment and people say, "I see you voted with the Conservatives". The public of Britain do not hear the reasons which lie behind a reasoned Amendment. They are not interested in a reasoned Amendment. At the end of the day they will say that so many voted against, but they will not know the reasons given in the long, persuasive and compelling speech by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone why the Opposition voted against the Government.
  My principal reason for supporting the Bill is not that I am wholly convinced that it will do quite as much as the Home Secretary thinks in practical terms, but because I believe it absolutely essential in this crucial field of human activity that the Government, the State, Parliament, this House, should give a lead and set a good example.
  Hon. Members may remember that the question of the example being set by the State or the House was used by the Lord Chancellor in his argument in favour of the abolition of capital punishment. It is interesting to note that the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith, and the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, used the same argument in discussing the Commonwealth Immigration Bill in another place. They both were talking of the importance of not setting a bad example, and they were saying that Parliament was setting a bad example by that Bill. Here we have an opportunity to set a good example and
  120
  it is the most important thing about this legislation.
  As the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone said, I hope that right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench will think again. If they have objections to the Bill, let them pursue them in Committee. If they still have objections, let them raise them on Report. If they cannot get it right then, let them vote against the Bill on Third Reading. If, at the end of the debate, there were an overwhelming vote in this House in favour of legislation, it would have an immense effect outside. I think it not too late for us to arrive at that solution.
  I say two things about objections to the Bill. It has been said over and over again that it restricts liberty and individual freedom of choice. I do not believe that the provisions of the Bill restrict freedom in any objectionable way. The ordinary person operating a choice and saying, "I will sell this to you rather than to you", or "I will employ you rather than you", seems to be in no jeopardy at all. The person is in jeopardy only if he does so on strictly racial grounds. This House should not object to restricting the freedom of people to take that attitude.
  It is also said that this legislation will not be enforceable. It may not be. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone asked, what is the point of having a law if it cannot be enforced? Yet he knows that the detection rate of crime in London at present is only 20 per cent. and in the case of some offences it is as low as 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. Are we to abolish the offence of theft of a motor car because only one in 40 is punished for that offence? It is not a question of whether this can be enforced but a question of setting an example and of this House saying that it considers this kind of behaviour intolerable and undesirable. Let us say so with a loud and clear voice.
  Both Opposition parties were asked if they would consider the procedure of a Select Committee. We find this wholly acceptable. We do not share the anxieties about it expressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We welcome Select Committees in general and in particular we would welcome an all-party Select Committee on this subject because we

  121
  believe it would be of substantial assistance in arriving at an all-party solution on a matter on which there is very largely all-party feeling.
  I hope that the Bill will get a Second Reading and, having got it, I hope that things will settle down in the country. I think they will and that people will slowly learn to work together. I hope that we shall not try to slide the problem under the carpet. Part of the strength of this nation lies in the diversity of the communities which make it up, and the richness of the world lies in the diversity of its peoples. Each has his or her particular contribution to make. Let us enrich our community by absorbing these many different types of people and by seeing that all enjoy equal rights.
  7.46 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Richard: Like other speakers in this debate, I shall try to be brief. I believe that I can say what I want to say in approximately 10 minutes.
  First, I wish to say how much I welcomed the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I can well understand the reasons why the Conservative Party Front Bench found it necessary to put forward the Amendment. I can well understand that, faced obviously with a division of opinion on the back benches, and perhaps even on the Front Bench of the Conservative Party, it was found necessary to put forward an Amendment which, it was hoped, would lead the party united into the Lobby.
  Unfortunately, that hope—such as it was—was shattered by the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), whom I am very pleased to see in his place because I wish to refer to his speech. I do not want to go into the details of the speech, nor into much of its language. Suffice it to say that I read it very carefully and watched a fair part of it on television over the weekend. They were the sentiments of a Mississippi demagogue expressed in the measured accents of a ex-professor of classical Greek. I looked for the qualities for which in some fields he has such a high reputation, for his integrity and his logic, but—and I would not have said this if the right hon. Gentleman had not been here—I looked in vain.
  122
  Nevertheless, having listened to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, I thought that perhaps we might yet be able to develop a national consensus in our approach to this racial problem. I think it good that the two great parties of State are—at least at Front Bench level and, I hope, increasingly at back-bench level—now prepared to try to develop that general consensus and whether this is by way of a Select Committee or not seems to me secondary.
  As the spokesman for the Liberal Party said, we are not here talking about limitation on the number of immigrants coming to this country. Some of us on these benches were most unhappy at the time the Labour Government introduced the White Paper on immigration in 1965. A number of us accepted that there had to be limitation on the numbers of people coming into the country for one main reason, which was expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in these phrases:
  "Integration without limitation is impossible…"
  That may or may not be true, although I certainly accept it—
  "But limitation without integration is indefensible."
  What we are talking about today is, not the first half of that equation, but the second half. What we are discussing on this Bill is not what numbers are coming into Britain, although I must say that some of the arithmetical projections I have heard as to the size of the coloured population of Britain by the end of the century are so wild and lacking in any mathematical precision that it is difficult for me to understand the basis on which some of the figures are put forward. We are considering the simple issue of whether this Bill helps to make integration easier or whether it does not help to make integration easier.
  The issues are twofold. and there are two questions that the House and the country must ask themselves. First, is racial discrimination, if it exists in Britain, a proper subject for legal intervention—in other words, the question which was asked specifically by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of the Opposition Front Bench this afternoon: do they believe that racial discrimination should be made unlawful? We received

  123
  a qualified answer to that question, though not as complete or as definite a one from the Opposition spokesman as I would have liked. Secondly—and perhaps this is consequential—does this Bill help?
  As to the first question, there is overwhelming evidence in Britain that racial discrimination exists. I have not heard much from anybody, either in the House or outside, which has gone any substantial distance to convince me that the P.E.P. Report, the Street Report, and the Report of the Race Relations Board should be disregarded and that we should come to the decision, as the starting point for the argument, that racial discrimination does not exist in Britain. There is strong and abundant evidence that it exists, and that it exists moreover in certain key fields, particularly those of housing and employment.
  If there is discrimination, the second question we must ask is, therefore: does the enactment of any law against racial discrimination help to lessen that discrimination? In other words, would the Bill make racial discrimination less? Here again, there is abundant evidence. There is the whole of the American experience. I have heard nothing, either inside or outside the House, which leads me to believe that we can totally disregard the American experience as being somehow or other inapplicable to the British situation.
  It is true, as the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said, that economic conditions here are different from those that exist in certain parts of the United States. However, one thing that clearly emerges from the report made by the Commission headed by Governor Kerner into the recent riots in the United States is that increasingly the protest is one about status and not about material conditions. It is the drive by the negro in America, not for a larger car or a newer television set, but much more for equality of the negro in America with the white man in America. The overwhelming American evidence to the effect that legislation does bring about a lessening of racial discrimination in key fields which improves relations between the races must clearly be given serious attention.
  124
  Therefore, if racial discrimination exists in Britain, and there is evidence to prove it, and if there is evidence to prove, further, that the imposition of the law helps to lessen that discrimination, there is then the consequential point we have to consider on the Bill. Indeed, it is the only one left for the House to consider tonight. It is: is this Bill the right sort of Bill to enact for our problems? I listened with a great deal of attention and sympathy to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, but I heard nothing in his speech which led me to the conclusion that there was something so inherently wrong in the Bill that it should not be accorded a Second Reading.
  After all, if the principle be accepted—and I think that really the Opposition do accept it—that racial discrimination should be made unlawful, that a Bill should, therefore, be passed to make it unlawful, and that specifically the Bill should deal with the two key sectors of housing and employment, then although I can perhaps understand the internal political pressures which led the Opposition to take the course that they did I do not feel that the reasons they have been presenting this afternoon are sufficient for them to refrain from giving the Bill a Second Reading.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman was absolutely right in saying that the tone of the debate is very important. It is not only what one says about race relations that is important. It is also the way in which it is said. This debate has I believe helped. The attitude of the Opposition today as expressed at the Dispatch Box has helped to undo some of the mischief which was done over the weekend. I very much regret, however, that members of the general public, when they watch television in their sitting rooms or when they read the Press tomorrow morning, will be confronted merely with the fact that on the Second Reading of the Race Relations Bill of 1968 the Conservative Party, one of the two great parties of State in Britain, went into the Division Lobby and failed to give their support to the Bill.
  I therefore make this earnest appeal to the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), whose problems and difficulties I do understand. Even if he cannot go so far, and even if his party will not now go so far, as to say that it will

  125
  vote for the Bill on Second Reading and then try to amend it in Committee, could not the right hon. Gentleman, when he winds up, give at least a clear, unequivocal and definite statement to the country, first, that the Conservative Party accepts that racial discrimination exists in Britain, particularly in the two key sectors of employment and housing; secondly, that the Conservative Party believes that racial discrimination should be made unlawful and, finally, that therefore, in principle, it would support a proper Measure which did precisely that? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can go that far.
  7.57 p.m.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: As I was saying when I was so summarily interrupted by the electorate two years ago, there are many things which Parliament can achieve without resorting to legislation and many areas which it can influence for the good of the people. This debate is pertinent to that theme. I venture to contribute because I now represent a Midlands constituency which has a minor but growing problem of race relations.
  I venture to contribute also because just recently I have been involved in a by-election campaign—I do not wish to make any political point about this—together with three of my new colleagues in the House. We have had the unique advantage of having very close contact with large segments of the electorate, something which other hon. Members have not been able to experience since the last General Election.
  I speak also because I wish to see race relations in Britain improved, as do millions of honest, sensible and straightforward people. These are people who feel that they want someone to speak up for them amidst all the miasma of charge and counter-charge about race relations which go on, not only in the House, but in the Press and on television. I have discovered—I am sure that my three new colleagues here have discovered it, too, although I have not consulted them—that these people are genuinely worried and puzzled. They are genuinely worried because we in Parliament have let so many immigrants in—I go back now over the course of the last 10 to 14 years—and are continuing to let too many
  126
  immigrants in. They are also worried because they believe that possibly common sense may not ultimately prevail and that, unless we tread very carefully indeed, we shall finally be presented with a problem of the type which is now very much to the fore in the United States and which could lead to very serious trouble in certain areas in Britain.
  It is important to try to identify who these people are that I am talking about. They are neither the extremists who incite hatred with intemperate speeches or who daub slogans on walls, and neither are they the esoteric intellectuals who preach multi-racialism from the security of Mayfair and Hampstead drawing rooms or who preach through the editorial columns of the Thomson newspapers or the New Statesman.
  Many of these people who are moderate in their approach and who take a sensible line are much incensed when those who disagree with them try to brand them as racialists, just because they do speak up. They are people who, I believe, probably started out with a latent ethnic prejudice against the coloured man, but who have done much by their own efforts to overcome such prejudice and who now, despite what their basic feelings were originally, are anxious to live and let live, particularly where the immigrant population is prepared to come to terms with them.
  One of the main features of my by-election campaign was the number of questions I received on the doorstep and at meetings—exceeding even the number concerned about the nation's economic situation—about immigration, what future trends would be, and what would be done to solve the problem by Parliament as a corporate entity. In complete fairness to both Government and Opposition Front Benches, I must say that there was considerable disturbance in the minds of many people in contemplating the projected legislation now embodied in this Bill.
  I have always maintained that, while Governments can lead, they cannot in the end compel against the general will, unless they finally revert to totalitarian methods. The people about whom I have spoken recognise the objectives behind the Bill as humanitarian. They realise

  127
  that there is good will in the Government's effort in bringing it forward. But they believe that the Bill is misconceived and that it may well have an effect opposite to what is intended. I am sure that there are many hon. Members on both sides, if they stop to think about it, who dislike legislation which is not properly enforceable, which is not truly acceptable to the majority of the nation, and which may eventually be brought into contempt through non-observance.
  It is my belief that, for the reasons and provisos which I have stated, the Bill is a bad one and will not be capable of operation in a democratic spirit. Yet to make it even stronger than it is in order to make it work would be an even greater affront to the majority of those who are prepared help overcome discrimination by other means. We cannot legislate to make people better human beings in their hearts, but we can educate and lead them, we can show them by good example. This is necessarily a slower process, probably a much slower process, but it is more effective in the end, and, if our cause is right, we shall succeed.
  My impression is that, over the past three or four years, racial tension has subsided in this country, except, perhaps, in the areas of worst overcrowding in parts of Birmingham, the Midlands and London. I believe that in public houses, restaurants, places of entertainment and most public places one now sees a general acceptance which was not previously there.
  I agree with those who say that the controversial and difficult areas of race relations are in housing and employment, and these allow for a much more subtle discrimination by racialists. In my view, extra steps should be taken in these areas. But I believe that the voluntary system, properly worked, is best, and success will depend on maximum good will on both sides. If we are realistic about these things, we must recognise that coloured people in this country will always find it difficult to be accepted completely in our society, which is far from perfect, but I am sure that there will be a gradual growth of acceptance and tolerance if the immigrant population itself is prepared to respond.
  In a slightly different context, this has, surely, been the case with Jewish people,
  128
  to whom the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) referred in his speech. Jewish people often had to stand up to extreme prejudice of the most bigoted kind in the 1920s and 1930s, but it is not going too far to say that today the vast majority of Jewish people are largely accepted and assimilated by society. They are unremarkable people and they do not stand out in any particular respect. When one does occasionally hear anti-Semitic prejudice expressed today, it sounds curiously old-fashioned. I was talking about this to a Jewish man yesterday. He said that, as anti-Semitism has simmered down and passed away, it is sometimes imagined in the minds of Jewish people when, in fact, it is not really there. He said also that the bad Jew will find in it a refuge for his own lack of success or disappointment in life. This particular man was against the Bill because he fully expects the prejudice against coloured people to be exacerbated and that the bad coloured man may well take a line similar to that taken by the bad Jewish man.
  The Bill worries me particularly because I believe that the racialists, with a little ingenuity, will be able to get round its provisions, while those who have far less guile and are completely innocent and honest will find themselves enmeshed and intimidated, making poor decisions as a result. I have already heard stories of house agents who are planning to circumvent the Bill's provisions in order not to sell houses to coloured people. I have been told, also, by a personnel manager, who is extremely worried and who is by no means a racialist, that if, in the course of many weeks, he turns down too many coloured people who fall below his usual acceptable standards, he will have the humiliation of being taken before the Race Relations Board and then possibly be prosecuted, and his firm with him.
  One of the worse ways of emphasising the difference between people is to discriminate between them in the law of the land. It is generally accepted that many immigrants here now are under-privileged, though not to the same extent as coloured people are in the United States. This Bill will definitely discriminate in their favour. Some people will say that this is right. But I submit that the many immigrants who are genuinely anxious to have the opportunity to integrate with

  129
  us will ultimately find that the Bill proves an embarrassment and handicap to them, while for others who are bent on trouble and not anxious to take a full part in our society it could provide a dangerous weapon
  Like most hon. Members, I have had a large number of letters on the subject, particularly since the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) at the weekend. Almost without exception, they have urged me personally to vote against the Bill. I shall not do that, but I shall support the reasoned Amendment so ably put forward and argued by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). But some useful comments were made in some of the less extreme letters I have received. If the House will bear with me, I shall quote just one paragraph which sums up the feeling of many people, particularly in the Midlands. This gentleman writes:
  "Why should we have to change our ways and have new laws thrust upon us for a section of the community which usually refuses to become part of us? The immigrant who is determined to integrate and take up our ways will usually become a good and acceptable citizen. This is the price he should be asked to pay. He cannot have equality on his own terms."
  I believe that many people would subscribe to that view.
  A very good case can be made for the Bill, and it has been made by a number of hon. Members in their speeches today. But Governments can be most plausible. I do not accuse the Government of just being plausible on this issue today; I believe that they are sincere. But progressive people can be plausible, too, and, in the end, a large amount of undesirable legislation reaches the Statute Book because of that plausibility, and all the time it is whittling away at individual freedom. Every such step which is taken by Parliament, for whatever expediency, takes us further along the road to full control of the individual's life, and these steps can seldom be retraced.
  I submit that the answer for men of good will is not in a Race Relations Act. Neither is it an answer to those intolerant people who would drive all coloured families away from these shores. The answer, surely, lies in Government action over houses, schools and health facilities,
  130
  and in a much more stringent control of immigration. For my part, I would stop it temporarily straight away, in the interests of society and in order to give those who are already here a much better chance—a real chance—to integrate with us.
  I believe that we must have truly representative race relations committees, in trade union and employers' committee co-operation, and in a united and sensible crusade led by voluntary organisations of proved calibre. Many of those organisations are now ready and waiting and can shoulder these responsibilities. They could do it far more effectively and with better good will than by having the legislation which the Government propose today.
  We can show the nation by the right example and we can shame those who are out-dated and prejudiced. Legislation is a failure and an admission of failure. There is still time for us to do something concrete and right for the coloured minorities of this country. But time is slipping by. Perhaps it is going rather faster than Parliament anticipates.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. David Winnick: I should like to begin by paying tribute to my noble Friend, Lord Brockway, who tried unsuccessfully on a number of occasions to introduce a Bill of this nature. I am sure that he is very pleased that this Bill is now before us. The hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has also been very consistent in opposing any such Measure.
  In many ways I am very sorry that it has been necessary for the Bill to be brought in. I would have wished that we could deal effectively with the coloured minority in our country without a special Bill, but it seems to me that it is essential. If anybody had any doubts about the extent of colour discrimination they should have been removed by the publication of the P.E.P. Report last year. We have known over a period of time that discrimination against people because of the colour of their skin has been taking place, and the P.E.P. Report, which only the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South questioned, confirmed the amount of discrimination which exists.

  131
  The most important part of the Bill relates to employment. In December, 1966, I had a short Adjournment debate on the difficulties of coloured school leavers. There is little difficulty for the first-generation coloured immigrant in obtaining unskilled and semi-skilled manual work. He is willing to do that type of work, but when it comes to more skilled work and various categories of non-manual work, the coloured person is discriminated against in many respects.
  Quite a number of large, well-known firms in Britain refuse to employ coloured people in certain categories. Some employers who do so rationalise their discrimination by saying, "We as a company, and certainly I as an employer, have no prejudice against coloured people, but if I employed them my customers would object". I do not believe that the majority of customers or clients could care less, and even if they do object it is quite wrong for business firms to discriminate for that reason.
  If we are not careful there will be, over a time, a tremendous amount of bitterness among coloured people, many of whom were born in our country and have gone through our school system. They have the qualifications, but know that when they seek employment in certain types of jobs they will be penalised and discriminated against simply because of the colour of their skin.
  We talk about the possibility of various extremist movements similar to those in the United States growing up. But the possibility of such movements here among the immigrant population would be far greater if we did not now take the necessary steps to overcome discrimination. I do not believe that there is much danger of having in Britain what has been described as a Black Power movement, or at least a Black Power movement of any significance. But if more and more coloured people feel a burning sense of resentment that in the country in which they were born, or have spent most of their lives, they are excluded from certain categories of employment or housing because of their colour, it is quite likely that they will turn to extremist measures and movements, as has hap-
  132
  pened in the United States. It could happen here in those circumstances.
  I recently saw a B.B.C. television programme about discrimination relating to Birmingham, where a number of coloured youngsters were interviewed. Had it been a radio programme it would have been virtually impossible to know that they were coloured. They had local Birmingham accents, and most of them had been born in Britain. When I watched the programme on a Sunday evening and saw a number of coloured youngsters one after another stating the amount of discrimination they had faced I felt very concerned indeed. It is necessary to remove the disqualifications which exist at present simply because of a person's skin.
  Another rather controversial part of the Bill relates to housing. Last year, in Croydon—not in my constituency—a house in what I suppose could be described as a good residential area was up for sale and a coloured person sought to buy it. He is a senior postman and his wife is a district nurse. A group of white residents pooled together and bought the house, apparently to prevent a coloured person from buying it. It is quite wrong to have a sort of conspiracy to prevent coloured people from living in certain areas.
  I can see no justification for discrimination in either housing or employment. Some people say, "If a coloured person lives next door to me the value of my house will go down." Of course it will, as long as we have the silly notion that living next door to a coloured person is wrong and undesirable. Of course, some people who are coloured are undesirable neighbours or tenants, but the same applies to white people. What I find so obnoxious is generalising about whole race and saying that all coloured people are undesirable as neighbours, which is just as foolish as saying that all white people would be undesirable.
  I can understand people who argue that they are against the Bill because they are not too much concerned about discrimination. I do not suppose that the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South loses any sleep over discrimination. The people I find difficult to understand are those who say that they are against discrimination, that they believe that it is wrong and can never be justified, and

  133
  yet are opposed to the Bill. I just cannot understand the logic of their arguments, because unless we have an Act such as this Bill will become how shall we combat the amount of discrimination which exists at present? At least with such an Act it will be possible to take complaints to the Race Relations Board, and the Board will be able to act on them and see that justice is done.
  I urge Members with doubts on the Bill to bear in mind what I can justifiably describe as the success of the 1965 Race Relations Act. We were told at the time that it would not work, that it would be useless and would bring the law into disrepute and so on. But a report in today's Guardian states:
  "The Race Relations Board's conciliation machinery dealt successfully with 94 per cent. of complaints of discrimination upheld during the year ended March 31…"
  So the Board, in the limited number of years it has operated, has done extremely well. To the best of my knowledge, no one outside or in the House has argued that it has been a wash-out. It has done a very useful job.
  Sir Frederic Bennett: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) made it perfectly clear that the Conservative Party voted on a reasoned Amendment against the 1965 Act when it was introduced as a Bill, because of various unsatisfactory features, but when they were remedied in Committee it supported the ultimate Act, the very Act the hon. Gentleman is praising.
  Mr. Winnick: I may well be wrong, but I get the general impression that many hon. Members opposite are against the principle of this Bill. We shall see later if I am wrong.
  What has happened in the past few years since the Race Relations Board came into existence is that a large number of complaints has been received by it which it has not been able to investigate. The reason is simply that it has been outside the scope of the Act.
  The report in The Guardian today states:
  "The Board received 574 complaints which it was unable to investigate, since they fell outside its present powers. Of these, 44 per cent. were about employment, 12·8 per cent. about the police, 11·6 per cent. about housing…"
  134
  It seems, therefore, that a logical extension of the 1965 Act is justified.
  I am somewhat concerned about the machinery whereby complaints will go first to the Ministry of Labour. In my view, they should go straight to the Board, whereupon that body should be able to decide whether or not there is justification for sending them to the voluntary machinery. However, this is a Committee point and at that stage I will submit a number of Amendments along those lines.
  I am not certain that the Board should be given full judicial powers. As a parliamentarian, I am reluctant to give non-judicial bodies the same powers as the courts. However, I have an open mind on the subject and if it seems in Committee or on Report that the Board is unable to work properly without added powers, as some critics of the Measure have suggested, I will support Amendments along those lines.
  Because a number of hon. Members still wish to speak, I have endeavoured to be brief. I have a limited amount of family knowledge of immigration in the sense that my grandparents were immigrants at the turn of the century. They came to Britain because, like so many people, they were fleeing from racial terror. I have no doubt that at that time people were complaining about immigrants of that type—were saying that Britain had a large pool of unemployed, that the people coming in were not desirable and that, as they were not wanted in their own countries, there was no reason why we should have them here.
  We have largely overcome the antagonism that existed towards immigrants at that time. I believe that with good will and good sense we can absorb and integrate the more recent immigrants to this country. I accept that, to an extent, it will be more difficult, not only for economic reasons but for psychological reasons relating to colour. Nevertheless, I am sure that we can overcome the problem.
  We live in a very tolerant, liberal country in which the vast majority of people are against discrimination. I have no illusions about the Bill and I accept that many of them may not be greatly in favour of it. Nevertheless, the vast majority of people are not willing to accept discrimination against people with

  135
  a different coloured skin. If we have good will and if we in the House of Commons are determined to overcome discrimination—are determined to ensure that no one is penalised or discriminated against because of the colour of his skin—I am sure that we can make certain that our coloured immigrants are able to live here without fear of discrimination or persecution.
  We have not made the same mistakes as the United States. We are acting in time. I only wish that it would have been possible for the Opposition fully to support the Bill without a Division taking place. I wish that we could have had a good and controversial debate in Committee, instead of a Division in the House, to ensure that when the Measure finally leaves Parliament it is one that all hon. Members could support.
  8.24 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Fisher: I agreed with practically everything that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) said. My attitude to the Bill is that while by itself it will not cure the problem, it will at least help. We should not give up this effort to help and simply opt out of the whole problem. Naturally, we all agree that the long-term solution lies in education. But the trouble is that that is very long-term indeed. I do not believe that we have as much time as that if we are to avoid the American experience, and this is where I differ from the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith), whom I am so glad to see back in the House and whose first contribution was a very good one indeed.
  I imagine that no hon. Member will claim that legislation by itself is the solution. We must acknowledge that we cannot alter human prejudice and make people tolerant by law. Nevertheless legislation can make a contribution. It can influence the way in which people behave although not the way in which they think and feel. It can certainly stop obvious acts of prejudice and it can remove the excuses. For example, few people admit to having any colour prejudice. It is rather like admitting that one has no sense of humour. Instead, we blame others, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South pointed out: the factory manager says his other employees will
  136
  not work with coloured colleagues; the shopkeeper says his customers will object and the property owner says that his other tenants will leave. The Bill will at least put an end to this sort of discrimination by proxy.
  Perhaps there has not yet been enough research into some aspects of this difficult subject. But all the research which has been carried out, both here and in the United States, leads to the conclusion that legislation is an essential beginning and that it does help to influence people's attitudes. This was the view of the Street Report in Britain and of the National Advisory Commission in the United States.
  Until I saw the Conservative Amendment I thought that we on this side of the House subscribed to that view and were prepared to act upon it. The only way we can act on it effectively is by legislation. I am quite sure that my right hon. Friends are against the creation of second class citizenship in Britain. Indeed, our General Election manifesto in 1966 spelt this out. It stated, I believe rightly, that all immigrants in Britain should be treated "in all respects"—we used those words—as equal citizens and without discrimination. I still support that position and so, I am sure, in their hearts do my right hon. Friends. But I believe that we should implement our words by deeds.
  It is not enough for us merely to talk about the problem. Does anyone claim that there is equality of treatment in Britain today? Of course not. Does anyone really think that the status quo is enough and that nothing needs to be done except spend some more Government money on schools and health and housing? To do that is not an alternative to the Bill. Those things should be done, anyway, in addition to the Bill.
  The figures are known and I will not weary the House by relating them all. However, I must mention a few because they are not so generally known outside the House. The P.E.P. Survey showed that 27 out of 40 coloured applicants for a job were discriminated against on grounds of colour, and that those with the highest qualifications and the best general ability experienced the most discrimination. I know that to be true. In housing, the Milner Holland Report

  137
  showed that out of 60 advertised properties, 45 owners discriminated on grounds of colour, that 20 out of 30 estate agents discriminated and that it was the same story, in about the same proportions, for house purchase.
  What is the alternative to legislation—to the principle of legislation—because I am not talking about the details. We are not voting today on the details but on the principle of whether or not we have legislation. I am especially anxious about the second generation of immigrants, many of whom are now leaving school and all of whom have the same education and qualifications as English children. But will they get the same sort of jobs and will they get the same sort of houses? If not, by doing nothing, we shall simply perpetuate the problem and build a store of bitterness and frustration which will be a dangerous legacy for those who come after us.
  I should have thought that the American experience was sufficient warning of the dangers of leaving legislation too late. After all, the purpose of the Bill is admirable and respectable. It is to treat people on the basis of their own merits as individuals and not to mistreat them simply on the basis of their race or colour. Of course, the Bill is not perfect. In some respects it may go too far and in others it does not go anywhere near far enough. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), I doubt whether some of the insurance provisions are workable in practice and I am still more sorry that the Race Relations Board will have no real power of investigation. That is a serious matter, for it is difficult to conciliate effectively without full information about the circumstances. But, broadly speaking, the Bill is on the right lines. It relies mainly on conciliation, which I am sure is right and there are to be no criminal proceedings, which I am sure is right, too.
  I was, therefore, frankly surprised and a little shocked by the Conservative Amendment. I thought that we wanted consensus on this problem. I thought that we were against it becoming a party issue. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said so and I believe him. But the point is that the
  138
  Amendment makes it a party issue. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone did his best—and it was a very good best, in a most moderate, restrained and excellent speech—to restore what I call the consensus atmosphere.
  I know that, basically, the Tory Party is in favour of equality of treatment for immigrants already here, but, whatever its shortcomings—and they may be many—the Bill is a serious attempt to establish exactly that. Had we been responsible, we might have produced a better and more workable Bill, and both sides of the House will try to amend this Bill in Committee. But a Second Reading debate is about the principle, and the Conservative Amendment is a flat rejection of the whole Bill.
  I am sure that that is a very popular line to take in the country, but, taken in conjunction with the official Conservative attitude to the Kenya-Asian Bill, it does not seem to me a very tolerant or progressive line. Yet the ironical thing is that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues in the Shadow Cabinet are, I am absolutely certain, no more racialist than I am. My right hon. Friend's firm and instant repudiation of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) at the weekend proved that, if proof was ever needed.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is my hon. Friend aware that I associate myself with absolutely everything he has said?
  Mr. Fisher: I am, naturally, always entirely delighted by the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). It encourages me.
  Mr. Harold Gurden: Is my hon. Friend aware that I disagree with everything he has said?
  Mr. Fisher: That does not surprise me in the least.
  Having paid a tribute, and I meant it, to the Leader of the Opposition, I well understand the difficulties of my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. His job is to unite the party, if he possibly can, and people like me make that task very difficult. He is always accessible and helpful, but the fact is that on this occasion he was given an impossible task.

  139
  It was not conceivable that the party could unite on this Amendment.
  What is the Amendment designed to achieve? If the party's new policy in future is to rely on education and on local authority effort and on saying nice things, I can respect although I do not share that view, but if as I suspect—and I hope that I am not being uncharitable—the Amendment was designed as a party compromise to paper over the cracks between widely different views, I cannot respect it because it can never work. It is a disingenuous, politically naïve and rather pathetic piece of semantics to think that one can devise words which will get me, on this subject, into the same Lobby as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell).
  Of course, the Bill will be unpopular in the country and will not win any votes and those of us who support it will no doubt be a little unpopular in our constituencies for a time, but I must honestly say that I am confused and concerned about the direction in which the Tory Party sometimes appears to be moving. Do we still claim to be a party of social reform, not just by declaration, but by legislation, which is the point? If so, surely there are few areas in which reform is more needed, more urgently. I do not believe we can effect that by good intentions alone. We have to act, not merely talk.
  No one enjoys opposing his own party. I felt obliged to do so on the Kenya-Asian Bill, and I hate having to do it again. And it worries me very much, because I do not regard my own judgment as by any means infallible. I am sure, in retrospect, that I was wrong to oppose the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962. I acknowledge that there must be control of immigration. I accept that we have imported a problem, but our task now is to try to deal with the problem. Some of us may have been wrong in the past, hon. Gentlemen opposite, myself, and the Liberals. We were wrong to think that we could keep the open door. I have corrected my view on that.
  But now we have to deal with the problem facing us and there are times when one must stand up and be counted for what one believes in. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway will not
  140
  take that as an incitement to vote against their Government on the incomes policy—they need no advice from me. At the risk of sounding priggish, sometimes it is quite important, at least to oneself, and perhaps in the end even to one's party, to be counted for one's convictions rather than merely to conform for the sake of party unity. It might even help to lessen the present public disenchantment with politics and politicians.
  If we are not prepared honestly to dissent, why are we in public life at all? That is about the only thing, in this context, on which I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has been prepared, greatly to his credit, this weekend, to be counted by what he has said as being against racial discrimination. Those are absolutely the right words and so were the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone this evening.
  But, logically and to be effective, they need to be followed by the right action. The Amendment provides for no action at all and it is on the Amendment that we shall be asked to vote tonight. Some of us on this side of the House believe that action is needed now on this problem and we, therefore, support the principle of the Bill. For this reason I—and I think that I carry my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) with me—cannot vote for the Conservative Amendment and, if there is a Division upon it, I must vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The House of Commons very rarely fails to respond to a sense of occasion. Very few of us here would imagine that after the events of the weekend this is not an occasion. I would very much like, formally, to pay my tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who presented the Bill, and to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), for the tone of their speeches, which have helped all of us to regard this very serious matter in the spirit in which it should be regarded. The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) certainly lived up to the very best of those speeches in the early stages of the debate. I feel sure that the House on the whole will continue so to do.

  141
  A tremendous amount is being written in the Press, and spoken here and elsewhere about the possibility of the effectiveness of legislation to prevent the clash of races. I have listened to everything that has been said in the debate and read a good deal in the Press. I want to express my admiration for the way in which the Press has handled this matter since the Bill was presented and made public. It has expressed what I believe to exist, namely, a consensus that this effort of legislation may really do something good.
  One would be stupid to imagine that this is the only thing that needs to be done, but that it does some good is sufficient. It is, therefore, necessary to pass it, even though it has in my opinion, and the opinion of a great many Members on both sides of the House, some considerable faults which can be altered at a later stage if the House so wishes.
  Everybody knows from his own experience in his constituency or in his home that considerable difficulties arise, of the sort referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), concerning the sale of property. If a house in a street is occupied by a coloured immigrant one may be fairly sure that certain things will happen—although not by any means completely sure. It is likely that within a short time the house will have far too many people in it and that customs and habits will be indulged in which are by no means in keeping with the habits of the neighbourhood. A possible result will be the exodus of the white people of the street and a catastrophic fall in the value of the houses.
  Unfortunately, these things are facts, and it is the fault of us in the House and of other people that these things come about. It is surely for society to make conditions for the immigrants such that these things are unlikely to happen. This we have not done. The fact that the results that I have described follow is not due to the fact that the immigrants' skins are coloured brown, yellow or black; it is because the immigrants have customs which are different from those of their neighbours. Neighbours never like people who are different from themselves. That is an unfortunate fact, about which we have heard a great
  142
  deal this afternoon. It has occurred from the time of the Huguenots onwards.
  The reaction of the natives is entirely understandable. In my submission it is due entirely to fear for their own standards. One of the main troubles of the Bill is that it applies its remedies—or penalties, in that damages may be awarded—straight across the slate, without any discrimination. In my opinion there should be discrimination between a public act and a private act. By all means bring before the Board people who are thought to have been guilty even of private discrimination against persons on grounds of race, or whatever it may be, and let the Board say whether the action taken by those persons is reasonable.
  Let us suppose that a man who is about to sell his house to a coloured immigrant says, "You may have my house but it must be used only by you, as your private residence". That would at least prevent 20 or 30—or whatever number it might be—lodgers being brought in later. But under the Bill such a seller would be liable—or at any rate be at great risk—to have damages awarded against him, yet he would be doing something which might save the livelihoods of other people who had small businesses in the street.
  We can understand these difficulties, and I believe that this sort of situation will have to be considered. We shall have to see whether, in such circumstances, the Board thinks it is really reasonable that such a thing should be done. If a man is taken before the Board and is found to have acted unreasonably, I submit that that is a sufficient dealing with him at this moment in time. Let us come to this thing gradually. In time the cases which are brought will build up a case law in the public mind and this will have a great effect. I am not sure that damages should be awarded.
  Other action must be taken. We must have better housing, better educational opportunities, better training and better instructions of immigrants. The Bill may be a small step, but it is sweeping in some respects, in the way it slaps on penalties straight across the slate. I believe that most of us in this House are completely without racial prejudice.

  143
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) was right in that. We recognise, however, differences between the races. We all have far too many friends in races which happen to have coloured skins to be anything but completely and absolutely tolerant as between them. Some races excel in some things and some in others. Therefore, it is not prejudice to recognise differences. One thing of which I am completely certain, however, is that if a minority is to live happily in the midst of a majority, that minority must have equal opportunity with the majority to be educated, to have proper housing and generally to live.
  What are the conditions, therefore, which are likely to prevent that minority from becoming a cancer inside the body of the community because it is not happy? If it is not happy, it will certainly become a cancer. As we know from this debate, the answers to that question are probably as numerous as the people to whom one puts the question. Everybody has different ideas. The fact is that we cannot say with confidence what are the conditions which make for the possibility of real happiness for the minority on the terms which I have just mentioned.
  We do not know, for instance, how many immigrants, of what races, we are capable of assimilating without damage to our own native community. We do not even know that it is possible to integrate certain numbers of certain races. Nor do we know whether the immigrants themselves or the majority of them want to be integrated, or whether they should be integrated from their own point of view or ours. I rather gather that the majority of our people——
  Dr. Miller: When my hon. and learned Friend speaks of integration, does he mean assimilation?
  Mr. Mallalieu: I really meant a combination of the two. It is important that they should be integrated and I do not think that integration is permanently possible without assimilation. It is, therefore, a combination of the two.
  The fact is that we simply do not know what are the conditions under which those things can take place, although I imagine that the majority of people believe that
  144
  it is possible to integrate and, I would say, to assimilate. They may be right, and I sincerely hope so, but I am in some doubt because we have had no proper investigation of the subject to find the truth of this.
  The fact is that in a time of full employment and shortage of manpower, we abolished National Service and encouraged immigration. Both industrialists and trade unionists were equally to blame about this. They should have modernised their plant and their organisations to a much greater tune. We now have a million immigrants and, perhaps, half a million unemployed natives and year after year thousands of Britons are leaving our shores, very often Britons of high skill and high potential. Their place is being taken by immigrants who have less skill and, perhaps, a lower potential.
  That could be of immeasurable harm to this country. On the other hand, it could be looked upon as a quixotic sharing of our skills with people who do not have so many of those skills. It may be extremely praiseworthy. The fact is, however, that we do not really know the considerations behind whether it is right that that sort of thing should go on.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I get the impression that my hon. and learned Friend is attacking the Bill and, at the same time, pretending to support it. I live in an area which is fully integrated. I have worked with coloured workers and I was in the Air Force with coloured West Indians. I have never understood the argument that it is not possible to get integration.
  Mr. Mallalieu: That is my hon. Friend's opinion. It is the opinion of a great many other hon. Friends and of hon. Members opposite. I say that I do not know whether that is so——
  Mr. Heffer: I do.
  Mr. Mallalieu:—and I do not think that there has been any scientific inquiry to find out. What I do know is that already in housing and education and employment the thing is touch and go at present; there is an explosive situation. What I want to see is a real investigation, a taking of stock, to try to find out what is the best thing to do, a full examination of the whole question in all its far-reaching aspects, social, economic

  145
  and racial. This should not just be left to television programmes and private organisations.
  If the newcomers fail to adapt to their new surroundings friction is bound to increase to the point of violence and disorder. It is not just a question of numbers, of how many can come in. It is a question of the willingness and capacity of the immigrants to adapt, and of the readiness and ability of ourselves to absorb. Many concessions will, quite obviously, have to be made on both sides if we are to come to that racial harmony which I think all of us here want to see.
  What this calls for is a searching inquiry by liberally-minded men and women who have the confidence both of the minority and of the majority, and, I would say, presided over by a high judicial personality of relevant experience. Taking this view, as I do, the House can imagine how pleased I am to see Clause 24 in the Bill, which gives the Home Secretary power start a scientific investigation of the very kind I want. Of course we must have this Bill. It will do good; I am sure of it. I want to see an end to discrimination, but that is not the end of the story; we must go on to many other things, too, and it seems to me that we have got to give the Home Secretary the Bill if only for that Clause 24 which will allow this investigation to take place, and upon which we may base future policy with some degree of confidence.
  If we can tackle the problem now, before it is too late, I believe that we can spare ourselves and our friends from the Commonwealth the fate which is now unfortunately befalling our American friends, but if we drift from expedient to expedient not based upon the best ascertainment of the relevant facts and considerations which we are capable of devising we shall find ourselves before the end of the century, possibly well before the end of the century, in a state which is as serious for ourselves and the world as that in which our American friends now are.
  8.53 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Gurden: There are only a few minutes left for me, but I do not have to explain to the House why I am against the Bill, because I can rely entirely on the speech
  146
  made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), plus a few other remarks made from this side of the House, to explain why I am against the Bill, and I think that is the best thing I can do now in this short time.
  To me, this Bill is a serious thing. I feel it is directed against our people—our own people in this country. So much has been said from the Front Benches on both sides about human rights, but it always stopped short at the point of human rights and privileges and freedoms for the immigrants and did not extend to the human rights and freedoms and equality for our own people.
  As I was listening to those speeches, I had a telephone message from a Birmingham man, not in my constituency, who told me that 600 children today have been sent home from school because there were so many immigrant children at the schools in Birmingham that they could not be accommodated and taught there because of the lack of teachers. He asks about equal opportunity and rights for our own people and our own children. A constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) a few weeks ago was unable to get his children into school.
  There are two points of view on the Bill. There are those who are against the Bill, and those who are for the Bill. We who are almost wholly against it are against it because it impinges on the freedom of our people. We who represent the vast majority of the people in the country think that the Bill is a very bad one. The people in favour of the Bill are those who were against immigration controls in the early 1960s and who have always been against complete and effective control of immigration.
  It is a shame and a disgrace upon the political parties and upon the House of Commons, not upon the immigrants or our own people, that such a Bill is considered to be neccesary. It is born of the failure of Governments properly to restrict immigration.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has been criticised, taken to task and even threatened with prosecution. His crime was that he was completely truthful, honest and sincere in his Birmingham speech. It has been said by an hon.

  147
  Member on the other side of the House that his integrity was in question. I cannot understand anybody who knows anything about my right hon. Friend saying that.
  I deny that the people against whom the Bill is directed are race haters. I deny that my constituents are race haters. Their morality is as good as that of the members of the Government who have brought the Bill before the House. The Home Secretary said that the Bill was needed because of the ignorance of the people we represent. They are not ignorant; they know all about it. What has been said by my right hon. Friend, by myself or my other hon. Friends is not as inflammatory as the Bill or as the statement that it is the ignorance of the electorate which necessitates a Bill of this nature. That, in my opinion, is inflammatory. The people against whom the Bill is directed are no more wicked racialists and sinners than the people who think that they should teach us what sort of conscience we ought to have.
  Hundreds of letters have been received about the most extraordinary circumstances which can arise under the Bill, but I have said sufficient to declare my hand. I have said that we ought to stand up to be counted tonight, and for that reason all hon. Members ought to go into the Lobbies.
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Reginald Maudling: As befits the subject, this has been a very grave debate, and one of the best that I have ever heard in the House. It is well that it should be so. Every point of view has been expressed. That is as it should be. On a subject like this, hon. Members, like their constituents, can have very different feelings and views for equally genuine reasons.
  During the course of the debate, the House has listened to differing points of view always expressed with genuineness and sincerity. I do not agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) said. My attitude to the Bill is different from his, but I respect his point of view and his concern for what, in his judgment, he believes to be the views and
  148
  interests of the people whom he represents in the House.
  Most people would agree with my hon. Friend that it is a pity that a Bill of this character should be thought necessary. In a sense, it is a human failure that it should be necessary to proceed by legislation in these matters. Compulsion should not be necessary to ensure that men and women live happily together and treat one another in a decent and civilised manner. I am sure that there is no disagreement on that from the other side of the House.
  Before I come to the issues posed by our Amendment, I might perhaps say that I am sure that we should not underestimate this country's record in these matters. We have been critical of ourselves in many ways today, and rightly, because that is our job. However, if one compares the record of the British people and of British society in these matters with those of so many other countries in every continent of the world, we have a right to be proud of what has happened.
  That makes it all the more important that what we do from now on should be evolutionary, based on the sensible measures which have been taken up till now, and aimed to contain and develop the sense of partnership within the community which is outstandingly high in the country.
  The British people have faced a problem which is quite unique. The rate of inflow of people from other countries of different cultures, backgrounds, religions and colours in recent years must be almost unprecedented in any country. That has been combined with what probably has been the inevitable concentration of the inflow on one or two districts which has made a dramatic change in the character of those areas. As I say, the country has faced a quite unprecedented problem and, as one would expect from the political tradition of the British people, it has been faced with tolerance and common sense.
  In winding up the debate on behalf of the Opposition, what I should do is to focus the issues raised by our Amendment with the utmost clarity possible. In a speech of remarkable power and insight, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)

  149
  stated very clearly the attitude of the Conservative Party in these matters. If I may say so, what is meant by our Amendment has sometimes been misunderstood and even misinterpreted outside this House, particularly in the Press. Therefore, I read it again:
  "That this House, reaffirming its condemnation of racial discrimination and accepting the need for steps designed to improve the situation, nevertheless declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, on balance, will not in its practical application contribute to the achievement of racial harmony."
  That is what we believe about the Bill. Believing that, I think that we were right to put down our Amendment and, therefore, we are right to vote on it tonight.
  The Home Secretary came near to suggesting today that, because we put down this reasoned Amendment, we are against the principle in the Bill in the sense that we are not opposed to racial discrimination. He rather implied that. I am sure that he does not mean to say it, because it must be clear and in no way distorted that, in these matters, the Opposition are just as opposed in principle to racial discrimination as the Government are. It would be a pity if any other opinion were to gain currency in this country.
  It is sometimes said—and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) said it—that by our Amendment we are registering our opposition to any legislation at all in this sphere. This is not so. Our Amendment does not say that. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone made it clear that we believe in legislation on a number of matters in this connection. Let us get it clear once again that we are not against all legislation, but we are exercising the proper duty of an Opposition in saying that we are against this particular legislation and explaining the reasons.
  This is a different matter from what has been suggested by one or two speakers. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), speaking for the Liberal Party, appeared to argue that the idea of a reasoned Amendment was unacceptable because people outside would not understand. I cannot accept this. It is not the same thing to vote against a Bill as to vote on a reasoned Amendment. This
  150
  is a well-known and well understood parliamentary procedure for which there is excellent precedent in the 1965 Act on which occasion, by taking the same course of action, we achieved results which both sides agree have in practice been very good indeed.
  I rather resent the charges made in some of the Press that because we oppose the Bill we are not against racial discrimination. It is utterly untrue.
  Mr. William Molloy rose——
  Mr. Maudling: I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not give way, but time is limited and the Minister has yet to reply.
  We oppose the Bill because we believe that it will not, in practice, contribute to the achievement of racial harmony. Equally, because we say that certain attitudes of mind or thought are immoral or objectionable but they do not offer themselves as proper subjects for legislation, does not mean that we do not condemn them. The simple fact is that there are many frailties in the human mind and spirit—greed, intolerance and all sorts of things—which are morally wrong but cannot be made into crimes. Certain things which happen as a result of these infirmities can be and should be dealt with by law, but there is a definite limit in practice where one can go in this direction.
  We are not quarrelling with the purpose of the Bill, which is to promote racial harmony. We would certainly accept a Bill which, in our judgment, would achieve this objective, but we object to this Bill because we believe that, on balance, its provisions will not contribute to the objective that we have in mind.
  There has been much reference today to situations and conditions in other countries. Many countries throughout the world have their racial problems—not only in Europe and North America, but in the Caribbean and in Fiji. We have many examples from our own experience of racial tension arising not necessarily between white and coloured people, but between Asians and Africans. All these are problems of intense importance, but all differ very much. Therefore, I doubt the wisdom of trying to base too much on experience, for example, in the United

  151
  States. Their colour problem is different from our own. The numbers involved are much higher, and they have lived there against a background of resentment for many generations.
  That is different from the situation in this country where, as we all know and rejoice in the fact, there is not the same ready turning to violence as one finds in the United States. Therefore, I would counsel caution in building too much on what is thought to be the analogy of what happens in America.
  The problem here arises from two things. First, from the rapid inflow of immigrants. Secondly, from a tendency to concentrate in certain areas. It is true that this is a problem which we have largely created for ourselves, or allowed to grow. The Conservative Government allowed immigration to proceed for a long time at a very high rate. Many people now criticise us for doing that, and I accept quite unreservedly that by doing so we have created a very serious problem, but, looking back on it, I have no regrets at the course we took.
  We were very reluctant indeed, and I think rightly, to depart from the British tradition of the open door for those who wanted to come to this country. We were very reluctant, and rightly so, to depart from the concept of British citizenship and British sovereignty under the Crown, but in the end we had to call some halt, or put some limit on immigration. Incidentally, we were criticised at the time by people who genuinely thought that we were acting against the interests of the immigrants, but I think that everyone now recognises that it is in the interests of the immigrant himself, as well as the people already here, that there should be some control over the rate at which people come to this country.
  I mention that because I believe that it is a genuine fear of uncontrolled immigration which underlies the resentment felt by the public towards the Bill. It is not the Bill itself, it is the circumstances. People genuinely believe that the enormous rate of influx of people into this country will continue. It is on that belief that much of their hostility to the Measure is based. I therefore think that we on this side are right to emphasise that as a basis for all policy on these racial discrimination matters there must first
  152
  be a genuine, definite, control over new immigration.
  I know that the number of heads of families coming in has been cut back, and rightly so. We felt, and still do, that perhaps it could be done even more in present circumstances, and certainly in the context of the immigrants from Kenya we said that at the time. The real problem is that of the dependants, and here I feel very strongly with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that it would be wrong to prevent dependants from coming in to join heads of families who have established themselves in this country, but that the condition for their entry must be that they are genuine dependants. It also must be expected that the total number will fall soon, and fall rapidly, because if the number of dependants coming in in a year's time is as high as it is now it will be evidence that they are not genuine dependants in many cases. I think that we must watch the position very carefully.
  I believe that it is also right and sensible to say that we will offer help to any immigrant who wants to return home, but I do not believe that this will make a major contribution to the problem, because the number of immigrants who will want to return home—despite all the discrimination by the way—will, I think, be very few indeed.
  Finally, it is important that those who come to this country should not abuse our hospitality. Immense damage is done to racial relations by the spectacle of people from other countries doing things for which they would be imprisoned in their own countries. People who act to the detriment of the public and to law and order in this country must be dealt with because they do tremendous harm to race relations. [HON. MEMBERS: "What things?"] Stirring up trouble for the police, creating problems of public order, and generally creating chaos, actions which are illegal in the countries from which they come.
  We on this side of the House accept that there must be no second-class citizens, that there must be equality before the law as the Home Secretary said. But there is equality before the law. That is not the point at issue in any sense. The point really is how far the law should extend. In dealing with that we must recognise that the problem is one of

  153
  human resentment, and that it can come from either side. We have heard a good deal today of the natural resentment felt by loyal people who have come to this country, who live here, who are educated and trained here, and who then cannot get jobs of the calibre they are capable of carrying out because of discrimination against them on grounds of race or colour. I can see perfectly well, and it is absolutely right, that this natural resentment can give rise to great problems for the social health of this country in future, but we must not neglect the resentment of the people already here, of the indigenous population.
  When I think about this problem I always feel that I must remember that in my constituency there are very few immigrants indeed and that I do not live, and have never lived, in an area whose total character has completely changed. We must recognise as a House the genuine feelings of people faced by these circumstances because, unless we recognise their feelings, we shall not in the long run be able to deal with them properly. People resent finding the whole circumstances in which they live changed in a short time without consultation with them by the arrival of many people of totally alien character and outlook which changes the conditions in which they live.
  It might be quite trivial things such as the noise they make at night, or the smell of unusual cooking, but these are things which matter to people in their homes, things which add to the genuine human problem which we have to face. There is fear that if immigrants come into an area property values will fall. This may be an irrational fear, but we cannot legislate it out of existence. There is the fear of competition for jobs, competition for houses and for places in hospital and that immigrants will bring in lower standards of accommodation tolerance. More than anything else, there is the fear of the unknown which affects people's minds in these matters.
  The only solution to this in the long term is a change in human attitudes. This can be done only by tackling social conditions and enlisting—as many have said, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)—all the voluntary organisations which can help. Legislation, I am certain, in some
  154
  forms can help. We have said this time and again in this debate, but we must judge any legislative proposals on the basis of whether they will encourage racial harmony or in practice increase resentment and resistance. This, I admit, is a very difficult judgment to make.
  I believe that we are right in saying that, on balance, the Bill will create more resentment than it will deal with and, in the long run, therefore, will not aid the cause we all have at heart but may, in fact, impede it. This is not a Bill of principle, but of compromise. It makes racial discrimination unlawful with many important exceptions, domestic employment, accommodation in small lodging houses and the rather peculiar provision that employers can discriminate to maintain a racial balance—which I do not quite understand and which the Home Secretary did not explain. This is totally contrary to the idea of disregarding race altogether in matters of employment.
  The Bill sets out to deal with racial discrimination, but not entirely and as a matter of principle. Our argument is not, therefore, on a matter of principle with the Government, but whether, in fact, the extent to which they go is not too far. Our objections to the Bill, therefore, are threefold. First, we believe that it definitely encroaches on individual freedom and individual liberty. Secondly, we believe that it will be unworkable in practice; and, if it does not work in practice, it will be very serious indeed, because the immigrants who believe they will get protection from the Bill will feel that they have been deceived and will turn, not only against the local population, but against the law itself.
  At the moment, I am sure they believe that the law is fair, but, if they believe that the law lets them down, I think that we may in the long run get a very serious situation. I fear that the Bill encroaches too much on individual liberty. It will not work in practice. As a result, it will increase resentment because those whom it is designed to protect will feel that they have not got the protection that they were promised, while those against whom the Bill appears to be aimed will feel resentful that others have been given an apparently privileged position before the law.
  These are the problems that the House has to face in dealing with the Bill. Many

  155
  legal points have been made; and they should not be brushed lightly aside. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone made many points. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) made very important points indeed about the effects of the Bill on the legal rights of the individual citizen. It introduces some very novel provisions—a statutory body with inquisitorial powers which afterwards could lead to the imposition of proceedings. The burden of proof concerning conduct which could be illegal appears to impose the presumption of guilt on the person complained about. The procedure permits secret accusations. A person may be loaded with heavy damages because of an act committed by somebody else without the first person's knowledge or consent.
  All these seem to me to be great exceptions to our normal rule of law. To make great exceptions in this case will exacerbate race relations precisely because people think that a particular class is being created. [Interruption.] If hon. Members do not believe this I ask them to consider the matter carefully.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds: Will the right hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Maudlin: No.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is obviously not giving way.
  Mr. Faulds: Why not? I want to make a point.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
  Mr. Maulding: I promised to give the Minister plenty of time to wind up, as the House will understand.
  Finally, on the legal points, the whole provision about damages will lead to great difficulties. Where I think that, in particular, the Bill will lead to great troubles is where it infringes on really deeply felt personal interests or personal matters. The Home Secretary spoke about this difficulty; he said in particular that in the field of housing any man should have the right to decide for himself to whom he sells his house or to whom he lets his house. However, the Bill does not do that. It does the opposite of that.
  156
  On the particular matter of house ownership and house letting, I particularly ask the Government to think again, because I am certain that many people will feel that this is quite a wrongful infringement of the right of people to make decisions of their own and of their own free will. In the general field of employment, although I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that it is right and proper to deal with discrimination in large-scale industry, and although it is clearly right to say that trade unions and traders' associations should not discriminate in their membership, when we get down to the employment of one or two people in a small firm, when we get down from a policy of discrimination, to the fact of individual choice, it will be virtually impossible to enforce the Bill.
  When we come, for example, on to the question of promotion—it is probably promotion more than employment that will count in industry—it just will not be possible to decide whether the decision on the promotion of an individual was taken on racial grounds or on other grounds. The Bill, by containing a provision that it is wrong to discriminate in this matter, will enact a provision that cannot be enforced in practice in all the important personal decisions in employment which arise all the time in the conduct of industry.
  As I said, our objections to the Bill are that it will not work in practice. We accept the objective. We do not believe that the Bill will improve the situation. We think that it will make it worse. We welcome the Secretary of State's suggestion of a Select Committee to consider the possibility of how this legislation will work in practice, but that cannot alter our attitude to the Bill itself. I think that it is wrong for the Government to present a Bill to Parliament and to the country with very little preliminary explanation.
  Mr. Callaghan: I should like to make this clear. I have checked on the point. We consulted over 80 separate national organisations about this legislation, and the Conservative Central Office, also, was aware of its purport.
  Mr. Maudling: The reaction of the public in general to the Bill shows how inadequate has been the preparation of the public mind.
  Mr. Faulds: A deplorable speech. Absolutely irresponsible. And he is their alternative Leader, God help us.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must contain himself.
  Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman is forcing me to intrude on the Minister's time, which I have tried not to do.
  It is no good saying that we can now consider approaching the Bill on a Select Committee basis. The question is whether we think the Bill as it stands is a good or bad Bill. On balance, we are convinced that it is wrong. The Government cannot say to the House of Commons, "This is our proposal. If you oppose it, you are being partisan". Our job is to oppose if we think that it is wrong.
  To sum up our position, the purpose of the Amendment is to reaffirm our condemnation of racial discrimination, to accept that steps in the social field and legislative steps of the kind which my right hon. and learned Friend and I have put forward are right, but to say that, on balance, we consider that the Bill will not contribute to the solution of the problem. For that reason, we are against its passage.
  9.26 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals): In many ways, as the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, this has been a constructive debate. All hon. Members who took part spoke with sincerity and a desire to influence the course of events. Even though the debate takes place in the wake of the weekend speech by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), it has been typified by a mood of moderation in both language and tone, and for this we are indebted both to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) in the speech which he made in opening for the Opposition. I think that we are indebted also to the Leader of the Opposition for dealing so firmly with the speech made last Saturday, to which reference has been made. Had he not done so, the right hon. Member for Barnet and his right hon. and learned Friend, and the House
  158
  itself, would have been in an impossible position.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has always sought to maintain a consensus on these issues. I have had opportunity to pay tribute to this on previous occasions from this bench. He sought to do so today, too, and I thought, with respect, that he did so in a very much more positive and constructive way than did the right hon. Member for Barnet. We have seen differences of opinion between the parties and within the parties, and we have seen, apparently, differences of approach within the Front Bench opposite as well. I do not intend to follow that line myself.
  The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone seemed to give the Bill a conditional welcome. In spite of the wording of the Amendment, he hoped that it would do more good than harm. He supported the extension of the law as regards public places, housing and employment. He offered the hope, which I hope will be a reality, that there would be support when we reached Third Reading. This will be the real test for the House, when we come to the Third Reading debate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the importance of carrying the public with us in what we are trying to do. It was encouraging that there were during the debate only two hon. Members really against the purposes of the Bill, the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden).
  I do not believe that hon. Members opposite have given a valid reason for dividing the House this evening. The right hon. Member for Barnet and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said, "But we did so in 1965". They must well know that the issues then were very different. There were two clear issues of principle. When brought before the House, the original Bill made discrimination a criminal offence, and it made no provision for conciliation procedure. From the back benches I attacked that as strongly as did right hon. Gentlemen opposite from the Front Bench. There were fundamental differences of principle, but it cannot be said that there are fundamental differences of principle concerning this Bill, and none of the right

  159
  hon. Gentlemen who have spoken today have shown that there are any.
  I wonder whether the right hon. Gentlemen who have been calling on their colleagues to vote tonight really recognise the effect that this can have in the country. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said—I thought quite rightly—that the general public do not follow the intricacies of our procedure and the question of reasoned Amendments. All that will be seen by the general public will be a vote, and it will be thought that by it the Conservative Party, or those who go into the Lobbies—I hope that it will not be all of them—are voting against the Bill. I hope that even now the party opposite will decide not to divide the House.
  In an outstanding and very courageous speech the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) said that by the very tabling of an Amendment this had been made a party issue. None of us want these questions to be party issues. It is no good saying, as I felt that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone said in opening, in a sense, "Do not take too much notice of our vote. We are really with you. We have some criticisms, but we hope to go to the end and it would be very nice if we can support you on Third Reading." It is not good enough to do that. I support the view of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), who said that the Amendment was inept and that it should be withdrawn.
  It was unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues decided very quickly after the presenting of the Bill to table an Amendment. It was in part that decision which enabled the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West to claim that in his speech he was interpreting Conservative Party policy. These are not the principal issues before the House. The damage done by that one speech can hardly be overestimated. There has been set loose a torrent of feeling, maybe sincerely held but extremely damaging to good community relations. When the right hon. Gentleman was in church in Wolverhampton on Sunday I wonder whether he thought of the words of Hosea. [HON. MEMBERS: "Really."] Hosea said:
  160
  "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind…"
  The House was entitled to expect that the Bill would be given an unopposed Second Reading, that its broad principles would be accepted, and that its detailed provisions would be subject to searching scrutiny in Committee. In the debate on 15th November, 1967 the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, addressing my right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary, said:
  "I tell the right hon. Gentleman plainly that, originally, I was very critical of fresh legislation on this subject so soon after the last. But I was immensely impressed by the quality of some of the documents to which I have referred."
  He was talking about the P.E.P. Report, the Race Relations Board's first Report and the Street Report.
  He continued:
  "In at least some of the fields which he has mentioned, I consider that there is a strong case for Government action of one sort or another, and I should myself be prepared to support that in general."
  He said that he would oppose an extension of the criminal law. Right—and so do the Government. He hoped that the law would not concern itself with the haphazard expression of individual prejudice. He said that today as well. Right again—and the Bill does not seek to do that.
  He then assured the then Home Secretary that
  "…we on this side will give them a sympathetic, if critical, reception."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November 1967; Vol. 754, c. 452.]
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman today did give them a sympathetic, if critical, reception, although the right hon. Member for Barnet did not do so.
  It is difficult to know what has happened since November to oblige hon. Gentlemen opposite to withdraw that sympatheic reception. Apparently it is not because the Opposition has less confidence in the value of the documents that have been presented; the P.E.P. Report, the Report of the Race Relations Board, the evidence of the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants and the Street Report. It cannot be because they are dissatisfied with the achievements of the Race Relations Board. Only a few days ago the Leader of the Opposition said:
  "Conciliation by the Race Relations Board has proved successful and it can undoubtedly perform a wider rôle."

  161
  The evidence published only today—showing that last year a 95 per cent. success rate was achieved in securing a settlement in discriminatory situations—is proof not only of the right hon. Gentleman's statement but of the value of the work of the Board.
  It is precisely because we believe that there is evidence of a degree of racial discrimination—unfortunate, as has been rightly said—that the law can, within limitations, play a part and because the Board has proved the value of conciliation that we have brought the Bill forward. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite may have thought that it has been rushed. Some have said that perhaps we should introduce it next year or the year after that. "Too little too late" would have been the cry had we not acted now.
  The right hon. Member for Barnet and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone made some criticisms concerning consultation in the preparation and presentation of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) did the same. Let us look at what happened. There was, first, the publication of the P.E.P. Report, the Street Report and the Report of the Race Relations Board, all of them documents widely discussed and considered in the House. Then, on 26th July of last year, my right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary announced the intention to legislate, and in that announcement he included not only employment and housing but insurance and credit facilities.
  It seemed that one, if not the only argument which the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone adduced for his criticisms of the Bill was that he could not, would not, support it had he known that it was to have included insurance and credit facilities, although it was said as long ago as 26th July of last year that it would.
  Since then a document was prepared setting out what it was intended to include in the Bill. As my right hon. Friend said, this was circulated among 80 national organisations. When I heard the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone say that had he known what the Bill would have contained he would not have supported it, I was much disturbed because it was certainly 10 weeks ago that contact was established with the Conservative Central Office by a
  162
  distinguished former hon. Member of this House who had been appointed to prepare material for briefing for this debate and for consideration of the Bill. I gave him all the information that was available. I gave him a copy of the memorandum—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who is he?"] I refer to Sir Anthony Meyer. I gave him all the information I could and I indicated that at any stage I would be available for discussions with any right hon. or hon. Gentleman opposite because we on this side of the House wanted to ensure that when we reached this stage we would not have a divided, but a united, House.
  Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he has, first, misquoted me and then, I think, misstated the facts. He said that I told the House this afternoon that if I had known what the Bill contained, I would have said that it could not be accepted. I said that if I had been told that the Bill would contain a whole series of objectionable features and had been asked for my opinion, I could have told anybody that it would not receive an unopposed Second Reading. Those are my exact words as far as I remember them. It is true that Sir Anthony Meyer showed me a document, which I was forbidden to show to my party as a whole, but which I was entitled to show to my Shadow Cabinet colleagues, showing what was said to be in the Bill as it was then proposed. I was not asked for my opinion and I did not think that it was wanted. I was grateful to the party opposite for letting me have for my Shadow Cabinet colleagues information about what was then proposed. If I had been asked for my opinion, I would have given it, but I was forbidden to tell my party.
  Mr. Ennals: The House will not want to take too long pursuing this. I made it perfectly clear that we on this side of the House were anxious that the information should be in the hands of the party opposite, not only the information given, but that provided by any consultation which could take place, and I offered myself as being available for consultation. I said that only to show that on this side of the House we have wanted throughout to have an undivided House when this stage was reached.
  Before turning to some of the matters in the Bill, I should like to make a few

  163
  remarks about the context within which the debate is taking place. It has been said that many people are fearful of what they call mass immigration, thinking almost that the Bill is designed for mass immigration. The extraordinary things which have been said outside the House show how much concern there is.
  In the debate on the Commonwealth Immigrants Act in February, the right hon. Member for Barnet said:
  "But even here there is bound to be a flash point. Let us make no mistake about that…and if the flash point occurs everyone will be burned…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th Feb., 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1345.]
  That is a counsel of despair. I do not believe that there need be a flash point in this country. As recently as 11th April, President Johnson signed the new Civil Rights law, guaranteeing equal housing opportunities to American citizens regardless of race. That Bill was advocated by the President during his 1964 presidential campaign, and he presented it to Congress in 1965. It was held up in Congress for three years, held up during a period when discontent fermented and held up until the flash point came, and the flash point was the tragic assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King.
  Those who suggest that we ought to delay before bringing in our legislation are playing with fire and danger. There need not be a flash point in this country, but it can happen if we dither, not just in our handling of the legislative aspects of race relations, but in the other aspects which have been mentioned. For instance, it could happen if we had uncontrolled immigration from the Commonwealth and elsewhere. From the lurid fantasies of some of those who have spoken and written one might imagine that we were living in a situation of uncontrolled immigration.
  Sir Cyril Osborne: That is the policy.
  Mr. Ennals: The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) who intervenes, knows that it is not the policy of this Government. [Interruption.] He knows that since 1962—[Interruption.]—The House gave a fair hearing to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone and I would ask hon. Gentlemen to give the same hearing to my reply.
  164
  The vast proportion of Commonwealth immigrants in Britain came to this country before the 1962 Act. The flow of immigrants was changed, firstly by the Act, and subsequently by actions taken by this Government.
  As is known, we have greatly reduced the number of labour vouchers so that last year, as my right hon. Friend said, there were fewer than 5,000 persons admitted for employment from all parts of the Commonwealth. The system of employment vouchers has only just been reorganised, and when the right hon. Member for Ashford criticises us for having no immigration policy, he ought to know that there has only just been this reorganisation. There are now no unskilled workers coming into this country from the Commonwealth.
  Those who are coming in are almost entirely people with special qualifications—doctors, teachers and others—who come to fill posts here and are vitally needed in this country. In November, again, the right hon. and learned Gentleman urged the Home Secretary not to put a stop to these vouchers for skilled people. The vast majority of those who are coming in are dependants of those living and working here. I was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that he would not wish to propose that we should stand in the way of a wife and children joining a worker who had already settled here.
  It is absolutely clear that with the dramatic rundown of employment vouchers the tail of dependants will inevitably decrease. It is sad that there are hon. and right hon. Members who in their writings and speeches should suggest that we are faced with a dramatic burst of population coming into the country. The claim was made that in 15 to 20 years there will be 3,500,000 Commonwealth immigrants in Britain. This inflated figure is based on assumptions which the Government have never accepted.
  Sir C. Osborne: Which Government?
  Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. He has heard my explanation seven times from this bench, and quite intentionally, he wishes to mislead the public—[Interruption.]
  Sir C. Osborne rose——
  Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman asks me to give way, and I have done

  165
  so on this subject time and again in this House, when right hon. Gentleman who are interrupting from a seated position were not here.
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I heard the hon. Member say that one of my hon. Friends was intentionally intending to mislead. I should like to have your Ruling whether under the rules of order the hon. Gentleman is entitled to provoke one of my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a matter of courtesy rather than order.
  Sir C. Osborne Sir C. Osborne rose——
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is obviously not giving way.
  Mr. Ennals: I have explained this many times, but the hon. Gentleman still sustains a figure which he knows is not based on assumptions accepted by the Government—[Interruption.] I am trying to reply to the debate. What worries and disturbs me is the attitude adopted to those citizens who have come from Asia, Africa and the West Indies. Of course, the House knows that immigration brings its problems. Of course, some of our citizens have a way of life and customs which irritate their neighbours. Of course, there are not common standards in religion, in feeding habits and hygiene. But this has been so throughout successive waves of immigration into this country, and it should be said in this House that the great majority of immigrants from the Commonwealth are law-abiding and hard-working people, who are anxious mainly for security and a higher standard of living. That is why they have come.
  They have made a significant contribution to our economy. Hon. Members have referred to queues for the hospital services. Of course, they are irritating, but I wonder how much longer the queues for our hospital services would be were it not for the Commonwealth doctors in our hospitals. We have to impose immigration control, but it should be said, and said loudly, that Commonwealth citizens and those of Commonwealth origin who have been admitted to this
  166
  country are welcome here. I have felt ashamed during the course of today when I have seen coloured people in the streets and have thought to myself, "What are they thinking that I think because of what has been said?" The Huguenots, centuries ago, and the Jews, decades ago, met bitter resistance from some members of our indigenous population, yet our society has been enriched by their presence, and some hon. Members are descendants of those people.
  We have to deal with the social problems involved in immigration. I would like to have spent a little time discussing what has been done in education and housing, and through the additional grants being made to local authorities, but I want to deal with some of the points raised concerning the contents of the Bill.
  I say with absolute conviction that we may have a flashpoint in this country if we do not extend the field of legislation. In his "Social Contract" Rousseau said:
  "…it is precisely because the force of circumstance tends continually to destroy equality that the force of legislation should always tend to its maintenance."
  We cannot change men's hearts by law but we can outlaw the actions that can flow from prejudice. I believe that the very passing of law can influence the course of events and the course of thoughts in people's minds.
  If we take our minds back to the Road Safety Act we remember the dramatic fall in the number of deaths as a result of it. To begin with, people were frightened of being caught, but I believe that it has now become not a social thing to say "One for the road"; it has become anti-social, because the law says that it is wrong. I believe that this will be so in the case of racial discrimination. In reply to the pressures of workmates, neighbours, customers, and people in any position to exercise discriminatory judgment, those under pressure will be able to say, "I am sorry, mate; it is against the law".
  Much has been said by some hon. Members—including the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell)—about this Bill's creating a privileged minority. That is not true. The Bill seeks to ensure that, so far as the law can provide, all men and women

  167
  shall have equal opportunity—nothing more and nothing less. At present, many coloured people undoubtedly have unequal opportunities. No one who has studied the facts can deny that there is discrimination in some parts of Britain today—but not by the majority of people. The vast majority of British people are tolerant and understanding, and want to see a genuine free society.
  The Bill will give no special rights to anyone. It will apply to the whole population, and should one of white pigmentation believe himself to have been the victim of discrimination his right to lodge a complaint will be no less than that of a coloured citizen. The law will not oblige an employer to take on a particular person or a landlord to rent a house or a flat to a particular person. No special classes of privilege are created by the Bill.
  It has also been argued that it is an infringement of individual liberty—again, the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South raised this point—to include in the Bill the private sale of houses. It has to be said that a house owner should not be obliged to sell a house to any particular person. Neither will the Bill oblige him to do so. If, however, he uses colour and race for the main reason for his distinction or for his refusal to sell or to rent, that would be a social offence.
  Hon. Members must see the nature of the problem that we are dealing with. It is not simply that we have a large number of coloured people in this country. It is that they have congregated in particular parts of our towns and cities. One of the reasons for this is their own sense of security. Another reason, however, is that when they wish to move into other parts of towns they cannot do so. There are obstacles against their doing so. If it is said that we must pursue a policy of dispersal, we can do it only if the doors are open, if the opportunities exist, for people to be able to move and live in any part of the town that they wish.
  Many other points have been made during the debate which undoubtedly are Committee points. Important points were
  168
  made about the racially balanced labour force and about the powers of the Race Relations Board. These are points which my right hon. Friend has said that we will consider. Where clear representations are made, we will look at them in Committee.
  It is sad, to put it no higher, that the Opposition should have decided to divide tonight. If they accept that there is a rôle for legislation but they disagree with some of the Clauses in the Bill, it would have been more appropriate for them to have sought to secure Amendments in Committee and to have given the Bill a clear run on Second Reading.
  We have been debating one of the greatest social challenges of our age. The Government have shown that they are prepared to give a lead—and Governments must give a lead to public opinion on issues like this. They have shown that they are anxious to secure all-party agreement. It is also for the Opposition to give a lead. I believe that the country as a whole will respond to the lead. It can only be expected to respond to it, however, if right hon. and hon. Members, on both sides of the House, not just by what they say in this House but by what they say in the country, can show that there is a national consensus on this issue.
  The British people are more tolerant towards coloured immigrants than many hon. Members give them credit for, as the report which was published today shows. I think that no right-thinking person would want to see this great issue become a bone of party contention. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. colleagues will accept the initiative taken by my right hon. Friend and will decide not to divide the House tonight.
  Sir C. Osborne Sir C. Osborne rose——
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Silkin)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 313.

  Division No. 121.]

  AYES

  10.0 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Astor, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Neave, Airey

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Gower, Raymond

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Awdry, Daniel

  Grant, Anthony

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Balniel, Lord

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Nott, John

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Batsford, Brian

  Grieve, Percy

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Bell, Ronald

  Gurden, Harold

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Percival, Ian

  Boardman, Tom

  Hastings, Stephen

  Peyton, John

  Body, Richard

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hay, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Pounder, Rafton

  Braine, Bernard

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pym, Francis

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Holland, Philip

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Bryan, Paul

  Hordern, Peter

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Hornby, Richard

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Burden, F. A.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Campbell, Gordon

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Royle, Anthony

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Clark, Henry

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Clegg, Walter

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Sharples, Richard

  Cooke, Robert

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Kitson, Timothy

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Cordle, John

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Lambton, Viscount

  Speed, Keith

  Costain, A. P.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Stodart, Anthony

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Crouch, David

  Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Longden, Gilbert

  Teeling, Sir William

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Loveys, W. H.

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Tilney, John

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  MacArthur, Ian

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Deedes, Rt, Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  McMaster, stanley

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Doughty, Charles

  Maddan, Martin

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Maginnis, John E.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Drayson, G. B.

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Webster, David

  Eden, Sir John

  Marten, Neil

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Maude, Angus

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Emery, Peter

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Mawby, Ray

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Farr, John

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Fortescue, Tim

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Foster, Sir John

  Monro, Hector

  Wright, Esmond

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wylie, N. R.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Williams, W. D. (Dudley)

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Murton, Oscar

  Mr. R. W. Elliott and

  Mr. Jasper More.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Alldritt, Walter

  Ashley, Jack

  Albu, Austen

  Allen, Scholefield

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Archer, Peter

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Barnes, Michael

  Foley, Maurice

  Mackie, John

  Barnett, Joel

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Baxter, William

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Beaney, Alan

  Ford, Ben

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Forrester, John

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Bence, Cyril

  Fowler, Gerry

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Bessell, Peter

  Gardner, Tony

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ginsburg, David

  Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Manuel, Archie

  Blackburn, F.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mapp, Charles

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Booth, Albert

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Marquand, David

  Boston, Terence

  Gregory, Arnold

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Boyden, James

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Bradley, Tom

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Brooks, Edwin

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hamling, William

  Millan, Bruce

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Hannan, William

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Harper, Joseph

  Molloy, William

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Moonman, Eric

  Buchan, Norman

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hazell, Bert

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Moyle, Roland

  Cant, R. B.

  Henig, Stanley

  Murray, Albert

  Carmichael, Neil

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Neal, Harold

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hilton, W. S.

  Newens, Stan

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Chapman, Donald

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Norwood, Christopher

  Coe, Denis

  Horner, John

  Oakes, Gordon

  Coleman, Donald

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Conlan, Bernard

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Orme, Stanley

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Howie, W.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hoy, James

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Cronin, John

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Paget, R. T.

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pardoe, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hunter, Adam

  Park, Trevor

  Darling, Rt, Hn. George

  Hynd, John

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Irvine, Sir Arthur

  Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pentland, Norman

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn, R. E.

  Dell, Edmund

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dewar, Donald

  Kelley, Richard

  Probert, Arthur

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Dickens, James

  Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

  Rankin, John

  Dobson, Ray

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Doig, Peter

  Lawson, George

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Driberg, Tom

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Richard, Ivor

  Dunnett, Jack

  Ledger, Ron

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

  EdwardS, William (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Ellis, John

  Lipton, Marcus

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  English, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Roebuck, Roy

  Ennals, David

  Lubbock, Eric

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Ensor, David

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Rose, Paul

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  McBride, Neil

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Faulds, Andrew

  McCann, John

  Sheldon, Robert

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacColl, James

  Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

  Finch, Harold

  MacDermot, Niall

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  McGuire, Michael

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  172

  173

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Tinn, James

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Tomney, Frank

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Slater, Joseph

  Tuck, Raphael

  Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

  Small, William

  Urwin, T. W.

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Snow, Julian

  Varley, Eric G.

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Walden, Brian (All Saints)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Stonehouse, John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Winnick, David

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Wallace, George

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Swain, Thomas

  Weitzman, David

  Woof, Robert

  Swingler, Stephen

  Wellbeloved, James

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Taverns, Dick

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Yates, Victor

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

  Whitaker, Ben

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Thornton, Ernest

  Whitlock, William

  Mr. Charles Grey and

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Mr. Brian O'Malley.

  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 39 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  RACE RELATIONS BILL

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That the Proceedings on the Criminal Appeal Bill [Lords], the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords], the Courts-Martial (Appeals) Bill [Lords] and the Rent Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed—[Mr. John Silkin.]

    RACE RELATIONS [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision with respect to discrimination on racial grounds, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

    (a) of any sums payable out of moneys so provided under or by virtue of any provision of that Act relating to the constitution and functions of a Race Relations Board, of conciliation committees or of a Community Relations Commission;

    (b) of the remuneration of assessors appointed under any provision of that Act for the purposes of any proceedings there-under;and

    (c) of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in conducting or assisting the conduct of research into any matter connected with relations between people of different colour, race or ethnic or national origins.—[Mr. Callaghan.]

    CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    10.16 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    This is a consolidating Bill which consolidates relevant Statutes commencing with the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, which first established the Court of Criminal Appeal. Since that Act there have been, as the House knows, several enactments amending the law dealing with criminal appeals. Among these I may mention the Administration of Justice Act, 1960, which provided, inter alia, for an appeal to the House of Lords in a criminal couse or matter from the Court of Criminal Appeal, with the leave of that court or of the House of Lords, where it was certified that a point of law of general public importance was involved.
    There was also, as the House will remember, the Criminal Appeal Act, 1964, which introduced the power to order a new trial on an appeal against conviction on the ground of fresh evidence, and in the same year there was the important Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act.
    Again, in 1966, there was passed the Criminal Appeal Act which abolished the Court of Criminal Appeal and transferred its jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal, which exercised it through its Criminal Division.
    There were, therefore, in these circumstances a number of separate enactments which can most usefully for all concerned be consolidated.
    The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills has made certain Amendments which

    175
    seem to it necessary to improve the form of the Bill and to bring it into conformity with the existing law. It considers that the Bill is pure consolidation and represents the existing law. In these circumstances, I recommend the Bill to the House.
    10.19 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: As the Solicitor-General has told the House, the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills has reported that this Bill is pure consolidation and represents the existing law. The House is concerned only, therefore, with the question whether this is the right time to consolidate this branch of the law.
    The Long Title to the Bill reads:
    "An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to appeals in criminal cases to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, and thence to the House of Lords."
    If one turns to the table of derivations at the end of the Bill, one sees that it seeks to consolidate Statutes stretching over the period 1907 to 1967. It is in connection with the last Statute mentioned there, the Criminal Justice Act of 1967, that I think some problems will arise over this consolidation. Schedule 4 of the 1967 Act——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. Member cannot argue that one of the Acts which is to be consolidated should not be. He cannot argue that on Second Reading. The hon. Member can argue whether the Acts which are to be consolidated should be consolidated or left as separate enactments.
    Mr. Graham Page: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I was not proposing to go into the merits of the 1967 Act. This is not an easy argument to put forward, but I am endeavouring to put it forward logically. Under a provision for the commencement of this consolidation Measure it is declared that it shall take effect from some past date, and not in the future. I have to follow this through step by step, and I hope that I may do it logically.
    The 1967 Act removed doubts and anomalies in the existing law, and was a useful preliminary to consolidation. That Act received the Royal Assent last July, and Schedule 4 carried out a preliminary to this consolidation Bill. That was admirable. That is what I have so frequently advocated in connection with con-
    176
    solidation Bills, and what the Government have so frequently failed to do. They have failed, before consolidation, to introduce amending legislation to the existing law so that the consolidation would be a tidy operation, and would not consolidate anomalies in the law.
    That was done by the 1967 Act, but that Act is not wholly in operation yet. Under Section 106 it will come into operation on a date to be appointed by the Home Secretary. The Joint Committee was informed that the intention was that the 1967 Act should come into operation at the same time as this consolidation Bill, but simultaneously would be repealed. On page 2 of the Minutes of Evidence before the Joint Committee the draftsmen of the Bill told the Committee:
    "The section of the Act of 1967 which introduces these amendments"—
    that is to say, disposes of the anomalies in the existing law—
    "has not yet been brought into force; it will come into force on the 1st September this year and will simultaneously and automatically bring into force the three consolidations before the Committee this afternoon. That section and the greater part of the amendments in Schedule 4 will be automatically and instantaneously repealed."
    In fact, that Section is not to be brought into operation on 1st September, 1968, but has already been brought into operation. It has been brought into operation by Statutory Instrument No. 1234 of 1967 which was made on 7th August, 1967. Schedule 3 of that Order brought into operation Section 98 and Schedule 4 of the 1967 Act. It brought them into operation on 1st April, 1968.
    Now comes the problem and I apologise for having to do this sort of detective work on a consolidation Bill. Turning to the Bill itself, by Clause 55, which is the Clause which deals with the
    "Short title, commencement and extent",
    it is said, in subsection (2):
    "This Act shall come into force on the day appointed under section 106(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 for the coming into force of section 98 of that Act."
    But that day has already been appointed. Here it is in black and white by the Statutory Instrument No. 1234. The Instrument starts by saying:
    "In the exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 106(5) of the Criminal

    177
    Justice Act 1967(a) I hereby make the following Order:—
    (1) The provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 specified in the Schedules to this Order shall come into force on the dates mentioned in the headings of those Schedules."
    One turns to Schedule 3 for the dates of the provisions coming into force and the date is 1st April, 1968. So, the consolidation Bill before us states that it shall come into operation on 1st April of this year, a date which has already been passed.
    It seems perfectly clear from Statutory Instrument 1234 that Section 98 has already been brought into operation, whereas Clause 55(2) of the Bill says that this Bill will come into operation on the (late when Section 98 of the 1967 Act is brought into operation. I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to explain whether the position is as I have tried to set it out.
    The second point in regard to the form of the consolidation by this Bill arises on Clause 47. That Clause deals with legal aid on appeals. One reads solemnly through six subsections——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that he cannot on the Second Reading of a consolidation Bill discuss the details of the Measures being consolidated. What he can argue is that we should or should not consolidate the Measures.
    Mr. Graham Page:With respect, that is what I am trying to do. By subsection (7) of Clause 47 of this Bill that Section is repealed. It is enacted by the Bill and is then repealed as from the day appointed under Section 106(5) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967. The day appointed under that Act, again by Statutory Instrument 1234, is 1st October, 1968, with the result that this Clause of the Bill will be in operation for a few weeks and then will be repealed by itself. I think that this is a good reason for saying that it is inappropriate to put this provision into a consolidation Bill.
    178
    The day appointed as stated in subsection (7) of Clause 47 is not a day which has been fixed by Statute, not a day laid down by Parliament, but a day which has been set down by the Home Secretary in a Statutory Instrument. I should have thought the right thing to do was to make the Statutory Instrument operate so that an unnecessary Clause should not be put in a consolidation Bill. Why cannot Part IV of the 1967 Act be brought into operation at once and the new conditions as to legal aid on appeal be inserted in this consolidation Measure?
    If the Bill remains as it is, it will contain a useless Clause, Clause 47, as to legal aid on appeals, a Clause which will operate for a few weeks and then die. One will then have to look outside this consolidation Measure for the current law on the subject. This is a fatal defect in a consolidation Measure of this kind.
    10.30 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: May I have leave to speak again? The point which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has raised on Clause 55, if there be substance in it, which I do not acknowledge, would be appropriately treated by an Amendment which the hon. Gentleman could put down at the Committee stage. Similar considerations appear to apply to what he has said about Clause 47, which, even, on his acknowledgement, has at least a short-lived value.
    I see nothing in the points which the hon. Gentleman has raised which makes me desire to derogate in the slightest from my recommendation to the House to give this valuable Bill a Second Reading.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Grey.]
    Committee Tomorrow.

    CRIMINAL APPEAL (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    10.32 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    The position in Northern Ireland in relation to criminal appeals is similar to our own, and, accordingly, the same need has arisen to consolidate the relevant Acts. Here again, the Joint Committee of the two Houses has considered the Bill, has made certain amendments, and reports that the Bill, as amended, is pure consolidation and represents the existing law. I recommend the Bill to the House.
    It will be a matter of some interest to the House that this is the first consolidation proposed to our Parliament at Westminster which deals solely with the law in Northern Ireland.
    10.33 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: This is a consolidation Measure similar to that which we have just debated, though this time in respect of Northern Ireland.
    It is a matter of some interest, as the Solicitor General said, that this is our first consolidation Bill at the request of the Northern Ireland Parliament. But it has the same defect in Clause 55(2), which brings the Bill into operation on the same day as Section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967 is brought into operation. As I showed in the previous debate, Section 98 has already been brought into operation by Statutory Instrument No. 1234 of 1967.
    Lest it be thought that the Statutory Instrument applies only to England and Wales, I draw attention to the heading:
    "Criminal Procedure, England and Wales Criminal Procedure, Northern Ireland."
    There is the same defect here, namely, that we are now asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill which contains a Clause stating that it shall come into operation on a date which has already passed.
    There is a second criticism of this consolidation. In the Long Title it is said that the Bill seeks to
    180
    "…consolidate the enactments relating to the Court of Criminal Appeal in Northern Ireland, the jurisdiction of the Court and appeals therefrom to the House of Lords."
    Therefore, it relates only to appeals to and from the Court of Criminal Appeal in Northern Ireland. It omits two forms of appeal and is not, therefore, a consolidation Measure relating to all criminal appeals from Northern Ireland courts. It omits to deal with appeals from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division in Northern Ireland to the House of Lords and it omits to deal with appeals from that Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (as distinct from that Court of Criminal Appeal) to the House of Lords.
    It is unfortunate that it does not cover all forms of criminal appeals and is, therefore, not a full consolidation Bill on this subject.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Gourlay.]
    Committee Tomorrow.

    COURTS-MARTIAL (APPEALS) BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    10.36 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    This consolidating Bill deals with the Acts relating to courts-martial appeals. The original Act was that of 1951, when the Courts-Martial Appeal Court was first established with a jurisdiction in courts-martial substantially corresponding to that of the then Court of Criminal Appeal. Amending Acts have followed altering the courts-martial appeal code, and these are parallel to changes which I have earlier referred to as applying to appeals in criminal cases. Thus the Appeal Court has, for example, a power corresponding to that of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal of ordering a new trial.
    The Joint Committee of the two Houses has considered the Bill, has made certain amendments to improve the form Of the Bill, and reports that it considers

    181
    that the Bill as amended is pure consolidation and represents the existing law. I recommend it to the House.
    10.37 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: The Bill has the same two defects as the first consolidation Measure we debated this evening. The legal aid Clause, Clause 51, is to last only a few weeks and then repeals itself just because the Home Secretary has made an Order which does not take effect until 1st October next.
    There is also the defect in Clause 61 that the Bill is stated to come into operation on a date which is now passed by reason of Statutory Instrument No. 1234 of 1967.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Gourlay.]
    Committee Tomorrow.

    RENT BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    10.39 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    This is a consolidating Bill covering enactments and parts of enactments beginning with the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920 and extending to the Leasehold Reform Act, 1967.
    The Joint Committee to consider Consolidation Bills has considered the Bill, has made certain amendments which seemed to it necessary to improve the form of the Bill and to bring it into conformity with the existing law. It reports that the Bill as amended is pure consolidation and represents the existing law.
    It is important to point out that what has occurred here is—and I measure my words—one of the biggest consolidations of English statute law that has ever taken place. The result will be of immense advantage to practitioners and will be beneficial to the public interest.
    The House will wish me to sincerely thank the Law Commission for the distinguished work which has gone into the
    182
    preparation of the Bill and also to thank the Joint Committee for the careful consideration which it has given to the matter. I trust that the House will think it right to give to this important and valuable consolidation Measure a Second reading.
    10.41 p.m.
    Mr. Graham Page: I join with the Solicitor-General in thanking all those who have had a part in producing the Bill. It certainly is a milestone in the law on this subject and it could be a valuable asset to those who practise law. I regret, however, that I cannot give it an unqualified welcome.
    In the previous Bills which we have been discussing tonight the opportunity was taken to remove anomalies before trying to consolidate the law on the subject. As I pointed out in the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, a number of anomalies were corrected and it was possible then to consolidate the law without perpetuating difficult, doubtful and anomalous parts of the law. Half a century of rent restriction legislation has produced a mass of anomalies in this branch of the law.
    It seems incredible that the Government should have embarked on this mammoth task without trying to remove those anomalies. They could have done so in some current legislation—for example, by a schedule in the Leasehold Reform Act, which made some amendments to the Rent Acts—or they could have cured the anomalies by recommendations from the Law Commission, put into this Measure; we now have a special procedure for accommodating such recommendations in consolidation Measures. It was ill-advised to consolidate the law on this subject without first putting right the difficulties in the existing law.
    As I say, it could have been done by current legislation or by recommendations from the Law Commission. It could also have been done by using the 1949 Act procedure of minor amendments and improvements in the law, recommended by a memorandum of the Lord Chancellor. None of those courses has been taken and the result is that this consolidation Measure perpetuates a great number of anomalies in the law. It is disappointing that such a valiant

    183
    effort by the draftsman should have been spoilt by the Government not finding time for amending legislation.
    I must justify my remarks by giving examples in the Bill. The distinction between what lawyers know as old and new control is now purposeless. It is an anomalous anachronism and it could have been abolished. But the draftsman had to preserve it. One reads with regret his remarks to the Joint Committee, in which he said that he had to include a Schedule on old control—it is Schedule 14—although he considered that there was practically no purpose in it. The old control should have been abolished before trying to consolidate.
    There is also the example of controlled mortgages. The draftsman has been obliged to say, in effect, in Clause 93, "You must look up the old law to decide whether or not you are a controlled mortgagee or mortgagor"—and, therefore, he has not consolidated the law at all.
    On mortgages, he has been obliged to throw in his hand—he used those words himself before the Joint Committee. The law is so doubtful that all he has been able to say in a consolidation Measure is, "Look up the old law". That is not the sort of thing which one hopes to find in a consolidation Measure. One hopes to be able to look at it and reach finality on the law merely by looking at the Statute.
    There is a third example, namely, exchange of tenancies—Clause 14—where again the draftsman has said to the Joint Committee, "This Clause is practically purposeless, but it is still the law and, therefore, I have to put it in the Bill." A fourth example, with the same sort of remarks from the draftsman, is the Sixteenth Schedule, the transitional provisions of the Rent Act, 1957. Seven pages of closely printed Schedule could have been abolished quite easily. It can now affect only a very few people and if it were abolished no hardship would result.
    Some of these examples are of matters which could have been omitted from the Bill. There are other examples of the law relating to rent control and security of tenure which ought to have been included in a consolidation Measure and which one would like to have in a con-
    184
    solidation Measure. For example, Part I of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954 is so closely related to rent control and security of tenure. Another example is the provision for the protection against harrassment and eviction without due process of law in Part III of the Rent Act, 1965. These are left out of the consolidation and the practitioner in this branch of the law would expect to find these subjects in a Bill called a Rent Bill and labelled a consolidation Bill.
    I wish that I could give the Bill an unqualified welcome, for it could have been such a tremendously valuable consolidation Measure to the practitioners in this branch of the law, but it has missed the boat, because the Government have not given the draftsman the help which he needed in preliminary legislation tidying up the law.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. Gourlay.]
    Continued Tomorrow.

    AGRICULTURE (FATSTOCK GUARANTEES)
    10.48 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): I beg to move,
    That the Fatstock (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order 1968, dated 12th March 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.
    I hope the House will also agree to take with this Motion the second Motion:
    That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1968, dated 13th March 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): If the hon. Gentleman has the leave of the House.
    Mr. Hoy: These Orders make minor amendments to the Fatstock (Protection of Guarantees) Order, 1958, as amended in 1960, which makes provision for protecting payments on fat cattle, sheep and pigs, and the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1964, which makes provision for these guarantee payments. The

    185
    amendments make some changes of detail, mainly in provisions relating to certificaton procedures, and also provide powers for the delegation of certain functions to the Meat and Livestock Commission in due course.
    The main changes of detail are these. Where animals are presented live for guarantee on the basis that a private sale has taken place, we have removed the responsibility placed on certifying officers for satisfying themselves about this and propose to rely instead on a declaration by the producer. Where stock are presented dead, a carcase not already sold could previously be sold only through the producer's own butchery business. The amendment enables it to be sold in any butchery business. This gives more flexibility in the arrangements. Similarly, provision is made for the certification of carcases supplied to places like hospitals from farms in the same ownership.
    We are also deleting the power to make the quality premium payments on fat pigs, which is no longer in use. Under the Protection Order, powers are being taken to provide for the removal or mutilation of the ears of approved car-cases, if the Minister so requires. The purpose is to provide a safeguard, additional to the prescribed marks, against presentation for a second time.
    These Orders also provide for the delegation of certain functions to the Meat and Livestock Commission. This is in accordance with the policy announced in the White Paper of August 1965, and the discussions in proceedings on the Bill which became the Agriculture Act, 1967. The functions to be delegated are those connected with certification for the guarantee in Great Britain. Ministers will remain responsible for the policy, including the level of the guaranteed prices and for payments. The main reason for delegation is that, in order to carry out carcase classification, one of its main tasks, the Commission will need to have technical staffs doing some work broadly similar to that done by the fatstock services. We do not want to have the services overlapping.
    The functions will be transferred to that Commission when it has worked out its program me and is ready to undertake them. The date is not yet certain, but we wanted the necessary powers available in good time and that is why they
    186
    are in these Orders. These are the changes of details, and I commend these Orders to the House.
    10.53 p.m.
    Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I want to refer first to that part of The Fatstock (Protection of Guarantees) Order which concerns the removal of ears or the mutilation of them. This is a subject very near to my heart, because when I was in the hon. Gentleman's position there was a case in my former constituency in which irregularities of this type came to light. This was in North Cornwall some years ago. I would imagine that following on that kind of case it has been found necessary, quite rightly, to bring this measure in, so that there is no question of sewing the ear back on again.
    We want to be quite certain that the people who are doing this know what they are doing and that, after removal, the ears will be completely disposed of. This is one of the points upon which I would have liked clarity by adding the words "and destroyed" after "removed", but this is perhaps raised too late. Ears were used in the case that I have in mind.
    Sub-paragraph (b) of Article 2 requires a record to be kept of the movement of animals and is an extremely welcome minor amendment.
    On the broader issue, the transfer of powers in both these Orders at some future date to the Livestock Commission is something about which I am not too sure. One does not want duplication of services and two sets of officers doing virtually the same work. As I understand it, the Commission's officers will be involved mainly in classification and the working out of the types and kinds of meat and so on. They will be working closely with the farmers and all sections of the trade. This is very different to the work being carried out under the existing Fatstock Guarantee Order. It is the job of the officers here to make quite certain that the animals certified, beef, cattle, pigs, sheep, lamb, are properly certified, and that there is no question of public funds going amiss.
    I do not believe that it will be proper to combine these two functions in one fatstock officer. There could easily be a conflict between these things. When

    187
    public funds are being distributed the greatest care must be taken to see that there is no question of this type of impropriety arising in the future.
    I now come briefly to the other Order. I am not quite clear why the Minister is doing this. I quite understand the deletion of Section 14 of the original Order, by which we say goodbye to the quality premium. Rightly or wrongly, it has been decided that it is superfluous. But in relation to Article 15(3) of the original 1964 Order, for which I was responsible, I do not understand why the Minister says that it will be enough just for the producer to sign a declaration. Why is it not necessary for the appropriate officer to be satisfied, as in the case of the original wording, that the meat is being sold by private treaty?
    I do not think that the farmer today is more or less honest than he was in 1964. This has not been a particularly tedious provision; indeed it is right to safeguard public funds. I am all for giving as much credit as possible to the honesty of the farmer, who is inherently an honest person, but mistakes can occur and these matters must be safeguarded. Why has the Minister changed the arrangement and agreed to accept the producer's declaration without any inspection or cross-checking? This is a mistake on the part of the Minister.
    I am sure it is right that the Minister should make the system more flexible and easier to operate, but I was not clear how he was able to work in his illusion to the pig coming from the farm belonging to the hospital and being sold to the hospital and therefore qualifying by the words of the new paragraph (4) of article 15, in sub-paragraph (c). As I understood it, this was already acceptable, if the officer certified it as such. I expect that the hon. Gentleman will correct me and say that that is not so, but if so, it is correct to make it possible for this to happen and for the certification to take place.
    These are minor matters, but there are some points of substance. I do not agree to the transfer of these powers to the Livestock Commission, with the same officer doing the two things. Apart from that, the minor amendments brought forward are right and proper—except for the point
    188
    about an ordinary producer being able to sign the declaration.
    10.59 p.m.
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: Whatever our views about these Orders, as far as I can discover the 1964 Order received complete approval from both sides of the House. Even the ingenuity of the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who is now Leader of the House, was not sufficient for him to find anything to bring before the House on the occasion when the 1964 Order was introduced. It so happens that at that time my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) was at the Ministry, and perhaps it is not unreasonable to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the Order received such widespread approval.
    There are one or two things that I want to ask the hon. Member. Order No. 398, made on 13th March, in paragraph 2(a) provides for the removal of quality premiums. Those were removed by the 1967 Price Review, and it seems a long time before any action has been taken by the Ministry. I wondered whether this was the first occasion when the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to bring this matter before the House.
    Concerning the question of the "proper officer" in paragraph 2(b), my experience is slightly different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West, because I have understood that there have been difficulties concerning animals which have been sold, for example, through wholesale butchers. In those circumstances, the "proper officer" sometimes had difficulty in being able to certify. The present proposal is the usual procedure for a live weight treaty sale. Possibly, therefore, there is a good deal to be said for the new arrangements.
    On paragraph 2(c) concerning hospital farms and arrangements of that nature, I have known of two examples of hospital farms in which there have been difficulties in this matter. My feeling, therefore, is that this is a provision which could be welcomed.
    In paragraph 2(a) of the Protection of Guarantees Order, the provision is that the amendment will be made by adding
    "and in addition, if the appropriate Minister so requires the ear or ears of any approved carcase shall be removed or mutilated".

    189
    Paragraph 2(d) states, however,
    "by deleting from paragraph 4(b) of the Schedule thereto the words 'and in addition the ear or ears of the carcase to be removed or mutilated'."
    Paragraph 4(b) of the Schedule relates to approvals in Scotland. The Minister will, doubtless, be well able to explain why, in Scotland, we appear to be deleting the requirement about ears whereas we now find that it is necessary to introduce it in England. That does not seem to me to be logical.
    On these occasions, we always find that the Interpretation Act, 1889, is included. I am sure that the Minister is very familiar with that Act and has been looking at it again today. Perhaps, therefore, he will be able to explain exactly what part of the 1889 Act has any relevance to the Order. I took the opportunity of looking at that Act and certainly, at a casual glance today, I was unable to find any immediate answer to that question. Subject to these observations, I commend the Orders to the House.
    11.3 p.m.
    Mr. Hoy: To deal first with the removal and mutilation of ears, I remember very well the case in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine). There was a little bit of hanky-panky about it, if I may put it that way. On the whole, however, farmers are a very honest race of people and I would be surprised that this should be raised again. When we want the ears removed, we really want them taken away and destroyed or mutilated. That is what we mean by mutilation. If the hon. Member suggests that we should put in another line to say "and taken away", I see no good reason for ears to be kept once they have been removed.
    In reply to his Scottish query, the hon. Member may be surprised to know that this is the practice in Scotland and it will so continue. In making the Order covering the whole country we have made the power permissive, but the present practice in Scotland will continue. This is what the Scots do. Perhaps I may
    190
    say in the presence of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) that we are bringing England and Wales into line with Scotland.
    I am glad that the hon. Member for Rye gave his approval to the Orders. During the passage of the Act, we discussed upstairs the question of certification by the Livestock Commission. It was discussed extensively. It was only as a result of the discussions upstairs that this provision became incorporated in the Act, and we had to introduce the Order to make it effective. We are doing no more than that.
    The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said that we are now saying goodbye to quality premiums and the hon. Member for Rye asked why we had taken so long to do it. The decision was made by our predecessors. It was phased over a three-year period which did not end until 1967, so that the provision is being taken now. Having done this job, we now introduce the Order to put the whole matter right. I am glad that the hon. Member for Rye liked the bit about hospitals. There was a snag, as the hon. Gentleman perfectly well knows, which we are putting right, because they ought to have the advantage in the same way as other people. I am grateful that the House has given approval.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That the Fatstock (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order 1968, dated 12th March, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.—[Mr. Hoy.]
    Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1968, dated 13th March, 1968 [copy laid before the House, 26th March], approved.—[Mr. Hoy.]

    Mr. Richard Crossman discharged from the Committee of Privileges; Mr. Fred Peart added.—[Mr. Gourlay.]

    ICE-CREAM VANS (CHIMES)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Courlay.]
    Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Had I been in any doubt about raising this matter in the House tonight, those doubts would have been dispelled by the volume of correspondence which I have received since I put down two probing questions on 31st January to the Ministry of Transport. Those questions were designed to discover whether the then Minister was proposing to include the control of musical chimes within the new decibel regulations. Most of the correspondence I have received relates to the noise nuisance aspect of the subject of my Adjournment debate, and some of the language in which the letters are couched is very lurid indeed. I hope to have an opportunity to quote a few extracts from those letters a little later on.
    The debate which I am initiating this evening arises primarily out of a tragic event which occurred in my constituency and the subsequent representations that were made to me by the father of a child who was killed.
    The accident happened on the morning of Sunday, 21st January, when the father was cleaning his car in the road outside his house, accompanied by his small son who was then aged two years eight months. An ice-cream van appeared in the road which was seen by the child but not by the father. The child ran across to the van and the driver, out of the generosity of his heart, gave the boy, who had no money, an iced lolly. It is presumed that the child then dropped this on the ground, probably stooped down to pick it up and was run over and killed.
    The father visited my office on the following day and made certain representations which I thought were worth bringing to the notice of the House, because they were in the nature of suggestions for the improvement of child safety in connection with ice cream vans.
    Perhaps I might read a short extract from a local Press report:
    "The little boy did not have any money and, out of kindness, the driver gave him a lolly.
    192
    It is thought that Jonathan dropped the lollypop and, while picking it up, was in collision with the ice cream van."
    Of course, one feels an element of sympathy for the driver, who showed both kindness and generosity to the child. But subsequent events reveal a rather disquieting situation.
    My case is concerned essentially with child safety. I do not minimise the noise nuisance aspect because, judging from correspondence which I have received from all quarters, it is obvious that this is considered throughout the length and breadth of the country to be an intolerable public nuisance.
    The first fact that I want to recognise is that ice-cream vending from vans is not only a perfectly legitimate business, because to some degree it is desirable and, in communities which are remote from shops, it can be a service. However, it would be no less a service if the danger and nuisance elements were eliminated.
    Various traders provide a door-to-door service. The baker and the milkman usually call every day, and the mobile green grocery van probably comes twice or three times a week. In addition, one sees mobile grocery vans, hardware and oil vans, mobile libraries, and so on. A host of community needs are supplied by vans. They seem to do business quite successfully without playing the same flat tune on a worn-out record or tape almost ceaselessly within the present permitted hours.
    The Noise Abatement Act, 1960, which was a Private Member's Measure, made certain provisions about the use of loudspeakers, public address systems and other instruments for calling attention to various matters. However, Section 2(3) made certain exemptions. It says:
    '…this section shall not apply to the operation of a loudspeaker between the hours of noon and seven o'clock in the evening on the same day if the loudspeaker—(a) is fixed to a vehicle which is being used for the conveyance of a perishable commodity for human consumption"—
    it is obvious what that is intended to mean—
    "and (b) is operated solely for informing members of the public (otherwise than by means of words) that the commodity is on sale from the vehicle; and (c) is so operated as not to give reasonable cause for annoyance to persons in the vicinity."

    193
    I want to dispute two aspects of that. The first concerns the permitted hours. Most of the correspondence that I have received complains that these instruments often are played long after the permitted hour in the evening. Only last evening, a van came into my road at 7.15 p.m. and played its chimes after the permitted time. Forty minutes later when I was leaving my home I heard these chimes being played again. I was just about to get into my car and I said to a friend of mine, "Did you notice where that van was?". He said "Yes, it has just passed the bottom of the road." It took me a minute or two to turn my car and try to find this van. I wanted to verify whether it was the same vehicle. Unfortunately I missed it.
    On the question of nuisance, it is not unusual to find three different ice-cream vending vans in the same road within 30 minutes. I have seen them. I do not usually say things in this House which come to me second hand. I have myself seen this happen. There is not only the nuisance of the vans appearing and the playing of this distorted music often extremely loudly. There is the nuisance caused to mothers who are placed in the difficulty of constantly having to find the money to enable their children to purchase these ice creams when these vans come round at such regular and frequent intervals.
    The Noise Abatement Act refers to the use of chimes for calling attention to perishable articles. I contend that the use of these chimes on ice cream vans is a breach of that provision. If there is one article of public consumption which is not perishable, it is ice cream. By the very nature of its name, ice cream is made with ice and it is preserved in ice container boxes. We know that what is not sold on one day can be put into freeze and sold the next day completely fresh, in the same way as we are able to keep milk for two or three days in refrigerators.
    If there is any justification for using chimes to call attention to a perishable commodity which is sold from a van, it is surely greengrocery. This raises the question: where will this sort of thing stop? A greengrocer would be just as entitled to use chimes for calling attention to the commodity which he is selling as are ice cream vendors. In a debate which took place in this House
    194
    in 1960 it was said over and over again, particularly by the late Sir Leslie Plummer, that the use of the chimes is obviously intended to attract attention to the presence of the van. This is the danger because the vendor—who I presume works on commission—is going to those areas within his district which have the highest child population. Therefore, the risk to the child is greatly increased.
    I have got only half way through what I wanted to say, but in order to give my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity to reply, I shall shortly conclude. I ask him to make representations to the Minister of Housing and Local Government—because this is where this legislation really belongs—asking him to consider granting greater powers to local authorities to make byelaws which would give them a discretionary power, according to what public feeling there may be in their areas, for the control of the use of these chimes. Without doubt it is about time that they were banned in the big cities and the larger conurbations. However, one recognises that there can be certain cases of smaller communities where the visits may be less frequent and where it might be desirable, because of the nature of the village or the hamlet, or whatever it may be, that attention should be called to the fact that the van is there. One has to be reasonable about it and agree that perhaps a total ban is not called for.
    Secondly, in the interests of child safety—and this is where I presume that the Minister of Transport comes into the picture—will the Parliamentary Secretary give consideration to the dual manning of these vehicles, which is the suggestion made to me by the father of this child, the second person on the van at least having the primary responsibility for seeing that the van departs safely without injury to any child after it has made its stop in the road?
    Thirdly, will he ask his right hon. Friend, the Minister of Labour, to examine the self-employment aspect of this matter? In the case to which I have referred, when I inquired the name of the driver, I was advised that he had absconded after the accident, that he was a deserter from the Royal Navy from the previous August, and was only apprehended about a week later in Portsmouth.

    195
    I do not know to what extent this opportunity is used, but this is proof enough that in the case of deserters from the services, prisoners on the run and men who might want to avoid the payment of maintenance grants to their wives, this would appear to be one way in which they are able to maintain themselves and yet escape detection.
    Fourthly, will the Parliamentary Secretary please not give me a negative or even an evasive answer?
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) has made a very powerful case. In the first instance, may I express my sympathy with his constituent on his tragic loss in the accident arising from the visit of the ice-cream van.
    My hon. Friend has asked me to make four comments. First, to make representations to the Minister of Housing and Local Government concerning giving local authorities power to make byelaws on the issue that he has raised. In April, 1967, a circular was issued jointly by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Welsh Office to local authorities on the subject of noise. A paragraph was devoted to noise from chimes on ice-cream vans. In it local authorities were urged to make full use of the powers in Section 2 of the Noise Abatement Act to secure that this sort of nuisance was kept within reasonable bounds. The powers are there for local authorities to use if they think fit.
    Local authority associations were consulted before the circular to which I have referred was issued, and none of them suggested that further control by the central Government was necessary. They seemed satisfied that adequate control could be exercised by the powers in Section 2 of that Act. Nevetheless, as my hon. Friend has asked me not to give a negative reply, I am prepared to pass his observations on to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
    I can understand the parents of this poor little boy who lost his life suggesting that these vehicles should be manned by two people, but we must be
    196
    practical about this. On the face of it it is a good idea, but if we were to introduce legislation to ensure that two men were on the van, would we have any guarantee that the second man would carry out the duty of seeing that children crossed the road safely? The chances are that he would merely be employed on selling ice-cream. We must remember, too, that if we insisted on two men being employed, the price of ice-cream would probably be increased.
    My hon. Friend referred to the self-employed nature of the job. I think that this is something which gives cause for concern. I know that many firms hire out these vans to people on a full-time basis. They do so on the basis of getting back the cost of hiring out the vehicle and the cost of the ice-cream. The profit on the sale of the ice-cream goes to the hirer of the vehicle. I do not know whether the matter should be referred to the Minister of Social Security, or the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will consider the matter and refer it to the appropriate Minister.
    I agree with much of what my hon. Friend said, but in fairness to the organised ice-cream industry I must tell him that it has introduced a code of practice which includes a clause that no chimes or audible means of recognition should be sounded for more than four seconds at a time, and that at least three minutes should be allowed between each playing. It also says that the vehicle should not be standing still while the chimes are playing, that they should be played while the van is moving to its stopping place. The industry also insists that particular care should be taken to avoid annoyance to night workers, sick persons, hospitals, nursing homes, and so on.
    If my hon. Friend feels that those conditions are not being met in his area he should contact the appropriate authorities, which are the Ice-Cream Alliance and the Ice-cream Federation Limited. I think that it would be a good idea for him to make representations to them on the basis of his experience in his constituency, because it is clearly undesirable to have three or four of these vans going down his street in half an hour. If we were to attempt to control the number of ice-cream vehicles going

    197
    down a street within a certain period, we would more or less be creating a monopoly in the industry. I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish that. He mentioned the almost ceaseless playing of the chimes. The best way to deal with that is to approach the manufacturers' associations. The majority of vendors are members—there are one or two fly-by-nights, but the majority belong lo the associations. The question of playing after the permitted hour of seven is a matter for the police.
    Mr. Wilkins: This is the gravamen of my charge. I am not concerned about my road; I imagine that what happened last evening was a coincidence, but most of my correspondents say that this is ceaseless, particularly in the London area. There, it is said, they step up the noise of the chimes. When asked if they could not keep the noise down, they say that the noise has to be loud to overcome the sound of the family television set. There is no question that this is an intolerable nuisance and something must be done about it.
    Mr. Brown: If the weight of my hon. Friend's correspondence is as he says, he has done a public service by initiating
    198
    this debate. The police cannot be in every street, but I think notice will be taken by them of what has been said.
    I cannot agree with my hon. Friend on the question of economic pressure being put on mothers. I am the father of two children who have now reached adulthood. There were ice-cream vans about when they were youngsters, but there was no economic pressure put on my wife or me three times within the space of half an hour as my hon. Friend has suggested. We made certain that the children were disciplined. I have not much sympathy with that argument.
    I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government the question of whether ice-cream is a perishable commodity coming under Section 2 of the Noise Abatement Act, 1960.
    I think I have adequately covered the points my hon. Friend made. I am sorry if I had to sound a little negative on one issue, but generally I am certain that nothing but good will come from this debate.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.

GAS
  Capital Expenditure
  Capital Expenditure
  Nationalised Gas Undertakings (Subsidiary Companies)
  Nationalised Gas Undertakings (Subsidiary Companies)
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Explosion, Congresbury
  Explosion, Congresbury
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Loss of Life (Inquiries)
  Loss of Life (Inquiries)
COAL
  Summer Prices
  Summer Prices
  Advertising (Cost)
  Advertising (Cost)
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  National Coal Board (Subsidiary Companies)
  National Coal Board (Subsidiary Companies)
ELECTRICITY
  Nationalised Electricity Undertakings (Subsidiary Companies)
  Nationalised Electricity Undertakings (Subsidiary Companies)
  Research and Development
  Research and Development
  Southern Electricity Board (Capital Investment)
  Southern Electricity Board (Capital Investment)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Subsidiary Companies)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Subsidiary Companies)
  Coal-fired Stations (Fuel and Ash Handling Charges)
  Coal-fired Stations (Fuel and Ash Handling Charges)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Blood Banks
  Blood Banks
HOSPITALS
  Woking Maternity Hospital
  Woking Maternity Hospital
  Maternity Beds, North-West Surrey
  Maternity Beds, North-West Surrey
  SAUDI ARABIA (MR. HORACE PHILLIPS)
  SAUDI ARABIA (MR. HORACE PHILLIPS)
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICES (STAFF)
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICES (STAFF)
RAILWAYS
  Automatic Half-barriers (Operating Time Cycle)
  Automatic Half-barriers (Operating Time Cycle)
  Central Transport Consultative Committee Report
  Central Transport Consultative Committee Report
TRANSPORT
  Goods Vehicles (Quality Licensing)
  Goods Vehicles (Quality Licensing)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  London Road, Camberley (Car Parking)
  London Road, Camberley (Car Parking)
  Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing)
  Goods Vehicles (Plating and Testing)
ROADS
  New Road Construction
  New Road Construction
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  CANBERRA (CARILLON HOUSING)
  CANBERRA (CARILLON HOUSING)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Northern Pennines Rural Development Board
  Northern Pennines Rural Development Board
  Forestry Commission (Capital Investment)
  Forestry Commission (Capital Investment)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Brunei
  Brunei
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
NATIONAL FINANCE
  National Savings
  National Savings
  Ministerial Salaries
  Ministerial Salaries
  Selective Employment Tax (Hotel and Catering Industry)
  Selective Employment Tax (Hotel and Catering Industry)
  Chamberlain Group Ltd. (Dividends)
  Chamberlain Group Ltd. (Dividends)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Building Programme (Brighton)
  School Building Programme (Brighton)
  Natural Environment Research Council (Research Vessel)
  Natural Environment Research Council (Research Vessel)
  New Schools and Community Colleges (Car Parking)
  New Schools and Community Colleges (Car Parking)
  New Schools (Sports Centres)
  New Schools (Sports Centres)
  South-West Economic Planning Council (Report)
  South-West Economic Planning Council (Report)
  Marine Science and Oceanography
  Marine Science and Oceanography
  Medical School (Leicester)
  Medical School (Leicester)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Regional Seat of Government
  Regional Seat of Government
  Children and Young Persons (Legislation)
  Children and Young Persons (Legislation)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Rate Rebate Scheme, Basford Rural District Council
  Rate Rebate Scheme, Basford Rural District Council
  Rate Rebate Scheme, Beeston and Stapleford Urban District Council
  Rate Rebate Scheme, Beeston and Stapleford Urban District Council
  Rate Support Grants, Nottinghamshire
  Rate Support Grants, Nottinghamshire
  Unoccupied Office Space, Greater London
  Unoccupied Office Space, Greater London
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
HOUSING
  Direct Labour Organisations
  Direct Labour Organisations
  Older Houses
  Older Houses
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Wages
  Wages
  Industrial Prices and Charges
  Industrial Prices and Charges
  Liverpool Busmen (Dispute)
  Liverpool Busmen (Dispute)
  Road Haulage Drivers (Earnings)
  Road Haulage Drivers (Earnings)
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (References)
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (References)
  Manufacturing and Catering Industries (Scotland)
  Manufacturing and Catering Industries (Scotland)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  New Telephones (Applications)
  New Telephones (Applications)
  Borough of Brent (Waiting Applicants)
  Borough of Brent (Waiting Applicants)
POST OFFICE
  Postal Deliveries, Wembley
  Postal Deliveries, Wembley
  Damaged Mail (Publicity)
  Damaged Mail (Publicity)
  Postal Service, United Kingdom-Anguilla
  Postal Service, United Kingdom-Anguilla
  Increased Charges
  Increased Charges
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Postal Service, London-Ayr
  Postal Service, London-Ayr
  Newspapers (Postage Tariff)
  Newspapers (Postage Tariff)
  Postal Deliveries, Scotland
  Postal Deliveries, Scotland
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Portsmouth Dockyard (Industrial Personnel)
  Portsmouth Dockyard (Industrial Personnel)
  Overseas Road-Building Contracts
  Overseas Road-Building Contracts
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
SCOTLAND
  Passenger Rail Link, Aviemore— Grantown-on-Spey
  Passenger Rail Link, Aviemore— Grantown-on-Spey
  Telephone and Postal Charges
  Telephone and Postal Charges
  Service Industries (Costs)
  Service Industries (Costs)
  Police Services (Expenditure)
  Police Services (Expenditure)
  Criminology Research
  Criminology Research
  Unit Beat Policing Systems
  Unit Beat Policing Systems
  Police Remuneration
  Police Remuneration
  Windblow Timber
  Windblow Timber
  Timber (Prices)
  Timber (Prices)
  Forestry Machinery
  Forestry Machinery
  Glasgow Primary Schools (Entry)
  Glasgow Primary Schools (Entry)
  Local Authorities' Audited Accounts
  Local Authorities' Audited Accounts
  Suicides
  Suicides
  Greater Glasgow Transportation Study
  Greater Glasgow Transportation Study
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
SOCIAL SECURITY
  North of Scotland War Pensions Committee
  North of Scotland War Pensions Committee
  Welfare Benefits Recipients (Living Standards)
  Welfare Benefits Recipients (Living Standards)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
TECHNOLOGY
  Nuclear Marine Propulsion (Re-examination)
  Nuclear Marine Propulsion (Re-examination)
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  International Business Machines (Computer Rentals)
  International Business Machines (Computer Rentals)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
WALES
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (ACCOMMODATION)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (ACCOMMODATION)

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

PRESTWICK AIRPORT
2.36 p.m.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals and appeals for assistance have been received by them from Prestwick Airport Development Association, and to what extent it will be possible to respond to these requests.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Government received on Thursday, April 18, a report on services at Prestwick from the Prestwick Airport Development Association, and these proposals are being studied.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is a feeling throughout Scotland that not enough is being done to develop the potential of Prestwick Aerodrome, and will the Government do all they can to encourage B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., and also foreign airlines, S.A.S. and K.L.M., to use it as much as possible? Further, will the Government look into the possibility of removing the restriction on independent British airlines which I believe now prevails and which does not allow them to open new routes through Prestwick?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I think the noble Lord knows, I have followed the affairs of Prestwick for twenty years and at no time during that period has there been anything but a feeling that we were not doing enough for them. I sympathise with the feeling and I should like to see Prestwick developed. So far
466
as S.A.S. and K.L.M. are concerned, it is entirely a matter for decision by the companies themselves. As for the independent airlines, I think it is simply a matter of licences being granted through the A.T.L.B.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, surely the noble Lord agrees there is scope for Government influence in this matter?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords, and I think the noble Lord will agree that the Government have done what is possible, and the Airports Authority are also doing what is possible to provide the facilities. Use of the airport is entirely a matter for the commercial companies.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, will the noble Lord use his influence with B.E.A. to ensure that when Glasgow Airport is blacked out by fog Prestwick is used, in preference to passengers being sent all the way through to Edinburgh?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure of the mileage concerned, but I will see that this point is considered.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: It is about twice the distance.

SOUTH WEST AFRICA AND THE UNITED NATIONS
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what support is being given to the United Nations Committee appointed to take over the administration of South West Africa.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, none by Her Majesty's Government. As the then Foreign Secretary told the General Assembly on September 26, 1967, we regret that in dealing with the problems of South West Africa the United Nations has not been prepared to confine itself to action which is clearly practical and positive.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend, may I ask him this question? Even if the Government disagree with the decision of the

467
United Nations, is there not some obligation on them to assist in its efforts? And in this case, where the United Nations Mission has even been refused admission to South West Africa, is it not very desirable that Her Majesty's Government should take steps to recognise the authority of the United Nations?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, it is difficult to know what Her Majesty's Government can do that they have not already done. As I said, the two resolutions of the United Nations under which the action was taken and with which my noble friend will be familiar are resolutions which we think are just impracticable; they cannot be put into effect. That has been shown to be the case by the very fact that the United Nations Mission concerned has failed to gain entry into South West Africa, and I think that any further action that is called for is the business of the United Nations. I see nothing in this case that Her Majesty's Government can do.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, are not Her Majesty's Government represented in the Security Council of the United Nations, and does not this situation demand that there should be a review of this whole position, in which the United Nations may reach decisions but has not the power to implement them?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and every other lawyer will be—that you cannot pass a law or resolution to compel a man to touch the sky?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, whatever may be the powers of the United Nations in this particular respect, I think my noble friend will agree with me that this is not a case where an individual State can take action. This is now a case for action by the General Assembly or the Security Council. I agree that we are members of both the Assembly and the Security Council, but I think it is very unlikely that a majority vote for any new move in this matter could be obtained in either body, and any action by Her Majesty's Government would, I fear, prove abortive.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, in view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government regard this expedition as impracticable, are they making any protest, or do they intend to make any protest, at the amount of money spent by this Mission? There were reports that they were chartering aeroplanes and staying in very expensive hotels; and it seems that the funds of the United Nations, which are in the red, might be put to better purpose. Would Her Majesty's Government consider making some protest at the expenditure of the funds of the United Nations in this way?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am not sure from where the noble Lord has obtained his information about these expenses. In fact the Mission concerned could not get an aircraft to go to the territory because the charter companies were afraid that it would he impounded. I think there must be some slight misunderstanding on that point. Whatever may be the expense incurred, or possibly about to be incurred by this Mission, Her Majesty's Government have shown their view about this by abstaining on both the resolutions which brought this Mission into being. I really think there is no more that we can do in this direction.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, in those circumstances, I should have thought that there was all the more reason for Her Majesty's Government to protest at funds being expended in this way. Will they protest?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I do not think I can undertake on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that we will make a protest until we have clearer facts about this matter. Her Majesty's Government have no facts of the kind that the noble Lord has mentioned with regard to expenses. If he has really hard facts, perhaps he will let me have them and I will take up the matter.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, if these gentlemen paid their hotel expenses, their aeroplane fares to South-West Africa, and so on, out of their own pockets, would he inquire what expenses they incurred?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, this really is another question, and one that

469
is quite wide of the original Question on the Order Paper. I repeat that I am not quite clear what the noble Lord means by "the expense of aircraft to South West Africa", because, as I say, the Mission has been unable to charter any aeroplane to South West Africa; the charter companies will not charter them.

THE MIDDLE EAST: MR. GUNNAR JARRING'S MISSION
2.44 p.m.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent progress has been made by Mr. Gunnar Jarring, the United Nations mediator, in his efforts to bring Israel and her Arab neighbours to a Peace Conference in Cyprus.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the United Nations Secretary-General reported to the Security Council on March 29 on Mr. Jarring's Mission. A copy of the report is in the Library of the House. I think my noble friend will agree that it would not be for me to go further than the Secretary-General has done in commenting on Mr. Jarring's progress.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, while Mr. Jarring continues to do his best to bring both sides to the conference table, is it not urgently necessary that United Nations observers be deployed in the Israeli-Jordan sector? Would not my noble friend agree that the stationing of United Nations observers in the Suez Canal sector and the Israeli-Syrian sector has been most effective in maintaining peace since the cease-fire took place?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the United Nations observer forces have been most useful in this respect. I agree with him, too, that Mr. Jarring is dealing with problems that have eluded solution for twenty years, and none of us, I think, expected him to achieve success overnight. So far as the stationing of an observer force on the Israeli/Jordan cease-fire line is concerned, I answered
470
a Question by my noble friend on that matter on March 25 last. There is nothing much that I can add to what I said then, except that Her Majesty's Government would support any proposal of this kind if it were practicable. But I know that my noble friend will agree that in the absence of agreement from both sides it would not be practicable; and that agreement is not yet forthcoming.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, may we take it that our representative on the Security Council is ready to make the proposal at the Security Council?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as my noble friend will know, the question of when proposals are made depends a good deal on the estimate that my noble friend in New York makes of whether such proposals are practicable. But he certainly has all these factors in his mind.

BUSINESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on European Space Policy at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon. We have a considerable amount of business to get through to-day, and dinner will be served from 7 to 8.30 this evening, though it is not intended to adjourn the House It is intended to take the Report stage of the Social Work (Scotland) Bill until 6.30 p.m. this evening, and then to start the Second Reading of the Health Services and Public Health Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, in the event that the Report stage of the Social Work (Scotland) Bill is not completed by 6.30, it is his intention to go on after the Health Services and Public Health Bill?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, yes. I know that the noble Lord and his friends are anxious to be helpful about this, but I thought we would make a final decision when we see what progress has been made. If we find that only a matter of ten minutes or a quarter of an hour is required after 6.30, then we shall take that time, but otherwise it may be for the general convenience of the House if we continue the Social Work (Scotland) Bill after the Second Reading of the Health Services and Public Health Bill.

PORT OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.48 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Local authorities for the administration of the Act]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"() The functions under this Act which prior to its passing were exercisable by the council of any large burgh shall, on such date or dates to be appointed by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 97 of this Act for the coming into operation of this Act for the purposes of any of those functions, be transferred to and vested in the council of the county within which that burgh is situated."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, to a large extent this Amendment is consequential on the removal from the Bill of the large burghs, to which your Lordships agreed on the Committee stage. I think it is right that the necessary transfer functions which this will involve, namely, from the burghs to the relevant county councils, should take place on the day or on the dates which the Secretary of State appoints for the coming into force of the various parts of the Act. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [The social work committee]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to add a reference to Section 10 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act 1958. There is already a reference to Section 12, and as Section 10 makes similar provisions it is felt appropriate to quote that also. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("section") and insert ("sections 10 and").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after subsection (2)(d), to insert:
"() Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since last we discussed this Bill the Health Services and Public Health Bill has been laid before this House. Part II of that Bill substantially amends Part III of the National Assistance Act. This Bill, in Schedule 7, repeals for Scotland most of Part III of that Act, but leaves in operation certain parts of Part III of the National Assistance Act—for example Section 22, except subsection (1), which relates to charges to be made for residential accommodation and which is referred to in Clause 86 of this Bill; Section 26 which deals with local authority payments for accommodation provided by voluntary organisations; and Section 28 which relates to Exchequer contributions to local authorities. Could the noble Lord tell us whether all these three sections could not with advantage be incorporated in this Bill? Then there is Section 25 of the National Assistance Act, which in urgent cases enables the Minister of Social Security to require local authorities to provide accommodation for individuals. I imagine that that would properly remain part of the social security legislation.
One of the puzzling features of the repeals is that Section 26 is to be amended by Clause 44 of the Health Services and Public Health Bill (which we are to discuss later to-day) which relates in turn to Section 21 of the National Assistance Act, and that is one of the sections which is repealed by this Bill. I find all this extremely confusing. I had understood that the welfare of old people was covered by this Bill. Clause 49 of the Health Services and Public Health Bill makes provision for the promotion by local authorities of the welfare of old people, and together with Clause 64 covers the powers of the local authority under Section 31, which was amended by the 1962 National Assistance Act, and that deals with the provision of meals and recreation for old people. I understand that that Bill will also repeal Section 31 for Scotland.
The noble Lord will agree that all this is rather perplexing, and I wonder whether the Government intend to introduce further Amendments to this Bill in another place once the Health Services and Public Health Bill has been passed by this House. Is it not intended that one of the functions of the social work committees shall be the welfare of old people? If so, ought not the requirement in the Third Schedule to the National Assistance Act, placing a duty on local authorities to establish a committee for the discharge of their functions under Part III of that Act, to be repealed? Should not those responsibilities be transferred to the social work committees? Should not also the functions of local authorities under Part II of the Health Services and Public Health Bill be included in this list of functions and be entrusted to social work committees? I feel that this would be a great convenience if only because it will be found, when we come to consider the Health Services and Public Health Bill, that almost every clause in that Bill has a Scottish application. If we could take out a good many of those clauses and put them instead into this Bill, it would make for great simplification for those who have to administer the law in Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 30, at end insert—
"() Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948".—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the Amendment as it stands is unnecessary because the reference in Clause 2(2) relates to the functions of the local authority. In fact, the local authority will have no functions remaining under Part III of the National Assistance Act, so we should be making a reference to functions which do not exist. However, there are provisions of Part III which will remain in relation to the calculations of certain payments, and so on. I must admit that there is some attraction in the noble Lord's suggestion of a rewriting of the provisions which will remain and of incorporating them together. However, it is a most complicated operation to undertake. Although the noble Lord touched on this matter at Committee stage, I am afraid that it has not proved possible to see a way through. But I certainly undertake that if it should
474
prove to be possible for this matter to be done in a tidier way, and a way which would make it easier for those who have to work the Act, the Government will seek to pursue it in another place. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will accept that we are anxious to make this as simple as possible, but we feel that the present Amendment would not go towards accomplishing his object.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said. Having tried to find my way through this, I certainly realise some of the difficulties. However, I should be grateful if he could answer the major questions which I have put to him, which were as follows. Is it in fact intended that under this Bill the old people shall be the responsibility of the social work committee? This is a point of real substance on which we should like to receive an answer. Secondly, there are undoubtedly parts of the National Assistance Act which will remain part of the functions of the local authorities, although I gather that the removal of subsection (1) of Section 22 removes that as a substantive provision and makes it merely a sort of machinery provision. I very much hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer these points and also say whether is intended that, since the Health Services and Public Health Bill is certain pass through this House before this Bill gets through another place, it will be possible to make Amendments in this Bill in another place, incorporating what is appropriate.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question about old people is, "Yes". The situation in regard to the Health Services and Public Health Bill is undoubtedly complicated at the moment, but when the Bill becomes law the procedure thereafter will be much simpler—I think almost certainly using the method indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I cannot help saying that I think this is an odd way of legislating, but I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.0 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER moved, after subsection (3), to insert:
"() Each social work committee shall as far as possible include persons of experience belonging to the principal Churches or faiths in the area."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I would express the hope that the Government will find it acceptable. My noble friend Lord Balerno, whose name is also on the Marshalled List, would have been here to speak to this Amendment, but he occupies an important position in the World Council of Churches, which is meeting in Newcastle to-day, and consequently is unable to be here. Your Lordships will recall that his Amendment was withdrawn during the Committee stage. This Amendment, which I have of course discussed with him, is on different lines; otherwise, I should not have put it forward and taken up your Lordships' time. But this Amendment has been put forward not only after studying what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said in Committee, but after consultation with other noble Lords of different persuasions. I was not altogether convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, and I took an opportunity which presented itself of discussing the matter with important and responsible officials of the Church of Scotland on the social work side. Indeed, without their strong support I should not have put this Amendment forward for your Lordships' consideration.
The Amendment speaks for itself, so I need not add much more, except to say that I personally feel that too many people are unaware of the extent of the social work which is done by the various Churches. Further, it is done so unostentatiously that their experience, their skills, and their organisations are not fully appreciated by the public in general. For that reason a provision of this nature should appear in this Bill. I repeat the point which I made in Committee: that the presence on one of these committees of a churchman or a churchwoman (because in this Amendment I do not mean only ordained ministers) would be of great advantage. It would put at the disposal of such a committee not only the Churches' wide organisation, which is in touch with every facet of the life of a community—hence the last three words of the Amendment—but also an
476
organisation with intimate local knowledge, and people of dedication and ready-made skills. I trust that this Amendment will prove acceptable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ferrier.)
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not know what my noble friend Lord Hughes is proposing to do about this Amendment, and I hesitate to oppose the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and his noble friend Lord Balerno, because I know of the intense interest which both of them have in this Bill, particularly in relation to the future position of the probation service in Scotland. But I feel that it will be unfortunate if this Amendment is pressed.
I should like to remind your Lordships of a point which I tried to make at an earlier stage. Under this Bill we are going to be committed to two-thirds of the members of the social work committee being members of the local authority. This means that only one-third of the social work committee will be recruited from outside the local authority. With the greatest respect, I think there are far too many interests which need to be represented on the social work committees for us to run the risk of filling them by members of the various religious denominations, because we know (we have experienced this in social work in England and Wales) that immediately provision is made for the inclusion of a member of one particular denomination, then, not unnaturally, and quite rightly, all other denominations want to be brought in. I speak as an active member of the Anglican Church in England and I am not opposed to that. But what I am primarily concerned about is that we bring on to the social work committee people who can serve it from the widest possible field of representation.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and his noble friend Lord Balerno know my concern in the same way as I know their concern. This is an entirely new field, and we want to have on the social work committee men and women who can lend themselves to the whole question of selection and training, in-service training and further training, so that a really comprehensive and effective social work

477
organisation can be created, even though some of us are unhappy about its being under the local authority. If we are to have the best possible social work organisation under the control of the local authority, we must have on the local social work committee people who can bring a vast experience and wealth of knowledge from other social work activities in the area and in the community, who are going to concern themselves with standards, with attitudes, with selection, with training, with further training, with in-service training and so on.
I would go so far as to say that the one-third of the social work committee which will be recruited from outside is probably not going to be large enough to do that. Therefore, I should not want to tie the social work committee down, because of the probability that in that event the majority of the one-third to be recruited from outside might come from one particular field of interest. It is because of that that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, may agree not to press this Amendment.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, perhaps some other noble Lord will want to speak; but on a technical point, the noble Lord who has just sat down mentioned persuasions. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Amendment is very widely worded. It does not mention any particular persuasion; indeed, it does not say that the party concerned should necessarily be of the Christian church. It is not intended that there should be any picking out of the Church of Scotland in this matter.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I do not want to continue this discussion because of the pressure of time, but the Amendment does say,
"shall … include persons of experience belonging to the principal Churches".
So I envisage—although I may be quite wrong—that there may be three, four or five people.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I very much hope that the Amendment may receive favourable consideration from Her Majesty's Government. It enshrines a principle which exists in my own county. I cannot believe that in this matter there would be any difference
478
between an English local authority and a Scottish local authority. It is our practice, when we set up case committees in Devonshire, to seek, so far as possible, and so far as is reasonably convenient, to include representatives of the principal religious interests involved. I do not mean that we insist on every single religious body being represented. There is never any trouble over that. But these denominational representatives have served a double purpose. In the first place, they have been able to represent to the committee the point of view of the religious body to which they belong; and, secondly—and this is equally important—they have been able to represent to their religious authorities the point of view of the committee, to give their religious authorities the facts of the case, which to my own knowledge has prevented friction on various occasions.
I am perfectly certain that if I were free to give your Lordships examples, your Lordships would realise that there is great value in this widely drawn, permissive Amendment. I take a very strong view on the confidential character of case work, and I find it difficult to give your Lordships any definite instances. I merely ask you to accept that I am speaking from experience; and I am therefore grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for his Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, I also am an Elder of the Church of Scotland and can very much appreciate the motives which lie behind the moving of this Amendment. I was glad that in moving his Amendment the noble Lord made it quite clear that it did not refer exclusively to clergymen, but referred to churchmen and churchwomen. It helps me to adhere to the point of view which I expressed at Committee stage, that the Government cannot accept this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, are two excellent examples in your Lordships' House of the point of view of a Church being capable of being represented, and very adequately represented, among a variety of other interests put forward by the noble Lords concerned.
We attach importance to having on these committees people of the kind

479
which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has in mind, but we do not think that it is necessary to specify that there should be certain representatives, or
"persons of experience belonging to the principal Churches or faiths in the area",
to ensure that. I do not know what is the position South of the Border, but it would certainly be virtually impossible in Scotland for the members of the local authority not to include at least some people who were active in one or other of the principal religions in the area. So I think the omission of these words by no means implies that the Churches' point of view would go by default.
Our real difficulty about accepting the Amendment is the one which my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell has put forward: that it would create difficulties, in view of the limited number of places which may be available to co-opted members. My noble friend spoke as if every committee was in fact going to include co-opted members to the extent of one-third of its number. In fact, the provision is that it "may" include one-third; and in some cases the local authority might co-opt fewer than one-third of the committee, which would make the position even more difficult. The position in which Her Majesty's Government find themselves in this matter is that there are so many voluntary and professional organisation which could be so very helpful in carrying out the work of the committee that it is virtually impossible to lay down which of the very many interests which could properly be co-opted are the ones which in every case would be the best. The position must inevitably vary from one local authority to another.
What the Government feel is that, while giving the strongest possible support to the principle of co-option, we must leave it to each individual local authority to co-opt in any particular case the individuals who are most likely to be helpful in carrying out the work of that committee; and that help must obviously take the direction of supplementing the knowledge and experience which is going to come from those who are on the committee as elected members. In some cases it may well be quite clear that there should be a representative of the Church of Scotland, or a representative of the Episcopal Church in Scotland or a representative of the
480
Roman Catholic Church, but in other cases it might well be that the appropriate person to co-opt is somebody who has had first-class experience in probation work or who has done a great deal of work in relation to children in one or other of the voluntary organisations.
I think that in his Amendment the noble Lord is not really going further than to express a preference—he has been very fair; he has included the words "as far as possible", so he is really just expressing a preference. But as soon as you express a preference in a Bill for one particular type of co-opted representative you make it a little more difficult, at least by inference, for others to be appointed. I know that this would not be in the noble Lord's mind, and I therefore hope that he will agree with me that, things being as they are in Scotland, the Churches are more likely to be represented by people who are appointed in other capacities than perhaps some of the other organisations are, and that we are not really treading on dangerous ground in deciding to leave this to the wisdom of each local authority in its own particular area. I hope that with this general expression of agreement from Her Majesty's Government with the objects which lie behind the Amendment, the noble Lord will find it possible not to press it.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, may I ask one question? Would it be possible for a member of a local authority who was very active in one of the religions or faiths to be co-opted on to the committee?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it would not strictly be necessary for him to be co-opted. If the local authority particularly wished that man to be a member, he would be an appointed member of the committee.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the conciliatory way in which he has approached this Amendment, and also to thank other noble Lords for what they have said. I am also obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for drawing attention to the words "as far as possible" as they occur in the Amendment. Of course, the debate has so far mentioned only the Christian faith. The word "faiths" also occurs in the Amendment,

481
which is intended to cover people of, say, the Jewish faith. Wide as it is, my Lords, with the words "as far as possible", and "Churches or faiths", I personally feel that the Bill would be improved if a provision such as this was inserted. But, dogged as this Bill has been at every stage by pressure for time, I do not propose to press the Amendment, and I am going to beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw it. But it is for your Lordships to say. If your Lordships do not grant me permission to withdraw the Amendment, then I shall certainly press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [The director of social work]:
3.19 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I had down at the Committee stage, but we agreed that consideration of it should be deferred until we had considered an almost identical Amendment to Clause 35. The noble Lord was good enough to accept that Amendment, and I hope he will now accept this one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 19, at end insert—
(" and if he considers none of the applicants to be qualified for the appointment he shall require the local authority to re-advertise the vacancy, and the local authority shall comply with the requirement with or without any change in the terms and conditions of service offered.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 23, after ("person") insert ("from among those").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following clause:
"12A. Where, by virtue of the last foregoing section, a local authority make arrangements or provide or secure the provision of facilities for the engagement of persons in need (whether under a contract of service or otherwise) in suitable work, that local authority may assist such persons in disposing of the produce of their work."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to ensure that local authorities, in securing the provision of work for handicapped persons, con-
482
tinue to have explicit powers to make arrangements for payment for that work and to assist in the disposal of its produce. Most of the existing powers, contained in Section 29(4) of the National Assistance Act 1948, are comprehended by the wide powers given to local authorities by Clause 12 to provide assistance to persons in need, which of course includes the provision of suitable work for persons who are blind and otherwise handicapped and suitable facilities to enable them to carry out that work. The new clause makes clear that the arrangements for payment in respect of such work may be under a contract of service or otherwise and that the other arrangements for providing work may include arrangements for the handicapped persons concerned to dispose of their produce. The importation of the term "contract of service" allows regular payments (and not simply emergency cost payments) to be made.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. Many of us will be familiar with the arrangements made under the National Assistance Act. This clause seems, in some respects, to be rather less wide. It enables the local authorities to assist such persons in disposing of the produce of their work. That would imply, presumably, that they are selling the work on their own account, even though they may have been under a contract of service. I am not certain how far this goes. The brackets seems to have been added in some way afterwards and do not seem to go with the rest of the clause. Perhaps the noble Lord would have another look at it.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think that the clause as it stands includes everything which the local authority would need to do, but I should be quite happy to have another look to see whether any amplification or extension of it is necessary. Of course, that would have to be done in another place. Perhaps the noble Lord would have another discussion with me afterwards on what he has in mind, so that I may pass it on to my right honourable friend.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Domestic help and laundry facilities]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 30, after ("adequate") insert ("of").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it may well happen that arrangements will have to be made for somebody to be looked after at home and that it will not be possible for that person to be looked after unless provision is made for domestic help. As the clause stands at present, it is only if the person is actually present in the home that such arrangements can be made. I am told by experts in this matter (so I take it there is a basis for it) that this has caused difficulty in the past. My Amendment would help alleviate that difficulty and allow arrangements to be made in advance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 32, after ("presence") insert ("or the imminent or proposed presence").(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have come to the conclusion that the insertion of these words is desirable. I am therefore happy to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is simply to draw attention to a difference in drafting between a subsection of the Health Services and Public Health Bill and a subsection of this Bill which are otherwise identical. I do not know the effect of this difference; but, as I read this Bill, a charge for services by the local authority to those who are able to pay the full charge could not be greater than the full charge; whereas, as drafted in the other Bill, a charge greater than the full charge could be made. I do not know whether it is ever the practice to make a charge greater than the full charge; but as both Bills apply to Scotland for the time being I draw attention to this difference. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 41, leave out from beginning to ("those").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, having regard to the meticulous way in which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has gone through the Bill it is not unreasonable that he should draw attention to this apparent anomaly. The fact is that the Health Services and Public Health Bill is a United Kingdom Bill, and to the extent to which it is making amendments to the National Health Service Act 1946 and to the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, it is following a particular pattern. In this case it is following the pattern of the 1946 Act. But I would remind your Lordships that in the case of the 1946 and 1947 Acts, the later Scottish Act differed from the earlier English Act in the insertion of a provision that in fixing their charges local authorities in Scotland (in addition to taking account of the means of the person using the service) are under an obligation to take into account the cost of the service to the local authority.
In producing this Bill applicable to Scotland we have elected to follow the pattern which has worked in Scotland, without complaint so far as I am aware, for some twenty years. The effect of this will be that when in due course this Bill becomes law it will reinstate the position in Scotland as it will have been from the passing of the Act in 1947 until the passing of the Health Services and Public Health Bill. Undoubtedly it is the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, that if these words were taken out it would, in theory, change the position—but only in theory. We are not aware of any local authority in Scotland which has decided to make a profit out of some of the users of the service in order to help it recoup its losses in relation to others. I admit it is theoretically possible for somebody to charge more than the actual cost; but in practice I think it is unlikely to happen. I hope the noble Lord will find it possible to withdraw his Amendment.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, whether he could help some of us on this matter? In reading this Bill and in reading the Health Services and Public Health Bill that we are about to discuss, one finds provisions which one might say overlap but which are expressed differently. I quite agree that the Health Services and Public Health Bill is a

485
United Kingdom Bill; but there are certain parts which it is stated do not apply to Scotland. If we are to have differences such as have been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, we shall either have to change the Scottish Bill or include words in the United Kingdom Bill indicating that this will not apply to Scotland. Otherwise we shall get into a hopeless muddle.
LORD HUGHES: No, my Lords; there will not in fact be any difficulty. The only difficulty is the purely temporary one, that a Bill coming before your Lordships' House later this afternoon, the Health Services and Public Health Bill, will become law before the Social Work (Scotland) Bill. There will be a period when the United Kingdom provisions in these matters will be the law of Scotland, but when the Social Work (Scotland) Bill eventually passes through Parliament what will apply in Scotland will be what is in that Bill. So the anomaly is a purely temporary one.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. If I understand his meaning, it is as good as saying that he expects that when the Social Work (Scotland) Bill goes to another place an additional Amendment to disapply Clause 13 will be introduced, and that the intervening period will be the period between the time when the Social Work (Scotland) Bill comes into operation and the earlier time when the Health Services and Public Health Bill comes into operation. If that is so, I accept the position. I think that the words in the Scottish legislation are superior. I did not move this Amendment in order to have them moved out, but to draw attention to the position. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.33 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment raises very much the same points as was dealt with in the last Amendment. Here we have in two separate Bills two Clauses—both, oddly enough, Clause 13—which are virtually identical. The subsection which my Amendments seeks to leave out says:
"It shall not be a requirement that any matter relating to the discharge of their func-
486
tions under this section by a local authority shall stand referred to their social work committee."
Already, under the National Assistance Act (I think in Section 31), we have in being a provision of this kind. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to comment on this.
I do not think it desirable that there should be two committees dealing with the same matter, on the one hand domestic help for the sick, and, on the other, domestic help for the aged and others in need. I am sure that that is not the intention, and I think that here is provided a good opportunity for the noble Lord to say that the whole thing will be drawn together under one committee, whatever that committee may be —in some cases it may be the health committee, and in others the social work committee—and that this provision merely leaves the matter to the choice of the local authority. If that is so, I willingly accept it; but I want to make certain that there is no possibility of two committees handling the quest on of domestic help.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for putting down what I think I am correct in saying is essentially a probing Amendment to elicit the position which will exist. As I think most noble Lords will be aware, at the present time it is as a health function that the local authorities can furnish the assistance given by these domestic helps. As such, it has been organised very successfully by the medical officer of health, and generally it will come under the auspices of the health committee. For the first time, we are specifically importing into the duties of the local authorities the need to give this assistance not oily on health grounds but also on social grounds.
As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made clear, it would be a disaster if we were to legislate for the creation of two separate systems of domestic help. It would be equally disastrous if we made the mistake of starting off by disrupting a service which has been very successfully organised under the medical officer of health by insisting on its transfer to the social work committee. We think that it may well be—and I think in the interests of tidiness it will be—desirable if in due course this responsibility becomes

487
a function of the social work committee. But that will be a matter for a local authority to decide, in the course of time and in the light of its own experience. At any rate in the beginning, it seems to the Government desirable that the organisation should continue in its present form with the social work committee making perfectly clear to the health side, if that were necessary (though one would not imagine that it would be), the opportunities and obligations to give assistance on social grounds.
We think this is a case where, instead of saying that the responsibility shall go here or there, we should leave it to local authorities to make certain that what is working well at the present time shall continue to work well. If it is felt that it can be made better by putting responsibility on to the social work committee, rather than on to the health committee, I have no doubt that the local authority will do so. But, equally, if they felt that it would be better left with the health committee I have no reason to believe that it would not work in that way also. I am quite certain that no local authority would commit what would be the undoubted folly of setting up two services under two separate committees.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will realise that this will be a difficult point to deal with. During the Second Reading debate I said that I was certain that however much one tried to organise services under one particular department, there was bound to be a great deal of difficulty on what might be called the frontier. After what the noble Lord has said I am still doubtful whether he means that if the medical officer of health is in charge now, he will be supported if he declares it his right to go on supplying those services. And, of course, we shall get into the sphere of the home-help and the rest of it.
Having read this Bill and the next Bill, which will make things even more difficult for us, I think we should like to know what is to be the decision about which department is to carry out this work. I know that it seems extraordinarily stupid when looked at from the outside, and that people will say, "What does it really matter? So long as the work is going on, why bother?"
488
But among the various departments of a local authority there is a sense of pride and interest. Members of various departments may feel that something is being taken away from them, and that leads to friction. Above all, we want to stop that friction, and the idea of the social work department was to stop friction. But unless something is clearly laid down, both in this Bill and in the Bill which is to follow, we shall have a great deal of friction. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can make clear that if at the present time the medical officer of health is in charge of these services he is to be permitted to continue that responsibility.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, proposes to answer that question.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should be very willing to answer, but under the terms of the procedure in your Lordships' House I am not permitted to speak.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord can do so by leave.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if your Lordships wish, I shall be delighted to do so. I am conscious that we are working to a timetable, and I do not want to appear to be jumping up at every opportunity. I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrough. The most important thing is to avoid the creation of friction. I also agree with her that normally the best way to avoid friction is to place responsibility firmly on the shoulders of one body or committee. But this is a case where I think it is better to leave it to the movement of time to accomplish this rather than attempt to do it at one operation by transferring it straight over to the social work committee. This is a field where local authorities will fairly soon see whether it is to be an advantage to make this the responsibility of the social work committee, and it is not without the bounds of possibility that this could be done with the willing co-operation of the medical officers of health. The noble Baroness almost shakes her head, and perhaps both she and I are thinking of particular medical officers of health, but we ought not to legislate for the exceptional individual. We must leave it to the good sense of the

489
local authorities. I find it difficult to disagree with what the noble Baroness said, yet I think it would be a mistake to attempt to force the pace a little too hard.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I am sure that it is right not to force the pace, but I also think that my noble friend is right in saying that we should indicate what the object is. I have no doubt in my own mind, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, that in the end, as we are dealing with people in need and this includes medical need, it will be for those responsible for health to see what domestic help is required, and for those responsible for need to supply it. In other words, undoubtedly it would be the social work committee that would supply this. I merely express my own view, but I suspect that this is also the view of the noble Lord, had he felt able at this stage to express it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Duty of local authority to provide for orphans, deserted children, etc.]:
3.43 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, at the beginning of subsection (3), to insert:
"If, at the time when a child is received into the care of a local authority under this section, the whereabouts of any parent or guardian of his is unknown, it shall be the duty of the local authority to take all reasonable steps to discover them, and".
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment is an attempt to find an acceptable form of words to cover a point which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn raised on Committee. I think it is reasonable and just that a local authority should have an obligation to take reasonable steps to discover the whereabouts of parents and guardians who cannot be
490
immediately found. So much of this Bill depends on the co-operation of parents that it seems extremely important that every effort should be made to bring them into its operation. I have no doubt that most local authorities do everything they can to find missing parents and guardians, but I feel that it would be useful to have this provision in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 28, at the beginning insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment strongly. I have had great experience of the difficulties of tracing the parents of some children who come into care. It requires a lot of patience and time and the co-operation of many authorities, and sometimes ever, this is not sufficient. It has always been a mystery to me how people can terally disappear and be untraceable, although the local authorities, the police, probation officers and child care officers are all searching for them. I suppose that they change their names and disappear into limbo. It adds to the complications of dealing with children and doing the best one can for them if one cannot trace a parent who can give authority for taking certain steps; and I think that this is a wise provision to put in the Bill. It is important that the committees should be encouraged to take this trouble, however long it takes and expensive it is, because it is vital to the well-being and future of children coming into care.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should have been delighted to be able to assure the noble Baroness that she had persuaded me to accept this Amendment. Unfortunately I have already indicated in correspondence to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that I was prepared to accept it, so it would be quite wrong to leave the noble Baroness with the impression that she was responsible for my conversion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EUROPEAN SPACE POLICY
3.46 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Technology in another place about European Space Policy. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House will know, the Government have been considering the report of the Advisory Committee on Programmes set up by the 1967 Rome Space Conference to make proposals for the development of a European space programme. This Report—known as the Causse Report—is due to be discussed at the European Space Conference to be held in Bonn, this summer, and all the Governments concerned were asked to make their views known on its recommendations in time for preliminary discussion by the Committee of Alternates at a meeting which had been fixed for to-day.
"Our examination of the Causse Report has paid particular regard to its evaluation of the economic benefits of the proposed programmes. On the main issues raised, our conclusions were as follows.
"First, as to launchers, a further development programme of the ELDO launcher, beyond that to which we are committed, and which ends in 1971, cannot now be justified. The development and production costs of ELDO launchers would have been prohibitive, and the potential applications for them, both limited and speculative. We therefore decided not to undertake any additional financial commitments to ELDO.
"Secondly, as to the CETS project for an experimental TV relay satellite, the Causse Report states clearly that this could not yield a commercially viable project unless at least all the research and development costs, both of the satellite and the launcher, were completely and totally written off. Whatever the long-term merits of such a project, we consider that in present circumstances it would not be an economically justifiable use of scarce resources and that for this reason it would not be right for us to participate in the project.
492
"Thirdly, as to the scientific programme, we decided to agree to some increase in expenditure in this field over the next three years—though not to the full extent recommend by the Causse Report. Allowing for other claims on the funds available for science, we can support an average increase of not more than 6 per cent. per annum on the 1968 ESRO budget of 250 million francs.
"Having reached its conclusions, the Government decided it would be right to let them be known as soon as possible. It therefore communicated these to the other Governments concerned and to ELDO and ESRO last week. Because of the likelihood that this would then become public knowledge, I thought it right to issue a short Statement at the same time.
"The Government realised that these discussions would be a disappointment to some and be criticised by others. But it would be quite wrong to conclude from them either that we were opting out of space or turning our backs on Europe. Every Government is having to decide for itself whether these proposals represent an economically justifiable use of scarce resources. In our view it really would not make sense for Europe to develop its own total independent capability, regardless of cost and benefit. The Government have, of course, weighed the political arguments in favour of the Causse proposals for ELDO and CETS, but do not consider that they outweigh the strong economic arguments against them. We shall all have to think about what limited capability in space technology will enable us all to take up economically justified applications as and when they emerge.
"These decisions follow directly from our general approach to European collaboration and the problem of the technological gap between the United States and Europe. We are concentrating upon the development of industrial policies which will promote collaboration between European industries. The efforts of Government should be directed to reinforcing the industrial potential which Europe already possesses.
"European scale industries are essential if we are to generate the vast

493
sums required for research, development and marketing to allow Europe to compete industrially on more or less equal terms with the advanced technological industries of the United States. This need is urgent and critical to the very existence of certain industries with great growth potential, such as computers, electronics, airframes and nuclear energy.
"The Government's proposal for a European Centre for Technology is expressly designed to explore the further possibilities of collaboration between industries and to identify the obstacles to the development of European industrial capability designed to meet the assessed needs.
"Joint inter-governmental European projects, on many of which we are engaged, have a role, provided they are soundly based, promise benefits commensurate with the expenditure involved and are relevant to Europe's broad industrial objectives. But projects which are economically unsound do not become desirable merely because they are undertaken internationally. The Causse proposals did not pass the necessary tests of cost and benefit, and we believe they are inconsistent with the need to concentrate limited technological and financial effort on those areas which will contribute most to strengthening Europe's industrial capabilities, which must be done if Europe is to develop its economic and political potential to the full."
3.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to my noble Lord the Leader of the House for having made in your Lordships' House this Statement which has also been made in another place. However, I am sure that most of your Lordships very much regret that we should now be deciding not to go on making a full and continuing contribution either to ELDO or to the other organisation, CETS, just at a time when the Government are advocating an extension of technical co-operation in Europe, which we all welcome. It seems tragic that we should now be pulling out of two European technological organisations which do exist—we may be thinking of others—even if we all know that ELDO has had its problems. Would the noble Lord not
494
consider it to be more economic that we should continue on a European basis rather than that European countries should do so on their own? Is he aware of France's national space programme, which is much more extensive than our own? Is he aware, also, that Canada has the intention of launching, or has launched, her own domestic communications satellite? Should we not do so, too? All this is very disappointing to those who have advocated increased expenditure in space for commercial purposes, especially in view of the Prime Minister's earlier statement about
"science being harnessed to socialism in the white heat of the technological revolution."
May I say one further thing? I do not think that we should necessarily accept all the economic arguments of the Causse Report—of which, incidentally, there is only one copy in your Lordships' House, and most of us have not had an opportunity of reading it. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it is likely to be published. It may well be that in the long term these projects would prove economic. I am extremely disappointed about it, even if glad that the scientific programme is not to suffer and that the Government are continuing to press ahead with European co-operation in other industries.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would not the Government agree that the essential reason why ELDO has yielded, apparently, disappointing results is because it is run by a group of national experts, each of whom regards problems primarily from the national point of view, and, therefore, there is no consequential provision for an authority who would take the necessary decisions in the interests of the group as a whole? Would the Government not agree that this is the essential reason why it has not functioned very satisfactorily? Secondly, are the Government aware that the very responsible French newspaper, Le Monde, is saying that the decision to withdraw from ELDO after 1971 means that the Government are not serious in their proposals for the creation of a European technological community? Finally, I should be grateful if the Government could tell us what exact economy they think will be effected by withdrawing from ELDO after 1971.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I reply to the two noble Lords who have spoken, and then the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, can say what he wants to say; otherwise I may forget the points they have made? I appreciate that the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, spoke more in sorrow than in anger. We have both had a great deal of interest in space research and have frequently discussed this question, and he will know that I am one of those people who for a long time, long before there was any space research, believed that it would come in our lifetime. But I must say that of all the decisions on cuts which the Government have taken I have less regret on this particular issue, for a number of reasons. We have assessed this realistically, and both in relation to CETS and ELDO—and the noble Earl will remember that the Estimates Committee raised some big question marks, particularly against CETS, but also against ELDO—I am convinced that this is the right decision.
The noble Earl went on to refer to various national programmes. There is no intention at present, so far as I know, to do other than continue with the Black Arrow programme. Nor are we opting out of an interest in space. We shall have to see what happens when the Conference have met and what they decide to do. On the point about the Causse Report, I will do what I can to help the noble Earl. I agree that it is a lengthy Report. But the arguments and the analyses for which we had asked pointed firmly to the direction in which we have now taken our decision.
Replying to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, there have of course been criticisms of the particular ELDO set-up. I would rather not go into them, although I was interested to note what the noble Lord said. The potential saving (I am not sure whether these figures have been made available for publication) after 1971 in relation to the further increased expenditure will run into a good many million pounds, and this is money which it would be folly to expend if we believe that there are better uses for the money and the resources.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred to Le Monde. I can only say
496
that responsible newspapers in this country, like The Times, the Guardian, the Daily Mail and others, have all welcomed the Government's decision. I would stress —and I hope the Statement made it clear —that this is in no sense a withdrawal or weakening of our determination to co-operate in Europe, and to co-operate technologically. But co-operation, to be of any use, must be towards useful ends.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, two sentences only, which I do not think the noble Lord the Leader of the House will resent. I seldom dissent from the views expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, but upon this occasion I am entirely on the side of the Government. Far from being disappointed, I am absolutely delighted by the decision they have taken. Sooner or later we must face up to the fact that this country is not in a position to invest vast sums of money in international schemes most of which will probably come to nothing. There are two words in the English language to-day which absolutely terrify me, and they are "space output". I venture humbly to suggest that we have quite enough to do at home and in this country, and quite enough problems to compete with, without cavorting off into space output, because what we shall probably find when we get there is exactly what we have gone to see—space, and nothing more. Therefore, I say that I think Her Majesty's Government are wise to go carefully and cautiously at the moment, and to watch very carefully any projects and keep them at a severely utilitarian and practical point.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, are the Government aware that it is this sort of to-ing and fro-ing that gives colour to the accusation to which we are frequently subjected: that we are not very reliable partners? Could the noble Lord tell us what has happened in the matter of ELDO to make it so uneconomic and undesirable, when only a short time ago it was apparently considered worth doing? What developments have occurred to make it so uneconomic?
Secondly, have the Government taken into account in their calculation the very considerable technical drop-out which arises from these new technological developments? I have been assured by American friends that an immense

497
amount of technical drop-out occurs which forms the basis of very useful industries, including export industries, in America. I wonder whether the Government have taken account of that. Arising out of that point, is it the case that ELDO will continue without the British; and, if it does, will our competitors in Europe get drop-out which we shall not be able to receive?
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, say whether the firing range at Woomera will be affected when we finally pull out of ELDO? Can he also say whether the Government consider that launching facilities are adequate for ESRO, when they go forward to some of the new satellite projects which will no doubt still require substantial launching facilities? Can he say whether we are to be totally dependent on American launching facilities, or have the Government considered possibilities of manufacturing launchers under licence here in Europe for, for example, firing at Woomera range?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, first of all may I say that I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for his realistic approach. It really does sum up the attitude of the Government. This is a decision that was taken after the very lengthiest consideration, and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, that there have been doubts for quite a long while. Indeed, I even went so far as, tentatively and hesitatingly, to express them myself in this House a year or more ago. But what has been the decisive factor has been the evaluation of the costs and benefits in this particular case.
There have been troubles in ELDO. The costs have been liable to go up; there has been the failure of the French stage, which has been quite a factor. There has been the need to develop the perigee apogee stage, which adds further costs. The important point I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, is that, although no one is more interested than I am in regard to spin-off, drop-out, fallout, whatever it may be, it is rather limited in this instance, and the British part of the programme was the least interesting part. It was based on Blue Streak, which was itself based on an
498
American rocket. Therefore, the losses in this regard are less than they would be in other areas. I am personally more interested in Black Arrow from this point of view.
The noble Lord asked whether ELDO will continue. I cannot answer that question, but we are committed to financial obligations to ELDO up to 1971. I must say that I think some of this money will be wasted. However, this is the arrangement that was entered into, and we are unable to drop out—and we should not contemplate doing so; but it may be that other European countries will consider the position again.
As for the ranges, I cannot answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Ironside. This problem of ranges and launching sites is, as he is aware, a very complicated one. Woomera suffers from certain disabilities, particularly when it comes to launching in a particular direction, say to put up a geostatic satellite. One of the matters that have been exhaustively considered is other possible sites, but it is a very tangled and difficult issue, and I would rather not try to give a firm opinion today. On the point about hiring or using launchers obtained from the United States, of course we have had satellites put up by the United States, but this is one of the factors which will have to be considered in the future.

SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.7 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Clause 26:
Supervision and care of persons put on probation or released from prisons etc.
26.—
(3) A probation scheme shall make provision with regard to the following matters—
(c) arrangements for the co-operation of the local authorities with the courts, and such arrangements may include the appointment of one or more sheriffs having jurisdiction in their areas to the social work committee and to any sub-committee thereof
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, with permission I would seek to move Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 together. The

499
purpose of these Amendments is to give consistency to Clauses 12, 25 and 26. Your Lordships will recollect that at the last stage similar Amendments were moved to Clause 25. Because of the way we decided to proceed in relation to Clause 26, no Amendments on this point were then moved to that clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 27, leave out ("care and").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 28, after ("guidance") insert ("and assistance").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 15 I would also direct your Lordships' attention to No. 25. As subsection (1)(b)(i) of this clause stands, it is doubtful whether it covers persons moving to Scotland who are subject to the supervision of a court in England and Wales. The aim of the Amendment, which would generalise the provisions relating to persons subject to probation and fines supervision orders, is to ensure that such persons are covered. Amendment No. 25, which removes subsection (8), is a necessary consequence of Amendment 15. I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 29, leave out from ("under") to (",and") in line 32 and insert ("supervision by order of a court made in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction by virtue of any enactment").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved, in subsection (1)(b)(i), to leave out "and". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is in effect consequential on Amendment No. 18, and I suggest it might be for your Lordships' convenience if I speak to No. 18 at this stage. Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 26 requires local authorities to provide first for the supervision of people on probation or under some similar order, and, secondly, for the supervision of people released from confinement who
500
are required to be under supervision; that is to say, it refers to compulsory or statutory after-care. The purpose of these two Amendments is to add to the duties of the local authority that of providing voluntary after-care to any discharged prisoner who wants it. In England and Wales the probation and after-care service already has the duty of providing voluntary after-care. I realise that this is not so in Scotland at present, but clearly it seems to be a desirable extension of the functions of the Scottish service, and provision should be made for it in this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 32, leave out ("and").—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell. It seems desirable that provision should be made in the Bill for the voluntary supervision of persons who are discharged from prison if they are willing to seek help, should it be available. Those of us who have had some connection with, and have some knowledge of, what is happening in England and Wales at the present moment, realise that a tremendous amount of work is possible among those who submit themselves to the voluntary after-care of a probation officer and of a probation service after leaving prison.
We are naturally concerned, and always have been, that people who go to prison should not, if it can be avoided, find their way there a second, third or fourth time. While it is desirable that the provisions set out in Clause 26 should exist, I think it is equally important and desirable that there should be provision in the Bill for the voluntary supervision of persons leaving prison who feel that they need help at that particular time. I am not suggesting that this kind of help should be available indefinitely. Perhaps it should be limited to some months after they come out of prison. This is the time when they need the advice and help and guidance and care that the community can give them through the probation service.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether I am right in assuming that if this Amendment were not made, the assistance that

501
it seeks to give would still be available under Clause 12, where there is a duty on every local authority to make available advice, guidance and assistance to anybody who wants it? Nevertheless, I suggest to the noble Lord that this would be a proper part of a probation scheme, and this is really what we are talking about here. For this reason I support the Amendment.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the intervention of the Recess has deprived me of an opportunity which I should have liked to take to consult the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, about this Amendment, because the view which I have formed on the advice I have been given is just that which has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in relation to Clause 12. The reason why I am asking your Lordships not to make this Amendment, and I am inviting the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, not to press it, is simply that it is not necessary. We accept entirely what is suggested in the Amendment, but the position is that in Clause 26 provision is made for the doing by the new social work departments of the present function of the probation service in Scotland in relation to persons over 16, and that Clause 12, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, places on local authorities the duty of giving advice, guidance and assistance to persons released from detention who were not subject to compulsory supervision and so did not come within Clause 26.
As your Lordships are aware, in the past Parliament has not taken kindly to the expressing of the same duty and the same power in different clauses of the Bill, and it is solely for that reason that I am unable at this stage to accept the Amendment. However, I should like to take the opportunity of discussing this matter further with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, so that if he can persuade me that there is some reason why we should say the same thing twice—once perhaps generally, and the second time more specifically—I would be happy to pass these views, and any opinions which I have formed as a result of them, on to my right honourable friend for consideration in another place.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the way
502
in which he has received this Amendment The reason why I thought these words should come in here was that this is the clause which sets out the way of preparing probation schemes, and it seemed desirable that all matters which might need to come under a probation scheme should be in one place. Presumably this is what local authorities will look at when they are framing a probation scheme, and it seems more satisfactory that all the points should be set out in one place. However, I appreciate that if it is possible for this to be done under Clause 12, that is an argument for not putting it in again. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his offer to have a discussion with me afterwards, and I shall be glad to take advantage of that offer. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment which makes it clear that the supervision of persons released from prison or detention includes the supervision of persons required by an English provision to be supervised who remove to Scotland. The words "condition or requirement" import the necessary terms from the English legislation; namely, the Criminal Justice Act 1961. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 37, after ("State") insert ("or of a condition or requirement imposed").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendment No. 21 go together. They are drafting Amendments which are designed to make it completely clear that subsection (3)(a), (b) and (c), are not the only three matters that may be covered in a probation scheme. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 7, leave out ("and").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.19 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, in subsection (3)(c), to leave out from "courts" to the end of the subsection. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 20, which I should have moved during the Committee stage, and I apologise for

503
being absent on that occasion. The purpose of the Amendment is simply this. I think the sentence,
"arrangements for the co-operation of the local authorities with the courts,"
should end there, because local authorities are perfectly capable of deciding who shall be members of their committees, whether it be the social work committee or the group dealing with probation (or what was probation), and I should like to see the last four lines deleted. I believe the local authority can perfectly well choose, among its members or from outside, who it wants to have on its committees.
With regard to the appointment of sheriffs, I can only speak from experience. I am the chairman of a probation committee on which we have two sheriffs. We invited them; we were not told to do so by the Secretary of State or anyone else, but we thought it was a good idea. Nobody could say that we should or should not have these important people on the committee. If we are to have a co-option—now, I am glad to say, limited to only one-third of the committee—then I think we should be allowed to co-opt whom we please. If it should be sheriffs (which it may well be), that is in order, but if it should be someone else the Secretary of State perhaps thinks ought to be co-opted, we are still free to do what in our opinion is best for our own areas. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 9, leave out from ("courts") to end of line 12.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I find myself in considerable difficulty in relation to this Amendment because I think that I am going to be open to the charge of being inconsistent. When the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, sought to have churchmen specified as people who should be co-opted, the argument which I put forward was the danger of saying that particular people should be in; and here the Government are specifying that sheriffs may be—not "must" be, but "may be—in. I had quite overlooked the fact that I now have on this a brief which encourages me to resist the Amendment from the point of view that it is felt that there is advantage in pointing out in this way the need for close co-operation with the courts and that
504
this is one way in which it can be achieved.
I had hoped that the Third Reading could be a completely formal procedure, and that we should be able to avoid moving any Amendments at Third Reading. I am prepared to consider this as an exception. I should like an opportunity to consult my colleagues further about it. It seems to me that the attitude I am being encouraged to take is inconsistent on this matter, and I should like to know whether there are better reasons for this inconsistency than appear at the moment. If your Lordships would not take the resubmission of this Amendment by the noble Baroness on Third Reading as an encouragement to put in a whole host of others in company with it, I would invite her not to press the Amendment to-day but to put it down again for Third Reading, when I hope to be able to give at least a completely consistent answer on it.
As your Lordships will appreciate, this Bill is not my own direct departmental responsibility, and the difficulty I am in is that I am not aware to what extent this may be in as a result of direct consultation with the sheriffs, and it is only that which prevents me, as it were, going against my brief and accepting the Amendment. If there is any sort of undertaking with the sheriffs that this is a desirable thing to do, I am quite certain that the noble Baroness would not wish these words to be taken out. But I do not want to mislead her by suggesting that is the position, because I do not know. If the noble Baroness will withdraw the Amendment, I should be happy that this should, if necessary, exceptionally, come up again on Third Reading.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I have pleasure in withdrawing this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 21.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 12, after ("thereof") insert(";and
(d) such other matters as the local authority considers relevant to the service to be provided ".—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL moved to add to subsection (3):
"() arrangements for the provision of a welfare service within prisons".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amenment is to add to the functions of local authority social work departments that of providing a prison welfare service. I shall not be at all surprised to be told that this is not the right place or the right way to achieve this purpose, but if Her Majesty's Government will accept the principle I shall be happy to leave it to them to decide how to implement it.
Prison welfare work in England and Wales is already the responsibility of the probation and after-care service. In Scotland it is the responsibility of the After-care Council, but under subsection (7) of Clause 7 of this Bill that Council will cease to exist, and I am not clear what is envisaged for the future. Prison welfare work is a matter of increasing importance in the new types of prison regime which are being introduced, and I believe that the same people should be responsible for it as for probation and after-care work and that the Bill should provide for this. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, may suggest that this work would come under the umbrella with which he has provided the local authorities under the last Amendment, but I do not feel that this could be so. A prison welfare service could hardly be reckoned part of a probation scheme, and if prison welfare is to be considered at all as one of the duties of a local authority social work department it should be specifically provided for. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 12, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, subsection (2) of Clause 26 provides that there shall be a probation scheme only for the purposes of subsection (1); namely, the making of reports to courts and the statutory supervision of, and the provision of advice, guidance and assistance for, persons under compulsory supervision. The scheme will not affect the provision of a welfare service in prison. As the noble Lord has stated, the positions in England and Wales and Scotland are different at the present time. The prison welfare service is a long-established group of civil servants work-
506
ing this job, and it is at least open to doubt whether they would view with any enthusiasm being transferred from the Civil Service to the local authority work service.
I cannot therefore, in asking the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment, give him an assurance as to what would happen. All I can say is that the field is quite open. The Government are free to consider in future, in consultation with the local authority associations, whether social workers from the new social work departments should be seconded to the welfare service in prisons and other penal institutions in Scotland. It would not be necessary to have any statutory provision to make this possible. I do not want in any way to mislead the noble Lord. I cannot at this stage commit Her Majesty's Government to the attitude that will be adopted, but what I have said is possible, and I hope that de noble Lord will find it possible on the partial assurance I am able to give him, to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I hesitate to overdo my encouragement of the Scottish system to follow that of England. In most respects Scotland is ahead of England, but it seems to me that this is one of the few cases where Scotland is behind. The purpose of the Amendment was that, if Scotland wished to follow England, it would not be necessary to have amending legislation to this Act in order to achieve it. I understand that this is not so, and that if such a change were desired it could be done under the provisions of the Bill as it stands. On that assurance I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to leave out subsection (6), and to insert instead:
"(6) For the purposes of their functions under this section every local authority shall appoint one or more officers holding such qualifications as the Secretary of State may prescribe, and every such officer may perform such other functions of the local authority under this Act as the Social Work Committee may direct.
Provided that where two or more local authorities have exercised their power to combine by virtue of section 119 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 for any of the purposes of this Act including the purposes of this section the expression "local authority" in this section shall include any joint authority established for those purposes."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to try to secure the compromise that I indicated might be possible between the two views: on the one hand the view that the probation service should continue as it is at present, and, on the other, the view that it should be absorbed completely and disappear into the social work service. The effect of this Amendment is, I hope—at any rate, it is intended to be—to require the local authorities to
"appoint one or more officers holding such qualifications as the Secretary of State may prescribe",
which would of course be the qualifications of probation training and experience, or if you like, training or experience. In this way it would be possible to retain the probation service as an ancillary unit, so to speak, within the social work department. But by reason of the second part of that sentence of the first paragraph of this subsection, they would not then be confined to probation work; they would be able also to do such other social work for the social work department as the local government committee may decide.
Because we do not know how this is going to work out, this may be a most satisfactory alternative. The factors are these. At the moment, there is no doubt at all that although probation officers may do the same basic training as other social workers, they have special training in addition, and no doubt for those who are going to deal with people sentenced to prison or put under probation this additional training will continue to be necessary. So it seems to me there is room for officers with this special training. In any case, so far as legislation is concerned, am I not right in saying that the legislation does not provide for probation officers as such? They are always referred to as "officers specially designated", and so on. I think that this is right, and on that assumption I have drafted my Amendment in that way.
The second part, the proviso, relates merely to the possibility of one or more local authorities combining together, in which case it would seem appropriate that it should be the social work committee of the authorities that have combined for this purpose, or even especially for die purpose of the probation scheme, who
508
should be able to appoint an officer with these qualifications—"such qualifications as the Secretary of State may prescribe".
I do not know whether this compromise commends itself to your Lordships. On the one hand, there is a lot to be said for a sharp cleavage, and, if we are making a lot of changes anyway, it could be said that it would be a good thing to "go the whole hog" and absorb the probation officers straight away. On the other hand, it may well be that it would be better from the morale point of view, and indeed from the point of view of the service as a whole, to keep probation officers as such in being for the present, and possibly for a long time.
We shall have to see how this works out. The fact remains that once the service is absorbed into the social work department it will be difficult to change it, even though the thing does not work too well. It is with this in mind, as a kind of hedge which I do not think can do the service any harm, that I am suggesting this compromise solution. I do not pretend that the Amendment is necessarily correctly worded, but I hope that its purpose is at least clear. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 20, leave out subsection (6) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment moved by my noble friend because I think that here he has put his finger on something of considerable importance. I was not here when Clause 26 was debated, and I am a little sorry that the complete elimination of probation for adults was carried. However, as it has been carried, and as the probation service is in toto part of the social welfare service, I think it is most important that there should be people in the social welfare service who are definitely what I would call trained probation officers. As we know, they have a basic social training. That is perfectly understood. But when it comes to law and the courts, and to the technical problems which do not affect people who are, let us say, dealing with adoption or with any other kind of social work treatment, then I think it is most important to have people who, although not called "probation officers",

509
have the training, the equipment, the knowledge and the understanding of what it is to work with the courts and with the sheriffs as well as with panels or in the social work department.
This is something that I should like to see incorporated in the Bill—a point made most strongly—that among the social workers in the social work departments there shall be people specially designated for, and understanding and knowing about, the courts, probation, after-care and so on. It is most important, and I hope that the noble Lord will consider this as being, as it were, a half-way house between those who are keen that the whole social work department should be treated as one unit and those who feel that there are special items in the social work departments which should be dealt with by someone trained for that purpose. I beg to support the Amendment.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I, too, should like to support this Amendment. I am not going to say what I said on Committee. It goes a long way towards supporting the views that I expressed then. I think it is a good compromise and I should like to support it.
4.37 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I should like to say how much I appreciate the extent to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has worked to try to find a compromise between the two extremes, if I may put it that way—the Bill incorporating probation service and the Bill as it would have been with Clause 26 left out. I am sorry, however, that I am not in a position to accept this Amendment, and I should like to say in some detail why this is so. In the first place, I must resist the idea that particular responsibilities of the social work department are such that they should be carried out by officers with qualifications specified for the purpose. If we were to accept that, then we must accept it that a case could equally be made, and probably would be developed in the same way, for similar specifications for officers dealing with children with special types of handicap, or where family case work is concerned—all important departments which are to come under the umbrella of the social work department.
510
If we were to do this, it would cut completely across the principle of the Bill that the present resources of trained personnel should be brought together in an integrated department which would be responsible for meeting all requirements by the best use of all its resources. If that is not achieved, all that we are doing is merely to create an agglomeration of existing skills, working only in their traditional fields; saving something in administration perhaps, but not opening the way to constructive use of all professional skills. It is the Government's view that the arrangements set out in the Bill are adequate for this purpose; and care has been taken to see that the provisions will not produce a stereotyped plan applicable throughout the country. It will be possible for the probation schemes to vary according to local circumstances and their preparation requires consultation with the sheriff in the locality; and they must also be approved by the Secretary of State. It is certainly envisaged that arrangements will be made under the schemes for the appropriate representation of the, social work department at individual courts.
Secondly, it will be the responsibility of the social work department and their director of social work to carry out all the functions placed on the local authority by the Bill, including the function of providing a probation service for adults. It is recognised by the scheme-making provisions of Clause 26 that special arrangements are desirable to help to establish the new service in its work with the courts so that its potential can be developed and in due course the greater and more varied resources available can give an even better service to the courts than does the present probation service. It would be inappropriate to go beyond this by ruling, as the Amendment proposes, that officers must be specially recruited to a job whose main function, unless they have time to spare, relates only to probation. This would undermine the overall responsibilities of the director, who must be trusted to ensure that his department includes all the necessary specialist skills the work demands. It would be undesirable to create within his department a group of officers who might appear to have some special statutory status which the director would not have.

511
Thirdly, the idea that, when the new departments take over the probation responsibility, the work should continue to be carried out mainly by the officers who are now qualified for the purpose is accepted, but we should not wish to preclude the possibility—as the succeeding Amendment in line 23 would appear to—that officers with other skills might, under supervision, acquire probation experience and share in the work. To enable this would require a wider interpretation of the word "suitable" than noble Lords probably intend. This, we think, is the right way round, not as the two Amendments suggest, to recruit specialist probation officers and to allow them, at discretion, to be used in other parts of the integrated service.
I am sorry that, in spite of the work which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has put into his Amendment, it has produced no change in the Government's views on this matter. As I hope I have made clear, the effect of this Amendment or any similar Amendment would be to cut across the principle which the Government hold to be important in the creation of this new social work department. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I am somewhat confused by what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has said. During the Committee stage the noble Lord rebuked some of us for referring to the abolition of the probation service, and said that there was no question of the probation service being abolished; all that was to happen was that it was to be transferred to the local authority. I inferred from what the noble Lord said that the service would function under its own arrangements, with its own training, and so on, and that the only difference would be that it would come under the local authority. That seems to be different from what he has said to-day, since it appears that the probation service is to be abolished and that its members will be merged into the great new department which is being set up.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord has not been able to go along with this Amendment. I am not sure that I can accept all the arguments which he has adduced. It is
512
always possible to put forward the view that if one makes one exception then one must make others, but that is not necessarily a logical argument. It may be, for example, that one has to give a doctor a special status on a job, but it does not follow that everybody else should have a special status as well. The same applies to probation officers, who deal with a different class of person. There are all the social-work people who deal with those who are within the law, and at present one has a different set of people to deal with those who for the time being have put themselves outside the law, or who are subject to the restrictions of the law. I feel that this is an easy dichotomy to maintain, and I should have thought that it could be maintained. It is conceded by the noble Lord that if social workers were to be transferred to probation work they would need to receive additional training. I am not at all sure that, even if it were right, this would be possible under the probation scheme. If one is to make the special arrangements which the noble Lord says are desirable to give a new service to the courts, then the courts will expect that the people who are to give that service will have had the appropriate training. By "training", I do not mean simply academic qualifications, but training in the job.
I do not think that we ought to press this matter further at the moment, though I feel certain that the Government will be pressed further in another place. I hope that the noble Lord will ask his right honourable friend to give further consideration to this matter. He instanced a group of officers with a special statutory status which is not enjoyed by the director of social work; but surely it often happens that the boss, the person in charge, has neither the specialist qualifications which are possessed by others on his staff nor their special statutory status. The mere fact that there is a doctor on his staff would not enable the person who employs him to sign a certificate of death. It would be absurd to say that the boss should possess the sum of the special statutory status enjoyed by his employees. That will not stand up as an argument. The noble Lord has put forward some rather shaky arguments in reply to this Amendment. I do not think that it would be right for us to put this matter to the vote, but if my noble friends think otherwise I will go into the Lobby with them.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
4.57 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is a "fall-back" Amendment, if I may put it in that way, intended to ensure that the people who do probation work shall have the proper qualifications, or at least the training to do it. The noble Lord said at the last stage that he would consider this Amendment, the effect of which would be simply to add the words:
"with suitable training and experience for the function to be performed "
to subsection (6), which says
"Any function required by any enactment to be performed by a probation officer shall … he performed by an officer of the appropriate local authority."
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 23, at end insert ("with suitable training and experience for the function to be performed.").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43;Not-Contents, 58.

CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Auckland, L.

Falmouth, V.

Molson, L.

Audley, Bs.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Fortescue, E.

Newton, L.

Boston, L.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Polwarth, L.

Carrington, L.

Goschen, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Conesford, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.[Tellers.]

St. Helens, L.

Craigmyle, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Cromartie, E.

Hawke, L.

Sandys, L.

Daventry, V.

Hives, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Drumalbyn, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Stonehaven, V.

Dudley, L.

Jessel, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Killearn, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lothian, M.

Younger of Leckie, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Granville-West, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Greenway, L.

Popplewell, L.

Birk, Bs.

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Blyton, L.

Heycock, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Rowley, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Royle, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Rusholme, L.

Chalfont, L.

Hughes, L.

Segal, L.

Champion, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Serota, Bs.

Chorley, L.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Clwyd, L.

Leatherland, L.

Silkin, L.

Collison, L.

Lindgren, L.

Snow, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Longford, E.

Sorensen, L.

Cranbrook, E.

McLeavy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Maelor, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Morrison, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Moyle, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Noel-Buxton, L.

Tayside, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Walston, L.

Williamson, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not intend to say much in relation to this Amendment, because I cannot accept it, for the same reason that I put forward in rejecting the previous Amendment: that it cuts across the principle of the Bill that people should be trained for the functions of the department. As I have told the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, there is a technical fault in the Amendment. That does not matter a great deal, because if that were all that was wrong it could be easily rectified later. But the Amendment as worded would, in fact, cut out some of the people who are doing the job at present, by virtue of tin; insertion of the word "and". The Amendment refers to suitable training and experience", and although some of the people who are doing the job at the, present time have ample experience they do not have the formal training. That, however, is incidental. We cannot accept the idea that there should be categories of

515
people with training for particular functions. This Amendment is merely a variation of the previous one, and I cannot advise your Lordships to accept it.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, the Minister says that in these departments we must have people who have not been trained just for a particular part of the work but are able, as I gather, after training, to take on any of the work. That surely is quite impossible. Are we to believe that the same person can be a home-help, also supplying facilities for laundering, and at the same time do the work of a probation officer? There must be differences; and I think we have to face the fact, if we are to get a good service, that we must have some people who specialise in certain work and others who will undergo a different type of training.
I want to see as much flexibility, by way of taking on one job after another, as possible; but there is a limit, and I think we have reached that stage if we think that in these social work departments everybody must have exactly the same skills, must have exactly the same training, and must then do first one job and then another. I think it is quite impossible. They will not do these jobs well. I could mention various other forms of social work to indicate how some could do one job but not another, but I give as an illustration the example of a person who is going to work as a probation officer and a person who is going to work as a domestic help.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to challenge the Minister on one point. He says that there are people in the probation service today who are working without having had any training. It is a long time now since I was Chairman of the Advisory Council for Child Care in Scotland, but at the same time there was set up the Probation Training Committee (as I think it was called) for Scotland. That must be ten or fifteen years ago now, and I know that all probation officers taken on to-day (incidentally, I am myself chairman of a probation committee), and all probation officers who have been taken on in the last years, have been through this training. Some of them, of course, are fully experienced social workers who take the
516
additional probation training over and above their social work degree or diploma, or whatever rank they have attained at university; others take simply the training of the probation officer. Quite honestly, I think that if, in these social work departments—and I am as keen as anyone about making them a success—you are not going to say that a person working in the courts and with adult people should have a training different from that of those who are dealing with child care, you really are going to get in the most terrible muddle.
I very much hope that the Government will give further thought to this. They may not accept these Amendments now, but such a provision really is necessary, because otherwise you are not going to have people prepared to train to deal with the courts and to do what the sheriffs require of them as well as to undergo that generic training in social work which, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is also wanted. I hope that the Government will think about this again, because I am quite sure that a social work department would be very much better if it had among its many members several who had special skills—and a training for probation and dealing with the courts, although it might not be specified as such, is one of the skills that is quite essential. At the present time, in my opinion, the probation service in Scotland is composed of trained people, and it is through the Probation Training Committee for Scotland that this training has been secured.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I recognise that there may be a defect in the drafting of this Amendment inasmuch as, although what my noble friend who has just spoken has said is true of all who have entered the probation service in the last two decades, at any rate, there probably are some people who were appointed straight to the job without having had any formal training as probation officers; so to that extent the Amendment might exclude them from consideration for appointment. Nevertheless, I think the purpose of the Amendment is quite clear. I urge the noble Lord to put words of this kind into the Bill. It really seems to me absolutely essential.

517
If the noble Lord wants to pronounce an epitaph on the working of this Bill, let him repeat what he has said—and I noted his words as closely as I could. He said: "The principle of this Bill is that people should not be specially trained for the functions they have to perform". That is what the noble Lord said. If, in this age of specialisation, that is the basis on which the Bill is going to be worked, then I am certain it will not be very successful, for, as we have tried to point out, there are special skills in dealing with people who have put themselves beyond the law. So although the noble Lord is not able to accept this Amendment—and I understand the reasons why—I urge him to put some words into the Bill to make certain that the people who are to perform these duties vis-à-vis the courts will have such special training as will commend them to the courts and enable them to do the jobs that the courts will expect.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if your Lordships would permit me to reply, I think there are points here which must be answered. I do not want to appear to be sitting silent because I have no answer. Of course the noble Baroness is right when she talks about the need for having specialist skills inside such a department. Of course that will be so. What the Government object to is saying that a particular job shall be done only by a person with a specialist skill. May I give two examples? A specialist probation officer may be able to give valuable help to a handicapped child who is not delinquent. Nothing in the Amendment which has been put forward would stop that from happening. But, conversely, the position might well be that a medical social worker would be the best person to help a particular handicapped child who has been at some stage delinquent—and, if the Amendment were accepted, that person would not be regarded as having the specialist skill. Of course there will be different skills in the department, and we want to be able to make use of them. It has never been suggested that we are going to take all the specialist training and put it into a mincing machine, and that only one particular type of skill will come out. But because people choose to specialise in a particular way—and that may be the bulk of the work they do in the department—it does
518
not follow that they are not qualified to be used or that they cannot be used in other directions. It is because we feel that either to have accepted the previous Amendment or to accept this one would deprive the department of the best use of the different specialist skills that are available to it, and would in fact frustrate the creation of a proper social work department, that the Government are so adamant in resisting this Amendment, as they did the last one.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 27, leave out subsection (8).—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.9 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "a local authority," and insert the Secretary of State". The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to secure that instead of the reporter being appointed by the local authority he should be appointed by the Secretary of State. The duties of the reporter are much more similar to the duties of, say, the sheriff than they are to the duties carried out by local authorities. In particular, he will have the duty of advising the children's panel on whether they should issue a warrant. We have been over the arguments, and I think it should be possible for me to move this Amendment with extreme brevity. I merely say that I still feel that it would be a decided improvement if the reporter, instead of being appointed by the local authority, as is the director of social work, were somebody able to deal on a much more independent basis, on a much more clear-cut basis, as an officer of the Secretary of State working together with an officer of another Department. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 9, leave out ("a local authority,") and insert ("the Secretary of State").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the reason which I advanced against accepting this proposal previously was the one

519
put forward by the Kilbrandon Committee; namely, that it is essential to the panel concept that children's hearings should be emphatically local and not have any appearance of being part of a national judicial system. They must be local bodies able to consider children against their local environment and able to work closely with the local authority services. There must be close working relations between the reporter and the director of social work. The Kilbrandon Committee suggested that the panels and the reporter should be appointed by the sheriff—that is the Sheriff Principal. It was decided, however, that this did not seem to be the best method of achieving the aim that the panels should be fully representative of their locality, and the sheriffs themselves expressed unanimously the wish that they should not be given this responsibility because they felt that they were not in the best position to achieve the objective. We cannot therefore accept the Kilbrandon Committees' suggestion about the method of appointment. Having regard to the expression of the Committee that the emphasis should be on the local nature, we think it right that the appointment should be made by the local committees rather than by the Secretary of State. I find myself in the somewhat unusual position that on this occasion I am arguing that the gentleman in Whitehall—or in St. Andrew's House—is not necessary the one who knows best.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am afraid that I remain obstinately—if the noble Lord so wishes—unconvinced by this argument. Of course, it will be a local service because the members of the children's panel will be drawn entirely from the locality. But in view of the special functions to be performed, I think it highly desirable that there should not be too close a working arrangement between the reporter and the director of social work; I think it right that they should be professionally and functionally separate. For that reason, I think it would be a better solution for the reporter to be appointed by the Secretary of State rather than by the local authority.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 36:
Reports of cases of children who may require compulsory measures of care and the interim detention of such children in places of safety
36.—
(2) A constable or such officer as aforesaid may take to a place of safety any child in respect of whom any of the offences mentioned in the First Schedule to the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 has been or is believed to have been committed, and any child so taken to a place of safety or any child who has taken refuge in a place of safety may be detained there until arrangements can be made for him to be brought before a children's hearing under the following provisions of this Part of this Act, and where a child is so detained the constable or officer shall forthwith inform the reporter of the case.
(5) Any warrant issued or renewed by a children's hearing under this Part of this Act shall have the like effect as a warrant of apprehension issued by a sheriff under the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954, and the person named in the warrant may be apprehended as a person unlawfully at large in any part of the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, and any enactment relating to the execution of a warrant issued by a sheriff as aforesaid shall, with any necessary modifications, apply accordingly.
5.15 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN had given Notice of an Amendment in subsection (2), to leave out "the reporter of the case", and insert:
"the parent, if he can be found, of the detention and the reason therefor and give the reporter details of the case."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will be remembered that when we came to this point on the Committee stage we were in the curious position that the noble Lord was about to accept my Amendment when my noble friend Lord Iddesleigh—whom I am glad to see has just taken his place—thought that there might be difficulties about this; and we did not at that time pursue the Amendment. The end of Clause 36(2) reads as follows:
"… where a child is so detained a constable or officer shall forthwith inform the reporter of the case."
It will be remembered that on the last occasion I wanted the parent also to be informed; but as my Amendment was drafted the effect of it would have been that the parent would have had to be given all the information about the case as well as being informed that the child

521
was detained. My Amendment on the Marshalled List tries to overcome this difficulty by making the subsection read:
"— inform the parent, if he can be found, of the detention and the reason therefore and give the reporter details of the case."
The noble Lord and I had a word about this Amendment beforehand. He pointed out that there may be difficulties about informing the parent of "the reason therefor" because the child might be implicated, for example, in an offence which also involved an adult and because further police inquiries might have to be made. If that is so—and if it is in order for me to do so—I would move the Amendment merely in the form:
"… the parent, if he can be found, of the detention and give the reporter details of the case."
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 15, leave out from ("inform") to end of line 16 and insert ("the parent, if he can be found, of the detention and give the reporter details of the case.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I seem to have been the cause of noble Lords on both Front Benches having second thoughts. That is a great impertinence on my part; but I think their second thoughts are very much better than their first. I am still not entirely happy about making statutory and mandatory a process which will in almost every case be done without any statutory need. But I will not oppose it. I congratulate the noble Lords concerned on their agreement, and venture to hope that my intervention will have improved the Bill to a slight degree.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, described his intervention, causing the occupants of both Front Benches to have second thoughts, as an impertinence. I would describe it as an accomplishment. But, unfortunately for the Amendment, my second thoughts are against it. My first thoughts, as noble Lords know, were to accept the Amendment because I had not completely foreseen the police and other objections that might arise. As the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was tabled it was even more unacceptable, because the inclusion of the words "and the reason therefor"—
522
which he has now struck out—could have frustrated almost completely police procedure in certain cases where there might be a member of the family involved in an offence against a child.
I hold the view expressed by noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh: that there could be cases where it would be undesirable to make it a formal requirement that the police should inform the parents. As the Bill stands, the formal way of dealing with it would be that the reporter, and through him the director of soc al work, would be the channel through which the parents should be informed of a child's detention. Under Clause 36(2) the police must inform the reporter forthwith, and where a child is detained the reporter must arrange a children's hearing to sit on the first lawful day after the commencement of the child's detention. For this purpose the parent must be informed, so that as soon as the reporter receives notification from the police he must put in hand the machinery for convening a children's hearing and for ensuring that the parents are present. So in every case the parents are going to be told. It could complicate the position—I cannot put it more strongly than that—in the occasional case if there were a formal requirement compelling the police to give this information to the parents. For that reason alone, even with the return of the Amendment to the form in which it was at the last stage, I cannot advise your Lordships to accept it.
5.20 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sorry about this, because it might easily happen that a child would be taken into care or detained, say on a Saturday evening, possibly when coming back from a football match, and presumably the reporter would not be available until the following Monday morning. It seems to me quite wrong that in the meantime parents should be left in doubt of the whereabouts of their child. I do not think this can be the final answer. We have whittled it down to merely informing the parent that the child is not lost but is in detention. The parent has a right to know, and I am a little surprised that the noble Lord should find that there could be any exception in a case of this kind, except where the parent is himself taken into detention, or perhaps is incapable of acting because he is in a mental home.

523
But I cannot see why, in every other case, a parent should not be informed if his child is detained.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, if we do not do this, surely we shall get into the most serious trouble. Some parents may be desperately worried if a child who they thought had gone to a football match or to the cinema does not return home. They will go to the police, and unnecessary hardship will be caused to them. I cannot see the argument against stating in the Bill that parents must be told if a child is in the hands of the police or cannot return home for some other reason. Not to inform the parents seems to me cruel and unnecessary. I cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, should not include this, simply as an ordinary safeguard against parents being agitated and worried. The child might be quite frightened if it were on its own in the hands of the police. I am amazed that the noble Lord is unwilling to make this Amendment, which is quite simple and straightforward and ought to form part of the Bill.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it is because it looks so simple and straightforward that it is difficult to persuade your Lordships and the noble Baroness that it is right not to make the Amendment. If the Amendment were accepted, the police would in every circumstance have to notify the parent of a detention. There could be circumstances in which that would be undesirable. I have mentioned the case where a member of the family is concerned, and it could well be that notification in the way suggested would be the very thing that would frustrate the proper carrying out of proceedings. The parents might weigh the advantage of allowing a culprit to escape against the desirability of proceedings being taken.
Dealing with the case of which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, spoke, of a child being taken into custody after a Saturday football match and the parents not knowing anything about it until the following Monday, I would remind your Lordships that a hearing must take place on the Monday, under the terms of the Bill, because that would be the next lawful day. Proceedings would therefore have to be put in hand
524
so that, even in such a case, the latest time at which the parents would know would be when arrangements for the hearing were being made on the Sunday. I should like to point out that we are talking about exceptional cases. Of course, in ordinary circumstances the police would do the job in the same way as they do normally. We wish to protect the right of the police, in the proper execution of their duty, not to do this if it would frustrate the proper carrying out of their task. Obviously, it would be in very exceptional circumstances that this would occur, but the last thing on earth that we want to happen would be that something could not be carried to its proper conclusion because the provisions in the Bill required us, as it were, to "tip off" someone in a way that would frustrate police proceedings.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.27 p.m.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH BARONESS HORSBRUGH moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "issue" and insert "apply to the sheriff for". The noble Baroness said: My Lords, first I should like to say how much I regret that I was not able to be present during the Committee stage proceedings. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for my absence, but I had made an appointment a long time before, and it was quite impossible to change the date. I am very grateful to the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, for moving the Amendment which I had put down to deal with this very difficult and, as I think, very important subject of who can issue warrants for the apprehension of these children, or anybody else.
I read carefully and with great interest the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and his reasons for not accepting the Amendment. I hope the noble Lord will understand that I do not wish to be in the least rude if I say that it seemed to me he made out an exceedingly good case for accepting the Amendment. He spoke of the various powers and of the times when a warrant could be issued. I feel strongly that warrants should be issued not by members of the hearing but by the sheriff. We are told in the Bill that warrants issued by members of the hearing would have the same effect as a sheriff's warrant. They could issue a warrant for an officer of the law to go to a child's home and take the child

525
away and put him somewhere else, because the officer thought that the child might not attend the hearing which was to take place. During the course of the hearing, if it went on for several days, a warrant could be issued to enable a child to be put somewhere in order that he should not run away while the case was being conducted. If a child did run away after having been put into what is called a residential home under compulsory care (we are told that detention is no longer a punishment but that, instead, there is compulsory care) a warrant could be issued for his apprehension. That, my Lords, is the outline given by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, during the Committee stage.
I think that most noble Lords would agree with me that these are great powers. Most of the people with whom I have discussed the matter feel that it would be much better that a request should be sent to the sheriff to issue a warrant. In every other case of dispute an appeal can be made to the sheriff. At the beginning of the hearing, if there is no dispute about the facts—in other words (although we must not use court language), if the child pleads guilty—the hearing can go on, but if the child or the parent challenges the facts the hearing cannot go on until an appeal is made to the sheriff to decide. In every case, except on this most important point of issuing a warrant, the appeal is to the sheriff. It is left to these individuals. I have nothing against these people. I am certain that they will do their best, but they have not the training and the standing.
Suppose that a policeman went with a warrant to a child's home and said that he was going to take the child away, and put him somewhere else because he might run away before the hearing. If the parents want to find out on whose authority the policeman is taking him away, and are told that it is on the authority perhaps of Mrs. "So-and-so" next door, I do not think that that will carry very much weight—indeed, it will be much resented. It has been said—and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said this on Committee stage—that we were giving the hearing a tremendous amount of responsibility. They can decide on treatment or training. They can send a
526
child to a residential establishment—the term "approved school" is to go. Why not give them the power of issuing a warrant as well? But in all those cases the parent or child can appeal to the sheriff. It is a strange thing that on this one point it is left entirely to the members of the hearing.
I would ask the noble Lori, Lord Hughes, to consider this point again, because it goes wider than this Bill. It gives these people more responsibility than the majority of people in this country would think was right. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me what is the reason for this peculiar arrangement. From what he said, it almost: sounded as though it was to give them a little more importance. I hope very much that another decision will be taken. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 6, leave out ("issue") and insert ("apply to the sheriff for").—(Baroness Horsbrugh.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I must admit to a certain feeling of surprise at the way in which the noble Baroness has moved this Amendment, and particularly at the interpretation which she has placed on what I said on Committee stage. Let me say right away that I never said, and certainly never intended that it should be taken from anything I did say, that we were conferring the power to issue a warrant only in order to increase the importance of the members of the children's hearing. The power to issue warrants is being given because we consider it an essential part of the powers which the children's hearing should have in order to carry out their duties.
One would have thought from the way in which the noble Baroness deployed her case that the giving of this power to lay people was a completely new departure. Of course it is not. Many lay people have this power at the present time. A justice of the peace, a bailie and a police judge can issue a warrant. These are lay persons just as are members of the children's hearing. So that conferring power of this kind is certainly not a departure of principle.
I think that the noble Baroness is wrong in saying that this is the only case where

527
the sheriff has not to make the decision and that all other major decisions are taken by the sheriff. The noble Baroness made it appear as if almost everything had to be decided by the sheriff before the hearing dealt with the matter. That is not so. There are circumstances in which an appeal to the sheriff will lie. In this case, if a warrant for interim detention is issued and if the parents want to appeal to the sheriff, they must be heard within three days, so that there is adequate safeguard against wrongful detention. We are seeking to create a new piece of judicial machinery and it is desirable that there should be the same opportunity for it to carry out its functions as any other piece of machinery we have. It goes no further than that. If we were to accept this Amendment we should be bringing in for the first time a case where the sheriff would be the first instance and not simply on appeal. For that reason, the Amendment is ill-founded.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, surely the sheriff would not be the first instance. It would be that an appeal had gone to him about a particular difficulty —that they thought the boy was going to run away, or something of that sort—and he would then be asked to issue the warrant.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Baroness is confusing an action taken by the children's hearing with an appeal, which appeal does go to the sheriff.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think my noble friend has stated a strong case here, and one cannot just let it go at what has been said. The difficulty here is that these children's hearings will issue warrants in cases even when they are unable to dispose of the case, or when they have reason to think that the child may run away in the meantime, and cases of that sort. This is a matter which seriously interferes with the liberty of the subject. In cases like that I think there can be no reason that this is for the protection of the child, the protection of the child's reputation in the future, and that sort of thing, and there is no reason why the matter should not go to the sheriff. This is not going to the sheriff for judgment; it is going to the sheriff for the protection of the individual. The
528
children's hearings are not there for the protection of the individual. This is not their purpose. They are there for the care of the child, which is a totally different purpose.
It seems to me that you cannot divide this out and say that beyond a certain age the protection of the individual lies with the sheriff, and below that age it lies with the children's panel. Here it is the sheriff who has to make up his mind as to whether or not a warrant should be issued. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that elected bailies and police judges can issue warrants. He is also right in saying that justices appointed by the Secretary of State can issue warrants. But I know of no case where warrants can be issued by persons who are simply appointed as a panel by local authorities. The bailies are elected persons; the police judges are elected persons; and the justices are appointed by the Secretary of State. I know of no case where appointed persons—admittedly here they are appointed by the Secretary of State—can issue warrants. I should have thought that in cases of this kind, when the case of a child has to go to the children's hearing, the appropriate person to ensure that the child is kept in safe custody before that hearing by issuing the warrant, should be the sheriff. The child, so far, has not been proved to have committed any offence, and pending the decision of the children's hearing the appropriate person should he the sheriff.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord is under a certain misapprehension here. In the first instance, it is not correct to say that bailies are elected. He said that they were elected persons, and that is true. But the electors do not choose bailies. The electors choose councillors, and the assembled council decide who are to be the bailies: and in this case the warrant is capable of being issued by a bailie. But that is by the way. The noble Lord says that he knows of no case where it could be done other than by a person appointed by the Secretary of State. But the panels are appointed by the Secretary of State. So in this case the requisite which the noble Lord is putting forward as a justification in certain cases for the issue of a warrant does apply, because the panels are nominees of the Secretary of State.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 31) shall be agreed to?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this Amendment fulfils an undertaking which I gave at the last stage that consideration should be given to the limitation. The clause as drafted places no restriction on the period during which a child might be detained in a place of safety and would now oblige a hearing to consider his case within seven days of the date of the commencement of the child's detention. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will find this Amendment acceptable.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 12, at end add—
("() A children's hearing arranged for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection shall meet within a period of seven days from the date of the commencement of the detention of the child, and no child shall be detained under that subsection after the hearing has met or beyond that period.")—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do find it acceptable. I think the period
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newton, L.

Audley, Bs.

Fortescue, E.

Oakshott, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Robertson of Oakridge, L

Blackford, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Boston, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller]

Carrington, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Conesford, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Cromartie, E.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Daventry, V.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Sandys, L.

Denham, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Drumalbyn, L.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lothian, M.

Strathcarron, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Margadale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Falkland, V.

Milverton, L.

Swinton, E.

Falmouth, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Royle, L.

Birk, Bs.

Heycock, L.

Rusholme, L.

Bowles, L.

Hughes, L.

Segal, L.

Champion, L.

Hunt, L.

Serota, Bs. [Teller.]

Chorley, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Shackleton, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Silkin, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lindgren, L.

Snow, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Longford, E.

Sorensen, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McLeavy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Feversham, L.

Mitchison, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Fleck, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Plummer, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Popplewell, L.

Tayside, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Rhodes, L.

Walston, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Greenway, L.

Rowley, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

of 72 hours I put down earlier was possibly rather short. This will give an additional latitude, and I am obliged to the noble Lord for meeting the point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41:
Conduct of children's hearing and summary application to sheriff for finings
41.—(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sections (7) and (8) of this section, at the commencement of a children's healing, and before proceeding to the consideration of the case, it shall be the duty of the chairman to explain to the child and his parent the grounds stated by the reporter for the referral of the case, and to ascertain whether these grounds are accepted in whole or in part by the child and his parent.
(2) Thereafter—
(a) where the child and his pare it accept the grounds stated by the reporter for the referral the hearing shall proceed;
(8) The acceptance by a parent of the grounds of referral shall not be a requirement to proceeding with a case under this section where the parent is not present.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment which I hope, with the first line of Clause 41(1), may go some way towards meeting the criticism which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made in Committee about the positioning of subsection (8) as an afterthought in the clause. Of course, the real answer to that criticism is in the first line of the clause, which directs people's attention immediately to the subsequent subsections. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 30, leave out ("and to ascertain") and insert ("for the purpose of ascertaining").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I was wondering whether the noble Lord was dealing with the clause we have before us. I may be quite wrong but I cannot quite connect what he has said with the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (2)(a), after "accept" to insert "or if his parent is not present the child accepts". The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are essentially drafting Amendments. I am bound to say that I think it is very much better, if it is at all possible, to know what is being said straight away without having to look at the end of the clause to find out that something rather different may be meant. In this particular instance we have on page 26, line 33:
"(a) where the child and his parent accept the grounds stated by the reporter for the referral the hearing shall proceed."
And the next subsection is very much the same. Then we find at the end of the clause:
"(8) The acceptance by a parent of the grounds of referral shall not be a requirement to proceeding with a case under this section where the parent is not present."
It seems to me that it would be very much simpler in both paragraphs (a) and (b) to say:
"Where a child and his parent accept or if his parent is not present the child accepts, the grounds stated by the reporter for the referral the hearing shall proceed."
I quite recognise that the particularly wary reader of this subsection will have been warned in subsection (1) that he must look at subsections (7) and (8) but he will have probably forgotten it before he gets to subsection (2). In any case,
532
I am sure that my drafting is very much better than that of the Bill in this particular instance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 33, after ("accept") insert ("or if his parent is not present the child accepts ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: I must accept that at the conclusion of the last Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, rather startled me by trying to plant in my mind the idea that I was talking about the wrong Amendment. That was not in fact so, because I was dealing with the same clause and I referred to the criticism which he made and which he has now repeated namely, that it is not a good thing to wait until subsection (8) to find out that this concerns the acceptance by the parents of referral, et cetera. I pointed out that the previous Amendment went some way to meet the objection. In any event, the real answer to the objection which he then made, and which he has repeated in these Amendments, is that the very first words in the clause are "Subject to the provisions of subsections (7) and (8)". So people's attention is directed to the position right at the very outset.
It really boils down, in the question of Amendments 40, 41 and 42, to what one considers the best way of wording it. I think the argument used, or at any rate implied, by the noble Lord was that there is a certain inelegance about the way in which the clause is drafted at the present time.
I am not seeking to decide which is the more delightful way of wording the clause: what I am putting forward is that the clause, as it has now been amended, is a perfectly straightforward way of dealing with the job and is preferable to the wording which the noble Lord has endeavoured now three times —twice in your Lordships' House and once privately—to get me to accept. I remain of the opinion that Clause 41, as now amended by Amendment 39, is perfectly satisfactory, and that it would not be an improvement to accept Amendments Nos. 41 and 42.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sorry about that. May I just read subsection (8):
"The acceptance by a parent of the grounds of referral shall not be a requirement to proceeding with a case under this section where the parent is not present".

533
I compare that with this:
"where the child and his parents accepts or if the parent is not present the child accepts".
I must bow to the noble Lord's ideas on this matter, but I must say that I should like to see his taste improved. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Disposal of case by children's hearing other than by discharge of referral]:
6.2 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to ensure that the powers which a local authority will be able to exercise on behalf of a child under a supervision requirement (which, under Clause 43(5), has to be administered by the local authority) will be the same as those they can exercise for a child in their care on a voluntary basis. It seems reasonable that a local authority should be able to use these powers, which include the assumption of parental rights, the furtherance of the child's best interests, the making of financial and other arrangements for the education and training of children over school age, the after-care of children who have left the care of the local authority, and related matters. The power to discharge or vary the supervision requirement remains with the children's hearing. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 3, at end insert—
("and a child who is subject to such a supervision requirement shall, for the purposes of sections 15 to 19, 23 to 25, 27 and 28 of this Act, be in their care:
Provided that where the performance of a function under any of the said sections in relation to the child requires, or would be facilitated by, the variation or discharge of the supervision requirement, the local authority shall recommend a review of the requirement under this Part of this Act.)—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Legal aid in proceedings before the sheriff and any appeals to the Court of Session]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to leave out "a decision of". The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to secure, or was to secure, that an appeal could be made not only against the decision of a children's hearing but also against the procedure in a children's hearing. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having pointed out to
534
me that this Amendment is in itself defective, and the right place to have made it would have been in subsection (1) of Clause 48, and not here, because this merely picks up the proceedings on which appeals may be made, and Clause 48 lays down what those proceedings are.
The reason I have put this Amendment down is that in various parts of this Bill there are provisions as to what the children's hearing must do, how it must conduct itself. If it does not conduct itself in those ways, it seems to me that most certainly an appeal should lie. I do not know what other remedy exists unless an appeal lies. This Amendment may not be in the right place, but I would invite the noble Lord to have a look at the matter again, because if it is true that there is no other remedy in a case where a children's hearing does not proceed correctly, and a decision is reached, it may be that it would not be possible to challenge the decision but it might be possible to challenge the procedure at the hearing, if the Bill were in those terms. I recognise that it many cases, perhaps even in most cases, it may be sufficient to challenge the decision. But as the Bill lays down how the children's hearing shall proceed, it seems to be more than conceivable that sot nothing can go wrong on procedure, and it should be possible to challenge that procedure on appeal, as well as to challenge the decision. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 20, leave out ("a decision of").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think, briefly, that the point which the noble Lord makes is whether an appeal against a decision includes an appeal against the procedure by which the decision was arrived at. I would confirm that that is our intention: that the appeal should lie in the wider field. We think that the wording covers both points, but I cannot give a firm assurance that it does. By the time I had ascertained what the noble Lord wanted, time did not permit me to consult the Lord Advocate, whom I should wish to consult in this matter. But I firmly give the assurance that if the Lord Advocate advises that the wording —the word "decision"—could in fact he interpreted as meaning the decision only, and would not cover the wider field, we will in another place undertake such

535
Amendment as the Lord Advocate advises as necessary to achieve that purpose.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 [Prohibition of publication of proceedings]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to the clause:
"(4) This section shall extend to England and Wales and to Northern Ireland."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment again to restore words that were taken out by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, at the last stage, but also to add other words. The clause in question, Clause 57, deals with the prohibition of the publication of proceedings. The words that were taken out were:
"This section shall extend to England and Wales".
The reasons why they were taken out are, first of all, because Clause 96 says:
"The following provisions of this Act shall extend to England and Wales, that is to say—… section 57".
So in fact Section 57 does extend to England and Wales. The second reason was that Northern Ireland was also coming into this and Amendments are later to be moved to bring it in.
It is so unusual to have a clause in a Scottish Bill of this kind which applies to England and Wales that I think it is most important that on the face of the clause in question, and in the Bill, it should be made quite clear that this shall extend to England and Wales. It is even more unusual with regard to Northern Ireland. It should not be left to somebody to have to look up what is not even really an Interpretation Clause but a somewhat unusual clause, in a Scottish Bill at any rate, at the end of the Bill, to find out whether this applies to England and Wales or whether it does not. It is very unusual in a Scottish Bill, and there is a very strong case for putting these words fairly and squarely in the Bill so that those concerned with these matters—and of course the Press and radio, the B.B.C. and I.T.V., will be very much concerned with them—may be
536
forewarned straight away as soon as they see this in the Bill. They will then be able to see the obligations that are laid on them by this clause, and the fact that the clause applies to them, most exceptionally, at one and the same time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 7, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in the usual way what is done in the Bill by listing in Clause 96 the clauses in what is essentially a Scottish Bill which apply outside Scotland is a useful and tidy arrangement by means of which it is possible for people to see right away the extent to which the Bill has an application outside the borders of Scotland. From that point of view it is preferable to having scattered through the Bill the relevant pieces of information in such a way that if anyone wanted to find out the extent to which the Bill applied outside Scotland then, in the absence of Clause 96, they find it out only by reading through the whole Bill. Having said that, I think that because of the effect that this particular clause has on Press and television—it might be the only part of the Bill at which the Press or television authorities would have an occasion to look—a useful purpose would be served by having a repetition in this case, and, exceptionally, I should be prepared to agree that there should be this statement in the clause itself. For that reason only I am prepared to accept this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and I am sure he is right.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Registration]:
6.12 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "other person" and insert "person under the control of that person". The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment is another attempt to find a suitable form of words to meet the point I raised in Committee. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, actually satisfied me as to the purpose behind the last few words of this subsection. He gave me

537
a number of examples, but looking at the subsection again it seems to me that the wording is too wide and too imprecise and would have wider implications than the actual example he gave. I think he spoke of the possibility of an assistant matron who might have committed an offence in relation to a particular establishment and who still remained in the employ of the matron of that establishment. This Amendment is designed to narrow down the clause to the more precise type of example given by the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 8, leave out ("other person") and insert ("person under the control of that person").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, what the noble Marquess has just said shows the disadvantage of getting an Amendment withdrawn by citing a particular example of what can be done, because if the Amendment is then moved in another form, as it now has been so moved, the temptation is to seek a further example to induce the further Amendment to be withdrawn. It is not really a highly satisfactory way of dealing with it. One could go on ad infinitum in trying to get variations of the Amendment and of the example. We prefer to leave the clause as it is because there could be circumstances—and I am not going to cite a case—where the conditions requiring the possible cancellation were not caused by the person having control of the establishment or by a person under the control of that person. It could be someone who in fact had no business to be there, who had been given no authority by the person running the establishment and therefore could not be considered to be under his control; but the very fact that a certain thing applied might be clear enough indication that the place was not being run in a proper fashion, and yet if one were not able to make use of that circumstance it might be impossible to deal with the matter.
I pointed out on a previous occasion that this is a power which is likely to be used only in the most extreme cases by an authority, and it is a power which quite rightly is hedged by the right of appeal. In those circumstances it is most unlikely that any local authority will act unreasonably in the matter, and if they did act unreasonably the appeal tribunal would
538
put things right. In these matters we are dealing with the improbable, the thing which is most unlikely to arise but which we cannot say with certainty will not arise. Therefore we consider the prime consideration should be the interests of those who are in the establishment rather than those who are running the establishment, so long as there are due safeguards for those who are running it. In those circumstances, even without a specific example I hope the noble Marquess will once again be kind enough to withdraw his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that further explanation. I will not press him for examples on this occasion and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 [Appeals against refusal or cancellation of registration]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved to add to the clause:
"(6) In any proceedings under this section a person who appeals to an appeal tribunal may be represented by another person."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage we discussed Schedule 4 paragraph 6(2), which says:
"The power under this paragraph to make rules as to procedure includes power to make provision as to the representation of one person in any proceedings by another person by another person."
Two issues emerged from that. The first was how we should secure that a person should have a right to be represented by another person, and the second was, given that right, what the rules of procedure should be. They seemed to me to be two entirely separate issues, and at the time I suggested the first was a substantive provision and therefore ought to be in the body of the Bill. I have accordingly put it in the body of the Bill and I hope the Amendment is quite clear. This is, of course, referring to people who lose their registration licences. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 18 at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Lord places me in a certain difficulty.

539
At the last stage I undertook that we would consult the Council on Tribunals about this matter with a view to getting their advice whether the point should be covered in rules or by an Amendment in another place. I have followed up that undertaking and the matter has been placed before the Council on Tribunals but we have not yet received their advice. It seems to me at the very least it would be rather discourteous to the Council on Tribunals if, having sought their advice whether we should amend the Bill or whether it should be done by rule, we then went ahead and amended the Bill. It might appear that we were not very interested in the advice which they might give. I am certain that that is not the intention in anyone's mind and I am prepared to undertake to implement whatever advice we may be given. Of course, if the advice is to amend the Bill it will be done in another place.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I did not know the terms on which he had approached the Council on Tribunals, and I agree to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 [Escape from a place of safety, or from the control of a person imposed by a supervision requirement]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out "escapes" and insert "absconds".—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 51.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 38, leave out ("escapes") and insert ("absconds").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.20 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (2), at the beginning to insert:
"Subject to the provisions of subsections (6) and (7) of section 43 of this Act".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not quite certain how far this Amendment is necessary, in view of the next
540
Amendments the noble Lord is going to move himself, but as the clause now stands there is still no alternative to taking the child who escapes from a place of safety back to the same place of safety, whatever the circumstances may be. Yet there may be circumstances in which it is undesirable to do so. In order to get over that, I have suggested the words "Subject to the provisions of subsections (6) and (7) of section 43 of this Act", and these subsections enable the director of social work to direct that the child shall be required to reside in a different place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 1, at beginning insert the said words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is quite right in associating to some extent this Amendment No. 52 with the Amendments I shall be moving, Nos. 53 and 54. Those Amendments are an alternative way of dealing with this point. They clarify the position in the light of the discussion which we had at the last stage on the methods of dealing with children who abscond from a place of safety or from a person under whose control they have been placed under a supervision requirement. If I may continue speaking to those Amendments, I think it is the best way of proceeding. The first Amendment, to page 42, line 7, is drafting. It removes from Clause 69(2)(b) the reference to a child subject to a supervision requirement requiring him to reside in a residential establishment who would, if he absconded and was brought back. be dealt with under Clause 70. The new subsection (3) provides that if the occupier of the place of safety from which the child has absconded is unwilling to receive him back the child is to be placed in a place of safety until his case comes before the children's hearing. This would inevitably be a different place from the original place of detention as, by definition, a place of safety must be willing to receive a child. This provision is comparable to the new provision in Clause 39(5) for cases where a child fails to attend a hearing of his case and is detained.
Secondly, if the person under whose control the child was placed is unwilling to take him back the child is likewise to be placed in a place of safety. If that

541
person is not suitable to be given control of the child, again the director of social work has power under Clause 43(6) to transfer the child to another person or another place. Subsection (4) provides that a children's hearing arranged to hear the case of a child to which this clause refers must meet within seven days from the date of commencement of the child's detention. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will withdraw his Amendment No. 52 and concur in due course in my Amendments Nos. 53 and 54.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation, but I am still not absolutely certain that my Amendment could not be useful in addition to the noble Lord's Amendments, because, as I said, it is mandatory in the clause as it stands that the child arrested in pursuance of this section shall be brought back, and this says, in the case a child brought back in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection, that he shall be brought back to the person under whose control he has been placed unless that person is unwilling to accept him. I do not want to press this Amendment, but I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough to have another look at it. It is unsatisfactory to put in a mandatory provision and say it can be overridden. It does not look well. I think the subsection ought to say "Subject to the other provisions in the clause". I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 53.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 7, leave out from ("placed") to end of line 9.—(Lord Hughes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 54.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 10, leave out from ("if") to the end of line 15 and insert (", in the case of a child required to be brought back in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection,—

(a) the occupier of the place of safety, or

(b) the person under whose control he has been placed,

is unwilling to receive him, the child shall be placed in a place of safety until the dis-
542
posal of his case, or as the case may be, until he can be brought before a children's hearing for a review of the supervision requirement to which he is subject.
(4) A children's hearing arranged for the purposes of the last foregoing subsection shall meet within a period of seven days horn the date of the commencement of the detention of the child, and no child shall be detained under that subsection after the hearing has met or beyond that period.")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Escapes from residential establishments]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 55.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 18, leave out ("escapes") and insert ("absconds").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 56.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 19, leave out ("escapes") and insert ("absconds").—(Lord Drumalbyn)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Parents of a child subject to an approved school order or a committal order moving to Scotland]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this is an Amendment which the Home Office wish us to insert to restrict the reference in Clause 75 to children committed to care to avoid its covering committals to care as a result of matrimonial proceedings. The point, I am assured, has no Scottish relevance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 16, leave out ("or") where secondly occurring and insert ("under Parts III or IV of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 or Part II of the Education Act 1944, or committed to the care").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 58 and 71 are related. Originally it was thought unnecessary to include in the Bill a provision about the transfer of assets, as the probation service (the service primarily concerned) operates from the offices of local authorities and there is little properly to transfer, apart from equipment and possibly cars. I am now advised that it

543
would be better to have a transfer of assets clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 83 insert the following new clause:
Transfer of assets and liabilities
(".Where any functions are transferred to a local authority by virtue of this Act all property, rights, liabilities and obligations relating to the performance of those functions which immediately before the date of the coming into operation of this Act were the property, rights, liabilities and obligations of the body or person from which the functions are transferred shall on that date be transferred to and vest in the local authority or, as the case may be, the local authorities to which the functions have been transferred, and the provisions of Schedule (Transfer of assets and liabilities) shall have effect for the purposes of this section.")—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I was slightly puzzled by this Amendment when I first read it, and even more puzzled when the noble Lord acquiesced in Amendment No. 1, because it seems to me they might be read to cover the same point. I do not quite understand why this Amendment would not cover the case of functions transferred by one local authority to another local authority; that is, the case of large burghs whose functions would be transferred to counties.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it is perhaps merely for the avoidance of doubt.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord acquiesces that it is for the avoidance of doubt.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Transfer and compensation of officers]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this Amendment is proposed for the purpose of removing any doubt about the position of certain officers of local authorities who transfer from one superannuation scheme to another as a result of the provisions of the Bill. It has to be clear not only that the provisions of one superannuation scheme can be extended to an officer transferring to another scheme but also that the Secretary of State has powers at
544
the same time to amend the second scheme so that it is deemed to contain such provisions as are necessary to give effect to the extensions proposed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 29, at end add ("or for modifying in respect of such officers, as may be so specified, the provisions of the said Acts or any such scheme.")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 87 [Duty of parents to notify change of address]:
6.30 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: This is a drafting Amendment. Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) is unnecessary, as only persons under paragraphs (a) and (b) would have orders or decrees made in respect of them under Part VI. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 40, leave out from ("requirement;") to end of line 44.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, subsection (2) has been redrafted to ensure that it covers all the children under subsection (1). The references to children transferred in line 5 are wrongly restrictive. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The parent of a child to whom the foregoing subsection relates and who knowingly fails to comply with the requirements of that subsection shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of ten pounds; but in any proceedings under this section it shall be a defence that the accused is residing at the same address as the other parent and had reasonable cause to believe that the other parent kept the person responsible for the supervision or the care of the child informed of the address of both parents.")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 93 [Interpretation]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this Amendment is the result of an assurance which I gave in Committee about the definition of "establishment". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 4, at end insert ("not being premises controlled or managed by a Government department,").—(Lord Hughes)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 96 [Extension of certain provisions of Act to England and Wales, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this Amendment extends certain provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 12, after ("Ireland") insert ("that is to say—

section 36(5)

section 57

Part V

Schedule 6.

(3) The following provisions of this Act shall extend to".—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Amendment of Part IV of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. The word "maintained" is an error. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 26, leave out ("maintained") and insert ("detained").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this Amendment makes the new Section 43 more like the existing Section 43 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act by providing that when a child is to be brought before a court the local authority which is to be notified, and which has to provide reports and so on, shall be the local authority of the area in which the court will sit and not of the area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed. We have come to the conclusion that this is a more convenient arrangement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 39, leave out from ("the area") to the end of line 41 and insert ("in which the court will sit").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, after paragraph 6, to insert:
"() For section 50 there shall be substituted the following section—
Child charged jointly with person who is not a child.
When a child has been charged with an offence jointly with a person person who is not a child the provisions of sections 52 to 54 of this Act shall not apply to summary proceedings before the sheriff in respect of the charges.
() In section 52(1), for the words from the beginning to the words "a juvenile court", second occurring, there shall be substituted the words—
"Where summary proceedings are brought in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by a child the sheriff shall sit either in a different building or room from that in which he usually sits or on different days from these on which other courts in the building are engaged in criminal proceedings; and no person shall be present at any sitting to which this subsection applies".
() For subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(2) The power to make rules conferred on the High Court of Justiciary under section 76(1) of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954 shall include power to make rules as respects the procedure in cases to which the foregoing subsection applies.
() In section 53(5), for the words from the beginning to the words "juvenile court", there shall be substituted the words "Any direction in any enactment that a charge shall be brought before a juvenile court shall be construed as a direction that he shall be brought before the sheriff sitting as a court of summary jurisdiction, and no such direction "."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Amendments to Sections 50 and 52(1) and (3) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 are designed to ensure that a child who appears before a criminal court after the coming into operation of the Bill shall be entitled to no lees protection than he has now by virtue of the existing provisions of these sections. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 14, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved to add to paragraph 7:
". In section 57(2), for the words from the beginning to "harm" there shall be substituted the words "Where a child is convicted on indictment"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to widen somewhat the power in Section 57 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 to enable serious offences by

547
children to be appropriately dealt with by the sheriff or by the High Court. At present, Section 57(2) provides that if a child or young person is convicted on an indictment of attempted murder, culpable homicide, or wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and the court feels that none of the other ways in which the case may be legally dealt with is suitable, then the court may sentence the offender to be detained for a specified period. The Amendment enables a court to pass this type of sentence in any case of conviction on indictment, and not just in a conviction for one of the offences previously mentioned. We think that if the decision has been taken that the offence is of a sufficiently serious nature to have brought about the position that it should be on indictment this is a reasonable basis on which these penalties should apply. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 24, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 I will move together. These two Amendments are designed to retain, for one purpose only, the existing power, contained in Section 58 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, of a court to impose short terms of detention. It is felt to be necessary to keep this power of detention as a deterrent and as an ultimate sanction when a child will not pay fines, damages or expenses which may be imposed on him by the court. It is not a power that is often used, and in future it may be used even less; but we think that it is a deterrent which can usefully be retained. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 25, after ("58") insert ("the words from the beginning to "imprisonment or" shall be omitted and").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 69.
Amendment moved—
Page 59, line 27, leave out from ("the period") to the end of paragraph 8 and insert (", not exceeding one month, as may be specified in the order in a place chosen by a local authority in whose area the court is situated.").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Appeal Tribunals]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: This Amendment concerns a minor point. The Bill refers to the "representation of one person in any proceedings by another person by another person." Whether the gramophone record has got stuck or there has been some other mistake, I do not know. But if this is not intended, the wording, I feel, ought to be changed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 26, leave out ("by another person") where secondly occurring.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords. I beg to move the new Schedule after Schedule 4.
Amendment moved—
After Schedule 4, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE

  TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES
  1. Every agreement to which the transferor was a party immediately before the date of transfer shall have effect as from that date in favour of or against the transferee as if the transferee had been a party to the agreement instead of the transferor.
  2. Where the functions of the transferor are transferred to more than one transferee the property, rights, liabilities and obligations of the transferor shall be allocated in such a manner as relates to the allocation of the functions transferred to each of the transferees.
  3. Any legal or other proceedings to which the transferor is a party which are pending on the date of the transfer may be continued on or after that date as if the transferee instead of the transferor had been that party.
  4. The Secretary of State may make regulations for facilitating the transfer of any property, rights, liabilities or obligations in pursuance of this Act.
  5. In this Schedule—

  (a) "transferor" means a body or person from whom a function has been transferred under this Act and from whom any property, right, liability or obligation has been so transferred, and

  (b) "transferee" means a local authority to whom a function or any property, right, liability or obligation has been so transferred,

  and "transfer of function" includes the giving of a function to a local authority which was previously performed by another body including another local authority.")—(Lord Hughes.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 6 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
  LORD HUGHES: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. It changes references to "remand home" to "place of safety". I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 65, line 25, at end insert—
  (" Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act 1926
  . In section 9(4)(d), for the words "remand home" and "home" there shall be substituted the words "place of safety".") —(Lord Hughes.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think we have any further comments. If it is convenient to the noble Lord and to the House, we do not object to the remaining Amendments being put en bloc.
  LORD HUGHES: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that suggestion, which will enable us to finish within our time limit. If it is acceptable to your Lordships, therefore, I will move that Amendments Nos. 73 to 88 be accepted en bloc.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 66, line 10, after ("110(1),") insert ("in")
  Page 66, line 2, after ("officers") insert ("nominated")
  Page 66, line 2, after ("words" ") insert ("an")
  Page 66, line 9, leave out ("director of social work or officer representing him") and insert ("officer of the local authority who is to supervise the probationer")
  Page 66, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (5)
  Page 66, line 21, leave out from ("or" ") to end of line and insert ("officers" there shall be substituted the words "any officer" ")
  Page 66, line 28, leave out ("they think") and insert ("it thinks")
  Page 66, line 33, after ("words"") insert ("a")
  Page 69, line 2, at end insert—
  ("() After subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
  () Where in the case of a person who has been committed to prison under the last foregoing subsection, the sheriff is satisfied that his detention in prison is no longer necessary, he may revoke the commitment and commit the person to the local authority in whose area the court is situated, and the authority shall have the duty of placing him in a suitable place of safety.
  550
  () In section 30(1), in the subsection substituted thereby for section 9(4) of the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act 1926, in paragraph (d) for the words "remand home" and "home" there shall be substituted the words "place of safety ".")
  Page 69, line 20, at end insert—
  ("() In paragraph (4)(a), for the words from "the probation officer" to "salaried probation officers" there shall be substituted the words "the local authority named in the order, the local authority".").
  Page 70, line 5, leave out from ("10,") to end of line 15 and insert ("for subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
  "(4) On the making of an order under this section committing the care of a child to a local authority, Part II of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (which relates to the treatment of children in care of local authorities) shall, subject to the provisions of this section, apply as if the child had been received by the local authority into their care under section 14 of that Act, so however that—

  (a) the exercise by the local authority of their powers under sections 5(3), 19 to 21, and 59 of that Act shall be subject to any directions given by the court; and

  (b) section 22 of that Act (which relates to arrangements for the emigration of a child under the care of a local authority) shall not apply.".")

  Page 69, line 26, leave out ("under")
  Page 69, line 29, leave out first ("of")
  Page 69, line 35, leave out ("or,")
  Page 73, line 37, at end insert—
  ("Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965
  .—(1) In section 15, in subsections (1) and (3), for the words "children's officer" there shall be substituted the words "director of social work".
  (2) In subsection (4), for the words "Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937" there shall be substituted the words "Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968".")
  Schedule 7, page 74, column 3, leave out line 33, and insert—
  ("Section 51.
  Section 53(2) and (3)")—(Lord Hughes.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move en bloc Amendments Nos. 90 to 97. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Schedule 7, page 75, line 36, at end insert ("and (9)")
  Schedule 7, page 75, line 41, leave out ("therein") and insert ("and")
  Page 76, line 33, leave out from ("subparagraph" to end of line 35 and insert ("4(b), the words "named therein",")
  Page 76, line 37, at beginning insert ("an")
  Page 76, line 38, after ("home") insert ("or in")
  Page 76, line 39, after (" "other" ") insert ("and paragraph 7")
  Page 77, line 24, at end insert ("Section 69(1)(b)")
  Page 77, line 35, at end insert ("In section 145(42) the words from "but does not" to "1937".").—(Lord Hughes.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.

HEALTH SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL
6.40 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. On July 5 this year the National Health Service will be twenty years old. The opportunity we have today in debating the Health Services and Public Health Bill is one of the very few occasions in those years when the House has had before it a measure concerning the statutory provisions under which the services operate. Indeed, this is the first Bill whose provisions comprehend the whole range of our health and welfare and public health services that we have had in this period, and that is in itself a tribute to the wisdom and foresight of those who planned and put through the original legislation. But I should not wish to suggest to the House that the measure now before us, although wide-ranging, is designed, as was the 1946 legislation, to transform the organisation of the health services in this country, nor is the spirit of our debate to-day likely to revive echoes of the famous debates which preceded that legislation. For the Bill we are discussing is concerned mainly with making a number of relatively minor improvements to the organisation of services within the terms of reference of the administrative structure set up under the 1946 National Health Service Act, the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 and other legislation, principally the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Public Health Act 1936. Taken as a whole, they should make it easier to provide the patterns of service that are needed to-day and to make the optimum use of the re-
552
sources available within the framework of the services as they now exist.
As noble Lords will know, the Minister of Health has announced that he has set in hand a full and careful examination of the administrative structure of the medical and related services and that he intends to publish tentative proposals in the form of a Green Paper, which will provide full opportunity for public discussion and consultation. The Bill we are considering to-day does not seek in any way to anticipate the results of this review, and of course it would be wrong and premature to introduce through this Bill any major changes in the administrative structure of the health and welfare or public health services. Almost inevitably the Bill contains a large number of miscellaneous provisions. It was rather unkindly described in another place as a rag bag. I prefer to call it a bran tub, with something good in it for everybody. It contains a large number of valuable provisions, and my purpose this evening will be to describe some of the more important of these. Most of the clauses have an application North of the Border as well as in England and Wales; but some of the provisions apply only to Scotland.
The opening four clauses of the Bill are concerned with private patients in National Health Service hospitals. Mention of private practice is apt as a general rule to lead to the instinctive adoption of emotional and partisan attitudes, and noble Lords will doubtless know that these clauses have proved no exception. But I hope that I can satisfy the House that these provisions should in practice prove non-controversial. Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill replace the existing provisions which are contained in Section 5 of the 1946 Act and the corresponding section of the 1947 Act, except for the transitional matters dealt with in Clause 3. Clause 1 deals with private residential patients or in-patients, and Clause 2 with private non-resident patients; that is to say, out-patients and day patients.
These two clauses make the two main changes. First, they remove the present requirements that accommodation for private patients must be special accommodation set aside. The purpose of this change is to introduce greater flexibility in the use of accomodation for private patients so that within the total amount

553
of accommodation authorised by the Minister at a particular hospital a private patient can be accommodated in that part of it most suited to his medical needs, instead of as at present having to be accommodated in a bed that has been designated for use by private patients—a pay bed. Secondly, the clauses enable pay bed charges to be determined on a national basis for different classes of hospitals. At present these charges have to be based on the cost at the individual hospital with pay beds and calculated for each hospital by the hospital authority according to a complicated set of regulations. Apart from the work involved, the present system can give rise to anomalies in that there may be variations in charges between similar hospitals with similar accommodation, often in the same area. Under Clause 1(3) the Minister will be able to group together hospitals of similar types into classes and determine hospital charges on a national basis for each class.
Since hospital charges for private resident patients are to be fixed on a national basis and not by individual hospital authorities, and since Clause 1 sets out the factors to be taken into account by the Minister in determining charges, there is no longer a need for these charges to be determined under regulations, and accordingly this requirement has been dropped. Similarly, charges for private non-resident patients, dealt with in Clause 2, and for amenity beds, dealt with in Clause 4, are to be determined by the Minister without the need for regulations. Lastly, the power of the Minister to prescribe limits to the fees that hospital doctors and dentists can charge their private patients treated in National Health Service hospitals is not renewed; the actual limits prescribed were removed by the Pay Bed Regulations 1966, with effect from January 1, 1967.
Fears have been expressed, on the one hand, that the changes made by these clauses may be either detrimental to private practice in National Health Service hospitals and, on the other hand, that they will prove unduly encouraging of it. Neither should be the case. Apart from the changes mentioned the clauses make no substantial change in the present position. They neither increase nor decrease the powers of the Minister to control the extent of private practice in National Health Service hospitals and
554
they preserve the existing safeguards to interests of non-paying patients.
I now turn to Clause 5 of the Bill. This clause empowers the Minister to constitute a new alternative form of management for hospitals providing teaching facilities for medical education. Under existing legislation the Minister of Health may designate hospitals providing teaching facilities as teaching hospitals, and a hospital or group of hospitals so designated must be managed by a board of governors appointed by the Minister and responsible directly to him. If the Minister does not designate them as teaching hospitals, then they must at present be managed by a hospital management committee appointed by the appropriate Regional Hospital Board according to the constitution laid down in Schedule 3 to the 1946 Act. Under this clause, the Minister can provide for a new form of administration for hospitals providing teaching facilities by designating them as "university hospitals". Before making such a designation the Minister is required by the clause to consult the university concerned, and while the body responsible for the management of a university hospital will be a hospital management committee appointed by the Regional Hospital Board the order which the Minister will make designating the university hospital may provide for modification of the constitution of the hospital management committee to manage that hospital. The Minister will therefore be able to ensure that the university is adequately represented on the committee. Orders made under this clause will he subject to annulment.
I should make it clear that the Minister is not seeking to create this new form of management because of any dissatisfaction with the existing relationships between Regional Hospital Boards and boards of governors—on the contrary, he is aware that there is close and beneficial co-operation between them. He has made it clear that it is not his present intention to use the clause to make sweeping changes in the administration of teaching hospitals already controlled by boards of governors. However, the Minister believes that he should be free to consider other forms of administration, and in particular he considers that the creation of new medical schools provides an opportunity to link these new centres of

555
medical education more closely with the Regional Hospital Boards who are responsible for the overall planning of the hospital services in their region.
The House will be aware that the Government have approved the creation of medical schools at the Universities of Nottingham and Southampton. At Nottingham both the University and the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board are in favour of the new hospital which will be associated with the medical school being managed as a university hospital, and it is likely that it will be so designated. Southampton may very well also become a university hospital. The title "university hospital" has been chosen to make it plain that these hospitals should have a standing and esteem no less than that of existing teaching hospitals as centres of teaching and research. The fact that through this new form of government they will be more closely associated with the rest of the hospital services in their region will be an additional advantage. The Government are confident that this experiment in hospital management will prove to be a successful and fruitful development.
There are a number of other clauses in the Bill concerned exclusively with the hospital service. I will not describe these in detail, but I should like to mention briefly Clause 65, which was added to the Bill in another place. This clause empowers the Health Minister to give financial help to visitors to patients in the special hospitals or in the State hospital as it is called in Scotland. These hospitals—Broadmoor, Rampton and Moss Side in England, and Carstairs in Scotland—are different from National Health Service hospitals in that they do not serve a local catchment area but admit patients from anywhere in the respective countries. Consequently, in many cases relatives and friends have to make long and expensive journeys to visit patients. At present the usual form of financial assistance available to visitors is in the form of rail vouchers which entitle users to return rail tickets at one and half times the single fare. This clause would enable the Minister to give assistance to visitors travelling by public road services, which many people use because it is more convenient and
556
cheaper. Regular visiting is, of course, very important both for the patient and for his family; this clause will help encourage and perhaps increase regular visiting, and I am sure the House will welcome it.
It would perhaps also be opportune at this stage, before leaving those parts of the Bill concerned with the hospital service, to describe the purposes of Clauses 31 and 32, which relate to the disposal of goods and services produced by the Minister for the hospital service. These two clauses have been viewed with some concern by commercial and manufacturing interests and it may be helpful if I explain their purpose—which has been the subject of some misunderstanding.
Clause 31 enables the Minister to make services available outside the hospital and specialist services. It is already the practice of hospital authorities to sell surplus services. For example, some hospitals provide pathological services for private hospitals or nursing homes, meals-on-wheels for local authorities, laundry services for homes for old people or handicapped people run by local authorities and voluntary bodies, and some provide services of sterile supplies to local authorities and doctors. This clause gives explicit statutory authority to this practice. It was thought desirable to obtain this authority because the 1946 Act provides that services are to be free of charge except where the Act specifically provides for the making of charges. Moreover, as the Act already authorises the Minister to dispose of certain specified services or goods in this way, the existence of these limited powers could be held to exclude a more general power, although such a power is in fact already being exercised by hospital authorities.
Some fear has been expressed that as a result of this clause hospitals may launch out into all manner of activities that might bring them into competition with private enterprise. But I do not think there need be any cause for alarm here. Some examples of the kind of services being provided have already been given and there is certainly no present intention of making any general extension of these arrangements. The clause gives the Minister discretion as to the terms on which surplus services may be made available. This discretion is required since it is conceivable that in some cases it would

557
be perfectly proper to make services available other than at full cost; but it is, and will continue to be, the normal practice to charge for these services on the basis of full cost, including overheads.
Clause 32 will enable the Minister to sell or give away or otherwise dispose of any goods that he produces in the hospital and specialist services and that become surplus to the requirements of those services. This is a simple and straightforward power to get rid of any surplus that may from time to time arise in hospitals. The clause will also enable the Minister to prescribe goods which he wishes to produce in excess of the requirements of the hospital and specialist services, so that he may dispose of them to recipients either engaged on other aspects of the National Health Service or completely unconnected with that Service. This part of the clause, like the previous clause, has given rise to some disquiet lest it be used to introduce unfair competition with suppliers of various items used in the hospital service. The Minister has, however, made it clear that his intention is solely to be able to meet any need that may arise outside the hospital service for special types of articles that may not be readily available from commercial sources in the quantity or quality required. Artificial eyes, sophisticated surgical appliances and specialised components of artificial limbs are the sort of articles that the clause is designed to cover, and the Minister's power to operate will be limited to those classes of goods that he has prescribed by regulations, subject to annulment by either House. As with Clause 31, it will be the normal practice for charges to be based on the economic cost of providing any goods supplied, including overheads.
I now turn to the provisions in the Bill dealing with the local health and welfare services. First, I come to local health services. In the Bill as first published Clauses 10 and 11 provided for the extension of existing National Health Service legislation so as to allow local health authorities to employ midwives, health visitors and district nurses to attend women elsewhere than in their own homes, which is the limit of their existing duty. The purpose of promoting more efficient deployment of staff and encouraging close co-operation between
558
local authority staff and family doctors —for example, by the "attachment" of local authority nurses, health visitors, and midwives to general practice—has been further met by Amendments made in another place which would enable such staff to be used outside the areas of their employing authorities. Clause 10 would now also allow local health authorities to make arrangements with hospital authorities, whether within or outside their areas, so that their midwives might work in hospitals where this would help to provide a better service.
Clause 13 concerns the domestic help service. Its effect is twofold: to make the provision of domestic help a statutory duty and, secondly, to empower local health authorities, in the discharge of their duty to provide a domestic help service, to arrange for articles belonging to the household to be laundered either at the house or elsewhere. The clause also empowers authorities, subject to the approval of the Minister of Health, to recover from persons availing themselves of the service or of the laundry facilities provided, such charges as the authority consider reasonable having regard to the means of the recipient. In practice all local health authorities already provide a domestic help service under existing permissive legislation. In the Government's view, however, it is logical to make the provision of this important service a statutory duty in common with that of similar local authority services.
As a result of a Government Amendment which was adopted in another place, the clause now provides for persons who are handicapped as a result of illness or congenital deformity to be included as an additional category of persons eligible for domestic help. As has already been explained by the Minister of Health in another place, owing to the present economic situation the Government have decided that the implementation of the clause shall be deferred for the present under the provisions of Clause 78 of the Bill. This does not, however, represent any change of intention by the Government.
In Clause 59 the opportunity is taken to tighten up the law relating to child minding by amending the Nurseries and Child Minders Regulation Act 1948. At the end of 1949 the number of places

559
for children provided by people who looked after them in their own homes amounted to only 1,744, but over the following 17 years the number shot up to nearly 35,000. Many of these women are providing useful service, but there is no doubt that the standards of others fall short of what ought to be expected. The Government are particularly concerned about some child-minders who do not come within the scope of the Act at present but who clearly need to be supervised by the local health authority, and those minders who, being unregistered, are breaking the law.
The Ministry of Health carried out extensive inquiries of local health authorities in 1965 and 1966 about the operation of the Act, and as a result of these and other evidence—I would mention particularly the Report produced last summer by the late Dr. Simon Judkin, to whom I am sure we should all like to pay tribute for his work for the pre-school child—it is proposed to give local health authorities greater powers of control over child-minders and to increase the penalties for evasion of the Act. In legislation of this nature it is important not to give public authorities greater powers over the individual than is necessary; but the Government are convinced that because of the unsatisfactory conditions in which some children are being cared for they are justified in seeking Parliament's approval to the amendments to the 1948 Act proposed in this clause.
The provisions dealing with local welfare services are found in Part II of the Bill. They are particularly concerned with services for the elderly and would allow authorities to provide places for the elderly and the handicapped in certain commercially run homes; they also provide authorities with a general power to promote the welfare of the elderly. At the moment a local authority can meet its obligation to provide residential accommodation for elderly and handicapped persons by placing them in homes which it runs itself, in homes run by other authorities, or in homes run by voluntary organisations. While the number of such homes is steadily increasing, the demand for places is rising too, and it has been necessary to find new ways of satisfying this demand. Clause 44 aims to do so by permitting authorities to make arrange-
560
ments for the provision of accommodation with the proprietors of those commercially-run homes which are registered with a local authority under the National Assistance Act 1948. It will also enable authorities to provide a wider range of choice for intending residents. An authority making such arrangements will pay an agreed charge to the proprietor and will in turn recover from the resident, in the usual way, as much of the charge as he can afford.
While Clause 44 will, initially at least, have a rather limited application, the general power to promote the welfare of the elderly proposed in Clause 45 will eventually enable large numbers of the elderly to enjoy a much wider range of statutory welfare services, including—and this pleases me very much—preventive services. At present these are limited to meals, whether in a person's own home or at a luncheon club, and recreational or occupational facilities. If the elderly person is also physically or mentally handicapped, as I fear many of them are, he, or more often she, can take advantage of the arrangements made by authorities under their general power to promote the welfare of this class of persons provided by Section 29 of the 1948 Act, as extended by the Mental Health Act 1959. If, however, he is merely suffering from the general infirmity of old age he can derive no benefit from these arrangements. Clause 45 removes these restrictions and will enable authorities to provide for all elderly persons a comprehensive range of services comparable to those available to the handicapped. They will, for example, be able to adapt the home of an elderly person and provide him with services, such as help with gardening or decorating, and personal aids to enable him to cope more easily with ordinary everyday life at home.
They will also be able to give advice to the elderly and to take measures to prevent deterioration in health and living conditions. In particular they will be able to contribute towards the cost of providing warden services in special housing for the elderly—a vital and expanding service, the development of which appears to have been delayed in some areas by doubts about welfare authorities' powers to make such contributions. A further power they will have will be to provide a wide range of visiting services for the elderly aimed at finding those in need of welfare services,

561
ascertaining the services they lack, and providing them with practical assistance and advice. What is perhaps even more important is that authorities will be able to arrange for visits to be made to elderly persons solely with the object of preventing them from becoming isolated from the general community and of retaining their interest in life.
Authorities' arrangements for providing services under the clause will be subject to the Minister's approval. Clearly it will take them a little time to determine what these services should be, and the Minister has no intention of pressing them to make early decisions. Indeed, the present financial restrictions on local authority expenditure will, I am afraid, dictate that the development of these services will come only gradually and in accordance with authorities' own assessment of where their priorities lie.
Finally, may I say that in developing their services in the directions to be permitted by the clause, authorities will have to rely very heavily, probably much more even than they have done in the past, on voluntary help. Visiting the elderly is a field in which the voluntary organisations are already doing a tremendous amount. Any extension of visiting on the scale now envisaged must clearly draw extensively on the valuable experience they have gained, and must depend very largely on the services that trained volunteers can contribute. It is only fitting, therefore, if I may anticipate matters slightly, that the existing powers of local authorities to assist voluntary organisations—both financially and by making premises, equipment and staff available to them—should be consolidated and extended by Clause 64. This gives authorities a wide ranging power to assist such organisations operating anywhere in the local health and welfare field.
If I may continue on this tack for a little longer, may I mention that Clause 63 gives the Minister, for the first time, a complementary power in the same field. This will put on a statutory basis the payments he is already making to voluntary organisations in the field covered by the local health and welfare services and enable him, again when the financial climate improves, to extend the range of his assistance.
I come now to those Parts of the Bill concerned with what are often called the
562
executive council services—the services provided by doctors, dentists, chemists and opticians who are in contract with executive councils. Clauses 16 and 19 and Schedule 1 are concerned with the ophthalmic services. These are currently designated "supplementary ophthalmic services" because in 1946 they were expected to fulfil a merely temporary role until hospital ophthalmic clinics could take over all testing of sight and supply of optical appliances. In the event the hospital eye service has concentrated on meeting the more specialised requirements, whilst the "supplementary ophthalmic services" have catered for the bulk of our ordinary needs. The Bill recognises that they will continue to do so permanently and renames them, in consequence, "general ophthalmic services".
No changes in the scope of these services are involved, but there are necessarily some in organisation. In the 1946 Act provision was made for the ending of these executive council ophthalmic services in each area as the extension of the hospital service made them redundant. Until then they were to be controlled by special ophthalmic services committees acting as agents of each executive council. In Scotland there are particular reasons for retaining the joint ophthalmic services committees, but in England and Wales it is appropriate that the ophthalmic service committees should be abolished and a permanent service should be controlled directly by executive councils, with the three groups of practitioners involved represented on the councils themselves. This, together with consequential additions to retain the balance of membership, is the reason for the changes in the membership of executive councils proposed in Schedule 1.
As long as the ophthalmic services were considered to be on a temporary basis there was no need to authorise their provision in health centres; Clause 18 now proposes that this should be possible. This brings me to a number of provisions relating to health centres in Clauses 18, 19, 21 and 22. Since 1949 it has, been possible for doctors to practise privately in health centres, and experience has shown the advantage of a limited degree of private practice in certain circumstances. It is possible that similar extensions to the other services provided

563
there might prove beneficial to the patients attending a particular health centre. When it is possible to provide ophthalmic services at a health centre, it may be felt that they will operate at a considerable disadvantage if, for example, a patient finds that he is obliged to go outside in order to purchase a spare pair of spectacles or a private frame.
Similarly, a patient might find a health centre less attractive if after he had been given a private prescription by his doctor there, he could not have it dispensed at the centre pharmacy, or if he had to go outside the centre in order to obtain the ordinary household remedies which we encourage him to buy for himself. Consequently the Bill makes it possible for dentists, opticians, and pharmacists to engage in private practice at health centres if the Minister so determines in the case of a particular centre, and to such an extent and under such conditions as the Minister determines in each case in the light of local consultation.
Ophthalmic services have not, as I have explained, been provided in health centres previously, and the only pharmacists there have been employed by the local health authorities, even though they are providing executive council services. The professional representative bodies concerned have indicated that they would find it more appropriate for persons providing general ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services in health centres to be in contract with the executive councils, and the Government have thought it right to respect their wishes in this, and put them on a par with the doctors and dentists. Consequently, Amendments were made in another place precluding the employment of both opticians and pharmacists by local health authorities for the provision at health centres of services under Part IV of the 1946 Act, but with a saving clause for those health centres where pharmacists are already so employed.
Clause 24 will enable executive councils to supply goods and materials to persons providing general medical, dental, pharmaceutical and general ophthalmic services under the National Health Service Act 1946. As the clause has given rise to some anxiety among the professions providing the family practitioner services,
564
and indeed among certain of the industries supplying goods to the National Health Service, it may be helpful for me briefly to explain its purpose and scope. The clause is primarily designed to remove any doubt as to the legal basis of the present arrangement whereby disposable sterile syringes and needles purchased by the Minister of Health are supplied by executive councils to medical practitioners. This arrangement has been generally welcomed by doctors, and I am confident that they will be glad to see it now placed on a firm legal basis. The clause will also enable councils to supply such other goods and materials to practitioners in the future as may appear necessary or expedient to the Minister. No extension to the existing arrangements is in fact intended at present, but there may be a case in the future for supplying additional items in order to improve standards or to save cost by centralised purchasing arrangements.
My Lords, the powers conferred by the clause may be exercised only by the laying of regulations, which on every occasion would specify the class of goods to be supplied and the category of person (whether doctors, dentists, chemists or opticians) for whom they were intended. This of course means that there would be full opportunity for prior discussion, and if necessary Parliamentary debate, before any class of article were listed for provision to practitioners by executive councils. There is, moreover, no question of the clause imposing an obligation on practitioners to apply for or to use such goods as might be supplied. I hope that what I have said will allay the anxiety which has apparently been expressed that the powers conferred by Clause 24 might be used to compel practitioners to make use of centrally supplied goods or materials of a nature or on terms which would be unacceptable to them.
Before leaving that part of the Bill which deals with executive council services, I should like to refer briefly to Clause 25. This clause was included at the Report stage in another place. It was not proposed by the Government, but the intentions of the clause were acceptable to the Government and the Minister recommended its acceptance on that basis. Clause 25 applies various provisions of the Patents Act relating to the Crown use of patented inventions, in particular

565
Section 46, to the services provided under Part IV of the National Health Service Act 1946 and the comparable Scottish Act. Part IV services are those administered by executive councils. The main purpose is to enable the Health Departments to authorise, for the purpose of the general medical and pharmaceutical services, the purchase of patented drugs bought from unlicensed sources, the terms for the use of the patent being subject to either agreement or determination by the court. The Health Departments already have a comparable power in relation to drugs and other patented inventions supplied for the hospital service, since it was decided in the Pfizer case that the latter was a service of the Crown.
In its review of the relationship of the pharmaceutical industry to the National Health Service, the Committee of Inquiry, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, concluded that the Health Departments needed to have a procedure to which they could resort if negotiations on prices of pharmaceutical products failed, that Section 46 of the Patents Act 1949 was an appropriate instrument for this purpose, and that it would be right to extend its application to the general medical and pharmaceutical services. The Committee hoped, as do the Government, that revised arrangements for regulating prices will greatly reduce the chances of Ministers having to resort to the use of these powers, but we think it right that they should be available, on the basis envisaged by the Committee, as a procedure of last resort. It was primarily because of this that the Government were prepared to accept the clause. Since then, the Government have had the opportunity to look at it more closely, and I think I should tell noble Lords that as drafted the clause does not entirely meet its purpose. The Government will accordingly be proposing Amendments at a later stage of the Bill to get it right.
So far, my Lords, I have dealt with provisions in the Bill concerned with the personal health and welfare services provided under the National Health Service Acts and the National Assistance Acts; but the House will have noticed that the Title of the Bill refers also to public health, and it is to some of its provisions in this field, mainly that of notifiable
566
disease and food poisoning, that I now propose to refer. For England and Wales, the majority of the new provisions are those set out in Part III of the Bill. I will not attempt to describe all of them—there will be opportunity at Committee stage for this—but will, instead, confine myself to two of the clauses.
Clause 47 deals with the definition of "notifiable disease". The present definition of "notifiable disease" in the Public Health Act 1936 includes a number of diseases to which, because of advances in medical knowledge, it is no longer considered necessary to apply all the precautionary and preventive provisions of Part V of the Public Health Act 1936—as must be done in respect of all diseases included in the statutory definition of "notifiable disease". For this reason, the Minister proposes that membranous croup, erysipelas, scarlatina (or scarlet fever), enteric fever, typhoid fever and diphtheria should be removed from the definition. To be added to the definition is one disease, plague, at present notifiable under regulations to which I now refer.
I should explain that the diseases listed in the revised definition are not the only infectious diseases about which information will be sent to medical officers of health by general practitioners and other doctors attending patients. The Minister of Health is empowered by Section 143 of the 1936 Act to make regulations with regard to epidemic, endemic and infectious diseases generally, and by any such regulations to apply, with or without modifications, to any disease to which the regulations relate whichever of the precautionary and preventive provisions of Part V of the Public Health Act seem to him, on medical advice, to be appropriate. It is under these regulations that information is already sent to medical officers of health about cases of a number of other diseases, including, for example, tuberculosis, poliomyelitis, measles and whooping cough. Of the diseases now to be removed from the definition of "notifiable disease", the Minister proposes that scarlet fever, typhoid fever and diphtheria shall be made subject to the notification procedures, and information of cases of those diseases will continue to come to medical officers of health.

567
The other public health clause that I want to mention is Clause 68. Section 172 of the 1936 Act provides for court orders for the removal to hospital of a patient suffering from respiratory tuberculosis, and empowers the court to direct the local authority to make a contribution to the maintenance of the patient's dependants. The provisions for these maintenance contributions have been criticised by local authorities, on the ground that the maintenance of the dependants of such a hospital patient is the responsibility of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, as is the case with the dependants of a patient suffering from tuberculosis who voluntarily enters hospital or of a patient suffering from any other notifiable diseases removed to and retained in hospital under Sections 169 and 170 of the Public Health Act 1936. For these reasons, the Government are proposing the repeal of Section 172. Subsequently, any legal action needed to secure the removal and retention in hospital of a patient suffering from respiratory tuberculosis can be taken under the provisions of Sections 169 and 170 of the 1936 Act, which will be applied to tuberculosis by regulations to be made under Section 143 of the 1936 Act.
My Lords, I have so far dealt with the provisions in the Bill which, broadly speaking, are concerned with one or other arm of the service, but before I sit down I should like to refer briefly to two clauses which do not fit readily under any of the heads I have so far used. The first, Clause 62, is concerned with training. When making training arrangements for persons working, or contemplating work, in the health and welfare services, Ministers have had to rely mainly upon a power inferred from a duty to provide services: for specific powers, such as those under Section 48 of the 1946 Act, which covers certain types of training for practitioners in the Part IV Services, are very limited. A few instances have arisen where doubts have been expressed about the legal basis of current practices, and further doubts arise in relation to some of the increased opportunities for training that are being planned for the future. It is essential that proper training be provided for those engaged in the health and welfare services, whether as direct employees or as contractors, and that the
568
continuation and development of those services be assured by the availability of an adequate number of suitably trained persons. Clause 62 seeks to clarify the position and, by empowering the Minister to provide training direct, and one health or welfare authority to undertake the training of persons providing or intending to provide a service for another such authority, ensures that training can be organised on a rational and economic pattern of mutual aid. For similar reasons the clause allows for the making of reciprocal arrangements with Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The final provision I wish to describe is Clause 33, which provides specific powers for the supply to severely disabled persons of the invalid carriages and the associated benefits that successive Ministers have made available since 1948 under general powers in the 1946 Act. The clause also provides new powers for the supply of motor cars instead of invalid carriages, thus enabling the Health Ministers to extend even further the excellent service that they already provide for the severely disabled. But it will not, of course, be possible to make full use of the new powers overnight. They will be there for Ministers to use to introduce improvements, stage by stage, as the resources available to the Health Service permit.
My Lords, what I have said this afternoon has, I am afraid, no doubt appeared rather disjointed and lacking any obvious common thread or argument. But this is probably inevitable when describing a miscellaneous Bill of this kind. But I hope that, by very reason of the wide-ranging nature of the provisions in the Bill, I shall at least have been able to find in it something to please everyone. There is indeed much in the Bill which will be helpful to the development of the health, welfare and public health services—services which we all, I know, on whatever side of the House we may sit, wish to see developed and strengthened and on whose efficiency we all at one time or another must rely. I am confident that noble Lords will wish to give a general welcome to the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Baroness Phillips.)
7.23 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for her very thorough exposition of this very long Bill. She said that it is a miscellaneous Bill. It is, my Lords, very miscellaneous indeed. I am going to be rather more selective in the choice of the clauses on which I am going to speak because I suspect that probably the greatest service I can do your Lordships at this time of night is to be as brief as I decently can. As well as being a miscellaneous Bill, this is very largely, of course, an enabling Bill. Some of the powers which it gives to the Minister are pretty sweeping, and so a great deal will turn on how the Bill is used when it becomes law. That is something on which we shall have to keep a fairly critical eye from time to time.
The noble Baroness said that the description of the Bill that she preferred was "a bran tub with something for everybody". That is a reasonably accurate description, but I think that a more accurate one would be to say that it is a stodgy pudding with a few plums. On the whole, however, the stodge is mostly palatable and wholesome; and, whatever may happen at later stages, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading this evening. I congratulate the Minister on succeeding in getting this Bill into this Session's legislative programme, because it strikes me that it is not really the sort of Bill that is likely to arouse a great deal of enthusiasm in the breasts of those Ministers whose duty it is to advise Her Majesty on the contents of the gracious Speech. I would go so far as to say that the promotion of this Bill confirms me in my belief that Mr. Robinson is the most successful departmental Minister in this Government—and the best. That is not, perhaps, much of a compliment; but it is a compliment.
My Lords, that is the only Party political comment I propose to make; because anyone who has served in the Ministry of Health knows how extremely difficult it is, with the best will in the world—or even with the worst will in the world—to inject Party politics into the activities and policies of that Department. I personally would not have it otherwise. Nevertheless, the opponents of pay beds in hospitals and of private
570
practice generally have from time to time, since the inception of the National Health Service sought to represent this as a significant Party political issue. Personally, I think it is an issue that should be treated absolutely pragmatically.
All Ministers of Health, from Aneurin Bevan onwards, have recognised that there is a demand, a fairly substantial demand, for amenities which can be purchased by payment over and above that which is automatically paid for in taxation. This being so it has always seemed to me—and seems to me still—that, precisely because the National Health Service is a national service and a monopoly, it ought to recognise the existence of this need and do its best to meet it, so long as it can do so economically and efficiently. The demand for pay beds in hospitals fluctuates from year to year. I rather think that it is going through a period of decline at the moment. I should not like to prophesy what the demand is likely to be in ten or twenty years' time, but there is no doubt that the number of people taking out insurance policies to cover private treatment is growing all the time. I believe that something like 4 per cent. of the population is now covered by insurance policies for private treatment purposes. That is something of which I should have thought any Minister of Health is bound to take notice, and to try to meet, whether he likes is or not.
My Lords, the important thing about the clauses in the Bill dealing with pay beds—and I was glad that the noble Baroness drew attention to the point—is that they do not alter in any substantial way the power of the Minister to increase or reduce the number of pay beds in National Health Service hospitals. This is a power that he has always had, and I am certain that it is a power that he must always have. But the important thing that these clauses do is to put an end to the designation of pay beds for particular purposes, for particular specialities. I am sure that that is a sensible reform; because designation has led to unnecessary under-occupancy of beds.
Clause 5 is the biggest plum in the pudding. It enables the Minister to create new teaching hospitals administered by the Regional Hospital Boards instead of by independent boards of governors. I welcome this power in the

571
Bill, but I am bound to say that I do not much like the name "university hospitals" which is proposed for these hospitals. It seems to me to be somewhat pretentious, and it suggests either that there will be something different in the role of these new teaching hospitals from the role of the existing teaching hospitals—which I am sure is not meant to be the intention—or, if it does not suggest that, that in some way or other these new teaching hospitals are going to be superior to the present teaching hospitals, but I do not believe that is the intention either. I should have preferred a more modest name, such as regional teaching hospital or district teaching hospital. However, I recognise that this is not really a substantial point.
My Lords, I know that some people connected with the great teaching hospitals are afraid that this clause may be a threat to their continued existence; that it may be the thin end of a rather large wedge. I sincerely hope that is not so, and I doubt whether it is. So far as I know, the Minister has always had the power to de-designate teaching hospitals without having to lay an Order before Parliament. If I am right about that—and I think I am—it seems to me that what is in Clause 5 does not add anything to the powers which the Minister always has had in this respect. I am not going to say any more about this matter now. I think that my noble friend Lord Cottesloe will be saying something about the position of teaching hospitals later on.
I welcome Clause 5 particularly for two reasons. The first is that I am all for variety and experiment in the National Health Service, and being a native of those parts I am particularly glad that Southampton is probably going to be one of the first towns where the experiment is to be conducted. I hope that the experiment will be tried there, because then the university hospital will be administered by the Wessex Regional Hospital Board, which I happen to think is an extremely efficient organisation. Certainly it attracts to its service consultants and specialists of all kinds whose calibre is second to none in the country.
The second reason why I welcome the clause is that for a long time I have felt that members of hospital management
572
committee and Regional Hospital Boards do not receive the recognition that they deserve. When I was at the Ministry I tried very hard—I admit without any success—to think up ways in which they could receive more recognition than they do. The fact that this clause is in the Bill will give the members of these bodies the knowledge that they are now deemed worthy to establish their own teaching hospitals, and that will be a good boost to morale. I do not share the anxieties of those people, and there are some, who doubt whether the Regional Hospital Boards will have the ability or perhaps even the inclination to rise to the occasion.
I think that on the whole the changes in the powers and duties of the local health authorities are sensible. I particularly welcome Clause 13, which imposes on the authorities the statutory duty to provide a home help service. As the noble Baroness said, all local health authorities in England and Wales provide a home help service, but I am fairly certain that there are parts of the country where this service has not been developed to the extent that it should have been. With the substitution of this duty for the former power—and I realise that it will not become effective just yet—there will be an added inducement to those local health authorities who have not done so to develop their service as they should.
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sandford will comment on some of the clauses with which I do not propose to deal. I intend to comment on only two other clauses. The first is Clause 25, which brings the general medical and pharmaceutical services within the definition of "services of the Crown" for the purposes of Section 46 of the Patents Act 1949. I was interested to hear from the noble Baroness that although in another place the Government liked the drafting, they do not like it in your Lordships' House. We shall be most interested to see what Amendments are put down by the noble Baroness. She probably realises as well as I do that the pharmaceutical industry regard the clause, at any rate as it is now drafted, as a serious threat to their interests and to the development of and research into new drugs. They are also, I think, of the opinion that they ought to have been

573
properly consulted about this clause. It may be that my noble friend Lord Cawley will say something about this clause, and that other speakers will wish to do so either now or at some later stage in the discussions on the Bill. The astonishing thing about the clause is that nothing was heard of it until the Report stage in another place, when it was moved by a Private Member, not a Minister; whereupon the Minister of Health promptly advised the other place to accept the clause.
The other clause about which I wish to make a few remarks is Clause 33, which clarifies the law on the position of single-seater invalid carriages and enables the Minister to provide cars instead of carriages for the severely disabled. I realise that this new power can be used only sparingly to begin with because of the cost, but I am delighted that the Minister has taken this power and I am sure that a very large number of people will be equally delighted.
My Lords, this Bill makes a large number of fairly minor alterations to the structure of the National Health Service. For good reasons, which she gave, the noble Baroness did not say anything about the structure, but I am not precluded because of that from doing so myself. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the National Health Service. It is a developing organism and its basic structure should not therefore be considered to be immutable; but I am sceptical about the extent to which its efficiency can be improved and its weaknesses eradicated by organisation. For instance, the principal weakness, or what I think is the principal weakness, is the sometimes inadequate co-operation between the component parts, which is very largely a question of individual personal relationships. I have never found that such relationships are much affected by changes in organisation. There is always a way if there is a will, but if the will is not there the way gets obscured.
I was sorry to learn that one of Mr. Richard Crossman's new responsibilities is to be to try to evolve a merger between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry concerned with pensions and National Insurance. I read that in the newspapers At one time this was the policy of my
574
own Party. I hope very much that they have lost it, but whether they have I do not know. The point is that unless you split up the National Health Service and regionalise it in some way, it is bound to be a very large, bureaucratic organisation. To my mind this makes it essential that the man at the top, the Minister, should have the time to be, and to be seen to be, a human being and not just an automaton.
My Lords, the Minister of Health is constantly involved in delicate negotiations with important bodies of all kinds, and not least with the most powerful "trade union" in this country, the medical profession. He has also to deal all the time with very complicated details, and it seems to me that to ask him or her, as the case may be, to be responsible as well for pensions and insurance is asking too much of one person, unless you want that one person to be no more than a figurehead. So I hope very much that Mr. Crossman will conclude that a merger is undesirable. I have no doubt whatever that it would not be in the interests of the National Health Service. I apologise for a scrappy speech but it is a scrappy Bill, though on the whole not too bad a one.
7.40 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on this St. George's Day I think it is right to look back for a moment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and the noble Lord, Lord Newton, have done, on the 20 years of the National Health Service. I was Member for Croydon in another place at that time, and as Member for a town like Croydon with so many excellent hospitals, I had to consider the Bill carefully. I discussed it on many occasions with Mr. Aneurin Bevan, the Minister, and with Mr. Herbert Morrison. Mr. Bevan wanted to have a centralised system with nominated representatives, while Mr. Morrison, being a great local government man, was keener on having a system under which, by and large, the hospitals would come under the local authorities. Mr. Bevan's system prevailed. I think we can say, with certain qualifications here and there, that we have a magnificent health service in this country. I do not know of any country of a comparable kind which has a better and very few with as good, so I feel that it calls for some congratulation to-day.

575
I am cognisant of the necessity expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Newton, for brevity, and though I could go through many of the clauses of the Bill and give my views on them I do not propose to do so. I am going to confine myself to one issue which I think of the highest importance and which has been touched on by both speakers before me. It has caused a great deal of anxiety in the pharmaceutical industry and I should not be doing the House justice if I did not refer to it. I must declare my interest. I am the director of a research-based pharmaceutical company. In Clause 25 of the Bill an important principle is at stake. It goes far beyond the Bill and even beyond the National Health Service and the pharmaceutical industry. It might apply to industry as a whole and to all products and manufactures which are made in this country. The history of the clause has been touched on by both speakers so I need not go into it at great length. Section 46 of the Patents Act 1949 was intended to enable the Government in a time of national emergency, such as war—and we must remember that that was the time of the Korean War, when there was a great deal of unrest in the world—to take over patents at short notice and then argue about the costs later. The idea was to use patents of a defence nature and not to take over pharmaceutical products. It was the great apostle of private enterprise, Mr. Enoch Powell, who extended that principle to pharmaceutical products. In 1961 he misused Clause 46 by awarding contracts to firms who had not been licensed by the four patentees concerned, on the basis that the contractors would import the drugs in question from manufacturers abroad. Similar contracts were relet in 1962 and 1964.
When the Pfizer Corporation case against the Ministry of Health came before this House in its appellate capacity, some caustic comments were made by noble and learned Lords, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who said, referring to this procedure of the Crown:
"Such a definition of the powers of the Crown to use or authorise the use of patented inventions, seems to me to be alarmingly wide and to make a formidable incision into the supposedly valuable monopoly rights which the Crown has granted to the patentee."
576
That was in 1965. This Government terminated the use of Section 46 for the products for which it was in operation. The Minister said, on Report:
"As a result, I probably got a better bargain for the National Health Service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 100; 1/4/68.]
If that was so, it seems odd that the Government now want to take extended powers to do what Mr. Enoch Powell had started to do in a more limited way.
The Banks Committee is now undertaking a general review of the patent system and of Patent Law. This Bill did not originally include this clause at all. A Labour Back Bencher in another place moved it on Report stage; therefore it was not discussed in another place on Second Reading and Committee, and it was passed after a Division. I was much interested to hear from the noble Baroness that the Government are not satisfied with this clause and propose to amend it in Committee, and I shall be interested to know what the Amendments will be, because I am not satisfied either.
May I suggest a few considerations which the Minister might bear in mind before the Amendment is put down? First of all, the voluntary price regulation scheme which is now in operation is an agreement between the Health Departments and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry to maintain an agreed basis for determining satisfactory prices for medical speciality products supplied under the National Health Service. On the whole it works well. My own company, among others, go before this Committee. There is keen argument and discussion and eventually a price is arrived at. Recently, Sir Derrick Dunlop, Chairman of the Committee on Safety of Drugs, said:
"The pharmaceutical industry has made enormous contributions to our society. Professor Chain, of penicillin fame, recently reviewed the 66 most valuable compounds introduced to medicine since aspirin in 1899. His analysis showed that only nine of these came from universities and research institutes."
The rest came from scientists in the pharmaceutical industry. Of course, the universities, the Medical Research Council, the research institutes and the pharmaceutical industry work very closely together.
The Ministry and the industry are at this moment in a discussion on the future of costs in the Service. It seems to the

577
industry that this is an odd time in which to introduce this clause, which is a sort of bludgeon, into the discussions which are taking place. I do not know what the industry thinks about it. Here I am speaking for myself. But I think that there is a great danger here which goes far beyond the pharmaceutical industry. What is a patent? It virtually originates from the Statute of Monopolies of 1623, which gave a monopoly to the true and first inventor, the purpose being to reward him for his knowledge, his skill and patience, for his imagination above all, and for his expenditure of time and money. If this clause in its present form remains—or substantially remains, bcause I appreciate that it may be altered—then the power may discourage the companies from the vast expenditure on research, development and production: because there is a vast expenditure. It has been thought that for every one successful product on the market in the pharmaceutical industry 99 have been commenced, discussed, considered and had money spent on them. Eventually only about one out of every hundred gets into the hands of the medical profession.
On top of that there is the great cost of production, and the cost, once it is produced, of attaining and keeping the standard, cleanliness and quality of the particular pharmaceutical product. The pharmaceutical industry considers that it does not deserve this treatment. It feels that there has been some breach of faith, or will be if this clause as it stands is allowed to remain, because the Minister gave an assurance that the recommendations of the Sainsbury Report would be discussed with the industry before a decision was taken, and no detailed discussion has taken place. It was also believed by the industry that a Bill would not be introduced to deal with patents of pharmaceutical products until the Banks Committee had made its Report.
The Sainsbury Report said in paragraph 13:
"In many ways the industry has admirably served the public interest."
I have quoted the view of Sir Derrick Dunlop. It is a vast export earner on a rising scale. Last year the export value of the products was £80 million. Of home sales and exports the figures were (and one must remember that we are
578
dealing only with a segment of the industry when we are dealing with Clause 25) that 39 per cent. of the product goes to the National Health Service, 27 per cent. to export, 17 per cent. to household medicines, and 17 per cent. to other places, parties or persons, mainly veterinary. So we are now dealing with 39 per cent. of the output of the industry.
The cost of the research and production I have mentioned. My own company spends 10·6 of its annual turnover on research alone, and it is estimated that British industry this year will spend some £14 million on research. In the last 25 years, as the Sainsbury Report pointed out, there has been a vast expansion in the relief of serious diseases which in my young days, and in the young days of many of your Lordships, were killers—illnesses like tuberculosis and diphtheria. One can remember how many children—one's own playmates—died of those killer diseases. The other day one of my grandchildren had chicken pox, and thinking back to my own days I took a serious view of it. But to-day it is a comparatively minor matter, and he was running about in no time. Not only have these formerly killer diseases been relieved, but in many instances, as we know, the demands on the hospital services have been enormously reduced through the use of drugs. If we take mental illness, for example, we find that in the last few years there has come into operation treatment through drugs which was quite unheard of a few years ago. A patient can be treated and cured, or at least maintained in comparatively normal health in his own home, in a way which would have been quite impossible ten years ago or perhaps even five years ago.
I do not at this moment intend to delay your Lordships any longer, except to leave this one thought with you. Anybody who is connected, in however humble a capacity, as I am, with the industry cannot help but realise that the industry is on the threshold of a vast expansion in contributions to human and animal health. The scope is enormous. Take, for instance, foot-and mouth disease, which caused a terrible lot of animal suffering, hundreds of thousands of animals to be slaughtered, and brought vast losses to the farming community and to the taxpayer. It is to the curing of that sort of disease that one may hope

579
that the pharmaceutical industry, combined with the veterinary research institutes and the university institutes, will in the next 25 years be able to make a contribution.
One must not think only of human health; one must think also of animal health. I am interested in this latter subject for family reasons, and I constantly have this question of animal health in mind. We are, as I say, only on the threshold. In other words, in the next 25 years there may well be the opportunity, for an even greater advance in human and animal health than in the past 25 years. I ask the Minister, through the noble Baroness, to consider whether it is wise to risk the great contributions that the industry could make in this field for the purpose of a clause such as Clause 25.
7.57 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I think that, in general terms, noble Lords in all parts of the House seem to be welcoming the introduction of this Bill. It is not revolutionary, but it does seek to extend in various ways the scope of the health services of this country, and I think almost entirely in beneficial ways. As the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has said in her introduction, it is a miscellaneous Bill; and I am glad that she said it is to some extent an interim measure, as the administrative structure of the Health Service, to which I shall refer shortly again, is under review at the present time.
I think there are several passages in the Bill which will need to be looked at rather carefully, but this I feel will be more usefully done when the Bill comes under scrutiny at the Committee stage. I am surprised that not more has been made of Clause 15, which may be said to remove another potential cause of racial tension, in that the Scots now, as well as the English, are to have the benefit of advice on family planning. I hesitate to think, as Vice-President of the Family Planning Association, of the dire consequences of unbridled reproductive activity in Scotland while the English are still reducing their families.
I find myself largely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in the wise and non-Party reflections which he had on the question of pay beds, and the perfectly reasonable desire of certain
580
people to pay for the kind of amenities in hospitals which they have in their own homes. And I endorse his view that many of the consultants in Wessex are of a very high standard indeed. I also strongly agree with what he said about the inadequacy of communication between different branches of our service being very largely a personal matter. As one who has worked as a consultant in hospitals for many years, both before and after the introduction of the National Health Service, I know that if my relations with the general practitioners outside, who were sending me cases, were not free and easy, or right and proper, as they should be, it was either my fault or their fault: it was nothing to do with the fact that we happened to be paid out of a different section of the national purse. I agree with him, too, in having very considerable fears about any merging operation between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Security; and, unless I am convinced by a great many further arguments, I hope that this will not happen.
If the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has read my Harveian Oration to the Royal College of Physicians, he will know that I support his claim that a very large number of advances in therapeutics which have come in our lifetime have come not through the medical profession but through the pharmaceutical industry.
There are many improvements which could still be made to the Health Service, but many of them can be done without further Acts of Parliament. Although some of the rather modest reforms in this Bill are of considerable urgency—and therefore, of course, I strongly support this Bill—it is nevertheless a little regrettable that it has been introduced at the present time, in view of the recent Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education, of which I was a member and whose very able Chairman was my master and friend, the noble Lord, Lord Todd. This applies particularly to Clause 5 of this Bill, on the whole question of the designation of teaching hospitals and this new category of university hospital. If this is regarded as a temporary expedient, while further thought is being given to the whole government of teaching and non-teaching hospitals, then I support it as an interim measure. But I hope that it will not

581
be regarded as any kind of excuse, or partial excuse, for not giving the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Medical Education the fullest consideration, which I hope Her Majesty's Government will do at the earliest possible opportunity.
Many of your Lordships, of course, will already know that the Royal Commission have recommended that the boards of governors of teaching hospitals be discontinued altogether, and that Regional Hospital Boards, possibly reorganised and rearranged (and this reorganisation may particularly need to take place in London), must have an overall responsibility for the medical services in their region, and within them the teaching hospitals—or shall we say, to avoid any particular terminology, the hospitals used for teaching—should be governed by a special governing body with heavy university representation: something like the scheme which is at present planned for Nottingham and, I think, is being planned for Southampton. This, if the recommendations are accepted and acceptable, will render out of date a good deal of Clause 5, so I will not go any further into it at the present time except to reiterate that I hope that our recommendations will be very seriously considered.
In another area the Royal Commission, though primarily concerned with medical education, do of course have very important repercussions on the reorganisation of the Health Service in its recommendations for post-graduate education in which we go into the whole question of the staffing structure and the career prospects of young men in the Health Service. So I regard this Bill as very much an interim measure, and I hope that if we pass it, further consideration will be given to these matters.
The only other thing which I might have said is that in the Royal Commission we refer to the recruitment and importance of women doctors; but as this is a subject to which I understand the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, may be referring in her speech very shortly, and since she will no doubt do it more eloquently than I can, I will say no more on it, other than perhaps to give an endorsement in anticipation of most of what I think she is going to say.
8.5 p.m.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships' House for the first time, I must ask for your indulgence. I hope I shall not make any mistakes in the observance of the customs of this House. If I do, I hope I shall be forgiven.
I speak to-day on this Bill because I have been closely connected with the Health Service for over 16 years. I think this new Health Services and Public Health Bill is in many ways a very good Bill: it constitutes a definite improvement on the existing Act of 1946, for it ties up many loose ends, it introduces improvements in administrative procedures, and also gives the Minister further powers which I hope will be of value to the patients.
Having recommended this Bill to your Lordships, I should like to make a few criticisms of one or two clauses. The first clause to which I should like to refer is Clause 1. I know that the noble Baroness has spoken about this clause, but I should like to say that I know the situation in hospitals very well. The present position is that private patients can be admitted only to certain beds—either those specifically designated under Section 5 of the National Health Service Act 1946, or to beds in general wards where designation has been obtained from the Ministry for the admission of a particular patient. Presumably under this new Bill the Minister's intention is to allocate a number of private patients' beds to each hospital or group of hospitals so that patients can be accommodated in any bed, provided the number approved by the Minister is not exceeded.
This new system has many advantages. It will ensure patients being admitted to beds where they can be best treated from the medical point of view. I know it is not always possible to give proper special nursing to patients in private wards who have had E.N.T. or ophthalmic operations. I think it may be possible to treat these patients in the same way as the patients who are now given treatment for thoracic and neuro-surgery operations, nursing them for the first 24 or 36 hours in an intensive care unit before they are moved to their private ward; but I see the advantage of getting the patient into the right nursing care immediately after

583
the operation. We must assume that the patient who wants to be a private patient probably wants to be treated privately for reasons such as choice of doctor, a wish for privacy, additional amenities such as extra visiting, television, and so on, and it seems unfair to expect such patients to pay for what they are not getting if they are put into a general ward.
I should like to remind your Lordships that privacy in hospitals is highly prized by patients. In our old hospitals more and more wards are being curtained, and in plans for new hospitals and when old hospitals are upgraded the old Florence Nightingale ward plan is discarded, and wards are broken down into small units of four or six beds, all curtained. It is curious that before this Bill was introduced the Minister made a survey of private beds in all hospitals and drastically cut the numbers of private beds on the grounds that these beds were not fully occupied.
On this point I should like to say that in most hospitals these private beds are not kept empty but are filled by patients who, through the nature of their illness, need privacy. So I make a plea for the patient who is prepared to pay for selectivity and privacy, for in our older hospitals there are very few single rooms attached to general wards, and as to amenities such as W.C.'s and bathrooms which we have on general wards, these can be used by all other patients. This disadvantage will not exist in the new hospitals, where there will be a large number of single rooms attached to general wards. I hope that in the regulations to be made by the Minister the arrangements in existing hospitals will be left so that boards of governors and management committees decide how Section 5 patients be accommodated, as so much will depend on local circumstances.
Also, I very much hope that consideration will be given to payments, which are not the same over the country for a private ward or for a bed designated in a ward. With regard to the charges for private patients, I think there is a great deal to be said for the Ministry's fixing national charges in certain classes of hospitals. At the moment there are great differences, as the noble Baroness said, in what a private patient pays,
584
depending on the type of hospital and where the hospital is situated. The actual hospital charges for private patients are not published, but are directly related to the cost per in-patient per week at the various hospitals. The following figures indicate the sort of differences which exist. I expect your Lordships know them, but I will give them because they illustrate the differences. In London teaching hospitals the cost is about £61 16s. 5d. per week; in provincial teaching hospitals, £54 16s. 7d.; non-teaching hospitals, £43 11s. 5d. These figures are the average cost per in-patient per week in acute hospitals of over 100 beds, and are taken from the Ministry of Health costing returns for the year ending March 31, 1967.
The next clause I would refer to is Clause 5. Some time ago I believe that the Ministry discussed with representatives of teaching hospitals a clause on these lines in a future Bill. I understand that the primary reason for seeking these powers was, as the noble Baroness said, because of the new medical schools at Nottingham and Southampton. Of course, it was rather difficult at Nottingham, because Nottingham is in the Sheffield Regional Board area which already has the board of governors of Sheffield Teaching Hospital run on traditional lines. I believe that in discussions with teaching hospitals the Minister's view was that new powers were required to try out new administrative arrangements on an experimental basis. An attempt was made to persuade the Ministry that these powers should be limited to Nottingham. Understandably, I think, the Minister has taken the view that if he has to seek an alteration of an Act of Parliament he must do so in such a way as to be able to use the extended powers where he thinks they will be appropriate in the future, rather than to have a restrictive amendment limited to the present position in two hospitals and two medical schools.
I feel that, while the Minister is seeking these wide enabling powers, I should like to ask the noble Baroness who is to reply for the Government for an undertaking that the Minister intends to use them initially for experimenting with the constitutional arrangements for the newly-established medical schools and teaching

585
hospitals which are to be called university hospitals, and that before he extends his powers 10 existing teaching hospitals he should not only consult the university concerned but also the board of governors of the existing teaching hospitals; also that the result of the experiments in these new university hospitals should be properly and independently evaluated, and, finally, that the unique position in London should be given special consideration, particularly in view of the Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education, which, as the noble Lord said just now, has just been published and where many drastic recommendations on teaching hospitals, and London teaching hospitals in particular, are suggested.
I should like to say that I am a little disappointed that there is no mention of the ambulance services, which I hoped were going to be transferred from the local health authorities to the hospital authorities, which I am sure would make for more efficient running. But I hope that this is only a delay. I should like to end by saying that I am extremely glad to hear from the noble Baroness that the Minister is to have further powers to pay fares for journeys by road as well as by rail of visitors to special hospitals. I know something about special hospitals, and I know how important visitors are to the patients in those hospitals, and it will make a tremendous difference if the visitors can go by road as well as by rail.
8.15 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity of congratulating the noble Lady on her maiden speech. She has acquitted herself excellently, if I may say so without appearing to be patronising, and I am sure that the House was very impressed by the fact that she had studied the Bill well and was able to approach it with specialised knowledge—indeed not only with specialised knowledge but, obviously, with practical knowledge of hospitals in which, I presume, she has worked. I am quite sure that I am voicing the opinion of noble Lords on all sides in telling her that we look forward to her next contribution to a debate of this kind.
We have had this Bill described in all kinds of ways, but I think we should remember that, for some reason, it is the policy of Government Departments to
586
accumulate reports on anomalies and grievances over the years; that these reports are collected together and, are dealt with in what is called an amending Bill. We have this curious Bill before us today. I feel very strongly that if as a result of some omission in an Act an obvious injustice becomes apparent, this injustice should be remedied forthwith. In this case 17 years have elapsed since the last amending Act. It is an absolutely remarkable feat of a Government Department. I should have thought that this long time lag must have been responsible for causing pain and distress to untold numbers of people who might have benefited by many of the recommendations which are embodied in the clauses of this Bill. Nevertheless, I must say, having been in at the debate upon the inception of the National Health Service, that the magnificent contribution of that Service remains outstanding, despite the attempts on the part of some people to introduce prescription charges.
I, like others, of course, muss pursue a kind of obstacle race and leave out reference to certain clauses while emphasising others, and as usual I am tempted to digress. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, tempted me once more. The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, told me the other day that never more was he going to take part in a pharmaceutical debate; he had retired from that area. Whenever I raise this question he gets up and says. "This is the noble Lady's ritual dance". The noble Lady has now performed the "ritual dance" for many years in both Houses, and, of course, when I have this invitation to the dance from the Front Bench of the Liberal Party to-day I must intervene.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said something that has been repeated over and over again in both places year after year since the introduction of the National Health Service. He told us how important the contribution of the pharmaceutical industry has been to the National Health Service. No one denies that the pharmaceutical industry has some brilliant young men working for it, but what we object to intensely time after time—and this is why Clause 25, which I welcome, has been embodied in the Bill—is that the pharmaceutical industry makes colossal profits, out of all proportion to the contribution it makes.

587
As I went to my front door this morning, I saw 18 glossy advertisements which had been put through the door with my letters. I agree that there are two doctors in our house, but the cost of sales promotion is absolutely disproportionate. And do not think that I am, as the noble Lord says, performing my "ritual dance": I am echoing what the Estimates Committee said. The Estimates Committee sits in another place to examine the estimates of Government Departments and to examine the estimates of the National Health Service. It has proved time after time that the pharmaceautical industry over the years has used the National Health Service as a milch cow. That is what we object to. Having said that once more, I must return to my main comments. But the reason I get so annoyed is because I know that all this money that is wasted could be used in other ways. We have heard to-night from the noble Baroness who introduced the Bill that some of these clauses which embody important recommendations cannot be brought into force yet, for economic reasons. That is why some of us feel that some of this money which is spent on drugs that are entirely unnecessary could be diverted into other channels.
Having taken up time in saying that, I want now to say that I welcome—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, will "smack me down" after I have said this—Clause 5, which at long last transfers the administration of some hospitals concerned with teaching from the arbitrary direction of the boards of governors to the less hidebound Regional Hospital Boards.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, said he would leave it to me to say something about women medical students. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, may criticise this provision in Clause 5, but may I say that the case I can put to him, to support what I have just said, is the record of the treatment of women medical students by the medical schools over the last hundred years. I hope that now there is this little light at the end of the tunnel we shall take the power from some of the governors and transfer it to a body which, in my opinion, is more democratic and more generous in its treatment of women medical students. I hope that perhaps he also will change his mind.
588
The noble Lord knows as well as I do—and again I must digress, despite the lateness of the hour—that here in this country we have doctors from Pakistan and from India, countries which are desperately in need of doctors themselves, yet in the medical schools of London only a small percentage of women medical students are allowed.
In another place a discussion is going on at the moment in regard to race discrimination, when the most disgraceful sex discrimination exists in this country, particularly in the teaching hospitals of London. If the women of this country, the able girls from our schools, had been permitted, to go into the medical schools, we should have had so many first-class doctors that we should have been able to leave the Pakistanis and the Indians to their own countries. I welcome Clause 5, because at long last we are going to take the power from the governors of the hospitals and give it to the Regional Hospital Boards.
I also welcome the change in policy effected in Clause 10, which is in the interests of the midwifery service. Those things are quite revolutionary in the field of medicine, because the domiciliary midwives are to be allowed to work in our hospitals and thus, with the general practitioners, they will be more closely related to the hospital service. I am also glad to think that this will help to remove any lingering prejudice concerning hospital confinements.
We come back to the question of home-helps. Your Lordships will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, put down a Motion on welfare just before the Recess, and many of us raised these matters on that occasion. Many of the points we raised then are embodied in this Bill. The provision which makes it a statutory duty of local authorities to provide home-help services and laundry facilities is long overdue. For years speakers in health debates, in both Houses, have emphasised the need for a comprehensive domiciliary service, and the nub of a domiciliary service is the assistance given by an efficient home-help, particularly where the patient is old and infirm.
Again, I am exceedingly sorry to learn from my noble friend that this service may have to be deferred. She said, "This is what we want to do, but it

589
may have to be deferred because we have not enough money". The home-help is the key worker in a home in which both the man and the wife are getting on and need some help, yet we have been told to-day that not enough money is available for that key worker.
Then, although we make the provision of home-helps a statutory duty, that will not necessarily increase the number of women who are prepared to do domestic work. Perhaps my noble friend will recall that on the occasion of the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I asked whether a method could be introduced which would be cheap and effective. I suggested that in roads where there were old and sick people women should be invited to give their services on an hourly or two-hourly basis, instead of the old people having to have the home-help service, which is often full-time and does not enable many women to help the sick. I suggested that there might be a kind of warden service, such as we had during the war, so that in an emergency a woman could still run her home, and be there for her husband's dinner, and could also give a hand along the road. That would be a practical approach to the problem, and it would be much cheaper. I did not have an answer to that suggestion, but maybe the Ministry could say that although they are unable to introduce the more expensive service they could introduce something along the lines that I have suggested.
Clause 45 deals with the promotion, by local authorities, of the welfare of old people. Again, the only question is: where are all the people who will be needed, with their various qualifications, to be found? I would point out—and the noble Baroness has mentioned it—that this clause deals not only with personal services for the old people but also with providing accommodation, converting houses and doing all kinds of things for them in the home, apart from domestic work.
I am surprised that the Minister has not put any date to this provision. He has given the power, but he has not said to the local authorities, "We expect you to do something within a certain period". If we are to be guided by experience, this will mean that those authorities which in the past have been
590
slow to implement welfare provisions will again be dilatory. My noble friend knows that throughout the country there are efficient local authorities who have a well-developed social conscience, and who use their powers. But there are others who are slow; and now, of course, if the Minister fails to put a date to any of these provisions, those who have failed to make proper provision previously will continue in that way.
I now come to Clause 59, which makes amendments to the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948. This clause may not appear to be related to the provisions concerned with the welfare of the aged, but it seems to me that there is a close connection, for it is agreed that the welfare of old people depends so much on the availability of a number of women, many of whom have had some special kind of training. The trained woman to-day is growing accustomed to taking marriage in her stride and to resuming the work for which she has been trained as soon as she can secure adequate care for her small children. This has resulted in a widespread demand for day accommodation for the pre-school child. I have only to remind your Lordships of the calls one hears on the radio for women to go into education and into the social services—the pressure put on married women to use their skills. And the women are quite prepared to come forward.
It has been estimated that in England and Wales nineteen times more children are now being looked after in day nurseries or by minders than in 1929. But owing to the failure of the local authorities to provide adequate facilities, women have been compelled to find childminders some of whom undoubtedly do not achieve the highest standard>. This Bill provides for more supervision in those cases where a person is paid for caring for a child. This seems highly desirable, but of course it will result in reducing the available accommodation. Therefore I say that it should be accompanied by provisions whereby the local authorities will make amends for their serious omission to provide nurseries.
Of course many of the child minders are short of the ideal. We have only to recall some of the stories of the 19th century when the children in the factories in the North were all looked after by

591
child-minders and all developed rickets. But it ill-behoves the Ministry to wave the big stick at the culprits and threaten all kinds of dire penalties. Under this Bill, if a woman who takes in children has not been registered, and so on, her offence will cost her £100 and she may go to prison for three months. The real culprits are the central and local government departments, which includes the education departments, who fail to provide adequate accommodation. Private minders can thrive only if the alternative arrangements are not there. There are more than 4 million children under the age of 5, and a little under half that number are in the 2 to 4 age groups. During the war, when the Government felt it was absolutely necessary to get the services of every woman, as indeed they do to-day, they provided 1,599 nurseries in England and Wales. Now there are only 448 and the number is being steadily reduced.
I hope that the men who read my speech will forgive my saying this, but I feel very deeply about it. It seems to me that there exists a conflict between the emotional and the intellectual approach of many men in places of authority to-day. On the one hand, they recognise that the trained woman is in great demand and they are the first to describe her training as wasted if she does not use her skill. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, has heard that word before in medicine. On the other hand, they turn a deaf ear to her appeals for help in finding accommodation for her pre-school child without which she cannot offer her services. Successive Governments have exploited the loyalty of women, but this is more reprehensible in a Labour Government whose members have been parties to the pledges made to women over the years of more nursery schools and all the provisions calculated to lighten the load of the working woman and housewife. That has been said time after time, yet no action has been taken.
Now we have got to the stage of having to introduce a clause in this Bill which threatens those women who dare to care for the children of women whose services are desperately needed, unless they have fulfilled certain obligations. So often we have to repeat appeals here time after time. There are matters in this Bill which should have been considered long, long
592
ago; but at last they have come before this House and another place. I ask the noble Baroness, who understands the points I have raised, to use her power in the right places to bring pressure to bear, because my voice has been ineffectual for many years.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, may I say one thing to the noble Baroness? She made certain strictures upon hospitals for their unwillingness to accept female persons into the medical schools. Would she not agree that in certain London teaching hospitals, notably the Middlesex Hospital at least, there is a high proportion of women nowadays?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am glad the noble Earl has raised this point. In the old days there was a very tiny proportion—something like 5 per cent. I was educated at the Charing Cross Hospital after the First World War when they were very short of men. It only needed the men to come back for the Charing Cross Hospital to close its doors and not admit one woman. The reason why things have changed is because the University Grants Committee wagged a big stick at the governors and said, "If you do not admit women, no more money". We got in not because there was a moral change but only because it was financially advantageous to admit us.
8.35 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should not like the noble Baroness to get away with being the only person to congratulate Lady Ruthven of Freeland on her maiden speech. I think it should come from a male Member of your Lordships' House as well as from one of our most distinguished women Members. I am sure we all enjoyed her speech very much and hope to hear her again on many occasions on this subject.
This Bill is indeed a sort of rag-bag, but you cannot expect it to be otherwise because it is the first amending Bill for 17 years, and if you wait 17 years you are bound to have a rag-bag. There are only one or two points I want to bring up; I cannot possibly deal with the whole Bill at this time. One of the things I was pleased to see was in Clause 5, where at last we are going to get Nottingham and Southampton recognised as medical schools. I was very interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Platt,

593
about what may be the future of boards of governors and Regional Boards, but there was one point that occurred to me concerning Nottingham and Southampton. At the present time one of the great advantages of the boards of governors of the teaching schools is that they have, I believe, direct access to the Minister. Will that be the same for the short period until the Report on medical education is presented and something is finally settled? Will those two university hospitals have the same privilege?
Suppose they have not, it may come, because things take some time to develop, and it may take some time for the Report of the Royal Commission to be implemented. There may be a first-class and a second-class grade of teaching hospital, which would be a most unfortunate thing, because I think the plan which has come out for Nottingham and Southampton is one which should be very much in our minds when we are planning in the future. I should like to say one kind word about boards of governors. I worked under a board for a very long time, though I do not any more. Even supposing they were to encourage more women to become medical students, the point is that a school cannot take more than a certain number of people. If you get a larger proportion of women you will not get so many men, and as so many of the women get married, because they are most charming and attractive people, and go away from the profession, the final result will be that there will not be so many doctors as there were.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, there is a balance a little bit on the other side, in that the men emigrate more than the women do.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that comment. I should like to touch on Clause 13. I am very pleased indeed that the home help service has become statutory. I do not think this will mean that there will be many more home helps, because so far as I know there are no areas where there is not a good local authority home help scheme operating at the present time. The real drawback to increasing the number of home helps is not the fact that local authorities cannot afford to pay them, but that they cannot get suitable women or men—there have been one or
594
two quite good men home helps—to take on the job. Although one wants to see the practice expanded as much as possible, the fact that it becomes statutory does not necesarily mean that people will become home helps. What I think is sad, and where money may play a part, is that the laundry service is not a statutory but a permissive service. I talk from considerable experience with regard to the elderly. I think this is a service of enormous value in keeping people in their homes.
As the noble Baroness I think said, one wants to make a complete domiciliary service, and therefore one wants considerably more meals-on-wheels available. The Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the Red Cross and local authorities do a great deal in regard to these meals, but quite frequently one sees a scheme operating where the meals are available on only two or three days a week, whereas to be really effective they ought to be available on days a week at a minimum. If it could be made seven days a week, that would be marvellous, but that is not something which I think is simple to bring about.
One trouble about planning domiciliary services is that one does not really know accurately what number of people require the services. One wonders whether that information could not be obtained from a certain type of patient, certainly those who have been in hospital. When the patient is discharged from hospital, perhaps some kind of social note as well as a medical summary could be put on his notes. This could be sent to the appropriate authority, who would then know of the number of people who are coming out and would or would no: need some kind of service. At present I do not think that this is done at all, and it makes things just a little difficult.
The other clause which I should like to touch on is Clause 33, which enables the Minister to give vehicles to cli5abled persons. I think that is something which could be expanded a good deal. There are complicated and good typewriters called "Possums" which are used particularly at the spinal injury centre at Stoke Mandeville, where people who are completely paralysed, apart from their faces and heads—they may have had a fracture of their neck rather high up

595
—can learn to type. If they cannot type, at least they can be left by themselves, because they can work their Possum machines with their tongues, and they can do an enormous number of things which are necessary if someone is to be left by himself. I admit that these machines are expensive, but they are nowhere near as expensive as the cost of keeping someone in a hospital of that sort. I think it was the noble Baroness who quoted the cost of keeping people in hospital. A Possum machine costs, I think, about £700 or £800, but that is not a great deal compared with keeping a person in an expensive hospital for the rest of his life. So I hope that that matter will be taken care of when this Bill becomes an Act.
One point which was made by the noble Baroness I did not quite understand—perhaps I did not hear her aright. I refer to Clause 68. I did not quite follow what is to take the place of nursing a patient with respiratory tuberculosis in a general ward. I know that one has all sorts of treatment for open tuberculosis. But I somehow feel that a person in a general ward who has open tuberculosis should be taken to some other ward. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can tell me at some time what is going to take the place of that service.
There are two other things that I should like to mention. First of all, I am pleased to see that arrangements are being made for local authorities to assist voluntary organisations. I am quite sure that that will do much to quieten some of the fears of the voluntary bodies, who are rather afraid that their work might be taken from them by the local authorities. I am sure that the need for voluntary service in the future will go on just as much as now, if not to a greater extent. I am pleased to see that it is now going to be possible to house people in nursing homes run for profit, provided they are registered by the local authority. If that sort of accommodation is available and it is properly inspected it seems to me that there is no harm in paying for people to be taken into such places.
Finally, I should like to say how sorry I am that no attempt is being made in this Bill to bring industrial health into the National Health Service. No attempt is
596
being made to modify the school medical service, an extremely valuable and necessary service when it came into being. One wonders whether it now ought to be made more a part of the family doctor service. One thing has always worried me. The budgeting for hospital is done on an annual basis. The money which has not been spent by the end of March has to go back to the Treasury. Nothing can be saved in order to put into operation a project in five years' time. I think that is a point which a Bill like this, or some amending Bill, should take care of, because I am sure that a great deal of money is spent unnecessarily.
I must apologise, as I have already done to the noble Baroness, that because of a prior engagement I shall not be able to stay. I promised that I would ask her a number of questions, but as this Bill has come on rather late tonight I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness could reply to my points so that I may read them in the OFFICIAL REPORT, or possibly she may answer by post.
8.48 p.m.
LORD COTTESLOE: My Lords, I too should like to say what a great pleasure it has been to hear my noble friend Lady Ruthven of Freeland make her maiden speech in this House, and to congratulate her on what I hope is the first of many speeches that we shall hear from her. It is of course entirely right and proper that some twenty years after the passing of the Act of 1946 which brought into being the National Health Services Parliament should review, in the light of experience, the working of that Act, and other associated Acts, and should amend them to enable them to function more smoothly and effectively.
In general, in my view, this Bill will have that effect; and although it does not, and perhaps could not, attempt to solve some of the more intractable major difficulties inherent in the Health Service, some of them of great importance—such as the difficulties that are inherent in the tripartite administration of the Service as between the executive councils, the local authorities, the Regional Hospital Boards and boards of governors; and although this Bill can only scratch the surface and deal with some of the difficulties and anomalies, it is a Bill which, in general, we must all wish to welcome.

597
It has the advantage of having been brought to Parliament by a Minister who for many years has devoted himself wholeheartedly to the Health Service and to its problems, as I myself have seen when for seven years Mr. Kenneth Robinson and I served as members of the same Regional Hospital Board. We may all feel fortunate, whatever our political attachments may be, that we have him in charge of the Health Service at present.
Having said that, I want only to raise one particular point on the Bill, but it is a point of such importance that I make no apology for raising it in this Second Reading debate, rather than waiting for the Committee stage of the Bill. It is in fact a point to which reference has been made by a number of other speakers. Clause 5 of the Bill is an enabling clause by which the Minister takes power to designate a hospital or a group of hospitals as a "university hospital"—a new kind of animal—to be administered under the Regional Hospital Board. It is well understood that the purpose of this provision is to enable the Minister to introduce experimentally a new form of administration for the new university teaching hospital at Nottingham, and perhaps also for a similar experiment at Southampton. No-one takes exception to a limited experiment of that kind—or, at any rate, if there are those who take exception, I am not one of them; I am entirely in favour of it.
But this enabling clause goes a great deal further than that. It would enable the Minister, if he so wished, at any time and without reference to Parliament, to make a fundamental and far-reaching change in the whole administrative structure of the hospital service. He could at any time designate any or all of the teaching hospitals which are at present administered by their own boards of governors directly responsible to the Minister, so as to put them under the Regional Hospital Boards. It has been suggested that he already has this power, but I doubt this. If indeed he already has the power, then I do not know why the clause is in the Bill at all.
I do not believe that the present Minister has in fact any intention of doing anything of the sort—indeed, he
598
has said so in another place. But it seems to me to be absolutely wrong that, in order that he may conduct a limited experiment at Nottingham and Southampton, he should take not only the limited powers necessary for that purpose but these very sweeping general enabling powers. The fact that he proposes to do so has caused widespread concern among the Metropolitan teaching hospitals, 12 undergraduate teaching hospitals and 15 post-graduate teaching hospitals. This concern is, in my view, fully justified. Not only would such a change (and, as we have heard, is is not without its advocates) be contrary to the considered advice of both the Guillebaud and the Porritt Committees (I will come later to the Royal Commission under the noble Lord, Lord Todd), but would almost certainly, in the Metropolitan area, be detrimental to the exemplary standard of the service given to the public by those hospitals and to the training given in their medical schools.
I do not speak without some knowledge, as a layman, of both sides of this matter. I was for seven years the Chairman of a Regional Hospital Board responsible for 150 hospitals; and I am presently Chairman of a great teaching hospital, Hammersmith Hospital. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, that the board of governors of that hospital, is no more hidebound than was the Regional Hospital Board, and the Regional Hospital Board was no more democratic than is the board of governors; and I am closely in touch through their teaching institutes with more than half the other teaching hospitals in London.
In another place, during the debates on this Bill, the Minister gave the following assurance:
"It is not my present intention to use the clause to effect sweeping changes in the administration of teaching hospitals already controlled by boards of governors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 7/12/67; col. 1686.]
And in the Committee stage he repeated that assurance in these words:
"… and I assure the Committee that there is nothing in my mind at present concerning the possibility of using this power."
Then subsequently he said:
"I hope that I have said enough … to set at rest any fears that exist in teaching hospitals about the passage of the Bill and the clause into law or about these provisions presaging

599
great and sweeping changes in their functions and responsibilities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 30/1/68; col. 107.]
Since those assurances were given in another place the Report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education, Lord Todd's Commission, has been published, and the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has referred to that Report. I do not propose to follow Lord Platt into any discussion of the Report, except on the one relevant point. We shall no doubt have an opportunity at some other time of wide-ranging discussion on the sweeping and drastic recommendations of the Royal Commission. On the particular point with which we are dealing at this moment, the Commission recommend arrangements for the teaching hospitals generally on the pattern of those proposed for the Nottingham experiment. They thus, as it seems to me, prejudge the issue of that experiment.
It reminds me a little of a specification I once saw for a War Office trial, which started with the words, "The object of this trial is to establish the fact that …" I have far too much respect for the Minister to think that he will wish to prejudge this issue. It may indeed be that the Nottingham pattern (which derives from a somewhat similar arrangement in Scotland, not altogether free from criticism in practice, though I am advised that it works pretty well) might be suitable for a hospital region in the English provinces with only one or, perhaps, two teaching hospitals in the region. It might at the same time be utterly unsuitable for the Metropolitan area with no fewer than 27 teaching hospitals. The circumstances of the two are quite different.
In my view, this clause ought to be amended so as to limit its effect to the particular experiment which the Minister wishes to carry out. If he has no intention of making sweeping changes there is no need for sweeping powers. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, when she comes to reply, may be able to hold out some hope that the Government will in Committee bring forward a suitable Amendment to this clause. However, I am a realist, and I suppose it is not very probable that she will feel able to do so. But, in any event, I ask her to repeat categorically what I understood
600
her to say in her opening speech, that the assurances that were given by the Minister in another place still stand.
9.1 p.m.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I intend to follow the noble Lords, Lord Newton and Lord Ogmore, in talking about Clause 25 of this Bill, which is a very important one and is based on recommendation 11 of the Sainsbury Committee. I must remind the House that two things have happened since that recommendation was made. The first is that the Banks Committee has been appointed by the President of the Board of Trade to 'consider the question of the law on patents generally. Clause 25 as it stands deals with a series of sections of the Patents Act. It may be that recommendations will be made to recast entirely all or some of the sections, and possibly even the words "the services of the Crown" may not appear. So we can expect that Clause 25 will be a fairly short time in operation. The second thing that has happened is that there was a disastrous error on the part of Mr. Enoch Powell in the use of Section 46 of the Patents Act. I think that both of those facts modify the effect of the Sainsbury Committee's recommendation.
I need only say that there appears to be no immediate need for this provision, because the Minister has already said that it is intended to put it into effect only as a last resort. Another defect is that the clause as drafted covers only Part IV of the National Health Service Acts; it does not cover the hospital services. Noble Lords may say, "Well, that was decided in Pfizer v. Minister of Health." So it was, but it was a three to two decision, and now that the decisions of this House are held not to be binding on a future appellate committee it might be somewhat rash to say that the House will find the same way in the future. The effect if this clause became law would be that Section 46 of the Patents Act would apply to the general practitioners, but not to the hospital services. I think that the clause ought, at any rate, to be amended to make it clear that it applies to all services under the National Health Act.
I think I must say something about the result which has followed the stretching of the scope of Section 46, which was commenced by Mr. Enoch Powell and

601
was continued by the present Government. That result has been rather disastrous, because it appears that there has been a great temptation to save money at the risk of patients. It is a fact that under Section 41 of the Act a bona fide seller of drugs can obtain a licence to sell a patented drug to anyone, although it is true that the Sainsbury Committee said that this was a difficult process. One can only hope that the Banks Committee may suggest some easier method than the elaborate hearings which have taken place. I must say that the elaborate hearings which have taken place under Section 41 have been occasioned largely by the fact that the opponents have challenged the bona fides of the intending licensee. But if a really reputable firm came forward I feel that the time taken in hearings under Section 41 would be very much shorter than in the past.
The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, who is not in her place, was, I believe, wrong in suggesting that the big drug companies made enormous profits, rather implying in the alternative that those people who were authorised to supply under Section 46 did not make enormous profits. That is exactly the opposite from the truth. Those small importers who are employed by the Minister make enormous profits. They may supply the drugs to the Ministry more cheaply than do the big firms, but they have no overheads whatsoever—no advertising, no research, nothing else, and they can make a colossal profit on their goods. It really is a case of bringing in other suppliers who are going to make a very good thing out of it. I think that Clause 25 as it stands is an invitation to extend the dangers of Section 46 of the Patents Act to the field of general practice, and I cannot help thinking that those dangers are very considerable.
9.7 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, this is a very late hour indeed at which to be discussing a major Bill. I certainly do not want to be critical of those in charge of our Parliamentary programme, but, after all, this is a far-reaching measure and it is a great pity that at this late hour these vital deliberations should be taking place. This is one of two major medical Bills in the present Session of Parliament. This par-
602
ticular Bill has many provisions. It had a long discussion in the other place, which included twelve full sittings in Standing Committee and quite a large number of Divisions. As a result, the Bill has been very fully discussed. Although I think it is an overloaded Bill, an indigestible Bill in that it has so much content in it, there is much in it which can be fully commended.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, I should like to commend most particularly Clause 65 of the Bill. I sit on the house committee of a mental hospital, although it is not in fact one of the special hospitals to which this Bill chiefly refers, and I have read the Report of the Select Committee on Special Hospitals. It is an excellent Report and a very moving Report. I am sun!, that the provisions contained in this Bill to make available more transport facilities will improve the morale, not only of the patients, and particularly those patients who are sufficiently in possession of a sound mind to understand at least a little of what goes on around them, but also of their parents, relations and friends. At a time when something like one in every nine people in this country undergoes treatment for some kind of mental condition, possibly a very minor mental condition, at some time in their lives, this is a significant pointer. These hospitals, or some of them at any rate, are situated a very long way from public transport, and therefore it is not a ways possible for those who have not got cars of their own, or even for those who have cars, to visit their relations or friends as often as they would like.
Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill are particularly important, especially the provisions relating to pay beds. Like, I think, all my noble friends—and, indeed, all noble Lords in this House—I have the greatest admiration for the National Health Service. My family and I use it ourselves. But there is no doubt that various schemes, such as that provided by the British United Provident Association and others, at least help to off load some of the enormous burdens put on the National Health Service. I noticed that in the proceedings in another place the Minister seemed, if not to pour scorn on B.U.P.A., to have certain reservations about it. Since I do not use the scheme myself I will not pursue that point

603
further, but there are times when people like to avail themselves of private treatment, and I hope that the present Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, even if I do not always respect his politics, will not entirely close his mind to being more flexible on this particular clause.
The clauses relating to the welfare services are very important, but I shall not pursue them at this hour of the evening. The Bill itself is obviously one for thorough discussion on the Committee stage. Reference has been made to the new Clause 5, particularly by my noble friend Lord Cawley, who has given a full explanation of its legal contents. I must add my own, albeit mild, protest at the fact that it has been slipped into this Bill under the auspices of a private Member in another place, and not put in what I should have thought was its rightful place, in the Medicines Bill, when there had been more opportunity to allow the profession and the pharmaceutical industry as a whole to have a proper discussion of the Sainsbury Report.
I dare say the pharmaceutical industry make mistakes, and I dare say that some companies make bigger profits than is perhaps decent in these days of stringency. But it is also true to say—and I have seen this with my own eyes among pharmaceutical companies which I have visited and where I have asked close questions—that much is put into genuine research and that the outcome of that research is that many people have a shorter stay in hospital than they previously would have had. What worries me about this amendment to Section 46 is this. Who bears the blame when something goes wrong? As the Sunday Telegraph recently reminded us, we have had the harrowing story of the thalidomide tragedy. This is not the hour and I am not a qualified person to re-live this scene; but I fear that if this clause goes through in its present form and if something like this happens again, if the Ministry take the powers they have done, we shall have enormous difficulties when it comes to litigation. We all pray that this will not happen again. I think the general care which is taken by the pharmaceutical industry to-day will ensure that it will not.
604
This Bill will need a great deal of looking into in the Committee and its further stages; but, taken as a whole, although I think it is an overweighted Bill, it will be another landmark in the history of our health service; and this St. George's Day is a suitable day, even though at a late hour, for giving the initial discussion in your Lordships' House to this measure.
9.16 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to begin my speech by supporting the noble Lord who has just sat down in what he has said about the hour at which this very important Bill is being discussed in this House. This is not the first time recently that words such as these have passed my lips in this House; but I feel that it is quite wrong that the somewhat cumbrous proceedings like those of the Committee and Report stages of the Social Work (Scotland) Bill should have occupied so much time. Including the Amendments to the Schedules on Committee and the 97 Amendments at the Report stage, there were 345 Amendments to a Bill of 98 clauses. Can nothing be done to see that a major Bill of this important nature is discussed in a full House at a proper time of day? I apologise for taking up your Lordships' time on this, but I feel that it is a matter of great importance.
My Lords, I now turn to the pleasure it has given us all to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, and to express the hope that we shall hear from her again. I was struck by and interested in her pointing to the fact that the Bill contains no reference to the ambulance services. I would in passing mention that these services are of very great importance in Scotland. The farther away you get from the centres, the longer the distance to hospital, the more important become the ambulance services, their cost, their frequency, the conditions of the vehicles, the heating and so on, in their contribution to the national health.
I welcome the clauses which apply to Scotland, and particularly Clause 15, which is a provision for advice et cetera on family planning. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, made some reference to that clause. I presume that this will mean that the district nurses services in Scotland will be used in connection with

605
family planning advice in a way that they have not been able to be used before. I should like also to know how collaboration with the Family Planning Association, to which the noble Lord, Lord Platt, referred, is going to work out in Scotland. If it is not possible at this time to give an answer, as it were, across the table, perhaps the noble Baroness could write to me.
Speaking as a Scotsman, I also welcome Clause 19, which refers to the ophthalmic services, and to Clause 37, which provides for the payment of allowances and remuneration to members of certain advisory bodies, committees and the like in Scotland. This is reasonable and welcome if only because of the long distances which these people have to travel and the great sacrifices which they have to make. The greater the distance, the greater the cost of transport and the amount of time which an individual puts at the disposal of the State. The levels at which these people will be compensated will be moderate, and so they should be; though it is as well to remember that one of the troubles of the active professional man, or the highly paid commercial executive, or the busy tradesman who undertakes public work is that at these levels he will not be compensated for loss of earnings.
My Lords, as might be expected after the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, to whom I sent a message that I proposed to refer to her speech, I intend to refer to Clause 25. I assure your Lordships that I have very little interest to declare in the pharmaceutical industry compared with that which I used to have. I am a small shareholder but now I am "on the shelf". I hold no directorships and no executive position, but after the dozen or so years during which I enjoyed an active and fascinating connection with the industry, I feel that I have a contribution to make, and knowledge and experience which that connection gave to me which I can place at the disposal of your Lordships. No longer having an active interest in the pharmaceutical industry, I am enabled, while stepping a measure with the noble Lady in her ritual dance, to feel rather like a boy out of school. But joking apart, I have something important to say, and not only with regard to patents as they refer to the pharmaceutical
606
industry. I must declare an interest as a patentee, as I have a patent of my own, but that has nothing to do with pharmaceuticals.
I should like to support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and I would ask the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, to give most careful consideration to the figures which he quoted, and which I have no doubt are thoroughly reliable. I was interested to hear her say that it is the intention of the Government to amend Clause 25 during the Committee stage. Like many other noble Lords, I look forward to seeing what Amendments will be proposed. I assure your Lordships that unless the Amendments alter the whole structure of the clause, I am one who will oppose it tooth and nail.
I wish to refer to the cost of drugs—I will refer to profits later—and the fact that costs are increasing. Right from the beginning of the attack on the pharmaceutical industry (which dates from the occasion when Mr. Enoch Powell invoked Section 46 of the Patents Act; perhaps it would be wrong at this juncture to refer to him as "the nigger in the woodpile") people have overlooked the fact that in return for the increased cost of drugs, which arises from the drugs themselves being infinitely more complex and more costly to manufacture, the State and the people have obtained a reward as a "contra" entry in terms of hours of work saved, lives saved and fewer bed-days in hospital which is out of all proportion to the increase in the cost of drugs, which I think I am right in saying is less than the cost of the laundry. The costs may be high, but when people talk about the value of patents, they must remember that something like 99 out of 100 prove failures. There is another element, that of risk, to which I would draw your Lordships' attention. I know of an instance where some £100,000 was spent on a pilot plant to develop a new invention of an excellent drug, and not one single ounce came from that plant because before it was complete a better drug had been discovered. This is the sort of outlay that falls upon an industry of this nature, in which research has to be followed by the running of risks. Is the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, so sure that the profits are vast?

607
The noble Lord, Lord Cawley, has referred to the profits on the turnover of small importers. When we look at the dividends paid by the main manufacturing groups, we find that there are other products besides drugs, and besides those drugs which are sold to the National Health Service. There are bulk products, health drinks, invalid foods and the like. There is one very profitable line, which is hair cream. I am told that there is one drug on which the research costs were so great that although it is now beginning to sell well, some £8 million of profit will have to be made before the research costs are recouped. I beg your Lordships to take the stories of vast profits with a good grain of salt. In saying this, I do not omit the Sainsbury Report, as this is not altogether wide enough in its range on this subject.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness is not here, because she referred to the promotional expenditure undertaken by the pharmaceutical industry and to the loads of "glossies" which arrived in her letterbox. If I may say so, the noble Baroness is excessively fussy to-day. How many of your Lordships read more than a fraction of the "glossies" that come through the letterbox of a simple Peer every day? I have a son-in-law who is an architect, and he says that his letterbox is infinitely fuller of glossy brochures than any doctor's. We must face the fact that we are living in the 20th century and that this promotion, though quite unethical in regard to medicinal products in this country, is the usual way in which such products are sold, greatly to the benefit of the people in other parts of the world, particularly in backward nations.
I think it is proper to refer to another factor in promotional expenditure. The pharmaceutical representative is sometimes pictured as a sort of bagman. This is most unfair. The pharmaceutical representative of to-day is a highly skilled individual, qualified not only by experience in his trade, but almost certainly by training as well. The point I particularly want to make to your Lordships is that the representative not only goes to the doctor—and he is a very welcome caller on many doctors—with information of the latest developments in these complex drugs, but also provides
608
a link in the reverse direction between the doctor and the manufacturer. The manufacturer uses the representative as a way of keeping in touch with what the doctor needs; and what the doctor needs is what the patient needs. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, made reference to the enormous contribution to curative medicine which the pharmaceutical industry has made.
I would conclude with a further reference to the main principle of Clause 25. If this sort of attitude is the attitude of the Government to reward ingenuity or inventiveness, then no wonder there is a brain-drain. This sort of attitude to patents or copyrights is a chip on the shoulder. It is total disregard of the Tenth Commandment. As soon as an invention is profitable, surely the State benefits from taxation. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, on his point about the dangers that lie ahead if the State is going to try to take a share in the profits on patents. I would go further and remind your Lordships that Clause 25 does not refer alone to medicines. It is a widely spread clause, and a much more tricky matter than appears on the surface. I am sure all noble Lords will join with me in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, when she said that Clause 25 is to be considerably amended in Committee. If patents or copyrights are to be disregarded like this, it will, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, drive research and ingenuity out of this country; and it will lead to the brain-drain to which I have referred.
LORD OGMORE: If I may intervene, is there not another matter which arises here? I overlooked this point, but had intended to mention it. Many countries who copy us will adopt this procedure, not only for pharmaceutical products, but for all sorts of manufactures, and that will be an enormous loss to our export trade. That is one of the points that I think should be made.
LORD FERRIER: The noble Lord is absolutely right, and I agree with every word that he says. In the light of what the noble Lord has said, I think it is fair to advert to the fact that one of the biggest troubles (I speak from memory) is the import of complex medicaments from Italy where no patent law exists.

609
It is this fact which has brought about the profits of certain importers to which the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, referred. I am sure I am right in saying that Italy is finding that this is not worth the candle, and that they will have to change their attitude. In other words, what the noble Lord has said reinforces the point I am trying to make; namely, that this clause is the thin end of an important and valuable wedge to anybody who wishes to strike at the profitability of British industries. It would contribute to long-term loss in balance of payments, and it would make us more and more dependent in the future on the import of foreign drugs, which of course would affect the whole economic situation. But the State should not have power, I believe, to override patent rights except in grave national emergency—and, my Lords, surely it is possible that a middle course would be that independent arbitration could be adopted, or something like that. But with other of your Lordships I await with interest the Amendments which the noble Baroness has promised us at the Committee stage.
9.41 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, this is certainly a Bill which can be welcomed wholeheartedly for its intentions, the present intentions of the present Minister who, I think it would be true to say, is admired by all Members of your Lordships' House, on both sides but I do not think it is surprising that it has nevertheless aroused a number of fears and suspicions about its possible future intentions under future Ministers. If, as the Minister has explained in another place, he does not want to make sweeping changes, then, as my noble friend Lord Cottesloe has already said, he ought not to be given sweeping powers by Parliament. It is a good maxim, which was first enunciated by, I think, John Stuart Mill, that any powers the Government are given ought to be treated as though sooner or later they were going to be abused. I think this is something we may have to bear in mind, however much we may admire the present Minister, when it comes to looking at these clauses in Committee.
There were a number of matters I was prepared to talk about on the earlier clauses of this Bill, but as these have all been fully covered by other Members of
610
your Lordships' House I will not touch on any of them, except perhaps to say how welcome, no matter how much overdue, is the news that the Minister is going to publish his proposed plans for an overall change of the whole administrative structure of the National Health Service. I think this is very much to he welcomed.
I should now like to come to a number of clauses which, through no fault of the noble Baroness or of the Minister himself, now amount to little mole than "window-dressing". There is this excellent Clause 13 about the home-help service—in this clause it is called the domestic-help service, but I think that home-help service is better. Then Clause 45 contains provisions for the welfare of the elderly, and Clause 64 deals with local authority grants to voluntary bodies. All these, especially when taken together, would open up tremendous prospects for a person such as the elderly, perhaps bed-ridden, widow, who so far, of all the people who might have been helped by the National Health Service, has probably been helped least.
These are all provisions to which she could look forward with considerable expectation. They provide services in a sector where they have been badly needed for a long time. But, unfortunately, even before this Bill had reached the Committee stage, we had the Prime Minister's Statement in another place on January 16 about the economic state of this country—something for which our noble Lords and Ladies opposite are responsible—and a circular from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, making it quite clear that none of the rate support grant, on which all these three clauses hinge, could be expected before 1969–70. So here is the window full of attractive-looking goods, but all unfortunately labelled, "Not for sale"—a sad commentary on our affairs. Nevertheless, there it is.
I should like now to turn for a moment to one clause on which, surprisingly, I find myself almost in entire agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, Clause 59—the clause about child-minders and nurseries. Here I believe we have a situation where the Government are in error in trying to legislate their way out of difficulties which have very little to do with legislation. As

611
the noble Baroness pointed out, we have a situation in which there is tremendous pressure and inducement of married women to go out to work but extraordinarily little provision for their children under 5, who must be put in somebody else's care if their mothers are to go out working.
Many of the arrangements, I should be the first to admit, made to fill this gap are unsatisfactory. The main remedy, as the noble Lady pointed out so forcibly, lies in better provision. I feel that it is a great mistake to try to put so much of this matter right by legislation. The result will be that much greater and unwarranted restrictions will be put on our freedom as individuals. There will he further intrusion into our homes; further heavy burdens will be laid on the police and officials of the town hall; and I do not believe that, at the end of it, the children now suffering and being abused will be any better off. I think that this is a matter to which we shall have to return at the Committee stage, to see whether we are not able to put it right by adjustment of the clauses as they stand at the moment.
I had intended to turn to the group of clauses, including Clause 25, which give the Minister power to manufacture, sell, supply, and so on, this range of goods over the whole National Health Service. I will not go any more into this now, as it has been so fully covered, except to say that it is not surprising that there is now fear and suspicion about the Minister's intentions. The Sainsbury Report has been called in aid, particularly of Clause 25, but the Sainsbury Report contained these words, under the heading, "Powers of Minister":
"If, after Ministers have settled the details of the future system and have completed discussions with the industry upon it, it appears that the existing powers are insufficient, then the Minister should take the necessary further powers".
And more particularly, under the section headed, "Patents", Article 265, it said:
"Nevertheless, we make no proposals in this respect for we recognise the complexity of the subject and we know that a Committee"—
the Banks Committee—
"has been set up to consider the patent law and recently appointed".
612
In those circumstances, it really is not surprising, if a clause is slipped in at the Report stage, with no mention of it on Second Reading or throughout Committee, that people in the pharmaceutical industry and elsewhere are somewhat bothered. I have no interest whatever in the pharmaceutical industry and I am not here to defend it; but I do not think it ought to surprise the noble Lady and the Minister if people are a little suspicious and fearful if that procedure is the one that has been followed.
I have nearly finished. The only other thing I would say, before turning to my final remarks, is a word about the general practitioner. There is no clause anywhere in this Bill dealing with the general practitioner, but I think it would be absurd to have a debate on the National Health Service and not to say something about him, because he, after all, is the linchpin of the whole Service. The Minister made a number of claims about the general practitioner situation in his introduction of the Bill on Second Reading, and used that sanguine phrase, of which we have heard a good deal in the last three and a half years, about having turned the corner. I hope that we have. But the facts, as we have them, in contrast to the hopes of the Minister are as follows—and I take them from the Minister's last Annual Report (Cmnd. 3326) and the recent Report of the Royal Commission, under the noble Lord, Lord Todd (Cmnd. 3569).
We have doctors coming into the Service, having cost £10,000 each to train. Three hundred out of the 2,000 a year coming into the Service then emigrate—15 per cent. of them—and no doubt some of the ladies among them marry, in spite of what the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill has said.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, they go on working, provided that accommodation is made available for their children.
LORD SANDFORD: But, my Lords, the situation is that the numbers in general practice are actually falling, and not even keeping pace with the population: and we have the general practitioners' lists at 2,453—higher than they have been for sixteen or seventeen years. When we recall, as the Royal Commission under Lord Todd recalled, that

613
90 per cent. of all the illness is treated by the general practitioners, one is bound to feel concerned; and much as I welcome the provisions of this Bill I think this situation should cause us grave concern.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may I intervene to say that a great deal of what needs to be done in general practice can be done without Acts of Parliament? I think this is a point which should be borne in mind.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. That was very much in my mind. I was not complaining that the general practitioner was not mentioned in the Bill. I was saying that I thought he deserved a mention while we were discussing the National Health Service as a whole.
LORD PLATT: Most certainly.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, may I interrupt, before the noble Lord sits down? On the question of women doctors, is it not the case that the taxation problem, in which the income of husband and wife are combined for income tax and surtax purposes, is a contributory factor to the drop-out in the number of women doctors practising to-day?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sure that is not for me to answer. Indeed, perhaps it was a mistake on my part to mention general practitioners at all. I said it only as an aside.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: It shows Lord Ferrier's financial mind.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I hope that I have not taken too long at this late hour. In common with all who have spoken in this debate I have an interest, as we all have, in trying to do what we can to get a better Health Service. I do not think many of us are inclined, as I felt that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was, to bask in the popular polls of opinion about the National Health Service. The poll conducted recently by New Society indicated a fair degree of satisfaction with the National Health Service, but I am quite sure that it could be made a great deal better.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I did not mention opinion polls at all. I said that, so far as I was concerned, with certain qualifications, we had a very good Health Service.
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords; but I should prefer to say that it is a good Health Service which could be made a great deal better. Other countries spend in proportion a great deal more of their national income on their health services. For instance, Sweden spends 5·6 per cent., the United States of America spend 6·8 per cent., and Canada spends 7·3 per cent., compared with our figure of 4·9 per cent. I am quite sure that a good many people in this country would be prepared to spend more on our Health Service in order to get it better, but I believe that that could be done only under two conditions. The first is that they had a much bigger and a more direct say in how it was to be run, and a chance to pay for the kind of service that they, particularly and their families, and their professional colleagues, and, their workmates, warned to have for themselves. The second condition is that we should all have a much greater assurance that the very large amounts of money that are being paid into the Health Service are producing real value. With those few words I should like to confirm our welcome to the Bill and our wish to give it a Second Reading.
9.50 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should first of all like to thank all noble Lords who have given a generous welcome to the Bill. I would also thank noble Lords who have paid tribute to the Minister—perhaps that is unique when it is linked with a Bill—and I am sure that my right honourable friend will be happy to read the words of commendation which noble Lords have given this evening. I should also like at once to express my appreciation and admiration for the maiden speech of the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland. As al Nays, she has upheld the reputation of the female Members of this House by being concise, brief, and putting a great deal of "meat" into her speech. I am delighted to welcome her, and I hope we shall hear her again very often. The information she gave was particularly valuable.

615
Although it is late, I feel it would be wrong not to attempt at any rate to answer some of the major questions that have been raised, though I am certain we shall have long debates on certain of the clauses on Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, I think in the first instance mentioned Clause 25, and this was subsequently mentioned by several other noble Lords. It is important to emphasise that the Government naturally have an interest in the maintenance of a strong pharmaceutical industry and would accordingly be strongly inhibited from using this clause in any way to destroy that industry. I felt there was some element of suggestion that that might be the case. It is the intention that the power in this clause will he used only as a fall-back where price negotiations break down. If agreement cannot be reached on compensation in lieu of royalties the amount would be determined by the courts; so the Minister does not have an arbitrary power in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, dwelt at great length on Clause 25, and, referring to the fact that I said the clause would be amended, I think he will be interested to know that the major change it is intended to make will be to limit its application solely to pharmaceutical products and appliances. There may be some other drafting Amendments, as the Minister indicated, but the main purpose of the clause, as I described it in my opening speech, will remain the same after the Amendments. I think it is rather important to mention that, in case noble Lords felt the substance was to be changed in any way.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, will the noble Baroness explain that a little further? Does she mean it does not apply to any other goods at all except pharmaceutical goods and appliances—no other goods whatever of any kind?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, that is as I understand it, but I will check it for the noble Lord before Committee stage.
The other point on which I feel the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, would like to have a reply is this. He referred to lack of consultation with the industry in connection with this clause, and I
616
would tell him that the Minister has written to the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries explaining why he found it right to accept the clause at Report stage in another place. The implications of the clause, along with the recommendations of the Sainsbury Committee, are at present subject to discussion with the industry. I hope the noble Lord will accept that the Minister is well aware of any complications which may arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, referred to Clause 5, as did several other noble Lords. Lord Platt particularly asked about the Royal Commission on Medical Education, on which he served with such distinction. I hope he will agree with me that the provisions of Clause 5 are not inconsistent with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Those recommendations are going to be very fully considered by the Government, but the particular recommendations to which the noble Lord referred are very far-reaching, and it would be of course wrong for me at this point of time to prejudge Government decisions in this connection.
In reply to her first question as to whether the local hospital authorities would be able to decide where the pay beds will be, I would say to the noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, that the reply is, Yes. The other point which she raised about basic charges in connection with pay beds in a single ward or in an open ward and so on, I would answer by saying that there will be a basic charge for each of the five different groups of hospitals for whom the Minister intends to fix national charges. The Minister intends to have flexibility in order to allow for variation in charges, where, for example, accommodation is in single rooms or in an open ward, or where extra amenity is provided. In this connection the Minister wishes to have flexibility.
My noble friend Lady Summerskill, as it were, passed the torch to me, and I hope that I shall justify her faith. At least she knows that she has a friend at court who not only has followed with great admiration everything she has done for many years but almost always concurs with her views. I would certainly not say that she is an ineffectual

617
voice, but I will do my best to follow the point she has raised.
On the question of the child minders, she suggested that the Minister should perhaps not attempt to control their activities quite so rigidly. But the reports from local health authorities about the operation of the Nurses and Child Minders Act have indicated that powers needed to be strengthened to safeguard the health and welfare of children. I would merely add my own personal note, that when I as a magistrate have asked for information about the conditions of some of the child minders I have found it distinctly alarming. The point on which I should wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend is that this is only one part of the question. But the two things do not run contrary. I would say also in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that we certainly need more facilities for caring for the pre-school child, but it would be wrong to leave undesirable conditions if legislation could put this right.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, asked about the question of the supply of Possum typewriters. I must say that this is a new name to me, and one which I found extraordinarily fascinating. I think the noble Lord will be pleased to know that one form of this equipment on the market is already available to Health Service patients who need it, although they have to pay for the attachments—for example, a radio tape recorder. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, also asked about Clause 68. Since in that connection he gave me the opportunity to write to him, I will do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, referred to Clause 5, as did several other noble Lords. I noticed that the noble Lord said that the Minister could designate university hospitals without reference to Parliament. That is not correct. It is necessary for the Minister to make an Order designating a hospital as a university hospital, and the Order would, of course, be subject to discussion and could be annulled in either House. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, also referred to the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, that he did not see why the power was necessary. Basically, it is necessary because, without the power, the Minister at present has power to dedesignate—what an awful expression!—
618
a teaching hospital, without Parliamentary control, but he has not the existing power to create a new entity of hospital such as a university hospital.
I think we shall have more discussions on Clause 5, but I should like to reiterate what the Minister, to whom so many Lords have paid tribute, has quite categorically stated that he has no intention of using this clause to make sweeping changes. I feel that all noble Lords—
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think that he has said all the time "no present intention". It is the use of the word "present" which has caused a certain amount of alarm and despondency.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, to whom we pay great tribute for his own work in this sphere, would be the first to agree that no Minister would be unwise enough to say that he would never take action of any kind. I think that the word "present" is probably customary use. Since such great tributes have been paid to his integrity as a Minister, I think that we may base ourselves on that.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think the point is that it is perfectly reasonable for any Minister to say "It is not my intention to do this" and then, if he changes his mind in due course, to say so.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Hear, hear!
LORD NEWTON: I am glad that the noble Baroness agrees with me. To say "It is not my present intention" might suggest "It is not my intention to-day, but it may be my intention to-morrow." It is the use of that word "present" which raises a doubt.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Newton. I am sure that we shall return to this matter during the passage of this Bill through the House. I feel that I could go on talking for a long time oil this lengthy Bill. I am grateful to the many noble Lords who have spoken as I myself have felt singularly unhealthy this evening since I was the victim of a rather unpleasant car accident on Sunday, and the prospect of replying to points on the whole of the 74 Clauses of the Bill seemed somewhat formidable. As we move

619
through the Committee stage, and later on during proceedings on the Bill, I feel certain that we shall again debate these various clauses very fully; but I should like to thank all noble Lords for bringing their experience and wealth of knowledge to bear on this subject. I commend the Bill to your Lordships for a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [H.L.]
10.2 p.m.
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

SEWERAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons on Thursday the 11th instant and printed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45; read 1a.
LEGITIMATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
DURBAN NAVIGATION COLLIERIES BILL [H.L.]
Examiners' Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with: Ordered to lie on the Table; Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
MEDWAY WATER (BEWL BRIDGE RESERVOIR) BILL [H.L.]
Examiners' Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with: Ordered to lie on the Table; Bill committed to a Select Committee.
  CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE: GENEVA PROTOCOL
  CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE: GENEVA PROTOCOL
  N.A.T.O. AND B.A.O.R.: COST TO UNITED KINGDOM
  N.A.T.O. AND B.A.O.R.: COST TO UNITED KINGDOM
  IMMIGRANTS AND POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES
  IMMIGRANTS AND POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES
  SHIPBUILDING STEEL PRICES
  SHIPBUILDING STEEL PRICES