Sitting of 6 May 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of the right hon. Ness Edwards, Member for Caerphilly, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the right hon. Member.
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  To be read a Second time Tomorrow.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL [Lords]
  Read Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TECHNOLOGY

    Concorde Aircraft
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Technology what he estimates to be an economic transatlantic payload for Concorde.
    The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Concorde is designed to carry 20,000 lb. from Paris to New York in critical summer conditions, when it first comes into service. This payload is to be raised two years later to 25,000 lb. when improved engines are available. Airlines should find these payloads economic.
    Mr. Fortescue: Will the economic payload on these figures—for which I am very grateful—be calculated on a normal transatlantic fare, a premium fare, or first-class fares for all passengers, as compared with other aircraft?
    Mr. Benn: This will be subject to international discussion. It is almost inevitable that, to protect the subsonic flights, there will be some differential in supersonic flights, but this is something which we shall have to consider in detail.
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Technology what conclusions about the noise-level of Concorde he has drawn from the recent tests with ground silencers at Toulouse.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. Stonehouse): The results of recent tests with a noise attenuator are still being studied.
    Mr. Fortescue: I am grateful for that very informative reply. Will the noise on Concorde at take off and landing be higher or lower than or the same as jet aeroplanes at present in service?
    Mr. Stonehouse: We intend to achieve with Concorde a noise position similar to that of existing jets, but we cannot be sure about doing so until Concorde is flying.
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Technology how many options have now been taken out for the Concorde; by how many airlines; and what is the total amount committed in such options expressed as a percentage of the total governmental expenditure now committed to the development and production stages of the project.
    Mr. Benn: Seventy-four delivery positions have been reserved for 16 airlines. Total airline deposits represent just under 1 per cent. of the latest Anglo-French agreed estimate of development costs.
    Mr. Brooks: In the light of those figures, would my right hon. Friend indicate whether there are any plans to increase the option payments in due course, and would he confirm that the eventual supply of the airliner will be strictly on a first come first served basis?
    Mr. Benn: Arrangements for the ordering pattern have already been made. If my hon. Friend tables a Question on this subject, I will be happy to furnish him with the information. It is true that as the options convert into orders, airlines which wish to buy Concorde will have to come in early to get the aircraft.
    Mr. Fortescue: How many options and orders respectively for Concorde does the right hon. Gentleman hope to have by the end of this year?
    Mr. Benn: I cannot answer that immediately and I have always been reluctant to make forecasts which depend on factors which I do not control. However, it is obvious that performance guarantees will be required before the options can be made into firm orders. There is an enormous amount of airline
    4
    interest in Concorde and this has been greatly stimulated in the last 12 months. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be encouraged when the time comes to see how these convert themselves into orders.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Technology if he has agreed that the Concorde aircraft being built in France shall make its first flight before the aircraft under construction in England.
    Mr. Pounderasked the Minister of Technology if he will give an assurance that no directive or instruction will be issued to delay the maiden flight of the British prototype of the Concorde supersonic airliner in order to ensure that the French prototype flies first.
    Mr. Benn: Our joint plan with the French has always provided that the prototype assembled in Toulouse should fly first, and that the experience gained should be applied to the second prototype assembled in Bristol. We are continuing to work to this plan, and to afford each other every assistance in the pursuit of it.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that long Answer mean that this Question could be answered with a plain "Yes"? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when British technology and engineering have shown themselves once again to be superior to that of France, they should be denied the valuable publicity that would derive from the first flight?
    Mr. Benn: As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, these are identical aircraft, one having been assembled in Toulouse and the other in Bristol. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to pursue an argument which reminds me of the man who wanted to know which blade of the scissors was to cut the paper first.
    Mr. Ellis: As many Englishmen are working in France and many Frenchmen are working in this country on this venture, is it not complete sense to regard this very much as a partnership? Is my right hon. Friend aware that to attempt to look at this along lines of narrow nationalism could only harm the project, when we are concerned to see that the aircraft becomes a success and is a tribute to this partnership?
    Mr. Benn: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The plain fact is that

    5
    001 and 002 must both be a success and that they must both fly as soon as possible if we are to get Concorde orders from the airlines.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Why not have a little healthy competition?
    Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman must know that on a plan of this kind, it is the engineers who plan the programme of flights. To satisfy some national urge which may be felt in this country or in France and upset the orderly pattern of the flight programme would not be very sensible.
    Mr. Hastings: What sort of partnership did we get over the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft? Is there not a lesson here for the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Benn: The Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft has nothing whatever to do with what we are discussing now. If the hon. Member wants Anglo-French projects to succeed and to get orders which will bring benefit to our balance of payments, he should take this aircraft as the opportunity rather than launching his unpleasant attacks on the French which will get us nowhere.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory Answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Technology how he proposes to ensure that the Anglo-French arrangements for marketing Concorde airliners ensure that half of the total sales will be manufactured in each country.
    Mr. Benn: Equal numbers of aircraft will be assembled on the British and French assembly lines, about half the component content of each aircraft being manufactured in Britain and half in France.
    Mr. Brooks: In view of the fact that we are talking of a market involving many thousands of millions of pounds over many years, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be advisable at this stage to negotiate a legally binding contractual obligation on both countries to divide the market equitably?
    Mr. Benn: The current options are equally shared and these have to be converted into firm orders. The production target is on a 50–50 basis. The selling price will be identical and there will be discussion about harmonisation of credit. I think my hon. Friend need not be anxious on that score.
    Mr. Onslow: Does it follow that in the case of the airbus, the split will be on a 33⅓ per cent. basis, instead of on a 50–50 basis? Will he take the opportunity of commenting on the rumours of alarming escalation in the cost of the airbus?
    Mr. Benn: That is a totally different question. I understand the hon. Member's interest in the airbus, but I think he had better put down another Question on that.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the production cost of each Concorde on the basis of sales of 100 aircraft.
    Mr. Benn: With production costs and selling prices one is entering into an area of commercial judgment as to what the airlines will pay. I do not think it would be right for me to disclose the information sought.
    Mr. Jenkins: Cannot my right hon. Friend at least say whether it is contemplated that the price paid will exceed the production cost and whether any contribution will be made towards research and development?
    Mr. Benn: We are expecting to get back a proportion of the cost of research and development, although obviously not the whole of that cost. The production depends very much on what orders are received and it would be difficult to answer my hon. Friend's question even if it were right to give the information.
    Mr. Goodhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is expecting to sell more than 100 of these aircraft?
    Mr. Benn: I am naturally hoping that with the slippage of the Boeing 2707 the market will go up very considerably, but I always decline to make forecasts which can at best be only guesses on factors still to be revealed and on the conversion of inquiries into firm orders.

    Machine Tools
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Technology what results he has achieved from the sum of £2½ million set aside by his Department to help machine toolmakers build for consignment stocks in the United Kingdom and oversea; what sums remain in the fund at 1st April, 1968; and whether he will make a statement concerning the future of the fund.
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Minister of Technology how many machine tool companies have joined the stockbuilding scheme up to 31st March; how much of the £2½ million allocated by him has been used for this purpose; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): No fund was created. One proposal has been received and is being processed. The closing date for applications was 31st March, 1968. No expenditure will arise unless or until machine tools built for stock have to be sold at less than their value after the end of the disposal period on 31st December, 1970. Future estimates will take account of the actual contingent liability entered into under the scheme.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is not this one more example of unnecessary interference in the day-to-day processes of the engineering industry? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the machine tool trade, and notably its export divisions, does not require to be mollycoddled and wet-nursed by the Ministry?
    Dr. Bray: There is no question of mollycoddling. The Ministry gives substantial asssistance to the machine tool industry in the pre-production order scheme and in other ways which is greatly appreciated by the industry, and without which it would not be as technically competitive.

    Motor Cars
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Technology what number of motor cars were produced and sold in the four calendar months between devaluation on 18th November, 1967, and 18th March, 1968; how home sales compare in this
    8
    period with the equivalent four months' period in 1966–67; how exports of motor cars compare for the fourth months' periods stated; and whether he will make a statement on the level of home sales anticipated in 1968–69, following Purchase Tax increases.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Gerry Fowler): Figures are not available for the precise periods requested as statistics are not compiled on a day-to-day basis. In the four months December, 1967 to March, 1968, 620,526 cars were produced, new registrations of cars in Great Britain are provisionally estimated at 455,830 and 181,565 cars were exported. These totals are 21 per cent. higher, 34 per cent. higher and 3 per cent. lower respectively than those for the four months December, 1966, to March, 1967. No firm forecast on the future level of home sales is possible but it is thought probable that the total for 1968 will be little different from that for 1967 and that there will be some increase in 1969.
    Sir G. Nabarro: As the home demand for motor cars continues undiminished compared with 1967, which is a healthy sign, would the hon. Gentleman explain why the Chancellor raised Purchase Tax and made hire-purchase restrictions more difficult, all of which are evidently abortive measures?
    Mr. Fowler: That is a question for the Chancellor, but it is, of course, much too soon after the Budget to form any reasonable estimate of the effect of budgetary measures on home demand.
    Mr. David Price: When does the hon. Gentleman think that the industry will be able to achieve the target figures of growth laid down in the National Plan?
    Mr. Fowler: I certainly hope that the industry will make steady progress throughout this year and next. The evidence points to an increase in production at least in 1969. I should not like to hazard a guess as to when the target figure will be achieved.

    Gas and Electrical Domestic Appliances (Repair and Servicing Charges)
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Technology if he will refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes for

    9
    examination prices currently being charged for the repair and servicing of gas and electrical domestic appliances.
    Mr. Benn: I will certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion. However, I 'think it preferable to await the reports of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the two references affecting these industries with which it is already dealing and which should throw useful light on consumer service arrangements.
    Mr. Barnes: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that, like the garage business, this is an area in which there are very wide variations in the standard and costs of repairs and that such an examination would make an important contribution to the prices and incomes policy?
    Mr. Benn: Yes, but we made the reference on distributors' margins covering domestic electrical apparatus last summer and have now made it on the gas industry, covering the consumer services as well, and it would be better to wait until those reports are in. I have some complaints—very few on the gas side but some on the electrical side—but this is generally because people do not understand the necessarily high labour charges when visits are made.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, despite the fact that garage prices were considered by the Board, no action has been taken to bring them down? I hope that, in this case, much more effective action will be taken.
    Mr. Benn: Garage charges are quite a separate question. We have been in discussion with the trade about the follow-up from the Report and my hon. Friend should not be unduly depressed about the outcome.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have received complaints—as, I dare say, have other hon. Members—from constituents that they are being charged these extra sums now?
    Mr. Benn: As I said, there are very few complaints about gas appliances, these being done mainly by the boards—electrical appliances are done also, of course, by private electrical firms—and most of
    10
    those which we have considered carefully have, on examination, proved to be unjustifiable.

    Beagle Aircraft Ltd., and Short Brothers and Harland
    Mr. McMasterasked the Minister of Technology if he will take steps to merge the aircraft manufacturing capacity of Beagle Aircraft Limited with Short Brothers and Harland in Belfast.
    Mr. Benn: No, Sir. I do not think it would be wise to do so.
    Mr. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is adequate space for this production to be amalgamated in Belfast and plenty of skilled labour available? Would he not study what economies would result from such a rationalisation? Would it not be sensible for two companies in which the Government have such a large shareholding to rationalise production in this way?
    Mr. Benn: I fully understand what lies behind the hon. Gentleman's Question, but, at present, when both firms have considerable management problems and large orders to carry through—Shorts have quite a heavy workload with the RB 211 pods coming along and, in the case of Beagle, there is the early production of their aircraft—it would not be advisable to do this, particularly since there is no duplication of facilities, but co-operation in marketing and so on might be helpful.
    Mr. Onslow: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, contrary to the recommendations of the Plowden Report, over all aircraft manufacture there is now a need to increase the labour force rather than deploy people out of it?
    Mr. Benn: That is quite a separate question, but it is true that the aircraft industry is doing very well under this Government.

    Short Brothers and Harland (Sub-Contract Work)
    Mr. McMasterasked the Minister of Technology if he will state the value to Short Brothers and Harland of their sub-contract work on engine covers for the RB211 jet engines being manufactured for export by Rolls Royce.
    Mr. Stonehouse: This is currently a matter for commercial negotiation between the Company and Rolls Royce Limited.
    Mr. McMaster: In view of the Government's share interest in the company, will the hon. Gentleman not state what employment he expects this contract to give and for how long?
    Mr. Stonehouse: We expect a substantial increase in the work load as a result of the RB211 pods and I am very glad that Rolls Royce has confirmed that the work will be going to Shorts. This work will build up and the peak will be about 1972. I cannot say exactly how many men will be employed on it.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Has the hon. Gentleman any other order in mind which could be placed with Messrs. Short?
    Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, a good deal of work is being arranged for Shorts. This pod programme is one of them, and we are satisfied that Shorts can have a very important and viable programme in the next few years.

    TSR2 Aircraft
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenportasked the Minister of Technology what was the total value of the jigs and tools of the TSR2 when it was scrapped in 1965; and what was the cost of these tools when they were first made.
    Mr. Stonehouse: The cost of the jigs and tools constructed for TSR2 was approximately £12 million. Sales of scrapped jigs and tools produced £53,000.
    Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Is it not customary in cases like this to preserve the jigs and tools for a number of years? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the opinion of the aircraft industry and many people outside it, the destruction of these tools was a deliberate action to stop any future Government from continuing the project? Is that not sabotage on the grand scale?
    Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. and gallant Member is completely wrong. The space at the firms concerned was required and the jigs therefore had to be removed
    12
    or destroyed. The hon. Member's attempts to breath fire and brimstone into this very stale old controversy will not succeed.
    Mr. Brooks: To clear up ambiguities of this sort over the TSR2, would my right hon. Friend consider publishing a full and detailed account of the reasons why the cancellation charges proved to be much larger than was at one time expected?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who will have heard that question, will consider it.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that some of us told the present Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time that these jigs should have been preserved and that there was plenty of hangar space available all over the country? Was this not done out of spite?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I have nothing further to add.
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Technology if he will arrange for the TSR2 airframe at present located at Shoeburyness to be transferred to the Science Museum.
    Mr. Stonehouse: This airframe is needed for a continuing series of ground tests to be carried out by the Royal Aircraft Establishment.
    Mr. Onslow: Is it not a fact that the so-called ground tests at Shoeburyness consist of using the aircraft as a target? Despite the Minister's guilty desire to destroy all trace of the TSR2, is he aware that it would be more to the nation's benefit if this product of British engineering were displayed where people could see it?
    Mr. Stonehouse: The present Government are more concerned about the future than in trying to rake over the dying embers of the past. As for the research work on this aircraft, it is extremely important to gauge the vulnerability of advanced aircraft to missiles that may be used against them in future.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Would my hon. Friend consider transferring this airframe to the Tory headquarters at Woking since the prime purpose of the Question is a

    13
    political one, designed to hide the considerable achievements of the Labour Government in the aircraft industry in that it refers to an aeroplane which the Tories would themselves have cancelled?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to the achievements of the Government. There is no doubt that the emphasis which we have put on civil and export work has been a great encouragement to all who are employed in this great industry.
    Mr. David Price: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the Labour Government had carried on with the TSR2 we would, in view of the failures of the F111, now be selling it to the Americans in South Vietnam?
    Mr. Stonehouse: That is a very doubtful point indeed.

    Oceans (Exploitation)
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Technology what plans he has for the setting up of a national agency to deal with the exploitation of the oceans; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Fowler: None, Sir. I do not think that the setting up of a national agency would be appropriate or useful to deal with this subject. Studies of the best way of handling marine science and technology are now in hand.
    Mr. Costain: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that other nations have done this? Does he not realise that it was because of his own Government's failure with the economy that we could not advance in the space race? Had we not better develop a programme of action on this matter?
    Mr. Fowler: Setting up a national agency would involve substantial rearrangement of Ministerial responsibilities without any compensating advantages. When the hon. Gentleman says that other nations have done it, I take it that he refers to the Committee in the United States under the chairmanship of the Vice-President, but the degree of unity and cohesion given by that body is probably more apparent than real, since it has no overall financial or executive control of any part of the U.S. national ocean research progremme.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great international interest in the problem of exploiting the resources of the ocean? Would he bear this in mind in any action which the Ministry takes?
    Mr. Fowler: Certainly.
    Mr. David Price: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is great interest in the House, and certainly outside, in whether we are putting enough effort into studying the ocean and whether the time is not approaching when the Government should not at least produce a White Paper on their intentions?
    Mr. Fowler: We shall certainly bear that in mind. We are aware of the interest, but this is, of course, rather a different matter from the question of how one runs a national programme.

    Harrier and Nimrod Aircraft (Fixed Price Contracts)
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Minister of Technology when he expects to sign fixed-price contracts for the Harrier and Nimrod aircraft on order for the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Stonehouse: A fixed price contract was placed for Nimrod aircraft on 19th January, 1966. Negotiations with the aircraft and engine contractors for the Harrier are not yet completed, and I am not therefore in a position to announce the form these contracts will take.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been very encouraging signs of interest among foreign air forces, particularly in N.A.T.O., in the Harrier aircraft but that it is impossible for the manufacturers to quote figures and prices until the Government reach a decision? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what effect on the fixed price of the Harrier there would be if his Department were to double its order for this aircraft?
    Mr. Stonehouse: To answer the first part of that supplementary question, I agree that there are very encouraging signs of export potential here. I should remind the House that it takes two to make an agreement. The firm was given an opportunity to make an agreement on a firm contract some time ago, but it did

    15
    not see its way clear to do that and, therefore, negotiations have had to continue. I am hopeful that agreement will be reached and I think that it will enable efficient production to be maintained.
    To answer the second part of the supplementary question, that is a matter that would more appropriately be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

    Civil Aviation (V/STOL Techniques)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Technology what support his Department is giving to research into the application of V/STOL techniques to civil aviation.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Exploratory studies and initial research are being carried out by the Department in consultation with other Departments, the aircraft industry, airlines and interested bodies.
    Mr. Onslow: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the effort being devoted to this type of technique is sufficient to maintain the lead which Britain has built up? Would he agree that money might be better spent on this than on some of the other projects which are sponsored by his Department?
    Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that enough effort is being devoted to this activity. We would expect the requirement for this type of aircraft to arise in eight to 10 years' time, so that the amount of research now being conducted is, I think, appropriate.
    Mr. McMaster: What proportion is being spent on the deflector jet and what proportion on the multi-jet?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I will obtain that information and write to the hon. Gentleman.

    Distributors' Margins
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Technology by what authority he has recommended manufacturers to reduce distributors' traditional margins.
    Mr. Benn: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the recommendations of Report No. 55 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on Distributors' Mar-
    16
    gins in relation to Manufacturers' Recommended Prices (Cmnd. 3546). No authority is required to make recommendations.
    Mr. Dance: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is highly undesirable—indeed, impracticable—to recommend manufacturers to impose certain terms on distributors when they must maintain the fullest goodwill possible with those distributors? Would he agree, therefore, that this recommendation is extremely unfair to manufacturers?
    Mr. Benn: I am not sure that I share the hon. Gentleman's view. If the justification for a price increase arises from imported materials having increased in price, it does not follow that a distributor who distributes the goods which contain a higher import value should automatically receive an extra price increase under the distributor's arrangements.

    Research and Development (European Collaboration)
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Minister of Technology if he will give a cost analysis of the British contribution to the European collaborative work in the research and development field, similar to that recently announced with regard to the European Launcher Development Organisation.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am examining ways in which this technique can be further applied to the United Kingdom share in European collaborative projects, but in many cases, in defence and science, it is not always the most appropriate way of judging the value.
    Mr. Moonman: While appreciating the hard-headed approach that has been shown by the Ministry in costing E.L.D.O. and the proportion of R. and D. made by the industry, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say how much of the British contribution was made by the industry and what priority he places on the tactical value of such projects?
    Mr. Stonehouse: The work done by the industry is extremely important. I understand that it represents about half of the total amount we are spending in European collaborative work. I place a very great deal of value on it.
    Mr. David Price: Would the Minister publish the cost-benefit studies which his Department did on the E.L.D.O. project? Is he aware that many of my hon. Friends who are interested in this approach would be more persuaded if we knew the criteria on which these cost benefit studies were done; for example, on the d.f.c. side, from the point of view of the likely return and over how long these matters have been assessed?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I do not think that I am in a position to say that we should publish our confidential assessments of an international report, the meetings of which were presided over by M. Causse. I believe that this would be an inappropriate way of revealing the manner in which our investigations were conducted.

    Space Programme
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Minister of Technology as a result of his decision to terminate the British contribution to the European Launcher Development Organisation project, what steps he is taking to increase the scope of the British space programme.
    Mr. Benn: Our decision not to undertake new financial commitments to the European Launcher Development Organisation does not of itself justify increases in the scope of the British space programme, which is reviewed regularly in its own right.
    Mr. Hastings: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a most unsatisfactory Answer? Is it not a fact that the French are now ahead of us in space technology and that the Japanese very soon probably will be, too? Is he aware that this is a miserable reflection on the present Government and, in particular, on the right hon. Gentleman's stewardship?
    Mr. Benn: Insults aside, we try to look at projects of this type in terms of the economic return; and had this attitude been taken earlier this country would not be in the position in which it now is with regard to some major projects. We look at the individual programme in each stage, for example, in respect of Black Arrow, where the first orbital flight will take place next year, with a second one in 1970. We review these individual projects in their own right and that is
    18
    why one cannot reach conclusions from one project and apply them to another.
    Mr. David Price: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that to be a viable partner in any international co-operation on space, there must be a minimum threshold of a domestic programme necessary to have the criteria to be a partner? Is he aware that there is evidence that our present domestic programme is below that threshold?
    Mr. Benn: That is a practical proposition, but it is totally different from the argument put forward by his hon. Friend, which is that because an international project is uneconomic, then that, by itself, should justify an alteration of one's national scheme.
    Mr. Hastings: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory Answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Hydrofoils (Working Party Report)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Minister of Technology if he will place a copy of the interim report of the working party on hydrofoils in the Library.
    Mr. Fowler: No, Sir. The interim report was prepared for my right hon. Friend's information and contains commercial confidential information.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: As there has been a great deal of interest in this report, especially among hon. Members who want to make an objective study of the merits of hovercraft and hydrofoils, and as the report is prepared at public expense, should it not be made available to Members of Parliament?
    Mr. Fowler: We appreciate the hon. Member's interest, but I must ask him to contain himself for the time being. This is an interim report and the preparation of a special version for the House of Commons Library could hold up the working party. The resulting version would not be very useful in any case.
    Mr. David Price: Will the hon. Gentleman look at this again? I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) would be content if certain bits were excluded, but

    19
    Members of Parliament are in a particularly difficult position over getting information on subjects such as this in which they take a continuing interest. It may be of benefit to the Department. Some hon. Members are prepared to do their homework on this matter but they are unable to do it on their own.
    Mr. Fowler: We appreciate that and we are grateful for the interest taken in this question by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but the resulting report would be of little interest to anyone. My right hon. Friend hopes to receive a further report in the middle of the year and we hope to reach more definite conclusions. That would be the best time to consider publication of such a report.

    Decimal Currency and Metric System
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Technology what is his present estimate of the total cost of introducing decimal currency and changing to the metric system.
    Dr. Bray: The Treasury, which is the Department responsible, expects that the measureable cost of introducing decimal currency in 1971 will be less than the £128 million originally estimated by the Halsbury Committee for a change in 1970.
    The total cost of changeover to the metric system by United Kingdom industry cannot be estimated with any accuracy. It will in any case be widely distributed and spread over a period of some six to seven years. Individual industrial sectors will be in a better position to estimate the demands of metrication on their resources when their particular conversion programmes have been formulated.
    Mr. Hall: Is it not clear that the sum involved is very considerable indeed against the background of the present economic situation and, bearing in mind that decimalisation always leads to increased prices, should not the hon. Gentleman look at the project again and postpone it for the time being?
    Dr. Bray: The Question relates both to decimalisation and metrication. Once one has gone a certain distance along the line with either process, it can become
    20
    more expensive to go back than to go on. The construction industry is heavily committed to metrication and it would be a mistake to go back at present.
    Mr. John Hallasked the Minister of Technology what representations have been made to him by the Construction Industry Metric Change Liaison Group about the need for an early statement of Government policy on a programme for metric change; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Bray: We have received no representations of this kind. Programmes for converting to the metric system in general engineering industry are now being prepared and that for the construction industry was published in February last year. We are aware of views recently expressed by industry that metrication should be extended on a co-ordinated basis to the country as a whole and hope to receive recommendations on this question shortly from the Standing Joint Committee on Metrication on which the construction industry is represented.
    Mr. Hall: Is the Minister not aware that there is confusion in the industry as to the Government's intentions? Will he deny or confirm that it is the intention of the Government to use their very considerable buying powers to compel industry to switch to the metric system whether it wishes to do so or not? Will he say whether there has been Parliamentary sanction for requiring industry to switch to the metric system?
    Dr. Bray: The question of the Government's function is secondary to that of the industry which has taken the initiative. It is certainly for the Government to amend legislation where this refers to non-metric units, but the basic initiative has been taken by the industry.

    Electronics Industry (Scotland)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the growth of the electronics industry in Scotland in the last three years, and on the growth anticipated in the next three years up to 1971.
    Dr. Bray: Over the past three years there has been an increase of some 55 per cent. in employment in the electronics and telecommunications industry

    21
    in Scotland, which now embraces a wide range of production, including computers, telecommunications, instruments and microcircuits. Important new developments are taking place and we shall continue to take every opportunity to encourage growth of the Scottish electronics industry.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend say what that is in numbers of new jobs created the last three years and what is the prospect of the creation of new jobs in the next three years? What amount of public money, either in loans or grants, is being disposed of in this matter? Does he recognise that this is one of the most exciting developments in Scotland for a century?
    Dr. Bray: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is well aware of this development since Glenrothes, one of the largest centres of growth, is in his constituency. The numbers employed on electronics and telecommunications is expected to rise to about 30,000 in Scotland by 1970. They will be spread over a very wide range—computers, micro-electronics, telecommunications and other electronic industries, but I am not in a position to say in detail what Government support has been given.
    Mr. David Price: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that this very encouraging growth has come from the diversification into Scotland of companies whose main activities are either in England or the United States of America and that it has not come from indigenously-based Scottish firms?
    Dr. Bray: There has been some new growth from indigenously-based Scottish firms, notably former staff of Ferranti, Edinburgh, but the industry has not been there long enough to produce the spin-off the hon. Member has described.

  EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

    Nottingham Area (Unemployment)
    Mr. Gardnerasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what are the latest figures of registered unemployed in the Nottingham area.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. E. Fernyhough): In the area covered by Nottingham, Arnold, Basford and Bulwell, Beeston, Hucknall and Nether-field Employment Exchanges, there were 5,750 persons registered as unemployed at 8th April, 1968, and the rate of unemployment was 2·3 per cent.
    Mr. Gardner: I welcome the decline in unemployment in the area and also the increase in employment opportunities, particularly for school leavers. In view of the continuing programme of colliery closures in the East Midlands, does not my hon. Friend agree that these opportunities need to be developed?
    Mr. Fernyhough: My hon. Friend may rest assured that we shall do everything we can in that direction.

    Equal Pay
    Mr. Englishasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a further statement on equal pay.
    Mr. Alldrittasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what progress has been made in the discussions on equal pay between the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, and her Department.
    Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. Before an Answer is given, I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I notice that my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity is not present but that a number of junior Ministers are present. The other day a junior Minister replied when I asked a Question arising from the Liverpool bus strike. There may be a perfectly good reason, but I think that the House is entitled to know what the position is.
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): I have nothing to add at present to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) on 11th March, 1968.—[Vol. 760, c. 971–3.]
    Mr. English: That is the trouble. Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is about time we did something about discrimination against women?
    Mr. Walker: Of course I agree. The Government's policies are directed to this end. Today a survey of women's employment has been published which will give some useful guidance on this subject.
    Mr. Alldritt: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are now lagging behind our European neighbours in this matter? Will he take steps to engender some sense of urgency in those responsible for negotiation?
    Mr. Walker: The study to which I referred and the other studies which are taking place between the C.B.I., the T.U.C., and my Department on the question of implementation of equal pay will give us some useful information and guidance on whether my hon. Friend's assertion is correct.
    Dame Irene Ward: With all these reports floating around in the air and all these bodies getting out different bits of information, when will a consolidated opinion be expressed? Could we not have a debate on the whole subject? As all the financial pundits are upstairs, it would be a good opportunity for us to express our opinions.
    Mr. Walker: The question of a debate is not for me. On the question of the progress we are making and the number of studies being conducted, because of the tremendously complex nature of the situation it is essential that we gather all the relevant statistical and other information on the basis of which we could make our conclusions and present them to the House. Had some of this work been done prior to 1964, we might have made more rapid progress.
    Mr. Shinwell: What is the use of my hon. Friend talking about studies? Is he aware that this principle was accepted by the Labour Party and the trade union movement many years ago? When will it be implemented? Does not this reinforce the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)? Why on such an important issue is not the principal Minister present?
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made a very lengthy statement on 18th December which set out some of the reasons for the delay in implementation. We are anxious to move to this end as quickly as is consistent with other Government policies and with due regard to the situation set out in that statement.
    Mr. R. Carr: Why did the Labour Party make a specific promise in its election manifesto if it had not got the facts necessary to implement it?
    Mr. Walker: We made the promise because we have every intention of implementing this. We have to do it on the basis of a proper understanding of the problems involved and on the basis of the relevant statistical information, which obviously takes time to gather.
    Mrs. Renée Short: My hon. Friend keeps talking about the need to gather statistical information. Is he aware that there are 4 million women in Britain who are used more or less as slave labour earning less than half the hourly rate of men in industry? Is not this a disgrace? Is it not time that we implemented what the Prime Minister has said on two platforms when he spoke in support of the 50th anniversary of partial women's franchise? Is it not time that we got on with it?
    Mr. Walker: I am sure that my hon. Friend would never allow herself to be used as slave labour. Today my Department published a survey of women in employment. It contains a wealth of material. Because it has been published only today, we have not yet had an opportunity, as I am sure that my hon. Friend has not, of studying fully what the position is as set out in that document. I hope that my hon. Friend will study it most carefully.
    Mr. Tomneyasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how large the gap is between the wage rates of men and women.
    Mr. Harold Walker: This varies between industries. Basic rates for men and women in major industries and services are published by my Department annually in "Time Rates of Wages and Hours of Work".
    Mr. Tomney: Is my hon. Friend aware that this gap is not growing any narrower? Is he further aware that my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State, in her more carefree days on the Opposition benches, was a great advocate of equal pay for equal work for women? Now that she has attained her present high office and been richly rewarded in the process, will my hon. Friend acquaint her of the fact that it is time the Government put this principle into operation?
    Mr. Walker: I am sure that my hon. Friend listened to the Answers I gave on previous Questions and will appreciate that my right hon. Friend, although she has been in office for only a very short time, has indicated that she is taking new initiatives and bringing new vigour to this office.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is not the right hon. Lady's absence today connected with this Question? Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that at every General Election since the war the Labour Party has promised equal pay? Only in office does it run away from its promises. Is not this flagrant political turpitude?
    Mr. Walker: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself till 1971, he will find whether his allegations are justified.
    Mr. Tomneyasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will state the details of average earnings of men and women workers, together with average hours worked.
    Mr. Harold Walker: In October, 1967, the latest date for which information is available, the average weekly earnings of men manual workers and women manual workers were £21 7s. 6d. and £10 11s. 2d., respectively, in the industries and services covered by my Department's half-yearly inquiry. The corresponding figures of average weekly hours worked were 46·2 and 38·2, respectively, and the resulting figures of average hourly earnings were 111·0d. and 66·3d., respectively.
    Mr. Tomney: The difference between the two sets of earnings shows the severe penalty to which women workers are subjected as part of their contribution to industry. I again ask my hon. Friend to reconsider this problem and to bring the earnings somewhere near parity.
    Mr. Walker: I accept that the figures do not reflect a very happy state of affairs, but none the less they must be examined very carefully in terms of the basis of computation, in that the statistics for men include many occupational categories for which women are unsuited and in which they do not participate. They also include, for example, payments for overtime and night work, which women very often, for obvious reasons, are not in receipt of.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary give us a specific undertaking that the right hon. Lady, in her new position, will before long give both sides of the House and opportunity of cross-questioning her as to when we shall get the whole matter put into proper and fair perspective?
    Mr. Walker: No doubt my right hon. Friend will be present next Monday when my Department is top of the list for Questions.
    Mr. Orme: I support many of the points of view about equal pay. Is my hon. Friend aware that recently in one of the largest industries in Britain, namely, the engineering industry, the private employers flatly rejected any improvements in women's wages? Will my hon. Friend take action in regard to this?
    Mr. Walker: This is a matter for negotiation between the two sides of the industry. My right hon. Friend's views have been sufficiently often proclaimed. It is pertinent to point out the progress towards this end in the public sector as contrasted with the abysmally poor performance of the private sector.
    Mr. R. Carr: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary give the House an undertaking that the First Secretary of State will make a statement next week, in view of her absence today, on whether the Government will keep or break their election promise?
    Mr. Walker: The question of a statement is not for me to answer. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman tables a Question to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Englishasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will give the official definition of equal pay.
    Mr. Harold Walker: The definition of equal pay is one of the matters which the

    27
    Government have been discussing in their joint talks with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress. Solely for the purpose of an examination of cost which is being undertaken, the definition contained in Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome is being used. This is
    "equal remuneration for the same work as between men and female workers".
    Mr. English: Will my hon. Friend agree that, while he and his colleagues are discussing this matter, his right hon. Friend's salary might be reduced to, say, 50 per cent. of its present level until she has implemented equal pay for every woman in the country?
    Mr. Walker: It is not the Government's policy to cut anyone's salary.
    Mr. R. Carr: Is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that the Government made this promise to the electorate without even knowing what they meant by equal pay or what the definition was?
    Mr. Walker: There were quite a number of things which the Government did not know until they had opportunity to examine the books. None the less, the Government are determined fully to implement all their election pledges, and I am sure that, by the time 1971 comes, we shall have a proud record.

    Women
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what plans she has to ensure that women are permitted to play their full part in raising productivity in industry in the national interest.
    Mr. Harold Walker: In the drive for increased productivity, no special distinction is made between men and women. I intend to discuss with my National Joint Advisory Council and Women's Consultative Committee, in the light of the Survey of Women's Employment just published, what more can be done to ensure the fullest use of women in industry.
    Mrs. Short: Does my hon. Friend realise that, apart from the problem of equal pay, which we have just discussed, there is the problem of training for women in industry for which the present provision is lamentable, there is the problem
    28
    of adjusting shift times to suit women's ability to work, and there is the problem of providing enough day nurseries and nursery schools to make it possible for women with young children to go to work with a clear conscience, knowing that their children will be properly looked after? Will my hon. Friend see that the Secretary of State for Education and Science gives some attention to this latter problem?
    Mr. Walker: I can give that assurance. The question of women's hours was studied at the last meeting of the National Joint Advisory Council. We shall require time to examine in more detail the contents of the survey published today.
    Mrs. Ewing: Even if it is not possible to introduce equal pay, would not the prospect of equalisation of scales in future have an effect on increased productivity in many industries by giving women something to look forward to in the foreseeable future?
    Mr. Walker: I can only reiterate what I said earlier, that it is the Government's intention to move in this direction; but I cannot at the moment add to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on 18th December, when he set out the position clearly and stated the desire of both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. to move to this end so far as possible by voluntary negotiations.

    Rediffusion Television Limited (Redundancy Payments)
    Mr. Longdenasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what is the total cost of the redundancy payments made to the staff of Associated Rediffusion.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): Up to 30th April, 1968, the latest date for which information is available, about £9,000 was paid to redundant employees of Rediffusion Television Limited—formerly known as Associated Rediffusion.
    Mr. Longden: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Act is working as Parliament intended and that a lot of money is not going, quite inequitably, to people who do not really deserve it?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am entirely satisfied of that. Equally, I am conscious that there are small anomalies which have resulted in unfortunate leakages from the funds, but these are not anything like the size suggested by some of the critics of the fund.

    Skilled Labour (Scotland)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what estimates to date have been made in relation to shortages of skilled labour in Scotland; and what are the relevant trade descriptions.
    Mr. Fernyhough: My Department collects monthly statistics of unemployment and vacancies notified to employment exchanges but unfilled; also, an analysis of unemployment and vacancies by occupation is made. These figures, which cover Scotland, provide information about labour supply and demand on a continuing basis. Shortages of skilled labour in Scotland are at present local rather than general, and their extent varies according to occupation and area.
    The regular procedure is currently being supplemented by a special inquiry among firms in Scotland about shortages of skilled workers and technicians in certain occupations.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that enough publicity is given to some of the information which he has given the House today? Is he aware that there is concern in Scotland on the question of skilled and unskilled labour?
    Mr. Fernyhough: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the concern. That is why, in addition to the normal machinery which we have for trying to find out where the shortages are, we have now set up a special inquiry, with which the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. are associated. I am sure that, when we have the information which they will provide, we shall be able to take further steps along the lines my hon. Friend requires.
    Mrs. Ewing: Will the special inquiry report on the extent to which emigration causes the shortages, local or other-wise?
    Mr. Fernyhough: I very much doubt that, but I hope that those doing the
    30
    inquiry will note the hon. Lady's question.

    Miners, Scotland (Industrial Retraining)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity how many former miners in Scotland have been accepted for industrial retraining this year; and if she will list the counties in which they reside and their respective ages.
    Mr. Hattersley: Up to 11th April, 65 had been accepted for training at Government training centres. Of these, 30 came from Fife, 15 from Lanarkshire, 10 from Ayrshire, seven from Midlothian and one each from Clackmannanshire, Dumfriesshire and West Lothian. Two are between 18 and 20 years of age, 14 between 21 and 30, 19 between 31 and 40, 28 between 41 and 50, and two are 51 or over.
    Mr. Eadie: Those figures are very low. Ought there not to be a more intense effort to publicise the facilities and opportunities which can be offered for industrial retraining?
    Mr. Hattersley: I very much regret that more miners in Scotland have not taken advantage of the increasing opportunities available to them. The hard fact is that, up to April this year, only 44 redundant miners had applied for retraining, though that in itself is a great improvement on last year, when only 47 applied in the whole 12 months.

    Phelps Brown Committee (Report)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she expects to receive the Report of the Phelps Brown Committee.
    Mr. Harold Walker: This summer.
    Mr. Allason: Will the Committee look into local authority direct labour schemes, and, in particular, will it investigate the scandal at Hammersmith where £2,000 per house is being lost on 34 separate dwellings?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir; that is not included within the Committee's terms of reference.
    Mr. Molloy: Will my hon. Friend note that, at its last meeting, the responsible chairman of the Hammersmith Borough Council gave a complete and absolute reply regarding what had transpired, in answer to a cleverly organised pack of lies put into print by an organisation known to support private enterprise? If hon. Members opposite, and my hon. Friend, want to know the truth of the matter, they can get it from the recorded minutes of the Council.

    J. Stone & Co., Ltd., Deptford (Redundant Employees)
    Mr. Moyleasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether her Department took into consideration the 1,500 employees of J. Stone and Company Limited, Deptford, who are to be declared redundant during the next two years in making forward plans for retraining facilities in South-East London.
    Mr. Hattersley: Plans to expand Government training centre facilities are based on prospective long-term industrial needs, including those likely to arise from redundancies at particular firms. Many of the employees of J. Stone & Co. are already skilled and will not require further training. For the facilities available to any who need to be retrained, I refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 25th March to his Question about the redundancies at A.E.I., Woolwich.—[Vol. 761, c. 906.]
    Mr. Moyle: In the circumstances, will my hon. Friend conduct a survey now to find out how many people from J. Stone and Company will require retraining?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am prepared to examine that proposal, but I reiterate that very many of them will not require retraining, and our expectation is that those who do could easily be absorbed within existing facilities.

  FALKLAND ISLANDS
  Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the cost to public funds of the publicity through the British Embassy in Buenos Aires and by other methods to explain the Government's policy regarding the future of the Falkland Islands.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): To explain Her Majesty's Government's policy about the future of the Falkland Islands is part of the normal duties of certain departments in the Foreign Office and the Commonwealth Office and of Her Majesty's Embassy, Buenos Aires. It is not possible to isolate the cost to public funds of this aspect of their work.
  Mr. Clark Hutchison: In that publicity, will our Embassy in Buenos Aires and Her Majesty's Government make it plain to the people of the Argentine that the Falkland Islands are British and wish to remain British? There seems to be some misunderstanding on the part of the people of the Argentine.
  Mr. Roberts: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made a full statement on the matter on 27th March and subsequently in answer to Questions on 1st April. I am told that the Argentine Press carried a full and factual report of both statements, and our position is wholly understood in that country.
  Mr. Braine: Has the Government's policy in the matter yet been fully explained to the people of the Falkland Islands?
  Mr. Roberts: The Governor of the Falkland Islands is kept closely informed of developments in the matter, and he is authorised to inform the Executive Council of the islands of developments, in confidence.

GIBRALTAR
Mr. George Jeger Mr. George Jeger (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the latest action by Spain at the frontier of Gibraltar.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): The new restrictions imposed by the Spanish Government are, like the earlier ones, unjustified and clearly aimed at damaging the Gibraltarian economy. It is deplorable that the Spanish Government believe that crude pressures can resolve this international problem.
These arbitrary restrictions can only harm the prospects of an eventual

33
solution acceptable to the people of Gibraltar and satisfactory to the two Governments.
Her Majesty's Government remain determined to sustain the people of Gibraltar in the difficulties which they are facing as a result of the policies of the Spanish Government.
Mr. Jeger: With due respect to my right hon. Friend, we have heard all that before. En this Government of planners, could not the Spanish Government's latest action have been foreseen? Was not it expected many weeks, if not months, ago? What plans have the Government for dealing with the situation by retaliation against Spain?
Mr. Stewart: The matter has been the subject of discussion between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs and the Governor and Ministers of Gibraltar. There will be further discussion of it with the Gibraltar Ministers who arrived here this morning. I do not want to prejudice what the Gibraltar Ministers might wish to say to my right hon. Friend by an announcement of what we might do.
On the question of retaliation, we must keep our minds on what kind of action will assist the people of Gibraltar.
Sir F. Bennett: Does not the right hon. Gentleman find it a little ludicrous at present that the only people now allowed to use that frontier are those Spanish workers who take no less than £3 million a year out of the sterling area and cash it into hard currency in their country? But will the right hon. Gentleman accept a tribute from me for the recognition that he has just given to the futility of economic sanctions in obtaining a political settlement?
Mr. Stewart: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell that story to those of his hon. Friends who so often ask for retaliatory measures in so many different contexts. One cannot argue from one example of this kind to another. It is true that even since the restrictions were imposed recently the Spanish workers have still been coming across the frontier. We must bear in mind that they are in no way to blame for their Government's actions.
Mr. Cronin: In view of this further provocative and hostile action by the
34
Spanish Government, would my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of warning prospective British tourists of the inconvenience they may suffer if they use Spain as a holiday resort?
Mr. Stewart: It is quite clear and, I hope, well understood that there will be those inconveniences.
Mr. Tilney: I believe that over the the long term Gibraltar cannot be economically prosperous without a friendly Spain. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider partially and temporarily closing our tourist frontier with Spain by putting a special tax on those taking their holidays there, the proceeds to be used for mechanisation in Gibraltar to remove the need for so much Spanish labour?
Mr. Stewart: I agree that it would be desirable to secure relations between Gibraltar and a friendly Spain. That is what we have sought in good faith, and that search is frustrated and damaged by these actions.
At to action against British individuals who wish to take holidays in Spain, as my predecessor said, it is doubtful whether it would be proper for the Government to tell individuals where they should or should not spend their holidays. But it is now, I think, for individuals to consider what they should do in the present situation.
Mr. Molloy: I welcome the first part of my right hon. Friend's reply to the Question, but I urge him to make it transparently clear to both the Gibraltarians and the Spanish that any efforts being made by the Spanish Government to threaten Gibraltar involve Great Britain all the way through; irrespective of what they do, it is not a question of the Spanish Government against Gibraltar but the Spanish Government against Great Britain and Gibraltar.
Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. We shall make very clear not only in words, but in acts, as we have already done, our resolve to help the people of Gibraltar.
Mr. Braine: We on our side wholly agree with the right hon. Gentleman's condemnation of the Spanish action. Can we take it from his answer that a protest will be made to the Spanish Government? What effect will the new restrictions have on Gibraltar's economy, especially the

35
tourist industry? Could the right hon. Gentleman be a little more explicit about counter-measures? Surely the Government will not leave it to individuals to make up their minds on what to do? Are the Government studying the possibility of counter-measures?
Mr. Stewart: I raised the matter of individuals in response to the question about individuals taking holidays in Spain. The Government have studied for a considerable time what actions might be helpful to the people of Gibraltar. The point I wanted to make is that in judging such actions we must not think in terms simply of hitting back for the sake of it, but what kind of action would help the people of Gibraltar. We have already made clear to the Spanish Government what we think of their earlier restrictions and we shall make very clear our protest against these restrictions, too.
Sir Dingle Foot: Will my right hon. Friend make it abundantly clear to the Spanish Government and anyone else concerned that our obligations towards the people of Gibraltar are those set out in Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations, which obliges us to develop self-government and to take due account of the political aspirations of the people, and make it clear that under the Charter, if there is any conflict, those obligations prevail over the obligations under any other international agreement?
Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir. That is a point which we have made very clear wherever the matter has been discussed.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very many people believe that the situation has been aggravated by the Government's negotiations with the Argentine and over British Honduras? Every few months we are told by the Foreign Secretary that something will be done. Is he aware that the British people are sick and tired of Her Majesty's Government trailing their coattails behind General Franco? Will the right hon. Gentleman take the initiative?
Mr. Stewart: I am not sure if the hon. Gentleman is aware of what has already be done to help the people of Gibraltar. Since November, 1966, there has been £2 million development aid to Gibraltar and budgetary aid. The point
36
I was making was that when one talks of action one must consider what kind of action will help the Gibraltarian people. That kind of action we have taken, and shall continue to take.
Mr. Winnick: Very recently the people of Gibraltar showed through democratic choice, unlike what has happened in Spain, what they want to do about their own future, which is to remain closely allied to Britain. As they have so chosen democratically, why do we not ask the United Nations Committee of 24 to go to Gibraltar to hear the desire of the people for their own future?
Mr. Stewart: I will consider that suggestion, although whether it would really help the situation I am not quite sure without further consideration. But there can be no doubt as to the opinion of the people of Gibraltar as declared in the referendum.
Mr. Onslow: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the husband of one of my constituents, Able-Seaman Lightowler, has been held for six months in Algeciras gaol without trial? Is he further aware that Mrs. Lightowler hopes shortly to go to Gibraltar to visit her husband? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that she is able to do so? Will he also press for a speedy trial of this unfortunate British seaman?
Mr. Stewart: That is a different question from the one I was originally asked, but I shall give most diligent attention to it.
Viscount Lambton: Is it not the case that, at the moment, there is no solution that is acceptable both to the people of Gibraltar and to Spain? Should we not make it plain to the Spanish Government that, until they totally change their approach, we do not think there can be any solution whatever?
Mr. Stewart: I think that that follows. The professed aim of Spanish policy, as I understand it, is to make the people of Gibraltar want to be part of Spain, but the actions of the Spanish Government do not tend towards that end.
Mr. Hastings: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a fitting motto for the Government's foreign policy would be, "Apologise, disarm and retreat"?
Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is always trying to make mischief and is always doing so on the basis of a complete misunderstanding of the facts. The fact in this case is that we have neither apologised nor retreated.
Sir Knox Cunningham: After the right hon. Gentleman has met the Chief Minister tomorrow, will he undertake to come to the House and make a statement ment about what action will be taken?
Mr. Stewart: I cannot give an undertaking of that kind at present. We must await the discussions which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs will be having with the Chief Minister.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION (OPERATIONS)
Dr. David Kerr Dr. David Kerr (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the heart transplant operation.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I welcome the opportunity to make a statement about the operation to transplant a human heart performed at the National Heart Hospital on Friday, 3rd May.
I should like to congratulate the entire hospital team on this outstanding surgical achievement. The patient's condition, I understand, is satisfactory, and is taking a normal post-operative course.
I gave the House on 25th March, in an Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), the first conclusions of a conference convened by the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself to consider the problems arising from the transplantation of vital organs in man.
The conference recognised the public uneasiness about the possibility of premature removal of organs and agreed that vital organs should not be removed until spontaneous vital functions had ceased and two doctors, each independent of the transplantation team and one of them being at least five years qualified,
38
had certified that this condition was irreversible. I understand that in this case confirmation of the death of the donor was given by more than two doctors of very considerable standing at the hospital to which he had been admitted after his accident.
The requirements of the Human Tissue Act, 1961, in regard to the removal of the donor's heart were fully complied with. The brother of the dead man gave permission acting for the family as the widow was herself in hospital unable to be consulted because of her own serious condition.
My Department recently issued advice to hospitals to guide them as to the demand for news coverage because of the press and public interest in advanced surgery. I wished, among other things, to protect the interests of the patient and his relatives and those of the donor, and to ensure that no names should be disclosed without the free consent of those concerned.
The National Heart Hospital acted in accordance with my advice, but names were revealed to the Press from sources other than the hospitals concerned. No observers were present at the operation and only the normal clinical photographs were taken, which will not be released.
Dr. Kerr: The House is grateful to my right hon. Friend for that very full Answer and the reassurances which it contained. I wish to put three questions.
First, will he acknowledge our great sympathy and admiration for the bearing of the donor's widow and couple with that our concern for the rapid recovery of Mr. West?
Secondly, while I am in no way behind my right hon. Friend in his admiration for the technical achievements of this magnificent operation, may I ask him to seize a tactful opportunity to bring to the attention of those concerned that medicine, and particularly this aspect, is an international activity which is perhaps not well served by flag-waving in a particular context?
Thirdly, in view of his assurances about the work of his conference on this subject, can he now say, in the light of the experience gained in this operation, whether he will seek to establish the conference on a permanent basis and invite

39
those who undertake transplant operations of vital organs to refer constantly to the advice offered by the conference?
Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said.
First, I associate myself and, I am sure, the whole House, with his expressions of sympathy with the donor's widow and also with his good wishes to Mr. West.
Secondly, there is bound to be some conflict between the very natural desire of the Press to get the maximum information and detail about an event of this kind and the traditional reticence of the medical profession. I think that how this conflict is resolved is very much a matter of personal taste and, speaking purely personally, I must confess to the House that there are some aspects of the publicity associated with this which I regret.
I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion on the third point. I think that we do need a body, or are likely to do so, sitting permanently to deal with these very fundamental problems associated with organ transplantations.
Lord Balniel: I join in the congratulations to the medical team on the outstanding technical achievement and also in the expressions of sympathy with the donor's widow and of good wishes to Mr. West during this very difficult and important post-operation phase.
Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this operation brings into relief the unsatisfactory state of the existing law and also the fact that there is no legal definition of death? Would not he also agree that, in spite of the views of the conference which he convened last month, this is not a matter which can be left solely to the opinions of surgeons but that it must be laid down in a framework of law?
Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that where the wishes of the donor are not known in advance there is a clear and defined procedure for ascertaining the wishes of the next-of-kin?
Mr. Robinson: The House should be quite clear that, in this instance, the provisions of the Human Tissue Act were no barrier to the performance of the operation. The conference advised me
40
that there should be no legal definition of death, but it gave guidance, which I have repeated to the House, on this subject. Certainly, I can confirm that there is a clear procedure under existing legislation as to the processes which need to be gone through and that these are well understood by the medical profession.
Dr. John Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this operation was performed under the National Health Service? Can he assure the House that we shall not see, following the operation, the sort of commercialisation that we have seen following similiar operations in other countries?
Mr. Robinson: I understand that this operation was carried out under the National Health Service, and I whole-heartedly echo the hopes expressed by my hon. Friend in the latter part of his supplementary question.
Sir G. Nabarro: Having regard to the sensational and dramatic events of this weekend—not only the transplant of a human heart, but also the case of the transplant of a human liver—can the right hon. Gentleman say what his policy will be towards the Renal Transplantation Bill, which fundamentally deals with this matter and is due to go into Standing Committee upstairs during the course of the next few weeks?
Mr. Robinson: I am glad the hon. Gentleman referred to the liver transplant at Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, because this is another piece of remarkable surgical achievement which has been somewhat overshadowed by the heart transplant. Here too, the House will be glad to know that the patient's progress has been entirely satisfactory, although it is too early in the postoperative course to assess the eventual prognosis.
As to his own Private Member's Bill, I have told him, and the House, that I shall not be in a position to express the Government's definitive view on the contents of the Bill until after I have received the further conclusions of the Conference on Organ Transplantation, which will be reconvened in a few weeks time.
Mr. Heffer: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this particular case

41
raises a certain number of rather disturbing questions? Could he give us an assurance that the House will have the opportunity of discussing this whole question fully? I feel that this matter ought not to be rushed. I ask him to give the House the opportunity to go into all aspects of it before we go too far.
Mr. Robinson: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that these are profound issues. Obviously no one should come to rushed conclusions. There was recently an opportunity to discuss these issues on the Second Reading of the Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). Further time for debate is not a matter for me, but for the Leader of the House, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have heard what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a Question cannot be placed on the Order Paper, or even a Private Member's Question asked, unless the Minister has responsibility? Does he accept responsibility, and if he does, then when a person is described as dead, and, therefore, suitable for a transplant operation, should not his Chief Medical Officer be brought into consultation?
Mr. Robinson: I have statutory responsibility for everything done in National Health Service hospitals. The fact of death is a clinical matter. It would not be appropriate to bring my Chief Medical Officer into this matter, which is one for those concerned with the care and treatment of the patient. In this instance death was confirmed by several experienced doctors at King's College Hospital before the donor's body was transferred to the National Heart Hospital, and again by several consultants at that hospital, not associated with the transplant team.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: May I, first, assure the Minister that I share the sentiments expressed in the opening remarks of my hon. Friend? May I ask whether he would consider, not only the problem of transplants from dead donors, but also those from live donors and the whole question of experimental surgery, which is developing so fast and producing moral, ethical, legal—and I suggest in the future—problems of medical and research priorities?
42
Would he consider not only having a conference to which these matters could be referred, but a conference or a similar body with terms of reference to go into particular juridical and legal aspects, and report to him? He could then consider putting the matter before the House so that we can debate at length the extremely weighty and grave implications in the whole of these technical advances?
Mr. Robinson: I agree with the general line of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary. The matters to which he refers are not outside the remit of the existing conference. There are profound issues which will need long consideration, and I would rather reserve my position as to the precise way in which we shall arrange for consideration; but I give him the assurance that it will be given.
Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend consider what means should be taken to relieve hospital doctors of the invidious task of approaching relatives of the donor for permission to make the transfer? Bearing in mind that there will be a tremendous demand for replacement surgery of this type in future, out of all proportion to the present resources, would he consider what action might be taken to put increased resources at the disposal of the National Health Service, so that it can continue this work?
Mr. Robinson: I entirely agree that surgery of this kind makes fantastic demands on resources, which are inevitably—and which always will be—limited. Naturally, I want to put as many resources at the disposal of the National Health Service as the economy can afford.
As to my hon. Friend's first point, this is one of the particular matters to which the conference I referred to has been giving consideration. It is this aspect as much as any which has led to requests for an amendment of the Human Tissue Act. I hope that I shall be receiving guidance on that very soon.
Mr. Monro: Can the Minister say something about the excellent cardiac team in Edinburgh? Has it all the special equipment it requires, should it be necessary to perform this operation?
Mr. Robinson: I must ask the hon. Member to put that question down for answer by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Private Notice Question to the Postmaster-General.

POST OFFICE (DISPUTE)
Mr. Bryan: May I ask the Postmaster-General a Question of which I have given him private notice?
The Postmaster-General (Mr. Roy Mason): The present difficulties have arisen over the pay negotiations for postal and telegraph officers——
Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order. May we know the terms of the Question asked by the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I thought that I had not heard it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put his Private Notice Question?
Mr. Bryan: It is to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement on the threatened strike of Post Office workers.
Mr. Mason: The present difficulties have arisen over the pay negotiations for postal and telegraph officers. These are the staff who man Post Office counters and do clerical work in head post offices.
In accordance with an agreement with the Staff Side of the Civil Service National Whitley Council, of which the Union of Post Office Workers is a member, the pay of P. & T.O.s is currently being reviewed. The detailed handling of Civil Service pay reviews of this sort is complicated. The procedures are, however, operated according to agreements with the Staff Side, and the early stages of the P. & T.O. discussions did, in fact, make very good progress. The Union of Post Office Workers tabled a claim early in March.
Because I have not yet been able to respond to the claim the union has mounted a series of stoppages at Post Offices. The union has said, in justification, that many P. & T.O.s have not had a pay increase since 1st January, 1966. This is true—the same is also true of many other civil servants.
The final settlement will, of course, be subject to the general arrangements about Civil Service pay in relation to the
44
Government's incomes policy which are in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Subject to these, P. & T.O.s will not lose back pay provided the present claim is settled by the end of June. I have myself told the union that they will be getting an offer in two weeks or so.
Against this background, I naturally very much regret the action which the union has taken, and the difficulties that it has caused our customers. I have urged the union to refrain from further stoppages of work, so that there can be a good atmosphere for the pay negotiations which will begin shortly.
Mr. Bryan: Is it not the case that this particular section of the union has never before been on strike in all its 80-year history? Does not the fact that it is now on strike, even before an offer has been made, at least suggest that it has been treated with a lack of consideration and that there has been really intolerable delay?
Mr. Mason: The answer to the first question is, "Yes", this is the first time that the P. & T.O.s have even had one-hour token stoppages, let alone any major dispute. I cannot agree that they have been treated in a dilatory fashion, with undue delay. It so happens that, because of the good will existing between the Post Office and the U.P.W. when both sides evaluated the Civil Service Pay Research Unit's analogues in January of this year, the U.P.W. concluded its talks with us on 8th March.
The union expected an offer in about five weeks after that, based on its experience of 1966. I am sorry that it has taken a further three weeks, but I have already told the union that an offer is forthcoming, in about two weeks or so. It will certainly get a pay increase, which will not affect back-dating, and I am hoping, therefore, that the union will now resume normal working.
Mr. Randall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reasons for the token work stoppages and the threatened strike ought not to be allowed to continue? While I congratulate my right hon. Friend for the part that he has played in trying to avert this—and may I also congratulate the postal and telegraph officers who have made a contribution to productivity and have had no offer yet—may I ask him

45
whether he will use his good offices to encourage the Chancellor to meet representatives of the Union of Post Office Workers as soon as possible so that we may avoid a grave situation?
Mr. Mason: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his initial remarks. I am also obliged to him and the other U.P.W. Members of the House who have been most helpful during the course of the last two weeks. It is true that the postal and telegraph officers, who are really counter clerks, have made a productivity agreement. It is working at the moment and we are just now wanting to make arrangements with the U.P.W. on how best its share of the productivity agreement can be paid. The U.P.W. has requested a meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and this is now receiving consideration.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: Is it not a remarkable achievement by the Government to have driven this normally pacific body of people into almost unanimous militancy? Is it not the case that they have been greatly provoked by the Government's obvious failure to make up their mind and by their obvious internal disagreement?
Mr. Mason: It comes ill from the hon. Gentleman to say that when under a previous Tory Administration there was a national stoppage in 1963.
Mr. Dobson: Will my right hon. Friend remember the anger and frustration which are felt by the Post Office workers at this stage after the inordinate delay, which is no fault of the Post Office? Will he consider now seeking to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, as well as with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to enable some progress to be made and to stop the strike getting worse?
Mr. Mason: Yes, I am aware of the concern of the P. & T.O.s. At the meetings I have had with them I have told them about my concern, and also about the effect this threat is having upon the customers of the Post Office.
As to a meeting with the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, I think that it would be best to await the Chancellor's consideration of the request that
46
has been made. He has overall responsibility for civil servants' pay and we had better await the outcome of that.
Sir Ronald Russell: Can the Post Office say who is responsible for the further delay? Is the Treasury being penny-wise and pound foolish, as it so often is?
Mr. Mason: No, because we have to take into consideration not just the P. & T.O.s but all the 350,000 civil servants and, in the light of the Government's incomes policy, it has to be thought out.
Mr. Tomney: What is in question is the authority of my right hon. Friend. Is he now telling the House that, as head of his Department, he has not the authority to make a settlement immediately on this matter, because this appears to be a new principle? Here we have a body of men in active daily contact with the public, who are very disciplined, very conscientious and who are operating in most trying circumstances, dealing with Government legislation and its frequent changes. Is my right hon. Friend telling the House that he does not have the authority to settle this matter himself?
Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend must be aware that I have some responsibility, but there are two Ministers with particular responsibilities. I have responsibilities for the Post Office workers, of which there are in total 70,000 out of the 350,000 civil servants, but only 22,000 P. & T.O.s have taken this action. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has overall responsibility for civil servants' pay.
Dame Irene Ward: While I recognise the difficulty of the Postmaster-General and the way in which he has backed up the claim from his Department, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will tell me why the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not come here and face up to this angry House of Commons himself? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not send for the Chancellor of the Exchequer? We never can get at the right Minister. It is always somebody else.
Mr. Mason: My right hon. Friend has many responsibilities, but today the responsibility is mine.
Mr. Bryan: As the Postmaster-General has as good as told the union that it will get an increase, would it not be sensible to make that offer now and save the public all the hardship of a threatened total strike of the Post Office?
Mr. Mason: Conversely, in view of the fact that it has never been promised a specific date, that it was initially warned that it might take a little longer this time, and that it has been promised an increase with retrospection in two weeks or so, why should it continue to threaten to strike?

GIBRALTAR
Mr. Tilney: On a point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the closure of the Gibraltar frontier by the Government of Spain to all except Spaniards."
This closure happened just over the weekend, and there is no likelihood, as far as I can see, of an immediate debate on the Gibraltar question, There has been criticism that, with so much work upstairs in Committee, the House is not debating matters of great public concern on the Floor. Surely this is a matter of public concern, not only to Gibraltar, but to the people of Britain, too.
I saw something of the effect on the economy of Gibraltar earlier this year, though not, except for very few cases, on the morale of the Gibraltarians. This is a serious position for Gibraltar and for Britons in Spain at the start of the tourist season. It is a new development, and there may be worse to come unless strong measures are taken; hence my application.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he
48
thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the closure of the Gibraltar frontier by the Government of Spain to all except Spaniards."
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?
The leave of the House having been given—
Leave having been given, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of public business tomorrow, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours.
This is as provided for under the terms of the revised Standing Order No. 9 as agreed to by the House on 14th November, 1967.
The Motion stood over under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business tomorrow.

FINANCE BILL (STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING)
Mr. Goodhew: On a point of order. I understand that Standing Committee A had come to a decision last week that it should meet today at 4 o'clock to discuss further the Finance Bill. This was confirmed by cards received this morning by hon. Members serving on the Standing Committee. I notice that on page 6617 of today's Order Paper there is no mention of the Sitting. Has the decision been changed, or have the procedures for recording on the Order Paper been changed, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: I had the same curious impression myself this morning. I am advised that this is an omission by the printer, that the members of the Committee have been summoned and wall notices have been posted.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a major piece of legislation, indeed probably the most important Scottish Bill for some time. It deals with a group of services directly affecting the community and individual citizens in their personal lives. Rightly, we are paying more and more attention to such services.
  The Bill gives effect to the most recent thoughts about them in Scotland. It is an indication of how in Scotland we are responding to the rapid social changes of our time. The thought behind the Bill has come from many sources, but probably two separate streams of opinion have influenced it. One is the ways in which children are dealt with when they are in need of public care or become delinquent. Largely because of concern about increasing delinquency, the Kilbrandon Committee, the Committee on Children and Young Persons, Scotland, was set up in 1961 to look into the law of this whole subject. As the House knows, in 1964 the Committee recommended that juvenile courts should be replaced by new juvenile panels with continuing responsibility for the children brought before them. The Committee recommended, also, that all the public services for children should be formed into one social education department as part of the education authority.
  In June, 1964 it was decided to accept the recommendation on juvenile panels. A little later it was accepted that the services for children should be reorganised but it was thought that the Committee's recommendation did not necessarily offer the best way of doing it. This doubt about the form of reorganisation came from the second stream of opinion. There was an increasing feeling that the various welfare services—those for elderly people, for the handicapped and for the support of the sick as well as for children—should be reorganised in a more coherent way.
  50
  These services were set up and developed in a piecemeal way at different times and, apparently, in response to different needs. We can see now that they have a great deal in common, because they draw on the same groups of people for their staff, and these staffs are trained in similar ways. In addition, they are often concerned with members of the same families. I think that the same can be said of the probation service.
  Therefore, the Government decided to look at the organisation of all the services, and with the help of a joint working group, for which the local authority associations provided members, we gave a lot of thought to this. The result was the White Paper Social Work and the Community published in October, 1966. This proposed, as a basis for public discussion, a new local authority social work department integrating all the existing welfare services and the probation service into a comprehensive organisation. It proposed, also, that this new department should provide the professional support for the Kilbrandon-type children's panels.
  All the interested bodies submitted comments on the White Paper's proposals. There was criticism of some of them, but the great bulk of the comments were in support of the proposals. I looked carefully at the criticisms as well as the support, and the result is the Bill now before the House, with one slight exception.
  The Bill does two main things. First, it provides for the setting up of children's panels very much on the lines recommended by the Kilbrandon Committee. Secondly, it places on the local authority a duty to make available, through the new social work department, advice, guidance and assistance on a scale appropriate to its area. This means a comprehensive service of social support. It will cater for the elderly and the handicapped, provide social support for the sick, and will discharge the local authority's responsibilities for children. It will provide probation services to the courts, and after-care for people leaving penal institutions. It will also have to take an interest in, and influence, social development in its area.
  In introducing a Bill covering such a wide field, it will be best if at this stage I deal only with its main provisions.

  51
  Examination of the details will come later.
  Part I of the Bill sets out the administrative structure by which the local authorities are to provide the new comprehensive service, and certain powers relating to training, research and assistance to voluntary organisations, which will still have a big part to play. As it has emerged from another place, it provides that the local authorities responsible for the new service will be the councils of counties and cities. The original provision of the Bill was that the large burghs also should have social work functions, and it is only fair to tell the House that at a later stage I will table an amendment to restore them. I would like to explain this intention briefly.
  It has been suggested to me that we should not do anything in advance of the Royal Commission's findings. If we waited to see what the shape of local government was to be after the coming recommendations of the Royal Commission on Local Government, Scotland, it may be well into the 1970s before the appointed date under the legislation which comes after the discussions which come after the publication of the Royal Commission's findings. I suggest that, in view of the fact that we established a committee in 1961 to look into this problem, it would be quite wrong to wait for all that time before we took action. We cannot wait until then. We must therefore legislate now.
  It is sensible, in putting this new duty on local authorities now, to appreciate that there may well be change within foreseeable time and therefore what we want to do—and this is the thing which moved me from my original position—is to minimise the effects on local authority structure. In other words, we wish to make, not two changes, but one major change.
  I think that it would be a major change to remove at the moment these functions from large burghs and I do not think that we would be justified in doing it at present. That is the main reason why I propose the reinstatement of the large burghs in the Bill. There are others, which I will not go into now, but I wish to point out that more than half the population of Scotland is not affected by the inclusion or exclusion of large burghs. More than half the population
  52
  of Scotland is in the cities and counties which have not a large burgh. The cities and counties which do not contain large burghs will, in any event, be social work authorities.
  Part II of the Bill deals with the services which local authorities must provide. Purposely, they are dealt with in broad terms so that the services can evolve as knowledge and experience grows. In other words, they are not tied down to specific services, and, therefore, we shall not be prevented from making the expansion which we may find desirable.
  It is true that many of the Clauses in Part II relate to children. There are at present several complete Acts concerned with children and young persons. By contrast, the welfare needs of the elderly and handicapped are covered by a few pretty well scattered Sections in Statutes which have wider purposes. It is sensible, and indeed essential, to distinguish in welfare legislation between children and adults. Children are dependent and defenceless just because they are children. Every child needs someone to fulfil the rôle of parent in his interests. It is for this reason that most of the Clauses in this part of the Bill relate specifically to children. They largely repeat the provisions of earlier Acts dealing with the care and protection of children.
  The interests of adults under the Bill raise different considerations. Existing services for adults are provided, both under statute and in practice, for particular categories of people. These categories are often difficult to relate to the facts of social situations. Indeed, attempts to do so have become obstacles to the development of better services. The most important fact is that all these services exist to help people, and, whether we like it or not, people simply will not fit themselves into tidy, mutually exclusive categories.
  That is why Part II says so little about categories of people. This is why Clause 12—the key Clause of the Bill—is in completely general terms. Under it, the local authorities are required to make certain services available for the use of every citizen who needs help. In asking for help, he does not have to be able to decide, in the first instance, whether his need is due, for example, to disability or old age, or difficulties with a disturbed child. All that he has to do is to apply for help to

  53
  the department created under the Bill, and the first job of the local authority services is to help him recognise just what his problem is. Then, together, they can decide how he can be helped.
  The main purpose of Clause 12 is to set up in each local authority area a comprehensive service of welfare and support. This is expressed by placing a duty on the local authority to make available advice, guidance and assistance on a scale appropriate to the area. The intention is not that the local authority itself will provide all the possible forms of advice and assistance, although there is very much which it must do, but a great deal of help to people in such situations is given by voluntary organisations and by such bodies as the citizens' advice bureaux. The need for this kind of help is continuing and growing. It will be a duty on the local authority under the Bill to ensure that this kind of service is available and to provide the facilities to back it.
  The main thing I would emphasise here is that once the Bill is in operation it will not be necessary for the ordinary person to admit that he is in some way inadequate before feeling able to approach the local authority for help. Just as we have largely got rid of the stigma which used to attach to seeking financial help from public agencies, so it is time that we removed any stigma from the seeking of other kinds of help.
  Mention of financial assistance leads me to the remaining parts of Clause 12, dealing mainly with assistance given in kind or in cash. The effect of these provisions is certainly not to encourage local authorities to set up in competition with the Ministry of Social Security as agencies for giving financial help. It is much narrower than this, and in the great bulk of cases in which financial help is justified my right hon. Friend's Department can give it, but we have got to face this, that there are occasional situations in which, for one reason or another, this is not possible, and on some of these occasions the situation might deteriorate quite rapidly if nothing were done.
  The purpose of these provisions of Clause 12 is to enable the local authority to act on such occasions to prevent deterioration of the situation. These provisions are, in fact, intended to be a
  54
  slight widening of the existing powers of the local authority under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963 to enable assistance in kind or in cash to be given in circumstances where children are not involved. That existing provision was welcomed by the House in passing the Act, and our experience since then has shown it to be most valuable both in promoting the interests of children and in preventing social breakdown in situations where children are involved. The actual amounts of money which have been used for this purpose are comparatively small, but their benefits have been quite disproportionate to the amount of money required. I have no doubt that the extension of these powers will have a similar result in a wider context.
  Clauses 15 to 26 are those which deal with the care of children and I have already explained their place in this part of the Bill. They are based very closely on existing child care provisions which they will supersede in Scotland and I do not think I need say very much about them at this stage.
  Clause 27 provides machinery to enable a smooth transfer of the service given to the courts by the present probation service to one provided by the new social work departments. This is something which has caused considerable controversy.
  The greater part of the work of a probation officer is carried out away from the courts, and much of it is work with individuals and with families very similar to the work carried out by other social workers. Probation officers have special skills; so do child care officers, psychiatric social workers, medical social workers, and those skilled in family case work.
  I feel that the integration of all these skills into a single department will enable it to provide a much greater breadth of service than can be given by any single service at the moment, and this is the gain which all those in need will obtain from the new service, and it would fall short of the objective if so important a service as the probation service were left out, and the service itself, I feel, would lose if it were isolated from this new development.
  I recognise, however, that the service does have a special relation with the

  55
  courts, and that we must see that the courts have confidence in it, and that, as it develops, it will provide an even better service. The probation schemes which this Clause requires to be submitted for my approval are intended to achieve this.
  I would like to jump now to Part III and the children's panels and the very considerable change on the lines recommended by the Kilbrandon Committee. Part III deals with the new children's panels which are to be established on the lines recommended by the Kilbrandon Committee. It sets out the circumstances in which a child may be brought before a children's hearing. A children's hearing will be a group of three people who will carry out the functions of the children's panels under the Bill. It sets out the ways in which a children's hearing will be constituted, how it will conduct its work, how the reporter will be appointed; it deals also with the functions of the reporter; the powers of the children's hearings; the rights of appeal of the child and his parents, the review of children's progress by the children's hearing; and a number of related matters.
  I think that I should say something about the reporter, because this is a very important new position. His main duty will be to decide whether a child should be brought before the children's hearing. Before reaching this decision he will have received a report about the child and will have completed certain preliminary inquiries. He can then decide whether to proceed at all; or to arrange, with the consent of the parent and the child for voluntary treatment under the provisions of Part II of the Bill; or he can decide to bring the child before the children's hearing. Thereafter the decisions are taken not by him but by the children's hearing itself. The reporter will be appointed by the local authority, but he must be able to act independently, and his position is protected by the requirement that the approval of the Secretary of State is required before he can be dismissed.
  The importance of this, of course, is the recognition that, much as we have been able to do in respect of delinquincy, we have not up to now had the success
  56
  which we had the right to expect or we had hoped for. By having this procedure of follow up—not just the juvenile court sentencing a child and leaving it at that—we shall be able to make some impression upon this very grave and very difficult position.
  I am sure that the House and the Committee, later, will examine all these provisions in greater detail and I would like to make upon them only some general comments. A good deal of the power over children will rest in these children's hearings and the powers given in Clause 44 are wide. These wide powers are needed to enable the children's hearings to deal properly and constructively with the wide variety of circumstances which will lead to children being brought before them. The Clause sets out these powers in general terms rather than in specific measures because the children's hearing must be able to apply to each child those measures which the child really needs rather than a specific measure, laid down in Statute, which is the nearest approximation to what the child might need.
  Nevertheless, it is only sensible to recognise that to endow an agency with powers of this sort incurs a risk of unjust or unfair treatment as well as of inappropriate treatment, and for this reason we must be sure that the new arrangements have adequate safeguards built into them, safeguards not only against abuse of the rights of the child and his parent, but also against honest mistakes by the children's hearing.
  As one safeguard, the children's hearing will work within the rules of procedure which will be drawn up in consultation with the Council on Tribunals. The Council will also observe the effect of these rules in practice so that they can be kept under review. The second and more decisive safeguard is that any decision of the children's hearing will be subject to the right of appeal to the sheriff by either the child or his parent.
  There is also the possibility of legal aid in respect of such appeals. This really means "any decision": not only the decision which a children's hearing makes when a child is first brought before it, but any decision reached by a children's hearing at a later date during the supervisory stage.
  Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: For clarification of that may I ask: is this appeal to the sheriff an appeal made on the ground of the treatment prescribed for the child by the children's panel?
  Mr. Ross: It could be. There is a further appeal to the Court of Session on a point of law that we have, therefore, had to build in. These safeguards will be examined in Committee.
  I should say something about the children's panels. It is important, also, that the members of the children's panel in each area, and, therefore, of each children's hearing, should be carefully selected as suitable people to use such powers responsibly and should be given whatever training or preparation is necessary to help them to do so.
  The procedure by which the members of children's panels will be selected is set out in Schedule 2. The provisions of Schedule 2 are designed to ensure that these members of children's panels will not only be responsible people, but will also be familiar with, and respected in, the communities which will be the concern of the children's panel.
  On the other hand, the selection of these people cannot be regarded as an ordinary function of the local authority, and it is important that the people appointed for this purpose should be appointed because of their suitability and their ability to help children and not because of their prominence in any existing organisation or body.
  For all these reasons, I have thought it desirable to propose in Schedule 2 that although the selection of people for appointment as members of children's panels should be done on a local basis, their appointment should be made by me.
  I want to take this opportunity of saying that in addition to the scope for voluntary work offered by the kinds of organisation which we now have, the establishment of children's panels offers an entirely new field for voluntary effort.
  I am sure that in Scotland we have people with this concern for children and for the parents of children who get into trouble who, although they may not have the time to spend on full-time local authority work, could devote a consider-
  58
  able amount of their ability to this side of community service. I sincerely hope, and am convinced, that they will come forward.
  I do not wish to take time now to deal at any length with the remaining parts of the Bill. They will be carefully examined at later stages. I think it more important for me to emphasise the real nature of the changes which this Bill makes in the forms and purposes of public welfare services.
  To take the children first, I do not need to remind the House of the concern which is being felt in these days about delinquency. I am convinced, however, that we shall not make much change in the situation by dealing with it emotionally. We have to use our heads as well as our hearts, and we must use both constructively rather than repressively.
  The establishment of children's panels will complement the efforts of the local authority in promoting the welfare of the children generally, whether or not their need for help arises through deprivation or some kind of delinquency. Children's panels will not be a soft way of dealing with children who are delinquent. Far from it. The powers which will be available in future will be just as strong as they are now and much more varied. I have no doubt that they will have to take many firm measures in treating and training young people.
  What we have to keep in mind all the time is what the Kilbrandon Committee said as its central theme—that is, that what most of these children need is the kind of influence and control which a good parent would be expected to exercise. Those of us who are parents know very well that there are times when we have to be firm with our own children. This, therefore, will be expected of the children's panels, also.
  The Bill necessarily deals in detail with children—for reasons I have explained. The changes it will bring about in other fields of social work will be just as great, despite the fact that they are largely to be found in one subsection—Clause 12(1). It is this provision which will require each local authority to provide advice and assistance—or, in other words, social support—for the elderly, for those in nerd of help because of physical or mental handicap, and for those who need

  59
  help in the home to look after themselves or another person in the household.
  The facilities—old folk's homes, hostels and day centres, children's homes, day nurseries, assessment centres, etc.—which the local authority may find it necessary to provide are covered by powers in Clause 60, which deals with residential and other establishments. There, again, the drafting is general so that development and evolution need not be confined by statutory provisions related to particular categories of people.
  The Bill will bring to Scotland a new kind of public service. While I believe that there are a few countries with comprehensively organised welfare services, these countries do not have this kind of arrangement we are planning for dealing with children in trouble. No country has made both of these advances, and I am very proud to introduce a pioneering Measure which, I am sure, will be not only good for Scotland, but which might have something to offer to other countries.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Noble: I rise to give a warm welcome to the Bill from this side of the House. As the Secretary of State has said, we are indebted not only to Lord Kilbrandon, who started the concept on which this Bill was based, but to the many other people of differing natures in many organisations in Scotland who have contributed their thoughts and ideas. I remember when Lord Kilbrandon's Report was received in the time that I was Secretary of State. I said to the House then that I would wish it to be discussed by as wide as possible a circle of people who were interested in these problems. Quite clearly, this has been done.
  I should like to follow the right hon. Gentleman's plan or technique for dealing with the Second Reading debate. I do not believe that the Bill will pass through its Committee stage very rapidly, because there is such an enormous amount of material in it—material that is very human in its nature—and, therefore, hon. Members without any party divisions at all will have genuine views to express and discuss. But there is a considerable measure of agreement on the need for the Bill, or for something
  60
  of this kind. I will start by bringing together what I believe are the points where there is no disagreement and then turn to some of the problems where there is at least opportunity for differing views.
  The Secretary of State talked about the rapidly changing social conditions of our time. This is true. Perhaps the biggest single factor in this change which we have been forced to notice in the last few years has been the appalling rise in juvenile crime. At the time of the setting-up of the Kilbrandon Committee there were about 23,000 reported cases of juvenile crime. That was a rise of 3,000 on the figures two years before. Since 1961, we have all been aware—and aware with alarm and horror—of the steady increasing rise in crime of all kinds, particularly violent crime and, what is more disturbing perhaps to most of us, the very large percentage of that violent crime which is being committed by young people.
  Within that category there is what I call the fragile generation, the teenagers between 14 and 16 who seem to be the hardest and most difficult to handle. The right hon. Gentleman said that those who were parents understood the problems of that age group. Happily, my children have passed out of it. I do not know how many hon. Members have children in that group, but it is a particularly difficult one to handle. Children of that age are fragile in almost every sense of the word. It is often necessary to be firm with them, but if one is too firm one breaks them, and this can be as dangerous for their future as being too kind.
  There has been a big increase in the tendency of this age group to get involved in crime. The vast majority of children of that age are normal, happy, well-behaved honest citizens, but that does not, alas, stop the bad section of it getting most of the Press, and when they are given that sort of attention it tends to encourage others to join the group.
  We know that this is not a problem simply for parents. It is very much a problem for the educational system, and the Secretary of State and I have indicated support for various reports which are trying to take out of the present educational system some of the second stream, if that is not an unkind way of

  61
  describing them, people who are getting frustrated in their last years at school, and from that frustration tending to fall into this category of possible delinquents.
  Science has not been kind to us. It has been able to invent various pills which children can get hold of and which give them the supposedly necessary "kicks", but too often these youngsters fail to get the other pills which science has provided, and this means that they get into more serious trouble. Of all the children in care in Glasgow today, 41 per cent. are illegitimate. This is, therefore, a genuine family problem, and not just one for the children.
  I think that we all agree that what the right hon. Gentleman called a pioneer effort is likely to be successful because there is a clear need for the rationalisation of a great deal of our social work. I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman emphasised that this was a major operation for the local authorities, but added that he hoped—and I think we all agree with him—that this would not mean that the voluntary services would feel that they could rest on their oars because others were doing things on which in the past they had spent a good deal of time.
  There are obvious advantages in having the social work services centrally controlled. I do not want at this stage to debate too closely how it should be controlled, whether it should be in city councils, or whether it should go to large burghs. It is important for people to feel that they can go to, or write to—and I use the two expressions to keep my position open—the place where it will be possible to have all their problems dealt with.
  My hon. Friend has taken a great deal of trouble over this problem during the last few months. I think that it is universally agreed that there is a need to break down what I call the demarcation disputes between the different services which have been set up for particular purposes over a number of years. We all get cases of people who have been to one service and someone there has shrugged his shoulders and said, "We cannot help", they go to somebody else and are told, "This is not our field at all", and in despair they write to their Members of Parliament, and we then have a real problem finding out to whom should we
  62
  go, and how we can get the problem solved. I believe that the rationalisation of the services into one centre will be of considerable benefit. Above all, I think that we must make certain that the main attack on most of the problems is a family attack by parents, by the schools, and so on.
  It is tempting to regard parents as being responsible for their children's behaviour and, because all the publicity is about children who go wrong, to forget that they have an enormous responsibility for their parents, and perhaps their grandparents, too. Nowadays, when parents get old, or become handicapped, or blind, or difficult for one reason or another, it is too easy for them to be put into some institution. This is a real problem. The right hon. Gentleman said that we were thinking particularly about children because they were dependent and defenceless, but during the last few years I have met many old people who I would have said were just as dependent and just as defenceless as many children. I hope that they will not be forgotten when the Bill is being considered in Committee.
  I think that we all agree that if the experiment is to succeed there will have to be a vast expansion of the service as we know it today. I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate he will give us some idea of where these extra people will come from, and how they will be trained. I hope, too, that he will give us some idea of the resulting cost.
  If one considers the comparable figures for Scotland and England, one is bound to have a certain feeling of shame, and having been the Secretary of State I do not shirk my fair share of responsibility. In 1966, Scotland had 152 child care officers, whereas England had 2,431. England is enormously further forward than we are. When one considers their qualifications, one realises that in our case a letter of recognition from the Central Training Council in Child Care was held by only 23 of our 152 people, as against 667 in England. Thus, in addition to not having the right number of people, we had a very much lower standard of qualification.
  We are going in for a major pioneering scheme. It should not be forgotten that this will mean an enormous problem of

  63
  getting the necessary staff, because I do not believe that even the English level in 1966 will be anything like satisfactory to deal with the problems which will crop up as soon as we put this scheme into operation. As each comprehensive system begins to work, it will inevitably uncover wider responsibilities which will call for extra staff if they are to meet the obligations set out in Clause 12, and about which the right hon. Gentleman talked. These extra people will be needed if we are to give help to every citizen who needs it. This will be a major problem and I hope that we can have more information about how it will be tackled.
  I am prepared to back the Secretary of State in this approach if it means that we must get not only extra men but also extra money, since this is entirely in line with our policy in the social services of concentrating help where it is most needed. The Bill is written around the old, the young, the sick and the mentally sick—all those who especially need help, so they should be given generous help. It has been said that this is a request for extra money, but an extra £2,000 million of taxation is being taken and this is a very high priority for its use.
  I turn to some of the problems which are in doubt and dispute. No hon. Member should be ashamed or shy if he does not agree with some parts of the Bill, because it is a big and complicated one. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, the Joint Under-Secretary, said in another place:
  "If I have not been completely convincing, it is simply because of the fact that there is no answer which convinces entirely on one side."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords; 4th April, 1968; Vol. 290, c. 1339.]
  I believe that that is true not only of the particular item of which he was speaking but of many others. I, like most hon. Members, have received many different pamphlets, letters and documents from people, all completely sincere, but often pointing in exactly opposite directions.
  I start with the timing of the Bill. Lord Kilbrandon started in 1961 and now, seven years later, we are introducing not just the Bill he was thinking about but much more. There is urgency, because the crime rate and many other problems
  64
  are getting worse every day. On balance, I think that the Government's timing is right. I wish that they could have brought in the Bill at the beginning of the next Session, since by then the Royal Commission would have reported and it would be easier to judge some of the issues, although one would not expect the Government to say immediately whether or not they accepted the Report.
  This is particularly so on the point which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, of whether the counties and the cities alone should handle this after-care service or whether the large burghs should do it, also. The White Paper came down against large burghs and the Bill favoured them, but the House of Lords reversed that, so there has already been a great variety of thought. There are strong arguments for keeping control of these services in the largest possible area, so I would also come down against the large burghs, mainly because the real problem is getting enough trained staff.
  This case can be argued both ways, but these people cannot be plucked from the air. They do not exist; they must be trained. It is more likely that we will get the numbers and quality of staff which are necessary if a comparatively few centres are used as the training areas as well as the main operational areas. I imagine that it is difficult to train solely theoretically: there must be a good deal of field practice also and a few large areas from which staff can filter out into the field are to be preferred to 36, I think, large burghs with comparatively small staffs, in the hope of building up from that to the centre.
  I think, therefore, that the House of Lords and the White Paper were right and that the Bill and the Secretary of State's intentions are wrong, but I am sure that this will be a most interesting debate in Committee.
  I am in considerable difficulty over the probation service. Everyone is agreed that the children's courts can come right out of the probation service into the child care service without any particular problem, but I am not happy about the rest. The link which the probation service had with the local authorities was not wholly satisfactory. There was much unhappiness about it. In 1962, the Morrison

  65
  Committee, set up to consider the service in Scotland. Said:
  "The principal cause of the failure of the probation service to develop in Scotland as it should have done is that it has been regarded not as a court service but as a relatively minor Local Authority service."
  I met the probation officers one or twice at about that time and know that, since they were given rather special status, since the Scottish Home Department took much trouble to build up the morale and structure of the service, it has improved enormously.
  This is almost inevitable, as the memoranda which we have all received from the sheriffs, who are in daily contact with the probation service, shows that they feel strongly that it would be a retrograde step to put the service back entirely into the local authority sphere. I know that local authorities pay 50 per cent. of the probation officers' wages, and the Scottish Home Department pays the other 50 per cent., I think, but the service does not regard itself as a local authority service but as a separate service owing allegiance partly to the local authorities but primarily to the courts.
  The Secretary of State was not quite fair when he said that much of their work is away from the courts. It must be, because their main function is to advise the courts about the people who come before them. Often, the sheriff may not be certain of the appropriate sentence and therefore wants detailed reports on the conditions and background of the accused before passing sentence. If the sentence is to be right and proper, the skill of the probation officers must be considerable, the courts must have confidence in them and they must spend a great deal of time away from the courts—usually, of course, looking into the problems of offenders before sentence or after release.
  But the nature of the work is essentially different because of this speical link with the court. There are two views about this. I do not believe that it is essential for the probation officers to come under the local authorities to get a proper promotion structure and so on. They were not particularly worried either, when I met them, about the exact level of pay. Like everyone else, from time to time they want more, of course, but they are much more concerned with the
  66
  standing and prestige of their service. This clearly came across to me. If the service is merged within this big single unit, they will lose some of that, although I accept that some, because of their outstanding ability in their fields, will probably become directors. But as directors, they will come away from the courts, which would be losing the advantage of their advice.
  It is inevitable that, from time to time, they will have to criticise local authority efforts in the care of children and young people. If they are wholly under the local authorities, it will be difficult for them to make critical comments about their employers. On the whole, I would favour keeping the service for adults out of the local authority comprehensive service. Nothing would be lost and the probation service and the courts might gain.
  Juvenile courts raise technical points which would be better considered in Committee, but there is one point of substance which I should like to deal with now. That is, the liberty of the subject, which is just as important for a child as for an adult. Where there is a referral to the hearing, it stems from, in the words of the Clause, "commission of an offence". In the past, legislation has always referred to "alleged" commission of offences. It therefore appears that, before a child gets to the hearing, he is believed to have committed the offence and is apparently not to be subject to the normally accepted rules of law that there will be no caution, charging or presentation of evidence. This may not be so but it appears so from the Bill.
  The Secretary of State may say that, if parents or guardians take objection, they have the safeguard that the case will be heard by the sheriff anyway, but, if that is so, there would be no burden of proof of the commission of the alleged act laid on the reporter or the hearing. There is, therefore, a considerable difference between the treatment of children and that of adults who have committed or are alleged to have committed crimes. This wants looking at now as well as in Committee.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us why—I do not say that there is any particular reason—according to last week's White Paper called "Children in Trouble" it has been

  67
  decided to keep the juvenile courts for this country while we have decided to go the other way. I should like to hear more of the argument about this, because I am not certain that I know enough to favour one form or the other. I hope that it is based on an important reason and not merely on a determination to be different from England.
  I hope that what is said in the White Paper about the importance of bringing the schools, education generally, and so on, within the framework of dealing with our children and the problems of delinquency will be accomplished, although a little mention is made of this in the Bill. I can see no responsibility being clearly placed on anyone to ensure that that happens. Unless parents are persuaded to work in harmony with the efforts of the schools, we will not achieve our aim.
  The Bill has considerable merit. In a number of ways it can be improved, and I trust that in Committee improvements will be made. I hope that this pioneering effort will be successful for the sake of the youth, the sick and the elderly of Scotland.
  5.11 p.m.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I join with the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) in congratulating those who were responsible in the initial stages for the work done in this important sphere. We are indebted to Lord Kilbrandon, his colleagues and those who acted as assessors for the Government in the preparation of the White Paper. They went into this matter in considerable depth and, while I do not agree with all their conclusions, I accept, in broad general terms, the principal proposition that all of the services with which we are concerned should be brought under one roof.
  This whole issue has greatly concerned many of us in the last few months. The right hon. Member for Argyll referred to the representations which have been made to him. I, too, have had an enormous postbag and the vast majority of the representations made to me have been sincere. I have been gratified to receive them, not only because of their sincerity but because they show how many people in Scotland care about the provision of social services. These representations
  68
  have been attended by an expertise that was not seen in social activities in the past.
  This large number of representations serves to remind us that if there are so many organisations seeking to work in the social sphere, it must be difficult for people who need help to know the appropriate organisations from which to seek assistance. If, like many hon. Members, I have found it difficult to follow the lines of demarcation, it must be extremely difficult for those who need help to discover the appropriate organisations to consult.
  I have felt that many of the representations were based on a fear of the prospect of changing jobs. While this is natural, a number of organisations have expressed concern about their future rôles. When I read the original document, I felt many of the same fears. For example, I wondered whether or not medical officers of health—who, for many years, have played an important part—were to be given due importance in the new scheme with which we are concerned.
  I am still concerned about the relationship between general practitioners in some counties and burghs and the new social welfare departments. Those who have made representations to me on this score have a common aim, and it seems that while there may be some friction in the operation of these departments initially, I am sure that in the long term this change will work out for the good.
  Although a number of problems need airing, I propose to deal with only a few of the reservations that have been expressed in the discussion of this subject, both here and throughout Scotland. Like others, I have wondered whether or not this is the right time to introduce a Bill of this kind. Some have suggested that we should wait for the report of the Royal Commission. However, so many problems are pinpointed in the White Paper that I do not believe we can afford to wait, perhaps until the 'seventies, for that report. I will, therefore, list only a few of the items that are worrying me.
  On page 5 of the White Paper reference is made to the growth of new housing estates, the lack in some cases of amenities, the shortage of recreational facilities in new schemes and the problems that are caused. There are new housing schemes in my constituency.

  69
  Some ate extremely good while others are not so good. Some lack proper social and recreational facilities and this lack has resulted in some serious problems being created. These problems have, in the main, been linked with young people who have got into trouble and much has been said about vandalism. We cannot afford to ignore this problem. It has been with us for a long time and if we are to tackle it effectively, we need the establishment immediately of the sort of departments envisaged in the Bill.
  I have for a considerable time been concerned with the problem of caring and educating people in the community, from both the educational point of view and the welfare of the aged. Indeed, I made my maiden speech on this subject. I have referred to the increased number of pensioners and the problems caused to those who are in employment by the ever-increasing number of retired people. We have heard a lot about this in the last few years, but, unhappily, not enough has been done to solve the problem. It must be tackled in a co-ordinated fashion if we are to make progress with it.
  In recent local elections and elsewhere much has been said about the growth of vandalism in relation to housing schemes. Many people have raised the subject with me—I snow that many of my hon. Friends could say the same—in recent weeks and I assure the House the increased crime rate is causing concern. I have been distressed to note, from studying the statistics, that crime in recent years has been on the increase while there was a considerable drop in the crime rate earlier in the century.
  No doubt the activities of the traditional social services during the last half century, with the provision of housing and other amenities, has something to do with the trend of statistics. I am, however, distressed to find that the growth of crime has been looked upon in a negative way and has not been tackled positively. I hope that positive action will result from the new scheme of things we are considering.
  Mr. Noble: I agree that statistics took a different trend earlier in the century. I interrupt the hon. Gentleman because I do not think that he means to say that he is not as worried as everybody else by the fact that, in the last five years, the
  70
  number of crimes of violence has more than doubled.
  Mr. Mackenzie: I admit that and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I was not being complacent. I have said publicly that I am as concerned as anybody, but that we should put the matter in its proper perspective. There may be differences of opinion about how we can best tackle the problem. I am saying that, instead of tackling it in a negative way, we should be positive in the social work that we do.
  One of the biggest problems facing hon. Members concerns the administrative areas and whether or not large burghs should be included. I have had some experience of the three types of organisation involved. I spent most of my adult life before coming here as a member of a town council and of a large city. I now represent a constituency which is evenly divided between burgh and county. I must, therefore, steer a middle course. However, that is not why I suggest a course of action which I think might be the answer, but because I like to think that the experience I have had in this matter gives me the right to comment on it.
  I have found that all three types of organisation can be run for good or bad. I have found some which are extremely well run and some which are exceedingly bad. If I were sick, I would rather find myself in one of the industrial large burghs in the central belt of Scotland than in some of the northern counties of Scotland which, with respect to these areas, have not shown as much progress as we might have hoped. I appreciate that this is very much a matter of individual judgment and that, in considering whether or not the burghs should be included, one cannot generalise too much.
  Some people have suggested that we should await the Royal Commission's report before defining the areas of social work in the new scheme. I am rather impatient with those who have already parcelled up the various areas of Scotland without waiting for the Royal Commission's findings and the Government's views on them. Many people are already mentally busy wiping out some of our older communities without giving thought to the people who live in them—all this in the interest of greater administrative areas.

  71
  I do not believe that because an administrative area is big it is necessarily efficient. The remoteness of some areas makes it difficult to administer some types of provision. I gather that the White Paper takes the same view because, on balance, it seems to prefer the course I, like others, have suggested in that although it is by no means emphatic on the subject, it rather makes the case for the inclusion of large burghs and lists the functions of the new social work departments and agencies concerned with local government. It seems to suggest that, for hospitals and education, it should work on a county rather than a large burgh basis.
  The case made in the White Paper on housing, health and welfare is germane to this discussion. The problems in social work with which we are dealing can, I believe, best be tackled on a fairly small area basis. In our social work we require directors, staff and councillors who have intimate knowledge of local conditions. They must know the right agencies, voluntary and statutory, to consult when tackling individual problems.
  My area operates a service for old people in precisely the manner that the Bill envisages that the scheme will be run nationally. It has always operated on the basis of one door on which anyone can knock; he is then directed to the department best suited to his needs. This is what I want to see happen when the new social work departments operate.
  Many of these problems are caused by bad housing and the problem families which come from it. The White Paper stresses that the social work director and his staff have an important part to play, and valuable guidance and advice to offer, in the building of new housing schemes in future. It would be wrong if these two organisations did not work together for the provision of better housing. Housing has been a large burgh function for a long time. It is an integral part of our system. I hope that it will continue to be so.
  I mentioned earlier that general practitioners were concerned about whether their relationships with the new social work director would be as reasonable and as pleasant as they had been with the medical officer of health. A number of general practitioners in Rutherglen have
  72
  suggested that, if they were obliged to refer cases from Rutherglen to the centre of a county area or a larger administrative area, they would soon lose personal contact with their patients. This troubles them greatly. The same applies to some voluntary organisations. I hope that these voluntary organisations, which are locally based will be used to the full.
  Residential care presents a problem. I said earlier that I served for a long time on a large city council. At one stage we found difficulty when we moved people from one part of the city to another. I take my full share of responsibility for that. At the time I thought that was the right way to handle it. Difficulty arose if an old person was moved from an area where he had lived all his life to an area a considerable distance away. This does not apply to the same extent when working on a large burgh basis.
  On the grounds of health and housing there is little reason why we should tear up a perfectly good organisation. The professional advice contained in a number of circulars which I have received is in favour of excluding the large burghs. Although I respect the judgment of the professional organisations, I have a very sincere respect for the stature of local councillors, many of whom have been operating in this field for many years. They have experience of the organisation. They have expressed the legitimate hopes of the people in these communities who want to manage their own services.
  I was astonished when I read the report of the debate in another place to see that one noble Lord had suggested that the fact that large burghs wanted to have power to organise their own services was not a very good reason for giving them power. The White Paper was sent to all organisations, large burghs included, for their comments; and we should pay heed to their comments. I am delighted that the Secretary of State proposes to include large burghs. After all, no substantial functions will be taken either from the counties of cities or from the cities.
  There has been a little misconception about this. One noble Lord, talking in a sense about my own county, suggested that it was to be torn apart. Those who had read the Bill in greater detail will not share his conclusion. There must be a great deal of live and let live. The people

  73
  who live in large burghs want to keep these services. Tomorrow, they will be taking part in their local elections and will be discussing housing and health. They have also expressed the desire to keep the functions they presently have. I see no objection to this perfectly legitimate aspiration. I trust that the Secretary of State will stick to his principles in Committee.
  With these comments, I welcome the Bill.
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. Hector Monro: This is a mast important Bill for Scotland. Like the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie), I find it a little difficult to be definite about some of its controversial parts. I am not sure that it is yet beyond doubt that the new proposals will prove to be more efficient in practice, nor that the staff will be available. To begin with, the social work department will lose district nurses and health visitors, because they will be engaged on medical work.
  There are three controversial points about the Bill. First, is the timing right? There is much to be said for taking action now. The Kilbrandon Committee, which was set up in 1961, issued its Report in 1964. Even now, action may not be taken till 1970. That is a long delay from the conception of the idea to its being put into practice. Much, too, can be said for delay until it is known what form local government reorganisation will take.
  All of us who have read the report of the Second Reading debate in another place will be disappointed at the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that it might not be possible to put local government reform into practice before 1975. I hope that it will be done much before then. On balance, it is right to go ahead with the structure and framework of the new social work scheme. It may be behind the Government's thinking that in the long term the new structure may develop into area health boards on a rather bigger scale than is envisaged in the Bill, It is important always to remember that size does not necessarily provide either efficiency or economy.
  I come to the position of large burghs. I, like the hon. Member for Rutherglen, must steer a middle road, because I repre-
  74
  sent both a county and a large burgh. Hon. Members have received many representations from all the important organisations interested in social welfare in Scotland. At this stage it is only the Secretary of State and the Convention of Royal Burghs that have come down firmly on the side of the large burghs having their own social work departments. The weight of opinion at the moment is thus not on the side of the large burghs.
  Placed against that weight of opinion are the views of another place and of many bodies. I still find it hard to draw a definite line. Some burghs have a close association with counties. Some are very progressive, as is the Burgh of Dumfries: it provides many facilities under its medical officers of health—homes for the elderly, for the disabled, for children; meals on wheels, home helps, and also many first-class recreational facilities. Not all authorities are as progressive as that. I wonder how much pressure the Government have put on backward authorities in recent years to bring their social work facilities up to the standard of the best.
  It is very true that social work begins with housing. We must have good housing if we are to overcome the problems we are dealing with today. This is a good reason for keeping a smaller closely knit unit for social work and thereby encouraging a large burgh to have such a unit. Many burghs believe that size is not a hindrance. If they have been progressive they fear that they may be penalised if they are to lose services which are to be transferred to the counties. They have shown that they can do tremendous pioneering work if the willingness is there and they are able to use the experience of part-time experts. There are many experts in Scotland who will give their services part-time to helping smaller burghs which cannot afford to have whole-time experts.
  We have to look at the situation in which we want uniformity throughout Scotland and in this we are considering larger units. I would support the larger units with some degree of misgiving because I think that the large burghs which are progressive and enterprising deserve to be supported. I hoped that the Secretary of State would today make a stronger case for changing the Bill in

  75
  this respect. We shall no doubt discuss this in detail in Committee. I hope that there will be a positive effort by the Government to encourage voluntary combination between burghs and counties where they see that that would be an advantage.
  In many cases now counties and burghs combine their children and probation committees. They do so with great friendship and progressive results. The crux of the decision whether or not to keep the burghs separate from the counties will come in relation to the question of whether or not it is possible to provide staff for both. This is one of the most important considerations.
  The third controversial point is over children's panels. This is a big step away from the present procedure. We must be absolutely certain that we are right about it. There are many doubts which will have to be dispelled between now and the time when the Bill becomes an Act. It is important to ask whether the panel will be seen to be a deterrent. At present, quite rightly, sittings are in private, but I wonder how a misguided juvenile will realise the power that the panels will have if nothing is said about them.
  A tremendous amount of public relations work will have to be done by social work departments to educate children into seeing that this is a first-class idea and that it will be effective. If it is effective it will be a deterrent; that is important. If it is not a deterrent to children who misbehave, we shall be wasting our time. I hope that when he winds up the Under-Secretary will say why Scotland and England are going different ways in view of the fact that we have recently had the White Paper, "Children in Trouble", which deals differently with this matter.
  Who will be the reporter? That is an unhappy title and I hope that in Committee we can find something more exciting. In the Kilbrandon Report it was suggested that the reporter should be
  "an officer combining a legal qualification with a period of administrative experience relating to the child welfare and educational services".
  I do not think many people, men or women, will fulfil those exacting qualifi-
  76
  cations. Who will be the chairmen and members of the panels? What training will they receive? I hope that the Under-Secretary will be fairly expansive on this, because many organisations in Scotland are keen to know how the panels will be developed.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) spoke about the probation service. This has done, and is doing, a fine job. Should we disturb it? Should we let it remain at the disposal of the courts at it is at the moment, even if only for the purpose of dealing with adults? Should we disrupt the present career structure in the service? We should bear in mind the recommendations of the Sheriff Substitute Association.
  The Kilbrandon Committee concentrated on juvenile delinquency. That is another dreadful term and I hope that we can find something better. The terms of the remit were not on the causes of delinquency, but on the machinery by which the existing law works and the treatment thereafter. The emphasis in the Bill is on rehabilitation. The tenor is in the direction of the expansion of social and family case work rather than in the machinery which Lord Kilbrandon's Committee envisaged. I think that the prevention of unhappiness is more important than the rescue operations which many social workers have to undertake because of lack of numbers and because there is no alternative.
  In social work there is lack of co-ordination. Voluntary services—to which we owe so much—may overlap, but there is, and always will be, a most important place for those who wish to give their services free. They must be helped to do so. The Secretary of State was very right to pay warm tribute to the voluntary social services. It must be explained to them that they must not relax in the work they are doing because there will be a place for them for many years ahead. Much or the success of the new social work departments will depend on the new director. What sort of man or woman is envisaged and what will be the qualifications? This will be a very big job.
  I wonder, rather as the hon. Member for Rutherglen did, why the medical officers of health are not being brought into the scheme. So much depends on

  77
  health, particularly mental health, and a doctor's sympathetic and knowledgeable approach could be invaluable. Over recent years, medical officers of health have done much of the welfare work of which we are speaking now.
  If they are to lose this responsibility, their career structure may disintegrate because their responsibilities will be so much reduced. Because medical officers of health are so important, I want the Under-Secretary of State to enlarge on what the future holds for these doctors who serve our local authorities so well. Apparently, medical officers of health will have little beyond school health, the inspection of food, and the other statutory obligations to carry out in future.
  I hope, also—this is very important—that we shall be told a little more about where the National Health Service will fit into the social work department structure and what form of co-ordination and co-operetion the Secretary of State envisages. Social work departments will be responsible for residential homes, geriatric homes and children's home, yet there is little in the Bill about their duties in this respect or about the financial implications.
  When will the staff come from in the early stages? We are short of children's officers now. Will the Government make a great effort in training? I am sure, because the Secretary of State is determined to make the Bill a success, that he will institute training for social workers. Throughout all our deliberations, the criterion for help must be need, and, if help is required, we must ensure that it is available. It is most important that we have the staff to look after the various categories. Young people must come first, and I hope that there will be a determined effort to guide parents whose children are of the difficult type covered by the Bill. We must have sufficient staff, in addition, to guide the elderly, who are often reluctant to turn for help when they really need it.
  We shall need large numbers of staff to do the case work with individuals, group work and community work, as well as family case workers and psychiatric social workers. These are few and far between now, but they are vital. In the Scottish Grand Committee, last June, I
  78
  spoke about the scarcity of psychiatric clinics and hospitals and, in particular, about the difficult geographical location of Larbert, where psychiatrically sick children go at present, and of the difficulty of finding accommodation for mentally deficient adolescents. Case workers can help tremendously, as do the staff of the Crichton Royal Hospital, at Dumfries, who go out into the town to help when and where necessary. We are short of these highly qualified staff, and short of accommodation. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us how matters are developing in this respect.
  All these case workers are specialists with qualifications at present. I do not imagine that anyone takes up this type of work without a calling, just as a doctor has a calling. There is some concern that, in future, they will all be lumped together in one service with, in effect, one general qualification. I know that they will all co-operate, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said on 23rd April during the Committee stage in another place, rather playing down the specialist qualifications which many workers have now; but I know that some concern is felt.
  Now, a word about the probation service and the children's panel. Like all hon. Members, I am deeply concerned at the rise in juvenile crime. We must be certain that what we do is effective in helping to stem the rise in juvenile crime over recent years. We have all read the memoranda submitted by the various organisations associated with the probation service, supported by the service itself, emphasising the specialised knowledge and special relationship with the courts which probation officers have, and the close co-operation between themselves and the local authorities, although they are not strictly employees of the local authorities. But we must be concerned about the worry expressed by probation officers. It is most important to use their skill, particularly in the next few years, while we are developing the social work department, which is bound to take a little time.
  I think it right—I understand that the probation service agrees—that children under 16 should become the responsibility of the social work department, but a

  79
  case can be made for the probation service looking after adults, in close co-operation with the courts. I say that because the probation service already has close connections with the prisons and young offenders' institutions. I am sure that, unhappily, those who are at young offenders' institutions will, after they leave, be the persons most in need of help from the probation service. Young men in their early twenties who have been to an institution must be got on the right road and into gainful employment in the years to come. This work is very specialised, and the probation service, if still in being, might well be the best to take it on.
  The details of the panels will give rise to interesting discussion in Committee. We all accept the important point made by the Secretary of State, that this is a pioneering Measure. We give it a general welcome in principle, but we must keep as our objective that social welfare in the broadest sense must be made available to all those in need, easily available and, if possible, under one umbrella. Nevertheless, we must always bear in mind that the country, the local authorities and the taxpayers do not have a bottomless purse. We have to balance the need for the great help which must be given to people in trouble with the cost to the community. However, all in all, this has every appearance of being a most useful and helpful Bill for Scotland, and I give it a welcome.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. George Willis: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) concluded by saying that while social welfare work is important we should consider the cost. If there is one thing on which we should be able to spend money, as a fairly affluent society, it is on trying to prevent the steady increase in crime. If not, the future is bleak.
  I support the Bill with a certain amount of pleasure because we often discuss crime from the point of view of deterrents, whether we should have hanging and birching, whether sentencing is too severe, whether the police should have greater or fewer powers, and so on, but very rarely debate something which at least tries to take some steps to prevent
  80
  the growth of crime. That is of paramount importance today.
  The Bill flowed from the Kilbrandon Committee's Report, which was concerned with the treatment of children, young offenders, in a constructive manner that would help to keep them from a possible life of crime, to try to prevent the child from going from ordinary offences to a general life of crime. That is why it is pleasant on this occasion to be considering something rather more constructive than we frequently consider.
  I agree that dealing with crime is important, but prevention if we can achieve it, is far more important. I recognise that how crime is dealt with may have some bearing on prevention, but I want us to get at the roots of the problem. We do not spend enough time considering this, and we must consider it in a much wider context than we do at present.
  We are living in an age of great social change. Habits, traditions and social values have been changing and are changing rapidly. We rarely consider the effect of this on families and children, and on the codes of behaviour that we see developing in the larger conurbations. We must spend much more time considering some of these matters if we hope to start to tackle this enormous social problem. I welcome the Bill for that reason.
  There was a time when I rather questioned the wisdom of proceeding with the Bill at present, since the Royal Commission on Local Government is expected to recommend fairly radical changes in our local government structure. I understand that we may have its report at the end of the year or the beginning of next year, and we must consider whether we should proceed with large-scale local government reorganisation in the interim.
  However, the Government have taken the view that it may be several years before we can deal with the Royal Commission's report, and we cannot afford to wait longer to deal with the Kilbrandon Committee's Report and the exercises that flowed from it. On balance, I am prepared to accept that the Government are probably right, though I cannot give them more enthusiastic support than that.
  This consideration leads me to the conclusion that the Government are wise to amend the Bill, as it has come from the Lords, to include large burghs as one of the local authorities. It would be

  81
  quite wrong at present to take from local authorities services which they already possess and create a considerable new local government structure—in other words, to reorganise a fairly wide section of local government services, bringing them under a new authority, at the very time we expect the Royal Commission to recommend changes in local government structure, since it will probably be the beginning of next year before the Bill comes into operation.
  In the circumstances, we should interfere as little as possible with the existing services. If what we hear is correct, the Royal Commission will make very important recommendations, perhaps suggesting regional authorities. If so, we should get the worst of all possible worlds, because we should create a new service and ask it to get on with the job just when it was being told that its structure might be altered again. We cannot maintain satisfactory morale among local government servants or employees or social workers—call them what we will—in those circumstances. Therefore, in seeking to bring the large burghs back into the Bill the Government are taking the right course.
  There are all the other arguments about the nature of the services performed by the large burghs, but apart from them, purely from an administrative point of view it makes sense, and if there are to be other changes arising from the Royal Commission's report we shall be able to make them in due course. I do not think that it is right to interfere with services twice within a comparatively short period and to expect success. If burghs do not have the necessary services or are not large enough to support them, the Bill makes provision for them to seek the co-operation of other burghs or the county, so there is no reason why this structure should not work. Therefore, I support the Government in their endeavours to make this change.
  I am in a bit of a quandary over the probation services because at present they are on a county basis except in one or two cases where they come under the burgh. My argument logically suggests that we should not interfere with the probation services. I have had very great doubts and find it very difficult to sum up the arguments for and against this. There seems to me to be a case for
  82
  the absorption of the probation service into the new social work service. I have examined the reasons why it is suggested that this might be inappropriate, such as their involvement in court work, concern with after-care treatment and so on, but I cannot see why this work could not be done by a probation service which is absorbed within the social work service.
  At the same time, we must appreciate that the probation service has built itself up into something thoroughly worth while and that its training and structure have been improved enormously recently. One can readily understand the fears about its being merged into a new service with no guarantees on what the probation officers have won for themselevs over the past few years.
  I hope that, if the decision is to merge the probation service into the social work service, the Government will see what can be done to reassure those in the service about their future. This is important. I cannot help feeling that, underlying much of the opposition to the merging of these two services, is concern about the future.
  Looking at it as objectively as one can, it seems that the probation work could well be performed within the framework of the social work service but it is organised at present on a county basis and that structure will have to be interfered with. On balance I am inclined to think that we could well do this at present.
  The hon. Member for Dumfries spoke about the children's panels and their deterrent effects. I thought that the aim of Kilbrandon was to get away from the criminal aspects of children's courts, and that we were thinking, not so much of deterrence, but of using the children's panels to help both the child and the family in taking the steps necessary for the child to move away from the path down which it has perhaps taken one or two steps.
  I thought that the idea was to get away from the stigma of treating a child as a criminal for a trivial offence and that we now planned to deal with offences in a wider and more reformative manner than the juvenile courts deal with them. I was, therefore, surprised when the hon. Member argued that we must not lose

  83
  sight of the deterrent value of children's courts and he hoped that this would be carried into the new system.
  Mr. Monro: The right hon. Gentleman is putting the wrong emphasis on what I was saying. I pointed out that children now know that there are juvenile courts and that this is where they will end up if they misbehave. I said that it would be a preventive measure if they knew in future that if they misbehaved themselves they would go before children's panels. Surely, in the end, the aim is to prevent crime rather than bring the children before a court or a panel.
  Mr. Willis: Despite the knowledge of children that they will go before juvenile courts, delinquency does not seem to have been prevented. The roots of delinquency are far deeper than simple deterrence. The emphasis now is surely on the reformative aspect—what can be done socially to try to assist the child to lead a responsible life which will be of use to himself primarily but also to the community. I hope that we shall not hear too much of this nonsense—and much of it is nonsense—about deterrence. Deterrence may have a part to play, but these other aspects of dealing with crime are far more important.
  At a time when we are trying to remove children from the criminal atmosphere of the children's courts to the atmosphere of the children's panels, we might have looked at the Scottish practice of fingerprinting and photographing children. This is not done in England, but in Scotland a boy of eight or nine can be taken to court, fingerprinted and photographed. That might be all very well if all of us were fingerprinted and photographed, but I am not sure that the effect at present on the mind of a young boy is a good thing.
  I know that the police think this practice a good thing and that it helps them to catch criminals. But I have not heard it claimed that the rate of crime detection in Glasgow is higher than that of the similiar conurbations in England, where this practice is not carried out. We should look at the possibility of making it necessary to have a court order before children of eight or nine years old can be fingerprinted and photographed.
  84
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on the manner in which they have dealt with the Report and all which has flowed from it and also on the way in which they have sought advice from all kinds of people and organisations. They have carried out the job in a splendid manner—one which could be usefully followed in other things.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: This Bill will be generally welcomed throughout Scotland because it is a good Bill. The recommendations are based on the Kilbrandon Report and the White Paper on Social Services and the Community. These Reports were produced after an exhaustive study of social conditions in Scotland with particular reference to children and young people. This is where the importance of the Bill lies.
  It is most interesting to see the large number of bodies which are carrying on social work at present and which have written to hon. Members with their comments. It is also interesting to note that, in the main, they welcome the Bill while making suggestions as to how it could be improved in various directions. It is encouraging that they have given the Bill this welcome because it augurs well for co-operation in future, when it reaches the Statute Book.
  In dealing with this question, it is necessary to give close study to the size of the unit to be administered. Here we come to the point that there seems to be some doubt as to whether large burghs should have their own authorities. I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State would tell us where the line of demarcation is between a small and a large burgh. In the north of Scotland, in particular, where county council services are based on the largest burgh in the area, it would be a waste of time and energy to set up two different organisations. But I realise that, where there are large burghs, it is a difficult matter. If we could be told where the line of demarcation is, it would simplify the matter for us.
  The main purpose of the Bill is to make the social services more efficient and, of course, we must always aim at

  85
  efficiency consistent with the proper use of resources available. The question of the recruitment of staff is very important and I think that it will be agreed that, in a fairly large unit, it would be easier to recruit staff because there would be better opportunities for promotion.
  On the other hand, it might be a disadvantage to have too large a unit, because in this work it is very important that members of staff should keep in close contact with those for whom they are responsible. The importance of personal knowledge of the background of people involved, especially children, cannot be over-stated. In this respect, the social welfare services are entirely different from other services. This is the main reason for their success, because local authorities have always appointed people who knew the background of those with whom they were dealing. It is also very important to stress that there will always be plenty of work for voluntary bodies, and we should not introduce anything into the Bill which would discourage those who are prepared to undertake social works, especially on behalf of the elderly.
  It is important that the right people should be chosen for the children's panel. They will do a power of good with the right people. I am sure that there are plenty of people prepared to do this work. The question of probation seems to cause some concern and it might be studied further and clarified in Committee. I know that there is some concern among probation officers. The Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has a very fine record of service and those of us who have been in contact with it appreciate its fine work. I hope that its services will still be available to carry out this good work. It would be a pity if it were curtailed, because there will always be work for the Society to do.
  Time is important. The Royal Commission on Local Government will be reporting soon. I think that the Secretary of State has said that he expects that the new organisation would be set up and working by 1969 or 1970. If the Royal Commission is to report at the end of this year or early next year, this Government, with their record for passing legislation at a rapid speed, could surely wait until they have had time to study
  86
  the report. There is no doubt that there will be changes. We do not know what the Commission will report but there will be boundary changes, and so forth. For the matter of a year or two years at the most, it is not worth going ahead. It will be better to wait until there is a clear picture of how the areas are to be organised. There may be other reasons which we will hear from the Under-Secretary.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I think that we have it wrong here. The Secretary of State suggested that it would be into the 'seventies before any reorganisation took place after the Royal Commission's report.
  Mr. Mackenzie: I cannot see that there is all that urgency if the Royal Commission is to report at the end of this year, or early next year. We might make a better organisation with fewer changes. I am convinced that if we pass this Measure before the report is available, some changes will be necessary. With these remarks I welcome the Bill, which I am sure will be a real boon to Scotland.
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. George Lawson: The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) has returned to the theme of timing. This has been one of the major themes, if not the major theme, in the arguments that have centred around the Bill. I was a bit doubtful about the advisability of going ahead with the Bill at this moment. There is a substantial argument in the point that, even when the Royal Commission reports, and it is expected that the report will be available perhaps at the end of this year or the middle of next, it will certainly be a long time, well into the 'seventies before effective action can be taken on the report. We might say therefore, that if there is this need for improvement, as urgent as most authorities have said—and judging by our own record in Scotland it seems that something has to be done quickly—then the important thing is to go ahead and begin to do something.
  We should get something started in such a way as will require not to be un-done or require as little undoing as foresight will permit us to achieve. We might not be able to get to the position

  87
  of knowing just what we do not require to undo, but this argument of counties versus large burghs is an important point to bear in mind. At this stage, we do not want to do things that we will have to radically undo.
  I was interested in the approach of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). He began by saying that he represented a large burgh and a county, and, therefore, he could be expected to have a certain amount of division in his interests, loyalties and attitudes—his bias would not be as confirmed as we might expecte it to be if he were representing solely one or the other. I might say that I have a little bit of a county in my constituency, and I represent accordingly a bit of a county as well as a large burgh.
  I was particularly interested in the hon. Gentleman's approach, because it was so tentative. There were one or two points on which he had made up his mind, but by and large, he was asking questions. There were doubts, this might be so, that might be so, let us be cautious and so on. I thoroughly agree. This is a situation when any of us who are firm about anything, or say that we know exactly what should be done, must be regarded as very foolish.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who is usually very positive in his attitude, on this occasion spoke with a large measure of caution.
  We are trying here to deal in a comprehensive way with that which has always up to now been dealt with piecemeal. We have introduced services to deal with children. We have introduced services to deal with old people. Each is a separate service which grew up, in the early stages, from the work of the medical officers of health. They have taken on additional functions and have become overloaded. Separatism, in a social sense and not a political sense, is a characteristic of the social services.
  I do not think I exaggerate when I say that all hon. Members have received dozens of communications about the Bill. Within the past two or three days I have received a communication, the first part of which reads:
  "Memorandum of the views of a professional working party, representing:
  88
  Association of Child Care Officers, Association of Family Case Workers, Association of Psychiatric Social Workers, Association of Social Workers, Institute of Medical Social Workers, Moral Welfare Workers Association, Society of Mental Welfare Officers."
  We have had very many such communications. With such a multiplicity of organisations it is not surprising that we ourselves are a bit tentative in our approach on co-ordination and unification.
  I would ask that my right hon. Friend and his junior Ministers, including the Minister of State, should not be too firmly fixed in their ideas as to how best to deal with this. Perhaps during the Committee stage some sensible ideas might emerge. I am not satisfied that the health service, the medical officers of health and their departments are in their proper place. Perhaps a unification of health and welfare services might be a better core around which to build than is social work, with the separation between health and the multiplicity of other services. The health organisation, which does have recognisable skills, might provide a better approach to bringing the services together than the social workers.
  The man who holds a key position in the building of a welfare, health and social service is the general practitioner. Unfortunately, all general practitioners are not prepared to co-operate. The general practitioner goes into every home and knows intimately the people who are most in need of assistance. All too often he denies his willing co-operation to enable society to build the comprehensive, united social service that we all wish to achieve. If my right hon. and hon. Friends can bring the general practitioners into the service, this will be a tremendous advance.
  There is a change of attitude with the health centres that are being developed. I hope that they will grow up rapidly and meet the deficiencies that exist.
  I am very concerned with the inclusion of the large burghs. I must compliment my right hon. and hon. Friends upon the facilities they have made available to us to argue the case. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite might feel a slight sense of grievance. When the White Paper was published the Government expressed their readiness to hear what the Scottish Members of Parliament had to say. It may well be that if hon. Gentlemen opposite had had some views they

  89
  wished to express facilities might have been afforded to them.
  We had a series of meetings, which was a good thing. It would be a good thing with other measures of importance that as much discussion as possible should take place among Members of Parliament, so that we are not presented with a fait accompli, before we have had a chance to say what we think about it.
  The initial White Paper came down on the side of excluding the large burghs. There must have been some fairly powerful advocates of this point of view at an early stage, because my right hon. Friend adopted that point of view and agreed that the large burghs should be excluded. Then better counsel prevailed. Many of my colleagues support me in this. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton), who is a sensible, well-balanced man, who weighs the pros and cons of an argument, and who has a bias towards the counties, when he comes to weigh this up will come down on this side too.
  Mr. James Hamilton: I want to disabuse the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). I am afraid, after listening to his peroration, I cannot agree. In fact he has now convinced me that it should be counties and cities.
  Mr. Lawson: I hope that in course of time the hon. Member for Bothwell can and will get rid of his grudge. There are very powerful arguments. I am not blindly supporting large burghs. If I thought the case was a bad one, I would say so. But the case here is very good. I do not think that I have anything new to say, but there are certain points which should be underlined.
  The first point is that we should ensure, as far as possible, that we do not have to undo what we have already done. Consider the changes which will be wrought and the powers which will be taken from the large burghs. They will be deprived virtually of half their activities. We know the kind of feeling which this sort of thing generates. However, they will be left with certain other activities. In these circumstances, there is the possibility of cleavages of interest and of service which will not hasten forward the process of unification.
  90
  Let me put this point to my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell, who I know is listening with great care. Suppose that the separation were carried out but that there remained with the large burghs the power of building and allocating houses. We know that there are such things as problem families and that any housing authority would be delighted to get rid of its problem families. Think what the situation would be if the social work department which had the problem family as its major concern had to appeal to a large burgh to allow the family to continue in a house when the large burgh had given it opportunity after opportunity and was fed up and had said, "We want to put it out". In other words, by making the separation we should be putting the large burgh in such a position that it could easily get rid of its problem families and turn them over to the social work department, a county authority.
  I hope that that would not be done, but there would be a powerful temptation to do it. That is one example of cleavage of interest. The large burgh will be both the housing authority and the welfare authority, and it could not get rid of the problem family because to do so would merely shift it to another department. But if it could shift it outside its orbit, it might well be tempted—I put it no higher—to do so.
  Similarly one can think of cleavage of interest between health and welfare departments and the social work departments. The medical officer of health has a whole range of welfare activities—including, in my constituency, care for old people, concern with the nature and standing of the homes for old people; a sheltered workshop has recently been set up—which will come within the scope of the social work department. One can readily see that, with the large burgh having a separate existence and separate interests from the social work department—and, unfortunately, relations between county and burgh are not always as harmonious as we should like—the possibility is that services will be rendered much less well than they are now. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell would not want that to happen, but there is the possibility of its happening.
  What may we expect from the Royal Commission? It is very unlikely—and

  91
  perhaps I am saying something which will provoke a lot of anger—that the Royal Commission will recommend the continuance of the existing county councils. It is feasible that it will recommend the setting up of some form of regional authority as the top tier and a second-tier authority operating within the region. It is very likely that the second-tier authority will aways have as the core the population centre in that area. In all likelihood, the large burghs, and, in many cases, perhaps the smaller burghs, will be the centre which will carry out these services. Therefore, we should be careful about what we do and ensure that we confine what we will need to undo to the minimum. If this forecasting is right—and it is reasonable to take it as right—there will be very little undoing required in those services, because the services will be based upon the population centres. Even with the counties operating those services, they will be obliged to operate them from the population centres. Then they can be utilised, extended and built upon when we have the Royal Commission's report if it recommends moving along such lines.
  That is no doubt a question which will arise in Committee, but it would seem to me from what I have heard that sense will prevail and that the Government's intention also will prevail. This is my main point on Second Reading, although I hope to say much more in Committee.
  The question of delinquency is troublesome. As a boy, I grew up in a pretty poor part of a big city. We used to compare ourselves with certain foreign people—I will not say who they were. When we had a dispute, we used our fists. When the other people had a dispute, they used the knife. We regarded this with contempt. We disliked it intensely. It might not have been so bad to use a cudgel, but the use of a knife was not part of our way of thinking; it was alien to us. Unfortunately, it now seems to have become accepted as part of the way of thinking and mode of action of a large number of youngsters. I wonder to what extent our organs of publicity are to blame.
  A great deal of fuss is made and there is much publicity about certain things which take place. Youngsters pick ideas
  92
  from the air. But how are they put in the air? They are put in the air through the medium of the Press and television and in other ways. We imitate. We must recognise how imitative people are. The young man who shot the German student confessed that he did it because someone had just shot Dr. Martin Luther King. It is a characteristic of people that they imitate. This is how we learn to speak and to keep ourselves clean. We base ourselves on what we hear and see. Our organs of publicity bear a very large part of the responsibility for the charactertistic of resorting to use of the knife, which I find so contemptuous and which was so alien to my way of thinking as a boy. It might be a very good thing if they were to work the other way and try to develop a contempt for this kind of thing as not being activities we expect youngsters in our society to engage in.
  There are other features of our society which, as my hon. Friend, the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) and others have said, we ought to be looking at much more closely than we have done before, as, for instance, developing punishment as though it were virtually the only means of solving the problem of delinquency. We have to have punishment, I agree, but there are other means of solving the problem, and, if we are not carrying out those other means, we ourselves are failing.
  I remember, for example, as anyone coming from the crowded streets of a big city will also remember, the kind of games the boys could play on the streets, innumerable games, all sorts of games, such as "Levoy oot", Hop and Dig, Kick the Can. There was a host of games, and I notice that books have been written and songs have been sung, songs which one could not help singing, about these customs and games, and, if the customs prevailed, the games prevailed. But how can games of that sort be played with all the motor cars in the streets? Take Hop and Dig, for example. It was a challenge. The lads from one side of the street got into the middle hopping on one leg, and challenged the boys on the other side to come across, and, as they were knocked down by the "dig" they joined the challengers' team. That sort of game cannot be played where there are motor cars.

  93
  We have put up housing schemes where there are no facilities at all for the youngsters. In many cases, we do not even provide a fish and chip shop. Many youngsters want a fish and chip shop far more than they want a Scouts' hall. Many of them do not want to join the Scouts or the Boys' Brigade. They want an ice-cream shop with a juke box, a billiards saloon, and so on. There are many areas where there is nothing for the boys to do except get into trouble.
  I am thinking of those who go to the juvenile courts. In certain strata of society, a youngster can have prestige if he has been to the court a lot of times. He is accorded a certain prestige in his circle, if his circle is a circle whose hand is against the police. It was the case, and I have no doubt it is still the case, that, if a youngster was called before the judge he was not brought to shame but would only have his ego elevated. We need to be thinking in these terms. From this point of view, bringing youngsters before the much less spectacular panel may have the effect of taking some of the heat out of this kind of thing; there may not be so much prestige in going there. Similarly with the probation officer, and I wonder whether the probation officer should be turned into a social worker. Certainly he must have a large part to play. We are concerned with developing good relations between young people and older people.
  Mr. William Baxter Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Interventions prolong speeches, and many hon. Members wish to speak.
  Mr. Lawson: I will just make this point and finish. But my hon. Friend wanted to ask me something?
  Mr. W. Baxter: I am very interested in what my hon. Friend has had to say about his childhood days, and the games which were played, but was not the birch a certain deterrent? Did not the birch save boys from getting into trouble?
  Mr. Lawson: No. The birch did not. A boy who had the birch could make a boast of it. There are boys of considerable quality, ability and courage. There is the other kind of fellow who becomes a criminal because he is inadequate, but
  94
  some boys are more adequate than the ordinary run of boys and they become criminals because they lead. Such a boy, when he got the birch, boasted about getting the birch: it was a mark of distinction which he could carry for many years.
  This is a theme we can talk about more closely when we consider later how best to modify the Bill. I support my right hon. and hon. Friends in their endeavours to start this process of unifying the services. I plead only that they do not at this stage adopt a too rigid approach, and say that in this Bill they have got the last word and are not prepared to hear of any sensible or possible modification of it.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that there are many hon. Members who wish to speak in this debate.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: This is a most ambitious and important Bill. The general principle of the Bill is an admirable one. It seeks to ensure that help is given to many who are in need of help and offers to the troubled citizen the advantage of being able to "knock at one door". I would take issue with one hon. Member who said that the citizen was enabled to knock at one door and then directed where to go. I think the whole point and basic justification of the principle of the Bill is that someone who needs help will not have to be troubled to be directed to go somewhere else but that he will get in the door he knocks on and have his problem attended to.
  It also offers the social worker an advantage in that it is sought to make effective use of the limited manpower which is available.
  However, I hope that the Minister in winding up the debate will give an indication whether it is invisaged that specialisation will develop, because it is most important that specialisation should develop in many spheres of social service if it is to be efficient, and even though there is to be one umbrella I hope that, under it, we may have specialisation.
  I hope there may be some clarification about what persons may "knock on the door." I know that the Bill as it stands is deliberately left general and presumably there will be opportunity during Committee for clarifying these points.

  95
  Are we thinking not only of young people but also of old people of handicapped people of the socially inadequate and unfortunate? I have a question to ask. The adult who comes under the umbrella of the Bill, is he obliged to come under it only if he wants to, or is he a volunteer? There are many people who might be a bit stubborn. Let us suppose a man is a little in need of help but can still just about manage. Can he, then, opt out and say, "I do not want to benefit from this umbrella"? I should like this point to be dealt with in the winding up speech.
  Like many other hon. Members, I have received many representations, a number of them from the organisations for unmarried mothers, which are most anxious for a definite indication that they will come under the umbrella. There is no doubt that they are a category of person who need a lot of help. The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) mentioned a figure of 41 per cent. of children in care in Glasgow being illegitimate—a very high number. I hope that we shall bear in mind the girl who has an illegitimate baby and who really wishes to retain her child, and whose only problem in making her choice is the short-term problem of help in the immediate, foreseeable future. Does that category of person come under the Bill?
  The next question is: what doors can one knock on? I will give an example from my own experience and then apply it. I had a client who was pregnant and who pushed two children in a pram. She had been very badly beaten up by her husband for the umpteenth time. Often before she had come for advice and then been reconciled. Eventually, the worm turned and she never went back to him. However, she needed help. She needed a roof, like so many other women in her position. She was directed by me to the social welfare office. From there she was directed to two other places before finally being allotted a bed for the night for herself and her family.
  But she still had a lot of doors to knock on and she still had to wait. If she were the type who wants to make her own way and to put her children into a nursery school, but she would probably have to wait until a place could be found
  96
  for them. She may possibly have a desire to go to a marriage guidance clinic. She may have the R.S.P.C.C. to consider, often useful in dealing with cases of violent husbands, as some of us who have had dealings with these cases know. She also has the temporary "roof" problem, because her husband is probably the tenant of the house.
  Even though a court were to give her interim custody of the children, there is nothing she can do about getting the house. If we are envisaging one door being the answer, we might consider in that type of case not only giving immediate financial help to save a woman in this tragic situation having to wait for an hour and more in a Ministry of Social Security office—as often happens—but also power to award temporary tenancy of the matrimonial home.
  I now ask about the health services, the Ministry of Social Security, the nursery schools, the voluntary services the green ladies, because in almost every case all these bodies would be involved. Are we getting any nearer to "knocking on one door"?
  I welcome the provision contained in Clause 12(3), which was mentioned by the Secretary of State. From my experience as a solicitor with court practice, I can think of many cases where that provision would have helped enormously. This envisages cash assistance for an unforeseeable group of situations. I will give the example of a man never in trouble up to the age of 37 when his marriage broke up and when he did get into serious trouble. When he came out of prison he had lost the tools of his trade. He was a tradesman and he had no means by which he could avail himself of the tools of his trade.
  One of my colleagues lent him the money, and I am glad to say that he got it back. That case had a happy ending, because that man, through one simple act, of being able to obtain the tools of his trade, got back to his trade, and redeem himself in society. Had he not got that help there and then—he had tried the Prisoners' Aid Society and a number of other bodies, but it was too big a sum—the story might have had a different ending. I am pleased with that provision in the Bill. One cannot envisage situations until they arise, but that provision

  97
  will enable that kind of problem to be dealt with.
  I should like to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) on his attitude to the large burghs. I am in the same position as the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie), who has both a county authority and a burgh authority in his constituency. He made many points which seem to me to bear out what the hon. Member for Motherwell said. Social services are of a local and intimate character. Often the person requiring help prefers to get it within his own domestic setting through people who are known to him—for instance, his local councillor. That is a good thing and it would be a pity to interfere with it.
  Housing, health and social services in the burghs are obviously better arranged on the same basis. Some burghs already provide very good social services—for instance, Hamilton. Size does not always bring about efficiency—sometimes it just brings bureaucracy, as perhaps all will agree. There is also the matter of the good relationship of the local councillor with the person needing help. If we remove these social services from the large burghs we shall leave them with small burgh status. Many county councils already lean on the existence of the good services in the large burghs. Therefore, I shall support the Amendment which will be tabled to retain these services in the large burgh. In present circumstances, as has been said, there may even have to be more reorganisation in future so I favour the least present rearrangement.
  Like other hon. Members, I have some misgivings. I am not a social worker, but we are all social workers at some time in our lives, whether as town councillors, M.P.s or, in my case, as a solicitor. Often people have come to me with a social problem, not a legal problem, but I could not turn them away for that reason. I had to listen, because that was part of my job.
  From my 10 years of practice in the courts I have two specific misgivings. One relates to juvenile courts and the other to the probation service. The present juvenile courts system in Scotland, in my view, works well. Crime is certainly rising but the dangerous age for boys appears to be between 17 and
  98
  21—for women it is 35 to 45. I do not know the reason for that. According to the Kilbrandon Committee—and that is now out of date—the age group up to 17 was not one in which there was a rapid increase. Far from it. The Kilbrandon Committee said that the figures suggested the increase was related to the increase in the child population. It may be that there has been a dramatic increase since then in this age group, but I do not think so. Whatever system we have the age group up to 17 seems to be holding its own. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to bear that point in mind.
  Despite the fact that the present legislation was envisaged for a special kind of juvenile court, it has never been put into effect, save in four places. We only have four entirely separate juvenile courts as envisaged under the Children and Young Persons Acts, 1932 and 1937. We have good legislation, but we have not yet put it into effect. This often happens in penology and criminology. It seems that we will be having another jump before we have tried what we already have. We have a system where hearings are held in private. The Press is permitted to attend, but it may not publish the names and addresses of young offenders.
  There is an advantage in this situation. The public interest is preserved by the Press being present. For example, the public, on hearing about a school being burned down and causing vast expense to the ratepayers, is entitled to know that the culprit has been caught and the case closed. It is not entitled to know the name and address of the child, and this is honoured by the Press. This is worth retaining. From what I have read about the panels, we are not told how the public interest will be preserved.
  The juvenile courts at the moment have a fundamental consideration—the social well-being of the child. That is their duty. In my experience, one does not always agree with the sheriff, especially if one is a defence lawyer. However, I have rarely felt seriously aggrieved in a juvenile court. The only time I can remember was an occasion when the sheriff was new to the bench. The sheriff is a man accustomed to the problems of his own jurisdiction. Whatever city or sheriffdom he sits in he gets to know the problems of the child in a single end or the

  99
  child with an alcoholic father or a bad home life.
  Our standard of justice concerns itself primarily with retrieving the child, and I should not like to think that it is proposed to abandon even part of it without giving it a trial. Only 16 per cent. of juveniles are dealt with in the reformed juvenile courts. Glasgow tries hard to deal with the problem. It has separated its juvenile courts from adult courts. The judge does not wear his robes, and the policemen do not wear their uniforms, but there are many other things that could be done. I should like a kind of roundtable conference at which the problems are discussed and present at the discussions there should be a social worker, a probation officer, and perhaps a cleric if the youngster concerned comes from a churchgoing family. We have a good system which could be improved, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his proposal to abandon it. The present system has the well being of the child as its major consideration.
  It will not, in any event, be possible to abandon the system completely, because if a child pleads not guilty—which I understand happens in 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. of the cases—or if he or his parents dispute the facts, the case will have to go before a court in any event. We will not save any money under the new system, not that I am concerned primarily with that aspect of it. We will not avoid the necessity of maintaining the structure of the courts as they exist now.
  In our courts legal aid is available to all those who are in custody, and always has been since 1424. That is a proud record of the legal profession in Scotland. The Bill does not say that legal aid will be available for appearance before the panels. The one thing that can be said with certainty about a lawyer who appears for a youngster is that he is on that youngster's side. This is a constant.
  The judicial function is extremely important. Lord Devlin said:
  "In an ordered society every question that affects the liberty of the individual, whether it is for a decade, a year, or a day, is a question for a judicial body."
  I admit to being a little afraid of laymen who are given the power of disposal. Laymen are the best people for social
  100
  work, but the most refined activity in social work is the power to dispose of a person's liberty or future, and for this I want a professional person. In Scotland lawyers are prejudiced against laymen with this power and not without reason. We have, therefore, been anxious to evolve a fair system of trial, and such a system cannot be brought in overnight. It takes a long time for fair rules to be evolved and we have a fair set of rules in Scotland. Our trials are as close to a scientific process as human justice can be. I am alarmed because I think that a child's interests may not be safeguarded because of the secrecy of the hearings under the new system.
  As a counsellor who is often asked to advise a youth on whether his plea amounts to an admission of guilt, I am amazed at the number of occasions on which extraneous motives are brought into play. His mother may well have told him that nothing will happen if he pleads guilty and gets it over. If he has a new job, he is often encouraged to believe that the best thing he can do is to plead guilty and get back to work. Will the new system safeguard people who find themselves in that position?
  I am concerned about the recruitment of the necessary staff for the lay panels. I understand that those concerned will have to be available for three months at a time. I am afraid of what I call do-gooders having power over the future of young people. I admire do-gooders when they are trying to raise money for a good cause or carrying out social work, but I do not think they will be suitable for disposing of liberty. People who are appointed to do this work will need to have first-hand knowledge of the problems of these children, and I am alarmed at the possibility of people without the necessary qualifications being given power to make decisions about the liberty and future of a youngster.
  Will the appointments be made from among retired teachers, or ministers, or ministers' wives? Is it possible that a moral atheist would ever be given a chance to be appointed to do this work? Not many people will be available for three months at a time. As to the reporter I think it is right that the reporter is dismissible only by the Secretary of State. This is excellent, because it shows the status that he is being given,

  101
  but he may dominate the lay panel. It will require a courageous layman to stand up to someone who knows all about the legal procedure and who is a permanent official. The liberty of a child is as important to me as the liberty of an adult, and the rules affecting a child must be as fair as those affecting adults.
  The probation service has sent representations to us all. I have a good deal of experience of reading probation reports. In about one case in ten they criticise one aspect or other of a local authority's functions, and it is a good thing that they should be free to do so. If they become employees of a local authority, I do not think that it will be as easy for them to criticise their employers. A probation officer has certain sanctions. He is an agent of the public interest and of the court. He can bring the probationer back for breach of probation. A court's main function is to treat the young person as a person to be retrieved. In my experience the probationer officer's independence assists him to do so.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: What about valuation assessors who are appointed by local authorities? They are free agents.
  Mrs. Ewing: I have never had any quarrel with the impartiality of valuation assessors. If probation officers are placed in the position of having to criticise their co-employees, the situation might be somewhat different. Very often a probation officer's report includes a personal criticism of a co-employee. This distinguishes his situation from that of a valuation assessor.
  A case has been made for bringing the probation service for young people up to the age of 16 under the umbrella of the Bills' provisions, and for leaving out the adult probation service. This is probably a compromise, but I cannot see much logic in it, because the great value of the probation service lies in retrieving persons. A probation officer knows what lies ahead of a young person who starts to go wrong and gets on to the slippery path of crime. From his experience of the old lags with whom he has had to deal he can convince a youngster that he is on the criminal road to disaster, and from his first-hand experience of
  102
  adult criminals may be able to stop him from going any further.
  The ingenuity of probation orders is not always understood. They seem to work well because they are voluntary contracts.
  I wonder whether under this Bill probation will be a voluntary contract? Is probation still envisaged as one form of disposal of a panel? When a youth is asked to accept probation, that request treats him with a degree of responsibility to which he will respond if there is any good in him. The parent who is asked to agree to co-operate with the probation officer is not quite such an undignified figure as when he entered the court behind his child. He is given a status and may live up to it—though he does not always manage to do so. Therefore, the voluntary aspect is very important.
  The present arrangements of juvenile courts served by probation orders, as they so frequently are, are moreover of infinite variety. We will not get a wider disposal through the panels. Fines on parents or young persons are clearly a deterrent for first offenders, as is shown by the statistics. A variety of conditions can be imposed by a probation order. Damages for a broken window or worse can be recovered. A boy can be required to stop carrying weapons or an adult to call on a police officer every Saturday afternoon instead of going to the Rangers-Celtic football match.
  I was even concerned with a very sad case of a stabbing, when, because of many mitigating circumstances, the boy was, unusually, put on probation. One of the many conditions was that he should apologise to his victim before the whole school, if his headmaster co-operated. That was very unusual, and I believe that it was done. I mention that to show that the present arrangements offer an infinite variety, so I would not necessarily accept that the new arrangements would offer more variety.
  I turn now to the morality of responsibility. The age of criminal responsibility at 8 is obviously out of step and must be raised, but I do not know whether it should go up to 16. After all, in Scotland, we can marry at 16, although that may be just an argument for raising the age at which one may marry. It

  103
  would be strange to have no criminal responsibility after puberty. The court has always recognised the value of this line. A boy of 15 or even 14 knows that he is answerable for his actions. That is not to say that he should not be retrieved if he has fallen, but it does not bring out the best to put on a "blanket" up to the age of 16.
  I admire the courage of this step, but I have these serious reservations which I should like considered.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak and that we have had only two speeches in the last hour.
  7.13 p.m.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: The hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) was drawing on her experience as a solicitor and housewife in giving approval to the principle of the Bill. From the other side of the fence, not as a solicitor but as someone with 50 years' experience as a lay magistrate and a member of a juvenile panel, I would like to point out some of the remarkable misconceptions about juvenile courts. This talk about "guilty" and "not guilty" is confusing, since a child in a juvenile court is asked only, "Did you do it or did you not?" Therefore, we cannot discuss the Bill purely in terms of legality.
  One argument which is used against the Bill is that the existing system is satisfactory, but the figures do not bear this out—although the hon. Lady was quite right to have some reservations here. I would not describe most of the offences—again, I do not like the word "crime", which has been somewhat misused—as trivial, but not all are serious. I was convinced that many a boy or girl who appeared before me would never be in a court again, and this probably proved to be correct.
  As a lay magistrate, I found probation officers very helpful, but the arguments, especially from the Front Bench, were not so much about their retention as about their status. I have had the best relationships with probation officers before a decision—once again, not a "sentence"—since they could be of invaluable assistance in describing the children's parental
  104
  background, I.Q. and school record. But it is possible that the word "probation" is not a nice one and may have unpleasant associations. For instance, we used to associate the school board and the attendance officer with someone forcing children to go to school, and I should like them called, for example, social workers. I have argued for social workers in big post-primary schools and the functions of the probation officer could perhaps be carried out in this way without a change.
  I am not too happy about the method of appointment of juvenile panels. This is why I favour the change. When I was a lay magistrate, the only way that I could attend was to work all night at the coal face and go to the court at ten o'clock in the morning. In the early days, the work was over by lunchtime, but then the court began to sit for longer and longer, even until 6 p.m. I did not even get my bus fare or the price of my lunch.
  Therefore, I am pleased that the Bill will provide that local authorities may—though I would like some explanation of the word "may"—recompense people on the panel. I want it to represent all walks of life, since it could probably benefit from the experience of miners, railwaymen or engineers. I do not want them to have my experience or that of some of my colleagues on the day shift who could perhaps not go on the panel at all.
  I am glad that there have been some amendments à la Kilbrandon, because he suggested that the sheriff should make the appointments. That was a monstrous suggestion. The sheriff principal makes the appointments to the valuation appeal courts and I do not know why he should. It was suggested that the sheriff should do this over the juvenile panel, but I think that the Secretary of State should accept the responsibility and that a panel and a chairman should decide. I am glad that some decision has been taken about setting up a separate department. The idea first mooted was that the directors of education should have this included in their departments, but they have enough to do.
  I am pleased with the provision for the elderly. The care of the elderly cannot be solved just with more old folks' homes. That is why I welcome the involvement of the local authority. I have

  105
  lived for many years in a village. I know that it does not apply so much to cities and towns, but I have always been struck by the fact that, in these small communities, provision can be made for the old people, probably in their own houses, on a mutual help basis. Mrs. Brown, who is an old lady, may not be feeling too well, but young Mrs. Smith next door will help keep an eye open to see whether the milk and papers are taken in. This kind of thing means that old people can stay in the villages in which they were born and play an active part. This association of the local authorities can ensure housing provision for old people within the community.
  My correspondence has also been voluminous. Much of a Member's correspondence is pressure on behalf of a particular profession and I was some-times not impressed by the arguments. But I was impressed by one letter which I felt had a point and I hope that my hon. Friend will answer it. A constituent, a head occupational therapist, wrote to me saying:
  "The Bill contains a Clause which is of particular importance to the severely handicapped. Under Clause 1(4)(c) the function of local health authorities, under Section 27 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, for the care and aftercare of persons who are, or who have been, suffering from illness, other than functions relating to medical, dental or nursing care, are transferred to the new Local Authority Social Work Committee"
  The writer adds:
  "I say that this whole question is of great importance to our profession of occupational therapists as under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act, 1960, occupational therapists are only allowed to practice under medical direction. Indeed, when the White Paper on Social Work was considered, my profession were assured by the Scottish Home and Welfare Departments that this aspect would be safeguarded."
  I hope that the Minister will comment on that and will tell us whether the terms of the Bill safeguard the position.
  7.27 p.m.
  Earl of Dalkeith: It is always a pleasure to speak following the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), particularly on an occasion such as this, when the party political hatchet is temporarily buried. However, there are a few points I must take up with the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends.
  106
  The hon. Gentleman gave some interesting information about his past experience as a magistrate and I agree wholeheartedly with his views about the composition of the panels. It is important that they should be representative of the areas from which the children are likely to come. I am not sure, however, that there is much wisdom in having on the panel a minor if he is unfortunately having to work night shift the night before appearing on the panel. Will he be fresh and able to deal with these problems?
  Mr. Eadie: The noble Lord missed the point. If he reads the Bill he will see that provision is made for a minor to be compensated, so that he would not have to work night shift.
  Earl of Dalkeith: I accept that, but I did not gather that the hon. Gentleman was making that point. If he was, I apologise for misrepresenting him.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said that the Bill followed a great many bits and pieces of social welfare practices that had evolved, by chance, over the years. Although I would not regard the Bill as a revolution, it could be described as accelerating evolution. It is for this reason that I welcome it. Obviously, this is a Measure which appeals to all hon. Members who found ourselves in politics largely on account of our hope that we might do something constructive and useful to help to improve the quality of life for the population generally. This is another reason why I welcome the Bill, but with some reservation.
  In so far as the Measure aims to set up sensible machinery to protect and assist the most vulnerable and defenceless members of the community, it is like its grand-parent, the Kilbrandon Report. Like its parent, it can provide a valuable service to Scotland. The implementation of the Bill will have to be reconciled with that rare and increasingly precious commodity, the rights and freedoms of the community. It is appropriate, therefore, that our acceptance of the Bill should be qualified. In our attempts to harmonise and coordinate all the activities that are going on, we should be careful not to do anything which might undermine the voluntary spirit, which is such an important ingredient in our whole approach to social welfare problems.

  107
  Several hon. Members have referred to the volume of correspondence which we have received. I frankly admit that on no other Scottish Bill have I received such a volume of papers, memoranda, and literature of all sorts. This is a healthy sign which shows that a great many people are taking an interest in the subject. It also emphasises the need for co-ordination, because it shows how many different organisations are involved, many of which are bound to be overlapping in some of the work they do.
  The debate in another place was an impressive example of the high standard of discussion that can take place there. At a time when the other House tends to be knocked by hon. Members here, the quality of the debate on Second Reading is worth stressing, for a wealth of knowledge and experience can be brought to bear by their Lordships which I sometimes wish could be brought to bear in some of our debates. They make a valuable contribution——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The noble Lord must not push that too far or we may change the subject of today's debate.
  Earl of Dalkeith: I referred to the other place merely to point out that we now have a slightly improved Bill compared with what it was originally.
  The subject of the timing of the Bill has featured widely today and several hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) have expressed anxiety at its timing in relation to the forthcoming report by the Royal Commission on Local Government. I appreciate the difficult position in which the Government found themselves in wondering whether or not to hold back, but I favour them going ahead. Although it would be wrong to prejudge what the Royal Commission will recommend, I suggest that, with a little intelligent anticipation, it might be possible to create a framework with this legislation which will require the minimum of change.
  It is important, in this context, to consider the position of large burghs. If they are included, we will have about 56 administrative authorities instead of 32. I would guess that the Royal Commission will advise us to have larger units throughout the country, in which case even 32 administrative units may be too
  108
  many. I fear that if we set up 56, many of the people in those units will be disappointed and that morale will suffer when they have to be disbanded and merged into larger units.
  The potential of the Bill for good is enormous. It can do much to contribute to a healthier society—mentally, physically and morally—and it can do a great deal to improve the quality of life by setting future generations on the right road. An essential feature is the question of delinquency and the crime rate. From the discussion which has taken place since the Kilbrandon Report was first published, we have become acutely aware of the clearly identifiable reasons why so many youngsters take the wrong road. Environment is one. Slum clearance has been proceeding apace in the last 12 years or so, with the result that one of the causes why youngsters go off the rails is being cleared up rapidly. There are also the broken and unhappy homes, and these often originate from slum conditions.
  We then have the question of illegitimacy. This is an important aspect which the Bill could help to tackle and, in Committee, we will have to ensure that the Measure is equipped to solve some of the problems that are arising from this cause. It is difficult not to relate this to other activities which have been taking place, including those which enable local authorities to assist with birth control. The advent of the contraceptive pill can make an important contribution and I am certain that those who we sometimes refer to as unwanted children are the children who get into trouble, often because they are unloved.
  Parental responsibility in this is of fundamental importance. I am disappointed to find myself in disagreement to a minor extent with the Kilbrandon Report in connection with parental responsibility because I believe that there is a case for parents being fined for the misdemeanours of their children. I have carefully studied the arguments advanced by the Kilbrandon Report, but I suggest that the fining of parents would compel a great many of them to pay more attention to their children whereas, without this step being taken, they will continue just not to care.
  Many hon. Members wish to speak and I will, therefore, not delay the House.

  109
  How do we convert the vision of the Bill into reality? The Measure provides the bones. We must provide the meat to cover them and transplant a heart into a skeleton and ensure that it beats with compassion. The crucial key is the question of staffing. There is a desperate shortage of manpower in the welfare services and it is essential that we show clearly that in future this profession is a prestige one.
  By this means we will attract individuals to a job with proper career prospects and not simply something comprising a series of little ladders leading nowhere far. We must show that worthwhile ladders exist and that people can climb them to a worthwhile summit. Training and qualifications are vitally important, as is the reward. We need more clarification about the qualifications of the directors, and I hope that the Minister will provide this information.
  The co-ordination of the present multitude of services is sensible and to be welcomed. However, I wonder if the Measure goes far enough in connection with local government departments, health services, education services and the rest. I have a great many points still to raise, but they can be left to the Committee stage. Even if the Government have not assessed the cost of implementing the Bill I am sure that this will be one of the most invaluable investments that we can make in helping our society and in helping Scotland to produce a race of people of whom it can be even more proud than it has been in the past.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. James Hamilton: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith). The last time I followed him in a debate I was forcibly putting forward the view of the Government and he had been putting forward the opposite view. I agree with his last sentence, that this is a good Bill which concerns each and every one of us and one which we hope, when it becomes an Act, will be beneficial to the people of our country.
  The hon. Member also made a point worthy of note in relation to acceding to the request made to the Secretary of State by the large burghs. Every organisation without exception has made
  110
  representations to us. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) referred frequently to me. I am sorry that he is not present now. He, of course, remembered that we had a very hot discussion in Committee upstairs and at that time I made clear where I stood on the matter. I take a very strong line on it.
  The county clerk of Lanark was selected by the then Secretary of State for Scotland to sit on the Kilbrandon Committee. When the Report was presented to us in 1964 my colleagues and I, because of our interest and because our county clerk played a very important part in this matter, had many discussions about it. When the Government came to power we found that a Royal Commission was to be set up to inquire into the ramifications of local government and we supported regionalisation. We also welcomed regionalisation of police forces.
  Those of us who studied the Kilbrandon Report, which is the grandparent of this Bill, recognised that there would be regionalisation of social services. When the Bill went to another place the noble Lords had the good sense to accept that we should work on a regional basis. If the amendment suggested by the Secretary of State is accepted—and we must assume that it will be—instead of 24 areas operating the services, there will be 56. How are we to get reporters to carry out this very important work? In some cases there will be insufficient work for them. I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to tell us how it is intended to deal with this problem.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell has now returned. He put a point to me about a problem family. It has been put forward, not only by my hon. Friend, but by many other hon. Friends. I have made certain inquiries about how we can deal with the problem family if the Bill is passed. From all the information I have been able to gather Lanarkshire education authority has devised a scheme whereby school teachers will be housed in various areas. This has been done with the acquiescence of all the large burghs in the county. I am sure that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell will be dealt with in a similar fashion.

  111
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) is not now present. In Lanarkshire there are six large burghs. Not long ago, because of its parochial attitude, Hamilton wanted to be "upside with the Jones's" and insisted on having its own police force. That was parochialism run riot. Now Hamilton wants to retain these services. Some of my colleagues represent a large burgh and part of a county. I am fortunate in having the whole of my constituency in the county.
  In all the representations which have been made I have heard none from the County of Lanark. Last Friday, I was talking to one of the 13 councillors in my constituency. He remarked that as the other place had arrived at a very reasonable conclusion over this Bill he thought this House would have the good sense to accept their leadership and we would then have integration of the services.
  Bearing in mind that the report of the Royal Commission will not be ready until late this year, and that it will not be put into operation until the middle of 1970, if that is a valid reason for allowing the Bill to go forward I am prepared to accept it with the exception I have mentioned. This is a good Bill which deserves the support of every hon. Member. There has been much talk about the compilation of lists of names of persons for the panels.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) made a very strong point about this. We have to be careful not to overload the panels with "do-gooders". Recently, when I was with some members of the education committee I discovered, and I was not surprised to discover it, that truancy from school had increased enormously. Parents whose children are truants are brought up before sub-sub-education committees, which have power to send them to the sheriff, who can take action with the parents. This point is worthy of my hon. Friend's attention—if not in the proceedings on the Bill, at any rate in the foreseeable future.
  Dates are prescribed for school leaving. Because the birthdays of some children occur, say, the day after the prescribed leaving date, they must remain at school, even though not happy there. They add considerably to the truancy problem.
  112
  Serious consideration must be given to this issue, because we want to save these truants from becoming delinquents.
  The home help scheme does a valuable job at present. The home helps are dedicated people. Obviously, they are not in it for the remuneration. The hours suit them, because their children are at school. But sometimes home helps are required in the evenings. Provision should be incorporated in the Bill for staggering the hours.
  I ask my hon. Friend to give serious consideration to what has been said about unmarried mothers. As the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said, 41 per cent. of children in the care of the local authority children's officer in Glasgow are illegitimate. This is a problem which should be put in the forefront of any social work which is to be done.
  Representations have been made by the Episcopal Church and the Roman Catholic Church which, I believe, have had the acquiescence of the Church of Scotland to become members of the services. I know that it will be permissible when the Bill is enacted for this to be arranged at local level, but I ask that there should be church representation on the same basis as there is on education committees. Clergymen, like the local doctor, are very much in the homes of all the people in their parishes. They know all of them. They do a useful job. I hope that this matter, too, can be dealt with in Committee. With these remarks I give the Bill my support and hope that cognisance will be taken of some of my constructive criticisms
  7.55 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I have three main points only, the first of which concerns reorganisation. Reference has been made to the Royal Commission, which may report in the autumn. We do not know what changes will be recommended, but it would appear that the number of local authority units will be drastically reduced. Are we wise to go ahead with this vital piece of social legislation based upon existing local authority units? Would it not be better to wait? If we go ahead, will it be easy to adjust what we do now to accord with the new local authority set-up which may come in future? It is pointless Parliament wasting its time and

  113
  energy in passing legislation now if it has to be drastically altered in a few years. I am not disposed to waste my time in such a way. I shall be glad to hear that there is no danger of the work we are all to do being thrown away.
  There has been considerable discussion about what should be regarded as a local authority for the purpose of the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton); I have no hesitation in backing large units, for obvious reasons. We must make the best use we can of existing resources, which are not strong in all areas. There is the question of accommodation. There is the difficulty of recruiting 50 or more directors. With the larger units, we shall probably need about 24. With the smaller units, we shall need 50 or more. The same is true of reporters. I doubt whether smaller authorities and units will be able to carry out all the work with which they will be charged. I hope that the Scottish Office will follow the dictates of common sense and opt for larger units.
  Secondly, the probation service. I am not clear from reading the Bill what is proposed, but it seems that these people will be in the general service and will not be able to specialise very much. There is much to be said for keeping the service separate and as it is. It has done excellent work in Scotland. Salaries are approximately the same as those existing in England. Their case loads compare favourably with those in England and Wales. The courts have confidence in the men running the service. At present they are free from local pressures, political or financial. Why interfere with a service which is functioning so well? If there is to be a change, I hope that the service will not be integrated too much and that people will be able to specialise. Above all, it is necessary that the members of the probation service or whatever takes its place should have the full confidence of the courts.
  I come, thirdly, to Part III, and, in particular, Clauses 30 to 33. I am not happy about any of this. There is a woolliness about the processes proposed. We are not told exactly how the reporters are to be chosen or what their qualifications are to be. The proposed children's panel fills me with alarm and apprehension. It seems to me that we may be
  114
  letting loose a lot of amateurs in what should be a judicial process. There is a great air of informality about it, with little mention of representation of the child, cautioning or other safeguards.
  It seems to me that, throughout, the child is to be encouraged to plead guilty or admit his alleged guilt. There is an absence of legal training or of the judicial approach. A case will go to the sheriff for investigation only if the child denies the offence. Such denial might well take quite a lot of character and strength of will on the part of the child. I ask hon. Members now—not waiting until Committee—to look at Clause 32(2)(g). Here is a clear example of the prejudging of an issue.
  In these days of crime and disorder, I am not in favour of weakening the judicial process or the procedures of the law. Rather, I believe in exercising the full panoply of the law and its majesty. I have more faith in the judgment, commonsense, experience and, often, the kindness of those on the bench than I have in other people who may be very well-meaning but are really inexperienced amateurs, who may be motivated by theory or unfounded concepts.
  Subject to my criticism of that Part of it, however, I welcome the Bill, and I shall certainly support it.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison), whose brevity is commendable. I do not know whether I can match him in that, but I shall take up one or two of the points which he raised. Certainly, his last remarks were fairly controversial.
  It is interesting that we have not heard any criticism about interference from outside bodies. In other words, this is a Scottish approach to a problem which is not confined to Scotland but is almost an international problem. Nearly all hon. Members have spoken of the interest and pressures occasioned by the Bill. I have had almost as much correspondence about it as I had on the Gaming Bill. The two Measures have this in common, that there is no consumer's voice represented anywhere. No one admits to being a consumer or expects to be a consumer. There is,

  115
  therefore, I suppose, a greater responsibility on us as Members of Parliament to acquaint ourselves with all the arguments and problems. We have, I suggest, been too involved so far in the structure of the administrative units rather than in what has given rise to the need for the Bill, namely, the underlying problem itself.
  I am always delighted to be able to agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, because I feel that he needs a bit of sympathy sometimes, especially when he is so often either misquoted or misunderstood by so-called responsible bodies. I think of the teachers' organisations who took him to task the other week when he made a speech on crime and said that one of the disturbing factors behind the increase in crime was a failure of social education. With their usual lack of objectivity, certain teachers' organisations immediately assumed that that was an attack on the teaching profession. It was nothing of the kind. When we speak of social education in the context of the Kilbrandon Report, we are speaking not just of the narrow concept of what goes on in school but of all the wider matters which must be taken into account.
  We must address ourselves to this lack of social education in both the young and the old, though it is particularly young people who concern me. How is it possible to be a rebel and to conform? This is the challenge confronting youth today. I think that most social workers will agree that a good part of our present problem arises because young people will not conform. But do we always want them to conform? Would not life be a miserable and drab thing if there were no room for the rebel, for the person who wanted to protest, or even for the person who just wanted to exercise some individuality? Out of the desire, or the need, to find a way of expressing themselves, young people can easily find themselves in trouble.
  At what point do we discover people of this kind? Are we doing it at an early enough stage? The appointment in Glasgow schools at least of housemasters is an indication that education in itself is not enough. Perhaps, now that we can feed children properly, we should be more anxious to concentrate our efforts
  116
  and energies on seeing that the child who is disturbed emotionally can be identified. If picked up at an early age, such children may well be saved from much of the delinquency which later turns into serious crime. Professional help and advice available to such children and their parents at an early stage can be of great value.
  There is a clash of philosophy or of theoretical approach in this matter. One or two hon. Members have mentioned this. We need to have discipline. We need to be firm. But I am never sure what people mean by that. If it means hammering children, physically beating them, I do not accept that school of thought at all. I believe that the heavy-handed father or parent is a bigger menace in many ways, in our present state of society, than the tolerant one—not the person who could not care less but the one who at least makes an attempt to understand how young people feel and look at things today. If we do not grasp the conflict which is going on in society, we shall be in danger of making many mistakes.
  The issue will inevitably be blurred to some extent. We keep talking—I am doing it now—about problem families, about children with problems and about people with problems, mixing this up with crime. The Bill does it, too, but they are not necessarily the same thing. There are two separate aspects to this issue.
  In some ways, there is something in common between the treatment of someone who has a problem and someone who has been in trouble to the extent of breaking the law. What do I mean by that? Let us consider the argument about the separation of probation work. A probation officer may be called upon to deal with an alcoholic who has committed a breach of the peace or something more serious. He may have in his charge some exuberant and high-spirited youth who has stolen a motor car or smashed the family motor car and killed someone. He may be in charge of a person convicted of a homosexual offence, of a prostitute, or of some inadequate who has committed incest, or he may have the charge of someone who has attempted suicide.
  These are what I would call the exceptional crimes. Those categories do not

  117
  include the hardened criminal who commits theft or murder in cold blood. They are the more exotic kind of things with which a probation officer could be asked to deal. Does anyone suggest that just because he is an officer of the court any one probation officer has all the skills and talents that equip him to deal with all the personal problems associated with the type of person who commits such offences? It is wrong to take that kind of line.
  We must look at the philosophy of the social workers, who say that they are trying to develop the strength of individuals, irrespective of how and why they come to them. They try to look at a person as an individual and develop the strengths and good qualities that exist in everybody in varying degrees of quality and quantity. We must be quite firm about this. I am satisfied that anybody who has examined any social problem related to difficult people after they have committed a crime will be in favour of such an examination.
  We have heard too much recently of the kind of philosophy that says we must give greater powers to the police or that they must be more repressive, or that we must approach the problem of crime from the point of view of the person who is doing a difficult job. It is not appreciated often enough that the policeman, the prison officer or some of the court lawyers who speak in the House are so saturated in the sense of always dealing with bad people in society that they begin to have the idea that everybody is like that. That is one of the dangers of the argument that we must be firm and tough and beat people and have a deterrent, for otherwise society will not respond to the problem of improving the standard and quality of life.
  One of the things I dodged in public life was doing police court work during my stint as a magistrate. My critics may well doubt my ability, but have never doubted my industry. I did not dodge it because of the question of time. I was unwilling to go every day to the court and listen to all the comic singers and other interesting characters who appeared there, I was also bored by the attitude of some of my colleagues who were always discussing the latest interesting cases they had heard in court and giving the impression that society was made up
  118
  only of criminals. Therefore, I dodged going to some extent, because I wanted to retain in the easy way a greater faith in the ability of the human race to survive and solve some of its problems.
  We hear a great deal about parental responsibility. The easiest thing is to become a parent and the most difficult is to bring up a child. We can sometimes be a bit mealy-mouthed about these things. We keep getting on to parents as though they had all the answers to the problems we cannot solve. Therefore, we must be very tolerent and charitable in our approach to the problem and to the administrative set-up.
  I have been very impressed by the quality and ability of the social workers who have been putting pressure on us about the Bill. I respect their sheer professionalism. Sometimes when we talk about voluntary workers and the voluntary organisation we are really talking about organisations which have paid staffs of professionals, but which get their money from other than public sources. It seems to me that we misuse the word "voluntary". What we want is the genuine voluntary person who will give up his time to the community without thought of reward or recompense. We have not enough of them, but I am sure that we shall get enough to do the job being asked of them on the panels.
  I do not minimise the enormous challenge presented to us by the Bill. Unlike the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), I do not believe that we must be certain that we have the right answer before we do this, for otherwise we should never do anything.
  I have made no mention of the argument about the structure, but I hope that whatever happens we shall at least have created a climate and the administrative structure that will enable us to meet one of the most difficult challenges facing us today.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: There is very much in the Bill with which I agree. Therefore, I hope that the strong protagonists which it has on both sides of the House will forgive me if I do not spend the short time available in eulogising its good parts. I hope that that will be

  119
  taken as read, and I turn, instead, immediately to that part which gives me most cause for concern. Clause 3.
  The need for social work and the importance of social workers in Scotland is increasing, and the Bill is a recognition of that. In one sense it is sad, but it is certainly true, that of all those affected by the sometimes callous workings of our society, the children are among the most defenceless. Therefore, much of the Bill is naturally concentrated on them.
  In 1961, when the Kilbrandon Committee was set up, there were over 21,000 charges of juvenile delinquency proven in Scotland. In 1966, there were over 23,000. It is easy to blame the children concerned. I am certainly not one to defend the wrong they did, but I do not believe that they alone are to blame. My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) mentioned that 41 per cent. of the children now in care in Glasgow are illegitimate, and this point was taken up by other hon. Members.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: That figure has been mentioned on a number of occasions, and the implication is that those 41 per cent. are juvenile delinquents. They are not at all. They may need care because they are illegitimate children, but that has nothing to do with delinquency.
  Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman did not hear me correctly. I am certain that if he checks in HANSARD tomorrow he will find that I said that they were 41 per cent. of children in care. I certainly did not intend to give the impression, and I am sure that I did not, that they were delinquent. The Kilbrandon Report is quite definite on that point.
  In paragraph 87, it says:
  "…more often than not the problem of the child who is in need and the delinquent child can be traced to short-comings in the normal 'bringing-up' process—in the home, in the family environment and in the schools."
  The Report follows on logically enough with the proposition that the normal educational processes having failed, for whatever reason, special measures are needed to cope with the problem child. That is the origin of Clause 3, and it has much to commend
  120
  it. No one could pretend that the present process is curing delinquency. I accept that in present circumstances further measures are necessary.
  But the more I consider the provisions in the Bill, the more concerned do I become, mainly because of the apparent removal of the legal aspect from each case. The law is no longer the wicket-keeper—it has been made the longstop—and in its place we have the new and as yet rather unspecified—for all the good intentions of Schedule 2—children's panels, children's hearings and the activities of the reporter.
  Some people support this because they think that, if we remove the children from the jurisdiction of the courts of law, they escape the stigma or, as the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) would have it, the honour of court appearance. I am unimpressed by that argument. What attaches stigma to a court appearance is surely not the fact that one appears in court, but the fact that one has done something which has caused one to appear there and to be found guilty. I cannot believe but that, in time, this will not apply equally to those appearing before the panels. In the Bill, pains are taken to prove that the panel is only concerned with compulsory measures of care to include
  "…protection, control, guidance and treatment."
  I am not a professional in this matter. I approach the Bill, as the great majority of my constituents will approach it—and they are also people without special knowledge—with the question, "Why is not punishment included in that list?" I believe that many of our people will be amazed when they see in the newspapers reports of some of the activities by this section of the community and realise that we are attempting to remedy them without any apparent mention of punishment. Why is this? I believe that it is because there is the intention to remove the legal aspect of each case from consideration of it as far as possible.
  The panels are not even to decide on disputed questions of fact. That remains the province of the reporter, or in extreme cases the sheriff. If I were a delinquent, I would consider this apparent removal of the legal aspect as an inelegant charade. I would not cease to regard these panels as the arm of the law. I would know

  121
  that, if I appealed to the sheriff on a question of proof, and he found against me, I would be returned to the panel for what it might call "treatment" but which, if I were a delinquent, I would call "punishment". I might even know that, under Clause 34 (4) (c), the Secretary of State might enable me to appeal to the sheriff against the decision of the hearing so that, in the last resort, the arbiter even of my treatment is presumably to be the sheriff.
  The same correlation applies to the reporter. For instance, under Clause 40, I will know perfectly well that the reporter has the sanction of the law to back him up, so that I have not really, as a delinquent, got away from the law. The process has merely been a little concealed. That kind of deception of people who already may have reason to be suspicious of society is a great mistake. Even so, some idealistic people support it because they feel it enables the social rehabilitation concept appropriate to each case to be considered without
  "…the crime-responsibility-punishment concept…"
  which affects the operation of criminal courts.
  I think that one can get too far away from the crime-responsibility-punishment concept. Using less emotive words, it is a natural order of parenthood. "You did not eat your first course so you do not get the sweet you normally have afterwards." This is a normal and necessary practice, understood by all concerned and, most important, accepted to be fair. I believe that one of the worst services we can do any wrongdoer, what-ever the explanation of or reason for his conduct may be, is to pretend that what he has done is not in some sense wrong.
  There is one other very important issue which has been brought out, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll. The law in Britain is made to protect the guilty or the accused every bit as much and perhaps more than the innocent. In this new procedure, the man responsible for establishing the case for the panel in the first instance is to be the reporter. His importance is specifically recognised by Clause 36 (4) and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) spoke of the safeguarding of his position by the Secretary
  122
  of State and the recognition, therefore, of his importance and status.
  We shall need very good reporters because it is inevitable, in any piece of administration, that the calibre of those entrusted with carrying it out should be of the highest. But, in this case, those who will be affected are anyhow by definition the least able in the community and the most dependent upon others therefore to protect their interests.
  When the reporter decides that a child needs the attention of his panel, even then the child still does not have the protection of legal advice unless and until he actually denies the reporter's allegations, by which time he may well have said stupid or incriminating things. Moreover, it is only the Secretary of State, under Clause 35(5), who may decide that the child or the parents have the right to be represented at the children's hearing, even though quite difficult matters may be in question.
  For example, under Clause 42(3), part of the grounds of the case may be accepted and the hearing therefore proceeds on that part. The right to be represented should surely be automatic, as the hon. Member for Hamilton argued, and I do not think that her case was answered. The removal of the law to a long stop position is far from being an unmixed blessing in the interests of those we are most concerned to help. Why do it at all? It may be that some who want to remove the wicket keeper to long stop are really more concerned with removing him from the field altogether, but I am sure that that is not the Government's intention.
  Why not admit openly that this is a new legal process to deal with a particular problem in need of special attention and that the main function of the panels is certainly to advise, protect, control and guide but that, under the training scheme, their members are to be fully conversant with the law and that, in any negotiations with a panel, its representatives and servants in the reporter's department, the person concerned will have the full and immediate right to legal advice and protection?
  This could avoid the dangers which I have tried to set forth and which I fear as result of reading this Bill. It could do much to right the present position. I recognise that there are difficult cases

  123
  which do not get the attention in care and depth that they could from people to whom this has become a matter of detailed knowledge and experience. We have a great chance here for society to make a significant contribution to help people whom it has so far so often judged too harshly and treated with insufficient care and understanding. Obviously, the calibre of personnel who make up the panels and the reports will be all-important. That cannot be over-emphasised. If we also have the protection of the law from the start the good that they can do will be greatly increased.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. William Small: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) indicated his antagonism to the concept behind the Bill. That is a natural consequence of his over-emphasis on one part of it. The Bill is a major reform, dealing with two classes of people. There is an emphasis on delinquency and welfare. The latter has been neglected in terms of local authorities. This is a combined effort and on a far broader basis that I had originally thought.
  I am a little perturbed about the position of probation officers. When local authority members have the opportunity of selecting committees to sit on they always plump for education, followed by housing and then roads or some other subject in which they are interested. At the lower end of the scale comes social welfare and the children's committee. These are Cinderellas.
  If I have one major criticism, it is about the probation officers. Records will show that 35 years ago one Baillie Cole, who sat as a justice in Motherwell, was one of the promoters of acceptance of the probation service within the community. No longer was an individual derided by the public because he volunteered for such public service. No one who is responsible for community relationships would take away the authority of the probation service, or alter the way in which it carries out its work. I am concerned lest there should be fragmentation of a national service, built up with a national code and thinking nationally. It could be broken down into individual servants of a social work committee.
  124
  The right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) said that the service had become the creature of the courts, and was answerable to them. That is not necessarily so. By advertisements, a local authority probation committee accepts the need for a service within the area. Advertising builds up the service. All the reports of that service are the responsibility of the local authority and are scrutinised by it. The service is answerable exclusively to the authority for its conduct.
  We are to change over from juvenile courts to children's hearings. In my experience juvenile courts were never courts in the hardest sense of the word. I have never found them to be terrifying to anybody. Children who appeared before the court were treated fairly. There was never a reign of terror.
  The hearings will consist of three people, one of whom must be a woman. At present, if a child is recommended as being in need of care and protection, or if he has committed an offence, he is referred to a justice of the peace, or to the probation officer. The reporter must call a children's hearing on a lawful day, and the child can be detained until the date of the hearing. A justice of the peace can usually call a juvenile court right away, and give good reasons why. This position needs examination.
  The Secretary of State is to make certain appointments. This suggests almost a position of patronage. How does one choose, unless there is a volunteer? If there is a volunteer, how does he make his qualifications known? I have always argued that anybody who administers within the county must go through the ballot box. In the administration of justice, I would have thought the nomination ought to come, via the local authority, from those who were already accepted in the community.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) considered that there was too much reliance upon volunteers and laymen, and that there should be more professionals. This is a rather private lawyer-client relationship. It is more likely that changes of a progressive nature in a community will be brought about by laymen than by specialists. Specialists tend to become too rigid in their approach.

  125
  The reporter will be the most influential person in the community in terms of the reconstruction of local government under the Bill. He will be judge and jury in almost every case. He will be senior in terms of continuity of service. He will have all the written evidence. He will be the Pooh-Bah. He will be the adviser on almost everything.
  On the question of nomination of officials by the local authority to the social work committee, I have always been reluctant to have the power to make appointments without the power to remove from office. One cannot remove a sanitary inspector, a medical officer of health or a director of education without the authority of the Secretary of State. Therefore, in scrutinising the work done in community relationships, which is different from the work done in education, housing and health matters, I should like to feel, first, that I had confidence in the reporter and, secondly, if dissatisfied that, as the local authority is paying for his services, we had the right of removal unless we were guaranteed a 50 or 60 per cent. grant.
  On the question of the reconstruction which will take place, may I deal with what is happening now? The director of education who has problem children may, depending on how big the authority is, call upon the medical officer of health. The director of education may have two psychologists and three psychiatrists in his department. He may be involved in a contest with the medical officer of health for the utilisation of such specialist services.
  All the mail which I have received—and I have had a bag full—has come from people with vested interests. I have not had a letter from a member of the general public on this matter. Broadly speaking, the probation service has acted as a catalyst of authority in the courts. In view of the duties of the reporter, the probation officer will carry out a new rôle. I do not know what the new rôle is. I know that he has a rôle to play in connection with adult offenders and in after-care matters, but now he will be a split personality. How will he apportion the emphasis which he should place on the juvenile service and the adult service?
  Basically, I welcome the Bill, but my mind remains open on the question of
  126
  the efficient utilisation and maximisation of the existing local government services.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: In the short time available, I should like to deal with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), who questioned whether in the Bill we were tackling the root problems of social delinquency. I welcome the Bill and what it tries to do, but we are trying to tackle the problem of the young person after he has become a delinquent. We are trying to correct him after he has gone wrong. So often in the House we are far more concerned with dealing with the problem once it has been created rather than getting at the roots of it.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) spoke about the number of illegitimate children, the number of children who come from broken homes, and the number of children who come from unhappy families. This is a good time for us to consider the type of child with whom we are trying to deal in legislation of this kind.
  From my work amongst young people—and I have done a considerable amount in the youth service—I would say that there are two problems in particular. The first is that of the child who desperately wants someone to be interested in him. This, to my mind, is the biggest problem of the broken home and the unhappy family, the problem of the child who has no one who really loves him, no one who is interested in him, interested in what he is doing at school and in his sports and so on. This is one of the biggest social problems which we face in this country today, and we must face it.
  It is not a problem which just happens in the family in which there has been a broken marriage, it is not just a problem which occurs in a family where there is a certain amount of poverty. This happens in the well-furnished council house where there is a television set, and a car outside the door. It is the problem of the child who comes home from school and finds there is no one to talk to him because there are another three or four children, and mother is run off her feet looking after them, or because

  127
  there is a television set on and there is no one to help him with his homework. Many potential delinquents come from such a family as that, where there is no poverty and that sort of circumstances of which one would expect delinquency to be the natural outcome. Therefore, what I hope very much from this Bill and from the setting up of the social work departments is that we shall be able to take a much more personal interest in the children who are likely to get into trouble in one way or another.
  I am generalising because I have not much time, but the second reason for the sowing of the seeds of early delinquency is the search for excitement, the search for something to do out of the ordinary. This has been touched on already in the debate, and it is a particularly sad reflection on the drab surroundings of so many of our housing schemes, the lack of recreational facilities, of playing fields, and so on. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) touched on this, when he said that when he was younger there were, he thought, more ways in which young people could occupy their leisure time. I think we have to pay more attention to this, and to providing in our housing schemes these modern facilities of one sort and another, to providing means for people to enjoy the more affluent society, to providing for leisure-time activities and seeing they are properly catered for. If we do not do that we automatically give impetus to any delinquent tendencies which there may be.
  Therefore I think that we in this House are kidding ourselves if we think this Bill will prevent the type of child I have described from getting into trouble. I do not think we shall do it by this Bill; I do not think we shall prevent the child from getting into trouble the first time. The answer to the problem lies in much deeper social measures which affect the family, which affect the school, which affect the youth organisations. I accept that this Bill is a great step forward in helping the treatment of the young person once he has gone wrong, but it does not deal with the sources from which his delinquency stems. Therefore, I hope that in Committee we shall keep this in mind, and that this Bill will not be regarded as a universal panacea for all our social problems and the problems of the
  128
  source of crime, as it may be made out to be.
  I deal very briefly with the question of the children's panels. I personally welcome the introduction of panels of this informal nature. I cannot agree with my hon. Friends the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) and the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) that the present system of a more judicial nature is necessarily the right thing.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South said that he liked to think of children who had done something wrong being faced with the full panoply and majesty of the law. We do not want this. Two things happen when they are faced with the full panoply and majesty of the law. Either they think it is funny and laugh at it, so the law is mocked—I have seen this happen—or they fear it, which is equally bad. When a child is up for some offence or other, the last thing we want is the creation of a sense of fear. Respect, yes, but not fear.
  My worry about facing a child with the full judicial procedure is that the law is either mocked or feared; it is not understood or respected. I think that through these children's panels there is more chance of the law being respected. If the law is respected, I believe we will be able to deal better with the problems of delinquency.
  I now come to the quality of the panel members. If we are to take away the full protection of the judicial system, it is all the more important that we should get the right kind of panel members. I disagree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) that they should be appointed by ballot. That is not the way to get the right people with the necessary special qualifications. I agree with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) and the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) that we want to keep out the "do-gooders" and the people who are perhaps just well intentioned.
  We want people who are well intentioned, but with experience among the young, in youth work and delinquency, and who understand the human problems of poverty and all the root causes from

  129
  which early crime stems. The success or otherwise of these informal children's panels will turn on the quality of the people appointed to them. This is absolutely essential and vital to the success of the Bill.
  Another thing that concerns me—and this has been touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble)—is the desperate shortage of properly qualified social workers. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is proposing to put back into the Bill the social work departments of the large burghs, as well as those of the counties and cities in Scotland. If he does this, he will spread across Scotland in far more units our scarce resources in terms of social workers. That is why I feel it is a mistake. We have to use what resources we have to the best advantage. This will not be served by scattering them across the face of Scotland. It will be better to concentrate their help in certain areas. This will give us a better chance of using people with specialist training.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries touched on this next matter, which is of importance to social workers with a calling and a sense of vocation. We must not make that calling an excuse for thinking that they will accept their jobs without being properly remunerated. The same argument applies to teaching and many other professions. The only way to get a satisfactory number of social workers is by giving them better pay and conditions. The social worker does not have a nine-to-five job. He has no set hours. Often he cannot see the children he is looking after, or the parents, until they come home from work. It will often mean starting at eight or nine in the morning and not finishing until midnight. The conditions are very difficult. Therefore, we must make sure that, in the remuneration we offer, we take into account the length of hours the social worker has to work and the conditions and problems he has to face.
  We must remember, too, the attractions of similar jobs outside social work. I know from my youth work, and from friends who have worked as full-time youth leaders, that there is a tremendous temptation to take jobs as personnel managers or other administrative jobs in industry. If a chap is a good youth
  130
  leader, or social worker, he has a good chance of commanding a far higher salary in industry than he receives for his social work. If we are to attract the right kind of social worker, we must pay the sort of salaries that are paid in industry to people doing comparable work. If we do not, we shall not get the results that we want.
  One source of recruitment of part-time social workers is from among people who have married and brought up a family. They have first-hand experience of the problems of youth, and they have more sympathy with family problems. I hope that people with that kind of background will be recruited for social work.
  The Bill will help young people when they go wrong. It will treat many of the social evils which exist now, but it will not prevent crime. It may well prevent someone committing a second crime, but I want youngsters to be prevented from committing a first offence. What will be the relationship between the social work departments and our schools? What will be the relationship between the social work departments and our youth organisations which at the moment deal with the education departments in local authorities? One has only to think of the boredom of some pupils during their later years at school to realise how much can be done through the schools to deal with the problems of delinquency.
  Youth organisations probably provide the best means of dealing with the social problems of young people, but these organisations need more money, more help, and more facilities to enable them to cope with their jobs. They need special staff to deal with the problems. There are a large number of uniformed and non-uniformed youth organisations, and thousands of people voluntarily give up their time each week to help young people. I hope that we will make use of all these people to enable us to overcome the problems with which we are now faced. We should make full use not only of the statutory organisations, but of voluntary ones, too.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: There is one respect in which I agree with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). The Bill will not cure delinquency. No one could ever imagine that

  131
  it will. What it seeks to do is to gather together a number of social services which have grown, like Topsy.
  When I was a Member of the Scottish Advisory Committee on the Treatment of Offenders, the first thing that I asked the Scottish Office to do was to give me a diagram setting out all the various bodies associated with the problems of delinquency. The Scottish Office found it difficult to find a piece of paper large enough on which to list the various bodies and how they fitted in with one another.
  The debate has shown that there is general agreement on the objectives of the Bill. Those objectives are very good. The first is that the local authorities should deal with all welfare services. These problems are associated with the family, and families are visited by National Assistance, child welfare, probation and N.S.P.C.C. officers, all of whom go into the one home; this is a waste of skilled manpower.
  So it is generally agreed that the welfare services should be co-ordinated and based on the family, but nothing dramatic will happen quickly. Both the burghs and the counties have to carry out most of these services now. The Bill will bring about an administrative reorganisation, but, without more money and a keener desire to act, nothing much will happen. All the talk about remand centres and homes of various kinds has been going on for 20 or 30 years, but without an effort nothing will be done. When a Government face priorities and have to choose among a school, a hospital and a prison, one can understand their choice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) described the problem over the setting up of the children's panels. I am sorry that he did not undertake his duties as a magistrate, when I would have listened with more care to him. There are very few studies of delinquency. Many people have ideas, prejudices, theories and hunches, but it is difficult to make up one's mind what should happen to delinquents.
  I know of no Member of this House who made such a study of delinquency and criminology as Sir George Benson, who once said to me, "I have come to
  132
  the conclusion that it does not matter whether you send the delinquent to an approved school, a borstal, a detention centre, or to prison—the curious thing is that the same percentage always fall by the wayside again."
  These panels will have the great advantage of being able to experiment. Many of our magistrates and sheriffs appear to have no interest in the kind of place to which boys can be sent and it is important that those on the panels should have this training. If they find that a borstal or detention centre or remand home is not suitable for a juvenile delinquent they should be able to take him back and arrange some other treatment.
  We lack knowledge of how to treat delinquents and what success we can expect. I hope that these panels will be able to gather this information, and, through training and experience, find an answer to this problem.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. Ian MacArthur: The House will agree that we have had a constructive debate which, unusually, has cut across party differences. The Bill has been generally welcomed, but I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer many of the questions raised. Although there has been general agreement on the principle of the Bill, it became clear that there are many qualifications about some of its provisions. I hope that the Under-Secretary can dispel them tonight. We want the Bill to succeed—that has been made clear—but I must warn the Government that many questions relating to the prerequisites for success were not answered either by the Secretary of State or the Government's spokesman in another place.
  The primary objective of the Bill is to provide a single door for those in need of the help and compassion of the welfare services. We have been reminded of the large number of associations and official bodies which have been in touch with us over the last few months, and they illustrate the many services and skills which the Bill sets out to unite. I believe that it is right to seek this unification, not simply for the sake of administrative tidiness but for the benefit of those who need these services. We are dealing with people, not with parcels, and the pattern of administration must be adapted to

  133
  meet the needs of the people, and not the people adapted to fit the pattern.
  The Bill outlines a pattern which should meet the needs of the young and the old, but I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble said—that the pattern can be effective only if there are sufficient people to work in it. My right hon. Friend pointed to the severe shortage of social workers in Scotland. The Adjournment debate initiated in March by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) underlined the shortage of children's officers. That shortage exists in other welfare spheres, too. The Minister's reply to that debate emphasised the difficulty of recruiting more workers in these fields. I fear that the shortage of social workers may become acute unless the new structure, with its prospect of better career opportunities and greater professional satisfaction, transforms the present recruitment scene. I hope that the Minister, in commenting on this, will not encourage us to welcome the Bill without recognising and discussing the real problems of training, recruitment and staffing which confront us.
  I am particularly disturbed by the staffing problem when I contemplate the large number of departments which may be created by the Bill. Almost every hon. Member who has spoken has commented on the Government's intention to reintroduce the large burghs into Clause 1. There is a clear division of opinion here which cuts across party lines and I listened with interest to the divergent opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton). The balance of my agreement came down on the side of the hon. Member for Bothwell, but there is general agreement that the balance of decision in this matter may be a fine one.
  It is surprising to see how the Government have changed direction in this matter in the last few months. Paragraphs 48 to 52 of the White Paper, Social Work in the Community, dealt without room for doubt with the question of the administrative areas. This was not simply, as some hon. Members have suggested, a proposal put forward for discussion so that the Government could,
  134
  in the fullness of time, make up their mind. In paragraph 52 the White Paper clearly states:
  "The Government think that on balance it would be best to place responsibility for the new department on counties (including counties of cities), and to empower and encourage the counties with the smallest populations to join with other authorities to form joint departments serving their combined populations."
  There was nothing consultative about the tone of that. It was a clear decision. Then something happened at which we can only guess. When the Bill first appeared, large burghs were there as large as life in Clause 1. The other place removed, I suggest wisely, this provision for the inclusion of the large burghs and we learned today from the Secretary of State that the Government intend to put them back again.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments advanced by the Convention of Royal Burghs in its letter which I think all hon. Members have received in the last few days. I have particular sympathy for the point that services of this kind, dealing with individuals and the real human problems which individuals confront, are best handled locally by people who know the individuals and understand the problems. But even if the new service is operated by the larger authorities or groups of authorities, I presume that the organisation envisaged by the Bill is such that there will be sub-offices or area offices who will preserve the local contact and understanding which are essential to services of this kind. I regret that we have not heard more from the Government about the form of organisation which will be introduced. However, I am heartened by the second part of paragraph 50 of the White Paper, which said:
  "It is proposed, for example, that in large areas the new department should work through area offices easily accessible to the community and staffed by trained workers able and empowered to provide an effective social service at local level."
  Is this the Government proposal? I ask this because we have learned so little about the form of organisation that will be adopted by the local authorities.
  I appreciate that the Government possibly do not wish at this stage to impose a form of organisation on local authorities. But if the Government ask us to

  135
  give a Second Reading to this Bill which provides for a remarkable advance in what my hon Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) described as the process of evolution, it is only reasonable that we should expect to hear from the Government very much more than we have heard about the form of organisation which they envisage. Clearly more information would help us to determine our final view on the very difficult question, whether or not the large burghs should be included. The debate has shown that my hon. Friends, in their anxiety to find a system which will work and work effectively, are united in seeking a reduction rather than an increase in the total number of administrative areas.
  I remind the House again that if the administrative areas are to be those covered by county councils and counties of cities and the large burghs, we shall confront a situation in which there could be a maximum of 56 departments of social work following the enactment of this Bill. How on earth would local authorities set out to staff 56 departments? Where in Scotland would we find 56 qualified directors of social work? The qualifications of a director of social work are to be prescribed by the Secretary of State. Presumably they will be stringent qualifications; they must be. Where are we to find these people? What sort of career structure could we provide for other social welfare workers within this enormous number of administrative organisations?
  The Government may say that it is not supposed that there will be as many as 56 departments because of the powers of amalgamation which local authorities have. In another place great emphasis was placed by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, the Joint Under-Secretary of State, on the amalgamation procedure. He said:
  "The Secretary of State will feel that he has failed in his intention if there is not a voluntary get together. The important thing is that the service should be organised in units sufficiently big to enable them to carry out their functions re a sonably."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 4th April, 1968; Vol. 290, c. 1334.]
  I agree with every word, but to add 21 large burghs to the 35 other local authority areas already provided for in the Bill hardly seems a sensible way to
  136
  begin the process of reducing the total number of organisations.
  The Secretary of State's explanation today of the reintroduction of the large burghs was unsatisfactory and unconvincing. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, in effect he said that he wanted to reintroduce the large burghs because it would be wise to avoid at this stage a major change in the local structure because of the major changes which almost certainly will follow the Report of the Royal Commission on the reorganisation of local government.
  I can see the strength of that argument, but I would advance a different argument from the same premise. It is that there will certainly be major changes following the legislation which I presume will follow the Royal Commission's Report, and if we start with up to 56 organisations as is now to be proposed there will be a very major change for the directors of social work and their staffs and all the local authorities. It would be far wiser to anticipate as intelligently as we can that there will have to be a reduction in the total number of administering authorities within the next few years and that fewer departments should be introduced now in order to make the process of transition less complicated and less frustrating for those involved in this great venture.
  Mr. Lawson: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that counties might disappear and burghs remain?
  Mr. MacArthur: I have considered that. I have also considered that some large burghs are larger than some small counties. I agree that there is not an easy solution. In view of what the noble Lord said in another place, if it is the Secretary of State's wish to encourage the process of amalgamation I believe that the way to start is not by creating 21 additional administrative areas.
  I come to the question of timing. There have been a number of arguments, not only here, to the effect that the effective introduction of the Bill should be postponed until the Royal Commission has reported. Some have gone so far as to suggest that the Bill should not take effect until the new local government structure which will follow the report is in operation. The noble Lord, Lord

  137
  Hughes, pointed out in another place that, if we were to wait to the end of this road, it would probably be 1975 before we would see the Bill functioning.
  My view is that it is right to get ahead now. Compelling reasons can always be advanced for doing nothing and waiting just a little longer. I believe, however, that on balance it would be right to make a start now. I therefore regret that I disagree with the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie), who said that we could tolerate a postponement of up to two years. If we wait much longer, yet another generation of youngsters will have grown up and so have escaped the benefits which I believe that the Bill could bring to them. A delay of six months might be acceptable. I believe that more than that would be wrong. After all, we have already waited seven years. I do not think that we should wait any longer.
  I hope that this expression of support for speed will not encourage the Under-Secretary to think that we shall allow the Bill to be rushed through Committee. We shall not. Many detailed questions have to be asked. We shall expect detailed answers to them.
  There are some general questions, too. An important one was touched on by my noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North, earlier. It is the need to protect the rights of the individual. Clause 15 gives local authorities very wide powers to remove a child from its home and family. I hope that the Under-Secretary will emphasise that the greatest care and reflection must be exercised by the new departments before that power is used. A case which on the face of it appeared disturbing was described in the Scottish newspapers a few days ago. The case underlined the need for great care before this ultimate power is exercised. I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm that, wherever possible, the treatment and training which a child needs will be applied in the child's home, because normally I believe that it is there that treatment and training are most likely to succeed. Having said that, let me make it clear at once that I accept that there are cases where, for the treatment or training to succeed, the child must be taken somewhere else.
  138
  I turn now to the much debated question of children's hearings provided in Part III. I welcome the case study and treatment approach of this Part of the Bill. I welcome in particular the new conditions under which a child can be brought before a hearing. Clause 32 sets out nine conditions on which a child may be brought before a hearing. I believe that seven of these are new and that under only two of the nine heads could a child be brought before a juvenile court today. This shows the breadth of scope of the Bill.
  We on this side have considerable reservations in welcoming this Part of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) emphasised. As a result of the introduction of these hearings, a child will be removed from the panoply and atmosphere of the juvenile court, and I agree, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), that this is probably desirable; but not enough attention has been paid to the other consequence, that the child will be removed from the judicial approach which characterises a juvenile court, a judicial approach which works for the legal protection of the child.
  There seems to be no provision in the Bill for the legal representation of the child before the panel. There appears to be no provision that a caution should be administered to the child. In the absence of any such requirement, the child may somehow be encouraged to admit his alleged guilt.
  The child will now face a panel of lay people, and the case will be represented to the panel by a reporter. No qualifications whatever are laid down for the reporter, in contrast to the position of the director of social work, for whom, under Clause 3(3), the Secretary of State is required to lay down prescribed qualifications. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries quoted from the Kilbrandon Report to remind the House how that Committee considered that the reporter should have precise and important qualifications, and I recall that he asked where we should find reporters with such qualifications in Scotland. Nothing at all is required of the reporter by way of qualification, and we have heard nothing from the Government about it. Yet the reporter's rôle will

  139
  be critical. He can be said to have a rôle at the hearing which embraces that of the probation officer and the procurator fiscal.
  There is then the question of the qualifications of the members of the panel. The Secretary of State told us today that the greatest care will be taken in selecting members to serve on the panels, but one well-meaning but inadequate member could undo all the good of the hearing and do enormous harm. There must be large-scale training for these good people who will serve on the panels because they will be asked to take on which is, in effect, a professional rôle. I believe that residential training will be required. Moreover, there should be special provision to enable trainee panel members to attend children's hearings.
  By contrast, the White Paper, Children in Trouble, tells us that, in England and Wales, juvenile courts, with their judicial approach, are to remain. The Under-Secretary of State will appreciate that we have many reservations about this Part of the Bill, all centred on the legal rights of the child and the protection of the child, whose rights must not be ignored in the local authority's understandable anxiety to act in loco parentis.
  Now, one or two other points which I wish to take up. The major outstanding one concerns the rôle of probation officers. The hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing)—I am sorry that she is not here at the moment, as I wish to refer to her speech—questioned what room there would be for specialisation. The White Paper referred to this in paragraph 11:
  "As most present social workers have acquired their training and experience in one speciality or another, the use of their specialist skills would continue."
  Against that, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said in another 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd April, 1968; Vol. 291, c. 509.]
  There appears to be some contradiction between what Lord Hughes said and what the White Paper said, and it is important that it should be cleared up. It is doubly important because it raises the problem of the situation confronting probation
  140
  officers. I do not believe that there is a single perfect solution for the probation officer problem. There is a real need to strike a balance.
  Three possible courses could be taken. One possibility is to separate the adult probation rôle from the rest of the probation rôle. I do not think that that is satisfactory, although it has been argued by the Probation Officers' Association. I do not think that it is satisfactory for the very reason advanced in the White Paper, that the career structure would be inadequate.
  The second course is that provided for in the Bill, that the probation service should be absorbed within the new departments of social work, and that no identification of specialists skills would be retained.
  The third is the one I wish to advance, that while the service should be incorporated into the new departments of social work the probation officers should continue to maintain their adult probation rôle. I see no reason why the probation officer within the new organisation should not retain his probationary identification so that he would be enabled to appear in the adult courts, continuing his present rôle of probation officer. This is important, because the probation officer in the adult court must be an officer who is known to the court and in whom it has confidence. Failing this, I believe that the courts in Scotland will be less ready than they are now to invoke probation That would be a very serious loss.
  I trust that the Minister will say something about the rôle of the voluntary organisations, which were mentioned by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and the hon. Member for Rutherglen. The Secretary of State said that the voluntary organisations would still have a large part to play, and I am glad to have that reassurance.
  However, the position of the homes and other residential buildings run by the voluntary organisations is rather uncertain in the light of Clause 60(2)(c). The Church of Scotland runs no fewer than 75 homes and agencies of various kinds. How will they stand when the Bill is enacted?
  In opening for this side of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for

  141
  Argyll referred evocatively to the "fragile generation". Too often in the past the fragile generation has become the fear-some generation of a few years later. There were many references to the outbreak of violence which was the background against which so much of the debate has taken place.
  I do not believe that there is anything contradictory between providing firm action to protect the public from violence and providing firm action to protect children, the fragile generation, from the influences which may break their fragility. I accept that there is possibly no cure in the end for violence, as several hon. Members said. But I have no doubt that if we can protect children from the influences which turn them from rascals into ruffians we shall find that a major advance has been made in combating the source of the frightening increase in crime in Scotland today.
  The Secretary of State described the Bill as a pioneering effort. I believe that it is, but for the pioneering to be successful many prerequisites must be met. I hope that the Minister will comment on many of the requirements which were raised during the debate.
  9.35 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): The characteristic of the debate has been a general welcome for the Bill. I do not think that one hon. Member who spoke did not say that he supported it, although hon. Members mostly went on to say that there were a number of detailed points they wanted to discuss in Committee. The Bill is long and complicated and in some respects we are breaking new ground, and I appreciate, therefore, that there must be a large number of points we shall have to discuss, sometimes at length, in Committee. I am not able to deal with all the points raised tonight, but I want to say something about the major issues.
  Before doing so, however, I want to refer briefly to one or two points which were not developed to any considerable length. We were asked, for example, why we were proceeding in this way in Scotland whereas English Ministers, in their recent White Paper, decided to do something else. That struck me as a surprising question. We are normally urged that Scotland should go its own way, and that
  142
  is what it is doing in this case. I am naturally interested in what my English colleagues do, but I do not consider the fact that they have reached a different conclusion on a matter to be in any way conclusive or even influential in deciding what we should do in Scotland. We are rather ahead of the English in any case and I hope that we shall maintain that advance.
  I was asked about the structural relationship with the National Health Service. A green paper about National Health Service structure will be published later this year and, obviously, I cannot anticipate it. But I take the point that the new social work departments will have a considerable connection, and will need to cooperate at many points, with the medical services, particularly those under medical officers of health. That co-operation and also co-operation with other departments will be esssential if the new social work departments are to do their job properly.
  I was also asked about the position of voluntary bodies. I repeat the assurance of my right hon. Friend that, of course, there is a place—an enhanced place—for the voluntary bodies in the structure we are building here. A number of these bodies have apprehensions—for example, the R.S.S.P.C.C.—about some of the provisions of the Bill. At the moment, we are discussing their anxieties with them and I hope that we shall reach an agreeable solution. Generally speaking, we are very anxious to maintain the status of the voluntary organisations.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) very well pointed out, we must not confuse voluntary with amateur, because many of these organisations employ professional staff—very often rather better and more qualified professional staff than do many of our local authorities at present.
  I was also asked about the kind of cases which would be dealt with under the Bill by the social work departments. For example, I was asked about unmarried mothers. These are covered in the general provisions of Clause 12. If there are any particular difficulties about their circumstances which hon. Members feel may not be adequately covered in the Bill as drafted, we can discuss them in Committee. But, certainly, the Bill

  143
  is meant to comprehend all the individuals who may at one time or another, for a wide variety of reasons, require the services which the social work departments will provide.
  There is very considerable difficulty over timing, because of the existence of the Royal Commission. I was glad that the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and hon. Gentlemen generally, agreed with the Government's decision to go ahead with the Bill. To wait would have meant waiting, not just till next year or the year after, but considerably longer. We either have to act now or put back this reform for many years. Considering that we are dealing here, on the juvenile delinquency side, with a problem recognised as urgent as far back as 1961 when the Kilbrandon Committee was established, we would have been failing in our duty if we did not proceed now. Nevertheless, the fact that a Royal Commission on Local Government is sitting, gives us considerable difficulty when we come to the question of deciding the local authority administrative structure for the new social work department.
  I would like to say one or two things about this, because it was one of the features mentioned during the debate by most hon. Members. It is not possible, as the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) suggested, to anticipate the Royal Commission's report, for the very simple reason that the Government do not know, any more than he does, what the Royal Commission will recommend. Certainly, at this stage, we cannot possibly know what the actual reform will be following the Royal Commission's Report. One important element of information in making a decision on this point is inevitably missing and we have to do the best we can in those circumstances.
  It seems that the argument of size used by a number of hon. Gentlemen is certainly not all one way. As the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire pointed out, many of the large burghs are considerably larger, in population and resources and also present a greater number of problems of the sort with which this Bill is to deal, than many of the counties. Similarly, I do not think that size by itself betokens efficiency.
  144
  This was the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) and Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). There are some local authorities which do good work, some which do less good work, and the same applies, I am sorry to say, to some of the larger authorities. It is true that from the point of view of providing the staff and a structure giving satisfactory promotion, obviously the larger authority has an advantage over the smaller. This is only one of the considerations that we have to keep in mind.
  Earl of Dalkeith: Surely the point is not so much a question of size of the individual areas, be it burgh or county, but the number of authorities. Under the Royal Commission's proposals, is it not likely that we will have fewer rather than more?
  Mr. Millan: I have already said that I do not have the slightest idea of what we will have under the Royal Commission's proposals, and neither has the hon. Gentleman. Similarly, on co-operation with the other Departments, we do not have a very firm guide to the position. It is true that in education, where co-operation is very important, it would have to continue to exist, and it would suggest that we go over to the counties.
  On the other hand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell has pointed out, it is equally important to have co-operation with medical officers of health and housing committees, and that would suggest that the new social work department, at least at present, should be based on the large burghs as well on the counties and cities. Our conclusion—and I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) agreed with this—was that we should introduce provisions which were least disturbing to the existing local authority set-up.
  We shall not discourage combinations of local authorities, and I look forward to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire using his persuasive powers to get the large burgh of Perth and the County of Perthshire to combine their services. He is very welcome to do that. We shall encourage him, and the same will apply elsewhere.

  145
  Another feature which was discussed at considerable length was the probation service. One must remember, in discussing this, that probation, so far as it is concerned with children, will disappear as a separate service, and will go into the social work department. Therefore, we are already dealing with a reduced probation service.
  My general approach has been that the nature of the work which is done by the probation officer is far more analogous to the kind of work that is done by other social workers than it is to anything which may be done by anyone who is concerned only with court work. There is a basic training, a basic professional responsibility, and professional expertise which straddle probation work and other forms of local authority social work. From that starting point, the inevitable conclusion is that the probation service should be part of the social work department.
  Mr. Noble Mr. Noble rose——
  Mr. Millan: I know that some probation officers are very worried, and I want to deal with this if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to, particularly as to their status with the court.
  The right hon. Gentleman quoted the Morison Committee. The position in Scotland has improved considerably since that Committee reported a number of years ago, and it has improved without any change in the administrative structure, because the probation service in Scotland is, and has remained, very largely a local authority service. Although I appreciate the apprehensions of individual probation officers about any whittling away of their professional and independent status in relation to the courts, it ought to be pointed out to them that many other professional people are employed by local auhorities. I have never heard it suggested, for example, that a medical officer of health, who is a member of a profession which is very sensitive about professional status, has his professional status reduced by being employed by a local authority. I certainly do not feel that this is a sufficiently impressive argument to set aside the other arguments for bringing the probation service within the social work departments.
  Mr. Noble Mr. Noble rose——
  Mr. Millan: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish this I will give way.
  The service in the courts will not change overnight. It will not happen that when social work departments are established, the very next day in our sheriff courts, to deal with adult offenders, completely new people will appear who have previously been employed as residential staff in old persons' homes or in children's homes. They will not suddenly appear to give the kind of service that the courts have previously had from probation officers. There will, in practice, be a continuity in the service and in the personnel.
  To assuage some doubts that both the service and the courts have about the change, we are providing that under Clause 27 local authorities will have to provide schemes for the operation of the services to the court which are provided by the probation service at the moment. The schemes will be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and may also provide for the association of sheriffs with the social work committee, or the sub-committee of the social work committee, which deals with probation work.
  Moving on to the other question of staff generally, I do, of course, appreciate the very considerable importance——
  Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman says that he will give way, but he does not. The hon. Gentleman has repeated exactly the argument about the probation service which his right hon. Friend made and which nobody accepts. If it is argued that because their work straddles the sort of work done by other people who will be in the service, and, therefore, they must be in it, exactly the same argument could be applied to every minister of every church, whose work straddles all of this, and who, I hope, will not be directly in this. The argument simply does not hold up.
  Mr. Millan: I do not know that that is a very good analogy. Only this morning, I received in my post a statement from the Standing Conference of Organisations of Social Workers, which included the Association of Child Care Workers, The Association of Family Case Workers, the Association of Psychiatric Social Workers, the Association of Social

  147
  Workers, the Institute of Medical Social Workers, the Moral Welfare Workers Association, the Society of Mental Welfare Officers and the National Association of Probation Officers. Therefore, they seem to consider that the kind of functions which they carry out are analogous to those carried out by the other staff I have just mentioned.
  The question of staff is very important, and I agree that our welfare departments in Scotland are inadequately staffed. I made that point clear in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) on an adjournment debate as recently as 27th March. I also made it clear in that debate—obviously I am not able to give all the details now—that the number of courses and students in child care was increasing. Hon. Members might read what I said on that occasion as part of their preparation for the Committee stage of this Bill. Apart from child care workers, there are other courses whose numbers, we anticipate, will similarly increase over the next few years.
  I agree with those who have said that the concept of the social work department will not work successfully unless it is adequately staffed. We attach considerable importance to this. But we must not forget the improvements which have been made and the improvements being planned. This is the sort of thing which we can discuss at greater length in Committee.
  I wish to say something about the operation of the children's Panels and children's hearings. There has been a good deal of discussion today about the problem of delinquency. I would not pretend that I have anything particularly profound to say about it. I had almost come to the same conclusion as Sir George Benson without having anything like his very considerable experience. Many of us are baffled by this problem and are not sure of the solution to it. What I am clear about is, first, that the incidence is increasing, and, secondly—and here I agree very much with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and a number of other hon. Members—that we have to deal with this by social and community measures and better pro-
  148
  vision as well as by anything which we may do in the Bill or anything which we are doing at the moment through the juvenile courts.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) said that the juvenile courts had not had a chance. I should have thought that was an extremely inaccurate assessment. She also said that the juvenile courts had not been properly studied. But that is what the Kilbrandon Committee is all about. As the hon. Lady will know, Sheriff Walker, who is now Sheriff of Lanarkshire and who, I imagine, knows a good deal about sheriffs' courts, was a member of the Kilbrandon Committee. The Kilbrandon Committee produced a very exhaustive report about juvenile courts and came to the conclusion, with which most of us here would agree, that they should be replaced by the kind of system provided for in the Bill.
  Mrs. Ewing Mrs. Ewing rose——
  Mr. Millan: No, I have not time.
  I take the point very seriously, and I emphasise that in making a change of this sort we must not reduce the rights of the child or of his parents. I have personally taken a good deal of care about this matter in the drafting of the Bill. If we have not succeeded in dealing with the point, I shall be willing to listen to Amendments in Committee. I think that we have provided very considerable safeguards in the Bill. Certainly it is my intention that they should be provided.
  If there is any question of proof being required the matter is not dealt with by the children's hearing at all. It is dealt with by the sheriff court, and before hon. Members, as some of them did today, get quite so enthusiastic about questions with regard to the burden of proof, and so on, and our present juvenile courts, they might, perhaps, keep in mind that in 95 per cent. of the cases, as Kilbrandon pointed out, the child concerned pleads guilty and no proof is led whatsoever. I think it is very unlikely, even looking at it from this point of view, that we shall find that the new panels will represent any kind of reduction at all, and I do not intend that they should, in the legal rights of the children who come before them.

  149
  In any case, of course, the procedure in the children's panel is to be the subject of consultation with the Council on Tribunals. We have already had certain consultations with the Tribunal. It exists, of course, to protect the ordinary citizen again abrogation of rights and abrogation of responsibility by bodies which a re non-elected and are not judicial in the normal sense. We are very anxious that the procedures should be agreed with the Council.
  All the methods of disposal at present available to juvenile courts will be available to the panels as well, but the really important thing here—and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Thomas Steele) put his finger on it—is that the children's hearings will have continuing responsibility for the child. In other words, it is not a question of disposing of the child and then forgetting him till the next time he unfortunately comes before the court. They will have a continuing responsibility, which they will have to discharge, for the children who come before them.
  As for recruitment, the pattern is laid down in Schedule 2 and it provides for training to which I attach importance. I would not wish to be dogmatic about this, but I think that any intelligent, reasonable human being with an interest in children and willing to give this service and do the training which will be required, will be considered and put through the various processes for membership of these children's hearings. I believe that we shall be able to get satisfactory people. Again, I agree with what has been said by a number of hon. Gentlemen, that that is absolutely essential for the effective working of these panels.
  While most of our debate today has been preoccupied either with matters where there are differences of opinion or with the completely new functions of the children's panels, there has been this wide measure of agreement, particularly over the concept of the social work departments, dealing with a wide variety of welfare services affecting the sick, with after-care, provisions, with the elderly, the young—indeed, everyone in the community who needs the help of the social work departments. Everyone today, without exception, I think, has accepted the need for breaking the lines of demarca-
  150
  tion between one local authority department and another, and for providing this kind of comprehensive service which is outlined in the Bill.
  I do not, of course, believe that the Bill will solve all problems in the field of social work, far less in the field of juvenile delinquency. What I do believe is that it provides us with a better frame-work for solving those problems than we have ever had before. I am glad it has been welcomed on that basis, and it is on that basis that I very warmly commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Ordered,
  That notwithstanding anything in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 59 (Standing Committees (constitution and powers)) and Standing Order No. 61 (Scottish Standing Committee), the Bill be considered by the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Millan.]

  SOCIAL WORK (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for promoting social welfare in Scotland, to amend the law relating to the supervision and care of persons put on probation or released from detention and to establish children's panels to provide children's hearings in the case of children requiring compulsory measures of care, it is expedient to authorise payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—
  (1) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—

  (a) in conducting or assisting other persons in conducting research into any matter connected with his functions or the functions of local authorities in relation to social welfare, and with the activities of voluntary organisations connected with these functions;

  (b) in making grants towards fees or expenses incurred by persons undergoing training for any of the purposes of the said Act, towards the cost of maintenance of such persons and towards expenses incurred by any body of persons in providing such training;

  (c) in providing training for persons for any of the said purposes or for persons engaged in any activity connected with those purposes;

  (d) in providing financial and other assistance towards expenses incurred by voluntary organisations and other persons engaged in any activity connected with his functions or

  151
  the functions of local authorities under the said Act;

  (e) in making payments of travelling, subsistence or other expenses to members of any Advisory Council established under the said Act;

  (f) in making payment of fees and allowances to members of any appeal tribunal constituted by the said Act and in defraying the expenses of any such tribunal;

  (g) in the recruitment and training of members of children's panels;

  (h) in providing legal aid in connection with proceedings before the sheriff or a higher court under the said Act;

  (i) in making payments of compensation to or in respect of persons suffering loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments attributable to the provisions of the said Act;

  (2) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the said Act;
  (3) any increases attributable to the said Act—

  (a) in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of Rate Support Grant under the enactments relating to local government in Scotland; and

  152

  (b) resulting from any provisions of that Act authorising the variation of any rate support grant order made before the commencement of that Act for a grant period ending after the commencement of that Act so as to take account of additional expenditure incurred or likely to be incurred by local authorities in consequence of the passing of that Act.—[Mr. Millan.]

THEFT BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60A (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

DANGEROUS DRUGS (SUPPLY TO ADDICTS)
10.2 p.m.
Mr. W. F. DeedesI beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Dangerous Drugs (Supply to Addicts) Regulations 1968 (S.I. 1968, No. 416), dated 18th March 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th March, be annulled.
It goes without saying that we are moving to annul these Regulations to give ourselves and the Minister another chance to survey this anxious problem. I have never felt it was much contribution to our problem to cry wolf too loudly or too often. Indeed, it might be said that to some extent the spread of addiction is in inverse ratio to the amount of publicity given to it.
Since 16th April we have embarked on a difficult experiment, and its success or failure will go some way towards determining the future course of narcotics addiction in this country. It follows, therefore, that it is critically important to watch the early stages of this new system.
I judge that we have got off to a better start than many expected or feared—at least in London. The Minister may say that some of the earlier fears expressed have now been displaced. Equally had those fears not been expressed—not only by hon. Members here, but by hospitals and members of the medical profession—it is possible that we would be in more trouble than we are.
About a month ago we discussed Regulations under the Bill requiring notification. In the light of these Regulations, will the Minister tell us the results up to date? He told me, in answer to a Question, that by mid-March 682, mostly heroin takers, had been notified. I judge the total to be about double that now, and I think the numbers are still coming in. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate what view his Department takes about this.
Does it feel that it is approaching a final total? Has it formed any impression of those addicts who are, as yet not going to a doctor to avoid being notified? I have a feeling that there are still a fair number left to be accounted for. It is
154
disturbingly clear that a fair proportion of former heroin addicts have switched over to methedrine, about which I will have something to say in a moment.
Again, are we reconciling the numbers notified centrally with the numbers reporting to hospitals? This seems an important relationship. If those who start treatment at hospitals under these Regulations drop out, have we any way of discovering that this has happened and of keeping a check on their whereabouts?
I think that we might all wish that London lent itself to a system which Birmingham enjoys, by which all agencies—police, chemists, social workers and the hospitals—co-operate sympathetically to get addicts into the right hands to pool their information. That is beyond us in a capital of this size. Without wishing to sound in the least inhuman, it may be that the reconciliation of these various complex statistics will have to be assisted by a computer. I hope that the Minister will keep his mind open to that. Rapid assessments and calculations will be important.
As far as the hospitals go, I accept that it is early days to pass judgment on operations since 16th April, but perhaps I might make one or two observations on how they may be expected to operate. First, I think that they will find it very difficult to do a satisfactory job without disciplinary powers. I know that there are two views about this. One is that addicts must be wooed. That is true, but there is a balance to be struck. The addict is a patient, not a privileged person. I think that the Minister has shown awareness of the need for this balance by limiting—I think to one, but he can confirm this—the centres open for 24 hours in London. I have come round to see that this is probably right. If London's 16 or so hospital clinics were expected to gear themselves to the vagaries of the addicts, the lives of the staffs would become intolerable.
There must be discipline to a degree, and I should like to see this discipline extended to one thing, namely, admission for 48 hours for preliminary assessment of need. This view is supported by a number of people in the medical profession who know the problems well.

155
Without that assessment, how are we to avoid over-prescribing, or under-prescribing, either of which can lead to illicit traffic outside the hospitals, the one thing that we want to avoid? I cannot see that these addicts will arrive with any reliable guide of what their former needs have been. I cannot see how their needs can be scientifically ascertained without powers to ask them to submit to a more detailed examination than is now possible.
All the information which I respect stresses how important it is to draw local social workers into the work of these centres. It is imperative that social workers in the field and the National Health hospitals should work together on an equal footing. Someone has to establish a domestic relationship, as opposed to an institutional one, with these people. Under this system the addict will not always see the same houseman, as he saw his private doctor on private premises.
Whether the system remains simply a source of maintenance—which for the State has a questionable aspect—or whether it paves the way for some, even a few, cures, will depend an enormous amount on the social worker background. In some respects the social worker is more important than medical treatment if we bear in mind that the problem in many cases is not simply the detoxification of the addict, but, some form of social rehabilitation.
The Minister will say—and I know this to be true—that hospitals are short of social workers of that kind. That being, so, it seems all the more important to make the best use of the social workers that we have in the field outside the hospitals. I very much wish that the right hon. Gentleman had kept a slightly more open door for those medico-social units and centres which had been doing good work in this field——
Mr. Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but we are not discussing the parent Act. He must not go too wide of the Regulations.
Mr. Deedes: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I think that you will find that what I am saying comes within the terms of the Regulations.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as a result of these Regula-
156
tions, a decision has had to be taken to close the Chelsea Centre and that a good deal of feeling has been aroused on that score. I think that he will say that it has been done because, under the Regulations, it has been necessary to withdraw the right to prescribe heroin for all medical practitioners. That would be more convincing if we did not know that Dr. Chapple, one of the principal figures at the centre, is, under these Regulations, enabled, in another hat, to prescribe at Chelsea Hospital, as he is now doing. No doubt the decision can be justified by the letter of the Regulations, but I question its wisdom for several reasons.
According to a Written Answer in another place, 545 medical practitioners have been licensed to prescribe these drugs under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 529 of them on the staff of National Health hospitals. With all respect to those practitioners, how many of them know as much about this subject as either Dr. Chapple or Dr. Gray of the Chelsea Centre and, to be fair, how many want to know as much? Goodness knows, we are not over-endowed with reputable enthusiasts in this field and I might ask, why are they there anyway? They have been filling for some time an essential gap while we have been deciding rather slowly what to do.
It is imprudent that, under these Regulations, these people should be driven out of this business and we should then have to draft 500 or so doctors, the work of few of whom has lain regularly in this field and most of whom are reluctant soldiers, into the business.
There seems to be one more reason for not closing the door, under the Regulations, to the voluntary organisations which have been operating in the field. I accept that the present system is an emergency measure and we must accept it, but I doubt its permanence. We may well have to move towards less formal arrangements as time goes on, in a year or so—away from the National Health hospitals, into which the Regulations would put the system, and towards more ad hoc institutions able to integrate the social background and, of course, approved and supervised by the Minister.
I hope that the Minister will not close his mind to the possibility of this system

157
being a transitional stage. If that is so, it follows that we should not too quickly discourage reliable enthusiasts who may well be the nucleus of a new system which the addicts will eventually have to have. All experience has shown that, whatever arrangements we may try to dispose of here, ultimately, professional personality is decisive. This is particularly so in a place like All Saints, Birmingham and also, I think, in Bristol, under Dr. Wood, and in a number of other places.
I want now to turn to a different and rather more serious aspect which, I think, falls within the Regulations. We are confronted with a rapidly changing scene. It has changed a great deal since the Act went through and is changing continuously. There has been one particularly important change in the relationship, or perhaps in our conception of the relationship, between hard drugs, the narcotics of which the Regulations treat, and soft drugs. Hitherto, I think, most people put the drug problem in roughly three fields—first, narcotics, with which the Regulations deal, second the hallucinogens, which have nothing to do with the Regulations, L.S.D. and cannabis, for example, and, third, the barbiturates and amphetamines, the soft drugs, with which I think we may deal under the Regulations.
The Minister knows that it is on the last of these drugs, the amphetamines, that most anxiety arises at present in the medical profession because we have incontrovertible evidence of widespread abuse of one amphetamine, namely, methedrine or methylamphetamine. This is not included in the Regulations and I cannot ask that it should be. It cannot have been included because it was not even under discussion when we were talking about the Bill.
As, with these Regulations, we establish our arrangements for heroin and its immediate associates, we are left in no doubt that the intravenous use of methedrine has become almost as widespread—and no less serious in the eyes of the profession—as the use of heroin. There is no doubt that this is a nasty problem. I have sent the right hon. Gentleman some figures today, which I will not publicise and which would not be relevant to these Regulations. Nor,
158
will I enlarge on the medical use or the social misuse of amphetamines: that would also be without the scope of the Regulations.
It is long overdue for serious question whether 3½ million annual prescriptions for amphetamines, with the consequent large overspill of illicit use, is medically necessary or socially sense, but I know that the Minister has taken care of that with a letter to medical practitioners. What troubles me is that I do not think that a caution to the medical profession will prevent that kind of minority which was prescribing heroin excessively and was the direct cause of these Regulations from prescribing methedrine excessively now.
We have one example of how this is being done and I will not advertise him or his whereabouts, since he has had enough publicity, but, unfortunately, he is not the only one prescribing methedrine and knowing full well the uses to which it is being put.
I do not believe that, in this sphere of amphetamines, and methedrine in particular, we will be able to control the situation by Regulations of this kind from here. It is a course which, as we see tonight, has two obvious drawbacks. First, we shall always be a little too late, however hard we try, and that is no reflection on the Ministry. Through the workings of Parliament, we shall always be a little too late.
I have no doubt that, sooner or later, we will have to add methedrine to the list. By that time we will have another drug to contend with. I could already name one, but I will not. There will be other possibilities, and one will follow another. We will be required to add these drugs to the list and then, if necessary, pray against them to discuss them. This is not the way to handle the situation.
Parliament is not an effective instrument for the sort of control that is needed. We are dealing with something that Parliament cannot control effectively and I believe that these Regulations are almost the last thing that we here will be able to do. In my view, only the medical profession can now exercise control. The Minister knows that I wish—and perhaps he wishes, too—that it was the profession which was exercising control tonight and not we through these

159
Regulations. Only the profession can make, as professional bodies should, value judgments on the prescribing of particular drugs like methedrine for particular persons or purposes.
I put the matter as moderately as I can. The medical profession must pause here now and see where it is going. Unless a concerted effort is made to curb an irresponsible minority, we will be drawn inexorably and, I fear, unwisely and against the profession's interest, into more and more Regulations of this kind. For reasons which the Minister knows, the General Medical Council felt unable to accept a recommendation that heroin should be dealt with by the profession. Therefore, these Regulations have become necessary; and that is what the Regulations are about. It has become necessary for us, by Statute, to take away an important part of the medical profession's rights—the right to prescribe—and this is an extremely serious matter.
The Regulations say that doctors may not prescribe certain drugs. This is a big and important deprivation, of which the medical profession should have taken more note than it has. If we go on, as it seems we may, attempting to limit by Statute the prescribing of certain amphetamines, the medical profession will face a big invasion, begun with heroin, of its prescribing authority. This is an extremely serious matter. Indeed, speaking with moderation, I only hope that the profession is aware of its importance.
I am not saying that everything can be left entirely to the profession's own established standards—"conduct unbecoming", "infamous conduct", and so on—but that it should accept the need to play a bigger part; otherwise, its freedom will be steadily eroded by Regulations of this kind. I hope that we are aware of the limitations here. We are dealing not with 1,200 or so heroin addicts, but with a larger number of a sub-culture who, for one reason or an-other, resort to any extreme, even to self-destruction; and this we will never eliminate. Unfortunately, they are apt to enlarge their circle, and that is our concern and the reason behind the Regulations.
Eventually, it may be that this permissive society of ours will have to be
160
permissive enough to establish micro-communities where these people who want to contract out of life can live in a world which accepts them. Until then, we must simply contain them, and that will depend heavily not just on our overworked hospitals but on a wide diversity of social agencies. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge and emphasise that now because it is something which should have very heavy emphasis indeed.
10.23 p.m.
Mr. Mark Carlisle: Hon. Members will be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), for initiating this debate on what the Minister will agree is an extremely important set of Regulations. It prevents the power of doctors to administer certain named drugs. As my right hon. Friend said, probably for the first time Parliament is interfering with the doctor's normal right to administer drugs to his patients.
When we are considering the question of hard drugs, the vital thing is to ensure that their supply is properly controlled. If it is not, then we know, from what we have seen over the years, will happen; that they find their way on to the black market and into illegal sales. These sales seem to have two very worrying social effects. First, they are supplied to the addict at prices which require him to gain money by various means to pay for their supply. Secondly, they encourage other people to go onto drugs or encourage the possessors of drugs to persuade others to take them, thus increasing the outlets for his sales on the black market.
Therefore, to the extent that these Regulations, by controlling the supply of drugs, will limit the supply that might get into the wrong hands, they are to be welcomed. I must admit that, like my right hon. Friend, in many ways I regret its necessity. It is indeed unfortunate that we could not have left this control to the good sense and professional discipline of the medical profession. It is an unfortunate fact that we find it necessary to legislate in this way.
I say this particularly for the reason that it is highly questionable where one stops when one starts on this type of Regulation. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, there is an alarming increase

161
in the supply of methedrine at the moment. We cannot expect Parliament persistently to bring forward Regulations laying down prohibitions on doctors against prescribing particular named medicines. I hope that we shall not have to see other similar Regulations produced, but that we can rely on the profession to take the necessary disciplinary measures which will make such Regulations unnecessary.
I say that mindful of the fact that I am a member of a profession which prides itself on having high professional standards, all of which are laid down internally and upheld internally and do not require or need legislation to control those high professional standards. The medical profession is equally a high and honourable profession. I hope very much that it will be able itself to continue to lay down and require members of the profession to behave in accordance with such high standards and that further orders of this kind will not be necessary.
Just as if we are to prevent drugs being sold illegally we must curtail resources of supply, we must see that those pathetic people who are genuine addicts are able to get their supplies from registered or licensed sources. Some of us are not so well versed in this subject as my right hon. Friend. I ask the Minister to say something about the geographical location of the number of doctors licensed under the Regulations. I have the impression that to a large extent this is still a London problem. I hope and believe that I am right, but is the Minister satisfied that, for the few addicts there, there are enough licensed doctors in the Liverpol and Manchester area?
I am a member of a Home Office advisory committee concerned with a wholly different subject, detention centres for youths. In that capacity I have visited various detention centres in recent weeks. What concerns me immensely is that over recent months—I believe it is only over recent months—there have suddenly come into those detention centres, people convicted of possession of drugs. I have the impression that the number is increasing as against the number of those convicted for other offences. They may be there not for possession of hard drugs so much as soft drugs. They are not addicts and are not directly affected by
162
these Regulations, but what was said to me today is worth repeating.
A man in a position of responsibility in one of the centres said that the very publicity given today by the Press and other mass media to the use of drugs is creating a phase among young addicts which leads them to try drugs, to be in possession of drugs and experiment with drugs, and eventually, if they start taking soft drugs regularly, possibly to move on to hard drugs and to become addicted.
In considering the Regulations we should bear that problem in mind and try to ensure that we discuss drugs responsibly and avoid the glamorisation which sometimes occurs and point out that it is for many a very sad and tragic downward path. Although these Regulations relate only to hard drugs, in so far as they show the control that is to be taken over the supply of drugs I welcome them and hope that, without any Regulations, due to the good sense of the medical profession itself similar control will be exercised over the supply of soft drugs.
10.31 p.m.
Mr. Paul Dean: The House is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) for drawing attention to this extremely important subject. Although I do not claim to have one-tenth of the knowledge that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) have of this difficult problem, I want to underline one or two of the points which they have made.
My right hon. Friend made the interesting point that the Regulations make provision for treatment in hospital for those who previously were, in many cases, treated within the community. I am not saying that that is the wrong procedure at this moment, but it is interesting to reflect that, at a time when all the emphasis is on care within the community, in this particular case we appear to be moving in the opposite direction. I hope that the Minister will pay great attention to the plea which my right hon. Friend made that we should not close the door on the ad hoc institution in the community which tries to deal with this problem. The problem is changing. It is very much in a transitional stage. It would be a pity, bad from the point of view of obtaining

163
deeper knowledge of the subject, and bad from the point of view of the care and treatment of those concerned, were we to try to narrow the base too much.
My right hon. Friend said that this is inevitably a transitional stage. These are inevitably transitional Regulations. Since they were tabled, we have the new problem concerned with methedrine coming to the fore. Only the other day I read in a newspaper expressions of concern over teen-age parties at which cider and pills were taken. This is another example. These two points emphasise the case which my right hon. Friend made that it is virtually impossible to try to deal with this problem through legislation or Statutory Instruments, because the character of the problem is changing so much. As soon as we succeed in plugging one loophole, another will almost certainly open up.
There is a real risk that, under these Regulations, we may fall between two stools. We cannot hope by legislation to block the holes fast enough unless the law is so wide and so flexible that drugs can be put very quickly on the banned list. But were the powers to be so wide, we should run into the other real danger that we should substantially undermine the right and duty of doctors to prescribe for their patients what they think best. That is why I say that, with the approach represented by these Regulations, we could well find ourselves falling between two stools.
It is not my purpose to oppose the Regulations, but I hope that the Minister will recognise the deep experience and knowledge of my right hon. Friend on this subject and accept that the questions which he put go not only to the heart of the most effective treatment for the people about whom we are speaking, but also to the heart of the freedom and professional judgment of medical men to do what they feel is best for their patients.
10.36 p.m.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): The Prayer moved by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) enables the House to discuss those aspects of drug addiction which form the subject of these Regulations and also, perhaps, some related aspects of addiction to heroin and cocaine. The
164
Government welcome this opportunity to discuss their measures to tackle the spread of addiction to these drugs, and the right hon. Gentleman has, as usual, made a helpful and constructive speech on this subject, as did the hon. Members for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean). I fully accept that this Prayer has been tabled for purposes of elucidation and discussion.
The Regulations complete the scheme of measures on drug addiction recommended by the Brain Committee and accepted by the Government. I think it right to remind the House of the scheme as a whole, and its objectives. First, we now have a Standing Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence under the chairmanship of Sir Edward Wayne, which keeps the whole field of drug dependence—both the so-called "hard" and "soft" drugs—under review. Second, research effort has been substantially increased by the establishment of the Addiction Research Unit at the Institute of Psychiatry.
Third, Regulations laid before Parliament in February require doctors to notify particulars of addicts to the Chief Medical Officer. Fourth, an advisory panel has been set up to help doctors who are in doubt about whether a patient is addicted within the meaning of the Regulations and should, therefore, be notified.
Fifth, the Regulations now before the House restrict to licensed doctors authority to prescribe heroin or cocaine to addicts. Sixth, and certainly not least, hospital treatment facilities have been developed to meet the estimated demand for treatment following these Regulations.
These Regulations prohibit doctors from prescribing or administering heroin or cocaine to addicts except under a licence issued by the Home Secretary or where the drugs are needed for the relief of pain due to organic disease or injury, thus giving effect to one of the major recommendations of the Brain Committee.
As indicated by Government spokesmen during the debates on the Dangerous Drugs Bill last year, the Home Secretary is advised in the exercise of his licensing powers by the Chief Medical Officer and takes account of the facilities of the institution in which the licence is to be

165
used as well as the personal qualifications of the doctor himself. In the National Health Service, doctors who have been considered for a licence are consultants who treat, or who may be called upon to treat, heroin addiction in psychiatric hospitals or units and have been nominated by a hospital board, and doctors in other specified grades who have been nominated by, and are under the supervision of, those licensed consultants.
Applications for licences from doctors outside the National Health Service are considered on the basis of similar criteria. For example, the doctors should be of comparable rank or status and the institution should have facilities comparable with those of National Health Service hospitals which treat heroin addicts. All doctors were informed of the Regulations towards the end of March, and an explanatory memorandum was issued setting out the procedure for licensing.
I understand that the Home Secretary has issued over 500 licences. Almost all are to medical staff in National Health Service hospitals; there have been a few applications from doctors outside the Health Service and a very few licences have been issued to doctors in private hospitals. Many of the licences issued to Health Service hospitals may be only rarely used, but it is sensible to ensure that there are licensed doctors in all parts of the country, although in many there are believed to be no heroin addicts. I think that this answers the point of the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). The main criteria for licensing seem to be well understood by doctors and I understand that my right hon. Friend has had to reject very few applications.
The effect of licensing is to transfer the treatment of heroin addicts from general practitioners to hospitals. The House will recall that this accords with the Brain Committee's view of the most hopeful way of organising treatment and that this view has the general support of the medical profession. It would not be surprising if some addicts and perhaps a few general practitioners preferred the old arrangements under which any doctor was free to prescribe for addicts. But, quite clearly, these arrangements could not be allowed to continue in view of the Brain Committee's advice.
166
I think it worth emphasising that we are changing the basis of the system and that the Regulations do not reflect adversely on those general practitioners who have undertaken the difficult and unrewarding task of treating heroin addicts, and discharged it in a responsible manner. It also follows that we shall not issue any licences for use in general practice. The new system must be applied without exception. This does not, of course, imply that any doctor who has an interest in the treatment of addiction will be prevented from treating his patients. It is only where he considers it necessary to prescribe heroin that he would need to secure for that purpose a suitable hospital post.
The right hon. Gentleman questioned the decision to withhold licences from two doctors at the Chelsea Addiction and Research Centre. I understand that these doctors treat addicts in the course of general practice; the centre is not a hospital, the doctors are not consultants, and there is no consultant supervision. One of the doctors is, however, licensed for the purpose of his part-time hospital appointment, where he will be under consultant supervision.
The Chelsea centre will be able to continue to treat addicts by methods other than prescribing of heroin, and I hope that it will do so. There is certainly no necessity for the centre to close because of the decision not to license the two doctors for this limited purpose.
The House will naturally wish to view the Regulations against the background of our current information on the scale of addiction to heroin and cocaine, about which the right hon. Gentleman asked particularly, the sources of the drugs and the provision for treatment. First, under the new system of notification which began on 22nd February, 877 heroin addicts had been notified up to 3rd May. Of these, 764 were in the Greater London and Home Counties areas.
The majority of notifications were made by hospital medical staff. There is no sign yet that notifications are falling off sharply. It would be rash to make any deductions yet from the pattern of the daily receipt of notifications. I shall certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion about the possible use of computers in this

167
connection. Some use is already being made of the Home Office Statistical Branch services, but it would be as well not to take decisions too quickly about the type of information to be collected or the methods to be used. As I am sure the right hon. Gentlemen will know, the notification programme in New York City took several years to develop.
Second, although the Home Office has evidence that a small quantity of heroin has been imported illegally into this country, the main source of supply is still believed to be prescriptions by doctors. Third, treatment facilities which should be capable of dealing with up to 1,000 addicts in London, were ready by 16th April. The details were given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) in reply to a Question on 26th March.
In the Government's view, nothing has happened to invalidate the case for restricting the prescribing of heroin and cocaine; and the information about the numbers of addicts does not cast doubt on the adequacy of the hospital facilities to meet the foreseeable demand for treatment. These considerations were, of course, carefully weighed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself before the regulations were made and their operative date decided upon.
Arrangements for the transfer of addicts from general practitioners to hospital clinics were well advanced before the regulations were made, and in the interval before they became operative arrangements were made for the transfer of those who were still being treated by general practitioners. I am very pleased to inform the House that this operation has gone off smoothly and that hospital clinics have now take over the major responsibility for the treatment and supervision of heroin addicts. At the present time in the London area, these clinics have more than 700 addicts on their books.
The object of the operation and of the other measures taken is, of course, to check the spread of heroin addiction by reducing and, if possible, eliminating the over-prescribing of heroin, and by providing more effective treatment facilities than are possible within general practice.
168
Both considerations require that the hospital service should not provide facilities for an addict to obtain heroin at any time of day or night.
It will be obvious to the House that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to control the supply of heroin available to addicts if they could obtain this drug at any time, merely by visiting a hospital or perhaps a series of hospitals. Fortunately, there is no clinical need to provide facilities of this kind. On the contrary, I am advised that the consensus amongst psychiatrists is that a 24-hour out-patient treatment service is unnecessary and, indeed, undesirable, in that the attendance of an addict at regular times in a clinic's usual working hours is part of the process of rehabilitation. Experience in the London clinics has already confirmed that addicts are capable of attending at regular hours, and this is perhaps not altogether surprising when one recalls the punctual attendance of addicts at midnight at certain all-night chemists in order to get their prescriptions for the following day's supply dispensed.
I expect incidentally that this particular concentration, which is so undesirable, will disappear or be greatly reduced under the new regime partly because prescriptions will be dispensed by chemists near to the addicts' homes, thus spreading the dispensing points, and partly because the hospital doctor may specify on the prescription the hours during which it may be dispensed; and these will be during chemists' normal opening hours.
The possibility of tampering with prescriptions to obtain extra supplies is being prevented by sending prescriptions direct to the chemists, and the risk of an addict prematurely using up, or perhaps selling, a whole week's prescription, and in consequence suffering withdrawal symptoms, is being reduced by arranging for supplies to be dispensed daily. Even so, emergency treatment for addicts in distress is available at all times in accident and emergency departments and in casualty departments. I am advised that withdrawal symptoms may be relieved by a substitute drug, and do not necessitate the use of heroin.
The Chief Medical Officer has issued clinical advice to doctors, including

169
casualty officers, on the treatment of "emergencies". This advice says among other things, that most addicts exaggerate or fabricate withdrawal symptoms. This was borne out by my inquiries into the case reported in the Sunday Times of 28th April, which said that an addict in pitiful condition was refused emergency treatment. In fact, the addict—who, despite the name he goes under, is not a peer of the realm—was correctly receiving drugs prescribed by one hospital, and could have returned there if he had been in genuine difficulty. Instead, he arrived by ambulance at another hospital, where he was examined by a doctor, found to be clinically fit, and discharged. He returned by ambulance to this hospital later in the day and demanded a "fix"; when this request was refused by the doctor who saw him, the patient promptly walked out, I emphasise "walked out". It is quite untrue to say that the patient was refused any necessary emergency treatment. I may add that the voluntary organisation who wrote to me making these allegations was given the facts as I have recounted them before 28th April when the story appeared in the newspaper. Perhaps I may also add that the incident took place five weeks before that story appeared.
The right hon. Member for Ashford referred to the problem of assessing the right dosage of drugs. This is a medical matter of which the clinicians responsible for treating addicts are fully aware. I understand that it is difficult to make a precise assessment without requiring the patient to enter hospital for a short period, which might well deter some addicts from further attendance at the clinic. The clinicians have held several conferences at the Ministry which included discussion of the assessment of dosage, the scope for laboratory testing and the development of laboratory services for this purpose. I understand that at present laboratories can provide qualitative, but not quantitive tests, of drugs taken by a patient, and the experts are continuing to tackle the technical problems involved in assessment of this kind.
The out-patient clinics are not concerned only with the right assessment of drugs. The intention is that rehabilitation should begin as soon as the addict enters the clinic.
Mr. Deedes: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of assessment, if the profession come back with a feeling that some form of compulsory admission will be necessary I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not resist it, although I realise the difficulties that can arise.
Mr. Robinson: This is a difficult matter. Of course I would consider it. I would not dream of dismissing it out of hand. We decided, and this was the final view of Lord Brain, that we would go ahead without the power to detain, in the hope that the system would work well.
Mr. Deedes: I am not talking of the permanent admission for treatment, but temporary admission, for not more than 48 hours, for this critical matter of assessment.
Mr. Robinson: I was not thinking of permanent detention. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We shall just have to see how we go. I was saying that the out-patient clinics are not only concerned with the assessment of drugs.
I have recently received interim advice from the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, which I have commended to hospital authorities in the London area. The Committee emphasises the importance of clinics having the services of social workers who would, for example, maintain contact with addicts and their families and where possible follow-up patients who have entered hospital or who need after-care on discharge. I fully accept the importance of social workers in this context, but they are in short supply.
The measures that the Government have taken are based on the best professional advice, and we shall watch closely their effects. If it appears necessary to supplement them, we shall not hesitate to do so. Even if heroin addiction is checked, there will remain as the right hon. Gentleman said, and as the Government recognises, the problem of dependence on the so-called "soft" drugs, including the particularly worrying problem of methedrine, on which expert advice is awaited.
The Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence has been asked to study the problem urgently. The present difficulty is to get the real facts about the

171
phenomena of methedrine abuse and dependence. It is not yet clear—and I think this point was accepted in the debates we had on the Bill last year—that the Brain solution which is enshrined in the Regulations and associated Measures would serve a useful purpose here. As I say, we shall have to await the expert advice.
This whole exercise of organising hospital facilities for the treatment of heroin addicts, and of transferring addicts from their general practitioners to the hospital clinics for treatment has been anything but easy. That it has been carried out with such a marked degree of success reflects credit on many people, including psychiatrists, administrators and others in the hospital service and a small group of officials in my Department who worked closely with them throughout.
There has, understandably, been considerable public interest in drug addiction, and constructive discussion of the problem, and the way it is being tackled, is both proper and helpful. The House will no doubt continue to review this problem. On the whole, public comment is becoming more informed and responsible, but there have been some unfortunate exceptions. The difficulties we have had to contend with have been in no way diminished by the attitude of certain newspapers, and of a few people concerned with the addiction problem in a mainly voluntary capacity, who have found a ready forum for their views in those newspapers.
From the first, this small group seems to have been hostile to the whole concept of hospital treatment for addicts; when the facilities were established they denied their existence—"Minister's addict clinics are just a myth" ran one Sunday Times headline of 18th February, and they consistently predicted chaos when the general practitioners prescribing ban came into operation, the very chaos that they, no doubt unintentionally, were doing something to bring about. For this consistent campaign of denigration of the Government"s efforts had one inevitable side effect—it could only damage the addicts' confidence in hospital treatment, and make them less inclined to seek it.
Happily, there was no chaos on 16th April when these prescribing Regulations
172
came into force. As I have said the transfer has been effected in a remarkably orderly fashion. It was too much to expect this to be publicly acknowledged in those journals which had confidently predicted chaos, and one must be grateful for their relative silence on the subject in the last week or two.
But, here again, there has been one regrettable exception at least. I have recently seen reported an extraordinary statement that hospital doctors are cutting down supplies of drugs to addicts so severely that their lives are threatened. Since it may discourage addicts from coming forward for treatment, I would like to say now that this allegation, like so many publicised utterances from the same source, is complete nonsense. It is also dangerously irresponsible. The increasing numbers of addicts who attend the hospital clinics are finding—and will continue to find—that they are treated by doctors and nurses who understand their problems.
Addicts are not necessarily receiving all the drugs they would like—this might well mean over-prescribing—but they are receiving all the drugs that the consultant who is responsible for their treatment, and who is skilled in these matters, judges that they need.
In case hon. Members may think that I have been a little unfair to the Press, may I mention one other example. There have been occasions where newspapers have arranged for an addict or a person presenting himself as an addict to tour hospitals, pretending to be in need of treatment, apparently to test the readiness of hospitals to provide treatment. I am sure that the House will deplore, as I do, activities of this kind, which waste the time of busy hospital staff and are, naturally, resented by them, and I sincerely hope that their work will not again be impeded in this way.
The 16th April marked the beginning of a new era in the control of drug addiction in this country. It is much too early to say how far these Regulations, together with the other measures taken by the Government, will succeed in securing our objective, the containment of heroin addiction here in Britain. But I am fortified by the knowledge confirmed by this debate that we have the

173
support of all sides of the House for what we are trying to do and the way in which we are setting about the task.
Question put and negatived.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
11.1 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: I ought to put on record that I have been advised about the limits imposed on me in this short debate by the rules of the House. I will strive, as best I can, to conform, even though that will impose on me a very severe restriction as to the scope and temper and the language of my speech. I make those opening remarks lest my moderation be misunderstood as the onset of premature senility.
Most hon. Members in all quarters of the House have criticised the B.B.C. at one time or another for a variety of reasons. Some have alleged—I have heard this myself—that it is a den full of Communists, Trotskyists and Left-wing long-haired intellectuals. Others have accused it of being ultra-Conservative, Establishment-minded, prissy, cautious, timid, and Auntie B.B.C., prim, proper and prude. Yet others more recently have attacked the B.B.C. for its alleged vulgarity, its coarseness, its immorality, and even its insensitivity.
The constitutional position of the B.B.C. has remained almost unchanged since it got its first charter in 1927. That position was largely determined by the British Broadcasting Company, as it then was, between 1922 and 1926 under the general managership of Mr. J. C. W. Reith, as he then was, now Lord Reith. It was in those early years that the company embarked on the policy of complete impartiality in its presentation of news and views, whilst seeking at the same time an increased measure of independence in dealing with events and news and opinions. It was in that atmosphere, created largely by the energy and ability of Mr. Reith, that the Crawford Committee, which had been set up by the Government of the day, recommended
174
the taking over of the British Broadcasting Company in its entirety by a public corporation. That is how the B.B.C. came into existence in 1927—the best piece of nationalisation ever initiated by a Tory Government, and the whole world is grateful to them for it.
I think that it can be claimed that the British Broadcasting Corporation is a unique institution, profoundly British, renowned the world over for its truthfulness and its objectivity in war no less than in peace. Like, I fear, so many of our institutions, it is probably valued more by foreigners than by our own countrymen, with their highly developed capacity for self denigration.
As the House well knows, the B.B.C. acts through its Charter, under which it must acquire a licence from the Postmaster-General, and let me say how glad I am to see him here personally to reply to this debate. The Licence and Agreement set out the terms under which the B.B.C. is allowed to establish and use its transmitting stations and apparatus for radio, among other things, but from the political point of view by far the most important part of the Licence is Article 14(4). Under that, the Postmaster-General
"may from time to time by notice in writing require the Corporation to refrain at any specifield time or at all times from sending any matter or matters of any class specified in such notice".
The terms of that sub-clause give the Government an absolute power over B.B.C. programmes, though it has always been treated very much as a reserve power. Successive Postmasters-General have steadily resisted attempts by individual Members of this House and members of outside organisations to interfere in the day-to-day activities, so far as the programme content of the B.B.C. is concerned. Nevertheless, the power is there. Similarly in the Charter in Article 10(5) the following words are used:
"If and whenever in the opinion of Our Postmaster-General emergency shall have arisen in which it is expedient in the public interest that the functions of the National Broadcasting Councils or any of them under this Article shall be suspended, the Postmasetr-General may by notices in writing to the National Councils or any of them and to the Corporation give directions accordingly, and directions so given shall have effect according to their terms during the currency of the notices".

175
The powers implied in that Article in the B.B.C. Charter and Licence respectively are very wide indeed, but that they can be used has been brought very frighteningly to our notice by the autobiography recently published by Mr. Harman Grisewood, the book, "One Thing at a Time". I should explain to the House that Mr. Grisewood had an outstanding career with the B.B.C. He finally retired in 1965 as the chief assistant to the Director General. The book clearly indicated that Mr. Grisewood was a very staunch Tory, down to his fingertips. Bearing that in mind, his account of the Suez crisis of the late 1956 becomes all the more disturbing. By late August of that year Mr. Grisewood records,
"Eden"—
that is, the Prime Minister—was hampered by
…the stubborn impartiality of the B.B.C."
The Prime Minister had, according to Mr. Grisewood, been in direct contact with Cadogan, then B.B.C. Chairman, about the broadcasts on Suez.
In the last week of October, 1956, the B.B.C. were told that military operations which were soon to start would involve the revival of war-time measures, and this would mean that the B.B.C. would become subject to censorship and other controls.
I quote again from Mr. Grisewood's book:
"Throughout the whole affair from July to November Eden's aim was secrecy and the B.B.C.'s was enlightenment."
It was clear that the B.B.C. at that time was determined to portray the truth, namely, that the nation was bitterly divided, that the military operation contemplated was not a national commitment, and that it was not a national war in which the nation was united. Anyone who was in the House at that time, and who lived through it, knows that that was just a statement of the facts.
But by the end of October, Mr. William Clark, who was at that time the Prime Minister's secretary for Press and broadcasting relations, told Mr. Grisewood that the Prime Minister was fast losing patience with the B.B.C. and was hatching plans to take it over altogether. In fact he had instructed the Lord Chan-
176
cellor, Lord Kilmuir, to prepare legislation to compel the B.B.C. to be the mouthpiece of the Government. Even more disquieting than that was the rejection of Lord Kilmuir's draft instrument by the Prime Minister on the grounds that it was not strong enough.
All this took place before the bombing and the landing of British troops in November. Fortunately for the country, the Board of Governors of the B.B.C., backed by the whole staff, resisted the pressure. I quote Mr. Grisewood:
"If Eden had had his way, it would have been the end of the Corporation as it had been known up to then".
The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I think the hon. Gentleman knows that he can criticise a Member of either House only on a substantive Motion. I am afraid he is going very close to doing that now, and I must ask him to desist.
Mr. Hamilton: I know that I was sailing pretty near the wind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was doing very nicely. I will move on from that point, but I think it is no great exaggeration to say that the courage and the firmness of the B.B.C. Governors and the staff at that time played a decisive part in preventing the nation from being dragged into what could easily have been a third world war.
The conclusion I come to, despite what I thought was the complacency of my right hon. Friend when he was answering Questions on this matter—I think the day just before the Easter Recess—is that it is quite clearly possible for some other Prime Minister on some other occasion to make a bid to take over the B.B.C.
The fortuitous circumstances which combined to thwart that bid in 1956 may not repeat themselves. The Director General, the Governors, the staff of the B.B.C. and the Prime Minister's Press secretary might be weaker, they might be less principled and more corruptible than they proved to be in 1956.
I would, therefore, like to ask my right hon. Friend to take this matter very seriously indeed. I would urge him to enter into discussions with the B.B.C. to see whether the Clauses in the Charter and the Licence to which I have referred can be re-worded in some way so as to

177
prevent the threat of censorship of broadcasting that occurred in 1956.
The uniquely high reputation which the B.B.C. has achieved in the world is based on its independence. Any threat to that would undermine the whole basis of British broadcasting, and for that reason, as The Guardian said in an excellent editorial on 25th March:
"It is right to be suspicious of political appointments to the posts of Chairmen of the B.B.C. Governors and of the I.T.A. The Wilson Government has made political appointments in both cases, Lord Hill to the B.B.C. and Lord Aylestone (a one-time Labour Chief Whip) to the I.T.A."
I do not make very much of that, but I emphasise and alert the public to the inherent dangers that lie within the Charter and the Licence Agreement of the B.B.C. I urge my right hon. Friend, as a matter of great importance, to see whether he can contrive, with the Governors of the B.B.C. to prevent, by means of amending Clauses, or by adding new Clauses, a recurrence of the squalid activities that occurred in 1956.
11.16 p.m.
The Postmaster-General (Mr. Roy Mason): Any hon. Member who knows my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) would not charge him with premature senility. I think that his restraint reflected the importance of the subject raised by him, which is of fundamental importance. I am sure that the House is grateful to my hon. Friend for affording us this opportunity of recalling the constitutional basis on which broadcasting is conducted in this country.
As my hon. Friend said, he was prompted to raise the matter by the publication of Mr. Harman Grisewood's book "One Thing at a Time", and, in particular, by the account given by Mr. Grisewood of the conflict which occured between the B.B.C. and the Government of the day during the Suez crisis of 1956. It is no part of my purpose now to re-open the argument on the rights and wrongs of the policy pursued by that Government with respect to Suez. It is enough to say that the policy was one which deeply divided the country. There was much, and widespread, opposition to it.
The House will, of course, be aware that I have no access to the previous
178
Administration's papers about the events of 1956. Nor is it any part of my function, even if I did know what took place, to defend or explain the actions of the Conservative Administration. Nor shall I, speaking from the Government Front Bench, hazard any guesses at the accuracy of Mr. Grisewood's account, but will make just one point, and that is that the substance of Mr. Grisewood's allegations does not seem to have been denied by those in a position to answer it.
The House will therefore understand why I am not here to make any comment on the allegations to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. But this will, I feel, be a useful opportunity to remind the House of the position of the broadcasting authorities in the life of this country.
The B.B.C. is barred from broadcasting expressions of its own opinions on matters of political or public controversy, or relating to current public policy. So, too, is the I.T.A. Thus, the B.B.C. may not broadcast what I might describe as an editorial opinion on any matter of public moment. Newspapers have their leading articles, which may take sides in controversies. The B.B.C. and the I.T.A. do not. Hon. Members will recall the reason. It is that to confer on the broadcasting authorities the privilege of taking sides would be to concentrate into their hands an immense and incomparable power to persuade viewers and listeners to their opinion. And once the B.B.C. had become committed to a particular view on this or that controversy, could it then be relied upon invariably to give other views a fair hearing?
So it is that the B.B.C., and the I.T.A., are not free to take sides in public affairs. The obligation on them is to ensure that, in their programmes, controversial subjects are treated impartially and that the various points of view get a fair hearing. In 1956, according to Mr. Grisewood, the cause of the crisis was not that the B.B.C. took sides against the Government of the day. Rather, it was that the B.B.C. reported not only the Government's presentation of their reasons for their Suez policy, and the views and opinions of those supporting it, but also that it reported the opposition here at home to the, policy and the views and opinions of the opponents. The country

179
was not united in its attitude to the Suez affair. Reports in both the domestic and overseas services reflected that fact.
So much for the nature of the dispute as reported in Mr. Grisewood's book. My hon. Friend will not expect me to go over, and comment on, the various events in the dispute. I might, however, venture a reflection on one of them. We read in Mr. Grisewood's book that Sir Anthony Eden, as he then was
"…had instructed the Lord Chancellor to prepare an instrument which would take over the B.B.C. altogether and subject it wholly to the will of the Government"
If this is so, there is surely a moral here. Once a Government—any Government—decide to control in some measure the programme content of a broadcasting service, then indeed they set foot on a very steep and slippery slope. The broadcasting authorities cannot, in matters of programme content and in the day-to-day conduct of their affairs, be almost independent of Government. Either they are independent, or they are not. The B.B.C. and I.T.A. are independent.
How, 12 years after, are we to regard this episode on Mr. Grisewood's account of it? Surely, as an aberration. Since the earliest days of broadcasting, the independence of the B.B.C. from Government has been regarded as a fundamental principle. This was said time and time again by Ministers. Ministers of both parties have reaffirmed this principle in the 12 years since Suez. It is against these statements that I ask the House to set the reported intention in 1956 to
"…subject the B.B.C. wholly to the will of the Government"
—an intention which came to nothing, anyway. There can be no doubt that this would be an aberration, a dangerous one, but an aberration none the less.
The House would agree that, having seen this reported episode for what it was, and drawn the moral, there would be no great virtue in trying to get more of the facts, particularly as the outcome was that the independence of the broadcasting authorities remained complete and unqualified. Nevertheless, we may feel a sense of concern at the thought that a fundamental constitutional principle might have been imperilled. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would, I believe, share this sense of concern and
180
also a sense of satisfaction that, when the crisis came, Mr. Grisewood tells us, the Board of Governors of the B.B.C. saw their duty clear. In recognising, though in retrospect, that there was, it seems, a threat to a constitutional principle and that the Board of Governors of the B.B.C. did——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not take responsibility for a previous Government. I think that he is devoting his remarks too much to that at the moment, and not to the responsibility which he himself has.
Mr. Mason: I am, with respect, pointing out that, although there may have been a threat at the time, the Board of Governors of the B.B.C. acted accordingly and with strength.
This is, I suggest, the most important consequence of our debate. Earlier I reminded the House of the statements made over the years in asserting the independence of Government of the broadcasting authorities in matters of programme content and in the day-to-day conduct of affairs. Thanks to my hon. Friend, this debate will add to these statements. In a country which has no written constitution, and where there is no fundamental code to which the constitutional relationship between the broadcasting authorities and the Government can authoritatively be referred, we depend on precedent and practice to maintain that relationship; precedent and practice in the operation of a system of checks and balances.
The check against a threat by any Government to the independence of the broadcasting authorities lies, of course, in the willingness of the Board of Governors to oppose that threat, and the ultimate check is the prospect that opinion, and Parliamentary opinion in particular, would see as justified—if it had not already sought—the resignation of the Board.
In 1956, according to Mr. Grisewood's account, the effectiveness of the check against a threat by Government was put to the test. As I said earlier, we may feel a sense of satisfaction at the outcome. As things have turned out, the effect has been further to reinforce conviction as to the rightness of the principle

181
of the independence of the broadcasting authorities. The independence of the B.B.C. and of the I.T.A. in the day-to-day conduct of their affairs, including programme content, is the expression of the often reaffirmed policy of successive Governments since the inception of a public service of broadcasting. I should like now to repeat for the present Government the assurance which my predecessors have given on many occasions, that the independence of the B.B.C. is an essential part of broadcasting policy. For completeness I repeat too that this policy applies with like force to the I.T.A. As my predecessor said in an Adjournment debate on 27th February, to break this principle even in the most trifling
182
case would be to threaten the whole basis of broadcasting.
Towards the end of his speech my hon. Friend referred to there being political heads at the head of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. I do not think that there is any danger in that. As a matter of fact, people who are at the head of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. and who have had experience of this House are aware of its senses and its moods and of how easily it can be roused. They will know how important Parliamentary opinion really is. This in itself may be an even greater safeguard.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TECHNOLOGY
  Dounreay Experimental Fast Reactor
  Dounreay Experimental Fast Reactor
  Motor Vehicle Imports
  Motor Vehicle Imports
  Electrical Generating Plant (Export Orders)
  Electrical Generating Plant (Export Orders)
  Rolls-Royce Ltd. (United States Order)
  Rolls-Royce Ltd. (United States Order)
  Advanced Battery Systems (Research)
  Advanced Battery Systems (Research)
  European Airbus Project
  European Airbus Project
  Television Sets (Exports)
  Television Sets (Exports)
  Communication Satellites
  Communication Satellites
  Black Arrow Launchings
  Black Arrow Launchings
  Satellites (Electrical Propulsion)
  Satellites (Electrical Propulsion)
  European Launcher Development Organisation (Programme)
  European Launcher Development Organisation (Programme)
  American Satellite Launchers (Cost)
  American Satellite Launchers (Cost)
  Inter-City Transport Aircraft (Development)
  Inter-City Transport Aircraft (Development)
  Telecommunications Equipment (Imports)
  Telecommunications Equipment (Imports)
  Shipbuilding Industry Board (Aid)
  Shipbuilding Industry Board (Aid)
  European Combat Aircraft (Collaboration)
  European Combat Aircraft (Collaboration)
  European Space Policy
  European Space Policy
  Woomera Range (Discussions)
  Woomera Range (Discussions)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Equal Pay
  Equal Pay
  Factory Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
  Hotel and Catering Industry (Training)
  Hotel and Catering Industry (Training)
  Unemployment, Wearside
  Unemployment, Wearside
  Training Facilities, Northern Region
  Training Facilities, Northern Region
  Earnings (Regional Variations)
  Earnings (Regional Variations)
  Normand Limited (Redundancy)
  Normand Limited (Redundancy)
  Professional and Executive Register
  Professional and Executive Register
  Manufacturing and Service Industries (Employment Ratios)
  Manufacturing and Service Industries (Employment Ratios)
  Transport Drivers' Dispute, Liverpool (Threats and Intimidation)
  Transport Drivers' Dispute, Liverpool (Threats and Intimidation)
  Ashington, Northumberland (Unemployed Miners)
  Ashington, Northumberland (Unemployed Miners)
  Regional Employment Premiums
  Regional Employment Premiums
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (ATTENDANCE)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (ATTENDANCE)
SCOTLAND
  Roxburghshire and selkirkshire (Population)
  Roxburghshire and selkirkshire (Population)
  New Housing Areas, Glasgow (Community and Recreational facilities)
  New Housing Areas, Glasgow (Community and Recreational facilities)
  Edinburgh (Rent Scheme)
  Edinburgh (Rent Scheme)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  European Space Research Organisation
  European Space Research Organisation
  Immigrants (Educational Needs)
  Immigrants (Educational Needs)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police Boxing Championships (Mr. Larry Farren)
  Police Boxing Championships (Mr. Larry Farren)
  Asian and African Immigrants
  Asian and African Immigrants
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Identification Parades (Rules)
  Identification Parades (Rules)
  Vagrancy Acts (Review)
  Vagrancy Acts (Review)
  Miscellaneous Fees (Variation) Order 1968
  Miscellaneous Fees (Variation) Order 1968
BOARD OF TRADE
  Russell Papers
  Russell Papers
  Arms (Exports)
  Arms (Exports)
  Alcoholic Beverages (E.F.T.A. Countries)
  Alcoholic Beverages (E.F.T.A. Countries)
  Oil Companies (Voluntary Undertakings)
  Oil Companies (Voluntary Undertakings)
  Zambia, Malawi and South Africa (United Kingdom Exports)
  Zambia, Malawi and South Africa (United Kingdom Exports)
  Unemployment in the Fylde (Report)
  Unemployment in the Fylde (Report)
  Copper (Price)
  Copper (Price)
  Rhodesian Tobacco (Stocks)
  Rhodesian Tobacco (Stocks)
  North-East Development Council (Advertisement)
  North-East Development Council (Advertisement)
  Copper (Imports)
  Copper (Imports)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Tame Rabbit Meat (Imports)
  Tame Rabbit Meat (Imports)
  Home-Grown Cereals Authority (New Publication)
  Home-Grown Cereals Authority (New Publication)
  Fishing Industry (Assistance)
  Fishing Industry (Assistance)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  ANGLO-CZECH MONEY AND PROPERTY AGREEMENT
  ANGLO-CZECH MONEY AND PROPERTY AGREEMENT
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  British Museum (Bloomsbury Site)
  British Museum (Bloomsbury Site)
  PAYNE COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  PAYNE COMMITTEE (REPORT)
  BARRISTERS' FEES
  BARRISTERS' FEES
POST OFFICE
  Misdelivery (Compensation Claim)
  Misdelivery (Compensation Claim)
  Catering Service (Cost)
  Catering Service (Cost)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Farnham Division
  Farnham Division
  Fernhurst and Haslemere
  Fernhurst and Haslemere
GAS
  Manpower
  Manpower
  Borrowing Powers
  Borrowing Powers
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Graduated Pension Contributions (Refund)
  Graduated Pension Contributions (Refund)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Sports Equipment Sales (Purchase Tax)
  Sports Equipment Sales (Purchase Tax)
  Sport (Selective Employment Tax)
  Sport (Selective Employment Tax)
  Gaming Duties (Increase)
  Gaming Duties (Increase)
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Export Credits Guarantee Department

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

RHODESIA: SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, with permission I would make a short personal statement. In the supplementary questions and answers which followed my Statement on April 24 about the United Nations resolution on Rhodesia, I said in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, that the consequent Orders in Council supporting our United Nations resolution would not become operative until the Orders had been passed by both Houses of Parliament (Vol. 291, col. 663). What I had in mind was whether the Orders required the Affirmative procedure. What I should have said was that, as on previous occasions, the Orders will be laid before Parliament as soon as they are made, and can be brought into operation at any time thereafter, but they will lapse at the end of 28 days of making unless they have been affirmatively approved by both Houses. I apologise to the House.

AIRCRAFT SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
2.38 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have made a decision on the safety requirements in the future in respect of the large trans-ocean aircraft and the airbus, whereby such aircraft will be obliged to carry liferafts on flights over water.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, liferafts sufficient to accommodate all persons on
1260
board are required by legislation to be carried on overwater flights by all British-registered public transport aircraft, when either more than 400 nautical miles or more than 90 minutes' flying time from the nearest aerodrome at which an emergency landing can be made. No changes in this legislation are foreseen.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. May I ask him two questions arising out of it? First, does the report that consideration is being given to the relaxing of the provisions which the noble Lord has just read out refer to the Boeing 747? Secondly, should not the provisions, far from being relaxed, be tightened up, in view of the fact that we shall soon be having these monsters in the air carrying 500 to 800 passengers? What happens if they come down on the sea five or ten miles from the shore? Are the passengers to swim ashore?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have seen suggestions that these requirements might be varied and that the operators or manufacturers might put forward some proposals. If these proposals are put forward by responsible bodies, of course they will be considered, but the arguments will have to be very convincing indeed for these requirements to be relaxed. The Government have no intention of reducing the safety factor.
As to the noble Lord's second question, one can see that with the introduction of aircraft carrying 500 to 800 passengers, a completely new factor is injected into this and it is possible to visualise a unique accident, something along the "Torrey Canyon" lines, which would arouse a good deal of feeling. I am sure that the noble Lord is right when he says that we have to bear in mind the need to improve rather than to relax safety standards.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, is it not the case that the projected A.300 Anglo-European air-bus would be prohibited from flying more than 30 minutes' flying time from the shore? Can the noble Lord confirm that there is no likelihood of the relaxation of the regulations in respect of this aircraft?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the European air-bus would come under the regulations I have already indicated. I

1261
will not say there is no question—because apparently the question has been raised in some quarters—but so far as the Government are concerned there has been no decision at all to vary the regulations.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean that the Anglo-European air-bus will be allowed to fly 90 minutes' flying time or 400 miles from the shore even though it has only two engines?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords, the A.300, being a twin-engined aircraft, would come under the tighter performance requirement.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his answer, and still more his attitude, is very satisfactory?

THE CROWN AGENTS
2.40 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what contribution the Treasury makes to the costs of the Crown Agents' office, staff, and functions, what other Governments contribute, who is responsible for the appointment of its administrators, and to whom they report their activities.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, no contributions are made by the Treasury to the costs of the Crown Agents' office. I am told also that no such contributions are made by any other Government. The Crown Agents have a published scale of charges for the services which they provide, and these charges are paid by individual principals to the extent to which they employ the Crown Agents' services. These charges cover the cost of the office and staff. The three Crown Agents are appointed by the Minister of Overseas Development and they appoint their own staff. They report to their principals on the work which they carry out on their behalf and at their expense. In addition they publish an Annual Report.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether this institution has not now become an anomaly
1262
and whether, in view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government bear the major expenses for it through the Treasury and through Overseas Development appointed administrators—if I am wrong, I have misheard—it is not an anomaly that this institution should be able, for ample, to buy arms from foreign Governments which are used for purposes which have not the endorsement of this Government, as in Nigeria to-day? May I ask my noble friend whether he will not consider looking at the whole basis of this institution, in view of the modern circumstances of the Commonwealth?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend because I did not make myself clear to him. I said that no contributions were made by the Treasury to the Crown Agents office; and that is a fact. The noble Lord has deployed an argument by way of a question, which he did with great force the other day when I made it perfectly clear what Her Majesty's Government's view was. I have nothing further to add.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not a fact that if the Crown Agents' services were not required by their customers the Crown Agents would not exist? Are not their services very much appreciated by territories, now independent, which were formerly Colonies?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. He may be interested to know that the Crown Agents service some 80 different Governments, some within the Commonwealth and some outside the Commonwealth, and also some 160 international organisations.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord inform you Lordships that the Crown Agents do rot discriminate in any way against our EFTA partners in their placing of contracts?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the relationship of the Crown Agents is with their principals, on the basis of a customer seeking a service. It is perfectly right, as the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, has said, that they buy according to the wishes of their principals.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for mishearing him, as I quite genuinely did. But may I ask him this further question?

1263
In the present position of the Commonwealth, is not the Crown Agents institution an anomaly? Is it not the case (unless I again misheard him) that the administrators are appointed by our Overseas Development Corporation, yet the Agency is responsible to the independent Commonwealth Government? Does not that situation merit some reconsideration?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there is much in our life which I suppose could be said to be an anomaly, but this is an organisation that has been in being for some 100 years. It has given great service to the Commonwealth and Colonial Governments, and I think it would be utterly wrong for us to take a special view in this organisation, which is clearly for the service of Commonwealth and other Governments who wish to use it.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will use their influence to alter the name of the "Crown Agents" in the near future.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not feel that Her Majesty's Government should use their influence to change this title, which has been in use for over 100 years and is held in high regard in both financial and commercial circles both here and overseas.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether the Government will reconsider this matter, in view of the fact that the Crown Agents do not appear to be under the control either of the Crown or of Her Majesty's Government, and that therefore, there may be considerable misconceptions on the part of people who do not know the situation so long as they are called "Crown Agents"?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not think there is any misconception. As I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, this is an organisation that not only buys on behalf of its principals in the United
1264
Kingdom but is perfectly free to buy anywhere in Europe, and I suppose, for that matter, in Russia and China. It is merely a service. It has given service to 80 countries and 160 international organisations. I should have thought that if there was a feeling that there should be a change, it would be best left to the Crown Agents and their principals to say whether a change should be made.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, why the title "Crown Agents", if they are not responsible to the Crown?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is a part of history. Originally the organisation was called the Crown Agents for the Colonies, and then it was later changed to the Crown Agents for Overseas Government Administrations. It is just a question of history.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, is it not a fact that under their existing name the amount of business transacted by the Crown Agents every year is increasing enormously, both in countries in Her Majesty's dominions and in Commonwealth and other overseas countries? Secondly, is it not a fact that there is not the slightest evidence that the name "Crown Agents" has ever deterred any country from making use of its services, but, on the contrary, the office's record and the very high standards it has set have been of the highest value, as the noble Lord said, in both commercial and financial circles throughout the world?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if there is any proof in the pudding it is clearly in the eating, and, as the noble Lord has said, the principals are obviously satisfied with the services of the Crown Agents.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, is it not like Lloyd's Agents, for whom Lloyd's have a major responsibility in connection with surveys, but who do a lot of other business all over the world for which Lloyd's have no responsibility whatever?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is a "twister". If my noble friend will permit me, I will read it and perhaps reply to it.

GIBRALTAR
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Shepherd will be making a Statement on Gibraltar at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

BERMUDA
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the fact that negotiations are now proceeding, I beg leave to ask that the Notice of my Petition from the inhabitants of Bermuda which is on the Order Paper may be withdrawn.
Notice of Petition, by leave, withdrawn.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

FIREARMS BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, that the Report be now received.—(Lord Gardiner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY ORDER 1968
2.50 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, which, as your Lordships will see, concerns the new Department concerned with labour, productivity, prices and incomes. Subject to the approval of this Order all the functions of the office of Minister of Labour will be transferred to the new office of Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, and the title of Ministry of Labour will be discontinued. This is a development of great importance because the new Department will have a clear responsibility for all the major problems which directly affect the working people of Britain and the major issues which can arise between employers and employees, prices and pay, holidays
1266
and sick pay, employment, training, productivity, safety and health at work.
I am sure that noble Lords, of whom there are some in your Lordships' House who have been connected with the Ministry of Labour (the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for one) will wish to recall the hard and dedicated work of the Ministry of Labour and its staff ever since it was created on January 11, 1917, to play a vital part in the organisation of victory—I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was at one time Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, but I beg his pardon. He is a man of so many parts that I assumed he had been.
The role of the Ministry in improving working conditions and industrial relations is familiar to us all. Some might say that 22 Ministers of Labour in a span of some fifty years (although it does not match the full heights of achievement of the previous Governments in regard to the number of Defence Ministers) was putting too big a premium on the merits of change. But it is a fact that many distinguished men have held this office, as well as one woman of very great distinction, Margaret Bondfield, the first woman Cabinet Minister, but not, I am happy to say, the last. At least two Members of your Lordships' House (and I now have to exclude Lord Drumalbyn from this category) have themselves played these parts. The late Lord Monckton, when he was Sir Walter Monckton, had a most distinguished part, as also did the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, who, if I may say so, was somewhat underestimated as a Minister of Labour. He played an important part, too.
We should also like to acknowledge the part which the present Minister of Power played in difficult conditions, sitting or lying on his bag of nails and the tolerance and wisdom he brought to bear. Under his leadership in the past three years there have been some notable extensions of the Ministry's responsibilities (the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, will have his traditional opportunity for frivolity during his speech. I do not expect a serious speech in reply from him, but perhaps he could keep his gems for that), and of course, the Ministry has, under my right honourable friend, played an important part in

1267
industrial relations and in training, in partnership with employers and unions.
We in your Lordships' House have often discussed and stressed the vital importance of lifting productivity to a far higher level, and it is plain that there is a great deal of scope for increasing productivity in all levels of industry from the board room to the shop floor. The Secretary of State and her Department will be giving every encouragement to management and unions to develop a new attitude to productivity bargaining within the framework of the prices and incomes policy which has put productivity at its centre. I imagine that your Lordships do not wish me to embark on a discussion of prices and incomes. This particularly tricky or pleasurable topic, however one may look at it, will undoubtedly come before us in due course when a new Bill appears. But the new office and the new Department make it possible for all aspects of labour productivity to be brought together, including the vital links between pay, costs and prices. There is a great deal to be done in this field, and both management and unions are inevitably becoming much more concerned about the need and scope for developing new productivity bargaining.
The new Department will be able to offer increasing help to them especially as the new productivity division is developed. Of course, the encouragement of higher productivity involves several factors—investment, technology, industrial reorganisation—and the Department of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Technology will continue to play their particular roles here. Of course, what are sometimes known as the Sponsoring Departments, the productivity Departments, will also be concerned, and there is the work being done by Government, managements and unions in working together in the N.E.D.C. and the "little Neddies"—the economic development councils for particular industries.
It is particularly important to focus on productivity. There will be in the Department a special productivity division charged with the specific task of raising productivity through more efficient use of manpower in industry, and this division will have the help of persons with management and trade union experience and knowledge, and the support in the re-
1268
gions of a strengthened industrial relations service. The economic, industrial and technological changes, of which there are many and which I need not describe, give rise to many serious problems, and the new Department will have increased responsibilities and will have to meet greater needs, particularly in the human field. I should like myself, from my own experience as a manager in industry dealing with the Ministry of Labour, to pay tribute to the wisdom and understanding of humanity and of the problems of humanity that I have myself found in dealing with Ministry of Labour officials, and to the efforts they make, the quickness with which they respond to a redundancy situation, or any other situation, in an attempt to minimise hardship and waste of human resources.
Although a firm foundation has been laid for the expansion of industrial training and retraining we need larger and quicker results. I remember the Bill coming before this House—I think it was Lord Blakenham who was responsible for it at the time—and I remember our concern at the smallness of the effort as compared with that of other countries. To-day there are 21 industrial training boards and five more will be set up during 1968. There are also now an increasing number of Government training centres, 38, as compared with 25 in 1964, and by 1970 we shall have 55 centres.
In all these fields I am sure that the new Department will carry on these traditions and marry them up with its new responsibilities, and I am quite certain that under my right honourable friend the new Minister, the new First Secretary, it will vigorously meet the challenge that confronts it. I would not underestimate the problems that confront it, but I am sure your Lordships will regard this as a logical and serious step, and I hope that this proposal will receive the approval of your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity Order 1968 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on Tuesday the 23rd April.—(Lord Shackleton.)
2.58 p.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, it is once again my happy duty to thank

1269
the noble Lord the Paymaster General for introducing this Order with his customary felicity, and also for explaining it to us in such clear terms. It is almost impossible nowadays to introduce a subject of this sort without becoming involved in trying to explain in a few words the many complications of Government organisation at the present time. If any man could succeed in this task this afternoon it is the noble Lord the Paymaster General, and I am sure we are all grateful to him for this. I am only sorry that he expects nothing but a frivolous reply from these Benches.
LORD SHACKLETON: No; just from the noble Lord.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I shall do my best to maintain my reputation with the noble Lord, and also perhaps to say one or two words of more serious content. I want particularly to comment on two matters, first of all the new title and then, secondly, the proposed new functions, particularly those functions which deal especially with more vigorous and detailed intervention in industry. As regards the name, speaking for myself I have never been fussy about a name. I have always thought it more important to get on with the job one was given than to worry about the title, whether it is the title of a Department or anything else.
Looking back over the years it is both odd and amusing to reflect that so often it is the Socialist apostles of egalitarianism who adore the old historical titles of Government offices, and who plead most vehemently against their abolition. Before I was in your Lordships' House the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth (and I well recall reading his remarks) made a passionate advocacy for the retention of such titles as "Lord President of the Council", "Lord Privy Seal", and so on, when there was some suggestion during a debate in your Lordships' House that these titles should be abolished and new ones put in their place. They have their nostalgia and their charm, and I, from the more conservative position in your Lordships' House, would be all for keeping some of these old titles. However, it is most interesting to find that the Labour Government are all for keeping these ancient titles; indeed, I felt it was
1270
rather a sad day when the President of the Board of Education became the mere Minister of Education. As a former holder of the office of President of the Board of Trade, I am delighted that that title has been kept, although the holder's powers have been sadly diminished.
Here, however, we have a rather different case, because "Minister of Labour" was a well known and honourable title, and we cannot see that there is any real need to change it. Is the grandiloquent name of "First Secretary of Stale and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity" better than "Minister of Labour"? Everybody at least understood what the Minister of Labour did and had to do, and if it was a good enough title for "Ernie" Bevin it is surely a good enough title for the present holder of that office.
I was glad that the Paymaster General referred to Miss Margaret Bondfield. I had a reference to her in my notes, because I felt it was a great shame that in the Press comment on Mrs. Castle's distinguished succession to this important office, when there were naturally references to her being a woman, I do not remember a single mention of Miss Margaret Bondfield, who was in her day a distinguished Minister of Labour in the Labour Administration of that time. As the Paymaster General has al ready referred to her in pleasing terms I will not say more, but I should not like this day to go by without a nod back to Miss Margaret Bondfield, and the great things which she did.
I wish also to thank the noble Lord for his kindly references to several Conservative Ministers of Labour who certainly tried to do what they could to maintain the importance of this office. If the Ministry of Labour's functions and powers need extending, then by all means extend them, but that does not meat that the title of the Department need be dressed up in such an elaborate way. I expect that before long we shall have an appropriate "whizz kid" abbreviation. Even the Ministry of Technology is now known everywhere as "Mintech" and presumably the new department will be known as "Minprod". Indeed, we are going over more and more to the Eastern European concept of having elaborate names for Government Departments which are then interestingly

1271
abbreviated into almost equally unpronounceable versions in Hungarian, Czechoslovakian, Bulgarian, Roumanian and Russian. So, in the months to come, I shall, I hope not too frivolously, be referring to "Minprod", which is what I suggest we must now call the new Department.
It may be that the right honourable lady, being offered the appointment of Minister of Labour when she was called to "No. 10"—and we who have been fortunate enough to be invited to become Ministers know what exciting and exhilarating occasions these are—did not want to be at the head of a Ministry which had been described as a "bed of nails" and was determined to change it. The Paymaster General noticed that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and I were laughing slightly, because I think that in fact the noble Lord said "bag of nails". For those of us on this side of the House—and I suspect for many noble Lords opposite—the term "bag of nails" has a very special connotation which perhaps should not be discussed too much in your Lordships' presence, at any rate in the afternoon, although perhaps late at night the phrase "bag of nails" might be discussed. However, the right honourable lady was probably determined to change the old image of the bed of nails, and I wish her luck.
Nevertheless, I feel sorry for those trade union leaders—and I am delighted to see here this afternoon several important trade union leaders of former days who have now joined your Lordships' House, and I am sure they will bear me out that it will be a hard thing for trade union leaders to march boldly into the Ministry with the word "productivity" above the front door. We also have such jargon phrases as "nil norms", "3½ per cent. Ceilings", "freeze" and "squeeze", as part of the normal routine. Not for the present generation of trade union leaders are the old days of storming up to the Ministry of Labour, being photographed outside and standing up for their rights and their unions. All is now changed. They know, too, that they are no longer dealing with a Minister who was himself a trade union leader in the past, and this indicates a notable change of front.
1272
Naturally it is difficult for me to discuss a Minister who is in another place, because clearly she cannot be present to answer anything I say. I will merely put it this way: I think that Mrs. Castle commands our respect for the remarkable work she did, for example, at the Ministry of Transport, in connection with the breathalyser. It aroused great antipathy and unpopularity but she saw it through, and now it is generally accepted. She is a bonny fighter. She has great verve and she has acquired a great deal of experience. She is, in a sense, one of my political "pin-ups". I admire the political "guts" that she has. I also admire the way she learns from her job. When she had to go to that tough meeting in Margate to address the Amalgamated Engineering Federation last Sunday week, she went by private helicopter—and a bonny photograph it was of her being strapped in. She had learned from her time at the Ministry of Transport not to try the coast roads of Britain on a Sunday morning, nor to go by British Rail.
The right honourable lady will bring to the problems of labour and productivity all the verve and skill of her past experience. I feel slightly sorry for some of the more staid trade union leaders who will now, for the first time, have to deal with somebody who is determined to "breathalyse" them into action; and probably to "breathalyse" a few employers into action as well. She will have severe tasks ahead. She has been open enough with the public to refer to herself as an impatient lady. Indeed, I must say that what rather horrified me, when reading the speech that she made in another place, was that that impatience was so strongly manifest and she was so determined to insist on more and detailed intervention in industry. That indeed was her theme throughout—"stimulus", "drive", "We cannot afford to wait on events", "We must have initiative". These are the phrases in her speech which recurred again and again. Maybe that is right when dealing with motorists or the problems of parking places; but is it the right way to go about the important and delicate problem of industrial relations in an advanced industrial country such as ours? Time will show. It may be she will do well to remember the Fabian philosophy of "gradualism", rather than that which seems to be the policy of Her

1273
Majesty's Government at the present time—fast and possibly erratic interventions.
I must say, looking at her speech—and I regard it as a speech of Her Majesty's Government and not just of a Minister—I am alarmed at the warning which the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (it is a "mouthful") gave in the House of Commons on Thursday last. She declared that both she and her Department were going to interfere—her word—in productivity bargaining from boardroom to shop floor. Such a view does not surprise me, but particularly at such a critical time for the restoration and strengthening of the nation's economic health it does shock me. Such detailed intervention cannot but have damaging repercussions throughout industry.
This speech is, to my mind, a classic illustration of adherence to dangerous doctrinaire policies and out-of-date political philosophy which has little relevance to the economic needs of to-day. It is always tempting to say, "Let us intervene let us get something done", and to think that people who know their business cannot know enough and "we shall intervene". In another sense, it is repeating part of the argument which the noble Lord the Paymaster General and I had on Thursday last. What industry really wants is co-operation with the Government and not condescension. Give industry, which claims to know its job, a chance to do its job properly. If the new Department, with this vigorous new Minister at its head, can learn to collaborate with industry at all levels—and I emphasise the word "collaborate"—it will have our good wishes. If it insists on brash interference and on rough intervention, with provocative statements the country will suffer and the Government with it.
3.13 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I hope I may point out that, in spite of all that is said about increased functions and so forth, the Order before us simply transfers existing powers and does nothing else. As regards increased powers nothing is being created or proposed. What is being proposed is to give a very long name to replace an existing short name. That is, of course, in normal
1274
pursuance of Government policy, never to use few words where many ran be substituted.
I recognise some very good qualities in the Minister who is to receive this great title, but I hope that she will not be tempted to indulge in too much jargon. The amount of jargon that is indulged in in this sphere is already alarming. If I might give one rather absurd example, I called attention, I suppose about twenty years ago, to the origins of this trouble, when Governments showed that their two favourite words were "overall", which normally means nothing, and "target" which means even less, and of course, the two words quickly became married and one got the "overall target". You would naturally think that an overall target would be quite impossible to miss, but precisely the opposite is the truth: no hit has yet been recorded. "Ceiling" is another great fa.v3urite. You do all sorts of things with ceilings. In one Government announcement some time ago—I do not think it was by the present Government, I rather think it was the previous Socialist Government—we even had people "waiving the ceiling", which was a rather novel conception. None of this indulgence in absurd verbiage really serves any cause that any sensible Government would have at heart.
One of the things that was missing from the spirited speech of the noble Lord the Leader of the House in introducing this Motion was to tell us whose productivity it was proposed to increase. There is a great deal of productivity which might well be increased in the national interest, but the only productivity which I think will quite certainly be increased as a result of this Order is in the number of civil servants in the Ministry which we are discussing. The only thing that they will produce with their increased numbers is likely to be an immense amount of forms. The amount of forms now produced already does great injury to those producers, manufacturers and providers of services who are doing their best to promote the export trade and serve the national interest in other ways. I hope very much that the new Minister, for whose talents and energy I have great respect, if she is to be saddled with this rather longwinded title, will at least keep quite clear in her head what productivity it is

1275
desired to increase and what productivity should be very definitely diminished.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I make a very brief intervention? I must confess that I was rather surprised by the terms in which the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, spoke. I think my noble friends the trade union leaders we have here can look after themselves extremely well, but the noble Lord referred to condescension in the Government's approach to this subject. I thought that his own speech was also extremely condescending to someone who is, after all, deeply concerned with the survival of this country. If the noble Lord does not want the Minister to be concerned with productivity, what does he want her to be concerned with? I thought his remarks about the trade union leaders now playing a different role in regard to productivity showed perhaps a mistaken view of the whole history of the trade union movement.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, may I just say that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, seems to have made a slight error? I must point out that it is in his English, in that he was referring to productivity and talking about production. We wish to increase productivity in all manner of things, but there are, as he quite rightly points out, some things whose production it might be a good thing to reduce. The two words do not mean the same thing.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I do not think I suggested they did. But would it not be possible, even if the intention is to increase the number of forms, to do it with fewer and not more civil servants?
3.18 p.m.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, may I intervene briefly? I am really entranced by the ideas some people have of productivity. The noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, really was his old self; I have heard him like this on more than one occasion in private. He talked about the new term "Minprod". I should say that "Miniprod" would be better, because "mini" is applied to skirts which reveal whether the wearer is bow-legged or knock-kneed. I am not
1276
quite sure whether the management of this country is bow-legged or knock-kneed, and it is one of the reasons why we cannot make progress in regard to productivity. I sat on "Neddy" for a number of years, since its inception until I retired. In "Neddy" we had close regard to what could be achieved by way of productivity. Always the question arose as to the number of men or women who were employed in making certain things, but very rarely as to the number of management.
Maybe it is just as well that we are a little forthright in this House when we deal with a question like this, because as one of the old guard of whom the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, spoke, I had to deal with this subject for quite a long time. I remember on one occasion I was called upon to answer for the large number of employees in a certain steelworks compared with the number employed in America and on the Continent. I leaned across the negotiating table and said to the employers: "I will take any steelworks you like in this country and examine the reasons for its having more men and making less tons, as you have put it, as compared with Europe or with America". There are many technical reasons for this. It depends on the state of the plant. The plant with the least number of employees is not always the most profitable, and I think it is time that people who simply talk about "men" and "tons" started to talk about the profits that are made in that particular industry, and why they are made, and why they are not made. When I said that I would undertake to examine the number of men employed in any steelworks in this country for the purpose of achieving productivity, I laid down a condition. I said, "I want to examine the men right up to the managing director." I never heard another thing about it.
Do not let us imagine that the excess manning that is alleged to exist in this country is simply that of the worker, because when dealing with the incomes and prices policy how often do people start by talking about a wages policy? That is what they mean. They do not mean an incomes policy; they do not mean a prices policy; they mean a wages policy. Until the workers in this country are more involved in the management of industry than they are to-day, we shall

1277
not get the co-operation we want. They will ask questions about the cost of production.
Here let me bring in another point. At the Prime Minister's Conference some two years ago we were dealing with this question of productivity, and I asked that in regard to any industry in this country, whatever it may be, we should select different firms, look at their balance sheets and find out why some firms could make a bigger profit than others. This was a fairly simple question. I suggested that we should then do what I had to do some thirty years ago; that is, to examine the costs of departments. I suggested that we should have to take big firms with similar departments in different parts of the country, or sometimes in the same part of the country, and look at one department as compared with the equivalent department in another firm to find out where the weaknesses were. Not only should the directors find out where the weaknesses were, but the workers should also find out where the weaknesses were; and we should have before us not a balance sheet but a statement of costs, to find out where the labour costs were high and where the investment costs were high and whether you were putting too much money into the wrong department of the works or into the wrong sector of the industry. How much of this examination has been carried out in any industry in this country?
I do not mind people dealing with this question humorously, but I am getting a little tired of this scepticism about productivity being achieved by Government help. Government help is needed to get productivity, but if the managements of the different firms do not co-operate you will not get that productivity. It is as simple as that. Some firms are making good profits without looking at this question as closely as they might.
I would suggest that coupling the Ministry of Labour with the Ministry of Productivity can involve the workers, because when they are discussing the rights or wrongs of a wage increase they will be coupling with it the rights and wrongs of a prices increase. How are you to control wages if the workers have no conception as to what is happening with regard to prices? I am not talking about controlling prices now; I am talking about knowing what is happening so far as prices are concerned. I read in a news-
1278
paper over the week-end that in one industry the retail profit margin was 80 per cent. I do not know whether that is so or not. But I should like to see such a statement followed up to find out whether it is true; and if it is, why it is. If the profit margin is going to be that, how do you expect the workers to have any regard to an incomes policy in circumstances of that kind?
I have spoken previously on a similar subject in this House. I said then that if you have a bank rate of 8 per cent. there is not much use talking about productivity. If you want better productivity invariably you need better investment. I gave as an instance a plant which cost £100 million. If £100 million was borrowed in order to put up a plant of that particular character, 1 per cent. interest would obviously be £1 million, and if the bank rate were 5 per cent. it would be £5 million. I hope your Lordships will listen carefully, and will not smile, because if you do not solve this problem you will not solve your productivity question. If your bank rate is 8 per cent., then the interest will be £8 million. That is a difference of £3 million on the investment cost.
Now equate that with the workers: that is the year's wages of 3,000 workers at £20 a week. Are you asking the workers to accept an incomes policy with a bank rate of 8 per cent. that is costing £3 million—the wages of 3,000 men at £20 a week—and asking the men to save a handful of pounds? This sort of stupidity will not achieve productivity. I will tell you that now. I am talking about the workers of this country, who are not bothered unduly whether you have a Ministry of Labour or a Ministry of Productivity. They ask that if you do have a Ministry at least it should talk sense and should give us some facts when it asks us to have some regard to the well-being of the country. In short, I am saying that not only the workers should be concerned with the well-being of the country, but the investors and the employers also.
3.28 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, was being characteristically—I hesitate to use the word "frivolous", and I do not know that I knew the "Bag o' Nails" better than he did. He deliberately distorts words to make a joke, and he must not

1279
be surprised if some of my noble friends regard this as a subject of some seriousness. On the other hand, I acquit the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, of ever being anything but serious when he is devoting his attention to the proper use of the English language. He attempted to bring us back to the transfer of functions which is the subject of this particular Order. He then himself wandered into his favourite subject, which always gives us so much pleasure. I think one day his speeches on the English language should be bound together as an awful warning to us all.
Let me say that I listened closely, and I am particularly concerned to seek his approval in regard to the use of the English language. I think he would also agree that a title serves some value if, in a convenient and short form, it reveals what the subject is all about. I believe that the title of this new Ministry does precisely that. The fact that it was suggested by a group of Conservative Back-Benchers in 1964 is no doubt unknown to the noble Lord, Lord Erroll. May I say that good ideas can come to people in all Parties, even if occasionally they are rather sparse on the other side of the House.
I hope that the noble Lord, having paid a sort of tribute to my right honourable friend, will now recognise that this change is right and desirable and that it recognises the new responsibilities of Government in partnership with industry. I hope that the noble Lord will play his part in taking these changes seriously, for we depend very much on the work of the Ministry of Labour. I sometimes wonder whether the noble Lord ever listens to anything I say, since he is always in permanent conversation.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as a matter of fact it was my fault. I was saying that the noble Lord the Leader of the House was being a little waspish this afternoon.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not know what to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, since I have so often accused him of being tetchy. Perhaps I am a little waspish with the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, because I get a little tired, and so do my noble friends, of
1280
the slight air of condescension. My noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies made it very clear that we feel that these are important matters. I am not even sure that I welcome the noble Lord's remarks about Margaret Bondfield. I do not think that he has a clue about what Miss Bondfield had to cope with, or the conditions that existed in those days.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I should like to inform him that I was an apprentice in an engineering works in the North of England at that time. I have a great deal of knowledge about labour conditions at the time and about what she tried to do.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, then I acknowledge that the noble Lord is perhaps unique in that. In fact I wonder why he sits on the Benches opposite. These proposals are quite serious. They do not involve a great increase of civil servants; they involve the transfer of 38 civil servants from one Department to another. There may be a small increase in the productivity field. I hope that the noble Lord is not still saying how tetchy or irritable I am to-day.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I will gladly tell the noble Lord exactly what I was saying. I was saying to my noble friend that he could not win, because if he praises somebody he is told that he should not, and if he attacks somebody he is told that he must not.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord can win, and I do not think he deserves to win. I would only say that once this Order has gone through we shall have our new Department. I appreciate the sincerity of the remarks of the noble Lord in regard to my right honourable friend. She has shown herself to be a person of very great energy and, if I may say so, a person of elegance even when getting into a helicopter. Her work for this country and her responsibilities during the next few months are of such great importance that I hope we shall pass this Order, conscious that she will need all the support which we can give her.
On Question, Motion agreed to: The said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

GIBRALTAR FRONTIER RESTRICTIONS
3.35 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should now like to repeat a Statement which has just been made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs about Gibraltar:
"The new restrictions imposed by the Spanish Government are, like the earlier ones, unjustified and clearly aimed at damaging the Gibraltarian economy. It is deplorable that the Spanish Government believe that crude pressures can resolve this international problem.
"These arbitrary restrictions can only harm the prospects of an eventual solution acceptable to the people of Gibraltar and satisfactory to the two Governments.
"Her Majesty's Government remain determined to sustain the people of Gibraltar in the difficulties which they are now facing as a result of the policies of the Spanish Government."
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. for repeating the Statement on Gibraltar. I am sure that all of us would agree with the terms in which it has been made. I wonder whether the noble Lord could answer two questions. It is not clear to me exactly what the situation is with regard to Spanish workers working in Gibraltar, particularly in the dockyard. Are they to be allowed to come and go as they feel inclined? Secondly, have the Government made any estimate of what effect these measures will have on the economy of Gibraltar in terms of the loss of tourist trade, and so on?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, while sharing the hope which is still entertained for an eventual solution acceptable to the people of Gibraltar and satisfactory to both Governments, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the event of the Spanish Government closing the frontier altogether, they will be prepared to make available the necessary funds to maintain the present standard of living of the inhabitants?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question?
1282
I understand that the frontier at La Linea has been closed. Is it possible for people still to travel by sea from Gibraltar to Algerciras?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in reply to the last question, I may say that it is still possible to travel by ferry from Gibraltar to Algeciras. As to the question about the Spanish workers, there are some 5,000 Spanish workers who go every day into Gibraltar. In this moment of great difficulty for Gibraltar it is a remarkable thing that the workers have gone into Gibraltar to-day and there has been no difficulty; they have maintained the old tradition of Gibraltarians and Spanish workers being willing to work side by side. We should make it clear that the Spanish workers themselves are not responsible for the activities of the Spanish Government. Clearly we shall have to examine what we can (to in present circumstances. What must be in the forefront of our minds all the time is that whatever we do must be in the interests of the people of Gibraltar, and this we shall abide by.
In regard to the estimate of the effect of these new restrictions, a computer could produce an answer to the numbers who go across at La Linea, but since the Algeciras ferry is open, it is difficult to say what in the end will be the effect. It may well be that it will have a small effect, because many people who now go to Gibraltar en route to Spain or to other places may still prefer to go through Gibraltar, with all the benefits they get by going to Gibraltar, and put up with the inconvenience of going by ferry. Therefore, it is not easy to give an estimate of what its effect will be. But we have made it perfectly clear in Gibraltar, and recently to the Chief Minister in Gibraltar, that we shall support and sustain the people of Gibraltar in these present circumstances.
I do not think at this stage we can say whether we can keep the standard of living as it is. We hope to see it get better. It will depend in the end on the growth of the economy of Gibraltar. It is rather hard to see how this will develop in view of the present restrictions, though we hope that they will be relieved as soon as possible.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, might I ask my noble friend whether he would

1283
not agree that the Spanish Government by taking this action are themselves infringing the resolution of the United Nations calling upon both Governments to negotiate? Are they not seeking to place the United Kingdom Government and the authorities of Gibraltar in duress before they have reported back to the United Nations?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. We are obligated by the United Nations resolution to continue discussions, and it is clear that actions of this sort do not provide encouragement for such discussions. I should have thought that their actions clearly are an infringement of the United Nations Charter and are striking at ordinary, decent people.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, what steps are Her Majesty's Government proposing to take to assist the unions and the Government of Gibraltar to employ people from Malta and to train more Gibraltarians in this country so that they can take over the jobs of the Spanish workers in Gibraltar?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, clearly we hope that the male Gibraltarians will follow the example of the female Gibraltarians who have taken up employment which previously, before the restrictions on Spanish female labour, they had not done. As the noble Lord knows, the fact that women now work has made a very considerable difference to the economy of Gibraltar.
In regard to Malta, we have examined the question of finding labour there. But it is not a question of finding men; it is a question of finding people suitable for the economy of Gibraltar. I fear that it seems at the present moment that the type we want in Gibraltar is in very short supply in Malta.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, on this question of training, could the Minister give some assurance that Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to train more Gibraltarians in this country, so that they would be in a position to take up jobs in the dockyard?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have every sympathy with that suggestion. I think there are difficulties about supply,
1284
but I will certainly see what can be done.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, in regard to what the noble Lord said about being obligated to a resolution of the United Nations, could he repeat the assurance that we shall not feel obligated to the resolution of the United Nations calling for Gibraltar to be handed over to Spain?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have never interpreted that particular resolution as meaning handing Gibraltar to Spain. It is certainly not our intention to do so.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons, read la, and to be printed.
COMMONWEALTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MAINTENANCE ORDERS BILL
3.42 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The history of the Bill, which is very short, is that it is a Private Member's Bill which was presented in the other House by the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Quintin Hogg, the Member for St. Marylebone, on November 29, 1967. It had its Second Reading on December 8; it went to Standing Committee on January 24, 1968, and it had its Third Reading in the House on March 22. Your Lordships will find that the full title is a long one. That is because at the time the Bill was passing through another place the Jean Graham-Hall Committee had not reported, and it might have been necessary for an Amendment to be inserted. In

1285
fact, I understand that that may be done at the Committee stage in your Lordships' House.
If I may run quickly through the Bill, Clause 1 provides that the weekly payment limit of 50s., which has pertained hitherto, shall be increased to £5. The alterations to all the various sections of Acts are set out on the first page in paragraphs (a) to (e). Secondly, under subsection (2) the Secretary of State is to be entitled by order to increase the maximum of £5 to such amount as may be specified. Thirdly, payments made under such an order shall have the immunity of small maintenance payments in the income tax regulations.
Under Clause 2 the Secretary of State is entitled by order to increase the amount of £7 10s. 0d. which may be paid at present to a deserted wife. I should here like to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that in dealing with the maintenance of children this Bill deals not only with the children of deserted wives, but also with the children of unmarried mothers. Under Clause 3 the Secretary of State may by Statutory Instrument also increase the amount of maintenance for the wife. Subsection (2) of that clause says that such orders shall be put before each House and must be passed by them. Under subsection (3) any order made by a magistrates' court at the present moment may be varied to bring it into line with the provisions of the new Bill, which does not extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, before the noble Baroness continues, perhaps she will be good enough to give way to me. I notice that she referred to the deserted wife under Clause 2. Should I be right in assuming that that applies to any wife who succeeds in getting an order in the magistrates' court, regardless of the ground?—it might be based on adultery, or it might be on persistent cruelty.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: Yes, my Lords. I was using the word "deserted" in the wider sense. The object of this Bill is to enable the magistrates' courts to deal with the fall in the value of money over the years. May I quote from Hansard of another place to explain how very drastic this fall has been? The promoter of the Bill mentioned that in 1917 the maximum allowance was
1286
5s., and that 5s. was one-quarter of the male wage at that time. In 1918 the allowance went up to 10s.; in 1923 it went up to £1; in 1950 it went up to £1 10s. 0d.; and in 1960 it went up to £2 10s. 0d., which was 12.7 per cent., of a male's wage. As the Member for St. Marylebone said, that shows how the children have been losing ground since 1917 when the allowance was a quarter of the male wage.
The Bill really deals with only this one point. Your Lordships will probably know that there are committees sitting at the moment. There is Mr. Justice Payne's committee on the enforcement of payments, and the Law Society are going into the whole divorce proceedings and other family affairs. There was also the Jean Graham-Hall Committee which has reported since this Bill was passed in the other House. Therefore, it was felt that it was better to deal quite simply and straightforwardly with the urgent matter of cash and to get that through, and to postpone to a later stage consideration of other matters.
Certain points were made in the other House, and I should like to go through them in order to save your Lordships' time, and so that you may feel it is unnecessary at this stage to raise them here. The matter of the difference in rights between a deserted wife, in the wider sense of the word, and an unmarried mother was discussed. The unmarried mother has no maintenance rights and no tight of appeal to a higher court. The question of collection under maintenance orders was also gone into. As we all know, a F ill was passed some time ago for the attachment of wages and that worked extremely well the first year, when £2 million was collected and taxpayers' money was saved. Unfortunately, since then various loopholes have been found in the law, and at the moment the attachment of wages is not working at all satisfactorily.
Then the matter of whether the Ministry of Social Security should undertake the collection of moneys clue under orders was discussed at some length, as also was the question of co-operation between magistrates' clerks and the Ministry of Social Security. I am sure that is a question that will have to be gone into at great length and very carefully, but preferably after all those other committees

1287
have reported. At the present moment the age limit for maintenance is 13, and that point also was discussed. But by considering every case on its merits a court can quite easily raise that age, and that is done. Another question discussed was whether anybody other than a mother might apply to the courts—it may be that the mother has died, or perhaps the child has gone to a grandmother, who Chas no right of application to the courts.
Then, of course, there is the question of the venue. There was a great deal said about the aura of criminality surrounding the present magistrates' domestic courts. All I can say, my Lords, is that I presided over one for nine years, and I cannot remember any aura of criminality hanging around the one I presided over. Domestic cases are very sad, but I think a great deal depends on how the room is set out and on how you take these cases. I do not know of any reason why there should be any feeling of criminality. I remember one particular case, because it was a happy one, which concerned an old couple who had been married for twenty years. They had started to throw pots and pans at each other, and had come to ask for a separation. After a fairly long sitting, a most satisfactory solution was reached. Tears were streaming down the man's face, and the couple went away arm in arm. she saying, "Oh, well, he is nothing but a great big baby." I do not think there was any aura of criminality about that sitting at all.
The question of a maximum figure was discussed, and also the question of how it affected income tax. As I have said, the Graham-Hall Committee had reported since the Bill went through the other place. It was drafted by the Member for Marylebone, with the help of the Home Office, with its Long Title, on the understanding that an Amendment might be put in at a later stage after the Committee had reported; and, as I think I said, we shall in Committee have an Amendment put forward from the Minister which will remove the maximum and leave the orders without limit. My own views are very sympathetic towards that point of view, and I think the Member for Marylebone would agree. In another place, the Minister said—and I hope this
1288
will appeal to anybody present who might think that we should have a wider discussion to-day:
"It seems to me that we shall have shortly to have a wider look at the law concerning fatherless children, and indeed I suspect that the need for major changes may well have to be faced before the whole review by the Law Commission on Family Law is complete".
I am sure that that is so. This is a welcome statement, and I hope that we shall have some action on it very soon.
I was not in sympathy with the Member for Northampton, who seemed to me to consider—and I hope your Lordships will not think this frivolous—that a man should be able to renounce his responsibility rather like a bumble bee once it has polinated a flower, and have no further interest in the fruit which may result. He suggested that the whole responsibility should be laid on the shoulders of the taxpayer. I was interested to hear from a Chilean friend of mine that his country went some way towards dealing with the matter in this way some years back. The whole responsibility for illegitimate children was taken over by the State. The result was the most enormous increase in the number of illegitimate babies, and they had to revise the law and go back to making the father responsible—with very good results. Nor do I agree with the Member for South Buckinghamshire, who said that to help the illegitimate child would undermine family life. I do not think this is true at all.
I wholeheartedly support this Bill for a particular reason. I think it goes a little way towards redressing the burden regarding childbearing, which seems to me to be increasingly put on the woman. She has to take the pill, whatever the risk; she has to have the operation for abortion, whatever the consequences; and it is up to her to bring up the child, though she can earn a far lower wage than the man and it is sometimes extraordinarily difficult for her to get a job. Although, having had a court myself, I know that when these troubles arise it is very often "six of one and half-a-dozen of the other", nevertheless in these tragedies one has to remember the child. The child has two natural parents, and I think the father should share the responsibility as well as the mother. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Emmet of A mberley.)
3.55 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for explaining the Bill in its limited spheres, and for expressing her hopes for future legislation. So far as it goes, the Bill is welcome, in that it does something towards mitigating the effects on a section of the community who are entirely innocent victims of the adverse circumstances into which they have been born. Practically all those who have taken part in the discussions on this legislation so far have spoken in favour of improving the financial position of the child born out of wedlock. Always, of course, there are one or two cautious, dissentient voices seeking to establish that any recognition of the human rights of a child born out of wedlock may undermine the institution of marriage. The pamphlet, Fatherless in Law, which was produced by the Church's Board for Social Responsibility, and which has been referred to in previous debates, sets out clearly the belief that the time has come, not only for improving the financial situation of the illegitimate child but for according to him, where possible, a better family status, a proper place in the family continuum.
During the progress of this Bill so far, its inadequacy and limited scope as regards the illegitimate child have already been well discussed, especially in regard to the specific examples of the bad state of affairs with which it does not deal. For example, it has been said that not only are the amounts awarded in affiliation orders usually too low, and possibly the maximum too low, but the mother is subjected to an intolerable burden in the way she has to apply for and collect her maintenance. Consequently, most mothers do not apply. A bigger and better Bill about maintenance is not the answer. The answer is law reform, giving the child horn out of wedlock, where the father can be identified, the same rights vis-à-vis the man responsible for his procreation as the child of a broken marriage. The right to maintenance from the father should be the right of the child, enforced on his behalf where necessary by a guardian appointed for the purpose; and the collection of the maintenance should be ensured by public officials and machinery, where necessary, as a basic
1290
public responsibility. I am grateful for the way it has been suggested that this may be done. The argument for abolishing all limits to the amount of affiliation orders is not primarily anything to do with the competence of courts to deal with the financial business. It is to do with the basic human right of every child with regard to his known natural father to be supported by that father in the status of life to which the father belongs, be he labourer, technician or millionaire by inheritance.
Government spokesmen have indicated during the progress of the Bill that radical reform to help the child born illegitimately is recognised as due, but because of the shake-up in the English legal system that this would entail this reform will have to be postponed I do not think that that is good enough. This is Human Rights Year, and we should snake a special effort. The spiritual health of society is endangered by the toleration of injustice and suffering for which a partial remedy, at any rate, has been acknowledged as possible here, and already adopted in other countries as it affects the illegitimately-born child. I know enough of the Rules of this House to know that a Bill dealing with finance cannot be amended in this House, and I hope that Amendments will be put down in the other House, especially in the light of the Report of the Graham-Hall Committee. I do not know whether it is possible to add a rider. If it is I hope that we would add a rider to the effect that we hope this Bill is only a very temporary stop-gap, and will soon—the operative word is "soon"—be superseded by a major measure of reform. But I welcome this Bill.
4.0 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I, too, welcome this Bill; and since the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, has introduced it so fully, there is, perhaps, no need for me to say very much about it this afternoon. On the other hand, I think it would be a pity if no one from this side of the House—and I dare not include the right reverend Prelate among those "on this side of the House"—said something in favour of it As I understand the noble Baroness, an Amendment is likely to be moved in Committee which may well remove the present limit imposed on

1291
magistrates' courts. If that is so, then I welcome it gladly, because I think that magistrates should have unlimited power when it comes to fixing maintenance in respect of wives and children.
With your Lordships' permission, I should like to quote from the Report of the Committee on Statutory Maintenance Limits, which says:
"Magistrates are experienced in handling money issues and give a good deal of time and care to the determination of these."
I want to say, with great respect, that perhaps the magistracy is in a far better position to carry out this rather difficult task than any other legal section.
My Lords, if I had any comment which might appear to be adverse it is this. I think that the Bill which the noble Baroness has introduced today is not likely to have very much effect upon the present situation; for at present the number of orders made in magistrates' courts in which the maximum amount is given to the wife and the children is very small. One has to realise that a wife with three children who is entitled to maintenance can get as much as £15 a week—£7 10s. for herself and £2 10s. for each child under the age of 16. I am sure the noble Baroness—I almost said "my noble friend", for her social thinking and mine very often run along parallel lines—would agree that the rate of income for the vast majority of the men appearing before magistrates' courts is not sufficient to enable the court to make a maximum order of £7 10s. for the wife. We often make maximum orders for the children, for the simple reason that experience has shown those of us who have sat in domestic courts over many years that husbands will pay more readily for their children than for their wives. I think we must be alive to the fact that if the limit is removed it does not necessarily mean that orders in respect of wife maintenance and child maintenance will be much higher in the immediate future than they are at the present time.
I feel that this particular Bill may well be the cause of bringing a larger number of couples within the orbit of the magistrates' courts, because the husband's income will make it worth while for the wife to come to the magistrates' court. Obviously, if her husband's income today is in the region of £30 or
1292
£40 a week it is not to her advantage to bring proceedings in the magistrates' court, where at present the amount of the order that can be made is limited. So I envisage that one of the effects of this Bill will be to bring within the ambit of the magistrates' courts a group or section of the community that are not using them at present.
This is both good and bad. It is good because, if I may say so with great respect, the proceedings in magistrates' courts are cheap and quick. It is bad because, although, as I have said, the proceedings are quick, the fact remains that a good many matrimonial courts are already overburdened. I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is here because I would say, again with the greatest respect, that I hope that when this Bill becomes law, if the limit is removed, some attention will be paid to the number of sittings in matrimonial courts and to the time lag that often occurs now in magistrates' courts between the issue of the summons and the hearing of the case. It may be necessary to have more domestic courts, and I think that some of our buildings are not used to their full capacity.
I have been almost warned off the subject by what the noble Baroness, in her speech in introducing the Bill, said about the collection or enforcement of these orders; and my noble friend the Minister may well say, and rightly, that this has no bearing on the Bill to-day. But I cannot resist this opportunity of raising the matter at the present time. I hope that we shall soon hear from the Payne Committee which was set up on July 8, 1966. It is all very well for us to make provision for order amounts to be increased; but I think it is more important that we should give our minds to the whole question of their collection.
In recent months your Lordships have been concerned with various measures to save money; on occasions it has been a question of £6 million, £8 million, £10 million or £20 million; and on occasions we have pared off a little here and a little there. I wonder how many of your Lordships realise that in 1965, the last year for which figures were available, the National Assistance Board, as it was then, assisted 154,000 separated wives, mothers of illegitimate children and divorced women with legitimate children to the tune of £42,721,000.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? Quite a large sum was also collected back; so that the net figure was not, I think, £42 million.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think I am going to surprise the noble Baroness. The amount of money collected back was £3,024,000. So there is a net cost of £39 million. I think this is an enormous sum of money; and I believe that in future we shall have to give more attention to its collection. Of the 154,000 women assisted by the then National Assistance Board, 43,000 had court orders. But I think I am right in saying that, of the 43,000 who had court orders, 15,000 did not receive one penny from their husbands. I believe that we ought to do something about this.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, was that because the husbands could not be traced?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: That may well be so; I do not know the reason. It may be that in the majority of cases the husbands could not be traced. I have never supported the old Public Assistance because, with great respect, I thought that it was quite inhuman in its approach. Some noble Lords may not agree with me, but I felt that the public assistance committee was, in many respects, quite inhuman in its approach, and I was glad to see that when the whole thing was reorganised under the National Assistance Board it became one of our best institutions. I know the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, himself did a great deal (many of us are aware of what he did) to "humanise", if he will forgive the expression, the National Assistance Board. But I should like to see somebody take responsibility for—I was going to say "chasing" but I will say tracing, the husbands concerned to see that they comply with orders made against them by the courts. I realise that this has no bearing on the present Bill, and what I wanted to say was that, as a Member sitting on this side of your Lordships' House, I support the Bill and wish it well.
4.11 p.m.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRAD-FELLTE: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley has introduced a Bill on a matter of great social and humane importance. It is characteristic of her life-long work for justice and fair
1294
play for all children, whether legitimate or not, that she should choose to introduce and pilot through your Lordships' House a Private Members' Bill which was warmly welcomed and passed in another place.
The social consciences of all thinking and generously-minded people must welcome any measure that seeks to make life even a small degree more tolerable for those unfortunate children who, through no fault or choice of their own, are denied their natural birthright, the natural birthright of any child, of a happy home in which they may grow up surrounded and cherished by the love of both parents. My noble friend has told us of the intentions of the Bill. She has explained fully the clauses that it contains, and we hope that shortly the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will be telling us of the Government's plans with regard to the recommendations of the Jean Graham-Hall Report:
"That the financial limit prescribed by Statute for orders which may be made in magistrates' courts for the maintenance of wives and children should In abolished".
I would only add, my Lords, that we on this Bench heartily endorse the intention of the Bill, and what we hope will be the proposed Government Amendment, and wish it a swift and successful passage through this House.
4.13 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I desire to intervene in this debate for only a moment in order to make a few observations about what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he found it possible to say about the old National Assistance Board. I take no credit for the matters to which he referred; the credit was due entirely to the staff of the Board and particularly to the local and field staff.
It is of course the case, my Lords, that there are a very large number of husbands who are liable to contribute to the maintenance of their wives and families, but who are not doing so. There are two major reasons for this. The first is the difficulty of tracing the husband. Noble Lords would be astonished if they knew how difficult it is, even with the help of modern methods of inquiry, to trace the whereabouts of an erring husband. The second reason—and perhaps this is no

1295
less a formidable reason—is that in many cases, where the man is living with another woman, there is another family and his resources are not sufficient to maintain two families. The difference has, of course, to be met by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, as it was met in the past by the National Assistance Board.
When we take account of those two matters, the figures used by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, are not quite so surprising as they appeared at first sight. The noble Lord is quite right when he says that there are a large number of liable husbands from whom no payments can be obtained. I can assure the noble Lord that that is in no way due to any default on the part of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. They are most active in endeavouring to trace these liable husbands. But it is no part of the responsibility of the Supplementary Benefits Commission to trace these men. When the change is made in the present law of maintenance—and I agree with those who have said that it is at present very unsatisfactory—I hope that the responsibility for tracing these liable relatives will be effectively placed upon other agencies and not upon the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
There is one other observation about the Bill which I should like to make. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether the provisions of Clause 2 do not apply to a husband whom a wife is liable to maintain as well as to a wife whom a husband is liable to maintain. I notice that the language of the clause has been chosen very carefully. It refers to "spouses" and to a "party to a marriage". The noble Baroness spoke of wives. I think I am right in saying that it applies to husbands with equal force.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, as I understand it, the clause applies to both wives and husbands. Under the National Security Act of some years past responsibility was placed on a wife to maintain her husband, if she had to do so.
4.17 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, on behalf of the Government I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness,
1296
Lady Emmet of Amberley, on introducing this small but very useful Bill to which the Government extend a warm welcome. I can assure my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, who told me that he might have to leave the Chamber before I replied to the debate, that there was never any danger that he would be the only one to speak from this side of the House on behalf of the Bill.
The face of the Bill may seem a little legalistic, but its true complexion is indeed benign. I welcome what my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell had to say about the work of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, as Chairman of the National Assistance Board. I was very glad to hear the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford. Despite the very great work which he did as Chairman, I was glad to hear that he did not claim the credit for, as it were, "humanising" the work of the Board. It brought back to me memories of my very dear friend the first Chairman of the Board, the late George Buchanan. I cannot imagine any person more humane than the late George Buchanan. We all know how he started that Department, and all succeeding Chairmen carried on in the same tradition.
My Lords, after the speech of the noble Baroness I need not emphasise the general sympathy of the Government with the difficulties of fatherless families. I am quite sure that none of your Lordships will find this Bill unacceptable, at least so far as it goes. It has had a somewhat curious history. It was introduced and passed in another place while the Departmental Committee was sitting under the Chairmanship of Miss Jean Graham-Hall, one of the stipendiary Metropolitan magistrates,
"to examine the financial limits prescribed by Statute for orders which may be made in magistrates' courts for the maintenance of wives and children, to consider the appropriate machinery for adjusting such limits to changing circumstances, and to make recommendations".
The Government thought it right to reserve their final attitude until the recommendations of that Committee had been received and considered. The sponsors in another place agreed in the circumstances that it would be prudent to allow for the possibility that the Departmental Committee might recommend total abolition of the limits. Accordingly, the Long Title was so drafted

1297
as to enable the Bill to be modified for that purpose, if this were thought appropriate.
I must also mention that the Long Title as drafted precludes other Amendments which, it is obvious, some of your Lordships might wish to make in order further to ameliorate the plight of fatherless families. For some time now the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child, and other interested organisations, have represented the case for several changes in the law, and it is not disputed that a number of these deserve the most careful consideration. But the Government do not think it would be right, or timely—and the sponsors agreed—that a Bill conceived for a very limited purpose should be put in peril of wide extension. It is quite clear that the problems of fatherless families, with which, in one sense, the Bill is rather marginally concerned, will call for important legislation before long. And I may say here that I share the impatience in this matter of the right reverend Pre-late the Bishop of Birmingham. He wants law reform to provide illegitimate children with the same rights as children of broken families. So do I; and so do we all, I hope. But there are some things that we have to get right first.
We hope soon to have the report of the Committee on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts, now sitting under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Payne. This has been looking at the enforcement machinery of the courts and in particular at the attachment-of-earnings procedure. I agree with my noble friend Lord WellsPestell that collection is at least as important as the removal of limits or the enlargement of the amount allowed.
Then, as your Lordships are aware, the Law Commission are in the course of a general review of family law, and in due course (and I hope that there will be no undue delay about that "due course") these and other inquiries will produce the basis for new measures. We really must wait for these important reports before considering what further action must be taken.
So much, my Lords, for the origin of the Bill. I now return to the Departmental Committee. Its Report was received in mid-March and published on April 3. The Bill has been through another place and now, on May 6, it is
1298
here in your Lordships' House. There has been no delay about this. It is just as well, when delay has been complained of, to mention how quickly this has been dealt with. The Departmental Committee's Report is a very comprehensive study of the relevant law and its working. It contains a great deal of statistical information that has never before been available. Without doubt it will be a valuable source of reference for further studies in this field. On behalf of the Government, I express warm appreciation to Miss Graham-Hall and to her Committee for the work they have done to throw new light on the many aspects of the problems of fatherless families.
The Committee's main recommendation is that the limits should be abolished. I would briefly summarise their arguments thus. Children, at any rate, should not be allowed to suffer hardship through the existence of statutory maintenance limits. The present limit for maintenance to a child is too low. Some children have special needs. Some should be cared for by their mothers; some are disabled. But a limit high enough for these cases might have to be as much as £10 a week per child and would hardly amount to a limit at all, particularly when aggregated in a large family. In most cases the men concerned simply have not the resources to pay more; and this is likely to remain a. significant part of the problem. In order to be meaningful, limits ought to operate in some desirable way at the margin of the total population involved, but they could never be made to do so without considerable elaboration. Even then, anomalies would be bound to arise because of the very wide variety of circumstances in these cases.
The Committee tried to find rational criteria for fixing new higher limits and for making adjustments on future occasions. They failed to do so. They then looked to see whether the limits served to buttress a sensible distribution of jurisdiction as between magistrates' courts and the High Court. It became apparent, however, that the two jurisdictions were not alternative and that the removal of limits was very unlikely to result in any significant change in the initiation of maintenance proceedings in magistrates' courts. Against this background the only effect of the limits that the Committee could discern was that a

1299
small number of children, and an even smaller number of women, were deprived of maintenance, which a small number of men could well afford to pay. The Committee concluded that, as there was no good reason for retaining a limit simply for the sake of doing so, abolition of all limits was the only defensible recommendation. And this was the recommendation they made.
May I respectfully agree with the view put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, which I may paraphrase as: the abolition of limits has nothing to do with the power of the courts, but will result in a child having the same standard of living as his known father. I think that summarises the right reverend Prelate's argument for the abolition of the limits.
But I think there is another reason. The Committee's Report revealed that most defendants in domestic proceedings are in the lowest income group, that less than 2 per cent. of all orders for wives are for the maximum amount, but a much larger number of orders made in respect of children are for the maximum amount, although even these amount to only 20 per cent. in three categories—affiliation, guardianship and matrimonial orders with provision for both wife and children—and to 35 per cent. in the remaining category—matrimonial orders with provision for children only. That is a very substantial percentage; and this with a maximum. Who knows what orders the magistrates would have made had there been no maximum? Another important factor is that in cases where women and children are awarded maintenance under the same order, the amount for individual children exceeds the amount ordered for the women. I think that the case is overwhelming.
My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell spoke of the increased volume of work that would fall on magistrates' courts, and asked my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to look at this point particularly, but the Graham-Hall Committee did not think this likely. They made this clear in paragraph 206 of their Report. If a man is getting £40 a week, even now the woman may have, first, the possibility of proceeding in the High Court, where there are now no limits; secondly, the man may agree to a volun-
1300
tary agreement or, thirdly, the woman may still want to get what she can within the limit.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord appreciates that an unmarried mother cannot proceed in the High Court for maintenance.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I was not dealing particularly with unmarried mothers but was dealing with wives; but I agree with the point the noble Baroness made when she interrupted my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell. The third point is that the woman may still want to get what she can within the limits. But, in any event, on this particular point the Graham-Hall Committee considered the implications of abolition and felt no special qualms about the capacity of the system to handle the number of cases. I am sure that my noble and learned friend will watch that, but I thought it right to point out that the fears expressed by my noble friend were not generally shared.
My honourable friend Mr. Elystan Morgan announced last week in another place that the Government have accepted the recommendation of the Committee to abolish all limits. On behalf of the Government I would confirm that at Committee stage I shall bring forward Amendments to abolish the limits, and I hope that your Lordships will give them unanimous support. At that stage, I think it will be proper for me to say something about the question of tax on these small maintenance payments, but I hope your Lordships will agree that I need not detain your Lordships on that particular matter today. Once more I congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing this Bill, and I join with her in asking your Lordships to give it a unanimous Second Reading.
4.30 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I feel singularly fortunate in having been able to present a Bill for Second Reading which has received such unanimous support from both sides of the House and from the right reverend Prelate. There is nothing more that I can add to what has been said. I very much hope, now that the Minister has assured us of his co-operation, that we shall be able to get this Bill through as

1301
quickly as possible. I omitted to say what I should like to say now; namely, that we owe the Jean Graham-Hall Committee a great debt, because in preparing this Bill, and in preparing what I had to say, I found their Report extraordinarily informative and very readable.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL DEBT COMMISSIONERS' INVESTMENTS
4.32 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON LORD MITCHISON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the results of the investment of the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund and whether they will introduce legislation to amend the statutory provisions relating to the investment of this and other funds held by the National Debt Commissioners. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid I am hound to take a little time in giving your Lordships the background to the Question that I wish to ask. I admit at once that I have a bit of a "bee in my bonnet" about this. I think it is a major scandal of a rather complicated kind, and attributable not to one particular Party—neither to the Party opposite nor to that here—but to Parliament as a whole.
I should like to begin by getting rid of, as it were, the National Debt Commissioners, a committee of seven distinguished men which has never met since it met in 1860 under the chairmanship of Mr. Gladstone. The fact of the matter is that there are only three of them who function, and the three who function do so by virtue of an Act passed in 1818: they are the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Governor of the Bank of England and the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. That being so, perhaps it is not altogether astonishing that the Treasury have never found it necessary to give them advice.
The National Insurance Act 1965 is a codified Act, and Sections 83 and 84 reproduce without any material alteration two sections of the Act of 1964. Those sections provide for two funds: first of all, the National Insurance Fund. to receive all contributions, including any Exchequer contribution, and to pay out all benefits; and then the National In-
1302
surance Reserve Fund as its reserve, the income from that Reserve Fund to be paid periodically into the National Insurance Fund. Both Funds are now under the control and management of the Minister of Social Security. There are provisions for investment out of them, and they are the subject matter with which I am really concerned.
Section 83(5) of the 1965 Act provides that:
"Any monies forming part of the National Insurance Fund may from time to time be paid over to the National Debt Commissioners and by them invested, in accordance with such directions as may be giver by the Treasury, in securities which are for the time being authorised by Parliament as investments for savings banks funds."
That means any Government or Government guaranteed securities. It does not even include municipal securities, let alone anything by way of an equity or the like. That is the subsection applied to the National Insurance Fund, and there is a subsection later which applies that to the much larger National Insurance Reserve Fund.
The National Insurance Funds between them took over from the previous Health, Pensions and Employment Insurance fund, £886 million of investments. That was when the original Act came into operation. Of that £886 million—and that is a market value figure— £100 million went to start the National Insurance Fund, and the remaining £786 million went to the Reserve Fund. Subsequent payments brought the Reserve Fund up to the figure of £1,168 million at the end of March, 1967. But that huge figure is the figure of total cost, and the total market value is only £845 million. That shows a depreciation of £323 million, or over 27 per cent., on the money that has been put in. The yield from these investments—the investments that had cost £1,168 million—was only £48 million in 1966–67, less nearly £5½ million losses on realisation; that is to say, a not yield of about£3 13s. per cent.
I have always had a great deal of sympathy with the chimpanzee at the zoo who could not count more then five, and when one gets to figures of this magnitude it is a little difficult sometimes to realise what one is dealing with What one is dealing with by way of quality is the pounds, shillings and pence that are contributed to the National Insurance

1303
Fund, partly by the employer, partly by the employed or self-employed, and to a certain extent by the Exchequer. It is the first two types of contribution that are by far the largest. It is out of those contributions that the whole National Insurance Scheme is paid for. Therefore, what we are dealing with is the investment of the whole reserves behind the National Insurance Scheme. My Lords, it is a staggeringly large figure, and in view of the size of the figure I wonder very much why that subsection was put by my Government—the Government I support—into the 1946 Act. There it is.
For the moment I forbear from further comment on that point, and I go on to the year 1957 when evidence was given before the Radcliffe Committee on the Working of the Monetary System. The Radcliffe Committee on the Working of the Monetary System were naturally interested in funds of this kind, and particularly this Fund. The point which the Committee were putting to witnesses from the Bank of England and to witnesses from the Treasury, to whose evidence I am going to refer your Lordships for a moment, was this:
"Are you using the funds and the investment of the funds to support the general monetary system, or do you regard the purposes of the National Insurance Acts—that is to say the whole National Insurance Scheme—as having the first claim?"
There is no doubt whatever what both the Bank of England and the Treasury replied on this point, and although the evidence is rather long I will quote a very short part of it to your Lordships. First of all, at Question 627, the Chief Cashier of the Bank of England, who happens now to be the Governor and therefore one of the National Debt Commissioners, was asked some questions about the support of Government issues. These are supported by the departments to the extent that the public does not take them up, and "the departments" means in effect the Issue Department of the Bank of England which just takes up the surplus. He was asked whether the National Insurance Fund played a part in this, and his reply was:
"There is a very great distinction. 'The Departments', for this purpose, normally means the Issue Department".
1304
Then he went on to a few words that I think are immaterial. He then said that some funds,
"and the National Insurance Fund, have their own investment policy which they follow like any other fund in accordance with their liabilities".
That is to say, they consider what their duty is in relation to the National insurance Acts and liabilities under them and it is that which governs their investments.
There were other following questions which I propose not to go on with; they were all to the same effect. The Treasury witnesses—and I really think this is interesting—said substantially the same There were three questions, and I refer to the first, No. 1047. It was a short question, but it elicited an uncommonly long answer and I will give your Lordships only what I think is the material part of it.
"What we would like to know",
said Professor Cairncross, who asked the question,
"is how far the National Debt Commissioners receive guidance from the Treasury on the investment policy to be pursued?"
Sir Edmund Compton replied:
"There is a constitutional point on that. The National Debt Commissioners, the active ones, are the Chancellor, the Governor and the Deputy Governor".
The Chancellor in that capacity
"is a different person … from the Chancellor as the head of the Treasury. He has, after all, several roles. He is the Minister for the Treasury, he is a National Debt Commissioner, he is a Church Commissioner; he has a number of different functions and this is one of those different functions".
Someone of the same name as the present Chancellor of the Exchequer once described this place as "Mr. Balfour's Poodle". I feel inclined to say that the Chancellor seems to be Mr. Wilson's Hydra with many heads.
I go on to the end of the answer:
"I think the answer to Professor Cairn-cross's question about policy is that they have a wide discretion and pay attention to the needs of, and their duties to, their depositors, and that in carrying that out the National Debt Office keep in close touch with the Treasury. So far there has not been any occasion, that I know of, of any feeling of cleavage between their duty as trustees, if you like to put it so, and the advice the Treasury would wish to give them on grounds of either investment policy or monetary policy".

1305
I regard those answers as perfectly fair. The thing that in the view of the Treasury governs, and ought to govern, the investments of the National Debt Commissioners is their duty as trustees, their duties to their depositors, and that after that, and only after that, they should have regard to any advice the Treasury may give them in relation to general monetary policy.
I go from 1957 to 1961, and this was an occasion when the Trustee Investments Bill, which your Lordships had to consider the other day, was before a Committee of the House of Commons, and the opposition was very voluble. I took a part in it. I am not going to quote my own speeches (I think it is an abominable habit) but I am going to quote the speeches of my principal supporter, who was Mr. Diamond. Mr. Diamond is now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and Mr. Diamond is such an honest man and spoke with such conviction that I feel sure he will not have changed his mind. The subject we were discussing was an Amendment to give the National Debt Commissioners in respect of this Reserve Fund and a number of other slightly smaller funds—well, distinctly smaller funds—the powers that were given by that Bill to private trustees. I must just say very shortly that when I moved the Amendment I put it on those lines and said there was no reason why trustees for the public should not have the powers of investment that were being given by the Bill to trustees of private funds in cases, of course, where there were no special provisions in the trust deed.
I was answered by Mr. Barber, who was then the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, and still occupies a very prominent place in political life. I think it is rather significant that Mr. Barber did not say, "We cannot give these powers of investment to the National Debt Commissioners because to do so would deprive the Treasury of essential powers over the general monetary system". On the contrary, having perhaps an indifferent case, he thought this was the moment to slang the plaintiff's attorney, and slang him he did, and quite rightly, and very nicely and very fairly, and what he said, in effect, was:
"This is creeping Socialism. If you let these people invest in equities you will have
1306
the State attired as the Devil creeping in by the back door."
We have heard this kind of thing before, and I hope that after the powers that were given by your Lordships to the local authorities the other day, we shall not hear so much of it again; because if, after all, it is creeping Socialism for the State to have reasonable powers of investment, well then you ought never to allow councils through an investment trust or otherwise to speculate on Wall Street in the way they were allowed to by the Bill your Lordships approved the other day. He said this, and said it rather shortly; and, quite frankly—I hope I am not being unfair to someone for whom I have a great respect—I did not get the feeling that he had a very great belief in it all. Be that as it may, Mr. Diamond then went for him, and with considerable vigour. Mr. Diamond said, first of all:
"I am very interested in many people putting up a lot of money which the Government are losing for them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Standing Committee B; 4/5/61, col. 497.]
That, of course, is a reference to the contributions under the National Insurance Fund, and your Lordships will remember the extent of the losses—over £300 million in depreciation cash losses. And, incidentally, we were told of £40 million on realisations the other day; but that is a different way of looking at it.
Then Mr. Diamond went on, at col. 498.
"It is ridiculous that the Government should seek to stick to an outmoded pattern of refusing to invest in equities, for reasons which I do not understand and which, with the greatest deference to him, the Economic Secretary does not understand, either."
Later he said this—and it was a reference to what the Economic Secretary has said:
"I do not know why the Government seek to introduce prejudice into an objective Amendment by referring to such matters. It is simply a question of a body, which is entrusted with the money belonging to a vast number of people, carrying out its trust in modern terms and efficiently. If the Commissioners had the power which the Amendment seeks to give them to invest in equities they would be able to offset the fall in gilt-edged investments—the great fall in long-dated and irredeemable investments—by the rise in equities which has taken plat and which everyone is satisfied will continue to take place." (col. 500.)

1307
My Lords, Mr. Diamond is an expert accountant in private life, and I do not think it is necessary for me to-day to express views, one way or another, as to how the powers should be used, but that the powers are necessary seems to be perfectly clear.
To quote Mr. Diamond again, he said that the Amendment:
"gives the trustees the right to get out of the chains which have bound them to gilt-edged investment and gives them freedom to look after their beneficiaries fully". (col. 501.)
I cannot see the answer to this sort of argument. Later on Mr. Diamond suggested various methods by which, if it were thought necessary, investment of this fund could be limited in relation to any particular company, either by a percentage or a limitation of votes, so that they could never get control. That seems to be a comparatively minor point. My main point is: what is the reason for persisting in the clause which is now in the National Insurance Act, and to limit these people to a kind of stock on which they have already made these immense losses and on which, so far as I can see, they may again have to incur others? I am not prophesying about the future of the gilt-edge market; I am only talking about powers.
What happened the other day was that the Local Authorities' Mutual Investment Trust Bill came along. What was it about? The very same Trustee Investment Act about which I have been speaking gave the local authorities, under a scheme to be approved, power to invest in equities, and so on. There was provision for Treasury approval, and it was found that this power was not wide enough; and the Bill which came before your Lordships' House the other day in fact gave them power to invest in Wall Street in dollar securities. Your Lordships will find it in the Bill. This is only one instance—perhaps the most extreme instance—of the widening which that Bill gave to the powers of investment of local authorities through their trust. The Bill passed another place without a Division; it was not divided on here, and nobody has objected to it. Is there any sense whatever in allowing local authorities to invest in this sort of way and refusing it to those who are responsible for the contributions of the National Insurance Scheme? I simply
1308
cannot understand it, and I get baffled and cross with myself because I cannot understand it.
What is the motive behind this extraordinary business? Mr. Barber might reasonably have said at the time: "This is a Bill rather about other things; this is a fairly late stage of it and although this is not all that important as a Bill, it is an important Amendment and it ought to be dealt with separately." He said something of the sort, and I quite understand that. But now the Government have come in—and they came in on an Election pamphlet called New Frontiers for Social Security. On page 14 of that pamphlet, which was introduced by my right honourable friend who is now the Lord President of the Council, we find this:
"The contribution income will enable a National Pensions Fund—as outlined in National Superannuation—to be built up. This will be controlled by Trustees appointed by the Government who will have the same opportunities to carry out profitable investment of their funds as Trustees of private pension schemes and insurance companies."
It was part of a larger change, but the principle is quite clearly accepted.
In the same way, when the Local Authorities' Investment Bill came before another place there was a passage from the Minister's speech in support of it. I quoted it the other day, and I beg leave to quote it again because it is directly and, so far as I can see, conclusively in point. He pointed out in effect that what was being done was to give powers. He said:
"I do not believe that we should attempt to supervise the Trust like a nanny in what it is going to do with the options it is proposed the House should give it. We should give these powers without tormenting ourselves as to hypothetical misuse or folly. The simple principle to be decided is whether we should widen these powers of the Trust in the knowledge that this is a very well run Trust in charge of very responsible people and that these powers are unlikely to be misused."—{OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 22/3/68; col. 792.]
I take those as the Government's general views, and I shall apply them to this case.
There is no doubt that there has been an enormous loss on this Fund and a very bad income yield from it, but is that due, as I think it is, to the restrictive terms of the Statute, which prescribed its investment in Government securities only?

1309
Or are we to be forced to the view that it is due to the incompetence of the Chancellor, the Governor of the Bank of England and the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England? I boggle at that last conclusion. If we are to talk about a "well-run Fund" this must be treated, whatever its limitation, as a well-run Fund, and if so, is there any harm in giving these increased powers—legislation will be needed for the purpose—and in leaving the exercise of them to these very responsible gentlemen?
I wish the Hydra would put his heads together a little. It must be very difficult for the Chancellor to disengage himself from his responsibility as the operative National Debt Commissioner (for that is what he is), his responsibility towards the insurance contributors on the one hand, and on the other hand his responsibility as Chancellor for the general monetary system. But he must make a distinction, and perhaps it would help him in the process if he considered his third responsibility. This is the Church Commisioners; he is one of them. They do it better. They have a mixed fund. I am not going to take up your Lordships' time any more with the figures, but they have a mixed fund with a yield of over 6 per cent. They do not seem to lose any money. They do pretty well out of even the fixed-interest part of it, and in their Report they talk about preference shares and debentures of industrial companies, and so on and so forth. I wonder whether perhaps we should do better to take the Fund away from the National Debt Commissioners and hand it over to the right reverend Prelates who grace us with their presence and are always so shy about talking on economic questions.
The fact remains that here is the loss, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done uncommonly badly with the contributions of men and women all over the country towards the National Insurance Scheme. And these are not small amounts. This Reserve Fund equals roughly, the contributions for a whole year. I think it is probably kept at that; and if the amount that has been lost were now available those contributions could be lowered or the benefits increased without further charge on the taxpayer. What is the objection to giving power to do that? I do not ask any more. Do not
1310
ask me to run a fund like this; I would not for a moment claim to be competent to do so. But surely one can and some-body. The local authorities have succeeded in doing so, the Church Commissioners have succeeded in doing so. Surely the Treasury, in all its infinite wisdom, might be able to manage it.
There is one last point, but it is an important one. Roughly speaking, the voluntary pensions funds at present appear from the Morgan Report to amount to about the same capital as the National Insurance Fund. Of course they go to different people; the quantities are different (incidentally, they are not always larger), and there are all kinds of differences; and there is always the broad question whether it is right to compare this with retirement pensions only. But there is no doubt that they are comparable in volume. Not only are they comparable in volume but they have this distinctive feature. I have never heard of anyone outside a lunatic asylum and who had to run a pensions fund who would have put a condition of this sort into the deed. Of course they have mixed funds and they all operate as mixed funds. If my noble friend who is to reply is searching for some exception, all I can say is that he will find only a very small one.
The general principle is perfectly clear. What is the sense of letting insurance companies and other companies invest their funds in equities, for the purpose of providing pensions and the like, when the State, which has the same responsibility to provide pensions and the like, or a very similar one, is precluded from buying the kind of thing which these companies, by experience. have found paid? It cannot be the success of the alternative to which the State has been forced. And this lamentable history, as I see it, reflects no great credit on Parliament. I do not know how these sections got into the National Insurance Act; I do not know what they meant when they got there. Why not say, if that is what you mean, that the whole thing is going to he run by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in relation, however, to his duty to the depositors?
What you do is take this dead body which has not met since 1860; you call up again, by some curious invocation, the

1311
ghost of Mr. Gladstone—I do not want to hurt the Liberal Peers by mentioning him —and you then trust to this fictitious body, subject to direction by the Treasury, the narrowest of all possible investment powers. What was the object? Was it the case that those who were responsible for the Bill at the time wanted to have a separate fund to keep it out of the usual machinery of Exchequer control and thought they were doing so by this clause? I do not know. But if I were the Fulton Committee I would have a very good look indeed at this section; at how it got there, how it has worked out and what the present result of it is.
Of course the Government are going to get up and say the usual Treasury thing, I am afraid: that "There is a lot to be said for it; you have put it very clearly; it is quite competent and we congratulate you on doing so much work," and all the rest. Then they will say, "There is a good deal to be said for it in principle and we will consider it." Then they will say, "By now we have come to think there may be something in it, but not yet". Never yet, my Lords: tarry, tarry, dingle and dally. You put these things before the Treasury, as I have so often done over Finance Bills, and the first answer is always, "It is impossible"; and the second answer is, "It is partly impossible". Then the third time they come forward triumphant, and do it. On this occasion they are losing so much money a year (and it is not their own money but that of the contributors to the National Insurance Find) that I hope they will break all their rules and concede at once legislation which is needed for the purpose—but I do not think they will.
5.7 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I must first of all apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for not being present during the first few moments of his speech; the news of his getting up did not appear to come through on the "blower". I think, with due diffidence, that I must also, on behalf of my fellow Church Commissioners and myself, refuse his kind offer to take over the National Insurance Fund. I feel that we have quite enough funds to look after at the moment.
The noble Lord has raised what is, in effect, a tragedy. He has raised it only
1312
in connection with the National Insurance Fund, which is a big impersonal Government pool. But the component parts of this problem affect as a tragedy many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people up and down the country who have their savings, in some cases even their life savings, in Government stock, often of an undated character, which they have seen depreciate in purchasing power ever since the war.
I have not personally gone into the exact figures the noble Lord quoted, but I suspect that a good portion of the capital loss, and the reason for the extremely low rate of interest which this Fund appears to earn, may well spring from what I have seen termed the greatest confidence trick in history, which was when a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer managed to sell hundreds of millions of pounds of 2½ per cent. stock at par. It is now quoted at about 40.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I thought that somebody would probably say this, so I took the trouble to look over the first Fund. The first Fund that they took over from the existing Fund included a large batch of what are commonly called Dalton's, and the Dalton's went up for a year or two and then went down again. The fact of the matter is that this is the fault of both Governments, and it is not the least use trying to make a Party point out of it. One was just as bad as the other, and each has been equally slow to remedy the obvious mistake in the original Act.
LORD HAWKE: All Governments since the war are responsible for the inflation, but there was only one Chancellor who succeeded in getting the market into such a condition that he was able to float this paper off, at 2½ per cent., at par; and a great deal of these Government funds have lost a great deal of money in the process since. But periodically people suggest that some of these undated stocks should be given a date, even a distant one; and though I know it is absolutely against Treasury rules ever to alter the terms and conditions of a stock once it has been floated, I feel that something on those lines ought to take place. There is in fact one stock, I think at 3½ per cent., which has some form of rather minute sinking fund which amounts to a date, albeit a distant one. But the noble Lord's remedy, which is apparently to

1313
release some of this money at this extremely low return and invest it in equities—
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but I do not want this kind of thing foisted on me. I said that I am not proposing anything but to give powers, and I made it clear that I did not claim to know how to exercise them. I ventured the opinion that there might be somebody who would know.
LORD HAWKE: Well, my Lords, to give the people the powers and then say they do not propose to use them really has not much point. But if the powers were given to invest in equities, presumably there would be investments in equities, and the immediate return at the moment would be extremely low.
But what I wish to point out is that the noble Lord is advocating a flight from his own Government's paper, which is not a good example to the rest of the market. One of the greatest tragedies in the financial situation of this country at the moment is that the world in general has lost confidence in Government paper, and the first duty of the Chancellor should be to try to restore that confidence. He could do no greater service to this country than again to get people willing to lend to the Government at 5 per cent. Every effort that he makes should be concentrated on that theme rather than on producing methods of being able to put Government funds into equities.
He should encourage savings, because that is the only way by which money can become of value again in this country. A volume of savings is required. The noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, was speaking about this not long ago. The richer classes in this country have ceased to save because they have been so heavily taxed that they have no money left to save. The middle classes are saving quite heavily, chiefly through life insurance, which in the end represents about 20 per cent. of the money going into the gilt-edge market, and also in house purchase. But the wage-earning classes in this country are saving remarkably little, yet some of them are making a lot of money. If the Chancellor could persuade the better
1314
off wage-earning classes of this country to save steadily and to put their money into Government securities, it would make all the difference to the price of gilt-edge, the price of money, the bank rate and everything else. I do not think that the Chancellor is doing anything of that kind at the moment. Certainly the noble Lord's plea that the Government should fly from its own paper is not likely to reinforce the gilt-edge market.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, surely he would agree with me that it would take a miracle maker to persuade anybody, after the experiences of the last twenty years, that it was better to invest in gilt-edge securities than equities.
5.15 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Loris, my noble friend Lord Mitchison has put me into something of a difficulty. He says that if I congratulate him on the way he has put his case he will simply say, "I told you so. This is the typical Treasury reply to a good case". All I will promise him is that, unlike the right honourable gentleman who replied to him before, I will not slang the prosecuting attorney. My noble friend has put an interesting point of view in an attractive manner, and I am quite sure that it will make even more interesting reading to-morrow. He really launched his case last week during the discussion which we had on the Local Authorities' Mutual Investment Trust Bill. On that occasion I put it to him that there was a distinct and basic difference between the National Insurance Reserve Fund and the Local Authorities' Mutual Investment Trust Fund which was then beir g discussed, and indeed between the National Insurance Fund and all the other funds to which my noble friend referred this evening.
I think the first thing that I ought to do, therefore, is to stress that the public sector funds which we are now discussing—and I refer to the Savings Banks Funds and the other funds held by the National Debt Commissioners as well as the National Insurance Fund—are quite different in purpose and character from the private sector pension and insurance funds. The level of income earned by the public sector funds' investments does

1315
not affect either the level or the contributions to the fund or the level of pensions or other benefits paid out of the fund. The level of pensions and benefits is determined not by the yields on securities in which the fund is invested, still less by the market value of the fund, but by the Government of the day, in the light of the needs of the pensioner and other beneficiaries, and of what the nation as a whole can afford. For any given level of benefits the Government must take a given amount of spending power out of the economy, whether by way of taxation, contributions or dividends received, to offset the spending power injected into the economy by payment of the benefits. There may well have been some cases in the past—and one thinks of the 'twenties and the 'thirties—when an inflationary injection of increased benefits would have put the economy on its feet, but to-day the situation is entirely otherwise.
There are some who would argue, in opposition to my noble friend's point of view, that effectively contributions to these public funds are part of the Government's income whilst pensions are part of the Government's expenditure. On this view the existence of the funds merely reflects the way in which past surpluses of income over expenditure in one part of the public sector have been accounted for, and the investment of the funds in gilt-edge is seen simply as one of several possible accounting devices. Given this difference between the public and the private sector funds, it is therefore, as I put to my noble friend, a misconception to apply to the public sector funds the test which one normally, and rightly, would apply to the private sector pension and insurance funds.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but I wish he would not put it all on me. These are indeed my views, but they are also the views of Mr. Diamond in Opposition, of Mr. Crossman in Opposition, and of Mr. Harold Lever in Government. Perhaps we could be told what is wrong with their views as well as what is wrong with mine.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will say to what extent he is briefed by Mr. Diamond or Mr. Crossman to speak this afternoon. So
1316
far as I am concerned, I can answer only my noble friend. What views the Chief Secretary of the Treasury now holds, or what views Mr. Crossman now holds, I am not in a position to say. All I can hint is that the Chief Secretary of the Treasury has seen the brief on which I am to answer my noble friend. However, the position is—and on this I agree with my noble friend—that there is the Reserve Fund, which is a substantial fund, and he is suggesting that it is not being invested to the best advantage. Possibly I could try to deal with that. What we must bear very firmly in mind is that the investment policy of the National Debt Commissioners must be in accordance with the best interests of the nation as a whole. It is impossible to differentiate between the members of the public whose money the Fund is and the nation, since the nation is made up precisely of those same members of the public.
The evidence given before the Radcliffe Inquiry certainly made it clear that the National Debt Commissioners had to bear in mind two responsibilities: first, the national monetary considerations, second, their responsibility as managers of the Fund. But it was never stated in the Report that the latter responsibility should override the former; nor indeed can one look after the public, whose contributions are invested in the Fund, if one at the same time damages the interests of the nation as a whole. Therefore I suggest to my noble friend that it would not be in the interests of the nation, or of the public who go to make up the nation, if the investment policy of the National Debt Commissioners were changed. And I say that for the following reasons.
I doubt whether anyone would dispute that the Government must cover their financing requirements, so far as possible, from income available to the public sector rather than from borrowing outside. If these funds were not made available to the Government, the Government would have to borrow correspondingly more gilt-edge funds on the market. Clearly, if they themselves were not prepared to invest their own funds in gilt edge (I think that this was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke) then a considerably higher interest rate

1317
would have to be offered to attract gilt-edge investment. Surely this would not be in the interests of the public.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I must ask my noble friend not to look round at me, or he will get an answer.
LORD BESWICK: I am grateful to my noble friend: I will look firmly in front of me. The Government's problem of debt management would be made very much more difficult, and I cannot see that the national interest would be served by intensifying this problem.
My noble friend makes the point, and it has created some interest outside, that because of this restriction upon their investment policy, the Debt Commissioners have lost considerable sums of money. But this is by no means as simple as it sounds. Capital value may have gone down, but the income from the Fund has increased. In 1948 the income, expressed in terms of the cost price of the assets, was less than 2½ per cent. By 1955, it was 3·3 per cent., and by 1967 a little over 4 per cent. It is inevitable that with the general rise in interest rates the market valuation of gilt-edge securities should go down. But it is only when the securities are realised or converted that a loss can occur. Sales of securities are made only in order to rearrange the portfolio of assets. For example, if there are too many short-dated stocks, they are exchanged for longer-dated securities. The losses of £40 million over the past ten years have been the result of the rearranging of the portfolio, but during this time, though the capital has declined by that amount, the annual interest from the Fund has grown from £40 million in 1957 to £48½ million in 1967.
Looked at from the point of view of the past investment performance of the Reserve Fund, there is no significance in the fact that on any particular day the market value of the assets in the Fund shows a deficit. Probably I might add just one further thought on this question of investment policy. It is not at all certain that in any given period in the future investment in equities will yield higher returns than investment in gilt-edge. I notice in The Times of April 6, for example, the statement that:
"It is perhaps surprising to know that there have been 19 years since the end of the First
1318
World War in which gilt edge stocks have performed better than equities in capital terms."
The article goes on to say that a piece of research by a firm of stockbrokers points to the conclusion that:
"It is not too early to consider what should be done if signs of a revival in the gilt edge market are seen."
The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, made some reference to what he called the "confidence trick" of selling fixed interest stocks. And my noble friend, by implication at any rate, was denigrating the gilt-edge security as against the equity.
LORD MITCHISON: No, my Lords; that is not fair. This is in regard to the suggestion that the Government should take powers. Why should I or the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, be fathered with the management of the use of the powers? Neither of us looks like a nanny or is a nanny, to quote the language of Mr. Harold Lever the other day.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord, Lord Hawke, used some strong words about what he called "Government paper". I am bound to agree with Lord Hawke that if my noble friend had not thought there were advantages in switching from Government stocks to equities, then I see little purpose in demanding the powers for which he now asks. I was going on to make the point that I agree that we are going through a difficult period in regard to the gilt-edge market. The point I make is that the situation is not made easier by those—I do not here refer particularly to my noble friend—who continually decry the value of Government securities. Nobody who looks at the weekend Press and sees all the advertisements applauding the merits of equity stock as against the gilt-edge can escape the fact that they are themselves creating the very dangers against which they advise their readers to beware.
LORD HANWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord and I are absolutely at one. I want to see a strong gilt-edge market and the Government buying at 5 per cent. again. But let the Chancellor of the Exchequer take a whole page in the Sunday Press pointing out the performance of his stock over the last twenty years in purchasing power. If they come up to the

1319
others, he is welcome. I do not think that he could do it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the noble Lord is on my side—although towards the end of what he said I was beginning to wonder whether he was. I was simply going on to say that the more one argues about the advantages of the one, the more difficult it makes the situation for the other.
I have made some inquiries about the cost of advertisements paid for by the Unit Trust people in the Press these days, applauding the advantages of equity shares, and—by inference, at any rate—questioning the stability of fixed interest stocks. One estimate given to me shows that in March alone Unit Trusts advertised to the tune of £182,000. When one sees that kind of advertising and compares it with the whole of the expenditure by the National Savings Committee in some months of only £50,000, one can see that there is a good deal of propaganda all on the one side. I shall not venture further into this delicate area, but it seems to me that the more we harp upon the disadvantages of the gilt-edged market, the less favourable to it is the psychological climate in which investment decisions are made.
1320
My noble friend has put forward an argument in favour of giving the National Debt Commissioners wider powers of investment. May I now summarise the arguments against? The insurance funds within the public sector are different in many significant respects from the private sector insurance and pension funds. To agree to the National Debt Commissioners switching, or even having the power to switch, from the public sector to the private sector might given an immediate apparent advantage, but it would not be in the public or national interest. Such a policy would inflate the price of equity shares and would make borrowing for the Government a much more expensive operation. The fact that the book value of the securities in these funds has fallen does not mean that the income from the investment has fallen, or that the benefits payable to the pensioners and other beneficiaries has been affected. For all these reasons, therefore, the answer which I have to give to the latter part of the noble Lord's Unstarred Question is that the Government do not propose to amend the statutory provisions relating to the investment powers of the National Debt Commissioners.
House adjourned at half-past five o'clock.