Sitting of 21 November 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  POST OFFICE

    Inadequately Addressed Envelopes
    Mr. William Priceasked the Postmaster-General how many letters are scrapped by the Post Office on an average day because of inadequate addresses.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): Thanks to the skill of our sorters most of the inadequately addressed envelopes are delivered on time, but half a million a day are so badly addressed that they slow down the sorting. Half of them have to be given special attention. Few are destroyed because we go to great lengths to find the right address or, if this fails, to return them to the sender.
    Mr. Price: Despite the small number that are apparently involved, would the Postmaster-General agree that the Post Office gets the blame for those that fail to reach their destination, and will he have another attempt at getting firms and individuals to address envelopes correctly?
    Mr. Stonehouse: It is true that the Post Office sometimes gets the blame,
    1504
    whereas it ought to be addressed to the senders. We are doing our best, through publicity and posters, to get the senders to use correct addresses.

    Franked Mail
    Mr. William Priceasked the Postmaster-General what action he is taking against firms who frank their own letters but who do not deliver them to the Post Office until several days later.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Postmaster-General what representations he has received from the Post Office trade unions about firms using postal franking machines in a manner which disrupts the two-tier post; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Milneasked the Postmaster-General what further investigations he has made into delays in postal deliveries; how many firms known as meter posters were involved in delays; and what was the nature of the complaints.
    Mr. Stonehouse: My local managers are responsible for seeing that the rules for posting franked mail are correctly carried out. We get excellent co-operation from the majority of customers, but there have been bad failures in some cases. The effects of this can be serious, particularly when first class mail is posted in second class bundles or where mail is stamped with the wrong date; and the firms concerned are being told how to deal with their mail correctly.
    Mr. Price: Would the Postmaster-General agree that his Department has enough problems without accepting the blame for other people's mistakes, whether genuine or malicious? Will he tell those in the second category that if they continue to do this they will have their franking machines taken away?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am considering what should be done about continuous flagrant abuse of the way these meters should be used. I am, however, hopeful that, through the very friendly co-operation that we get from the majority of our customers, any such extreme step will not be required.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was a long detailed article on this subject in the Sunday Times? Is he further aware that the

    1505
    trade union had to draw the attention of its members and the general public to this matter? Does my right hon. Friend consider, because the case is proved, that he is responsible for taking action arising from this matter?
    Mr. Stonehouse: Yes. The House will remember that I dealt with this matter at some length during the debate on the two-tier system. I am well aware that this can be extremely serious. If we fail to get full co-operation from the firms concerned we will obviously have to do something about it.
    Mr. Milne: Will my right hon. Friend keep a close and continuing watch on the situation? We are grateful to him for the action that he has taken, because the ill-advised activities of one or two firms are jeopardising other firms which are receiving tremendous benefits from the postal service.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Yes. I take note of the point that has been raised.

    Overseas Telex Service
    Mr. Costainasked the Postmaster General, in view of the effect on the export trade of the inadequacies of the telex service to the Continent, what action he is taking to improve the service.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am very conscious of the need for improvement. Additional equipment to improve and expand the overseas telex service has been on order for some time, but unfortunately all contracts are in serious delay. I am pressing the manufacturers to complete these contracts as early as possible. I am also increasing the staff at the International Telex Exchange.
    Mr. Costain: Does the Postmaster-General appreciate that this Question was put down before the recent telex strike? Has his attention been drawn to the serious inconvenience to industry, which had no knowledge of this strike? The only way industry found out about the strike was when industry was not receiving cables, by which time orders were being lost What can the right hon. Gentleman do to make sure that it does not occur again?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I regret that the labour dispute took place. It was an
    1506
    unofficial one. We were not aware that it was to take place until a day or so beforehand. I am sorry that some of our customers were affected by it. I hope that it will not occur again.

    Two-tier Postal System
    Mr. Martenasked the Postmaster-General what further proposals he has for the improvement of the postal services.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Postmaster-General what instructions have been given to his officers as to expediting the delivery of second-class mail.
    Mr. Joplingasked the Postmaster-General what further steps he intends to take to prevent letters posted under the 4d. second-class mail from being deliberately delayed.
    Mr. James Davidsonasked the Postmaster-General whether all instructions issued to postmasters and sub-postmasters, which would have had the effect of deliberately delaying the delivery of second-class mail, have now been rescinded.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I would refer right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to my speeches in the debates on 4th November.—[Vol. 772, c. 558–650.]
    Mr. Marten: I thank the Minister for that illuminating reply. Will he give an assurance on a more detailed question, namely, that at the peak of the Christmas mail rush all 5d. letters will get first-class treatment, as they are supposed to now?
    Mr. Stonehouse: Yes. As is usual at this time of year, there is a tremendous rush of work in the Post Office and it would be impossible for us to give the same sort of service that we want to give throughout the rest of the year. I am sure that the House will appreciate this. This is the situation that the Post Office has had to face each year. We shall continue to give priority to first-class mail.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Notwithstanding the fact that in the debate to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred he talked about reversing some of his predecessor's decisions, is he not aware that within the London area second-class mail

    1507
    is, in many cases, still taking three days from posting to delivery? Will he remedy that?
    Mr. Stonehouse: There is another Question on the Paper relating to the Metropolis. I should prefer to deal with the detailed statistics in my reply to that Question.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have seen with my own eyes instructions issued to postmasters and sub-postmasters in certain areas saying that local second-class mail was to be sent to the main sorting centre and held for 24 hours before being redistributed? Can he give an assurance that where those instructions were issued they have been withdrawn and rescinded?
    Mr. Stonehouse: As I have told the House on past occasions, the whole operation of the two-tier has been under continuous review. I announced that fact a long time ago. The instructions to which he referred all relate to the scheduling of second-class mail, which obviously cannot be given the same priority as first-class mail. There is no question of any unnecessary delay of second-class mail.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Can the Minister ensure that unsealed envelopes bearing 5d. stamps will be treated as first-class mail?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am ensuring that all mail, unsealed or sealed, receives the correct treatment according to the value of the stamp on it. I appreciate that my hon. Friend has a specific point in mind. He has raised this with me informally and I am pursuing it.
    Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite its continuous review, the degree of dissatisfaction with the two-tier system, as measured by the Gallup Poll, has risen from 78 per cent. in September to 84 per cent. now? Is he aware that this is the nearest approach to national unity we have had on any subject since the war? Will he comment on it?
    Mr. Stonehouse: Gallup poll results depend on the form of the question. From our own observations—and we can claim to be very close to the public—we are satisfied that the majority of the
    1508
    public now appreciate the advantages of the two-tier system.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Postmaster-General what proportion of mail with 5d. stamps is currently being delivered the day following its postage.
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Postmaster-General whether he has a record yet of the percentage of 5d. postal packets which are not delivered the following day in Great Britain.
    Captain W. Elliotasked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to ensure that the 5d. post will meet the conditions relating to first-class mail; and what are his plans for compensation to senders of first-class mail who suffer loss as a result of it not meeting those conditions.
    Mr. Bryanasked the Postmaster-General what proportion of second-class mail now enjoys first-class treatment.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Ninety-four per cent. of 5d. letters are delivered by the day after posting and of this percentage some are delivered the same day. Priority is given to first-class mail at every stage, and second-class letters are handled separately; but about 31 per cent. are delivered by the day after posting.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 94 per cent. is nothing like enough? Is he aware that if he charges 25 per cent. more than for the other rate he must give a 100 per cent. service, otherwise people will not use it?
    Mr. Stonehouse: If the hon. Gentleman had attended the debates on this subject he would have heard that it is absolutely impossible to give a 100 per cent. service, because many envelopes have to be delivered across country and it would be physically impossible to have a delivery the next day. Ninety-five percent., which is the target that we aim for, is the maximum that could be achieved, and to achieve 94 per cent. only a few weeks after the beginning of two-tier is a remarkable achievement.
    Mr. Tilney: But since there is always a danger of one's letter being within the 6 per cent. which is not delivered the next day, is the right hon. Gentleman aware

    1509
    that what the business community wants is a stamp much cheaper than Railex which will guarantee delivery within 24 hours from posting?
    Mr. Stonehouse: The majority of firms appreciate the excellent service which we give. To have achieved a 94 per cent. delivery on the next day—indeed, 99 per cent. is delivered within just two or three days—is again a very good service which no other country in the world can match.
    Captain Elliot: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that I did not hear him answer the second part of my Question, dealing with compensation? Does this mean that he is not going to give it? Would he not agree that if a private firm charging for a service failed to give it without compensation, it would be out of business in a week?
    Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Gentleman asked a question about the conditions which we lay down, and in my answer I made it clear that we met the conditions which we laid down. Therefore, the second part of his Question did not arise.
    Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the evidence to the Select Committee, we were told that 80 per cent. of all mail received first-class treatment? Is he aware that the figures which he has given show that the percentage of all mail now getting first-class treatment must be much less and that, therefore, the general standard must be much lower than it was?
    Mr. Stonehouse: That was the whole object of two-tier, to even out the peaks and ensure that the lower priority mail—it was the sender, the customer, who chose what was high priority and what was not—would be dealt with at non-peak hours. We are, of course, achieving the results for which we aimed.
    Mr. Dobson: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the figure for delivery on the day after posting with 5d. stamps, which is the equivalent to the previous 4d. post, has improved since the introduction of two-tier by a substantial number, if not a very high percentage? Is not this in itself a justification for the two-tier service?
    Mr. Stonehouse: A substantial number of envelopes are now being delivered
    1510
    in the first-class service, as a proportion of the mail put in the post, than before two-tier. If a customer puts a first-class priority on the mail, there is now a slightly better chance that it will be delivered the next day.
    Mr. James Davidsonasked the Postmaster-General how many representations he has received about the new two-tier postal service.
    Mr. David Steelasked the Postmaster-General how many representations he has received via Members of Parliament from their constituents about the two-tier postal system.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Postmaster-General how many letters of complaint concerning the new first and second-class postal services he has received from Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I have received 1,502 letters from Members of Parliament; most concern individual complaints by constituents. My Department has received some thousands from the public, but a precise figure is not available. There has been a marked decline in the number of complaints received during the past three weeks.
    Mr. Davidson: What proportion of these representations could be classed as messages of congratulation? Second, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the two-tier service gives increased efficiency at decreased cost?
    Mr. Stonehouse: Most of the representations which I have had raise individual complaints by constituents who are concerned about delay to particular correspondence. I am satisfied that the service will provide a more efficient method of dealing with the mail and also ensure that customers who wish high priority to be given to their mail will have it.
    Mr. Steel: The reason for my Question is that I have had to send to the right hon. Gentleman more complaints in the few weeks since the introduction of the two-tier system than in the few years that I have been a Member of Parliament. Is this true of the House of Commons as a whole, and, if it is, does the right hon. Gentleman hope that that situation will soon end?
    Mr. Stonehouse: As a result of the great publicity given to the new postal service, many more people have been examining their mail, and there have been a large number of complaints in the past few weeks as a result of that. But I am satisfied that the number of complaints is decreasing, and I do not think that hon. Members will have to deal with so many complaints in the future.
    Dr. Gray: As a blow for style, will my right hon. Friend restore the 3d. postcard rate, since the postcard lends itself to brief and witty statement, as Bernard Shaw and other writers have shown?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I will consider any intelligent proposal, but we must protect the income of the Post Office and ensure that we receive enough to meet our financial objective.
    Mr. Montgomery: In view of the unpopularity of the two-tier system, does the right hon. Gentleman think it right for the Post Office to sell books of stamps which contain 5d. stamps to people who have no intention of ever using one?
    Mr. Stonehouse: It is easy for a customer to buy 4d. stamps across the counter, and we sell books of stamps with only 4d. stamps in them.
    Mr. Berryasked the Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied with the working of the two-tier postal system in the London area; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Results so far are very good. In London 95 per cent. of the first-class mail is delivered by the day after posting and 96 per cent. of the second class by the day after that.
    Mr. Berry: A fair proportion of the letters sent to the Postmaster-General came from me. As there has been delay in replying, am I to take it that there are problems still? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a great many Londoners are having trouble with their mail, despite what he says, and are not satisfied? Will he look into the matter again?
    Mr. Stonehouse: The standard of service is extremely good and most of our customers are delighted with it. The
    1512
    reason for delay in replying to points made is that every individual complaint made to me by a Member is subject to the fullest investigation.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Answer mean that, in respect of mail within London, where delivery of second-class mail takes place on the third day something has gone wrong? Is he prepared to investigate each individual case of that sort sent to him?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am prepared to investigate individual complaints which right hon. or hon. Members send to me, but, if there is delivery of second-class mail on the third day this is part of a mere 4 per cent. of the total amount of mail which is being dealt with, a very low proportion indeed. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep the matter in perspective.
    Mr. Berryasked the Postmaster-General what percentage of the average post distributed daily in London from Monday to Friday was delivered at each post prior to the introduction of the two-tier system; and what the average percentage is now.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Before 16th September, about 75 per cent. on the first delivery, 20 per cent. on the second delivery, and 5 per cent. on the third delivery. The estimated proportions are now 65 per cent., 30 per cent., and 5 per cent.
    Mr. Berry: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the tremendous increase, from 20 to 30 per cent., at the second delivery of the day causes great inconvenience to business houses which rely on dealing with their post first thing in the morning? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this important aspect of the matter again?
    Mr. Stonehouse: Business houses are concerned also about the time of completion of first delivery. By reducing by a small percentage the amount of mail going out on first delivery, we have been able to keep within our delivery objectives, which is very helpful to businesses.
    Mr. Bryan: What is the scale of the reduction in the percentage of first delivery?
    Mr. Sronehouse: I shall ascertain the precise figure and write to the hon. Gentleman.

    Office Facilities, East Whitburn
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Postmaster-General if he will provide a post office or sub-post office at East Whitburn, West Lothian.
    The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): We would not be justified in providing a sub-post office in East Whitburn, less than a mile from the office in the neighbouring town of Whitburn.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is a genuine sense of grievance in East Whitburn, especially among old people and pensioners? In the circumstances, will he not reconsider the decision?
    Mr. Slater: I appreciate this point. The request for a sub-post office in this area goes back 20 years—to 1948. I have gone into the position again, but I can find no change in the circumstances as set out by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Education and Science in his letter to my hon. Friend on 10th January, 1967.

    New Office, Portsmouth
    Mr. Juddasked the Postmaster-General what is the latest estimated date at which he expects the new main post office in Portsmouth to become operational.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: 1975, Sir.
    Mr. Judd: In view of the difficulties suffered by staff in present inadequate premises and the need to reassure the public of the future efficiency of the service, can my hon. Friend say why there has been a delay? Can he assure us that there will be no further delay and tell us when these building operations will start?
    Mr. Slater: I appreciate the feelings of my hon. Friend concerning staff conditions, and his interest in this subject. It is true that the starting date for building has been put back by a few months. This arises from complications concerning site acquisition. Building work is likely to start in the middle of 1971. I hope that there will be no further delays.

    Christmas Mail
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Postmaster-General what were the estimated numbers of Christmas cards handled by the Post Office in 1965, 1966, and 1967; what estimates had been made of the cost to the Post Office of allowing in 1968 a 3d. open Christmas card mail; and whether he will take steps to permit the mailing of Christmas cards for 3d.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: About 600 million in each year. It would cost the Post Office over £2 million if Christmas cards were accepted at 3d. postage this year, and I am sorry we cannot do as my hon. Friend asks.
    Mr. Roberts: Is not my hon. Friend afraid that, as a result of the absurd 33⅓ per cent. increase in the charge and this last-minute Scrooge-like attitude, fewer Christmas cards will be sent this year, resulting in absence of Christmas cheer for many lonely people and, what is more, reducing the income of some charities?
    Mr. Slater: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's suggestion that the increase in the postage rate as it affects the Christmas period will give a bad result or that we shall not have the trade from the general public. I remind him that in the last financial year we lost over £8 million. We should not be justified in changing our plans and reintroducing such an uneconomic charge.
    Mr. Ronald Bell: Does not the Post Office make an enormous profit out of Christmas cards? How, in that circumstance, does the hon. Gentleman justify this levy upon a particular form of post? Why should he relate it to the overall loss of £8 million on all the activities of the Post Office?
    Mr. Slater: I should have expected the hon. and learned Gentleman to be able to understand that this matter must be taken within the context of the whole operational period, the financial year, and Christmas is a part of it.

    Telegrams (Non-Delivery)
    Mr. Bryanasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that 162 telegrams dispatched from the Girling brake factory on 1st November to workers in the

    1515
    Cwmbran area, inviting them to a meeting to discuss a return to work plan, were sent in error by train to Padding-ton; and if he will order an inquiry into this matter.
    Mr. Stonehouse: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) on 7th November.—[Vol. 772, c. 149.]
    Mr. Bryan: Did not the importance and the numbers of that particular batch of telegrams warrant special treatment for the consignment?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I was most concerned about this experience, and I have taken special steps since to ensure that it will not occur again. There will now be a fail-safe procedure to ensure that such signals do not go astray.

    Advertising
    Mr. Milneasked the Postmaster-General if he will state the reason for the doubling of the cost of Post Office advertising to £4,000,000 last year; and if he will make a statement on the policy to be pursued in the future.
    Mr. Stonehouse: To publicise Giro, and other Post Office services. Our aim is to provide a highly efficient communications service, and advertising campaigns will be used where necessary.
    Mr. Milne: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the cost of advertising, while warranted in certain circumstances, is rising too sharply and that the best advertisement which the Post Office can have is the service which it gives to the public? While no one complains about informative advertising, is there not too much prestige advertising paid for by the Department?
    Mr. Stonehouse: As my hon. Friend knows, I have given special attention to prestige advertising, the form of which is being changed. I ask him to recognise that there is tremendous public investment in the Post Office, amounting to about £1,800 million. We must ensure that this enormous investment is used to the best advantage. The intelligent use of our services by customers will help us enormously, and our advertising is designed to that end.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this large expenditure has improved his Department's relations with the public?
    Mr. Stonehouse: The Department's relations with the public are very good, despite all the political advantage which the Opposition may try to derive from the recent change in our procedures.

    Research Surveys (General Knowledge Questions)
    Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the Postmaster-General in what areas of the work of the General Post Office it is customary to put general knowledge questions to members of the public.
    Mr. Stonehouse: In all areas of Post Office activity market research inquiries are undertaken whenever appropriate to obtain facts and to assess public opinion and reaction on which to base policy decisions. General knowledge questions are included when answers to these are expected to be a significant factor in the interpretation of the results.
    Mr. Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that it improves relations with the public to interpose general knowledge questions such as, "Who wrote Hamlet?" and, "What happened in 1066? "? Is not this yet another case where the Postmaster-General has given the impression that he considers that it is the public who are at fault?
    Mr. Stonehouse: There is a generally recognised procedure by research establishments that certain general questions are included in order that they can make a correct assessment of the survey as a whole. The survey to which the hon. Gentleman refers has now been discontinued.

    Post Office Giro (Telephone Accounts)
    Mr. Cleggasked the Postmaster-General why telephone accounts are now sent out with a form applicable only for the Post Office Giro and not the Bank Giro.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: With our present billing systems, it was not practicable to supply both National Giro and Bank Giro forms. We therefore chose initially to provide the form most likely to

    1517
    be used, but we hope to include both at a convenient date in the future. Of course, people can still pay their telephone bills by Bank Giro by completing a form provided by the banks.
    Mr. Clegg: How long does the hon. Gentleman think it will take to get a form which will incorporate the Bank Giro? Is not it a blatantly partisan decision to make the form applicable only to the Post Office Giro at present?
    Mr. Slater: There is no question of partisanship in restricting it to Giro.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Telephone Faults (Rental Rebates)
    Mr. Costainasked the Postmaster-General whether he will ensure that a reduction in rental is allowed to telephone subscribers whose telephones remain out of order because of the inability of the Post Office Engineering Department to attend to them.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: The question does not normally arise. Eighty per cent. of faults affecting service are cleared the same day as reported, if this is a working day, and 95 per cent. the next working day. Telephone managers have discretion to allow rental rebates for long interruptions.
    Mr. Costain: Does the Postmaster-General appreciate that this Question was put down only when these matters had arisen and that if private enterprise charged for a service that it was not able to give it would be criminal? Surely the Post Office must take some responsibility?
    Mr. Slater: Customers are not entitled to reductions, but sympathetic consideration is given to any claim that is made.
    Mr. Barnett: On the question of rebates, will my hon. Friend consider the case of subscribers who have an incorrect telephone number inserted in a directory and which remains there for some time—which is not only an inconvenience but frequently causes a loss of business? Will he consider compensation in that direction?
    Mr. Slater: I take note of my hon. Friend's observations. I will see that they are investigated.

    Elderly People (Rentals)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Postmaster-General if he has completed his consideration of the possibility of reducing the rental for telephones in respect of elderly people living alone.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Gentleman on 11th April, we have much sympathy with elderly people living alone, but concessionary charges by the Post Office are not an appropriate way of dealing with this problem. There has been no change in policy since then and we are not considering reducing the rental for any section of the community. The Research Fellowship at Essex University, which the hon. Gentleman may have in mind, is investigating the communication needs of the elderly.—[Vol. 762, c. 292.]
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister recall telling me in April that about 55,000 people would be forced to give up their telephones because of the increased rental charges? As many of these will be old people living alone, for whom the telephone is the only contact with friends, relatives and the emergency services, is there anything he can do? Is his mind entirely closed?
    Mr. Slater: Concessions to individuals or groups are inappropriate, first, because other Post Office customers would have to bear the cost and, secondly, because the Post Office has no means of discriminating between the many claims which would be made, or even of checking their validity.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there is a sense of justice in this demand? Although many of us appreciate that this question is more appropriate for the Minister of Social Security, will not he take up the whole aspect of this problem with that Minister?
    Mr. Slater: That is another question. I am given to understand, however, that the Supplementary Benefits Commission of the Department of Health and Social Security gives financial assistance towards the cost of a telephone in instances where it considers it appropriate.

    Trunk Revenues
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Postmaster-General by how much trunk revenues exceed costs.
    Mr. Stonehouse: By £59 million in 1967–68.
    Mr. Ridsdale: If a more realistic price were charged, would that not ease the burden on the letter service and be in the long-term interest of the Post Office?
    Mr. Stonehouse: We have to consider telecommunications as a whole. There is an enormously expensive investment in trunk lines, and we ought to ensure that we have a full return on this so that we may meet our objective of an 8½ per cent. return.

    Telegram Service (Delays)
    Mr. Higginsasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that on a Saturday morning it takes over two and a half hours to obtain an operator on the telephone who will send a telegram from London to Worthing; how many operators are employed in the London area taking telegrams on Saturday mornings; and what steps he proposes to take to improve the service.
    Mr. Joseph Slater: I regret that the service deteriorated recently because it was overloaded with messages for Saturday weddings. About 50 operators are employed in London on Saturday mornings. The service is now generally satisfactory.
    Mr. Higgins: Is it not absurd that one can deliver a message from London to Worthing by driving there sooner than one can get a telegram operator? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how long it takes, on average, to get an unengaged line to a telegram operator on Saturday morning?
    Mr. Slater: In view of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I have had recent service reports looked out. On 12th October it took 10·9 seconds. We have not got the figure for 19th October. On 26th October it took 7·7 seconds; on 2nd November 4·1 seconds; and on 9th November 1·9 seconds.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Elderly People (Wireless and Television)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Postmaster-General if he will now take steps to introduce a lower charge for television and radio licences for elderly people.
    Mr. Stonehouse: As regards a concession for the elderly generally, there is nothing I can add to the Answer I gave the hon. Gentleman on 24th July. I am, however, still discussing with my colleagues the position of those most in need.—[Vol. 769, c. 151.]
    Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister recall that on 14th October he informed the House that he was having urgent discussions with his colleagues on this whole question? When does he expect that these discussions will conclude? Is he hopeful that some concession will be made?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am hopeful that they will conclude soon, but, as the House is aware, the question of subsidies in kind is a very tough problem.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that old-age pensioners associations are continually in touch with Members of Parliament about this request? Is not he prepared to do something tangible about this request?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I can only say that I hope that we shall soon be able to reach conclusions as a result of our discussions.

    Pay Television
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Postmaster-General if he will give an assurance that he will not alter his decision to terminate the pay television experiment; and if he will make a statement on the representations he has received from the pay television company since he announced his decision in the House.
    Mr. Alfred Morrisasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a further statement on the future of pay television.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a further statement on the Government's future plans for pay television.
    Mr. Ian Gilmourasked the Postmaster-General why he decided to terminate the pay television experiment; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Stonehouse: As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson), on 25th October, in the light of experience of the experimental service and bearing in mind wider economic and social considerations, I have decided not to accede to Pay-TV Ltd's request that I should authorise a service for up to 250,000 homes in London. Pay-TV Ltd. informed me on 6th November of their decision to close down their experimental service forthwith.—[Vol. 770, c. 404.]
    Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to kill the experiment will be warmly welcomed, because Pay-TV discriminates against low income groups, who cannot afford to pay between 6s. and £2 per night for programmes? But in view of Lord Brabourne's statement that Pay-TV is an inevitable development and that the company will continue its efforts, will he assure the House that he will continue his opposition to the experiment and will ensure that any efforts to resuscitate it will inevitably fail?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I am not sure that this did discriminate against low income groups, and I must make it clear that there was no question of the Government's discontinuing the experiment. If the company had agreed to a further experiment in 150,000 homes the Government would have given permission for the experiment to continue on those lines.
    Mr. Morris: I welcome the statement of my right hon. Friend and endorse everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). Is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision should enable the B.B.C. and I.T.V. further to improve the programmes available to the general body of television viewers?
    Mr. Stonehouse: Improvements in I.T.A. and B.B.C. programmes are going on all the time.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are still anxious that the Government should not consider a further extension, even on a limited scale, because of the danger to the development of the existing services?
    Mr. Stonehouse: The experiment as conducted so far by Pay-TV, with only 10,000 subscribers, was not a sufficient basis to decide for or against the system. This is why the Government decided last July that they were in favour of an extension of the experiment. The company, however, asked for such a high number of subscribers that it would have been tantamount to agreeing to a fourth channel.
    Mr. Gilmour: Was not the Government's decision arbitrary, ill-considered and retrograde? Why does the right hon. Gentleman blame the company when the Postmaster-General imposed an arbitrary ceiling on the number of sets which he must have known would be uneconomic?
    Mr. Stonehouse: No, Sir, the Government's decision was fair, realistic and sensible.

    Local Radio Stations
    Mr. Bostonasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the progress of the British Broadcasting Corporation's local radio experiments.
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Postmaster-General what estimate he has made of the annual cost of local radio stations.
    Mr. Stonehouse: As I said in the Adjournment debate on 11th November, I am not prepared to prejudge the local radio experiment. The B.B.C. tells me it estimates the annual operating costs at about £60,000 for each station, except Merseyside, where the estimate is £70,000.—[Vol. 773, c. 170.]
    Mr. Boston: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that any Bill sponsored by the G.L.C. or any other local authority for commercial stations will be resisted because of the adverse effect which this could have on local newspapers? Would he also congratulate B.B.C. Radio Leeds on its enterprise in mounting a series of programmes on the constructive side of racial integration? Does he not think that this will go some way to counteract

    1523
    the effects of the appalling speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I can confirm that there is no question of any commercial station being allowed to start, sponsored by the G.L.C. or any other authority. I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about the Leeds experiment. That station is certainly doing a fine job.
    Mr. Ridsdale: As a predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman is now having to cut back on money for primary schools, how long will they continue with this extravagant experiment?
    Mr. Stonehouse: This is not an extravagant experiment. Local radio can have an enormously good effect on community life. We want to see this experiment through, evaluate its results about next July, and then give a full report to the House.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: May I compliment my right hon. Friend on his recent public attempts to destroy the myth that commercial radio is free and assure him that many of us on this side appreciate that local radio can make a remarkable contribution to community participation?
    Mr. Stonehouse: Certainly commercial radio is not free, because the customer has to pay through the increased cost of the products advertised.
    Mr. Bryan: Does the right hon. Gentleman hold the same belief as his predecessor but one, that the entertainment of the people should not be the by-product of the search for profits?
    Mr. Stonehouse: I entertain the belief that we should have a diversity of methods of entertaining and educating the population. I am sure that we have that in T.V., and that in radio the B.B.C. are doing a remarkably good job.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Dearne Valley
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the number of places in primary schools in each of the urban districts in the Dearne Valley constituency area, and the estimated number of pupils for 1969 and 1970.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): This information is not readily available, as educational statistics are not related to urban districts.
    Mr. Wainwright: Will my right hon. Friend take into account that the primary schools in some parts of the Dearne Valley constituency are becoming rather dilapidated? Will she do all she can to make certain that new schools will be built in the very near future?
    Miss Bacon: Yes, Sir. But we have to take account of priorities, as does the West Riding Local Education Authority, which has been allocated £3¼ million in this year's school building programme. I am as anxious as my hon. Friend to do something about these and other schools.

    Swinton Fitzwilliam Junior Mixed School
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science on what date building will commence on the new junior mixed school to replace the old Swinton Fitzwilliam Junior Mixed School.
    Miss Bacon: I cannot add to the reply given to my hon. Friend on 24th October.—[Vol. 770, c. 328.]
    Mr. Wainwright: That Answer was very unsatisfactory. Does my right hon. Friend realise that children at the school are having to walk 400 to 500 yards in inclement weather to a hall for their school meals, and that the present school is very unsatisfactory? Will she do all she can to make certain that the new school will be built in the very near future?
    Miss Bacon: We have to take into account the proposals made to us by local authorities, and no proposal for the replacement of this school has been submitted to me by the local education authority.

    Universities (Latin American Students)
    Mr. John Hyndasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students from Latin American countries are at present studying in British universities; and whether it is the Government's intention now to offer

    1525
    facilities to increase the number of such students.
    Miss Bacon: Information provided by the Association of Commonwealth Universities shows that at the beginning of the academic year 1967–68 the total was 559. Students from Latin American countries are eligible under the Overseas Students Fees Awards Scheme administered by the British Council.
    Mr. Hynd: That figure of 559 is very poor compared with the over 12,000 studying in Madrid alone—more than the total of those in all other European countries. In view of the latest demonstration of the desire of Latin American countries for closer association with Great Britain, and the great possibilities—political as well as cultural and commercial—will she do everything possible to try to increase the number as soon as possible?
    Miss Bacon: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. But admissions are entirely a matter for the university authorities, and it is not for the Government to stipulate quotas or press the claims of any national group.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Constitutional Commission
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an assurance that the Commission to investigate certain aspects of the constitution will take evidence in public sessions.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): This would be a matter for the Commission. It would, however, be my hope and expectation that it would take the main evidence in public, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I intend to raise the question when the chairman is appointed.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that Answer will give a good deal of satisfaction, and that it is vitally important that as much evidence as possible should be taken in public? Will he give an undertaking that the Commission will move around the United Kingdom? I presume that it will.
    Mr. Callaghan: As regards the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I certainly expect that to happen, and I would represent that it should to the chairman, in whose hands the conduct of the Commission is. I want as much evidence as possible taken in public, and as many people as possible in all parts of the United Kingdom to be able to see the Commission and offer evidence if they wish.

  DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY AND THE TREASURY
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister if he will amalgamate the Department of Employment and Productivity and the Treasury.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): No, Sir.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Are not the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity pulling in opposite directions? Since the Chancellor's strategy depends on a fall in our living standards, is not the right hon. Lady's campaign to ensure that prices do not rise as fast as wages largely responsible for the fact that we shall face another touch on the tiller as soon as the Chancellor returns tonight?
  The Prime Minister: The answer to the first part of that question is "No, Sir", and the answer to the second part is that the duty of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary, which she is carrying out with great vigour, of relating increases in income to productivity is the best guarantee against undue increases in prices and the best guarantee that the Chancellor's policy can be fulfilled.

  PAYMASTER-GENERAL (DUTIES)
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will alter the long established practice of not specifying in detail the duties carried out by the Paymaster-General.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Marten: Nevertheless, could the Prime Minister be a little more explicit

  1527
  about one aspect of the right hon. Lady's duties, namely, her concern with the problems of youth? What particular aspect of youth—moral, political, social—is she to be concerned with, and how old is youth before it is to get her attention?
  The Prime Minister: She is concerned with all problems of youth, of all relevant ages. But my right hon. Friend will not be responsible for the detailed operation of the Youth Service, which is under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
  Mr. Heffer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the position of the previous Paymaster-General was somewhat of a mystery to the House and country? Will he put us out of our misery on the matter and explain in some detail what the Paymaster-General really does?
  The Prime Minister: The previous Paymaster-General was, as Paymaster- General, Leader of the House of Lords—
  Mr. Heffer: The one before.
  The Prime Minister: I never thought that there was any mystery about that. To reduce my hon. Friend's misery, I suggest that he should now read the very detailed Answer I gave on Thursday, 24th October, about the duties of the present Paymaster-General.

  EUROPEAN PEACE AND SECURITY COUNCIL
  Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to initiate a European Heads of States meeting to consider establishing discussion in an endeavour to create a European Peace and Security Council.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in reply to a similar Question by my right hon. Friend on 14th October.—[Vol. 770, c. 26.]
  Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposal is a logical step to follow up his own policy of achieving a detente, with the massive difference
  1528
  that, whereas the Warsaw Pact and N.A.T.O. are based on fear, if we can get such a conference started we might put sanity in the place of fear?
  The Prime Minister: It is not only the policy of the Government and myself but of N.A.T.O. over a very long period to seek a detente with the Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries. Some progress was made on a security conference in my talks with Mr. Kosygin in London and subsequently in Moscow, but my hon. Friend will be the first to recognise the serious blow to such hopes that the invasion of Czechoslovakia represented.
  Mr. Thorpe: The Prime Minister was not unsympathetic to the Rapacki Plan, in itself a European initiative. Does not he think that here is a real opportunity for this country to take a European initiative and to be seen in the lead?
  The Prime Minister: That is what we tried to do in our discussions with Mr. Kosygin in London and Moscow. We think that at the right time a security conference could be useful, provided it was properly prepared and was not just a sounding board for slogans and for advertising disagreements. It must be prepared, and the question of disengagement would have to be dealt with in relation to the general line taken by Her Majesty's Government on disengagement.
  Sir C. Osborne: As the Soviet action in Czechoslovakia has put back a detente throughout Europe, what action does the Prime Minister feel he can now take to offset the difficulties that have arisen because of Czechoslovakia? Will he get on with it fairly quickly?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend and I—indeed, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides—when the House debated Czechoslovakia said that, while we must increase vigilance, there must be no return to the cold war and that we must keep before us the continuing objective of a detente. But the hon. Gentleman will realise that the shock to confidence and the growth of what my hon. Friend called "fear" as a result of that Soviet act means that it is premature to start picking up the pieces in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests.

  HUMAN RIGHTS
  Mr. Archerasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to initiate discussion in the United Nations, with a view to implementing the recommendations of the International Non-Governmental Organisations on Human Rights relating to the protection of political prisoners and to crimes against humanity, details of which have been sent to him.
  The Prime Minister: The report of the non-governmental Conference to which my hon. Friend refers has not yet been published, and it is too early to say whether any of its recommendations might appropriately be brought before the compentent United Nations bodies concerned with human rights.
  Mr. Archer: Since this is "prisoner of conscience week", does my right hon. Friend at least agree that the major problem is not formulating human rights but implementing them? Will he seize the opportunity to announce that Her Majesty's Government are at least anxious to find some solution to the problem?
  The Prime Minister: I know how deeply my hon. Friend has studied this question and of his very deep concern, which we all share. But it would be too early to try to establish a register and record office on crimes against humanity when there is not as yet agreement in the United Nations on the broader issue of international criminal jurisdiction and the General Assembly has not yet resumed discussion of the question. It is the hope of the Government to make progress, as my hon. Friend suggests.

  OCEAN BED (INTERNATIONALISATION)
  Mr. Tilneyasked the Prime Minister whether, in the context of his Answer to the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) on 15th October on the internationalisation of the ocean bed, the statement by Mr. Hildyard of the United Kingdom Mission in the First Committee of the United Nations on 1st November was made with his approval.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Tilney: Since the Prime Minister said that he did not think that a case had yet been made out for international control over the ocean floor, whereas the leader of the British delegation shortly afterwards said that he strongly held the view that there should be an international régime, is this not a very pleasant change? Should not anarchy over the ocean floor be ended as soon as possible?
  The Prime Minister: We must be careful to avoid getting into semantic arguments, particularly on the ocean floor. What I said on 15th October was that there was very real need for international co-operation in this matter. We have made it clear at the United Nations that, in our view, there is an area of sea bed lying beyond the limits of national jurisdiction over which no State may claim sovereignty. Therefore, if no national régime is possible we agreed, and authorised Mr. Hildyard to say, that an international régime is the right answer.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend realise that internationalisation of the ocean bed has got added urgency owing to the extensive explorations not only in the North Sea but also in the Indian Ocean and the accidents and other consequences that follow from those explorations?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and this is true of many other offshore areas—for example, the recent important discoveries off Australia and elsewhere. This is a matter of great importance and urgency because of the growing series of discoveries of important minerals under the sea bed rather than under the land.
  Mr. Lubbock: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the technology of recovering materials from the sea bed beyond the limit of the Continental Shelf is developing extremely rapidly and that this is becoming a matter of great urgency? Will he resolve the Government's policy and present definite proposals to the United Nations on which we can all act?
  The Prime Minister: I realise exactly what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. We have been taking this seriously both nationally and in discussions at the

  1531
  United Nations. But we are a considerable way as yet from international agreement on how the control of those parts of the sea bed which do not fall under national jurisdiction should be handled.
  Mr. Archer: While appreciating my right hon. Friend's previous answer, may I ask him to say unequivocally that the Labour Government are at least as internationalist on this as the United States?
  The Prime Minister: That is our position. But there is a large number of countries with whom it is necessary to reach agreement on these matters. Recognising the long history of disagreement about territorial jurisdiction at sea level, I do not want to underestimate the difficulties about similar problems of international jurisdiction over the sea bed.

  PRIVATE FOSTERING OF CHILDREN
  Dr. Grayasked the Prime Minister whether he will transfer responsibility for those matters concerning the private fostering of children at present dealt with by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the Secretary of State for Social Services.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave in reply to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) on 22nd October.—[Vol. 770, c. 1086.]
  Dr. Gray: As, at local government level, not only children's officers but other officials, including those from the health and other social agencies, are all interested in the day-to-day welfare of these children, for whom homes are often found through private advertisements in newspapers, would it not be better to transfer responsibility for them from the Home Office to the Department of Social Services?
  The Prime Minister: Transfer is one question, but I do not think that there is evidence that the private fostering of children is being held up because of the Government's inability so far to pronounce on the Seebohm recommendations. Quite the contrary. The fostering
  1532
  system started in Lancashire and recently I attended in my constituency the 21st anniversary celebrations of fostering. As hon. Members always are, I was deeply moved by the tremendous dedication of the private fostering parents. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is including provision about the private fostering of children in the children's Bill he is to introduce.

  MINISTER FOR REPATRIATION
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister for Repatriation.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
  Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is the most satisfactory "No, Sir" I have had for years? Is he further aware that, in addition to the grave constitutional implications that could arise from the formation of such a Ministry, it would mean increased public expenditure, hordes of officials and that, if other countries followed our example, it would mean that millions of Scots would come back to Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend asked if I was aware that this was the most satisfactory "No, Sir" he had had for years. The answer to that is "Yes, Sir". The answer to the second part of his supplementary question is that I am aware that such a proposal would have the consequences he has described.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Whatever our views on this matter, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is deplorable that, for fear of violence from enemies of free speech, university bodies should seek to prevent students from hearing my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on this matter?
  The Prime Minister: I am in favour of free speech at the universities and everywhere else for all forms of opinion, but in view of the way in which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has clothed these utterly evil proposals, I am not surprised that he has provoked some reaction.
  Mr. Walden: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that opinion polls have

  1533
  shown overwhelming support for the restriction of immigration but that the same polls have not shown any support of the same quality for the other panaceas of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West? Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that, in view of the exemplary attitude of the Leader of the Opposition on this question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—there is no need to waver? If the Government did waver and harass and bully some of Her Majesty's subjects towards the boats, British politics would sink to the gutter.
  The Prime Minister: Government policy on the question of restriction has been fully stated by me in my speech in Birmingham and by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary repeatedly in the House. I think that the point about the opinion polls is that the Government, the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Home Secretary have made clear on all occasions that, whatever arguments there may be about entry, once Common-weath citizens are here they must expect to have the right to be treated on the basis of equality with all other citizens regardless of colour. This is clearly the position of both major parties in this House and in the country, and I agree with my hon. Friend that no party in this House is going to allow the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West to drag the politics of the country into the gutter.
  Mr. David Steel: Has the right hon. Gentleman made an estimate, and if not will he make a rough one, of the number of people who would be liable to land on our shores if every other country in the world were to establish ministries of repatriation for those of British stock?
  The Prime Minister: For a start, it would mean that I would not have to travel to Gibraltar to meet Mr. Ian Smith.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us share considerable problems in connection with speeches made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—but that many, both in and outside the House, particularly bodies like committees of conciliation, find their work made increasingly difficult by these
  1534
  continuing speeches which dish out the dirt to a certain minority of the community? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that at the same time we are desperately anxious—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is too long."]—that the Government should give us all the help possible to remedy the defects left by 13 years of Conservative Government—[Interruption.]—particularly in housing and education—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.
  Mrs. Short: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in today's Evening Standard of the disgraceful campaign against a Biafran student at Eton College and has he seen the causes attributed to it by the headmaster?
  The Prime Minister: I recognise, as do most of us in the House, at any rate those who are willing to listen to my hon. Friend when she puts a question, the very deep problems which she has to face in her own constituency. All of us bear testimony to the restrained and responsible way in which she has consistently fought for her Wolverhampton constituency—[HON. MEMBERS: "She will still lose it."]—where things have needed to be done. Hon. Members must not cover their embarrassment about some of these questions by making silly jokes about my hon. Friend. Their duty is to show their solid support for their leader in this matter. This is not a matter for joking; it is one of the deepest and most difficult issues which we have to face.
  My hon. Friend will have been pleased to see the Bill introduced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary dealing with some of the very special problems of urban areas following the pledge which I gave at Birmingham last year. I think that the House will also be glad to contrast the attitude of my hon. Friend, facing the same constituency problems as her neighbour, with the action of her neighbour in dragging this matter into the gutter.
  Mr. Fortescue: When earlier this year she was Minister of Social Security, the Paymaster-General told the House that there were circumstances in which a Commonwealth immigrant could be assisted to return to his own country. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what those

  1535
  circumstances are and to whom such an applicant should turn?
  The Prime Minister: The facts were given to the House by my right hon. Friend, but in general, as the hon. Gentleman will know—there has been no change in policy under the new Secretary of State—this relates in particular to Commonwealth immigrants who desire to return, who are willing to return, and whose continuance in this country would impose a charge on public funds.

  QUESTION TO MINISTER
  Mr. Gibson-Watt: On a point of order. I wonder whether you can help me, Mr. Speaker.
  Written Question No. 15 asks whether the Secretary of State for Wales will make a statement on Welsh local government. The right hon. Gentleman is not in his place. May we know whether a statement is to be made now, or whether there is to be a Written Answer on a matter of such importance to Wales?
  Mr. Speaker: It is in order for a Minister to answer a Written Question by a Written Answer. I am not responsible for the attendance of Ministers at the House of Commons. I have no help for the hon. Gentleman.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 25TH NOVEMBER—Supply [3rd Allotted Day]:
Debate on the Economic Situation.
Motions on the Hire Purchase (Amendment No. 9) and (Amendment No, 11) Orders.
Resumed debate on the Prayer Book (Further Provisions) Measure.
TUESDAY, 26TH NOVEMBER, and WEDNESDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER—Progress on the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill.
1536
THURSDAY, 28TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Immigration Appeals Bill.
Motions on the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund and on the Greater London, Kent and Surrey Order.
FRIDAY, 29TH NOVEMBER—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 2ND DECEMBER—Until 7 p.m., Private Members' Motions.
Afterwards, Second Reading of the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Bill.
Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House help the House by telling us whether he thinks that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to make a statement today? Will it be made tonight, or will it be made tomorrow morning? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have given up a Supply day for Monday's debate on the economic situation so as to give the House an opportunity to discuss our economic affairs and the Chancellor's statement.
Mr. Peart: I am well aware of that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not returned yet from Bonn. When he does, I will certainly convey the right hon. Gentleman's views to him. It is possible that he will make a statement tomorrow.
Mr. Winnick: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Motion No. 39, signed by nearly 140 Labour Members, condemning the speech made last Saturday by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)? Would it not be a good idea to have a debate so that the right hon. Gentleman can come to the House itself and defend and justify his obnoxious views?
[That this House condemns the speech made by the Right honourable Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, at Eastbourne on 16th November, and welcomes its immediate repudiation by the Leader of the Opposition; and further calls upon the leaders of the three major parties of state to emphasise yet again in clear and unmistakable terms their commitments to the cause of racial tolerance.]
Mr. Peart: I am well aware of the Motion and of my hon. Friend's views on this matter. Indeed, earlier today

1537
hon. Members expressed views on this subject. However, I cannot find time for a debate next week.
Mr. Heath: May I raise one other question with the Leader of the House? The Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill is to be followed, only a week later, by two days in Committee. As the Bill is of such importance, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly arrange that we do not have more than one day next week so that we can have a little longer to consider the Bill and suggest Amendments?
Mr. Peart: I have already seen some Amendments to the Bill. Perhaps we can have a discussion through the usual channels.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that Business question time is growing and eating into Thursday's business. I hope that hon. Members will show some sense of voluntary restraint, if I may coin a phrase.
Mr. Milne: As our E.F.T.A. partners are our strongest foothold in Europe, will my right hon. Friend consider arranging for a statement to be made next week by the President of the Board of Trade on the E.F.T.A. meeting in Vienna, to be followed by a debate on Europe?
Mr. Peart: I recognise the importance of the E.F.T.A. discussions in which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is participating. I shall certainly convey the views of my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend when he returns and, if necessary convey my hon. Friend's desire for a statement.
Mr. Hastings: In view of the large measure of opposition in all parts of the House to the proposals for House of Lords reform, which ended in a Division last night, will the Leader of the House say whether the Government are to persist with the Bill? If so, when will it come forward?
Mr. Peart: I thought that there was fairly large majority for the White Paper.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: No doubt accidentally, my right hon. Friend omitted to mention the time which no doubt he
1538
has allocated to a discussion of Motion No. 28, about the Children and Young Persons Regulations, a Motion signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If he had so omitted to mention the time, will he kindly tell us when it will be and, if time is not to be allocated to it, could he put it in some time during the course of the week?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Children (Performances) Regulations, 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 1728), dated 30th October, 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th November, be annulled.]
Mr. Peart: It will not be possible to debate the Regulations next week, but I hope that my hon. Friend will have a word with me about it. After all, he is my Member.
Mr. Lubbock: Will the Leader of the House reconsider having the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill so soon after Second Reading? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that many Members will wish to have time to study the Second Reading debate and to consider what points should be made in Committee and to draft Amendments? It is difficult to do all this in only a week.
Mr. Peart: I have given a reply on this earlier. I thought that I was trying to help.
Mr. E. Rowlands: Would the Leader of the House say when we are to have a debate on local government reorganisation in Wales, since there is a statement to be made this afternoon in reply to a Written Question? Is it not time that we had this debate? The White Paper is now nearly 18 months' old. May we have a chance to debate this on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Peart: This is certainly a very important matter for Welsh Members. It may be a suitable subject for debate in the Welsh Committee. I will note what my hon. Friend says.
Sir H. Harrison: It will be within the recollection of the Leader of the House that last Monday's debate on the Highway Code, when there was much criticism of the Ministry of Transport from both sides was brought to a summary end by the Closure being moved. Not

1539
enough hon. Members supported it. Now I hear that the code is not to be debated next week. When will it be debated?
Mr. Peart: I hope that we shall be able to continue that debate. I thought that it was very useful, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will note many of the constructive points which were raised.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Can the Leader of the House tell us when we are to debate the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner, which raises the very important question of the House's supervision of individual civil servants?
Mr. Peart: It is an important matter, but I cannot arrange for time for it next week. I will bear it in mind.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Would the right hon. Gentleman, before Christmas, provide time for a debate on the Biafran situation, which, since we last debated it, has deteriorated, and is further deteriorating, and for which this House has some responsibility?
Mr. Peart: I know that the right hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in this and has expressed his views very forcibly on this matter. I am dealing specifically with next week's business, and I cannot find time in that period for such a debate. I note the views of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Leader of the House, in the coming week, please find time for a debate on my Motion No. 40 "Science, Courage and the Spirit of Adventure"?
[That this House is of opinion that, in the interest of science, navigation and the British spirit of adventure, the Government should invite the Director of the National Maritime Museum, Sir Francis Chichester and Sir Alexander Rose to address a meeting to be presided over by the Duke of Edinburgh in Parliament for the benefit of the Members.]
This, at least, would be a diversion from the other subjects which my right hon. Friend has mentioned.
Mr. Peart: My hon. and learned Friend is a diversion in himself—I say
1540
this in the nicest way. But I cannot find time for this next week.
Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Returning to local government reorganisation in Wales, the Government are apparently arriving at final decisions in this matter, and are to publish them tomorrow, in answer to a Written Question, without consulting Parliament at all. We have not had a debate on the White Paper, which was published nearly a year and a half ago. May we have a debate in the House, as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Peart: I have noted the views, not only of the hon. Gentleman, but of my hon. Friend. It could be a suitable subject for the Welsh Committee.
Sir F. Bennett: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to Motion No. 41, "Speculation in Foreign Currency"?
[That this House regrets that the Chief Secretary did not confirm that it is legally and physically impossible for British residents to speculate in foreign currency; and calls upon him to state the exact position unequivocally as soon as possible.]
Yesterday, in response to an accusation that speculation by British residents against the £ sterling was going on, the Chief Secretary said that he was not sufficiently informed to be able either to say that it was going on, or whether it could go on. Even if we do not have a debate, may we have in time for Monday's debate a Minister who would have learned these elementary facts, and who could give them to the House?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot drift into argument about Monday's debate. The hon. Gentleman must seek his opportunity in the debate.
Sir F. Bennett: On a point of order. I asked whether I could have a statement next week. I thought that that was a perfectly fair request, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Russell Kerr: In view of the continuing disturbances in Londonderry, and elsewhere in Northern Ireland, may we have the promise of an early debate, so that this highly unsatisfactory situation can be discussed by the House?
Mr. Peart: This is not specifically a matter for next week, but the Government certainly watch the progress of events in Northern Ireland. It may well be that at some future date we shall have a debate on Northern Ireland.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm, as the Government have on so many occasions, that matters of law and order are solely the responsibility of the Parliament of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Peart: That is not a matter for business next week.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the House.

THE CIVIL SERVICE
3.45 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Command Paper No. 3638 on the Civil Service.
After the excitement of the debate which has occupied the House for the last few days, and which has engaged the interest and passions of very many hon. Members of widely differing views, we are turning today to a debate which many would regard as less interesting, and which some may even find dull. But it is an extremely important debate for us because we shall be discussing one of the great institutions of the country—an institution which, like so many others, is now passing through a period of rapid and constructive modernisation.
The Fulton Report takes its place in the succession of searching and authoritative inquiries of the past four years, inquiries which have covered, for example, trade unions and employers' associations, on which the Government will be publishing a White Paper in the near future, local government in England and Scotland—the first major study since the reforms of the 1890s—and now we are proceeding to survey the working of the Constitution of the United Kingdom and its constituent parts. In a wider sense, too, the Fulton Report follows detailed studies of major industries-followed by action—and in a yet different sense, the continuing work of the Law Commissions, under which the whole of our Statute Law is being reviewed and modernised.
I have left out of the account, in saying this, innumerable studies and proposals for reform, such as the Seebohm Report on Personal Social Services, and the Government's Green Paper on Reorganisation of the National Health Service. In a very real sense, the Fulton Report deals with the modernisation of the institution on whose efficiency, expertise and, indeed, humanity, the success of almost every effort in our modernisation depends to so great an extent. But it is more than that. It is a study in depth of the work and working lives of over 400,000 of our fellow citizens. The merit of the Fulton Report is its clear recommendation that

1543
the efficiency of the instrument of the Civil Service as a whole depends, more than anything, on looking at individuals and particularly at the relationship between the individual and the job.
It is five months since the Report was published, and I regret that it has not been possible to have this debate earlier—the House, I think, understands the reasons. Hon. Members will recall that in my statement to the House on the day of publication I expressed the gratitude of the House to Lord Fulton and his colleagues, including the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). As I told the House then, the Government accepted three major recommendations and undertook to announce decisions on the remainder of the recommendations in due course, following full discussions with those concerned, including, particularly, the Civil Service Staff Associations.
Today provides an opportunity to give a brief progress report on what is being done about the recommendations which have been accepted, and to review some of the other recommendations, and state our attitudes to them—not to all of them because some very difficult and complicated problems have been set and we have to find, after appropriate consultation, the right way to clothe the very general principles of the Report with the detailed methods of application. A great deal is happening, and with exemplary speed.
I see the right hon. Member for Hands-worth has now entered the Chamber. I was, on behalf of us all, paying tribute to him and his colleagues for the work that they did on the Fulton Report—work which is shown by the load of documents under which he has staggered into the Chamber.
My noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, who is working closely with the officials concerned, has told me that he is greatly impressed by the energy and enthusiasm with which the work I have described is being tackled, under the leadership of Sir William Armstrong, Head of the Civil Service, and Permanent Secretary of the Civil Service Department.
1544
Clearly, the Civil Service welcomes the opportunity to look critically at its organisation and methods of working. Before the Civil Service Department formally came into existence the major recommendations of Fulton on recruitment, structure, training, and personnel management, were being studied and plans being laid for their implementation, in consultation with other Departments and the national staff side. The structure of the new Department and its creation have been subjected to systematic analysis by the most modern methods. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the Civil Service, both Departments and the staff side alike, is ready and enthusiastic to take part in a process of development and change, for which the Fulton Report provides this new impetus.
Parts of the Report, and especially the criticisms of its first chapter, have come in for heavy fire, both within the Service and outside. Hon. Members will have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate in another place and many other forcefully expressed comments on this aspect of the Report. But my strong impression is that the Service as a whole wants not to spend time arguing over ground, but to get on to positive plans for the future. I hope that our debate today will take the same course.
One of the central themes of the Report relates to the resources available for the administration of the country and most of the recommendations relate to better use of those resources. In a few moments, I will come to the criticism frequently made in the House and elsewhere about the size of the Civil Service, but, before doing so, I should draw attention to the fact that the Civil Service in recent years—indeed, in its whole lifetime—has constantly faced the creation of new and exacting tasks, and this affects not only the number of civil servants, but, as the Report frankly states, the quality of management in the Civil Service.
In my Public Accounts Committee days, and particularly in debates on public expenditure, I frequently found occasion to quote Disraeli's famous statement that "expenditure depends on policy". So, of course, does the size of the Civil Service—in numbers and in the quality required and in the adaptability necessary for taking on new tasks which to the Civil

1545
Service of only a generation ago would have appeared wholly unaccustomed and, in some cases, even alien.
This imposition of new tasks has been the result of deliberate policy decisions of successive Governments of all parties, which, however controversial in individual cases, have been the response of successive Governments to changes in the environment and in the types of problem, economic and social and in many other fields, which the country is facing.
It is worth while drawing attention to the judgment of the management consultancy team whose report was published as Volume II of the Fulton Committee's Report last June, namely, that the numbers of staff have grown more slowly than the tasks imposed upon them. Because of the need to limit the growth of the Civil Service and because of competition, particularly for skilled manpower, it is not surprising that the Committee should have reported that, in the main, the new manpower resources which the Civil Service has been able to deploy have, in the past, gone to manning new operational tasks at the expense of the management of the Civil Service itself.
The Committee has emphasised, I think rightly, the need for a higher standard of skill and expertise, and this means training. But it means more than training: it means more resources being deployed on the job of management within and on the Civil Service. Success in fulfilling this Fulton requirement, as the Committee itself says, should lead to the more economical use of manpower.
At this point, I should report on what has been done and is being done in fulfilment of the undertaking which I gave the House on 16th January, in Cmnd. 3515, paragraph 53, about limiting the size of the Civil Service in this current financial year. Such an aim has been held out by successive Governments and rarely achieved. After falling from April, 1949, to April, 1958—and, even allowing for the fact that 7,000 Atomic Energy Authority employees were transferred to the newly-created Authority, there was still a substantial fall steadily from 1949 to 1958—the numbers of the Civil Service have risen in each year without intermission from 1958 to the present time.
Under strong pressure from the Treasury, now the Civil Service Depart-
1546
ment, following my announcement last January, Government Departments have taken strong steps to prevent their staff numbers by next April rising above the number for last April of 474,000—that is, non-industrial staff outside the Post Office. The exercise has resulted in a net reduction of 11,000 in the estimated staff requirements of Departments for next year—that is, in what would have been the growth factor over this year. Increases in some Departments—for example, Social Security and Employment and Productivity—have been offset by decreases in other Departments. On 1st October, the total numbers improved to slightly less than on 1st April, and it looks as though the figure for next April will be marginally below last April's estimate—and when I say "estimate", I mean the figures presented to the House with the Estimate.
The total number of industrial staff—the figures which I have been giving have been in respect of non-industrial staff—excluding the Post Office, has fallen by about 8,000 compared with the provision published in the Estimates a few months ago.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: Could the Prime Minister tell us by how much the non-industrial Civil Service is under establishment at the moment, and by how much he anticipates it will be under establishment in April next year?
The Prime Minister: Very little. But it is under establishment to some extent, and this has had an effect on the figures. I should like to look up the figures. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General could answer that point this evening.
As the House will recall, I undertook on 13th February to consider whether anything could be done to include in explanatory memoranda on Government Bills estimates of the effects of those Bills on the size of the Civil Service. This was suggested to us by the Opposition. This has always, since October, 1964, been the practice in relation to Cabinet papers for proposals which affect not only expenditure, but staff. I have decided that in future memoranda accompanying Government Bills should include forecasts of any changes, or postponement of changes, in the non-industrial

1547
and industrial staff in Government Departments which are expected to result from a Bill. In addition, the memoranda should, if necessary, give forecasts of any expected changes in manpower requirement in the public sector as a whole.
I am sure that the House will welcome those arrangements for making available to it as much information as possible about likely manpower effects of Bills in advance of debates on those Bills. I emphasise that it will not be easy to make precise forecasts. What we can do is to give the best possible estimate.
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: Does my right hon. Friend mean that that will happen while Bills are passing through the House, or when they become law?
The Prime Minister: I am referring to the publication of explanatory memoranda as soon as a Bill is published. The figure in it will be the best possible estimate of what the ultimate expansion in Government service employment will be as the result of that Bill.
The Government hope that the review of Civil Service manpower which is going forward under the leadership of Sir Robert Bellinger will find ways in which some of the tasks of the Civil Service can be reduced with subsequent savings in manpower. Sir Robert and his colleagues are already hard at work, although it may well prove that serious economies may be dependent on streamlining the machinery of financial accountability in Departments.
As one who is dedicated to economy in administration in the public service, I am aware of the strong case for streamlining in this way. The former Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and its present Chairman are in their place in the House. I recognise the need for satisfying the Public Accounts Committee that, case by case, this can be done in a way which ensures effective control of expenditure and does not inhibit the members of that most important Select Committee in the discharge of its duties. In pursuance of the Bellinger inquiries, already contact has been made with the Public Accounts Committee so that, at the proper time, it can express an opinion and give not only the Govern-
1548
ment, but the House, advice on any suggestion which may be put forward.
I come to the three main recommendations which the Government have already accepted. The first is the setting up of the new Civil Service Department and the integration of the Civil Service Commission with it. The Minister for the Civil Service Order, 1968, which was laid before the House on 16th October, provided the formal basis for the establishment of the new Department and it came into existence on 1st November. As the Fulton Committee recommended, the Civil Service Commission is being integrated into the Civil Service Department and following the advice of the Fulton Report, we are ensuring that the Civil Service Commissioners shall continue to be independent in all matters relating to the selection of individuals. This independence derives from Civil Service Orders in Council, and the Commissioners are appointed by Order in Council. These arrangements will continue. The Commissioners will continue to make their own annual report to the Crown.
However, at the same time, the closer association of recruitment with personnel management and training, which is rightly recommended in the Report, is being achieved in two ways. The Commissioners and their staff have become members of the new Department, and the First Commissioner has also become deputy secretary in the new Department responsible for recruitment.
In matters of recruitment policy he is responsible to Ministers in the normal way. He and his staff are working closely together with those in the Department responsible for personnel management and training. In matters of selection—that is, when acting as Commissioners considering individual cases—they will continue to have exactly the same independence as they had before.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Will my right hon. Friend explain the relationship between the personnel side and the new Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Service? Will they equally be in charge of the personnel side of all the external services?
The Prime Minister: No. I think, as my hon. Friend knows, that the Diplomatic Service is separate. It has its own

1549
rules which have recently been surveyed. My hon. Friend will also be aware that, parallel with the Bellinger inquiries to which I have referred, there is an inquiry under Sir Val Duncan which is looking into the whole question of manning of overseas posts to see if economies are possible, to find the best deployment of overseas economic staff, and—to grind an axe which we all want to grind—to see that there is the greatest co-operation on the economic and commercial side. We have not yet had the report from Sir Val Duncan on this matter.
The second recommendation we have already accepted is the setting up of a Civil Service College. As the House knows, Civil Service training has expanded considerably, both at the centre and in the different Departments in recent years. In particular, the Centre for Administrative Studies has developed successfully, but we need to go a good deal further and faster. The Civil Service college, as the Committee recommended, will be the centre and focus for training in the Civil Service and the teachers it will attract will provide a centre for research into training needs and methods, and in the study of public administration itself.
At this point I refer to the argument put forward in the public debate following the Fulton Report—I think that some hon. Members may wish to support this view—that the college will be an unnecessary duplication of the work of the universities and business schools and, by segregating civil servants, will add to rather than break down the separation of the civil servants from the rest of the community. My answer to that criticism is this. First, as far as the universities and business schools are concerned, we are already making use of courses there and, as Civil Service training expands, we shall make more use of them. Secondly, we do not intend the college to be cut off from the community, nor its students to be cut off from those in other spheres of life from whom civil servants can learn a great deal, and who, in turn, will learn a good deal from Civil Service trainees.
So, as the Committee proposed, we intend to make places on Civil Service training courses available to those from local government, nationalised and private industry and other employments
1550
who can make good use of them. As an experiment, a small number of places was offered to local government this year; and this has been regarded as so successful that an increased offer is being made in the training year that has just started. We hope to stimulate the movement both of outside experts and of civil servants between the college and other centres where public administration is studied, to the benefit of both parties and of the subject itself.
Exactly what will be needed in the way of college facilities is not yet clear. We are trying at first to analyse the training needs of the Service and different parts of the Service before final decisions can be taken. For this reason and because we must work within the tight financial ceilings in force, we do not propose to establish the college immediately but I shall inform the House of likely developments.
Recognising that the total amount of college training will be very great, three centres may be needed, a non-residential centre in London, a residential centre close to London, and a second centre which, we hope, would be in one of the regions. We propose to make an early start by using what so far has been the Civil Defence College at Sunningdale as the first residential centre for the time being. Meanwhile, management training is being expanded as quickly as the available resources permit and along lines consistent with the curricula which we intend the college to adopt when it is established.
In 1968–69, nearly 80 per cent. more central Civil Service management training will be provided than in 1967–68. We hope that resources will allow further expansion to take place in 1969–70. This year the opportunity is also being taken to experiment with the length and content of certain courses; in particular, the 20-week course at the Centre for Administrative Studies is being lengthened.
In my statement in June I said that we intended to make a reality of regional training, particularly on entry into the Service. Since then I have had a report that about 320,000 civil servants, 68 per cent. of the whole Service, are working outside London in regional or local offices and a sample of some of the

1551
Departments with large regional organisations suggests that over 80 per cent. of their staff have past or present experience of working outside London. A very high proportion of these are in the non-administrative grades and on my instructions Departments are working out what can be done to increase the proportion of those not at present designated as administrators who can get more experience outside Whitehall.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: In the siting for the Civil Service College, does what my right hon. Friend said rule out the possibility of using Greenwich?
The Prime Minister: It does not rule it out. This was a suggestion which, I think, I caused to be put to the Committee while it was sitting, as I knew that it was interested. Of course, it would be ideal, but there are other claims on Greenwich. We have not yet come to a decision about the siting, but, meanwhile, we are making use of the former Civil Defence Training College at Sunningdale.
The third recommendation accepted by the Government in general—
Sir Edward Boyle: Before the Prime Minister leaves the question of the Civil Service College, may I ask whether the Government have formed any view on the recommendation in paragraph 102 that the college should also have research functions and conduct research into the problems of administering the machinery of government?
The Prime Minister: The answer to that question is, very clearly, yes. I know that I was speaking rather quickly and I was interrupted once or twice, but I sought to make that point a few moments ago. I also referred to the transfer of outside experts to the Civil Service college and from the college to outside centres. It is intended that it shall be a major centre of research for major studies, but particularly for the functions and needs of the Civil Service itself. We thought that was one of the very many useful recommendations and we support it.
Mr. Gwynfor Evans: When the Prime Minister speaks about
1552
regional training, does he include Scotland and Wales among the regions?
The Prime Minister: I know the hon. Member is obviously very keen that we should consider Wales in this matter. Certainly, I had in mind that Wales, Scotland, and regions of England would all be contained in the examination we shall be making of the siting of the second residential centre. I am delighted to hear from the hon. Member on this point, because I rather had the impression that he wanted to cut himself off from us and not to join with us in this important matter.
The third basic recommendation which was accepted by the Government in June relates to the unified grading structure, the abolition of the class system in the Civil Service. This work is going ahead, although hon. Members will recognise that, if it is to be done thoroughly, basing the whole structure on a detailed examination of all groups, their grading and pay scales, using the method of job evaluation, it will take a very considerable time. The first step is to assemble the information about the various forms of common grading used by the Civil Service in other countries and also in large commercial organisations in Britain.
Sir William Armstrong recently took a team, including the Secretary-General of the National Staff Side, to look at Canadian and United States systems. Following this and the collection of other information, we intend to conduct a pilot study within our own Civil Service. I repeat that the Government means business about this recommendation as well as others I have mentioned. We intend to do this thoroughly in full consultation with the staff side every step of the way.
I have concentrated on the three main recommendations, but I wish to refer to others in the Report. There are a great number of them. That of itself is a tribute to the thoroughness with which the work has been done. I shall not deal with them all, but I will pick out a few. Some of the others can be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General later this afternoon.
First, on recruitment, the Fulton Committee, by a small majority, proposed that Method I, entry by written examination, should continue, while the minority

1553
proposed its abolition. We were already committed, in any case, to the use of Method I next year, so we are not involved with the decision for this coming year, but so that we can take a decision for the future the universities are being asked for their views on Method I and these will be taken into account so that we can make a decision in good time for future years.
On Method II, the House will recall that, on 24th October, I announced the acceptance of the Fulton recommendation that an inquiry should be held into the processes used for selection under Method II and also into ways of speeding up recruitment. Two separate inquiries have been set up on these two matters and are already at work.
Another recommendation of the Committee—also a majority recommendation—was that the selection of administrators should be deliberately biased in favour of those whose university studies have been in what has been a "relevant" subject. The Government, after very careful consideration, have decided not to proceed on these lines. It was necessary to decide quickly. I wish that we could have heard the views of hon. Members in this debate, but we had to decide quickly so that prospective candidates and their universities could know where they stood. It was essential to make a decision on this for the guidance also of the Method II inquiry.
I will not weary the House with all the reasons for the decision, though if hon. Members wish—there may well be two views on this in the House—my right hon. Friend can go into them in greater detail. However, one of the main reasons is that to accept the recommendation would close to the Civil Service a very wide field of possible candidates who have started or who may in future start on their chosen university courses long before they had decided that they wanted to become civil servants, and who had chosen those courses perhaps for other reasons, perhaps non-vocational reasons. Most of us would agree with the Committee, however, in what it was trying to achieve with this recommendation, even if we cannot go all the way with it.
This is why we are placing much more emphasis on "relevant" training after
1554
selection and that is why, in our selection process, we are aiming, with this emphasis on the individual, to seek out and identify not a group of widely varying students with the same relevant academic qualifications, but a wide range of entrants, each of whom, by his personal qualities, academic or otherwise, is a "relevant" man or woman.
I have asked my right hon. friend to deal this evening with all the recommendations relating to establishment, terms of service, matters affecting staff consultation and the role of the Civil Service associations.
Other recommendations, principally to be found in Chapter 5 of the Report, relate to the organisation of Civil Service work. These include the Committee's proposals for introducing accountable management, improved management services, extending the use of integrated teams of specialists and administrators, establishing planning units, and they include, also, the proposal for strengthening the Civil Service management in individual departments and linking these officers with the Civil Service Department itself.
I cannot announce decisions on these recommendations today, but a great deal of work is going on, because the Government recognise, as the Committee emphasised, that Chapter 5, containing these recommendations, is one of the most important parts of the Report. Indeed, a great deal of the rest of the Report, including job evaluation and the grading structure, will depend to a considerable extent on the progress made in organisation in the field covered by Chapter 5.
The House will recognise the relevance of this part of the Committee's work to another subject which is only briefly touched on by Fulton, the machinery of government. Since what I have said today can only be in the nature of a very first interim report, the House should know that, in view of the great public interest in Fulton—which may be a specialist interest, but is, nevertheless, a very important interest—and, in view of the interest in the follow up action to Fulton and the interest in participation by the Civil Service as a whole in what is being done with every aspect of Civil Service management, I have approved a proposal by the Department that it should

1555
regularly publish progress reports in connection with the Fulton recommendations and more widely.
We shall need to consider later what is further needed. There Were important recommendations on that in the Report and we shall have to decide what is the best way of getting this constant examination going on. These reports will, of course, be made available to hon. Members.
The Committee said that its terms of reference excluded one most important subject, the machinery of government, and hoped that this might be reviewed, but it commented on one particular aspect, the possible scope for hiving off responsibilities from Government Departments to autonomous public boards and called for an early and thorough review of this question.
Hiving off is a process which has been examined by successive Governments. I have already referred, when I gave some statistics, to one example of hiving off—the Atomic Energy Authority employees of the Government in 1954. The House has also, in the past few days, given a unanimous Second Reading to the Post Office Bill, one of the greatest examples of the hiving-off process. But the early and thorough review for which the Committee called is already in progress. There is a number of possible areas for examination, but I should not anticipate today what might come out of this review.
Of course, we must set off against the administrative advantages of hiving off—
Mr. Edward Heath: Do I understand then that the Prime Minister is saying that the Government already have a review in hand and that they are not going for a separate review, as the Committee asked, on hiving off?
The Prime Minister: Yes, we are making a separate review ourselves. This should be the most useful thing. I do not rule out, when we have the inter-Departmental and intra-Departmental review of this, the possibility of going to outside experts in this matter; and there is nothing to prevent Sir Robert Bellinger from making suggestions for
1556
hiving-off in a minor way as part of his recommendations.
Having expressed a desire to see progress in this direction, however, we must set off against the administrative advantages of hiving-off the problems of Parliamentary accountability, not only in financial terms but in terms of the ability of hon. Members to put down Questions affecting the interests of their constituents and, indeed, wider matters. The Fulton Committee was unable to examine the broader question of the central machinery of government. I have already gone on a fairly long time, but it would be wrong for me to sit down without saying a little more on certain questions of the machinery of government, which, although outside the Fulton terms of reference, bear markedly on the work of the Civil Service which is covered by the Fulton Committee.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to say anything about getting rid of unnecessary secrecy or of inquiring into unnecessary secrecy both in policy-making and in administration?
The Prime Minister: I have studied reports on this question. That might be the point which my hon. Friend might make some suggestions on today, but it is one which I would rather leave to my right hon. Friend to take up, though as yet I do not think that she will have much more to say on it than I have just said.
Changes in the central machinery of government, which go on all the time under every Government, reflect, or should reflect, the changing nature of the problems facing the country and the Government, though, inevitably, they also reflect the administrative ideas and working methods of the Prime Minister of the day, whoever he may be, and his colleagues. For example, even if they had been dealing with almost exactly the same problems at the same time, Lloyd George would have had very different ideas on government machinery and working than, say, Clem Attlee. Or, if they had been working and living at the same time, Baldwin would have had very different ideas from those of Gladstone or Peel. Thus, because they do reflect the views of Governments, quite apart

1557
from the problems with which they must deal questions of the machinery of government and organisation, even the existence of particular Departments, inevitably become a matter of controversy, for example, between Government and Opposition, but also non-politically between hon. Members even within the same party and between experts in administration studying all these problems.
To take one example, hon. Members on both sides of the House and irrespective of party can and do feel strongly about where the responsibility should lie between two Departments for the education of mentally handicapped children, a subject which has been repeatedly brought up with great urgency at Question Time. I hope to be able finally to resolve that question in time for an announcement next week.
These are not easy questions to decide.
Again—here I am not talking about anything which is, I think, politically controversial—the House will remember that there have been many discussions about a controversial decision of my own to abolish the Ministry of Aviation and transfer the civil aviation—that is, the airline and airport—responsibility of that Ministry to the Board of Trade, which was already responsible for shipping and tourism, and to transfer the aircraft production industry side to the Ministry of Technology, which was already responsible for the closely associated industries of engineering and electronics, as well as being the Department with the principal responsibility for civil research and development.
I thought that this division was right, but there was a great deal of argument and a great deal to be said on both sides. The vertical school of thought, understandably, suggested that the Department responsible for airline and aircraft sales should also be responsible for the design of aircraft and for meeting the orders placed for them by the airlines. But the horizontal school emphasised the close relationship between civil aviation, on the one hand, and shipping, tourism and, indeed, international commercial negotiation, on the other, already in the Board of Trade, as well as the need for grouping the relevant industries together—electronics, aircraft—particularly at a time
1558
when aircraft firms were becoming diversified.
Then we had the same argument again, with the same horizontal/vertical division, over the decision to transfer shipbuilding to join marine and other engineering in the Ministry of Technology, while leaving shipping itself in the Board of Trade. There was a great deal to be said on both sides in this.
Speaking more broadly, there is an important school of thought which supports the creation of large federal Departments. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made this point in his speech at Blackpool. For my part, I agree very much with the federal concept. Since 1964, we have pressed on with what right hon. Members opposite started in the creation of the Ministry of Defence, originally federal in organisation but now becoming more and more an integrated defence unit.
We have united, first, the Colonial Office with the Commonwealth Office. Our predecessors had a single Minister here, but there were two separate Departments and they were about to amalgamate them, I think. Now, more recently, we merged the combined Commonwealth Office with the Foreign Office, which was an historic event in the evolution of the machinery of government. At almost the same time—this autumn—the new Department of Health and Social Security was set up under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, bringing together two closely related but previously separate Departments and providing, through the co-ordinating responsibilities of my right hon. Friend, a greater degree of co-ordination with the other Departments having responsibilities in this field.
I know that there are other areas of machinery of government where right hon. Gentlemen have different views; and we shall no doubt hear them expressed again, perhaps today. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will raise in the future, as he has in the past, the question of our economic machinery.
I should just like to express to the House, to put this beyond doubt, my very clear view—despite, I know, a very deep difference between us on this—that

1559
the creation of the Department of Economic Affairs, with its emphasis on economic growth and on regional development, going far beyond the question of employment in development areas, which is so successfully dealt with by the President of the Board of Trade, and its responsibility for co-ordinating industrial efficiency, which must be the very basis of our economic success, was right and is right, and that more particularly the conduct of that Department by my right hon. Friend and his predecessors has justifid its existence as a permanent, continuing and essential part in the machinery of modern government. But I still understand that I have not convinced the right hon. Gentleman of that.
Perhaps I might refer to another proposal in the field of machinery of government made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, when he aired his ideas recently for a very much smaller Cabinet either than the present one or the Cabinet of our immediate predecessors, which was exactly the same size as the present one.
I should like to tell the House here that on a number of occasions over the past four years I have very seriously considered this idea, because I have always, in theory at any rate, been very greatly attracted to it—not, I hasten to add, that I have had in mind—and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman did in his speech—the concept of a small Cabinet of non-Departmental Ministers on the lines of war Cabinets and, indeed, on the lines of the central part of the Soviet Cabinet system.
Indeed, during the last war Sir Winston Churchill soon found it necessary to bring back into the Cabinet Departmental heads such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others whom he had left outside. In any case, the problems of peace are very different from the organisation of war.
However, I should like to tell the House that a Cabinet of, say, 11 or 12, containing senior Ministers responsible for a wide range of Departments, is one I have examined very, very carefully on a number of occasions. In view of the interest taken in such an idea, perhaps I might give the House the reasons why, after very careful thought, I have on each occasion come to reject it.
1560
First, I think that there is a very real problem of divided Ministerial responsibility. The system of overlords has been tried—for example, in the early 1950s—but it manifestly did not work. It is tempting, I think, to conceive of the idea of one Minister in overall charge of, shall we say, the economic and industrial Departments with subordinate Ministers of Cabinet rank outside the Cabinet in charge of, perhaps, finance, trade, labour, power, agriculture, transport, technology, but under the direct control of the super Minister; or to conceive of a super-Minister for the Social Services overlording not only my right hon. Friend's new Department, but housing and local government and education.
Tempting though it is to conceive of this kind of grouping, I am quite clear in my own mind that the divided Ministerial responsibility involved would cause it to fail.
My second reason is that in the modern world it is inconceivable that the important sectors of our national life, and particularly those employed in and concerned with those particular sectors, should have only a secondary level Minister not in the Cabinet. There are right hon. Gentlemen on the other side who will remember the furore caused by the exclusion from the 1951 Cabinet of the Minister of Education and the justifiable anger it created among teachers, local education authorities, and officers and others concerned with education. Now, with the much greater responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, one could imagine the feelings not only of those I have mentioned, but of the universities and the scientists as well. Again, the exclusion of, for example, agriculture or trade or transport, or the others I have mentioned, would create similar problems—problems measured, not merely by decibels of protest, but by the realities of administration.
The third reason, which I need only mention for hon. Members to work out the implications, though I do not want to enroach on the work of the Constitutional Commission here, is the fact that in any overlord grouping or regrouping—this would apply whether there were separate Ministers and Departments outside the Cabinet or whether there were great federations under a single Minister—there would inevitably be, whether in the economic or in the social grouping,

1561
certain Departments which had full Great Britain responsibility and others where the Scottish and Welsh responsibilities had been devolved to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales.
There has been, I think, something of a problem here also in relation to the merger of Health and Social Security, but I think that we have been able to overcome the difficulties. I think that hon. Members can work out the difficulties which would arise if agriculture became a subordinate Department in a vast economic conglomeration, or if education became an appendage of a vast social service complex.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition who, I think, if I may say so, has made an important contribution in his recent speeches, will ponder on these particular arguments and in due course give us his views about them. I am sure that when the right hon. Gentleman, in the fullness of time—I hope that it will be after many years in his present position, of course: a traditional tribute—will have the leisure to write, as he would with great authority, a book on these problems, he will probably reach the conclusion, as I have done, that what he is seeking to achieve can best be done by Cabinet Committees, the central ones presided over by the Prime Minister and others by other senior Ministers, not excluding committees under less senior Ministers, including some which have demonstrated the greatest vigour—committees composed of junior Ministers presided over by one of their fellows.
Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Will the Prime Minister say a word or two about his views on the position of Ministers in relation to research councils? I agree with a great deal of what he has just said in elaborating his three reasons for not reducing the size of his Cabinet, but does he not agree that there is some case for saying that there is a need for a Ministry to be able to stand back, without having administrative day-to-day chores, to observe the work of research councils in its grand perspective?
The Prime Minister: This was an idea which was considered and reported upon in the Robbins Report. The decision was taken at that time by the previous Conservative Government, and I
1562
strongly supported it, that the right answer was not to follow the Robbins proposal but to amalgamate the responsibilities for science with the responsibilities for education. It means that the Minister is very busy with his Departmental work, but it avoids the other alternative.
Here again, I come to an example of what I called the division between the hoizontal and the vertical problem. It would have meant, on the other hand, either divorcing university research from university teaching, or divorcing university teaching and research from the schools. I think that this difficult problem, where there is always so much to be said on both sides between the horizontal and the vertical, was rightly decided, and we have followed the line that was taken on that occasion.
There is the problem of research councils, whose purity is a matter of great pride to those engaged in them and responsible for them. We have transferred one research council to the production department as it were, so as to integrate the work of that council with the practical problems of the industry concerned. I think that there would be resistance to transferring other councils, for example, the M.R.C. to the Ministry of Health and the A.R.C. to the Ministry of Agriculture, at any rate at present, although the time may come when it would be right to do that. Certainly, I take the point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I have not much more to say about that, except that we are continuously looking at the problem and that it has all the difficulties which our predecessors very fairly faced and stood up to here.
I felt it right to spend a little time on the questions with which I have just been dealing on the machinery of government, even at the risk of wearying the House, because they were referred to in the Fulton Report, even though, naturally, they were not covered in that Report, and they determine the framework within which the public service we are establishing today must work.
Mr. David Howell: Before the Prime Minister leaves the subject of the machinery of government, will he make clear whether the wider review of the machinery of government which the Fulton Report says is so necessary has

1563
already started and will go forward as a separate exercise, and what will be the part to be played by the Constitutional Commission?
The Prime Minister: It is and has been a continuing process. It was done by our predecessors, and important changes were made during the time of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home). The changes that I made in October, 1964, even if not universally agreed upon in this House, were some of the major changes in the machinery of government. Some are no longer controversial; others are.
It has since then been a continuing problem, and I have made a number of announcements this year. It is impossible to refer this subject to outside inquiry, because so much depends on the way the Government is working at that time and the personalities and working methods of Prime Ministers and their colleagues, as I have already argued. Also, in many cases one has to take a fairly quick decision to make a change in the machinery of government which would be quite impossible if there were an outside independent council considering matters.
The answer to the question is that the machinery of government will be continuously reviewed, not only by the Government, but by the House, and by Select Committees of the House, which continue to make recommendations for study by the Government. It is better to do it in that way rather than to have a single inquiry into the machinery of government. In the sense in which I have been talking about machinery of government today I do not think that the organisation of individual Departments is primarily a matter for the Constitutional Commission, although it will be concerned with those aspects I have mentioned, the problems of Wales, Scotland and the regions of England.
As I have said, I thought it right to spend time on questions of machinery of government because, among other things they determine the framework within which the public service has to work. But the greater part of this debate will, I hope, be about the Fulton Report and its recommendations, and about the
1564
action that the Government are taking to carry out the basic recommendations and the philosophy of the Report.
When I set up the Fulton Committee I said in the House that the task on which it would be engaged would be comparable to the historic study by Northcote and Trevelyan. By this test it had to be judged. By this test, I think the House would agree, it has come through with flying colours. Historians of administration centuries from now will probably accord to the Fulton Committee and its members at least as much importance as the historians of our own age have accorded to Northcote and Trevelyan.
The Fulton Committee was concerned, as I have argued, with the efficiency of an instrument which is vital to the success of public policy, no matter what Government is in power. The reforms which will stem from this Report will dictate the shape, the efficiency and the vigour of the public service for the rest of this century and far beyond.
Ending as I began, the Committee's Report is also a human Report, dealing with the lives, the working conditions, the prospects, the avenues of promotion, the opportunities for fulfilment and self-realisation, the ambitions and hopes of close on half a million of our fellow citizens and constituents.
As I have said, there have been heart-searchings about some judgments expressed in the first chapter of that Report and the inevitable presentation of that chapter in the public Press. The Committee, not least the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend, who are experienced in the ways of the Press, must have known what the Press reaction would be, and they went ahead. What I want them to know is that, whatever feelings this first chapter may have engendered, the mood of the public service is to accept the recommendations of the Report, to accept the sincerity of those who were asked, most of them from outside, to investigate the Civil Service; to accept that the Committee was concerned with the rights of every individual member of that Service as they were with the efficiency of government itself, and to accept, not in a spirit

1565
of complacency but in the constructive determination to see that the Report's recommendations were carried through the Committee's tribute to the exceptional ability of civil servants at all levels, to their integrity and impartiality and their strong sense of public service. That tribute I know the House will wish today to endorse.
4.36 p.m.
Mr. Edward Heath: The House is very glad to have this debate on the Fulton Report, and is indebted to the Prime Minister for telling us about the conclusions so far reached by Her Majesty's Government and for giving us a progress report on the steps which have already been taken to implement them. I also welcome the fact that the Civil Service Department is now to publish regular progress reports about the developments as they occur.
In the concluding minutes of the Prime Minister's speech he strayed, very temptingly, into the ever fascinating sphere of Cabinet building and Government reconstruction, about which I may have a few words to say a little later. This subject is perhaps more attractive than a discussion of the classes and grading of Her Majesty's Civil Service, but I am sure that we shall not overlook that this debate is mainly about the Fulton Report, nor shall we underestimate the importance to the Service of the recommendations of the Report on the detailed life of those who are proud members of the Service.
I have already welcomed the Report and thanked Lord Fulton and his colleagues for the work which they have done. This is not the only personal debt which I owe to Lord Fulton, since he was my tutor for three years at Balliol. Since then, we have differed in the political paths which we have followed, but at least I find myself in agreement with the main recommendations which he and his colleagues make in this Report.
I rather agree with what I sense to be the Prime Minister's feeling on the first chapter of the Report. I do not altogether find myself in agreement with its tone and, to a certain extent, I regret the style which it adopted, since it appeared to do somewhat less than justice to the Civil Service. To speak of
1566
amateurs, or even gifted amateurs, is, I think, a grievous under-estimate of the approach of a Service which is professional in that its members are professional administrators.
To recommend that the administrative techniques need to be brought up to date, or that additional techniques should be added is one thing, important and acceptable, but to say that civil servants are, in their own terms, amateurs, or gifted amateurs, has done less than justice to them, and has tended to undermine morale in the Service. I hope that what the Prime Minister has said today, and what hon. Members will say, will do much to put that right. I feel that if the Committee were now to rewrite that chapter it might perhaps adopt a different approach.
The public presentation of the Report has diverted attention to a certain extent from the real importance of the proposals, and detracted from the impact of the Report, but again the debate today will, I hope, help to redirect public attention to the important matters.
I agree with the Prime Minister on the question of the position of civil servants in our public life and the size of the Service. The size is largely dependent on the policies which are pursued by Her Majesty's Ministers. Ministers alone are responsible for their policies; the civil servants have no responsibility for them, and they should not be criticised for them. When there is, therefore, a criticism, either in this House or outside, at the size of the Service, this cannot, and must not, be criticism of individual civil servants themselves.
Another aspect is that it may be that the number of civil servants required is to a certain extent because modern and up-to-date techniques are not being used in some aspects of the Service. An obvious example, although a controversial one, would be the whole question of Government procurement. It might be that if there was a rationalisation of Government procurement in the same way as some of our great corporations have adopted a rationalisation of their own company procurements, the number of civil servants could be diminished. This, however, is only one aspect of the matter, but it indicates that size can be changed by the adoption of different techniques.

1567
I would like to offer a few reflections, I hope fairly briefly, on certain of the salient features of the Report. Every hon. Member is likely to draw on his own experience as a Minister or as a Member, and, indeed, as a member of the public. I draw on mine as a Minister in two great home Departments, the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade, but I would also like to draw to some extent on three years at the Foreign Office.
The Foreign Office was outside the terms of the Fulton Committee, but quite a lot can be learned from the Foreign Office and the Foreign Service and the home Departments of Whitehall. It has always seemed to me that the organisation of the Foreign Office is, in many ways, exactly the opposite of what this House and the public conceive it to be. In my experience, it is the most democratic and the least hierarchial of all the Departments in Whitehall.
In my view, the home Departments have a great deal to learn from the method of operation inside the Foreign Office. Its system of promotion by the joint meetings of Permanent Secretary and Under-Secretaries, with the Permanent Secretary in the chair and Ministers present, is, I believe, in many ways the most effective and, for the members of the Service, the most satisfactory system of promotion which exists in Whitehall and one which gives those in the Service the greatest confidence.
As Government Chief Whip for four years, I also saw the whole Whitehall picture of machinery of government, which aroused my interest in it. I join with the Prime Minister in his concluding words of tribute to the high intellectual ability of the Service and its complete integrity. I think that sometimes the Committee tended to give less than due weight to the soundness of judgment of the Civil Service in matters of human affairs. I have always found it immensely understanding, particularly, perhaps, in the Ministry of Labour, of social problems and of individual matters. The immense capacity for hard work by those in the Service is fully admitted certainly in this House. Loyalty to Ministers and devotion to their Service they possess to a quite unusual degree. I admire the Service for all these qualities and as a former Minister I am
1568
grateful to those in it for the Service they give, These are features which we should be determined to keep whatever other changes we want to bring about.
I am of the opinion that Ministers can be better served, and the Service itself can benefit, by the proposed changes in the Fulton Report. I accept the division into administrators trained in management, which, I understand, is the conception of the Report, and specialists. It seems to me that acceptance of this division has considerable implications for our universities. Perhaps the Paymaster-General can tell us whether any discussions have been carried on with the vice-chancellors about this aspect of their affairs. Government will require a larger proportion of the Service to be specialists of one kind or another. This will mean specialisation in their first degree at universities and obtaining specialist qualifications, such as architects and in other ways.
Admittedly, those trained in management will be administrators first, but this will also require the universities to look at the number of people they produce who have training suitable for administration. Today, this does not mean only the Greats, or the classical course, as was thought at the time of Trevelyan. It includes geographers, sociologists and people with other skills. The universities will have to look at the question whether they are producing a balance between specialists and those with degrees suitable as administrators to be trained in management and to see that they at least produce something in the way of the numbers that government requires.
It seems to me that the main problem of the Report is how it is to be implemented and over what period of years. If the recommendations are right, as I believe that they are, they should be implemented as speedily as possible. The key to this is the Civil Service Department. My view is that in its formation—I understand that this is already under way—it requires men from a wide cross-section of Whitehall. It does not meet the case merely to take the existing Department out of the Treasury and call it the Civil Service Department. It should draw upon people with a wide experience of Whitehall and of all generations. Moreover, where they are

1569
available, it should call on the men who have the management techniques which the Civil Service Department will have to tell the rest of Whitehall that it must adopt.
When it is formed, if those members of the Civil Service Department do not have the managerial techniques they ought to be the first people to go, if not to the Civil Service staff college, at least to the business schools, or to Henley, to get the techniques, because they will not understand what they are going to try to bring about in Whitehall unless they have had such courses and, to a certain extent, have the techniques. What is even more important is that they will not give confidence to Whitehall, and particularly to the younger generation, if it is thought that they themselves have not had this experience. In the formation of this Department, that is extremely important.
The next thing on which I would like to comment is the Civil Service Commission. In many ways I am sorry to see it disappear, but I was in some way assuaged by the statement by the Prime Minister that members in the Civil Service Department will still have their own independence. The Commission may have been slow, and some members of Government Departments may have thought that it was out of touch, but I believe that it had a public reputation for impartiality and integrity which was an all-important part of the Trevelyan-Northcote conception which is still vitally important in our public life. I hope, therefore, that everything possible will be done through the independence of these individual members of the Civil Service Department to maintain that confidence of the public.
One thing which I would like to say about the Civil Service Department, including, as it does, the Civil Service Commission, relates to the Prime Minister's last few words. As far as I can see, there is no continuing organisation to deal with the structure of government. It is true that we, when in power for 13 years, made individual changes; it was usually done on the recommendations of an internal report, perhaps by the Secretary of the Cabinet or some other high permanent official.
With the introduction of these management techniques into the Civil Service, a
1570
wide variety of changes of a different kind will be required. This will need a continuing body to look at the internal structure of Departments of Whitehall. As far as I can see, a gap still exists there. If I am wrong, the Paymaster-General can correct me. Otherwise, this should be marked as a point to be looked into if we are to be able to take full advantage of these changes.
My third point concerns the Civil Service staff college, which I fully support. I do not think that it is in the least a wasteful conception. Outside institutions already have their hands full, as anybody who has visited the business schools in London, Manchester, or Henley knows full well, and, of course, they have to draw on outsiders for lecturers.
I am not, however, in agreement with the suggestion in the Report, which the Prime Minister has endorsed, that for its students the college should also draw on outside sources, and for two reasons. First, it will have quite enough to do to give the additional management training to the young men and women who come into the Civil Service with their first degree and want to be management administrators.
The second thing which has to be done is to give management training to those who are already in the Civil Service. The Fulton Committee estimates this as occupying a period of 20 years. Twenty years is a very long period to bring about changes of this kind. I would have thought it better for the staff college to concentrate on the Civil Service rather than to invite others from industry, or even local government, to come in at this stage.
My second reason is that, in my view, the staff college should concentrate on management and administration in government. This is not the same as management and administration in business. It can be similar to it, but it will never be the same, for the reason of public accountability, about which I shall have something to say later. If a staff college is to try to carry on a joint approach towards industry and local government and central Government, I believe that it will weaken the essential drive to introduce management into Whitehall itself. For that reason, I would much prefer that the staff college concentrate on this one main function.
Mr. Eric Moonman: While appreciating the reasons the right hon. Gentleman has given for its trying to concentrate on the work of the Civil Service, may I ask whether he would not recognise that one of the advantages of involving industrialists at the college would be that this would create an environment, an atmosphere, a mood, call it what we will, which would be of nothing but good to the civil servants in bringing them to work alongside them on projects?
Mr. Heath: That is true. It is a question of priorities, and I give the first priority at this stage, and, as far as I can see, for some years ahead, to the technique of management in the Civil Service. There are ways, of course, in which it can get the advantages the hon. Member has mentioned.
My fourth point is the reorganisation of the grades, their simplification, and a reduction in their number. One can see the advantages of this, particularly from the point of view of the management of the Civil Service by civil servants, and one advantage, certainly, is that it would greatly help in the difficult and delicate matters of negotiations on salaries, but we must not underestimate the magnitude of the task of the simplification of grades. I can quite see that it would give encouragement to specialists, and there are to be more of them, who, in the past, have thought their opportunities of improvement and promotion have been more restricted than they ought to have been, but it gives me one major cause for anxiety.
Those who, in the past, have gone into the administrative service have known they were going into a group about 2,500 strong. It was, therefore, a comparatively small group; they could see their way in the future years to their promotion, and they knew that the opportunities of getting right to the top as Permanent Secretary were of a reasonable kind. For this reason, it attracted much of the best intellectual ability from our universities.
My anxiety is that, once there is the simplification of grades and a continuous grading system in the Civil Service, these people will no longer see their future anything like as clearly as they have done in the past, and that this may discourage
1572
the best brains from coming into the Service. They may go into industry and be welcome there, and, perhaps, too many already go into the City and merchant banking. There are grounds for hoping, however, that others will go into industry. However, it will be a loss if they do not come into the Civil Service in the same numbers.
The only method I can see of dealing with this is the method adopted in the Foreign Office, the method which they call colloquially the "high fliers" list. From the earliest stages those thought to have outstanding ability are noted and marked down, and the list is reviewed, in the way I have described, at least once a year. This gives confidence to those who have particular abilities in the particular spheres in which they work. If this or a similar method were adopted the civil servants would feel that they were not being overlooked in what will be a very large Service, indeed. I put this to the right hon. Lady as one means of dealing with this problem if grading is simplified and becomes one continuous grade.
My fifth point is that of policy advisers and planning units. It seems to me that the Committee, to a certain extent, overlooked the fact that Ministers, when they come into office, assume office with policies and with commitments to the electorate, and that the Committee rather discussed the whole question as if one discussed policy in the abstract. This is, in some ways, a dangerous attitude. What is important is that those in the Service should have the time and the opportunity to look ahead in order to identify problems and issues which will be arising some distance away. To do this they must not be bogged down in day-to-day detail. It is perfectly true, that they may put forward possible solutions and policies on particular issues which they see arising; at the same time, they always have to think of the collective policies of the Cabinet and the Ministers of the day.
Looking back to my years in administration, one of the things which concerned me was that it was very important that from Government advisers we should have what I would term, colloquially and loosely, straight thinking—to try to identify problems and issues clearly, and that they should try to think out a policy

1573
which would lead to a solution as logically and clearly as possible. Then, I believe, they should discuss it and thresh it out with those who are handling day-to-day issues. Otherwise, Ministers tend, in my experience—and I have had to handle policy advisers and units of this kind—to become detached from policy formation in Government and in Government Departments.
Therefore, my conclusion is that it is a perfectly good recommendation to have planning units and policy advisers—they exist in some Departments already—but they must operate through the Permanent Secretary; they should not operate direct to a Minister; they must have the confidence of the Permanent Secretary and in my experience, a hard-pressed Permanent Secretary is only too anxious to know that there are people able to look ahead and work out solutions which they will then present to those who are dealing with the day-today issues.
I mentioned straight thinking. There are many who think that a weakness of the Service in the 20 years since the war has been that in policy formulation thinking gets distorted in a number of ways. Some times it is because officials, although they see clearly what a solution ought to be, think it may not be entirely acceptable to Ministers, and, therefore, they think they have to work towards something which is.
In my view, their responsibility is to produce what they think is the right solution. Then, if the Minister wants to alter it, he ought to be quite clear what he is altering and know why he is altering it. This gives a chance to reach the right conclusions. One of the ways it gets distorted is in the inter-Departmental committee system, because this leads to a constant search for comprises when a better solution might be found than an indifferent compromise reached as the result of inter-Departmental activity.
This has led me to ask myself: is there any way in which we can deal with this? When I was concerned with the European negotiations as Lord Privy Seal, my delegation were responsible to me and not to their individual Departments. We discussed what we hoped would lead to success in the negotiations,
1574
within the terms of reference laid down by Parliament, and though they came from different Departments their work was concentrated on this one function, and when we had reached an agreed conclusion, then we had to sell it to the Government Departments. This is the reverse of the procedure which normally happens in an inter-Departmental committee.
In this respect, I want to comment on one other thing, because this has been a matter of public comment outside, and that is, what is supposed to be a difference in outlook of civil servants and those who are engaged in their daily lives in business or manufacturing. They say that the Civil Service is not at all businesslike. What they are really saying is that the job of the Civil Service and Government Departments is still to administer and that it makes no difference that they have to administer with public accountability. In business, one is taking personal decisions in which one takes risks and the responsibility for them. It is this which accounts for the difference of outlook.
The submission I would make is this, that with the introduction of management techniques into the Civil Service as proposed by the Fulton Report certain questions of public accountability will arise. This is why I think there should be a continuing look at the structure of government from the point of view of the internal organisation of Departments. If one aspect of a Department's work is considered suitable for the use of management techniques, I do not believe that we shall be able to have the same degree of public accountability.
This is acceptable provided the House of Commons knows what is happening and is prepared to say, "In running this aspect with modern management techniques, it is clear that certain risks had to be taken. They were taken. Sometimes they were successful, sometimes they did not come off." If we are prepared to adopt this new approach to public accountability, the line suggested by the Fulton Committee can prove successful. If we insist on every safeguard upon which we have insisted in the past with pure administrative techniques, I do not believe that management will have a chance.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is there not a quid pro quo in that argument? If detailed accountability is not to be given to the House, it should be engaged at an earlier stage in the formulation of policy. Therefore, the Select Committee system, taken with the straight thinking about which the right hon. Gentleman has been talking, might be the answer to this problem.
Mr. Heath: I have expressed the view before that bringing the House into policy discussions earlier is valuable and that the provision of more information by Government Departments is a valuable asset. I am not asking the House to abandon detailed accountability. All that I am saying is that we should consider whether we adopt a new attitude towards what is given to us as information on which to base decisions about accountability. It is a new attitude of understanding. If management techniques are adopted, there will be certain risks in them, and if we want to get the advantages, we must be prepared to take the risks.
It is suggested that all would be different if only businessmen were brought in to run Whitehall. That is the argument in its most exaggerated form. Various Governments have brought in individual businessmen, some with great success. It was done by Conservative Administrations, and it has been done by the present Administration. Sometimes the result has not been successful, and the reason for it needs examination. If a businessman is to hold his own, very often he must do so in arguments with people of great intellectual calibre. If any specialist, be he businessman, scientist or anyone else, is to hold his own in arguments in a Government Department, he must have this intellectual calibre as well as business or outside experience.
This must be one of the criteria by which a judgment is made. Another is that every good businessman brought in to the Government from outside is a loss to business. In my experience, high-calibre businessmen are not so numerous that we can afford to draw on them regardless for the work of Government.
The Prime Minister: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is
1576
another problem which I have encountered very often in working with businessmen in Government Departments? It is not so much a question of their being of lesser intellectual calibre. Sometimes they are less articulate, because, whereas civil servants are trained to write minutes and to express views clearly, very often the businessman takes decisions which involve risks without always being able to set out in detailed, written form the reasons for so doing. Very often it is done on the basis of hunch or flair, and with great success.
I can remember, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman can, working alongside businessmen who have given their decisions and we have had to say to them, "For God's sake, do not explain the reasons. You are probably right, but if you try to put your reasons on paper they will not convince anybody".
Mr. Heath: I agree. This is another important aspect of the problem concerning those who come in from outside and play a full part in the organisation of government.
Another aspect of the Fulton Report on which I should like to touch is that Ministers should be able to bring in from outside a small number of individuals to work with them. This has been done in the past by both the Labour Party and Conservative Party when in office.
The matter which concerned me as a a Minister was that a Minister is able to get advice from his Department on departmental affairs, but, as a member of the Cabinet, it is difficult for him to get a detailed analysis of the work of other Departments for discussion in Cabinet. One's own private office is heavily burdened. Those in it serve with enormous devotion and immense efficiency. But this is a general problem in the context of collective Cabinet responsibility. The more complicated and technical the matters which members of the Cabinet have to handle become, the more important it is that they should be able to have recourse to independent advice about proposals from their colleagues in other Departments. Perhaps this could be of help to individual Ministers, provided that the matter is properly handled.
I come to the point which the Prime Minister mentioned about the machinery

1577
of government. The proposed changes will undoubtedly help to improve the executive resources of government. But this does not solve any of the problems of the machinery of government. Some have said that a Committee should have been appointed to consider the machinery of government and that it should have been followed by the Fulton Committee to consider those who would serve the machinery of government. That is an academic matter now.
However, these changes cannot produce good government. This is particularly true about the management aspects which have been raised by the Fulton Committee. If there are some aspects of government which should be run on a management basis—and I think that there are quite a number—then to have these people trained will not produce the answer unless we are prepared to treat particuar parts of Government Departments as management spheres. That is a decision which can be taken only by the Prime Minister of the day.
There is also the general problem of the Cabinet. In the 19th century, the Cabinet was concerned largely with political matters in which there can be collective responsibility by thrashing out an argument round the table. The work of any Cabinet today is, to a much greater, and sometimes a majority, extent, concerned with the allocation of scarce resources, which means the establishment of priorities. The most difficult thing is to reconcile collective responsibility and the allocation of priorities between colleagues who are collectively responsible. That is the problem which faces us in our Parliamentary and Cabinet system today.
Looking at the structure of government, the one sphere in which there is no clear division of functions or any deep thinking is in the organisation of the economic Departments. This is where the requirements of thought and change lie—the Treasury, the D.E.A., the much diminished Board of Trade, the Department of Employment and Productivity, the old Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Technology. This sphere needs very close study.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking of his old Department and mine. It would be wrong to say that it is much diminished. While there has been a growth of work in
1578
development area matters, with regional developments, apart from development area employment, the Board of Trade has been greatly strengthened by the transfer to it of responsibility for shipping and aviation questions which, in my view, are immensely suited to it, alongside the tourist work which has also been expanded.
Mr. Heath: I recognise the changes which the Prime Minister has made. But, in general, the Board of Trade is no longer considered to be the main industrial Department, as I think he will agree it was in his and my time, because of the changes which have been made.
One thing which concerns me about the machinery of government is the speed of decisions in many matters affecting industry. This is another problem which must be carefully examined when trying to change government structure. One of my main objectives is to speed up the decisions which must be taken now in so many spheres.
I wish to raise with the Prime Minister the question of the arrangements at No. 10. The right hon. Gentleman has a private office. There is the Cabinet Secretariat. There is the Civil Service Department. I understand that there is a small office for the scientific adviser. There is the question whether there is separate economic advice. This now means that there is a considerable number of independent organisations responsible to the Prime Minister without any unifying force except the Prime Minister himself. This does not correspond to any other sort of organisation in Whitehall, and I suggest to him that, in looking at the structure of government, this is one of the spheres which needs very careful study.
Whatever machine we may have, however the structure of government may be changed and the improvements which will now result over a period of years from the Fulton Committee's Report—and it is bound to take time—we shall not get good government unless Ministers are able to inform themselves properly and are prepared to take the necessary decisions at the right time. Without that, no Government machine and no Government service can work effectively.
However, it seems that, if we produce a more efficient Government machine,

1579
there is a danger or even a likelihood that the citizen will consider that it is more powerful government. I am of the view that more effective government is necessary. Therefore, I have to accept that some citizens may think that it is more powerful. In my view, the answer to this is that the check on the Executive of this House and the other place must be seen to be effective.
This poses a number of problems for ourselves which we must admit we have not yet solved. We carry a great burden of legislation and legislative committees. There has been a somewhat half-hearted attempt to add to that something akin to the inquisitorial committees of the United States Congress. I have felt more and more that to pile one on top of the other can lead to the danger of a breakdown in our Parliamentary arrangements and, as a result, we shall get the worst of both worlds.
I do not accept that we have succeeded in bringing about a proper Parliamentary reform to cope with modern times. We have still a great deal of thinking to do about it if we are to convince the citizens that the Executive has a proper check in Parliament. One of the difficulties is that, in the 1930s, to which allusion is sometimes made, many hon. Members on the back benches had time, resources and so many contacts of their own across the world that they had a vast supply of independent information. It is more difficult for most of us today to have those resources and that supply of independent fact and opinion. Therefore, it is all the more important that Parliament should operate in a way which enables individual members to have that.
The other factor borne upon me by the development of more effective government is that we must develop a better system for redressing the grievances of the individual citizen. The Ombudsman has shown that he is able to act effectively, but in a comparatively limited sphere. Therefore, there is the possibility of making further progress with that sort of arrangement or by considering some administrative legal check on our administrative processes. Those are the two directions in which we have to think.
I see the modernisation of our democratic system of government about which
1580
the Prime Minister has spoken from time to time, as he did in his speech in reply to the Address, consisting really of three developments: more efficient and effective government; a more effective check by Parliament on the Executive; and more effective redress for the individual citizens of the grievances which he may think that he has.
5.14 p.m.
Mr. Eric Moonman: I should like to take up the last point raised by the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) that this is not simply a question of our efficiency in government but also raises important elements of discussion about the role of the citizen. I agree that there is something of importance here and that we ought to try-to establish a proper mechanism of checks on the authority of the civil servant in relation to the citizen.
Basically, I suggest that this is not a radical Report. A former distinguished civil servant has said that it could not be. The Committee has diverted attention from its relatively mild proposals by presenting its criticisms in a ferocious way. It is rather like the old-fashioned doctor who believed that it was possible to increase the potency of a quite ordinary drug by speaking sharply to the patient and making the medicine look horrible. That is borne out in the first part of the Report, and there is no doubt that sometimes the language is extremely fierce.
I want also to pay tribute to those civil servants whom I have known and worked with. They are extremely devoted people. They give enormously of their time, efforts and energy. However, the Report is about the efficiency of the Civil Service and the effectiveness of individual members of it. Therefore, it is on this level that we should base our attention and criticism.
Mr. Sheldon: When my hon. Friend says, as no doubt other hon. Members will, that the language of the Report is fierce, I think that it would help us if he explained where it is fierce and what arguments he adduces in favour of it.
Mr. Moonman: I will come to that later in my speech.
I want to make three general criticisms of the Report in the first instance. My

1581
first is that, while it provides a case for the improvement of men and their positions in the Civil Service, it does not question strongly enough the machinery of government. We have heard the Prime Minister say that this is a matter for constant review by the Government of the day. I do not accept that. It seems to me that it is only possible to examine an organisation by looking at the efficiency of the individuals within it. A very serious factor associated with the running of the organisation is the way in which it is structured. There can be no logic in the way in which the present structure operates.
Historical circumstances have brought together Departments, Ministries and offices because a very powerful Minister in one Department has carried with him a brief or portfolio from another. In 1922, a powerful President of the Board of Trade was able to set the standard and the responsibilities for that Department for a number of years. Therefore, I do not think: that anyone reasonably can argue the logic of government structure, and it is a pity that the Report did not go further into this area, although it was not encouraged to by its terms of reference.
My second general criticism concerns the Ministerial assessment of civil servants. It is extremely difficult to carry out, but there is no doubt that Ministerial-Civil Service relations are becoming more and more uncertain as a result of the Ministerial merry-go-round which takes place. How can Ministers, described by Beloff as
"the phantoms who come and go at such a rate",
hope to acquire the basic knowledge necessary to understand what it is that the Civil Service provides in the way of portfolios and information?
It is a process which can be justified to some extent by the need to give Ministers a series of different experiences in different circumstances. But there is also a strong argument that the individual Minister is not given a chance to know the details of the Department concerned, and the Report raises the serious criticism that Ministers are not in a position to assess the competence and performances of their senior civil servants.
1582
This is an important function of a Minister, though certainly the Civil Service structure and organisations must provide its own assessment of its officials. But, at the highest level, the man who is in the best position to judge the competence and wisdom of civil servants is the Minister. However, if the man is changed every six or nine months, we lose that important area of assessment.
My third general criticism is that a country's performance is not likely to be better than the education given to those who turn out to be the governing groups in the public and private sectors. An examination of management training in the Civil Service cannot be seen without relating it to the level and quality of management training in industry, the trade union movement and other forms of organisation in our society. This has been established by the Brooking Report, by Peter Jay in The Times and by the Fulton Committee. Clearly, the long-term effects of education, training and management development in the Civil Service 20 years ahead are part of the wider problems of managerial training in general.
I will just mention one or two detailed points. First, we have seen that there is criticism of the all-rounder. He is a luxury that we cannot afford. As more and more parts of social and industrial life come under public administration, the Civil Service becomes, in numerical terms, predominantly an organisation for management and Government servants are in business over a wide range of activities calling for special skills from the scientific and technological to the sociological. It seems that in many ways the products of Civil Service training are ill-fitted for the job. The Fulton Committee wants to abolish all the present distinctions as irrelevant to contemporary needs. This might be felt to be an exaggeration. I do not think that it is. I think that the Fulton Report is right to make this point.
Comparison with a report of a similar kind in the United States shows very vividly the way in which the American Government machine has tackled the same problem. The way in which American Government Departments and Agencies now use, for instance, "behavioural scientists" is a sharp reminder to us. The term "behaviour sciences"

1583
in the course of that report includes all the major disciplines—economics, political science, psychology and sociology.
The point of attack of this problem is the integration of such qualified people into the American Administration. They feel that this is succeeding in imparting research, knowledge and information at critical levels. It has been used to some extent in the Bureau of the Census and also in their economic advisory systems. The value of this is to recognise that with the new disciplines, ranging from psychology to management science, we ought to be able to recruit people with this specialist area of knowledge and give them the opportunity of being involved in policy-making as well.
The economic advisory system in the Federal Government has three main aims. It is worth commenting on this, because it makes an interesting contrast with the Civil Service here. First, that there should be large-scale participation by professional economists in improving the Federal statistical system; secondly, the creation of high-level advisory agencies, such as the Council of Economic Advisers; and, thirdly, pressure for more basic research in economics both inside and outside government.
I could go into greater detail on this subject, but I only wish to establish that there is this contrast with the way in which we have attempted management training in the Civil Service. My right hon. Friend might like to refer to this and to suggest that some inquiries might be undertaken to see how far the American concept of using behavioural sciences could be introduced into the British Civil Service.
I also feel that it would be useful to know what the Civil Service thinks of itself. We can all add individual pieces of gossip and generalisation, but this is not what I mean. It is annoying and disturbing that we are not able to have at our disposal the attitude survey carried out by the Treasury and studied by the Fulton Committee. It would have been of great help in trying to establish some validity in personal impressions. However, I have a newspaper report of the survey, which says:
"Among the main findings are that a third of civil servants either dislike their job or are indifferent to it, and about a quarter of those
1584
under the age of 40, the crucial recruits, regret that they have joined the Civil Service.
The survey also shows that many civil servants think that the promotion system gives poor protection against 'unfair influence', and that almost all executive and clerical officers are up to the standard required in terms of ability."
A further point which I will quote from the newspaper article on the attitude survey, which is a most telling one, is:
"One of the main lessons of the survey is that the Civil Service is in fact attracting the right men and women. The main criticism appears to be not of the civil servants themselves but of the way the available resources are being used."
Clearly the way in which the resources are being used is the point made in a first-class demonstration of an attack on the problem in Volume 2. This has been referred to by the Prime Minister and others. There can be no doubt that this is a brilliant analysis of the Civil Service.
Another brief point that I would make—
Sir E. Boyle: On what the Civil Service thinks of itself, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that in Volume 5, particularly the second half, there is a good deal of comment from members of the Civil Service on how they think the Service should work—for example, the paper by the independent group of members of the F.D.A. in Volume 2, which contains a lot of useful thoughts.
Mr. Moonman: Yes. I was thinking in terms of a valid assessment of the survey. The reference that I have given would perhaps be more impressive, but I take the point that there are individual comments. We can also make individual comments.
I welcome two other points in the Report: the transfer from the Treasury of the new Civil Service Department of Central Management Services and also that Ministers should be encouraged to appoint advisers and experts. This goes a long way towards meeting the need of having specialist advice, to which I referred earlier. But this is not quite the danger suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.
One point which is not taken into account seriously enough in the Report,

1585
but I hope will be by the Government, is that the encouragement for greater growth in the number of people having training and greater interest in management development will highlight a serious shortage of trainers. This has been recognised in industry. As industrial organisations have latched on to training—indeed, they have been encouraged by the Industrial Training Boards to take the greatest advantage of their levies—we have reached the critical point at which there is a recognition that there are not enough good quality people to go round to do the work. Therefore, I hope that it will be realised that although quite a large number of people can be brought in to do the training, the planning, and the co-ordinating of management development—and these can come from consultants or industrial organisations—a large measure of responsibility must lie with the Civil Service. Therefore, the Civil Service College will play an important part in this direction.
There is one other area which the new Civil Service Department should examine. That is the activation of the scheme to bring together personnel from Government and industry. This is why I intervened earlier. One way in which we can get civil servants identified with the mood and the environment of industry is to have them working alongside industrialists on projects both in the college and outside.
Mr. Anderson: Does my hon. Friend recognise the danger that industry is unlikely to give up its high flyers, and that the people who are likely to be sent to work alongside civil servants will be the also-rans?
Mr. Moonman: The reference that I was making—indeed, it was the point raised earlier by the Leader of the Opposition—was that at the college—and this arose from a recommendation in the Fulton Report—there should be a number of places allocated to people from industry. I think that the right hon. Gentleman's feeling was that this was not the first priority. I believe that industry would welcome the opportunity to send a number of people for this type of course. It is already happening, and there is no reason why it should not continue.
1586
The other example that I offer is that the Treasury and the C.B.I, have agreed that there should be more organised two-way exchanges. This is still too haphazard, and it may be what my hon. Friend has in mind. There is not sufficient encouragement by industry to send the high flyers on a nine or 12 months project. Industry has its representatives on a number of committees and they meet civil servants and are thus able to exchange ideas on "little Neddies" and on many of Whitehall's committees. But a more positive approach is required. The one way in which this can be done at certain grades is at the Civil Service College.
The most heartening feature of the Report is the implication that the Committee and the Civil Service are beginning to understand the great deal of knowledge and skill that is available in industry. We have to be selective. There are the different aims of the policy-making bodies, but, nevertheless, the management content that will be increasingly required by the Civil Service is not so different from industrial management. If we are talking seriously about the use of management techniques, operational research, and organisation and methods, it should be possible for industry to help with the exchange of information and ideas. If this happens, it can only be to the benefit of the Civil Service.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Peter Hordern: This is an important and, in a sense, historic Report. It is the first Report on the Home Civil Service for over 100 years. It is a radical and contentious Report which, if carried out, will change the whole practice of the Civil Service. Yet it poses more questions than answers—questions which are more relevant to our condition than the Report itself. It poses questions concerned with the machinery of Government, as well as constitutional questions, and especially those concerned with what might be termed the practical management of Great Britain.
The Report answers none of these questions. It will be said that such questions were not within the Committee's terms of reference, yet there are sections in the Report concerned with relations between the Civil Service, the public and Parliament and which should have been

1587
concerned with management. The Committee is itself guilty of ignoring what it terms the basic guiding principle of the future development of the Civil Service. That principle is summed up in the words "Look at the job first."
What is the job of the Civil Service? Surely it is to serve the Government of the day, to advise where it can and guide when it can, but always to serve. It has this simple but vital rôle, which the Committee has not begun to grasp. In paragraph 7 the Report says that the role of the Government has greatly changed, that these changes have made for a massive growth in public expenditure and that public spending means public control. It says:
"A century ago the tasks of government were mainly passive and regulatory. Now they amount to a much more active and positive engagement in our affairs."
That is true, but it does not mean that it will be true for all time, nor that it is desirable that it should be true. Least of all is it an excuse for creating a vast juggernaut of a machine to match what is euphemistically termed "these new tasks of government". Quite the reverse. It is a common observation that the power of the Executive is growing and should be diminished.
But I do not discuss the Executive from any philosophical viewpoint—although I am not ashamed to do so. I do so on the ground of good management—of getting what we want at the cheapest cost. My criticism of the size of the Civil Service and its organisation is bound to lead to the accusation that one is concerned only with cutting the benefits of the Welfare State, but the Brookings Report showed that our social services suffer in comparison with those of other countries, and that they are grossly overmanned and expensive on any cost-benefit analysis.
The message of Fulton is that the Civil Service is not technically competent to perform the task that it is invited to perform. One might ask, how could it be? If, as I understand, the Department of Economic Affairs was formulated by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) in the back of a taxi, and the Department of Employment and Productivity was formed to please the right hon. Lady the Minister, how can we expect the
1588
Civil Service to keep pace with the changes brought about by political pressures? I suspect that the reasons for the shortcomings of the Civil Service must be laid not so much with the methods of the Civil Service but with the tasks that it is asked to perform. The plain fact is that it is management that is at fault. The many criticisms made by the Management Consultancy Group should have been levelled not at the Civil Service but at successive Governments.
With this principle in mind I should like to make some comments on the Committee's specific proposals. The criticism of the all-rounder seems to me rather cheap, as is the criticism that many scientists, engineers and members of the specialist classes get neither the full responsibilities nor the opportunities that they ought to have. I wonder what evidence there is that scientists and engineers made good managers. What makes a good manager is a first-rate mind and a flair for organisation. It matters not how that first-rate mind be trained—whether in Greats or Sciences or the Arts.
It is easy to talk about the importance of numeracy, and I agree that the prospects for sophisticated administration have been revolutionised by the computer and that we are not making sufficient use of it. But, speaking as one who has completed a course on computers and has studied their application in many countries, as well as at home, I submit that there is no need to get a specialist skill and become exclusively numerate in order to handle computers properly. There is a much more urgent need to become more literate in studying and explaining their use. To talk of being professional, therefore, in terms of having a specialist's skill in obtaining a good manager, is just nonsense.
I turn now to what the new numerate, literate and managerial civil servant is to do. We are told that he should know what his objectives are and that his performance should be judged by his results. This is reasonable enough, but I confess that I do not know how much the work of the Departments can be so organised. How far can we make a service into a project? How can education or health be provided as a project? If it can be made susceptible to project management, in the way that, perhaps, housing can,

1589
would it not be possible not only to hive it off but even to denationalise it and take it out of the sphere of the Civil Service altogether? That is my main criticism of the Report.
Sir E. Boyle: My hon. Friend has been a shade sweeping. He has asked what evidence there was that these other specialist skills could be used more in managerial positions. He will see that in Appendix D of the main Report we refer, in paragraph 4, specifically to the evidence that we had on this subject. Most of it—not quite all—is published in the later volumes of the Report.
Mr. Hordern: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I shall certainly look again at Appendix D and examine the evidence.
I am not convinced from any observation that I have made, apart from the evidence, that good scientists necessarily make good managers, or of the counterpart—that the generalist is, by virtue of not being a scientist, a bad manager.
My main criticism of the Report is that the question is not whether skilled managers could do their job better but whether: hey need to do their job at all in the various Departments of the Civil Service. Although this is intended as a criticism of government, I would yet contend that it comes entirely within the Committee's terms of reference and that it is a question that has been ignored.
These improvements cannot be expected to flourish unless there is a real attempt at proper management. It is suggested that a new Civil Service Department should be set up which should be under the control of the Prime Minister. This the Government have accepted. The object is to wrest control of the pay and management group from the Treasury, but I am not convinced about this. What I am convinced about is that there should be a new rôle for the Cabinet Office itself. It should be a co-ordinating role—a management rôle. The management rôle is not only to settle policy but to work out the implications of the various policies adopted by different Departments.
Let me give one small example. In my opinion, the White Paper on the
1590
Government's fuel and power policy was worked out on the basis of various projections given by different fuel industries. It was a carefully worked out document, entirely accurate in all its estimates, as far as one could observe. The criticism that one can make against that White Paper, good as it was, is that its policy was not co-ordinated with the Ministry of Labour, as it then was. Had there been a separate Management Department—to ask the Minister of Labour what were the prospects of running down the numbers of coal miners when sufficient number of training centres had been established—I believe that a different conclusion could have been reached in the White Paper itself. One cannot avoid the impression, under various and successive Prime Ministers, that they sometimes do not know all that is going on. We think, for example, of the proliferation of the Winter Emergency Committee and other ad hoc committees, and I remember even Mr. Macmillan being caught by surprise on one or two occasions.
This suggestion for a management rôle for the Cabinet Office goes a good deal further than my party's policy, which is simply to set up, under the Prime Minister, a small administrative unit to ensure that the latest management techniques are introduced throughout the public sector. I have a much larger rôle in mind for it—not only a management role, in the sense of discovering what is happening and what the proposals are in other Ministries, but also a planning role in the sense of finding out what is happening in other countries and what developments may affect us. This is a development which occurs to us more and more as time goes on, with the increase in technological knowledge and the effects that that has all over the world.
The idea of a strengthened management unit in the Cabinet Office is more akin to the proposals of the Haldane Commission in 1918, which said:
"It appears to us that adequate provision has not been made in the past for the organised acquisition of facts and information and for the systematic application of thought as a preliminary to the settlement of policy and its subsequent administration."
It suggested that a special Department should be set up to carry out research. I have in mind something much more like the Council of Economic Advisers

1591
to the President of the United States, but with the added authority to ask why certain things are being done in this way of any Department of State. If this question were asked, I do not believe that the Civil Service would retain its present structure or size.
I can illuminate that by contrast with the civil services of Germany and the United States. Our Civil Service now numbers 474,000. In Germany, a country of the same population, the number is 272,000. In the United States, the number is 1¼ million—that is, 2½ times our number, with four times our population. Yet these two countries seem to manage their affairs reasonably well—
Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Member must be aware of the specious nature of his argument, since in Germany there are land governments and in the United States state governments, beside local governments as well. These comparisons are utterly meaningless, therefore.
Mr. Hordern: The hon. Member in his turn must be aware that there are local authorities here, and that the comparison is apt.
What we should be concerned with is not only the structure and size of the Civil Service but its management capacity and the devolution of the Civil Service within the local authorities. It is my observation that central administration is better run by a smaller service, perhaps with more power for local authorities, than with a large central service.
There is a strong prima facie case not only for a reduction in the size of the Civil Service, but also for a very different role from that suggested in the Report. The Committee said, referring to the Parliamentary Select Committees, in paragraph 281:
"It would be deeply regretable, however, if these committees became an additional brake on the administrative process. We hope, therefore, that in developing this closer association with departments, Parliament will concentrate on matters of real substance, and take fully into account the cumulative cost (not only in time but in the quality of administration) that the raising of minutiae imposes upon them."
I hope not only that the Select Committees will take up much more of the time of the Civil Service, but that their number will be increased.
1592
The counterpart of strengthening the power of the Executive which a stronger Cabinet management office would have, must be to strengthen the powers of inquiry by Parliament and this House. I am very attracted to what I thought were the ideas of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) on this subject. It seems an impertinence of the Committee to suggest that this House should be asked to keep its inquiries to a minimum, when the role of the House must be to ask more and more questions of the Civil Service and to find out how our affairs are being conducted.
In this respect, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when he said at Blackpool that the next Conservative Government would strengthen democracy
"…by ensuring that Parliament can perform its duty of controlling the Executive…"
meant precisely that. In this debate, we have been dealing with the powers and capacity of the Civil Service, but we cannot do so without ourselves questioning the structure of the machinery of government. I believe that the time has come for another full-scale outside inquiry into the machinery of government. I am not convinced that the surveys which have been described today, conducted by successive Governments, are sufficient for this purpose. Parliament's whole role needs to be reassessed. I feel that we should have a further Royal Commission to study the structure of government itself.
5.46 p.m.
Mr. William Molloy: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) too far, because, when examining a very full Report of this character, we have to select parts on which we want to concentrate. But his remarks about the United States and the German administrations revealed an appalling ignorance of the true situation regarding their civil services and ours. The very fact that we are more or less a unitary Government while they are federal shows how appalling his figures are. For instance, if the United States started to catch up with us in social services, with a National Health Service, for instance, it would have to employ many more so-called civil servants. They cannot have it both ways, and nor can the hon. Member.

1593
The almost psychological element in his contribution was that, although he had some praise for the Civil Service, he showed the in-built opposition of hon. Members opposite to the Civil Service. I have seen this on many Committees and in the House, when all sorts of aspersions are cast on civil servants of all ranks. The constant knocking cry is, "The gentlemen in Whitehall know better." Yet when it suits their purpose, we are also treated to a wonderful eulogy like that which the Leader of the Opposition gave today. We have seen the same sort of thing at Question Time.
I must pursue this, because I find it particularly irritating when hon. Members opposite, as is their right, plead for certain things for their constituencies—better roads, new hospitals, more schools, improvements in this and that—but at the same time want to run down the Civil Service. They seem to be qualifying Disraeli's remark that the Conservative Party is nothing but "an organised hypocrisy". They have a responsibility to press for these things, but only in a major debate of this kind do they find something good to say about the Civil Service.
Having got that off my chest, I now want to comment on the Report. I, too, find the wording of the opening chapter a little offensive. I believe, as the Prime Minister has already said, that if the members of the Committee could have known what the reaction in the Press and other places was going to be to their opening remarks, they might have selected more judicious terms. It has been one of the great safeguards in our political life that we have never attached ourselves too much to the idea of having the specialist in charge, the man at the head blinkered in one particular outlook. We have an example in the Chamber now. Only a few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General had totally different responsibilities. This happens whatever Government are in power.
It is good that there should be change within the Civil Service, with people moving round from office to office, so long as they have the basic intellectual capabilities and, what is more, a true feeling for the improvement of life. This is what the Civil Service is all about,
1594
doing as much as it can, within the terms of reference put to it by the Government of the day, to improve the quality of life in our country. Therefore, I view with some apprehension the idea of a decree laying down that people at the head of Departments within the Civil Service must be specialists of one kind or another, and my apprehension is fortified by the knowledge of the past record of some of our senior civil servants who made a magnificent contribution in times of peace and of war.
I come now to items of detail in the Report. For the rest of my speech I shall concentrate on what I call the lower echelons of the Service. I regret, though I can understand, the failure of the Report to say much about the conditions of service and aspirations of junior civil servants. I have in mind what is said in paragraph 100, and I shall comment on that later, but relatively little is said on this subject, and from neither the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister nor that of the Leader of the Opposition did we hear much reference to what I regard as the fundamental element in the structure and efficiency of a happy and well run Civil Service.
All forms of human organisation, large and small, depend upon the base of the pyramid, and this is particularly true within the Civil Service. The base of the Civil Service pyramid is, on the non-industrial side, the clerical officer, the executive officer and the clerical assistant, and, on the industrial side, the fitter, the bricklayer, the carpenter and so on. The position of civil servants in these grades may appear at first sight not to be relevant to the fundamental purpose of the Report, but we ignore it at our peril.
These junior grades at the lower levels of the Civil Service are a cross-section of the vast majority of ordinary people in Britain. This is why I say we neglect at our peril their aspirations and their desire to get on. Very many people in the Civil Service have found that, because of existing structures and procedures, their aspirations have been stultified and they have been, as it were, compartmentalised or departmentalised.
On page 47 of the Report, there is reference to terms of service and pension arrangements. I could say a good deal in this connection, but time will not

1595
allow, so I shall ration myself to commenting on paragraph 137, which urges the awarding of pensions to temporary staff. I am delighted that the Commission has made that recommendation. This has been an oversight for far too long. Many people who entered the Civil Service as temporary civil servants, perhaps during the war or shortly after, have found that, because of the nature or terms of their employment which were negotiated hurriedly at the time, they could never be anything but temporary.
There is nothing so permanent as being a temporary civil servant. It must be irritating to the individual. It is an anomaly. What is more, it is an injustice. People who have given 25 or 30 years of service find, on retiring, that because of a grading scale which calls them temporary, they can have only an inferior pension or, sometimes, no pension at all. I hope that my right hon. Friend will comment on this most important aspect of the Report.
I am pleased that the Report acknowledges the value of the work of the staff associations, but I am a little concerned that it seems to recommend that the grading of new jobs under a reformed structure would not be determined, as has been done hitherto, in consultation with the staff associations. In the past, the staff associations have played a part in the definition of gradings, but it now seems that the grading of individual jobs is to be a matter for management to determine on its own. Perhaps the staff associations have already agreed to this in principle. If they have—I have heard a whisper that they have—I consider that they have been thoroughly myopic.
If there is one respect in which the Civil Service has a good deal to teach the rest of industry, it is in the relationship of the various branches one with another and, as it is usually called, the relationship of the official side with the staff side in the Whitley system. Although the Report has some criticism of the Whitley system, it acknowledges, as many industrialists ought to acknowledge, that it has played a massive part in smoothing out many trouble spots at all levels in the service which, if they had been left to fester, might have given rise to great problems.
One of the great influences for good in the Civil Service has been that, if a
1596
Department had to reorganise itself or make changes, it took into its confidence the staff side officials right from the start. I regard this practice as one which, if it had been adopted in industry, might have prevented much of the disturbance which we have had in post-war years, and I certainly hope that it will be continued in the Civil Service.
A remarkable fact is revealed if one examines the disruption and collisions which have taken place in industry and compares them with their counterparts, so to speak, in the Civil Service. I fully support the great industrial trade unions and recognise the magnificent work which they have done, but a massive contribution has been made by the staff side negotiating within the Civil Service. The Whitley system, operated at all levels, whether with reference to a local canteen or, at the other end of the scale, in defining gradings, rates of pay and so on, show industry a great deal in how mbark upon and continue intellige d sensible negotiations.
I regard as somewhat alarming the suggestion that, perhaps with a view to more speed and quicker decision, Departments should be allowed to determine the level of gradings within themselves without consultation with the staff side. I hope that the matter will be reconsidered.
Now, a comment on what the Leader of the Opposition said about participation by Parliament and Members of Parliament in trying to understand how our counterparts in the Civil Service operate. I am all in favour of such participation; I regard it as desirable, but, if hon. Members want to get to the nub of the question and to understand the philosophy behind it, I recommend them to read Aneurin Bevan's "In Place of Fear" in which he deals with this problem neatly and succinctly. I should like to make the same recommendation to my right hon. Friend. What Bevan said in his book was that far too often we hear people cavilling at the Civil Service, at faceless people who have enormous powers. If one does that, it must imply that the elected representatives have not similar authority or power.
If we are to have closer liaison with the Departments of State, as I believe we should, to try to understand how they run and how they are trying to interpret

1597
what we say here, we must at the same time equip ourselves. I find it particularly distressing when constituents come here to speak to me about something involving a Department or a personal problem, and expect me to take them to my office in the House where the whole story will be taken down by my secretary. I have to tell them that I do not have a room, and I have to find a little bench somewhere around the Central Lobby or—the best gag of all—buy them a lunch in the cafeteria. That is what Members have to do. If I see a higher executive officer or anyone of that status about a constituent's problem I go to a nice room with a large desk and with carpet on the floor. A button is pressed and the secretary comes in for the civil servant. Unless we correct this sort of thing, we do not deserve to have a proper liaison and understanding.
We in the House must have the courage to do something about it. If we do, we shall have not only a better liaison and relationship with Departments of State but we shall become more efficient Members. At the same time we shall be able to understand more clearly the problems not only of our constituents but of the civil servants who are trying to resolve them. We must have the courage to say this loud and clear.
There are some recommendations in the Report that I endorse. I should like to think that the college which is spoken of will come a little more quickly than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister suggested today. It seemed to me that his reply to an intervention about the prospects of the college being established implied that it would be done by degrees. But I hope that we shall reach the final answer very quickly. I also hope that we shall acknowledge that there are dangers in the concept, though I approve of it in the main. Probably the majority of those who enter the Civil Service do so on the basis that it will be their career. They wish to work their way through, take their examinations and so on. After giving many years to a Department, one can have nothing more frustrating than to see someone called in from outside to pip one for promotion. We must have a look at this very human aspect of a difficult situation.
Let us not always talk of the Civil Service in the context of university gradu-
1598
ates. Let us consider the possibility of young men or women entering the Civil Service as clerical assistants, or even paper keepers or messengers, having an opportunity of getting right to the top and becoming permanent secretaries, if possible. This could be done by use of the training machinery in the Civil Service and by encouragement. Not much of this sort of thing happened in the past, because our general education system did not allow for it. But now, with improvements in the education system, there are opportunities for extra training, including day-release courses and so on, which were not available when I was a young man. Young people who may not qualify for higher grades in their initial years in the Civil Service must be told, if they are conscientious and wish to get on, "Yes, you can. If you make your contribution we shall see that the doors are open for you to get on in the Civil Service. You do not have to start with a university degree." We must say this loud and clear to the many thousands of young people who will enter the Civil Service in the future, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will take note of this.
I conclude as I began. We can have, and have had, brilliant people within the Service, which has had to be enlarged to include scientists and technologists. Our Civil Service probably reflects life in the country as a whole. For example, before the war I would not have dreamed that there would be a connection between the Civil Service and coal miners, but this has happened, and we have had examples this afternoon.
I hope that we shall not forget that the success of any big organisation depends on happiness at the base of the pyramid as well as efficiency at the apex. If this is borne in mind, and all grades of the Civil Service right the way through are given the encouragement and understanding of Parliament and the institutions of the Civil Service, our nation will be better served. It is still true that we have probably the most efficient and best Civil Service in the world. I believe, as an ex-civil servant, and having talked to civil servants in my job as a Member of Parliament, that in the main we have people who are not merely devoted to their job but realise that their contribution in their work as civil servants is to

1599
improve the quality of life of their fellow citizens.
6.8 p.m.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: I shall say no more about the speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Molloy) than to suggest that, like the Civil Service, much of it might with advantage have been cut. Nor will I comment at length on the size of the Civil Service, beyond noting that the present Government appear to believe that they need about 70,000 more civil servants to discharge their policies than were employed in 1964.
So that there should be no doubt about this being a matter for political criticism rather than criticism against the Civil Service, I am sure hon. Members will have noticed the statement in paragraph 294 on page 97 of the Fulton Report that:
"Throughout our work we have been conscious of the widespread public concern over the growing size of the Civil Service."
Then paragraph 295 begins:
"…the size of the Service is related to the size of the tasks directly carried out by the government.;"
If the Civil Service is too large, as I believe it to be, it is because the Government are doing more than they should be doing. Let us pin the blame on them.
This has been an important and significant week of debate, talking all the time around a central point that we have never yet quite reached. On Monday our debate was about the franchise, yesterday and the day before about the other place, and today we are talking about the executive arm of the Administration. But somehow, possibly as a deliberate consequence of the Government's approach to the matter, we had never reached its nub—the function and value of this House—although some Members have come close to it. I dare say they are exhausted by their efforts in the debate yesterday and the previous day.
As a matter of curiosity, I note that at the moment, waiting to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, there is no Member who was in the House before 1964, with the exception of the occupants of the two Front Benches. I take that as a compliment to my generation. We have not yet been taken in by the three-card trick
1600
which the Government have played successfully on all the rest of the House. We realise, and many who are not here also realise but are too exhausted by their previous efforts to take part in this debate, that the function of Parliament is the central issue, the issue of the greatest importance, and that without discussing this we cannot form any valuable or successful judgment on the Report of which we are now invited to take note.
I want to touch on the relationship between the Administration and the House. I follow a point made by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Moon-man). Although we know that the machinery of government was outside the scope of the Fulton Committee, excluded from its terms of reference, in fact it is crucial and has been widely admitted to be crucial in many other areas, apart from the Fulton Report.
May I quote from an interview which took place on B.B.C. television on 19th January between the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Social Services and Sir Paul Chambers, with Ian Trethowan in the Chair? Almost at the outset of the right hon. Gentleman's comments I find the following passage:
"I have often said that we are the worst informed Parliament in the world in the sense that we get less information from the Government than any other Parliament. I have also learned that we are probably the worst informed Government in the world and that when we take decisions we take them on often desperately inadequate information."
I will not inquire which decisions he meant, although I could suggest some, such as the cancellation of the TSR2.
That was an analysis by a senior Minister of a flaw in the system and, unreliable as evidence though we know this particular right hon. Gentleman to be from time to time, I am nevertheless prepared to assume that if that was what he said in January, 1968, he has not wholly changed his mind in November, 1968.
That being so, we have to ask whose fault it is that there is this flaw. Certainly it is not the fault of the Civil Service, and it is not the fault of the Treasury who are so often brought into the dock to take the blame for the whole of the Civil Service. The fault lies with us. It lies with Ministers in allowing themselves to be put in the position of taking decisions on

1601
"desperately inadequate information". It lies with hon. Members in allowing Ministers to be in that position. We must face it: if we are to think about the Civil Service, we must start our thinking here
The Fulton Report mentions the gifted amateur. Some amateurs are less gifted than others—and that applies to many other places, too. It applies equally to Ministers. In a sense, Ministers are "shamateurs". They are not truly professional, although they are paid. Not all of them are equally gifted. I will not follow that line of argument, fascinating though it is, but perhaps I may again quote, from the same interview with the right hon. Gentleman, another fascinating passage in which he talked of the Civil Service:
"There are first-rate experts there, but the majority are overworked men who have to run a section of a department and they're moving round the department, or moving round the place, they are not experts, and they don't know very much, and you can get ghastly mistakes because the department simply doesn't know. So to come back to my other point, information, information, information."
I must interpolate that that is yet another indication of a peculiar Crossmanite fallacy that the more information you have the wiser you become.
The Paymaster-General (Mrs. Judith Hart): The hon. Member might also bear in mind my right hon. Friend's indication of just how inadequate we found the information-gathering machine of Whitehall when we came into power in 1964. He will be familiar with our efforts in statistical services and other directions to improve the flow of accurate information, which is needed equally by civil servants, Ministers and hon. Members.
Mr. Onslow: I am delighted to have provoked the right hon. Lady into making her first intervention, but she will not divert me from concentrating on the text of one of her colleagues, which is rather more interesting and more relevant to what I have been arguing. Continuing with the quotation, Mr. Trethowan said to the right hon. Gentleman,
"But, on top of that, you've also got, surely, a situation where the minister is, very often, the least expert of all, I mean, by the very process of political life."
1602
To that the right hon. Gentleman replied—and I realise I may have an imperfect transcript—as follows:
"Well, he, you know, he acquires, he can acquire, you can acquire an incredible amount of knowledge very quickly."
He then makes the important point:
"What I'm reminding you of is that many of these civil servants are moved so often that they really aren't very much more expert than you are if you're there a couple of years—well, you should be able to hold your own against them."
There, apparently, is the justification in the right hon. Gentleman's mind—the fact that the nature of the game and its rules produces an equality of ignorance. I do not regard that as a very satisfactory state of affairs. Equality of ignorance in administration can mean that neither Ministers nor civil servants can beat each other at the game, but if we are seeking to improve, as we are, the quality of civil servants by getting more real experts, by getting more expertise and more experience into the administration—regardless of whether someone is pipped at the post for promotion, which is a secondary affair in the public mind—then the imbalance against Ministers becomes more serious and, as a result, the imbalance against the House becomes all the more serious. That is because Ministers will no longer be able to beat the administrators, because we have made the administrators more knowledgeable and more expert men.
I want to see experts in the administrative side. If we must have a Minister of Technology, which is a debatable question, I would far rather see Sir George Edwards or Sir Arnold Hall in the post than the present incumbent or anyone who may replace him from the Government Front Bench—or, indeed, I admit, from my own Front Bench. I would much rather see men of that calibre in the job. The same is true as we go down the line.
We come to the crucial point that if there is a serious obstacle which Fulton has not been able to overcome we must ask, where does it lie? I suggest that it lies in the Ministerial system and that there are two obstacles to improvement which we must consider. The first is a question of quality and the second a question of continuity.

1603
The quality available to the Front Bench or to the intermediate benches between the back benches and the Front Benches—those benches which seem to be so full whenever a three-line Whip is issued—depends at the moment on membership of the House or of the other place, and primarily of this House. That is a somewhat random process for which there is no training and, incidentally, which gives no security. It is somewhat ridiculous in the eyes of people outside the House, and to many in the House, that there is thought to be some magical quality deriving from membership, from sitting here representing people of a particular constituency—a magical quality which turns the trick between a man being able to be a Minister of the Crown and a man lacking the ability to be a Minister of the Crown. Of course, that is not in fact the position. It is a matter of the myth of accountability. A man has to be a Member of this House or of the other House to be a Minister in order that he may be accountable.
Mr. Molloy: The hon. Member is wrong. It is within the Prime Minister's power to make someone a Minister without his being a Member of either this House or another place.
Mr. Onslow: If that is within the Prime Minister's power, I wonder why he found it necessary to ask Mr. Frank Cousins to stand for the constituency of Nuneaton when he made him the first Minister of Technology.
I do not think that there is any magic quality in membership of the House which qualifies a man to become a Minister. I do not think that there is any particular factor in the House which trains a man to be a Minister. Mastery of the House of Commons is frequently advanced as a sign of a man's quality. Let us take as an example the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has often been praised in the Press as a master of the House. In certain circumstances, winding up the debate with half an hour to go, he displays a considerable mastery, but, with all respect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that tells us nothing about his capacity as a Minister. It is misleading to suppose that because a man can master the House, he will make a good Minister. It would be almost as
1604
foolish to suggest that because a man becomes Prime Minister, his golf handicap might come down; there is no connection.
Sir E. Boyle: I am genuinely interested in and surprised by one thing my hon. Friend has said. Surely the capacity of a Minister to pilot a Bill through Parliament, for example, and the capacity of civil servants to brief him and to help him to be responsive to the will of Parliament is one of the most important aspects of government. I would have thought that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members would have wished to lay more rather than less emphasis on that aspect of the work of civil servants.
Mr. Onslow: I am attempting to analyse what seems to me to be a central defect. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing out that there are other functions, but while it would take too much time to go into it fully, I do not think that he would convince me that there was no other way in which legislation could be piloted through the House, unless he were to deny me access to the American example. These things can be and are done in other places and we should not dismiss the possibility that they may be done here.
The other factor is continuity. I very much regret the fact that this place is so often thought of as being, in a good way or a bad way, the high road to governmental office. This is a great inhibition upon us and we sometimes delude ourselves about our own qualities because people say that when there is a change of Government, certain Members are sure to get jobs. I do not see why they should necessarily be any more sure of getting jobs than other people with better qualifications, but lacking the magic qualification of the letters M.P. after their names.
Because there is this need of Members of Parliament to display their abilities in such ways as they can, but not to become over-specialised because it is then said of them that they are men good for only one course, we are unable to take such advantages as continuity could give us. The electoral swings see to it that, within limits, there is not continuity of membership, but there are places where continuity can be of value, particularly

1605
in the Specialist Committees. It is not simply that the Specialist Committees should be able to continue in existence in spite of everything, without being cut off because there are not enough individual Members to man some other Committees and the pack must be reshuffled, but because the expertise developed in this way would be of great value to the public body as a whole. That could only be of advantage—and it might lessen some of the acrimony which sometimes gets into our debate—would be if more of us, on both sides of the House, knew more about the subject.
I quote the right hon. Gentleman for the last time, but I do so briefly.
Mr. Molloy: Oh.
Mr. Onslow: I shall ration myself to less time than the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) took.
Towards the end of the same interview the right hon. Gentleman said:
"…the biggest single problem we have is communication between the British people and their elected people…".
Wrong again. The biggest single problem we have is communication between the elected representatives of the people and the people who administer the system of Government. The right hon. Gentleman does himself no service by perpetuating the myth of the gulf between Parliament and people. The gulf is between Parliament representing the people and the Administration governing the people. That is where the gap is and that is where the bridge has to be built.
I was much encouraged to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) touch on this subject, because I have no expectation of seeing any reform in this respect made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I know that the people want it. I believe that they are far more interested in this, the accountability of Government and the openness of society, than they are in votes at 18, or in the powers of the other place, because they know that the latter two are secondary matters and the first is a primary matter, and people have sense, reluctant as so many of us sometimes are to credit them with it. People instintively know a great deal more than the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is prepared to allow.
1606
We in the Opposition are pledged to this. We want an open society. We want an efficient Administration controlled in conditions of genuine bureaucracy—democracy—[Laughter.] Genuine bureaucracy and genuine democracy are not necessarily incompatible and I would not mind a match being made between the two, because we must admit that if government is a necessary evil, it is best for it to be a genuine bureaucracy rather than an art nouveau bureaucracy with the twiddles and twirls which add nothing to its functions, but with which we are all so familiar.
I come now to my peroration. I endorse what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley and I should like to say how much heart I draw from it, because I believe that this is a subject in which as a party we have a great deal of work to do and to which we will have to give a great deal of thought. We have also to admit to ourselves that if we are to secure progress and improvement, we have to recognise the need for changes in the Ministerial system, because this is the only way in which we can succeed in getting what we all want—greater power for this House, and so for the people.
6.26 p.m.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I note the attempt of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) to be constructive on this occasion. My only comment is that he has not been much more successful than usual.
I was pleased with the way in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister introduced the debate, because of his full praise for the Fulton Committee, which was endorsed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, but much more because of his commitment to implement the Report, especially his ready acceptance of the need for the Civil Service College and his recognition of the early need for a Civil Service Department. What pleases me most, because I feel that this is the key to the whole question, is his acceptance of the open structure of the Civil Service replacing the complicated arrangements of grades which were the barrier to its proper development.
I must confess my debt to both my colleagues, with whom I felt honoured

1607
to be associated during these long years, and to those who gave evidence willingly and easily.
I approach the whole of this problem from the point of view of my own needs and expectations of the Civil Service. What I want from the Civil Service is the implementing and carrying out of the policy which I feel to be desirable, together, of course, with the continuing need for an effective administration with its ideals of fairness and efficiency. The ordinary processes of administration and the carrying out of the Government's policy are largely interwoven, and it is not easy at any one stage to say where one ends and another begins. To take a rather complex matter, prosperity is so much partly political and partly administrative. One finds this interdependence in so many respects that the separation of the two, the need to carry out a particular party's policy and the need to produce administration, is much more difficult.
The intermingling of the public and private sectors has led to the need for change in both the Civil Service and civil servants to produce the men and the organisation required. We only have to think of the Government involvement in the computer industry, the shipbuilding industry, Government help in rationalising certain industries, encouraging mergers and taking a part in British industry today, to know that the old frontiers between what is public and what is private administration are becoming that much more blurred. What we need is an organisation which takes note of this blurring and produces the kind of people we need to deal with it. We all know that Whitehall does not know best, and we know that it ought to know a great deal better. If there are to be these areas, whichever Government is in power, where such blurring exists, we need the kind of people who will make those decisions in the interests, not only of the Government, or civil servants, but in the interests of British industry.
The old nineteenth century idea that the Civil Service was an organisation which held the ring and made sure that there was fair play between the competitors, largely private industry, is totally outdated. The Government are not in the position of an arbiter any more. For example, in the Department of Employ-
1608
ment and Productivity, in this area where one would have thought there were solid, important reasons for the Government to be neutral between management and employees, the Government have, wrongly to my mind, involved themselves by saying that they have an interest which they must pursue. This attitude of Government involving themselves in all parts of the economic industrial framework is obviously growing and cannot be held back.
It is there and is growing, because the people of this country say so. It is not the views of the Government which determine this, but the views of the people. Whenever anything goes right or wrong, the Government get the blame or praise, and the people attribute blame or praise to the Government and no one else. We say the best example of this in the "Torrey Canyon" disaster. As soon as the "Torrey Canyon" ran aground we heard the cry, "What are the Government doing about it?" In the nineteenth century, if a Prime Minister or a Cabinet Minister had heard that the "Torrey Canyon" or its equivalent had run aground, he would have turned over in his sleep and that would have been the end of it. It would have been something for the ship-owners or the poor people who found oil on their beaches. In this case it was understood and expected that the Government were directly involved.
This is part of the process we have seen, particularly in the post-war years. When Macmillan won his election in 1959 it was because he was held to be responsible for the economic state of the country. Whether it was right or wrong, his Government were voted into power because of that. As soon as one claims responsibility when things are successful one finds blame attributed when things are unsuccessful. It is the people who decide that the Government are responsible for these matters and whether it is true or untrue, Governments will be elected and defeated by the way in which they carry out the important tasks which the people wish to be undertaken.
Because of this, it is necessary that any Government faced with responsibility must find the means of implementing that responsibility. So, a whole range of new tasks are being imposed upon civil

1609
servants which were not imposed before. Coupled with these new tasks is the increasing complexity of the whole industrial and economic framework. The whole of society is becoming much more complex.
Mr. David Howell: Does the hon. Gentleman not feel too that the Government have a responsibility for guiding people and explaining to them what they cannot do, explaining the limitation of their actions, say, in the controlling of prices? If they claim they can influence prices they will be blamed when they cannot do so. Is there not a danger of claiming too much responsibility?
Mr. Sheldon: I have not said that the Government should try to claim responsibility for everything. There is an increasing feeling that the Government are responsible and will be held responsible. It may be that they might go ahead of the field at any moment, but this is a minor point. As society grows more complex, as the demand by civil servants for greater responsibility grows, there is the need for these changes within the Civil Service machine. We also have to pin down within that machine the responsibility for decisions being attributed to individuals.
I have never been a believer in collective responsibility. Leaving aside the Cabinet aspect of this, which is a particular one, we all know that collective responsibility can very often be a means of avoiding responsibility. What we also need within the Civil Service is the ability to lay the blame or heap the praise upon individuals so that they can be rewarded when they have been successful or be reproved when they have been unsuccessful. The difficulty at present is being able to praise or blame individuals. They are moving around so fast that one is dealing more with a body of men and less with individuals. At the end of the day it is individuals who count, who must be rewarded or reproved.
The other complexity in the Civil Service is the way in which issues interlock one with the other. The idea that one can attack a problem on its own, solve it and implement it without anything else being changed, is something of the past. If one decides that one is to have an increased school building pro-
1610
gramme, we know that it will have an impact on the building programme generally, on land resources and so on. If one wants to build more hospitals, we have to consider the supply of doctors and things like the educational programme. Every big undertaking the Government accept, and most of the decisions of Government are big in the absolute sense, too, have an enormous impact on a whole range of problems which have to be considered in order to produce a successful solution.
Mr. Dalyell: Did the Fulton Committee find any problem in establishing some kind of meaningful criteria by which individual performance could be judged? Surely, by its very nature, what a civil servant does may only be judged over a five- to ten-year period.
Mr. Sheldon: We went into this question. Although one cannot, except on a long-term programme, prove that a civil servant's solution happened to be the most successful solution, in practice one can define the nature of the work carried out, and make a judgment in the same way as we are judged here. We are judged on whether we sound reasonable and convincing. It is this that determines many of our attitudes. This may be wrong, but it is the best way one has in the limited time scale available.
Mr. Dalyell: Take, for example, the Ministry of Transport. We are judged not according to what we do, but by what our predecessors of whatever party did five or eight years beforehand.
Mr. Sheldon: I accept that there is the obvious problem of a four-year Parliament and 10-year decisions, and the necessity to match these. However, if my hon. Friend will allow me I will not go into this, as I have a fairly lengthy speech.
The main point is that this increase in complexity means that if we are to study the ramifications of any policy thoroughly, we need to have a collective decision-making process, involving a number of outside interests. It is not enough for Whitehall to get a number of people within its organisation to make the decision and then announce it. If one is to take into account all the consequences arising from a decision of that magnitude, one needs also to take into

1611
the decision-making a number of the outsiders as well. We are seeing nowadays a greater degree of consultation. This is one of the big changes that we have seen in the last 10 or 15 years.
I go back therefore to my earlier point, that if we are to bring about the changes which I want to see we need to get in Whitehall not only civil servants who are good, but civil servants who understand the changing nature of the problem which they have to face. Although at one time it was acceptable to have the Greats man in large numbers in the Civil Service, today, with its involvement in industry, we also need a large number of people who are prepared to operate within the field of Government relations with industry.
One of the great problems for all civil servants is the nature of their responsibilities. The prime purpose of a civil servant as he sees it himself is to look after his Minister and to carry out his Minister's policy and views. We have, therefore, from the Permanent Secretary downwards, a whole range of people primarily looking upwards to the Permanent Secretary. However, these Ministries have grown in size and complexity, and so there is a management problem at the same time. Therefore, although we have a structure which is looking up to feeding the Permanent Secretary, this has tended in many cases to take the place of a structure designed to manage the whole of the Department. This management function has been very much neglected. With the running of an organisation of over 400,000 people, the management function has become extremely important.
The task of obtaining this level of expertise in the Civil Service is made more difficult not only by the kind of recruitment that I would tend to oppose. I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about this. There is, I think, a strong case for "relevance" which the majority of the Committee proposed. Where it can be shown that a certain body of knowledge is more likely to be obtained when one is a young man, preferably as an undergraduate at a university, in an increasing number of cases knowledge of that kind is unlikely to be obtained later. Mathematics is probably one of the best examples. If a
1612
person is not a mathematician by his early twenties, he rarely becomes one later.
There are many more areas which have this specialised body of expertise which cannot be read up later and assimilated in quite the same way. I believe that the areas of specialised knowledge which needs to be attained early in life is growing. In many areas of economics, for example, the subject is no longer one which can be read up in later years.
There are, of course, gifted exceptions to every rule, but in the main, if people with specialised knowledge are needed, it is just as well to try to go out and get them rather than make good the deficiencies later. This is my argument, not for recruiting the specialists instead of other people, but for giving them some sort of preference in the marking scheme. With a total of, say, 300 marks, perhaps 10 might be awarded for a preference of that kind.
If we really want economists, mathematicians and engineers, it is no use putting them together with a whole pile of people who cannot find jobs outside the Civil Service as easily as engineers can find jobs outside the Service. In the marking scheme, it is just as well to give marks to the people one particularly wants to introduce into the Civil Service. If the other people are more gifted, they would get their marks accordingly. Thus we would get a group of gifted people and others which would give the kind of mix that is required.
We must not assume that the Civil Service today is recruited purely on brain power. Many people with first-class degrees are rejected by the Civil Service and many with upper seconds are accepted in their place. We must not assume we understand fully these absolute requirements. We shall say that there is a range of talents which we require and we need a recruitment agency to take account of these talents.
We know that at present there is little possibility of people acquiring sufficient expertise within the organisation. In the Report of the Management Consultancy Group, we have seen that administrators other than assistant principals average a period of 2·8 years in all their completed jobs in a particular class. In my view, 2·8 years is not nearly adequate

1613
to master a job, to find out what it is all about and then to be able to impose upon that job the special expertise which has been gained from living with the job.
When the Committee talked about the cult of the amateur, the generalist, the all-rounder, or however one chooses to describe him, what it had in mind was this constant movement around. That constant movement had a purpose, because it was designed to give people who had no particular knowledge a breadth of experience. This whole movement was designed to give a breadth of experience rather than the depth of experience which is required. There is a necessity for depth of experience so that although a civil servant may not know everything in his Ministry or a range of Ministries, he will know something about the particular job he is doing and about a related job to which he is likely to be transferred as a result of his success in the job which he undertakes. This is what planned promotion is all about.
Civil servants at present need that breadth of experience. If they find themselves in one particular job, they are condemned to having far fewer opportunities in the grade above. When a civil servant is recruited or promoted to a grade, he is expected to do a whole range of jobs within that grade. If he can do only three or four jobs, but do them extremely well, that is not enough. It is enough in industry and in most organisations and it ought to be enough in the Civil Service.
The scientists and the engineers who have found themselves in the neglected parts of the Civil Service also need to be fitted in within this open structure so that a certain job is open not simply to the level of administrator or executive beneath. It needs to be open to all those who can make a contribution to the job and who can bring their talents best to bear upon it.
It is no use having a system of experts who are called in and consulted from time to time, because so many jobs depend upon the whole range of talents within an individual being used. Not every decision can be best taken by bringing in advisers to fill in the gaps of one's own knowledge. There are opportunities, too, for bringing engineers
1614
within the management field, as is regularly done in industry, and for bringing in accountants and economists—not, of course, to the exclusion of everyone else, but where they are felt to be in the interests of the Service and where they can be fitted in and promoted, both for their own development as individuals working within the Civil Service and for the benefit of the Service as a whole. Because of this, the Committee felt that the planning of the career of the civil servant was crucial. In order to consider that matter, we had to think of the recruitment, promotion and training of the Civil Service as an integrated whole.
It is no use one body doing the recruiting and another body grumbling about the kind of men it receives and yet another body training them to remedy the deficiences of people who should not have been recruited in the first place. People responsible for recruits must know the kind of people they will eventually become and the people responsible for training must have some influence on recruitment. Only when we can plan the development of individuals within this organisation will we be able to produce the kind of men we require and bring the best out of people and avoid the frustration of individuals feeling that they have not been used properly. This integration to bring about a feed-back from the user departments will be valuable.
The very unsatisfactory arrangements of the Civil Service Selection Board are fully documented in the Report. We found that although the tests are quite valuable and the way in which an individual is recruited into the Civil Service and then goes before the Civil Service Selection Board and the way in which he is analysed may be objective enough, what happens is that he receives a certain number of marks which are then fudged, and which then go before a board which considers the matter and makes an assessment based on its view and the marks which he received before. This fudging is wrong.
But that is not all. Not only is there fudging at that stage. There is two-tier fudging, because a person comes before the final selection board which may make another assessment based on marks which have been fudged by the first selection board. It decides what it thinks of the

1615
person and then more marks are banded into four categories only. To start with a quite respectable way of assessing the value of an individual and then to get a two-stage fudging by selection boards, over half of whose members are near retirement or over retirement age, makes nonsense of the planned system of selection. We need integration between recruitment, training and promotion. We have at present a scheme which is not suited to the needs of the Civil Service of the future.
I come to the plans for the open structure which I am particularly pleased to see incorporated in the Report. At the moment, the structure is an utter maze. Hardly anybody can understand it. There are 47 general classes spread throughout the Service in more than one Department. There are 1,400 departmental classes within single Departments, each with its own promotion grades and structures.
What pleased me most about the Prime Minister's speech was his statement that he did not intend to drag his feet on this fundamental reform, which is the key to reform of the Civil Service. If we are to bring about the changes which I hope to see made, we need to do very much more about personnel management so that we can use to the full all the varied talents coming into the Civil Service from its areas of recruitment. We need to make the fullest use of people to their advantage and to the advantage of the Service. There is a barrier against opportunity for transfer from one class to another. The chances of using people in the best way are hindered by the existence of these 47 general classes and 1,400 departmental classes.
I should like to refer to the planning unit, which was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. I see the function of the unit working out perhaps rather better than the right hon. Gentleman. There is a range of possibilities for a planning unit, with its senior policy adviser, to work out possibilities for development within a certain time scale. Problems can be foreseen, and although the solutions of both political parties may not be the same, at least they will lie within a certain range. Fact-finding, gathering statistics and the enunciation of problems will be of immense value to whichever party is in power. The possibility
1616
of planning units comparing and understanding problems in advance as well as suggesting a number of possibilities for implementing solutions to them will be valuable not only to the present Government but to any future Government. This matter can be treated separately from purely party political considerations.
I come to the question of the machinery of government, which was outside the terms of reference of the Committee, which has been mentioned today. The Prime Minister was absolutely right. I am convinced that an examination of the machinery of government cannot be valuably carried out today because problems are rapidly changing. Changes are taking place within Civil Service Departments as they join together, and we have a number of examples of that this year. By the time a committee reported on this question, the solutions which it would be discussing would be well out of date. Therefore, unfortunately, there are not many general propositions which one can put forward. It is right that the Government should try to produce the solutions which they require as they go along. The Commission on the Constitution should cover the constitutional questions.
I come finally to the responsibility and rights of the House. As we increase the power of the Civil Service, so we need to increase the effectiveness of this House. The power of Executive has grown, and we all understand the need to increase the power of this House to investigate and to question it. We know the need; I am not sure that we have a solution to the problem. If we are to make the Civil Service more efficient and thereby more effective, we will need to question it as well. There will be a great need either for the development of Specialist Committees or perhaps an integration between Specialist Committees and Standing Committees examining legislation. Civil servants will have to be involved in this process. It is obvious that this matter is full of difficulty, but the one must go hand-in-hand with the other. There is need for a check on the Executive. The question of a check on the Civil Service will need to be equally well studied. These are the great problems before us which will take a number of years to resolve.
I was very proud to serve on the Committee and to receive congratulations

1617
from many people on the work of the Committee. It tackled some of the main problems. The full implementation of its Report at the earliest possible moment would, I believe, be the finest fulfilment of its work.
7.0 p.m.
Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I hesitate to promise to make a short speech, since I find on looking at the record that I have been rather more successful in making the promises than in keeping them. At least I promise those waiting that I will try.
We have heard an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I must tell him straight away that there are a number of points on which I did not agree with him. I lean very much more to the Prime Minister's views on the question of relevant studies than to the view the hon. Gentleman expressed.
In another part of his speech, I think that the hon. Gentleman did not express himself as clearly as he might have wished. That was when he referred to the degree of intervention by government in our lives. We accept that the extent to which the Government are responsible, or ought to be responsible, for what is going on is growing. In response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell), the hon. Gentleman said that he thought that this was a minor matter. I presume he meant that this was a minor matter in relation to his general argument. He will surely agree that this is a fundamental matter, perhaps fundamental even to this whole issue.
Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me.
Dr. Winstanley: I do not think that I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I have just said that I think that he did not express himself clearly. At least let us make it clear that the extent to which the Government intervene is an important matter.
I myself rather regret what I think is a modern delusion, namely, that every problem has a political solution. This is an illusion or delusion which is rather fostered by the Press, TV and radio, and by the communications industry
1618
generally. Perhaps it is an illusion which is fostered by those involved in politics. I sometimes wish, when problems such as the balance of payments or whatever it may be occur, that instead of people turning automatically towards Westminster for the answers, they would turn towards their own lives, their own companies, their own work, their own trade union, their own affairs at home. This is perhaps not crucial to this argument, but I think that it is a highly important subject in general.
I was much more interested in the Prime Minister's conclusions on the Fulton Report and in the observations of the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) on the Report than I was in the Report itself. It is not that I disagree fundamentally with the Report in any way, though I most certainly disagree with the general theme of the first chapter on amateurism. I agree with those hon. Members who have expressed disapproval of this chapter. Again I disagree with the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, who I think tended to reinforce the view expressed in this chapter.
I lean much more to the view expressed by Professor Lord Simey in his Reservation to Chapter 1:
"…the Civil Service needs nothing more, and nothing less, than the best brains known to teachers in schools and universities".
I take that view of the kind of professionalism required.
It seems to me that in an occupation like the Civil Service any person under 26 or 27 is, almost by definition, an amateur. We are not dealing with subjects of a technical nature in which study begins early and continues to a final point. We are dealing with the kind of occupation in which people acquire expertise and professionalism as they learn the job in the job. We are coming to that later with the Civil Service College and in the other matters of business training, and so on, which have been discussed in other speeches. I do not like this part on amateurism and I do not regard a kind of bogus professionalism as a substantial advance on amateurism itself.
Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman argues that anyone up to his middle twenties is amateur. Is this quite true in this context? Is it not true that a

1619
man who has recently been trained in certain disciplines is more likely to be able to carry on a discussion with a true expert in those disciplines without demanding that everything be translated into layman's language?
Dr. Winstanley: I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman in that sense, but perhaps what he says is rather more related to the general argument about relevant studies. I shall come to that later and then I perhaps can deal with this point.
When I said that I was more impressed by and interested in the comments of both Front Bench speakers than by the Report itself, that was not a criticism of the Report. However, I think that there are certain defects in the Report which arise partly from the nature of Government inquiries in general and partly from a specific limitation of this inquiry.
I was very interested in an article by Professor Max Beloff in The Times of 12th November, in which he links the Plowden Report with the Fulton Report and says this:
"The Plowden Report like the Fulton Report was a testimony to the almost inevitable tendency of government-sponsored inquiries to examine everything except their own major premises. Instead of looking first at the purposes that the institutions they investigate are supposed to serve, and proceeding from there, they normally do little more than register the current conventional wisdom of Westminster and Whitehall."
In a sense, what Professor Beloff is implying is that this Report, like its predecessors on the Civil Service, is more concerned with structure than with function, although it is true that in its early stages it announces that it is very anxious to be concerned with function rather than with structure.
Another point Professor Beloff makes is that
"One of the explanations of the manifest failure of the Fulton Committee on the Civil Service to produce a satisfactory general appreciation of the problems with which it was confronted, and for the somewhat inchoate set of solutions which it offered to them, must be found in the exclusion from its terms of reference of the vast and increasing area of government business that involves relations with other countries."
That point was delt with by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and also by the Prime Minister
1620
when he referred to the study which is going on under Sir Val Duncan. It is relevant.
Professor Beloff also refers to what was said by the Shell Petroleum Company to the Fulton Committee, namely:
"'The need for Civil Servants other than those of the traditionally overseas departments to become internationally-minded is already pressing and, should Britain be accepted as a member of the Common Market, will be paramount'.
Nothing that the Fulton Committee has suggested will do much to meet the need and some of the proposals might go even further to produce what the Shell Company referred to as 'Civil Servants who are somewhat over-orientated to the United Kingdom and whose appreciation of the problems of an international group is correspondingly impaired'."
I think that the Report is perhaps deficient in that sense. It may not be its fault. It may be the fault of its terms of reference. We know that another Committee is sitting. The Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister referred to this. I am sure that it is necessary to look very much more to the international implications of almost everything the Civil Service does. It must be accepted that Civil Service Departments cannot be divided for all time into those which are concerned with things at home and those which are concerned with things not at home. Nowadays, everything concerns everything. The sooner we recognise this in the construction of the Civil Service the better.
On the question of possible excessive preoccupation with structure and with the individuals who make up the Civil Service rather than with function, I think that the Report is merely following an example which the House sets and which we all set over and over again. On Tuesday and Wednesday the House debated the matter of the reform of the Second Chamber. We constantly discuss what a reformed second Chamber should be like before we discuss what it should do. I do not think that it is possible to decide on its structure until we have decided on its function.
The same applies to regional government and to other pressing matters that leap to the mind. Here, too, it is very important that we think about function. That means that we should be thinking about the machinery of government in general. I certainly agree with what has been said on both sides of the House

1621
about the need for an inquiry into the machinery of government and the need to relate such an inquiry into the machinery of government to any inquiry into the Civil Service; and there is the need to relate structure and selection to function and to what is to be done by those who are selected.
I was very interested in the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) did the right hon. Gentleman less than justice and implied that there was something almost disreputable about the Leader of the Opposition praising the Civil Service.
One ought to appreciate that it happened, that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said what he did, because I have regretted the tendency of certain members of the Conservative Party to indulge in general attacks on the Civil Service. However, it was quite clear that the Leader of the Conservative Party—and tribute should be paid to him for this—was not attacking the Civil Service, but attacking the functions which it has to carry out. He made it clear, and many of his colleagues have not made this clear, that when talking about a reduction in the Civil Service he was asking for a reduction in its functions. It was high time this was said clearly from this side of the House. There are many on this side of the House who have not said that.
To go about saying, "The Inland Revenue should be cut by 10 per cent." unless one says anything else to qualify it, means that one is saying that the public should have to wait 10 per cent. longer for replies to their letters, or 10 per cent. longer before they get overpayments of tax paid back. If at the same time as saying that the Inland Revenue should be cut one says we should simplify the tax system so that then we could cut the Civil Service, that would be a sensible thing to say, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman did say and I hope that it is what some of his colleagues will start saying, instead of saying some of the things which some of them have been saying.
I want to deal with two specific points in the Report itself. First, the question of relevant studies. The Prime Minister
1622
rather dismissed this, because he said he did not accept this part of the Report; this was a part of the Report which had not been accepted and that the Government were not proceeding along those lines. The Leader of the Opposition said the same and appeared to welcome the rejection of this recommendation. The Prime Minister said that there were, of course, different views in the House. I did not realise the extent to which those different views exist until I heard them expressed by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. Since there are different views about this, I think that it is important that I make clear what at least are my views, as perhaps, they are also those of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Paragraph 75 ends with these words:
"But a majority of us consider that the relevance to their future work of the subject-matter of their university or other pre-Service studies should be an important qualification for appointment."
This statement was criticised, as I understand it, by the Prime Minister on the grounds that it would reduce the number of applicants and would, perhaps, deprive us of many people of great ability who did not fulfil this criterion. I agree with that. Not only would there be fewer candidates if any such premium were placed on so-called relevant subjects, but people would be excluded to the detriment of the Service, and that in this section a short-sighted, narrow-minded pragmatism was at work.
That point should be clearly recognised, but I think there is another which we ought to comment upon and which is of importance to relevance. I take the view—I do not know whether it is shared by other hon. Members or not—that people who study the social sciences tend to fall into a specific category of political attitudes. It was interesting that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition suffered a somewhat Freudian lapse for a moment when he referred to sociologists as Socialists. He rapidly corrected himself. However, people who study subjects of that kind do tend, I think, to lean towards the Left in politics—which I do not regret for a moment. All I say is that it would be a mistake to tend to concentrate selection for the Civil Service on people who follow a specific or certain kind or type of study which would tend to produce a Civil Service

1623
which would lean excessively towards one point of view in politics.
As a Liberal I must say that I stand for the greatest possible variety of thinking, and I, personally, would deplore the application of a particular view which tended to fill the Civil Service with people of a particular type of political thinking. The hon. Member opposite laughs. It is not funny. [Interruption.] I assure him it is not rubbish, it is true.
Mr. Anderson: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that if the Government were to recruit too many L.S.E. Socialists they might be caught lying down on the job?
Dr. Winstanley: I am not quite sure I follow the precise implication of that remark. I am not sure the hon. Member does. All I say is that in an occupation of this kind it is surely important to recruit from the widest possible spectrum, bearing in mind the kind of qualities which one wants. I do not think one wants to concentrate on people of a certain type irrespective of whether they are better or worse and I think that concentration on a certain type would not be helpful and would not serve the long-term interest of the Civil Service. So much, then, for the question of relevant studies.
The second point is about the Civil Service College. I was very interested indeed in what was said by both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on this. There was a remarkable degree of agreement—total agreement between the two Front Benches; and there has been a good deal of agreement amongst the back benches; and if agreement were also expressed by my own Front Bench we should have complete agreement in this House, which would be rather unusual these days.
There was agreement on the question of a Civil Service College, but I was interested in what the Leader of the Opposition had to say about the question of business schools. Certainly, these could be brought in more and more. It was suggested that civil servants might do training at business schools. These would tend to be staffed by people representing a variety of views. I myself take the view that it would be preferable to have a Civil Service College staffed by
1624
civil servants rather than have it overloaded with dons.
It was said that we should bring in business people into the training of civil servants. Unfortunately, we are reaching the time when business men who were involved with Civil Service activities during the war have now largely disappeared. Therefore, the kind of businessmen one would bring in would not be the businessmen who had previously acquired knowledge of public accountability through having been in the Civil Service, and I do not think it would be helpful to bring in businessmen in that way; but I think it would be helpful to follow the suggestion which has been made of allowing civil servants to study at business courses, and I think it possible, not merely that this should be additional training but that it may be possible for certain candidates to spend part of their time at the Civil Service College and part of their time at a business college. I think there might be some advance along those lines. I look forward to hearing of more people taking such studies than do now, and it would help to create a degree of flexibility in training for the Civil Service. I personally, and, I am sure, my hon. Friends, would prefer a concentration on that kind of training, rather than on new methods of selection earlier by selecting students who had studied specific matters at school or university.
The Leader of the Opposition referred in glowing terms to the Ombudsman and to the Ombudsman's activities being increased, and he also referred to the use of Specialist Committees. I hope that these will be increased. However, he is the Leader of the Opposition and I speak for a party which has been in Opposition for a very considerable time and I cannot fail to notice that enthusiasm for machinery of this kind tends to wane on the Government side. Admittedly, the Government introduced the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, but it was not very long before they began to wonder what kind of Frankenstein they had given birth to, and not very long before we began to hear questions about undermining the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility. It was the Government who did much to accelerate the establishment of Specialist Committees, but, having set them up, we

1625
have recently seen efforts to truncate and amputate them, and we have heard doubts expressed about their desirability. Therefore, I was very glad to hear So firm a commitment from the Leader of the Opposition that this is the kind of machinery which should be given greater authority, rather than the Government, and I hope we can hear more views of that kind.
Mr. Sheldon: I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman praises the Leader of the Opposition for his intentions rather than the Government for carrying them out.
Dr. Winstanley: For this reason; that I am always glad to hear of somebody making a public commitment. It is my melancholy experience that certain people in government would like nothing more than to lock this place up and send us all home. I do not believe that Governments in general are very anxious to have an efficient House of Commons. The Government governs and not the House of Commons, and the attitude of the Government is that the House of Commons tries to stop them from doing so. I applaud a public commitment to measures which would give greater authority to this House rather than to the Government. It is true that I have heard these public commitments from the Opposition, but I have also heard some signs in that direction from the Government Front Bench, and we ought to support them.
As many hon. Members have said, I too, believe that we have a Civil Service which is quite remarkable in many ways, a Civil Service whose integrity, industry, efficiency and application to the job are the envy of the world. I hope that we shall give it new opportunities for improvement. I much regret the growing tendency to attack both politics and the civil servants. The Parliamentary democratic system which has evolved in this country is the only method the world has yet devised of creating order without tyranny. I frequently indulge in criticisms of the Parliamentary process, but I do so in order to protect it, to make it last and to make it work. I sometimes indulge in criticism of the Civil Service. I do so in order to protect that also, and anything that we can do to improve the Civil Service and help
1626
it to work will be in the long term interests of all of us. The right hon. Lady has an important task before her and we wish her well in it.
7.22 p.m.
Mr. Denis Coe: Any Committee which brings forward a report as comprehensive and wide-ranging as the Fulton Report is bound to attract a certain amount of criticism, but the strength of the Report is shown by the fact that those criticisms are of details and not of the major recommendations. I welcome the Report, as other hon. Members have done. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) served with distinction on the Fulton Committee, and I enjoyed listening to his speech.
A change such as is suggested in the Fulton Report must have the co-operation of the civil servants, and that is why I join with other hon. Members who regret the unfortunate Chapter 1, although, to be fair to the Committee, the later chapters and volumes tend to put the record straight. We must face the fact that the initial impact of this chapter with its emphasis on the amateur aspect has received more publicity than we would have wished, but I am sure that the civil servants will now recognise that the Committee did not wish to place undue emphasis upon it.
I welcome the progress which has already been made by the Government in accepting the major recommendations, and also the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon. I wish to comment briefly on three aspects of the Report: the use of manpower, the administrative changes suggested by the Report, and the section, which in my view is very important, on the Civil Service and the community.
Looking first at the use of manpower, I welcome the abolition of the classes. This will break the log jam and facilitate comprehensive changes in the use of civil servants in order fully to utilise their talents. The compartmentalising of the Civil Service has been an immense drawback, as the Committee made clear. I agree with the noble Lord who spoke in the other place that job evaluation, on which the Committee placed such emphasis, is perhaps more difficult than the Report suggests. Secondly, I welcome

1627
the assurance of my right hon. Friend that the Civil Service unions will be fully and continuously consulted on the changes which will be necessary.
I agree with the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. M. P. Winstanley) on recruitment. I too find it a little difficult to accept the "preference for relevance" mentioned by the Committee and I am glad that the Government are not prepared to go ahead with that. With the fluidity provided by the abolition of the classes we shall be able to look for the best intellectual manpower available, and the suggestion about relevance in the Report will not help. I am pleased that the recruitment processes will be speeded up. As the Committee found, a number of recruits are lost because of the delay which occurs before they are told the results of examinations and other entrance procedures.
I welcome the setting up of the Civil Service College. I was surprised that a number of noble Lords in the other place, distinguished ex-civil servants and the like, said that they were not too happy about the need for the Civil Service College. This matter ought to be looked at in its context, and I believe that we should have a proper Civil Service College set up to carry on the work which has already been started in the Centre for Administrative Studies. I make one qualification. I am concerned, as I always have been, at the way in which civil servants, and, indeed, teachers and those in other professions, go straight to a job from their academic training. This is a great pity when they will be spending so much time dealing with people.
I am glad to hear that outsiders will also take part in the new Civil Service College, and that there will be interchange between civil servants and others. There should be a way in which intending civil servants could be enabled to gain experience outside the Civil Service before they are completely committed to it. I would welcome any comments which my right hon. Friend might have on that in winding up.
I would also like to ask her about research. What link will there be between research carried out at the College and the new Civil Service Department, the Cabinet Office or any other Department?
1628
There should be a marrying up of the information in a way which has not occurred in the past. I also welcome the interchange between civil servants and other occupations which is suggested. This can be done now without delay. I would like to see civil servants going particularly into local government as soon as possible.
On the administrative changes, Treasury control as we have known it in the past needs to be studied. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) feels much the same as I do on this, that we need to look at what we mean by Treasury control, not just saving candle ends, or, alternatively, not looking ahead to long term policy decisions on finance. I would be interested to hear what changes are likely to take place.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he said that it was absolutely necessary that the new Civil Service Department should not be a part of the Treasury but should be a cross section of members of different Departments of the Civil Service.
On policy planning and decision making, if there is a senior policy adviser, which I quite accept, I am a little worried that he should have, as the Committee suggests, complete access to the Minister regardless of the Permanent Secretary. There is a slight danger here, and I would like to think further about this. I can see the possibility of ministerial favourites, or difficulties within the department.
I was very pleased to see in Page 92 in the section of the Report entitled "The Civil Service and the Community" the following sentence:
"It is an abuse of consultation when it is turned into a belated attempt to prepare the ground for decisions that have in reality been taken already."
This is very much at the root of the problem that the Civil Service faces when it is dealing with the community. Very often, it is blamed unfairly for its actions but, as the Committee makes clear, no doubt there are occasions when secrecy within the Civil Service about decisions which Ministers have taken is quite unnecesary. By making matters more public, we could create a confidence in

1629
the public service which sometimes is unnecessarily lacking.
That is why I was glad to see this section in the Report. It raises the question of the individual and the State and the feeling that individuals are being ignored by governments. It also draws attention to the problem of public attitudes to the Civil Service. The present Government have helped to solve these problems. As the hon. Member for Cheadle reminded us, they have set up the office of Parliamentary Commissioner. I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has been partially converted where he was not quite so keen before, but, whatever he says now, this is an important office. It is one which will grow in importance and, obviously, it will help in improving the attitude of the public towards the Civil Service if it is felt that people's grievances will be dealt with. The changes in planning appeals which have ben made will also help the public attitude to the Civil Service.
The Committee was a little unfair in trying to suggest that if only we followed the example of a country like Sweden, we would be better able to cope with problems of public accountability, and so on. The fact must be faced that when we look at the position of Parliament, as opposed to that of the individual, in relation to the Civil Service, in this country we still believe, quite rightly, in a system of Parliamentary checks. It is one which everyone in this House would wish to see strengthened. The section in the Report on the importance of the Civil Service and Parliament should be given special attention and I am glad that a number of hon. Members have referred to it in their speeches.
I want to pinpoint two sentences in that section. They say that Members of Parliament should be more purposively associated with the work of government and that the methods of Parliamentary scrutiny have often failed to enlarge Parliament's knowledge of what the Executive are doing. That is very true.
I welcome the specific reference in the Report to Select Committees. As one of those who believe in Parliamentary reform, naturally I believe enthusiastically in the power of Select Committees to play an important part in checking the Executive. That is why I urge upon
1630
my right hon. Friend, if she needs any urging, that they should be extended over the sphere of government in the next few years. It is the right way to redress any imbalance between the Executive and this House. I would add, however, that the position is nothing like as bad as is sometimes suggested. I get rather tired when hon. Members opposite claim that Governments are now all powerful and that Parliament is completely powerless. I cannot help feeling sometimes that it is a criticism of this Government, rather than a true criticism of the power of a Parliamentary democracy.
I turn now to the future changes, which seem to have played an important part in the debate so far. My hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne reminded us of the increased sphere of Government activity. We have to recognise that the Fulton changes will take place against this background, the regional policies of Government Departments which are increasing and proving very helpful in the regions, local government reform, and the machinery of government. In the last respect, I was especially pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister remind us of the very important changes which have been made since 1964 in the Departments concerned with defence, Commonwealth and foreign affairs, and health and social security matters. It is right that we should now move one stage further and deal with the Departments concerned with economic affairs. I have said many times that I would like to see the Department of Economic Affairs, which is doing a very important job, joined up with the Board of Trade. The two together could make a very effective unit.
The machinery of government ought to be in the hands of the Cabinet Office. It is likely to be subject to continuous change and should therefore be reviewed continually. In another place, Baroness Sharp pointed out that we can do a great deal in the way of Civil Service reform but, unless we tackle the machinery of government at the same time, much of our reform will not be as great as it might be.
Those are some of my observations on the Report. I am glad that it makes clear time and again that the members

1631
of the Committee found from their investigations in all parts of the country that the Civil Service contains men and women of very high integrity and great ability and that the devotion to duty in the Service should make everyone in this House extremely proud.
As a result of the Report and the promises which my right hon. Friend has made today, I hope that we shall push ahead quickly with the suggested changes so that the Civil Service will be ready to face the latter half of the 20th century.
7.37 p.m.
Mr. David Howell: I want to confine myself to four points. At the outset, I should say that I want to make a more fundamental criticism than anything contained in the speeches to which we have listened from both Front Benches. I hope, however, that it will not be thought that I do not appreciate the immensely important value of many of the recommendations in the Report, and the usefulness of the contributions of such people as the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle). From the speech of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, it was clear that his work and thinking had a considerable influence on certain parts of the Report.
My first point relates to the circumstances in which this debate takes place. Considering all that has been said on both sides of the House about the importance of Parliamentary accountability, it is nothing less than bizarre that the debate should take place after one of the main recommendations has been adopted and while the second recommendation is being implemented. I understand why that is so. Other business crowded out the programme. But there is a more fundamental reason, and it arises from the thinking which says that there is something called administration and something else called policy, and that they are separate. It is the argument that policy is for politicians and that, on the whole, administration is marginal to politicians which should not concern them. That distinction, which runs through many utterances on the need for Civil Service reform, is basically fallacious and false.
1632
The whole point of our concern in this House is that the administrative wing of government today has become deeply concerned in the formulation and carrying out of public policy. One of today's vital needs is to broaden the confrontation between the policy-making Administration and the elected representatives of the public in this House.
Much of what we have to say about the reform of the Civil Service must come back to the central point of restoring the accountability of a modern administration and making the free society a reality rather than a form and shadow. In this context the Report has to be judged, even if it seems unfair, when one considers the Committee's narrow terms of reference.
I should like to make three specific criticisms. In making these criticisms, I repeat, first, that I appreciate the value of many of the recommendations and, secondly, that more or less everything I say excludes the excellent Chapter 5 where the influence of Dr. Hunt and his team is so strong and where it seems that for once in the Report—there are other instances, but mainly in Chapter 5—the real issues of structure and functions are raised. I regret that these issues are not allowed, by the terms of reference, to be faced up to so much in other chapters of Volume 1.
My first criticism is one that others have made. However, I think that it should be made more strongly. It is that in Chapter 1, and in other chapters, there runs the assumption that the defects of the Civil Service are the fault of civil servants. I believe this assumption to be totally wrong. The Report goes on to say that the greatest fault of all is this gifted amateurism, about which we have all spoken.
I believe that the attempt to blame the Civil Service—because that is what it is—is not a cure for our problem, but part of the disease. There is not all that much wrong with the intellectual qualities or capacities of our public officials. I would argue that the belief that civil servants are in some way to blame for the many difficulties and bad decisions of government blind people to the real problem and, in part, blinded members of the Fulton Committee.

1633
The real problem is rooted in the procedures by which civil servants are required and forced to make decisions, and in a system of financial accountability which is over 100 years out of date. It is this professional deformation, as it has been called, which is placed on civil servants and which is the root of the difficulty. Put another way, civil servants today are imprisoned in a framework which makes thrustful and cost-conscious management and good and creative running of particular programmes virtually impossible. It is wrong to put the blame on civil servants. The responsibility lies squarely on our politicians and Government to redefine the functions and the structure of government.
The difficulty which Fulton had to face was that it was being asked to look at the Civil Service without being asked to look at the tasks of the Civil Service. It was being asked to recommend on the training of men and women in the future for the 1970s and 1980s without having a specific and clear idea of what that training was for or what kind of structure these people would have to operate in. It is not too harsh to say that this was very much a case of putting the cart before two horses. I believe that the efforts of the Committee, excellent as they were, suffered to that degree.
My second point arises from what I call the excellent Chapter 5 which deals with and raises issues on the structure of government. An essential message of that excellent Chapter 5 is that efficient public administration will be frustrated, or is frustrated, by the traditional and highly centralised methods of financial control which we currently operate in Whitehall. Again and again, Chapter 5 points to need for a delegation of budgetary responsibility not only from the Treasury to Departments, but to separate divisions, sections and autonomous agencies and units.
I believe—I hope I am not being too depressing about the effort which has gone into the Fulton Report—that we will make little progress in administrative reform and in creating an efficient bureaucracy until the Treasury abandons its detailed control in favour of more modern methods. I was glad that the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe) mentioned this point. The centralised detailed control of every decision in
1634
the spending Departments suffocates good management, discourages initiative, and, far from promoting economies, promotes diseconomy and waste through outdated procedures. Although it was not within the terms of reference of the Fulton Committee, one can only shrug one's shoulders and ask whether it was worth making the other recommendation if this one could not be faced at that time. The best aspects of the Fulton Report's recommendations will not achieve success unless we push at the same time towards the reform of Treasury control.
One thing that the Treasury does surrender by the recommendations of the Fulton Committee, already implemented, is control of the new Civil Service Department that has been set up, although the surrender seems a little reluctant. I understand that geographically and physically the department remains within the Treasury for the moment, but no doubt it will be moved in due course. But, even then, a question mark should be put over that. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) put a question mark over it. Are we so sure, if we are to have a more flexible and open structure, a greater delegation of responsibility, that we need centralised control of all the senior and middle-tier senior appointments in the Civil Service vested in one Department? We need a central office to deal with pension and personnel questions certainly, but are we sure that the centralisation of the Civil Service at all levels within a Civil Service Department is any more in line with modern management needs than the centralisation of financial control in the Treasury? I would put a very large question mark over that. This is one reason why I regret that it is a fait accompli and we have not had an opportunity to make comments on it before.
Mr. Dalyell: If the hon. Gentleman is right—and I am afraid that he is right in a profound sense—would he not agree that it becomes a matter of urgency for this House to change the terms of reference of the Public Accounts Committee?
Mr. Howell: That is a new point which had not struck me. I should like to think about it. I agree that the Public Accounts Committee, which uses the Treasury as its watchdog, may even, in its best efforts, actually promote the cautiousness and

1635
lack of initiative and centralisation of responsibility that must be avoided in a Government suitable for the 1970s and 1980s.
I come to my third point of criticism. Again, I remind hon. Members that in making these criticisms I am not detracting from the work and value of the Report. Having listened with admiration to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), I find myself departing from him at right angles in some of his basic assumptions. My biggest criticism of the Fulton Report is that it fails to recognise what we can visibly see to be the changing rôle of the State in relation to the citizen society, a development which would be even clearer in the early and middle 1970s.
It seems to assume that the State will continue to be, as it has been since the war, the great provider. It seems to assume that the Government will continue to accumulate those tasks of ownership, management and control that it has accumulated to date at such a fantastic and formidable rate. Looking at the development of pressures on the Government, both in this country and other countries, I question whether this pattern will continue. It is easy to say that because in the 1960s we have seen a growing complexity and much activity of central government accumulating more and more activities, that will be the pattern that people will want in the 1970s. I do not believe that it is.
I believe that a marriage of popular pressures, of which many are felt by hon. Members, and technical necessity will force Governments in the coming decade and in the 1980s into divesting themselves of a vast range of activities and decentralising responsibility. New conditions—particularly popular pressures—will force central Governments to transfer large blocks of State activity and ownership not only back to regions and local authorities, which is something that hon. Members on both sides wish to see, but also to the price mechanism, to the individual and to the private sector.
Whether hon. Members like it or not, we have to face the idea that the State, as the great and automatic provider of more and more management functions and controls and undertakings, will be replaced by a rather different form of
1636
administration—a form of administration in which the emphasis is not so much on outright provision as on regulation.
Sir E. Boyle: My hon. Friend is making an extremely interesting speech. But, even assuming that he is right about that, as he may be, that there will be less outright provision, more reliance on price mechanism and more devolution to local bodies, will there still not be the complex problem of actual involvement between the central Government and outside bodies?
Mr. Howell: I think that there will be. I was going on to say that we have at least to get clear that in many cases the tasks of bureaucracy in the 70s and 80s—certainly the central bureaucracy—may be less concerned with management techniques and more concerned with new methods of regulation, by public enterprise or by private enterprise or by a mixture of public and private enterprise.
These new developments may be seen around the country and are mentioned in Chapter V, where they deal with the important point mentioned by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about hiving-off activities. If we follow this through we see what is being suggested, rightly, that far from more activities being loaded on to central Government, the trend—reinforced not merely by administrative and managerial functions but also through strong popular pressures—will be to offload the activities on to those organisations and individuals who will undertake them with more efficiency and more sensitivity.
I said at the beginning that it seems to me that changes in the administrative pattern must go hand in hand with changes in the pattern of accountability to this House. We cannot let these things get out of phase, because if they do we shall get the worst of both worlds. I argue that the Report and this debate make out a vastly more important case for creating forums in this House in which high officials and those who are publicly identified with certain public programmes, and are publicly responsible for them, can state their case.
I argue that the civil servants of the future, and the kind of managers of public programmes that we want will be those

1637
who will welcome the opportunity to come before Committees of this House and to put their case and win public support, in the realisation that we are in an age when, without public support, no public programme can succeed.
Dr. Winstanley: Does not the hon. Member agree that the important question is not the amount of discussion that takes place with the Civil Service, but the stage at which it takes place? Do not we want discussion to take place before things have happened, rather than that they should take place now, after things have happened?
Mr. Howell: It must be seen as part of a continuous control process. Perhaps the reporting of officials running important programmes—as the reporting of chairmen of nationalised industries—may be done more regularly than it is. One sad point about the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is that each nationalised industry comes up for scrutiny only every five or seven years. What is wanted is more regular reporting as part of a continuing control process, so that Parliament is involved in thinking and ideas, as well as the vast legislative proposals involved in huge public programmes. It is for this kind of Government, which will be smaller, less centralised, less secretive, and less bogged down in countless undertakings, that we should be preparing our public administrators of the future. I am sorry if this goes against the feeling that Fulton is right, but I regret that the Committee was precluded by its terms of reference from an examination of the functions and structure of Government, from which the reform of the Civil Service is an inseparable aspect and from which it should never have been separated.
At root, the reform of the Administration is a matter for politicians. The buck cannot be passed by blaming Civil Service Departments, and senior, middle-range or lower civil servants. No bureaucracy, however well trained in new management techniques, can operate efficiently if it is treated like a low-grade pack horse. It cannot operate if it is indiscriminately loaded up with ill-defined responsibilities and half-baked legislation. Until that lesson is learned—and this is a lesson for politicians—I doubt whether Fulton or any other attempts at bureau-
1638
cratic reform will halt the growing chaos in Whitehall or restore health to our democratic institutions.
7.54 p.m.
Mr. Donald Anderson: I follow the hon. Member in his excellent "think piece", but I do not think that he can fault the Fulton Committee for not acting on his assumptions about the size, spirit and nature of the Administration in the 1970s and 1980s. Those assumptions are highly speculative and not based on any firm evidence or trends in this country. They are out of accord with what is happening in, for example, the United States.
I rise to praise and also to urge reform of the existing Civil Service—not to suggest a radical restructuring, although I agree that we owe a tremendous debt to Fulton and his Committee. I base my experience on five years as a civil servant, recruited into the Foreign Office equivalent of the administrative class by Method II. After a relevant degree, I find myself more in sympathy with Lord Simey's reservation than with the major body of the Fulton recommendations. It is reported that during the negotiations in 1962 over our hoped-for entry into the E.E.C., the present French Prime Minister, M. Couve de Murville, stated to the present Leader of the Opposition that there were only two Civil Services in Europe worth their salt—the French and the British, based on very different systems and working after a very different type of recruitment. Anyone who has studied those negotiations, when the French and British civil servants were face to face, will reach the conclusion that our civil servants were by no means worsted in those negotiations. That is my starting point.
I want to pose three questions. What is the job of the Civil Service? In what ways is it ineffective now? Will the Fulton recommendations make it more effective? As for the job of our Civil Service, we can say that it should represent the will of the community, expressed through Parliament, and do what Parliament tells it or allows it to do. But any answer must surely be woolly and incomplete, because the Civil Service is an expression of Government, and Government activities vary widely. They are not like a business.

1639
Attempts to draw a parallel between business and Government activities are often misleading because of the very different goals of business and government. The jobs which civil servants have to do are multifarious. This is an obvious point. I suspect that throughout the Report the Committee assumed that it was dealing with a monolithic institution and that this has tended to colour its eventual conclusions.
Paragraph 44 of the Report talks of administrative specialisation and suggests two categories of economically biased administrators and socially biased administrators. Surely this division is crude, and its implications for individual Departments are particularly unsatisfactory. People who are doing particular jobs need individual training and are in some cases not getting it now. Let us not delude ourselves into thinking that by the Fulton recommendations we shall produce specialists who, in the words of paragraph 32
"move with ease among its concepts."
We shall simply replace the present division in Departments between administrative and executive classes with a division among economically and socially biased generalists.
In this recommendation and that for a Civil Service college, the Committee has assumed that it was dealing with the Civil Service and has produced a grand design of general remedies for particular defects when directly relevant individually-tailored training would be of greater benefit.
Secondly, in what way is the Civil Service ineffective now? Certain failures like Crichel Down and Ferranti have headlined defects within the Service. These are only partly a guide, of course, but the Committee deserves a tribute for examining the methods of management for the first time. There has never before been a scientifically-based examination of the Civil Service. Yet I urge that the Government should not be too bemused by the results, since we need to know a lot more than is provided by this preliminary survey. I hope that this will not be the end but the start of a process. When the annual report is given to Parliament on progress in implementing the recommendations of the
1640
Fulton Report, I hope that will also have some element in this field.
It is difficult to dissent from many of the conclusions of the Report. Too few civil servants are skilled managers. The supporting volumes show that many civil servants would agree with this. There is not enough contact between the Civil Service and the community. There is certainly evidence of isolation, and I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend's commitment to regionalism. I hope that with the proposed reform of the local government structure, our civil servants, like their French counterparts, with their préfets, will be able to spend their time in the major local authorities.
Personnel management and career planning is inadequate. This would certainly be agreed, and there is a harmful brain drain from the Civil Service, which is described graphically in Volume 5(2), in the excellent contribution of Peter Jay. It is reasonable to open up the top jobs to specialists—ironically, at the expense of their own speciality. But this already happens to a certain extent. For example, I understand that the Director of Roads in the Ministry of Transport is himself an engineer.
I am not so sure about the conclusion that the present system of classes—an awful word, a rallying-cry for the radicals to abolish class, and I do not know how relevant it is to the Civil Service discussion—seriously impedes work within the Civil Service. The Report speaks of over 1,400 classes. This is, no doubt, factually correct and is a reminder of the diversity of the Civil Service, which the Report inadequately represents. Yet, in mainstream Departments, there will surely only be the basic division between the administrative, the executive class and the clerical class, with one or two supporting specialist groups like the lawyers and surveyors.
There is a good case for abolishing the distinction between the administrative and executive classes, although differences of function will remain and there will be posible difficulties in recruitment, but I do not think that the same sort of case can be made out for abolishing the distinction between, say, the legal branch and the administrative classes. Any such attempt to abolish this distinction must be largely empty form. Lawyers do legal work and there is no point in destroying

1641
or trying to destroy this realistic distinction, although, of course, lawyers should have access to the top administrative jobs.
My experience in the Civil Service has convinced me that a little learning can be a dangerous thing. Had I had a law degree, for example, I might have been tempted, on the basis of my own inadequate knowledge, to take legal decisions which I would have been far better advised to push immediately over to the specialist lawyers—as, in fact, I did.
The famous indictment of the generalist, or all-rounder, has some substance. Sophisticated jobs require sophisticated techniques, and relevant provisions should be made where they are not made now. Yet I would still argue that training should be more specific than the Report suggests. The Committee seems to want to have an umbrella to cover everyone within a certain area more or less inadequately. I want the people who need them to be given raincoats, or at least to have them available.
Moreover, the Committee does less than justice to the very real value which our existing generalists have and their competence in detailed subjects. The bulk of our administrators today who analyse their jobs—I have done this with several civil servants, going over an average day—would find that they do not need many of the specialist techniques which the Committee mentions. We must beware of allowing concentration on the value of techniques to hide what those techniques are meant to be used for. What is required is a quality of intelligence judgment, and on that score the amateurs and generalists—1 agree with hon. Members who have said that the Report has not helped its case by its first chapter—have done well. There have been "boobs", of course, and many of the Fulton recommendations will improve the Civil Service, but what is surprising is how effectively the present system has operated, which I think the Report inadequately represents.
Under this heading of effectiveness, I hope that the Government will make a firm commitment to improving working conditions, so that the conditions of our Civil Service are also relevant to the 1970s and 1980s. The Government in this respect should be a model employer. It does not need more than a quick comparison between, say, the normal canteen
1642
facilities on this side of the Thames and those available in the Shell Centre to see just how far the Government fail in this task. Several civil servants have told me that more personal assistants would help far more than no end of civil service colleges, with, of course, the transfer-ability of pension rights.
Lastly, will the Fulton suggestions make our Civil Service more effective? The abolition of the executive-administrative distinction will, I think, help a process which has been going on for some time, particularly in those Departments which already have a high executive content. The Civil Service Department is a reasonable idea, although not very important, but it leads to the danger of over-stressing invalid parallels between different jobs in different Departments.
The proposal for a Civil Service College is flawed by three considerations. The courses which it provides will be in the area of those not directly relevant to individual jobs. Second, so far as the college duplicated courses already provided at universities or polytechnics, it would unnecessarily separate the Civil Service from the community. I am glad, at least, that the Prime Minister said that a portion of the places at that college would be open to non-civil servants.
Of course, such a college would introduce a new elite of old boys of the college, like the E.N.A. in France, and possibly, therefore, increase the tensions within the Civil Service. An expanded Treasury Centre could therefore, possibly, be of greater value than a new site at Sunningdale or Greenwich. In fact, the Committee has suggested so much training, within the department, at the Civil Service college, at university and through interchanges, that one might wonder cynically how many people will actually be doing jobs in the Civil Service. Perhaps it will be the outside businessmen who are to be brought in. But it would be interesting to know what sort of float of civil servants above normal establishment the Committee was working on.
More damaging, though, is the majority conclusion, which I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has rejected, about the preference for "relevant" degrees for recruitment. We need the best Civil Service that we can get. Why should one

1643
weigh the scales against a first-class classicist in favour of a not so good sociologist? In any case, as a former university teacher for a year, I am very doubtful about the relevance of the initial undergraduate degree to the tasks which one faces within the Civil Service.
The Macaulay report, which is reproduced in Appendix B, makes the same point in a rather different context:
"Of the special knowledge which a civil servant of the Company ought to possess, much can be acquired only in India, and much may be acquired far more easily in India than in England. It would evidently be a mere waste of time to employ a month here in learning what may be better learned in a week at Calcutta or Madras."
"C'est en forgeant qu'on devient forgeron", as they say about the British system. The battles of the Treasury will not necessarily be won in the lecture rooms of L.S.E., and I am delighted that the Government have rejected that recommendation. Already, the job appeal of the Civil Service is not such that we can afford to discourage able recruits.
In passing, I am sure that, had Macaulay had a chance to comment on the size of the Report compared with his own brief report, he might have said, to adapt something from his review of Dr. Nare's biography of Burghley:
"Such a report might before the Deluge have been considered as light reading.… But unhappily the life of man is now threescore years and ten, and we cannot but think it somewhat unfair of Lord Fulton to demand from us so large a portion of so short an existence."
Nevertheless, I agree that there is a danger today in desk officers becoming overwhelmed by the pressure of day-today work, and there is a considerable case for planning units. There is a danger that the Civil Service will become out of date, like the dinosaur, with a small thinking head and an enormous body. However, although I agree with the idea of planning units, I hope that they will not become "think-tanks", populated by long-haired boffins pondering imponderables and cut off from the feed-back of actual work in Departments. After all, administration is not a form of mental exercise or a form of State-provided out-relief for academics. Administration is about doing things and about getting things done, building roads, building hospitals, and the like.
1644
In looking at the structural reforms, the Committee should, I think, have examined how Ministerial control can be made more effective today. This is the larger topic excluded from the Committee's terms of reference which has been referred to by several hon. Members already. A basic democratic problem today is to determine what structure will overcome what Munby in his contribution, to be found in Volume 5(2), called the "pressure to agree", to ensure that the options are open to a Minister. Here, I agree with the idea of trying to create institutionalised disagreements within Departments so that the whole range of options is available to a Minister. I agree also with having institutionalised conflicts between Departments, which is what I believe my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was trying to do in creating the D.E.A.
We need, and largely have, a humane, just and responsible Civil Service. We should acknowledge more fully than the Committee does the efficiency and dedication of the existing Civil Service. After all, those who want to sell Hoovers are likely to exaggerate the dust around. But there is dust. I believe that the Civil Service can be made more efficient by a sensible application of the majority of the Fulton recommendations.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. A number of hon. Members have taken part in the debate so far, but a number of hon. Members are still waiting. Short speeches would give an opportunity before 9 o'clock to most of those still wishing to take part.
8.14 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Silvester: The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson), like many who have spoken so far, isolated two main items which are relevant for discussion: first, the structure of the Civil Service; secondly, accountability to this House. I add a third, namely, the general level of training and standards applying in the Civil Service and throughout industry.
One of the criticisms of Chapter I is that it is rather unfair to the Civil Service, and I think one of the reasons for what is said is that the Committee sought to apply to the Civil Service standards which are only just becoming common in industry itself. It is unreasonable to expect the Civil Service to have developed

1645
further in this respect than many of the elements of industry which are now held up as prime examples of how we should conduct ourselves. It is not to be expected that the Civil Service will lead very much in this respect, but what is interesting, as a result of the Fulton Report, is that, if its recommendations are put into operation, it will put the Civil Service ahead with some of the larger companies and best parts of industry outside.
Having said that, I turn, as others have, to the two points, the structure of the Civil Service as discussed in the Fulton Report, and the effect which its recommendations would have on accountability to this House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) said that he saw a clear distinction between the procedures in industry and the procedures in the Civil Service and that it would not be possible to translate one into the other automatically. I agree that one could not do it automatically, but I think that I take a slightly different view on the extent to which it is possible to translate lessons from the best of industry into the Civil Service. Obviously, the subject matter differs, but the people are motivated in the same way.
There are passages in the Report which are relevant to the way in which the Civil Service can be expected to react. As the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) emphasised, however much attention we devote to the Report, in the end what matters is the satisfaction of the individual civil servant in his job. Some of the points which emerge from the Report are already answered by recommendations which have already been accepted by the Prime Minister. One of these relates to the proper use of people in the Civil Service.
One feature which impressed me most on reading the Report was the extent to which qualifications are required for entry into the Civil Service but are ill used in later times. This is not simply a question of the clerical officer referred to by the management study who spent 3½ years doing routine filing despite all his A and O levels. It seems from the Report to stretch right through the Civil Service in all grades. Neither is it simply a matter of the jobs which people are given, although it is a major criticism that some people are given jobs which lack the in-
1646
tellectual content which they could reasonably expect. There is also the question of the ancillary services, or lack of them, available which divert a civil servant's attention to matters which ought not to claim his time.
Some of the civil servants to whom I have spoken—this has been mentioned in the House on several occasions—find it particularly irritating that typing and other normal services and procedures which are taken for granted in commercial firms are such a burden in the Civil Service. There are, therefore, these aspects of the matter—the misuse of people, the lack of intellectual content, and the lack of ancillary services.
The hon. Member for Monmouth made a great point about the proportion of the Report devoted to training and drew a number of conclusions about the attendant dangers. One conclusion I draw is that although there is a great deal of thought in industry now about training, it is possible—many hon. Members will have experience of this—for people to have been adequately trained and brought in from, say, the M.I.T. or some other place and then not to be able to use that training within the system. It is found that the additional training which is described in the Report as so desirable has been improperly used. We are, therefore, in danger of making that problem worse.
The second motivating factor for the civil servant himself is the possibility of promotion. The main recommendation here, which has been accepted by the Prime Minister, is that touching the abolition of the classes. This is an enormous step forward that will doubtless take some time to bring into operation and will have a major effect on the problem of promotion. But there are others.
The question is how a person decides he is worth promotion. Recommendation 55 says:
"Seniority should count for promotion when it reflects experience of value for higher posts;…In the assessment of staff more weight should be given to performance on the job measured against set objectives."
The central question is what set objectives one is measured against. One of the elements of success, which the Report emphasises strongly in Chapter 5, is that there should be an area for which a man is responsible. That must imply that he

1647
should have powers of innovation and experimentation. In any other sort of job there is a great deal of satisfaction to be gained by knowing that some of the influences that will bear on one's promotion prospects are those which come from the creative ability one applies to one's job. If a civil servant is to be made a manager, but within very confined limits, that will not be satisfactory for him.
Another recommendation concerns the extent to which salaries are to be less tightly controlled. I understand that the proposal is that people within the same section should be able to draw substantially different levels of salary. A way must be found whereby people who are doing better at a range of jobs have a financial reward.
The Report spends some time on the question of introducing outsiders. I am not convinced of the desirability of introducing a large number of outsiders into the Civil Service. One wishes to introduce into the Civil Service the best management techniques from industry, but it is a fallacy to think that this can be done by introducing people, however accomplished, who have exercised those techniques in industry, because one is introducing an alien body. One should seek to promote the same kind of thinking among those already there.
Memorandum No. 24, submitted by the Treasury, speaks of the effect of secondment outside the Service and people coming into the Service. It is worth quoting the comment on pages 390 and 391 of Volume 4 on those who came from outside under the 1965 scheme:
"Given the sources from which individuals came, and the pattern of shortages at the time, it did not in many cases prove possible to put people into posts where their previous experience was directly relevant though it was normally of value in a general way."
That is pretty limited praise. It continues:
"The general picture that emerged is that it is the quality of the man rather than any exact correspondence between his outside experience and his Civil Service work that determines the speed with which he adjusts…"
In other words, if a fellow is a good fellow in outside industry and is introduced into the Civil Service, he will do as well there, irrespective of his industrial
1648
experience, as he would have expected to do if he had started there in the first place.
One area into which outside people may be introduced with advantage is personnel management. But such introductions should be strictly limited, and most improvements should come from the training and encouragement of those already in the Service.
I do not think mention has been made of one aspect of the influences which come to bear on the Civil Service. If we are faced with a situation in which we put more management responsibility on civil servants, and if we ask the Civil Service to take on many different tasks, it follows that there is a likelihood that over the years some people will not continue to be as valuable to the Service as they might have been. To be blunt, I am saying that there must be a greater opportunity to remove people from the Civil Service. The Report shows that the number who left through misconduct, inefficiency and redundancy declined between 1963 and 1966. I am not in a position to judge whether that is good, but it seems unlikely that that should be a normal situation at a time when the Civil Service was increasing in numbers.
The Treasury says that the procedure under Section 9 of the Superannuation Act, 1965 whereby a pension may be granted to people under 50 who are forcibly retired from the Civil Service is very rarely used, because it needs a special Treasury Minute before Parliament. Another impediment is the wretched question of the transferability of pensions.
The Government should take account of these matters in making it possible for people to leave the Service, either with a little push or of their own volition, not necessarily when they are behaving badly or particularly inefficiently but when it seems that they are unlikely to make much further progress in the Service.
I shall say no more about the internal affairs of the Civil Service, except that I do not take such a gloomy view of the Report as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) does. Some of his criticisms are met by Chapter 5. The question is largely the extent to which it is possible to implement it.

1649
The task is fantastically large, and it depends on how much the House is prepared to make adjustments. The basic question for the House to decide, if it agrees with the Report and with Chapter 5 in particular, is the extent to which it is prepared to delegate responsibility in a way which means that the functions delegated will no longer be accountable in the House. It is a straightforward matter for the House to decide. No amount of further discussion of the Report, no amount of efforts by the Government or the Civil Service to implement its recommendations, will have any effect unless that fundamental change is made.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: I shall confine my remarks to one aspect of the Fulton Report which, so far as I am aware has not been mentioned in the debate. Many hon. Members have spoken about the need for an open society, for what is called "participation"—the "in" word at present—by members of the public in Government decisions. The Report says on page 92:
"…we suggest that the Government should set up an inquiry to make recommendations for getting rid of unnecessary secrecy in this country."
We would all agree with that. It adds:
"Clearly, the Official Secrets Acts would need to be included in such a review."
If we are serious, as I think hon. Members are, about wanting to operate as open a society as possible and about the necessity for a proper outflow of information from Government Departments to the public, a practical way of achieving this would be immediately to investigate the workings of the Official Secrets Acts.
The Official Secrets Act dates back to 1911. It was conceived in an atmosphere of a then current spy scare. It was added to in 1921 in the aftermath of a spy scare. It was further added to in 1939 when there was a general war atmosphere. I concede that an Official Secrets Act is necessary and that it is proper that it should operate to protect defence secrets, in cases where the security of the State is genuinely at risk.
But the situation is that the Act has been so interpreted that it operates not only on official secret information but
1650
on official information of any kind. As I said we are talking about the need for proper participation—a word I hate and which I hope will die out along with "escalation", "meaningful", and "purposive", and other grotesque words. This is an appropriate time, therefore, to examine how far the Official Secrets Act inhibits civil servants from giving information to the public which is in no way secret and which the public have a right to hear about and the Press have the right and indeed, duty to report.
Almost every civil servant takes an oath under the Official Secrets Act and that oath continues in force not only while he is in the service but forever after until the head of his Department gives him the O.K. to reveal some particular piece of information. Human beings are all alike, whether they be in Government or in Opposition, in the Civil Service or in private industry. They talk about freedom and about the freedom of the Press and the glories of a free Press. Yet they are always very reluctant to reveal information which might be embarrassing or which might hide some sort of administrative muddle or which might not resound great credit on themselves.
This factor, coupled with the Official Secrets Act, on which they can lean, makes it almost impossible for civil servants to expose an administrative muddle which should be exposed and which might react against the Government of the day because the Government have to take responsibility. Civil servants are prevented from doing this by the belief that they might be prosecuted under the Act.
I do not suggest that the Act is used capriciously or that there have been many prosecutions under it. There have not. Indeed, one of the perversities is that the only time the Act is ever debated in this House is when there has been some prosecution which hon. Members feel to be unjust and raised it on the Floor of the House. No Government since 1911 have chosen voluntarily to examine the Act and do anything to limit it.
My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General is supposed to be responsible for "participation". I hope that she will take the recommendation of the Fulton

1651
Committee seriously and set up an inquiry to examine the relevance today of this Act, conceived over 50 years ago.
Perhaps the need in 1911 to disseminate information was not as great as it is now. We live in an age when television brings Ministers before millions of viewers to be "cross-examined"—and indeed I would like to see civil servants brought before the public as well. There is a genuine need to see whether the Act is properly aligned to the needs of the day.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I have only one theme and request. I ask that the powers that be—the usual channels—should reconsider the terms of reference of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner and extend them to allow consideration of the working of the new Civil Service Department which has been set up as a result of the recommendations of the Fulton Committee. This request is based on the experience of the Select Committee during its first year of working in establishing the relationship between the Civil Service and Parliament through what paragraph 281 of the Report calls "the new specialised Committees".
The crux of the Committee's year of work in relation to our attitude to the Civil Service and its attitude to us was the Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner on Sachsenhausen. When we came to investigate that, we found that the whole subject had got off to a wrong start because it had been investigated by the House in a way typical of the pattern evolved by this House over many years in control of the Executive. It showed all the flaws that now exist in the way we exert Parliamentary control over the Executive.
First, it established a confrontation. The Foreign Office was on trial and the opposition—I do not necessarily mean the official Opposition—to the Foreign Office was there to criticise. It meant that a Government Minister was coming to defend the Foreign Office and that he would take a firm line in defending the reputation of his civil servants, because he believed that he would be unjustified in investigating criticism on a much broader and in a much more flexible way. He felt that because the criticism
1652
was in public on the Floor of the House he had to defend the officials who had made the decisions in this case.
As a result, the case came to the Select Committee already prejudged, with the matter in a rigid and inflexible mould and the Permanent Secretary to the Foreign Office giving evidence to us already committed to his Minister's view of the situation and having to defend that view. We wanted to pierce deeper, and we asked for the official who had made the decision complained of in the Sachsenhausen case and tried to find out why he made that decision, what was the reason why an error of administration had arisen. We thought that he would be able to give the full background and that we would be able to come to a more rational and more humane judgment about the nature of the error.
It still seems to me that error was made because a man was making a decision against the background of several thousand decisions which he was having to make in this whole area over a limited period of time and with limited information. Had we been able to see the full picture as he saw it at the time, our understanding of his situation would have been more compassionate than it could be from the cursory way in which we were able to examine the situation after a rigid and inflexible attitude had been developed because the matter had arisen in debate in the House.
It seems to me from all that it would have been far better if there had never been a debate in the House and if control of the Executive had not been administered in the usual old-fashioned way which has been developed here and that the idea of confrontation is totally wrong for the real control of the Executive. What we ought to develop is a working relationship with civil servants so that we understand their difficulties and they understand what it is we want from them. The only way in which to do that is with a long continuing relationship with the people actually making the decisions in the Department at the time.
That is why I hope that the terms of reference of this Committee will be widened so that we can take an interest in all the problems of this new Department as the representative of the Civil

1653
Service as a whole and that we can establish a working relationship which is concerned with problems as well as with errors. At the moment the Committee is compulsorily concerned only with errors and, naturally, whenever a civil servant comes before our Committee he is on the defensive wanting to justify what has been done instead of simply opening up the whole of his work so that we can take this compassionate interest.
It is this kind of working relationship which is at the crux of this new attitude to the Civil Service which the House has developed. I very much agree with what the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon. We need to develop a new attitude within new institutions. It is no good putting new institutions on top of the old. The House is not capable of fulfilling that role. We are already feeling the strain of the reforms which were initiated by the former Leader of the House, because they have been added to an outmoded system of Parliamentary control.
I should like to see a system of Select Committees appointed on the basis of terms of reference for a particular Department, or section of a Department, working closely with the civil servants at all levels in the Department and discussing policy before decisions are made. When decisions have been made and implemented in legislation, there would be a Committee to consider it when the legislation came off the Floor of the House and, instead of going to a Standing Committee appointed from among Members who had no particular interest in the matter, except that they had spoken on Second Reading, the legislation would go back to the Committee which had taken part in the formation of the policy.
It follows from that there would have to be smaller numbers on Committees. They could not be so many Committees with the present level of manning, but I do not think that there need be. The Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner would be just as efficient if there were four or five Members as with 12. The Select Committee on Agriculture would have been just as efficient with the original 16 Members as with the later 25. There is no reason why Committee should be as big as they are, but the important thing is to develop
1654
a working relationship with the civil servants.
I therefore believe that we have to have a completely new strategy for the nature of Parliament and the way in which it works with the Administration, and this in turn will mean a new view of the rôle of Members of Parliament and the facilities afforded to them to effect that role. It means things which I cannot mention in this debate without getting out of order, but it means a completely new pay structure for Members of Parliament and completely new facilities for them to do their jobs. Only in that way can we get the detailed control of administration and of the Executive which will be much more important in the coming 20 or 30 years.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) made a very interesting speech. There was so much of it with which I agreed. He came at the end to what he now regards as the division between the parties, namely, that in the 1970s we shall be moving into a pattern of society where people will want to take more decisions for themselves and, therefore, the Government will not be taking as many decisions and there will not be the necessity for the kind of management techniques about which the Fulton Committee was talking. He is partly right in his assessment. As one gets towards a more affluent society there is less need for the State to provide welfare facilities, which are really provided for the less well-off.
There is a whole area of Government activity which will diminish in the 1970s. It also follows from that that we must preserve that affluence and therefore one has to have much more refined techniques, much more detailed management of the economy, so that the individual can maintain his higher standard of living. It also means that one has to be able to fix quickly upon the people who get into distress, the people who are left out in the general welfare extended by greater affluence. Therefore, one has to have more detailed methods of finding people and helping them. All of that calls for much more detailed management, much more complicated management than we have had in the past. This seems to underlie the need for the kind

1655
of Civil Service that the Fulton Committee is recommending.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: I rise to give a general welcome to the Report. I took exception to the words in the first paragraph which referred to "amateurs". I suppose that I could do it in a particular way, because I am speaking now presumably as a professional politician of two and a half years' standing, whereas I am referred to in the Report, after 20 years, as an amateur. This resentment was generally felt. It should not necessarily detract from the value of the Report which is very great indeed.
I want to examine the Report against the background of general public criticism of the Civil Service. If the Report is not meeting that criticism, then it has failed to do its job and make changes which we could and should be discussing. The first public critcism is that the Civil Service makes very slow decisions, it takes a long time. This is generally true. There is enormous room for making speedier decisions, but there are a lot of reasons for slow decisions, such as lack of staff, poor conditions, working under strain. Most of the people whom we see in public representing the Civil Service are low-graded personnel, who do not always give the best impression to the public.
We occasionally get, and it is absolutely inexplicable—it happens in big business, too—an avoidance of decision-taking. It is far too easy to pass to another department, group or section the sort of decision which one ought to be making oneself. An important area to the public is the way in which decisions are reached, and whether or not they are the right decisions. Very often the public is arguing that they are the wrong decisions. What they are not told, and what one sometimes wonders, is whether the choices from which the decision has been made are the right ones, and whether the right choice has been selected from those.
A lot of this stems, as the Report tends to show, from the class system of recruitment and the class system inside the Civil Service. This has been known to be poor for a long time. There are
1656
instances in all sorts of grades, from the lowest clerical assistant, almost to the top, which show such a wide variety, not only of decisions, but of the way in which they are made, that one cannot fail to have regard to the fact that there must be a change in our system. The next criticism is that senior staff of the Civil Service are aged, non-projectionist, if that is the right word, indecisive, and this is generally without doubt on sheer statistical information alone. One was struck by the Report suggesting, after it had looked at the Swedish, French and American systems, that there should be more youthfulness in the senior staff, particularly around the Minister. That could be achieved in many ways. This is a general criticism of which the public is aware.
Another general public criticism relates to the lack of specialist knowledge within the Civil Service. This matter must be kept in perspective. There is a great fund of specialist knowledge available in the Service. Some tables reproduced in the Report show that about one-quarter of the Civil Service is in the professional and technical classes—people who do not normally come into the public eye.
The most damning criticism is the feeling that if a civil servant makes a decision he creates a precedent and he is therefore reluctant to make a change which will cause a series of other changes. This is the canker in the soul of the Civil Service. I believe this arises because the civil servant is not sufficiently well-trained and does not have sufficient authority to take the type of decision which this involves.
Then there is criticism of duplication between local government and the Civil Service. On the housing side or on the road side, local authorities use staff of equivalent rank, and sometimes of higher rank, than civil servants, but a matter still has to come to Whitehall for discussion, approval and general chopping about. I do not suggest that local authorities should have the final say, but this duplication must be scrutinised. There should not be this bagatelle of argument, with words, arguments, decisions and counter-decisions, and a gradual wearing down of the local people so that the national view predominates.
I am disappointed with the Report's comments on structure. Nothing decisive

1657
is said—let us hope that the grading structure will change this—about the proliferation of departmental and interdepartmental committees which sap so much effort. From my experience, I agree with the cogent remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition on this.
Job evaluation, even at the top, is poor, as Volume 2 of the Report shows. This matter needs attention.
I do not want to talk about the Swedish open-plan system. It is a valuable one which we should study, but I am not sure that a committee of inquiry as we understand a committee of inquiry would be the right machinery to do that.
On staff, it is suggested that the proposed change to a banded system will make it easier to reach pay settlements. I doubt this. I think that it will cause more problems and not fewer. It might not even be the right way to adopt to promote people and advance them quickly from one area to another. I do not think we are yet ready for the American unified structure.
The biggest problem on pay is the incremental scale system. If there is job evaluation, that will be an excellent chance to get rid of the incremental scale system, which is an impediment to most people. It is a system which does not stand up to serious examination. The transfer of pensions to enable people to go in and out of the service would be the most creditable thing which the Government have done. It would enable us to have fresh light inside and some knowledge of Government service going into industry.
All these things are important and they are in the Report. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider them when she deals with the Report.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. Tarn Dalyell: It was generous of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) to telescope his speech, as I shall do mine.
How Sir Philip Allen and Sir James Dunnett came to put pen to paper and sign Chapter 1 of the Report, I cannot imagine! How Sir William Cook, in his job, and as he has appeared before the Select Committee on Science and Tech-
1658
nology, signed paragraph 17 I find difficult to understand.
I welcome the Prime Minister's decision that before any Bill is published there will be an estimate of its likely manpower effects. I should like to see a similar discipline applied to any changes in the form of taxation on which we have. As the Fulton Committee correctly remarked.
"complexity costs time and money, and Simplicity, and thus economy, should be a constant goal".
I should like to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) and to the suggestion in the Report that an inquiry should be made into ways and means of getting rid of unnecessary secrecy both in policy making and administration. It was on this point that I interrupted my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister towards the end of his speech. He rather tossed the problem back to me and said, "If you have any ideas, let us know". I urge my right hon. Friend to set up this inquiry to which I shall submit written evidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington put the points about the Official Secrets Act much better than I would have done. I should like to see the Government's initiative of the Green Paper extended. Perhaps we could have some sort of device like a White Paper with green edges which was more flexible than something produced in the form of a White Paper which we have had up to now. It should be admitted that the cost of reviewing and updating the degree of restriction and classification is quite a major one. As the Fulton Report says, can we have open decisions which are openly arrived at?
I should like to follow the Leader of the Opposition on the question of the high flyers list and the possibility that high flyers would be overlooked in a larger service. I for one am profoundly concerned about the concept of the career of a civil servant being over-determined by what he has achieved perhaps at university between the ages of 18 and 21. Surely over this span of our working lives our abilities tend to change and fluctuate, as does perhaps our I.Q. Therefore, any decision that a man's career should be absolutely determined by what he has done early in life seems

1659
to me pretty doubtful. Without mentioning names too much, when I served on the Public Accounts Committee for three years there was no more impressive witness than Sir Richard Way, and his background surely could be taken into account in this context.
That brings me to the Public Accounts Committee. Following the speech of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell), this House must, in the light of what has been said, re-examine the Committee's terms of reference. Having served for three years on the Committee, I am, in retrospect, not very proud of all the finicky questions which I and my colleagues were responsible for asking. This should be looked at as a matter of urgency. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East about the crucial nature of the question of transferable pensions. I ask for an assurance that at all stages during which these problems are worked out there will be full consultation with the staff associations of the Civil Service.
It is now 9 o'clock. I gave an undertaking that I would sit down on the stroke of nine, so I now do so.
9.0 p.m.
Sir Edward Boyle: I would like to begin as a member of the Fulton Committee by saying what a privilege I found it to serve on the Committee. I am not sure that I should have been chosen but for the fact that previously I had been on the Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology had chaired a year or two before. This has been one of the most interesting tasks in which I have ever been engaged. I join the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) in thanking the witnesses who appeared before us. We had large numbers of witnesses. Many people who spent a considerable time before us gave us either oral or written evidence. Much of the evidence in the later volumes of the Report will surely prove of lasting value.
I would like to start with two preliminary remarks in answer to the debate. First, whatever the merits of our answers and our solutions in the Fulton Report, I feel fairly certain that in one respect our
1660
approach was a rational one. We began not with any ideal model of what the Civil Service should be. We began with the tasks that have to be performed and the men and women who are needed for them.
We say that specifically in paragraph 24 of the Report, from which I quote:
"The Civil Service must continuously review the tasks it is called upon to perform and the possible ways in which it might perform them; it should then think out what new skills and kinds of men are needed, and how these men can be found, trained and deployed. The Service must avoid a static view of a new ideal man and structure which in its turn could become as much of an obstacle to change as the present inheritance."
I believe that that was the right starting point for our inquiry.
My second preliminary point is that I agree very much with those who say—like, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell)—that our view of the whole question of Civil Service reform is closely bound up with one's view of the functions of government. I should like to say a few words on that, and take some of the points made earlier in the debate by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne.
We accept far more of the central Government nowadays for a number of reasons. First, everybody accepts that it is a prime responsibility of the Government to remedy avoidable social evils. In this respect I believe that politics in this country have never been the same since the Coalition White Paper on Employment Policy of 1944. Secondly, since the mid-1950s, it has come to be widely accepted that the Government have the responsibility to foster economic growth, whatever our differences as to the balance of measures whereby Governments can best do that.
Thirdly, and in addition, nearly everyone recognises today that it is right, in the words of my own mentor in economic matters, Sir Hubert Henderson,
"to seek to regulate by more deliberate policy a number of matters that were formerly left to the laws of supply and demand."
In other words, we recognise the need for more collective decisions about things like town planning, the supply of teachers or the provision of university places.
A fourth reason, which has not been mentioned today, why we expect more

1661
of the Government is that we have come to take a more optimistic view of human potentiality. Thus we support educational advance not only because of the need of a modern industrial society for an increased supply of talent, but also because we have learned over the years that the pool of potential ability is considerably deeper than we previously supposed.
But while, for all these reasons, we have come to take for granted an extension of influence and activity on the part of the State, I agree with those hon. Members, on both sides, who have said that this does not mean that there has been a simple extension of the powers and functions of the State. I believe that the manner of the State's involvement in collective decision-taking has grown extremely complicated and extremely diverse, and the community outside the Government has itself become more and more involved. I believe that negotiation and a sense of mutual involvement between the Government and the outside world will play a continuing important part in the work of some of the most important Government Departments, Furthermore, I believe that this will go on being true even under a Government which is rightly committed in certain respects to reducing the role of the State.
I agree with what the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) said on this subject; even if, in certain respects, we see less direct intervention by the State, and certain matters left more to private initiative, none the less there will still be a condition of mutual involvement between the State and communities outside the central Government for objectives that are generally accepted.
In this context I would also very much like to echo what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said at the end of his speech. We need today a more powerful and sophisticated Government machine than in the nineteenth century or in the pre-war years, but we also need at the same time more effective Parliamentary controls; we need machinery for the redress of grievances, and we need adequate checks on authority. Alongside the growth in the influence of the Government must go adequate checks on authority and adequate defences for personal liberty.
1662
I think it is highly relevant to add this: do not let us, even with the best Civil Service in the world, make the fatal error of supposing that the central Government will ever have a monopoly of good ideas. I know well from my own interest in the education service that so many good ideas have come up from local authorities and, again, as we know, many forward-looking ideas come from private industry. It is absolutely essential that a civil servant should be an expert adviser on those matters which central Government alone can perform, should also develop right techniques of mutual involvement with the outside world, and should at the same be responsive to good ideas from outside. I would say, with respect, that Whitehall can be particularly good at pulling together a range of information and spreading the best existing practice, but there is always danger if Governments believe they have a monopoly of really good ideas on any subject.
Having made those two points, I thought that for the rest of my speech I would try to answer two or three of the criticisms which have been made of this Report; then I will say something about the recommendations which have been accepted by the Government; and lastly, if there is time, say a few words about one or two matters which have not attracted much attention in the debate.
I would say first just a word on the vexed question on the civil servant as generalist. I quite recognise, on reflection, that the drafting of Chapter 1 might have been difficult. I think that many of us on the Committee will have noticed the criticisms which have been made, and I think, looking back, that it would clearly have been better if the tribute to the Civil Service in paragraph 22 of Chapter 1 had been placed before the rather sharp criticisms made in paragraph 14.
Having said that, I think it is at the same time important to realise just what were the bases of those criticism, and that at least some relevant points were made here. The crux of the matter comes in paragraph 15 where we say:
"The ideal administrator is still too often seen as the gifted layman who, moving frequently from job to job within the Service, can take a practical view of any problem, irrespective of its subject-matter, in the light

1663
of his knowledge and experience of the government machine."
To those who are critical of that sentence I would say first of all that it has been endorsed by at least one—I should have thought—important authority, Lady Sharp, who, in another place, said:
"Nevertheless, I sec what the Committee meant, and although I wish they had chosen their language more precisely, I think there was a great deal in it. I believe it is true that in the Service we have overdone what they call the 'cult of the generalist', and the higher one goes in the Service the truer this has been."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 24th July, 1968; Vol. 295, c. 1086.]
Later in the same paragraph Lady Sharp was a little more pointed and personal, so I shall omit what she said on this occasion. In effect, she endorsed the substance of what we said in our paragraph 15.
Furthermore, on excessive mobility, what we say about moving frequently from job to job within the Service is borne out by some evidence in Volume 2 in the mangement consultancy report. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred earlier to this. The management consultancy team said in paragraph 65 that the administrators whom they interviewed had been in their present jobs for an average of only 2·7 years. They had averaged a period of 3·2 years in their last jobs and 2·8 years in all their completed jobs in the class. In paragraph 67 the management consultancy team make some pretty pointed critcisms of this. They say:
"Many Administrators have so short a tenure in any job that even the most able of them rarely have time thoroughly to grasp the complex subjects with which they are dealing.
Without a deep understanding of these subjects, either by experience or training, few of them are in a position to evaluate in any fundamental way the extent to which the policies they are administering are successful. This must inhibit the drive for innovation."
This paragraph should not be overlooked by the House or by outside opinion. I have noted the remarks of Lord Simey in his note of reservation on Chapter 1, where he says, in paragraph 5:
"It is true that modern economic and political organisation needs high specialism, but it also needs more general qualities of judgment and decisiveness, and the ability to understand how the reshaping of values may be embodied in and implemented by public policy."
1664
I hope that I shall be the last person to under-value judgment and decisiveness, but, nonetheless, one must not set too high a value on those qualities alone and ignore others.
If I may quote one more paragraph from the Report, paragraph 41 states:
"It must be accepted that for the administrator to be expert in running the Government machine is not in itself enough. He must in future also have to acquire the basic concepts and knowledge, whether social, economic, industrial or financial, relevant to his area of administration and appropriate to his level, of responsibility. He must have a real understanding of, and familiarity with, the principles, techniques and trends of development in the subject-matter of the field in which he is operating."
That, I think, is a sound point of view. The way in which I would put it is that those in the administrative class with important jobs to perform must be able to talk to experts without having to demand that everything is put into layman's language. They must have real familiarity with their subject-matter.
On another point on which there has been considerable criticism, the decision about preference for relevance when recruiting graduates and post-graduates, I rather expected that the Government's decision would go against the Committee. I know that this suggestion by the majority has been widely criticised. But before the House finally decides against us on this matter, I would ask hon. Members to look at paragraphs 76 and 77 of the Report, where some points of substance are made.
"First-degree courses based on the study of modern subjects especially attract many young people with a positive and a practical interest in contemporary problems, political, social, economic, scientfic and technological."
We also point out that there is evidence that most undergraduates want jobs in which they can make direct use of their university studies. I recollect an interesting point made some years ago by Dr. Ian Little who said that it is very often the person who takes up a subject in later life who becomes "academic" in his approach to it, in the wrong sense. I believe that there is much truth in this. If I wanted to be controversial I could think of one at least of my right hon. Friends who had taken up the study of economics dangerously late in life. [Laughter.] There is the danger that one

1665
may see one part of economic theory out of perspective in relation to the whole.
I am glad, at any rate, that the Prime Minister has gone a considerable way to conceding our point in paragraph 79, where we say that the Service needs to recruit outstandingly able men and women, whatever the subject of their university degree, that, if they have not got a relevant qualification, it is important that they should take a special training course. Incidentally, I agree with the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson) about the importance of postgraduate training before taking on any one of a number of jobs. If one wishes today to do a first-class job in Government service, there are sound reasons for thinking that one needs a period of postgraduate training, rather than moving straight from the textbook, as it were, to the work of a Government Department.
We have been criticised about the policy planning units which we suggest in Chapter 5, and the suggestion that in most Departments there should be a senior policy adviser. Often I am struck by a point which my right hon. Friend mentioned today, and that is the importance of the correct identification of a problem. There are those who have studied subjects in depth and who are much better than the rest of us at identifying an issue correctly. Sometimes, that will be easier for a senior civil servant who does not have too much of the day-to-day work and involvement with the outside world.
Again we mention the senior policy adviser. We say in paragraph 182 that it would be his job,
"like his staff, to know the other experts in the field, both inside and outside the Service.… He should be aware of all the important trends in new thinking and practice that are relevant. We hope that adviser would often be a relatively young man."
On reflection, I am not sure that I would not depart from the suggestion that he should have an independent line of communication to the Minister, as it were, bypassing the Permanent Secretary. But there is a case in a Department sometimes for someone relatively young who is in close touch with modern thinking on the subject concerned, and who can make a very important contribution by identifyirg current problems correctly.
1666
I agree completely with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he says that, in the Foreign Office Department of Overseas Affairs, ideas thrown up by the Department's planning unit must run the gauntlet of the views of those in day-today contact with the outside world. That seems to be very desirable.
I have made these comments on the Recommendations which have most widely attracted criticism. I have done it not out of a feeling of defensiveness, but because I think it is right to have the widest possible exchange of ideas, and because even those hon. Members who reject our suggestions will feel, I hope, that there is some sense in the paragraphs to which I have referred.
I come on to the three major Recommendations that have been accepted, and I begin with the important decision concerning the Civil Service Department. It is interesting that until now, as we say in paragraph 252, the British Civil Service has been almost alone in continuing to combine Treasury and Civil Service functions in a single Department. The decision to have a Civil Service Department is an important one for the Civil Service, but it is also important for the Treasury.
I believe that the Treasury should be the major economic Department concerned with the planning of our economy. I have long been doubtful whether the central management of the Service should be in the Treasury. It has been bad on the financial side for the Treasury because the Joint Permanent Secretary inevitably has been in something of an anomalous position. In spite of the great importance of his job on the economic side and his high rank, he has never been complete master in his own house in charge of his own staff appointments.
The staffing of the new Civil Service Department is of the greatest importance, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to say something about it. In paragraph 255 of the Report, we say:
"The new department should not in our view be predominantly staffed by officers who have spent most of their careers in the Treasury, and can thus have little experience of direct responsibility for management."
We further say, in paragraph 256:
"The Department should also include specialists (e.g. scientists and engineers) who

1667
will be able to bring an intimate knowledge and experience to bear on the recruitment, training and career management of members of their own disciplines."
I hope that the Civil Service Department will include a sufficient number of specialists of various kinds. I hope it will not, for too long at any rate, seem to be the old establishment part of the Treasury under another name. I hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to say that everything will be done to give the new Department as modern-minded an appearance as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Guild-ford made a very interesting speech. One thing that surprised me was when he suggested that it was wrong that the Civil Service Department should concern itself with top appointments in the Civil Service. I think that is inevitable. I take the point about leaving as much responsibility as possible with the Departments, but the Civil Service Department must have a considerable responsibility for top appointments. My hon. Friend may have noticed that the Head of the Civil Service Department will be assisted by a Committee for this purpose. I do not think that a disproportionate weight of responsibility will rest on him alone, as an individual.
One important consequence of the change is that, to put it frankly, the Treasury will become a little less of an overlord in the Government machine as a whole. Hitherto, the Treasury has not only been concerned with Government expenditure and with a number of economic matters, but it has also had Civil Service responsibilities. It has also been the Department responsible for advising the Prime Minister on the machinery of government. At times this has been very important. I hope it is not indiscreet for me to say that I was personally interested and involved when the question was raised about how higher education should be organised—whether we should have two Ministers or one Minister. But these responsibilities will pass to the new Civil Service Department. Paragraph 267 says:
"But it should be the task of the Civil Service Department, rather than of the Treasury, to determine the scale of the staffs necessary for the efficient discharge of the tasks of departments; and the Treasury should in all cases have to accept that a given task demands the necessary staff that the new
1668
department, after examination, is satisfied are needed.… If the Treasury took the view that the total expenditure should be reduced, it would be free to challenge the policies of the spending departments, but not the assessment of staff costs approved by the Civil Service Department."
That seems an important recommendation and I hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to tell us that it will be carried out.
The second recommendation accepted by the Government concerns the Civil Service College. The College will be concerned with courses for new entrants. It will also have to put forward a programme for the further training of those who entered the Service before recent improvements in the training programmes began. I hope that due note will be taken of paragraph 112:
"…the Civil Service College should not attempt to provide the total amount of training required by civil servants."
It would be wholly wrong if the college attempted to have a monopoly on training.
My right hon. Friend criticised the suggestion that places should be set aside, at any rate to begin with, for men and women from private firms. I am sure that the Government will have noted my right hon. Friend's suggestion. At the same time, nothing that he said is inconsistent with the important point in paragraph 111:
"…the college has an important part to play in laying the foundations for a greater understanding between civil servants and the outside world."
I believe that the college can play an important part, but this will not just happen of itself. I hope that it will extend its training beyond the type of course already given in Regents Park. I think that that has been a success, but it is important that the type of training and range of courses should be wider than that.
The third recommendation which the Government have accepted concerns the important proposal in Chapter 6 for a unified grading structure. I share the view of the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that this is one of the most important recommendations in the Report. It is obviously going to take a long while to implement, but I was very pleased when the Government

1669
accepted its recommendation in principle in the Prime Minister's original statement.
I ask hon. Members—if they have not already done so—to look at paragraph 231, dealing with the advantages of a unified grading structure, in which we say:
"In particular, the unified grading-system we propose will enable the Service to gain the full contribution which scientists, engineers and other specialist staff could, but do not now, make to policy, management and administration."
We also say later that
"it would promote more efficient and accountable management and the more economical use of manpower."
Mr. Douglas Houghton: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Commission recommended the unified grading structure on the basis of the information brought back by Sir Philip Allen and the Chairman after only five days in the United States, or on the basis of a closer examination of the limitations and inflexibility of the American system?
Sir E. Boyle: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that America was not in itself decisive. We took a considerable amount of evidence from industry—from large industrial firms—on the way in which the grading structure is worked in industry, and that influenced us more than the information brought back from the United States.
A further point we made was that
"a common grading structure…offers, in our view, the only practicable means of dealing with the fragmentation of over 1,400 departmental classes, each with its own separate pay and career structure".
As a former Financial Secretary, I can assure the House that that is a very important consideration.
In the last few minutes I want to mention one or two other aspects of the Report which have attracted rather less attention in today's debate. Few hon. Members, except my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester), have referred to the importance of Chapter 4 on mobility and pension arrangements. In paragraph 129 we deal with the question of personal appointments by Ministers—a subject that might have been controversial but
1670
which we dealt with in a way to which I am sure no hon. Members will object. We say:
"These have been personal appointments in the sense that they have been individuals known to the Ministers concerned, who have judged that their individual qualities and experience could be of special help to them in their departments. We welcome this practice as a means of bringing new men and ideas into the service of the State."
We also speak—and this is just as important—about movement out of the Service. In paragraph 133 we say that
"the Service should have wider powers to retire on pension those who have ceased to earn their keep."
This is not just a matter of culpable inefficiency; we are referring to those who have run out of steam and are no longer earning their keep. We say some important things about the transferability of pension rights. We say:
"We recommend therefore that the Service should, wherever practicable, make transfer arrangements with private employers to facilitate late entry, and that all civil servants who have served for an appropriate qualified period should be able to transfer or preserve their pension rights on voluntarily leaving the Service."
That, too, is important. I hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to tell us that in her view a more mobile Civil Service in no way causes insuperable difficulties for a mainly career service.
We also speak near the end about Ministers and the staff immediately surrounding them. I hope it will not be controversial that where a personal private secretary is unacceptable to an incoming Minister a change may be made without any suggestion of a stigma on the individual concerned. That is an important principle.
Lastly, I re-echo the point made this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Civil Service reform is important but, like economic planning, it can never be a substitute for adequate decision-taking by the Government. We can have the best Civil Service in the world but, nonetheless, responsibility for policy must rest squarely with Ministers, and it will be for Ministers, above all, for the future, to see that the decisions that the country need are taken in good time.
9.30 p.m.
The Paymaster-General (Mrs. Judith Hart): This has been an extremely interesting debate. Hon. Members on both sides have recognised what interesting contributions we have had. What I noted particularly—I think it was first pointed out by an hon. Member Opposite—was that apart from the two Front Bench speakers, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) all those who have taken part have been Members who came to this House from 1964 onwards. This shows the degree of interest among those who are more new to the House in the whole field thrown up by the Fulton Report and the changes now to be made in the Civil Service. To some of the many points made I can only reply that these are still being studied, because we are, of course, in the very early stages of setting up the Civil Service Department under the Prime Minister, and, whereas we have reached a number of decisions, others are clearly bound to be under study for some time yet.
The first question is that of numbers in the Civil Service. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the present position clear—that, since the review of public expenditure earlier this year, determined steps have been taken to prevent any increase in staff numbers during this financial year; that, in October, numbers were slightly less than in April, and that we are expecting to succeed in our aim for the year.
But there is one aspect of this to which I would draw attention, mainly because it is rarely appreciated in the House and much more rarely appreciated by the public. It is very relevant to any consideration of numbers in the Service. This is that, of the non-industrial staff in the Civil Service, about 65 per cent. serve outside London and also outside the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office in Edinburgh and Cardiff. In other words, about 65 per cent. are working in regional and local offices of, for example, the Board of Trade, the Department of Employment and Productivity and the Department of Health and Social Security, or they are in the prison service or in research establishments. They are the people with whom the public tend to have the closest contact. I do not think that, when hon. Members or members of the
1672
public call for reductions in the size of the Civil Service, they are really seeking to ask that there should be fewer prison officers or fewer men and women to call on the old and sick to help them claim their Welfare State benefits.
What has happened is that the fields in which the sharpest increase has tended to take place in Civil Service numbers over the last few years have been these very fields where a degree of personal service to the public is involved. In some of these fields, improving the quality of care and raising the standards of all of us in relation to the public, are necessarily functions of the number of people available to do the work. What we can do—here I agree completely with the Leader of the Opposition—is seek to streamline the routine procedures—he mentioned Government procurement, and there are others, like the computerisation of payments both to the Inland Revenue and for social security—so that more man-hours are available for work demanding essential human contact. A great many efforts are at present being made in this direction.
But of course it is true, in the end, that policies determine numbers. It is, however, worth emphasising that the policies which make the keenest demands on manpower tend on the whole to be those which are the least politically controversial and which are concerned with the consequences of making Welfare State provision, with which both sides agree.
I turn now to the Committee's proposals on the terms of service and the promotion of mobility. It will be recalled that the Report proposes the abolition of establishment and the substitution of new terms of service, and a number of measures which are designed to increase mobility into and out of the Civil Service. Clearly, it will take time to reach conclusions on these changes, especially as they affect the Civil Service superannuation scheme. Two points in particular were raised, one by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and another by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle), touching on pension provision and its relationship to mobility.
It is well known now that the Government's proposals for national superannuation changes and a new social insurance

1673
system will be emerging very soon. They will in any case have to be discussed with the national staff side in order to take account of a number of points which will require some revision of the relationship of the State pension scheme to the pension schemes affecting the Civil Service. Equally, what the White Paper will say on transferability or preservation of pension rights will be highly relevant to the whole question of mobility. We shall, in other words, see how we fit together the proposals in the Fulton Report and the new framework which will be provided by the White Paper, and all of this will demand a great deal of close discussion with the staff associations and the Civil Service Department.
This brings me to the Fulton recommendation that both of those bodies should take part jointly in a review to determine the new pattern of joint consultation which may be appropriate in the light of the Government's decisions on the Report. The Committee makes clear that any new pattern of joint consultation should reflect and not determine the results of the changes which it proposes In the meantime—I emphasise this—there is no question of any alterations in the machinery for joint consultation which has been so valuable for so long.
The Civil Service has built up a system of relationships between management and staff associations which has served as a model for civil services in other countries and has ensured that our Civil Service, notwithstanding the inevitable strains and stresses which occur from time to time, has remained virtually strike-free and has been one in whose relationships with the Government we could always take pride, whatever the complexion of the Government in power.
It has always been, and will remain, the Government's policy to ensure that civil servants are represented by accepted staff associations of their own choosing and that these shall be, through the Whitley machinery and in other ways, fully consulted about matters which concern the Civil Service. As I have said, there will be the fullest consultation about implementation of the Fulton recommendations.
On the subject of careers, the Report proposes that the Civil Service should remain a career service in the sense that
1674
most entrants should come in when they are quite young with the expectation, but not the guarantee, of a life-time's employment. This touches on something which the right hon. Gentleman said just before he sat down. The Government wholly endorse the Committee's view. We shall examine carefully what the Report has to say about establishment, and we shall give sympathetic consideration to the other constructive proposals for promoting mobility.
It does not seem that one should find any basic contradiction between maintaining the principle of a career service and stimulating a greater degree of movement than there is today in some of the ways proposed by the Committee. There need be no conflict whatever between the two aims and purposes. But what is clear is that these measures should be aimed at constantly refreshing the Service and bringing new people into something which continues to be a mainly career service rather than at radically changing the degree to which people can feel that their careers are in the Service. It is on that basis that our examination of the Committee's proposals will go forward.
Another block of recommendations relates generally to the organisation of Civil Service work. They include the Committee's proposals for introducing accountable management, for improving management services, for extending integrated teams and hierarchies, for establishing planning units, and a number of other related suggestions, to some of which the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) addressed himself when he spoke earlier today. I do not have, nor do I think that the House will expect me to have, any new decisions to announce on this today. They very much concern the way in which Departments organise themselves for the various specific jobs they have to do. A good deal of discussion and experiment will obviously be needed to decide how each Department can best adopt the methods and organisational structure ideally suited to its needs. Consultation on this and the part which the Civil Service Department will play in promoting new ideas and techniques will continue over the coming months. The Government greatly welcome the interest the Committee took in this. Like many hon. Members who have spoken today, we regard Chapter 5

1675
and Vol. II, the Report of the management consultancy group, as being among the most important parts of the Report.
I should like to say a little more about the proposal for planning units. Perhaps I can relate what I have to say to what the right hon. Member for Bexley said, a great deal of which I agreed with. The Committee saw the main task of the planning unit as being
"…to identify and study the problems and needs of the future and the possible means to meet them; it should also be its function to see that day-to-day policy decisions are taken with as full a recognition as possible of their likely implications for the future".
The need for this kind of planning has been accepted in all Departments for some time, but they vary in the precise way in which their planning is organised within their departmental framework. There are bound to be variations, partly because the nature of the responsibilities of Departments varies so much, and partly because the relationship between planning and the day-to-day operations of a Department may vary so much according to its functions.
One example is the work of the Department of Education and Science in planning ahead for the provision of schools and staff, looking at school design and changes in educational methods that need to be represented in school design, and so on. The time between the making of the decision to build a school and the school being built is considerable. As well as being a day-to-day, operating decision, that kind of decision is related to the future. The day-to-day decision is made in the context of a general plan for the future development of education as the Government of the time see it. It would be a little artificial, perhaps, to suppose that one could clearly separate the day-to-day decision, which is itself concerned with the future and is at least planning for the medium term. Planning for the longer term may be a different matter, but the Fulton Committee was a little unclear in its definition of what it meant by "short term, medium term and long term".
My second example concerns the Department which I have just left, the Ministry of Social Security. Its civil servants are, to a considerable extent,
1676
concerned with the efficient and humane administration of schemes laid down by Statute. From their work of today may come an identification of future needs for changes in policy, but it is not surprising that in that Ministry it was absolutely necessary, in working on long-term plans for the future, to create what was in effect a separate and special planning unit.
The differences between the two Departments in the relationship between the operational, day-to-day work and the long-term planning indicate that we shall probably not be able to find one single answer that is right for all Departments, but that there will have to be variations. We shall therefore have to take time to see what will be best in each case.
The right hon. Member for Hands-worth mentioned the work of the planning unit in what is now the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Here again is a special situation. I am sure that in some cases the planning unit may be separate from the operating unit, and in others not. But we shall give a great deal of thought to this.
Very often, the most effective and suitable way of ensuring that planning is effective is, as the Report and a number of right hon. and hon. Members have suggested, to cross Departmental boundaries. A great deal has already been done in this direction by official committees, Ministerial committees and by a number of other Departmental studies which are often specially commissioned, particularly in terms of our more medium term or long term planning.
One of the basic issues in the debate has attracted a number of different views not related particularly to either side of the House. This is the question of the generalist or the specialist. My impression, and that, I think, of the right hon. Member for Handsworth, is that, on the whole, the House agrees with the decision, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced today, that the Government do not propose to follow the majority recommendation on this point. But our disagreement is by no means total, and I want to come to the point which the right hon. Gentleman made. The Committee was undoubtedly on to a most important point here but the recommendation itself is, in our view, misconceived. My right hon.

1677
Friend gave one reason. I will give three main reasons why we think that the recommendation is misconceived.
First, we do not think that the available evidence supports the view that the taking of certain degree courses provides a sufficiently clear indication of what the Committee calls
"…positive and practical interest in contemporary problems…"
or, on the other hand, a lack of it. Most students choose their first degree courses without an eye at the time on any particular employment. They go on with the subject in which they have done well at school or one which has most interested them, and for the most part leave their choice of job until late in their university career, around the time when the final year is approaching.
Secondly, we should be putting ourselves at a marked competitive disadvantage were we to accept the recommendation. The Civil Service is not in a buyers' market, as the Committee has pointed out. A very high proportion of students graduate in subjects like history, English and languages—subjects which relate back largely to their school education—and this inevitably reflects itself in the range of candidates. In recent years, the Civil Service has not had a surplus of good applicants and the number would be bound to fall if there were a bias against the majority.
Thirdly, we believe that the Committee's proposal would be unworkable in practice. It would be very difficult to define "relevance" and to work out effective and fair methods of testing it. Certainly we would welcome more good applicants with degrees in economics or sociology—I am not sure whether one of my hon. Friends has a preference for sociology graduates of the L.S.E. as civil servants or Ministers—and there has been a great deal of emphasis on that in the debate. I believe that the right solution is not to import a bias for these subjects into the selection procedure but to seek people of high quality from all academic disciplines and then to build on this foundation by teaching subjects and techniques which the work of the Service needs at the Civil Service College after entry to the Service. This view seems to be the general concensus in the House.
1678
But the important point on which the Committee focused our attention was the need of the Service to select people with the potential for developing the kind of qualities and expertise which are particularly required in Government service. This means looking for the "relevant" man and his qualities have to be very widespread and various. He must have the ability to assimilate, to analyse and present information, to communicate and to be able to think in quantitative as well as qualitative terms, and he has to be receptive and open to new ideas and new techniques.
To some extent one is saying that there ought to be an injection of numeracy, but it goes much beyond that. It is a question of being able to understand the concept of the specialist and being able to explain it, and there is a long way to go to introducing into the Service enough people with the ability to assimilate and absorb and understand the qualities of the Service. I had the great advantage of learning from an official in the Scottish Education Department the techniques of critical path analysis, although in the most rudimentary way, and then being able to pass them on to members of Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service to whom they came as a new concept. We need this kind of ability to assimilate and to pass on concepts which would not normally be acquired in university training.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) will not mind my saying this, because we all recognise how great was the contribution he made to the work of the Fulton Committee, but he disturbed me a little when at one point he used the word "fudging" in relation to the Method 2 examination. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has referred to the further inquiry which is to be carried out into Method 2 entrants. It is making good progress and we hope to have the report early in the new year. It will be published and I do not propose to comment now in detail on the selection process, but to use the word "fudging" could be taken by prospective candidates to imply that they were not chosen strictly on their merits. So far is that from being the truth that I am sure that my hon. Friend would not have wanted to create any kind of impression

1679
that the selection board did not take immence care to ensure that all aspects of the performance and the qualities of a man were assessed.
Mr. Sheldon: The word "fudging" was used in connection with Appendix E, paragraph 16. A very good test is used initially, and a number of details are given about how the marks are added up. The word "fudging" was used for the very inaccurate method of assessment by the two Boards.
Mrs. Hart: I am most grateful for that explanation.
The right hon. Member for Bexley mentioned the team concept and was entirely right about this. He referred to the team concept which was used in his own negotiations for entry to the European Community. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Social Services has used it in working out the new pension scheme with a team of people from other Departments. Clearly, this is a most useful technique in bridging Departments and ensuring that everything is taken into account in working out new plans, new proposals and new approaches.
I agreed, too, with much of what he had to say about high fliers. I am sure that if the Service is to develop as we would wish it to develop, given the new structure, we must be certain that the outstanding person is identified early enough to allow his progress to be watched closely to allow him to be brought on a little faster and to rise within the Service on his performance. I am sure that this is essential. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it has been used a good deal in the Foreign and Diplomatic Service and I am sure that it is entirely relevant and needs to be used in the Home Civil Service Departments, too.
On the question of secrecy and the Official Secrets Act, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson), I am afraid that I have to disappoint him. He asked a question of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 7th November, and was told that this was being studied. I have nothing to add to that at the
1680
moment, but when there is something to add we shall be anxious to communicate it.
I turn to the relationship of Ministers with their civil servants, and their relationship to the senior policy adviser on the one hand, and to the Permanent Secretary on the other. We are really arriving, out of the Fulton Committee, at a very general agreement about what the situation is and ought to be. It is and has always been the case, as far as I know, that advice to Ministers was given not only by the Permanent Secretary, but by all the senior officials; by the deputy secretaries and under-secretaries, according to the particular area of importance, and the subject which was of concern to them.
If one has a policy adviser, and the same thing very much applies to the senior economic adviser who becomes an adviser on those aspects of policy which have economic implications, then what needs to happen, and this is recognised both by those advisers whom I know, and those Permanent Secretaries whom I know, is that they must all work together within the framework of the Ministry. Of course there may be occasions when the senior policy adviser is putting forward his view of policy through the Permanent Secretary. Equally, there may be the odd occasion when he is coming direct to the Minister.
What seems to be wrong is the kind of rigidity that would exclude either one or the other. We must aim to end those rigidities which in any way circumscribe the particular contributions that can be made, either by policy advisers or the Permanent Secretary and the senior officials. As to Ministers' appointments there is clearly an important distinction to be made between the temporary and the permanent. If the appointment is temporary, then it is clearly understood what the consequences would be if there were a change of Minister or Government. If it is permanent, then this is someone coming right into the Civil Service on a very long-term basis, and it has to be a matter for the Civil Service Commission.
This has been a discussion ranged around a four-cornered relationship. This has emerged in almost every speech. It is concerned with the Civil Service, the Ministers, Parliament and the public. In

1681
this debate, and as a direct consequence of the Fulton Report, we could not possibly solve all our problems as they stretch out into the future in this very difficult four-cornered relationships. What is certain is that one essential contribution to the solution of our problems lies in gearing the Civil Service to the new needs of our society. It is this that will follow from the Fulton Report and from the action we are proposing to take on it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of Command Paper No. 3638 on the Civil Service.

INDUSTRIAL INJURIES (COLLIERY WORKERS)
9.58 p.m.
The Under Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Norman Pentland): I beg to move,
That the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment (No. 2) Order, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.
The Order amends the Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme which is set out in Statutory Instrument 1963/934. The power to make or vary the scheme is in Section 82 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act of 1965.
Before dealing with the effect of the Order, I should like to explain briefly the background of the scheme.
The scheme has existed since 1948, and was brought about at the request of both sides of the coalmining industry. It is contributory on both sides, and is run by a national committee on which both employers and colliery workers are represented. It provides supplements to benefits awarded to colliery workers and their dependants under the industrial injuries scheme.
The rates of benefit for dependants of those who die as the result of a colliery accident or disease are fixed as set sums in the main Order. So too are the rates of contribution. The rates of supplement for those who are incapable of work or disabled are expressed as a proportion of the corresponding industrial injuries benefit. That proportion is one third.
1682
Before 1967, upratings of industrial injuries benefit have involved an automatic increase in the rates of supplementary injury and disablement benefit. The increase in dependants' benefits and, where necessary, in contributions, has been achieved by an Order under the affirmative Resolution procedure.
At the time of the 1967 uprating, which was provided for by the National Insurance Act, 1967, both sides of the industry requested a standstill on the rates of colliery supplement. This was achieved for contributions and survivors' benefits simply by not making an Order to increase them.
For supplements to injury and disablement benefit it was necessary to amend the scheme at the point where it provided for a proportion of the industrial injuries benefits to be paid. This was at Article 12.
Consequently, Statutory Instrument 1967/1550 suspended this provision, though only until 26th January, 1968. Statutory Instrument 1968/83 carried the standstill up to 3rd December, 1968. The present Orders seeks to extend the standstill until 3rd June, 1969.
In conclusion, the extension has the support of both sides of the industry; and I commend it to the House.
10.2 p.m.
Mr. Marcus Worsley: The Under-Secretary has assisted the House by explaining the Order and the necessity for it. It is an unusual Order. The colliery industry was the only industry to take up a scheme under the Industrial Injuries Act. We are, therefore, discussing something unique to the industry.
This is the third time that this increase has been postponed. It was first postponed to a date at the beginning of this year; then it was to have been postponed to a date next month; now it is going on to June, 1969. I appreciate that this has been done by agreement and that there is no controversy within the industry.
On the other hand, certain people are receiving smaller benefits than they would otherwise be as a result of the Order. This process has been going on for over a year. The House would like to know how much longer it is to go on. Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House that this will be the last time the

1683
Government will seek a further prostponement? Can he give an undertaking, in other words, that June, 1969, is the final date to which these provisions will be postponed? Will the revised scheme be brought in on that date?
10.5 p.m.
Mr. Pentland: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to reply to the points raised by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley).
I take up first his mild criticism about the timing. What he says is true—that there is only a short time before the Order comes into effect. However, I feel sure that he will accept my assurance and that of my right hon. Friend that no disrespect to the House is intended. As he probably knows, the House and my Department are living in times which may be fairly described as hectic. I am afraid that this Order has, to some extent, been a casualty of the situation.
Secondly, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a firm assurance of the kind which he seeks. Nevertheless, my Department will bear in mind what he said. With that assurance, I hope that the House will accept the Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment (No. 2) Order, 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.

AGED AND DISABLED
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]
10.6 p.m.
Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: It gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity of raising this subject on the Adjournment, because it is very near and dear to my heart.
One of the most remarkable features about this subject is that the people who stand to gain most seem to be those who are prepared to give the most and who think that the Ministry is compassionate. However, they would like
1684
the Ministry to be a little more compassionate and to have a long cool hard look at some of the newer technologies which can be used for the benefit of the disabled. Secondly, the disabled would like the Treasury to have a long cool hard look at value analysis, because these people are being called a burden on society when they can make a great and vast contribution.
Before I develop my theme, I should say that I have done a fair amount of research work on it. I pay tribute to the Library of the House of Commons for the information which it has given me, but I am dreading tomorrow morning and subsequent mornings because since the subject for this debate was announced I have been inundated with material. It was Confucius who said that it was better to light one small candle than to grumble about the dark. What I am after tonight is an extension of the number of candles and more effective candles to assist people in need.
I put this matter under three broad headings. First, nobody in the House would argue the morality of it. Everyone would accept that it is morally right to do something for these people. Secondly, I know that it is technically possible to give far greater assistance to them, but I do not think that as yet the technologies are fully understood by the Ministry concerned. The design of some of the devices in the engineering sense is to say the least, out of the Ark. They may well be functional, but they are nowhere near as good as they should or could be. However, I shall leave that for a future discussion.
The next aspect of the argument with which I should like to deal is the one which will probably cause most trouble: from where is the money to come? I shall strongly argue that we should not be worrying about where the money will come from but analysing how much money society will save if this matter is dealt with effectively and positively. If we assist the disabled, young and old, we may well be surprised at the saving to the Exchequer. My great worry is the absence, as far as I can make out, of any real attempt by the Treasury to make a value analysis of this field of social welfare. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is a great believer in helping the underdog, no

1685
matter of what colour or creed. I hope that he will persuade his right hon. Friend the Minister and the Treasury to look at this matter carefully.
The first class about whom I want to talk are those people who can use sophisticated techniques to overcome the most severe handicaps. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me while I say to him that in the Gallery tonight we have a paraplegic who cannot move—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not call attention, even indirectly, to the presence of strangers, otherwise, as he knows, I shall have to take drastic action; although I am in complete sympathy with the case that he is advancing.
Mr. Carter-Jones: I apologise for that lapse, Mr. Speaker; I am sorry.
The person referred to, however, is far from being a liability to society. Far from drawing on public funds, he is contributing to public funds even though he is completely paralysed. This is the far end of the range where people use the most sophisticated techniques to assist them, but there are some extremely simple devices which can enable all sorts of quite humble people who want to live alone, but who are too severely handicapped, to be able to do so.
I should like to quote a few examples. It is possible for deaf people to communicate by telephone by writing. The transcription takes place immediately and deaf people can communicate by telephone. If they are happy in these circumstances, why not extend the system? There are some wonderful examples of people who are both deaf and blind and want to live alone who are able to do so because of simple technical devices.
I will not bore the House with details beyond saying that the device in question consists of a bell-push system; instead of operating a bell or a light, it operates a magnetic field. The ordinary simple deaf and dumb person carries with him something small, weighing ½ oz., around the wrist; vibration is set up and he is in touch with someone. This is at the simple end of the range. At the farthest end of the range are the totally handicapped, from one of whom I would like to quote They are not asking for sympathy or indulging in self-pity. They
1686
want as far as possible to look after themselves and make a contribution.
I had a rather hard time last week and I was extremely tired. I travelled back via Aylesbury and Stoke Mandeville and added considerably to my journey, but I arrived home a very much refreshed person when I realised the manner in which disabled people, with the assistance of dedicated technologists, were able to overcome their handicaps. I realised how lucky I was with two arms, two legs and two eyes. We, the able-bodied, should have the pleasure of giving to the disabled in the form of a thanksgiving to help them, but it would be a thanksgiving which would be returned many times to us.
The man in question is completely paralysed. His throat is pierced to enable him to breathe. One would have said that here was a man who could do nothing. He cannot move, he is paralysed, he cannot breathe adequately and he has to be assisted. If that man were in hospital that would cost the Ministry between £80 and £100 a week to keep him.
The disabled say we are a compassionate society. We sometimes misapply our compassion. That man is not in a home. He is looking after himself—and he is delighted to be paying Income Tax to help other people. One would have thought that in him there would have been a lot of self-pity. Not a bit of it. Here is his letter, and this was the basis of his complaint:
"I do approve of the Queen's Award to Industry for firms who export, but I do wish the Government would not start giving the Queen's Award to all the big firms. What about people like myself who have increased our exports by 65 per cent. this year?"
That would take care on the I.C.I.s and have them beaten. The moment we encourage this sort of person we are well on the way to recovering self-respect in the community.
I take another section of these people, and here, too, we can save money. There are people who want to live alone. Many, because of disability, have to decide to leave their homes and go into institutions sooner than they would like. If an ordinary telephone or a modified telephone at a reduced rate will allow a disabled person or an old-age pensioner to live a little longer where he wants to live,

1687
in his home, I think the Ministry and the Treasury ought to value that, because it is very costly to keep people in institutions. If we say that nurses and doctors are valuable people and scarce—and they are—then we can save on their skilled services in nursing and looking after the sick and the aged who could look after themselves, but for those who go into institutions and homes and hospitals, why not, by the application of technology, enable them to do certain things for themselves? If we do that we give them a sense of independence, and we give them a sense of belonging, and we shall save a considerable amount of money, but, above all, we shall, in the economic sense, use scarce skilled labour more efficiently and more effectively.
We are not talking about the year 2,000. We are talking about here and now. We are talking about instruments, we are talking about gadgets and devices which are here now. If we were to use the principle and take advantage of large scale production the Ministry could do very well on this.
I ought to quote, as I meant to quote, a sentence which sums up part of my philosophy. Sir Ludwig Guttmann, former director of the National Spinal Injuries Centre, speaking of his work at Stoke Mandeville, defined its aim as
"turning the physically disabled into taxpaying citizens."
And a wonderful aim it is. We should add to it by enabling the aged and the disabled to cope a little longer for themselves in their own homes when they can, and so make more effective use of limited nursing and doctoring facilities.
I end as I began. This is morally right, it is technically possible, and, what is more, it makes economic sense.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): I thank my hon. Friend for having raised this subject this evening. It is a subject in which I have a great interest, both because of the responsibilities I now hold in the Department and also because I have a very close and dear relative living in my home who is paraplegic. She spent many months at Stoke Mandeville and during that time I had many opportunities of visiting her.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It will help reporters if the hon. Member addresses the Chair.
Mr. Ennals: I had the opportunity on many occasions of visiting Stoke Mandeville while she was there, and I have the greatest admiration for Dr. Guttmann and all his staff, and for all that has been done in Stoke Mandeville.
I will take this opportunity of explaining some ways in which we are applying technology, imagination and skill to assist the aged and disabled. "Aged and disabled" can sometimes mean separate classes of people, but in most spheres with which we are concerned they are closely associated with each other.
Only yesterday I was at Roehampton, the limb fitting centre, where many of the patients were amputees. Over 60 per cent. of those who have lost a limb are over the age of 60, and one realises that the provision of artificial limbs, particularly of legs, affects them very closely. We have recently established at Roehampton a bio-mechanical research and development unit which I visited yesterday. It is charged with the responsibility of itself undertaking and sponsoring officially a programme of research aimed at producing arms and legs that can be provided and fitted more quickly, operated easily and worn with more comfort. One of the major items of equipment of the unit is a computer installed in a laboratory with devices for measuring the way that people walk and the loads which bear on limbs when people walk on the level and up and down stairs. The unit is at present involved in some 20 projects.
Its own most important project, which I was looking at yesterday, is the development of a prefabricated leg which we know as the modular assembly prosthesis, and the main object of this is to allow the production and fitting of a new limb within a very few days in order to prevent the sort of delays that can be disturbing between an amputation and the arrival of a new limb.
The unit is also making progress in the design of total contact and total bearing sockets, aimed at producing a more comfortable fit and a more even distribution of the body's weight on the patient's stump. Perhaps its most important external project is the development

1689
of a myo-electric hand, which I was also looking at yesterday, which is operated electrically from tiny signals transmitted by muscles in the patient's arm or elsewhere in his body, and it works automatically when the patient's brain tells the muscle what to do.
Nor must we overlook the research efforts of the major artificial limb contractors with whom we are working. Each one has a small research and development department producing in many respects imaginative and forward looking inventions which the bio-chemical research and development unit is evaluating. One firm has its own prefabricated leg at the stage of patient trials.
A number of techniques are designed to increase the mobility of the disabled. Modern methods and materials allow the construction of buildings in which disabled people are moved about with greatly reduced inconvenience. I remember when my mother-in-law came to live at our house some of the changes that we had to make in order to make it possible for her to move about the house without the difficulty of doors which opened the wrong way, and so on. But we cannot always utilise every device in every building. For example, in a residential home it is generally better to ensure the adequate provision of guide rails which enable the handicapped to achieve the dignity of doing as much as possible for themselves, rather than to indulge in expensive but relatively inessential things like mechanical self-opening doors. Very often with a little thought we can do much to increase the mobility of handicapped people without resorting to the expenditure of large sums, and without relying on complex machinery. Features such as ramps, which are constructed in front of my own front door, can be incorporated in new public buildings at comparatively little cost, but the convenience which they afford to wheel-chair users or the semi-ambulant is immeasurable. The same is true of specialised mobility for particular groups.
The development of the sonic torch for the blind seems to be a wonderfully compassionate use of techniques originated for other purposes. I am following the trials of its potential use with great interest.
1690
A great many people are so disabled that they require either wheel-chairs or powered vehicles to move about. My hon. Friend will know that the powered vehicle generally provided is the three-wheeler, with special categories of people given the choice of a small car. It is true that some invalids are able to drive adapted cars with safety to themselves and others. But what is often overlooked is that many of them cannot. That is why the three-wheeler has been specially designed for the purpose. The very light steering is a characteristic which is unobtainable when two wheels with a space between them have to be turned. This is not a problem when a driver has powerful arms, but is of paramount importance when the arms are weak. Furthermore, the large interior unimpeded by a transmission tunnel permits a person with severe leg handicaps to enter through the large door and settle himself conveniently inside the vehicle.
Mr. Carter-Jones: One of the complaints that I have had is that certain technologists are not particularly happy about the car and the way in which it is controlled. Many of them feel that it can be improved by using some of the new techniques.
Mr. Ennals: That is quite true, and I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that we are making some improvements in the next issue of the three-wheeler. It was only last week that I was looking at the mock-up of the new vehicle which is to come into service. It includes automatic transmission and a number of other developments which will make it a more effective vehicle for the majority of the disabled.
We have made significant advances in the design of wheel-chairs. Inevitably, these are bulky and heavy articles, and our efforts have been directed towards making them lighter, without loss of strength, and easier to control. A new type of metal tubing has permitted the introduction of light-weight chairs, and we have introduced electrically-powered indoor chairs which the patient can manoeuvre with his fingertips—a great boon to many. Last week, I opened a new limb fitting centre in Oxford and I had the opportunity of manoeuvring one of these mobile chairs which can be

1691
moved about the house by the lightest touch of the fingertip.
My hon. Friend has referred to an experiment conducted by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General in Manchester with the help of the local authority. This is fine to provide a telephone link. It was to assess the useful-nes of the device which we call the Portaphone, which can connect two points simplest by plugging the instrument into the main, so providing a link between a disabled person and a friend or relative. Unfortunately, mainly for technical reasons, the experiment did not have the success for which we hoped. Partly for that reason, but also to gain wider knowledge, my right hon. Friend has asked Essex University to make a study of the need of elderly people to communicate in this way, with special reference to the possibility of a low cost telephonic device.
Meantime, the Supplementary Benefits Commission, in calculating benefits, will take into account the cost of a telephone where one is regarded as essential. Similarly, in some cases local welfare authorities may be prepared to help with the cost of a telephone.
There are devices aiding communication which are of the greatest value and which can be provided for all who need them. They range from the simple call bell to the electronic communication and door-bell device for the deaf-blind. My Department has provided some of the equipment for this latter device and participated in trials of it which I believe have enabled most of those likely to benefit from it to do so.
Taking communication in its wider sense, there are the marvels of the computerised production of embossed literature for the blind, the photographic enlargement of print for those with reduced sight, and the so-called "talking book" for those with or without sight who are unable to make use of ordinary books. These open the world of literature and knowledge to very many people.
Many aids for the disabled are relatively simple. As regards appliances, ranging from splints to calipers, I have only to mention the word "caliper" to recall a period of nine months when I had to use a caliper on one of my legs
1692
at the same time as I had to wear my arm in an aeroplane splint for two years, giving me an opportunity of learning something of the difficulties of people who are permanently inconvenienced. They range from splints, calipers and footwear to surgical corsets and hosiery. We recognise that we must ensure that these share in the general technological advance. Probably the greatest progress has occurred through the substitution of new materials for old. Many appliances are now made of perspex and polythene instead of blocked leather and stainless steel.
Over the past year or two we have been experimenting with the newer plastics in such appliances as toe-raising fitments. There are also experiments in using plastics for surgical footwear, moulding it around plaster casts on patients' feet to give a more comfortable fit and a speedier delivery.
Some people above all others, perhaps, deserve our compassion and help—those who are almost totally disabled. It was with some of these in mind that my hon. Friend raised this subject. There are some who, a few years ago, could not do anything for themselves. Many of them are not old. Perhaps they have become paralysed from poliomyelitis—as has one very distinguished and courageous young woman who lives in my constituency—or through an accident. Because of their comparative youth, they have been filled with a burning determination to show their independence.
A quite remarkable invention called Possum has made this possible. It is an electronic device which is operated by the patient's mouth. By sucking or blowing through a tube connected to the Possum machine the patient can operate a number of household articles. He can switch on an electric fire or the television or radio set. He can open or close an electrically-controlled door, dial a telephone number, operate a book page-turner, use a tape recorder, and so on.
This person, long totally immobile, is able, simply because he has breath in his lungs, to live again. There is a standard arrangement for him to sound an alarm buzzer if he is in trouble. It is difficult to imagine what a blessing this device is both to the patient and to those who care for him.

1693
The equipment is provided centrally by my Department, and with the ready co-operation of local welfare authorities, who consider the needs of the patient in his or her home, over 100 very severely disabled patients have so far been provided with such equipment. There is no reason why anyone who is in need of such a device should not have one. It would enable him to make actions that he cannot now make.
We have been considering this evening the compassionate application of technology, and I hope that I have shown that we are conscious of the need to apply the fruits of technological advance to assist the disabled, and that we have made much progress in that direction. I do not want to suggest, because I have listed so many of the things in which we are involved, that we are for a moment complacent. When, yesterday, I was at the institute and laboratory at
1694
Roehampton, I was excited by the enthusiasm with which the doctors and those assisting them were applying not only their technology but their compassion and their knowledge of the patients to see that incapacitated people could lead a fuller life.
With all its faults, the service provided in this country for the aged and disabled rivals, if not surpasses, that of any other country. I assure my hon. Friend, to whom again I express thanks for his compassion and the work which he has done on this subject, that we will continue our efforts to improve it and that I regard it as one of my responsibilities in the new Department in which I have the honour to serve to try to carry forward the cause of the aged and the disabled in the best way that we can.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  Receiving Licences
  Receiving Licences
  Motor Vehicles (Radio Devices)
  Motor Vehicles (Radio Devices)
POST OFFICE
  Investiture of the Prince of Wales (Special Stamp)
  Investiture of the Prince of Wales (Special Stamp)
  Christmas Sorting (Aliens)
  Christmas Sorting (Aliens)
  Post Office Corporation (Chairman)
  Post Office Corporation (Chairman)
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Date Stamps (Clock Times)
  Date Stamps (Clock Times)
  Stamp Machines
  Stamp Machines
  Two-Tier Postal System
  Two-Tier Postal System
  Giro (Government Departments)
  Giro (Government Departments)
  Office, New Alresford (Regrading)
  Office, New Alresford (Regrading)
  Postal Services, West Country
  Postal Services, West Country
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  North Weald, Epping
  North Weald, Epping
  Extra Bells (Hiring Charge)
  Extra Bells (Hiring Charge)
  London-Malta (Telephone Channels)
  London-Malta (Telephone Channels)
  Early Morning Calls
  Early Morning Calls
  Repairs (Emergency Service)
  Repairs (Emergency Service)
  Call Credits
  Call Credits
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Transport
  School Transport
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
  Spina Bifida
  Spina Bifida
  Educational Expenditure
  Educational Expenditure
  Open University(Costs)
  Open University(Costs)
  Youth Leaders (Training College)
  Youth Leaders (Training College)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Motoring Offences (Penalty System)
  Motoring Offences (Penalty System)
  Prisons (Naming)
  Prisons (Naming)
  Fire Service (Pay)
  Fire Service (Pay)
  RACE RELATIONS ACT (SECTION 6 PROCEEDINGS)
  RACE RELATIONS ACT (SECTION 6 PROCEEDINGS)
  AUCTION RINGS (REPORT)
  AUCTION RINGS (REPORT)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Wrabness Depot (Disposal)
  Wrabness Depot (Disposal)
  Exercise "Blue Hill", Norway (41 Commandos R.M.)
  Exercise "Blue Hill", Norway (41 Commandos R.M.)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Company Chairman's Salary
  Company Chairman's Salary
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Consent to Marriage (Convention)
  Consent to Marriage (Convention)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Stocks
  Government Stocks
  Hire-Purchase Controls
  Hire-Purchase Controls
HOUSING
  Building Completions
  Building Completions
  Building Starts
  Building Starts
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Pensions (Residents Overseas)
  Pensions (Residents Overseas)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
SCOTLAND
  Regional Hospital Board Chairman
  Regional Hospital Board Chairman
ELECTRICITY
  Generating Capacity
  Generating Capacity
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Nationalised Industries (Co-ordinating Conferences)
  Nationalised Industries (Co-ordinating Conferences)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Supplementary Benefit (Rent Allowance)
  Supplementary Benefit (Rent Allowance)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Luton Airport
  Luton Airport
  Inflatable Liferafts (Markings)
  Inflatable Liferafts (Markings)
  Professions (Monopolies Commission Report)
  Professions (Monopolies Commission Report)
TRANSPORT
  Vehicle Licensing
  Vehicle Licensing
RAILWAYS
  Passenger Services (Closure Proposals)
  Passenger Services (Closure Proposals)
WALES
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mitchell Troy-Raglan Trunk Road
  Mitchell Troy-Raglan Trunk Road
  Register of Industrial Sites
  Register of Industrial Sites
TECHNOLOGY
  Research Expenditure
  Research Expenditure

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.
The Lord Balfour of Burleigh—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
LORD COBBOLD: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen, signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament."

NIGERIA: CIVIL WAR EFFECT ON BRITISH INTERESTS
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent the civil war in Nigeria has affected the financial interests of British companies in the Eastern Region; and whether the previous interests of British companies have been transferred to French companies in the area controlled by Colonel Ojukwu.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, British companies with investment in the Eastern Region of Nigeria have suffered substantially both in their physical assets and through loss of business. Until the civil war is over, it will not be possible to arrive at a reliable estimate of the total damage to those assets. I do not know of any reports of British commercial interests in the areas controlled by Colonel Ojukwu having been transferred to French companies.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he has seen reports in the newspapers that French interests have moved n and acquired these properties, under the alleged authority of the Biafran Government? Could the noble Lord say whether the oil companies and the production of oil in the Eastern Region are still technically under the authority of the Nigerian Government? Furthermore, could he say approximately how much of the oil production is now within the area controlled by the Nigerian Government'?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, apart from a few small oil wells, the entire oil complex is now under Federal Military Government control. In regard to newspaper reports, I have seen them but, as I have said, there is no clear evidence to substantiate the statements referred to.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that there is now in Lagos a trade delegation from Soviet Russia, and that it has been reported that a concession has been made to them in relation to steel and iron? Further, is there any evidence that negotiations are taking place so far as the oil industry is concerned?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am aware that there is a Soviet economic mission in Nigeria, and I understood that it was connected with the development of steel. I have no evidence in regard to oil. As my noble friend will be aware, the main oil industry there is Shell and B.P.

POSTAL DELIVERIES: STATISTICAL INFORMATION
3.9 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how the statistics given by them to the House on October 15 last (column 1189) were compiled and whether they are subject to the Minister's remarks on

1031
November 13 (column 495) and therefore unreliable; and in particular what is the normal time of transmission from Tunbridge Wells or Maidenhead to Twickenham for 5d. and for 4d. mail.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the transmission times given by me on October 15 were based on samples taken daily and cover correspondence posted throughout the United Kingdom. They are not subject to my remarks on November 13, which related solely to estimates of revenue for newspapers posted by members of the public.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, does the noble Lord intend to answer the second part of the Question?
LORD BOWLES: Yes, my Lords; I beg the noble Lord's pardon. First-class letters for Twickenham posted from Tunbridge Wells and Maidenhead in time for the last collection should be delivered by first post the next morning, and second-class letters a day later.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. I should very much like to know how widely these samples extended so as to provide a proper statistical basis. Would not the noble Lord agree that it would be very reprehensible if any Government Department were to supply figures for use in Parliament which had not a substantial basis? Is the noble Lord aware that if his figures are correct the chances of getting on the second day two successive letters from Tunbridge Wells, stamped with 5d. stamps, are between 4,000 and 5,000 to one; and that, if his figures for October are correct, then the chances against any of your Lordships getting half-a-dozen 4d. letters on the same day are roughly 8 million to one against? If this is so, it must naturally bring the figures under suspicion.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the noble Lord probably does not know, but a recent two-day check on the mail of Lord Saltoun at his Twickenham address revealed no shortage in quality of service. Included in the items have been newspapers from Scotland and a packet from Maidenhead. As regards the first
1032
part of the Question, the Government have the best professional advice in obtaining the statistical information for which the noble Lord asks. The position is that these firms—and anybody who knows anything about statistical method will agree that it is the right way to do it—take a sample, say every 10 letters in a small sorting-office and every 100 letters in the larger post offices. They tell the assistant postmaster in the office on what date he has to get those samples. In this way perfectly correct statistical information is obtained and given to this House.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am glad to hear that the noble Lord has been taking a check of my mail. May I therefore ask whether it informed him that I received two letters from Tunbridge Wells, each with a 5d. stamp and each on the third day after the postmark?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, may I ask what was the date of the postmark?
LORD SALTOUN: I do not remember, my Lords. But I can tell the noble Lord that one letter had the postmark of a Friday and that it arrived on a Monday. The noble Lord will realise that I am not counting the Sunday. The other letter was similar.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord was asked a question when he should have been receiving an answer, but knowing what an admirable stickler he is for the custom of this House I think he may feel that he has done enough for to-day.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I asked the noble Lord whether he had received that information in his check on my mail.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I wondered on what day the letters were posted, and the noble Lord said "Friday; and that is exactly what happens. The position is this. First-class letters posted at Maidenhead from Monday to Friday before 9.30 in the evening get there by the first delivery the next morning, except when that is not a working day.

POSTMARKS
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what, having regard to the letter in The Times on October 16, headed "Reliable Postmarks" and other examples not made public in the Press, are the present regulations about the affixing of postmarks at the office of origin how strictly they are enforced, and to what extent the public can rely on them.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, there is no Statutory Regulation about the affixing of postmarks, but those affixed by the Post Office can be relied on to show the date when letters are collected from posting boxes. I understand that the writer of the letter referred to by the noble Lord later vindicated the Post Office and wrote again, but The Times newspaper refused to publish this second letter. My right honourable friend the Postmaster General will be glad to look into any instance of alleged incorrect date stamping if the noble Lord will let me have details.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that Answer.

RAIL CLOSURES: UCKFIELD TO LEWES LINE
LORD TEVIOT: 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 the reason for closing the railway line from Uckfield to Lewes, which was against the wishes of the Area Joint Consultative Committee and all local authorities.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, before reaching his decision, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport of course paid very serious attention to the views of the
1034
Transport Users' Consultative Committee for the South Eastern Area and of the local authorities concerned, together with those of the Regional Economic Panning Council. He also took account of all the other relevant factors in this proposal, among the most important of which were the financial losses on the existing train services, the comparatively small number of users, the possible alternative means of transport, and the heavy capital expenditure on the so-called "Hamsey Loop" which would have been required to maintain the rail services in the future, when Stage I of the Lewes Relief Road is built.
After the most careful consideration, my right honourable friend decided that he could not justify grant aid for the retention of services over this section of line, and he is satisfied that the hardship to passengers can be alleviated by the provision of additional bus services. The revised rail services from Uckfield to Hurst Green and from Eridge to Tunbridge Wells Central will receive grant.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but would he please tell the House why a loop line has to be built over the new proposed road? Why cannot a flyover be built over the existing line?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I understand that the cost is excessive, because the bridge is not only over a road but also over a river at the same time. Geographically it is a somewhat tricky position.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I apologise if my voice sounds like Tallulah Bankhead, which is accidental and not intentional. Is the Minister aware that in the last few years this line has acted as a safeguard and a relief for the Brighton railway when it has broken down, owing to flood or other accidental matters? If this line is shut there will be no relief for the Brighton line if it breaks down, and no relief for the passengers.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in closing this section we shall close an important line of communication for a large part of Kent, Sussex and Surrey, with Eastbourne, Newhaven arid Brighton? Further as the line is no longer continuous the losses on the part of the line North of

1035
Ucklield will necessarily be slightly larger and involve a larger subsidy. In the circumstances, would it not have been more sensible to build the bridge which is necessary to keep the line going?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I shall answer the two questions at the same time. I am certain that the noble Baroness has no cause to apologise for her voice appearing to be that of a "pinup" of my youth. I am afraid, however, that her question is one that I cannot easily answer. Of course, one cannot plan a whole transport system to deal with hypothetical accidents: that would become quite impossibly expensive. But I am certain that this may have been a factor taken into consideration while the matter was being considered.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I ask the Minister to realise that it is not a question of hypothesis. This has happened in the past, and happened quite frequently in the last few years.
LORD WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord who asked me a question, may I say that there is no single factor in reaching this decision. There is the decision about the need to make the railways a paying proposition; the decision about whether or not a certain line should receive a grant-in-aid if it was felt necessary to keep it open for social purposes; and also the factor that the railway system is an old one and if the services which it has been decided to close were kept open very heavy capital expenditure was needed on this particular section of line. Those are all factors which were borne in mind by my right honourable friend when reaching his decision.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, may I ask whether the noble Lord realises that by closing this line the railways will not save, but will lose £24,000?
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, would the Minister very kindly——
LORD SHACKLETON: One at a time!
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I have every confidence that my right
1036
honourable friend can do his sums; and having done his sums this is the decision he has reached.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, would the Minister bear in mind that this railway line has been disgracefully neglected for years—for instance, the stations are still using oil lamps; they do not even have electricity—and that therefore the cost of modernising it is rather great? Nevertheless, economic need for it does exist.

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL
Read 2a.

LANDS IMPROVEMENT COMPANY'S AMENDMENT BILL
3.21 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, in moving the next Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper, I think I should say a few words to explain why I am asking your Lordships to agree to it. To permit this Bill to be deposited on November 27, as laid down in our Standing Orders, a representation had to be made to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Due to an oversight on the part of the Promoters' Agents, this representation was made two days late. In order to allow the Bill to be deposited in time, I am now asking the House to dispense with the provisions of Standing Order No. 193. I would add that a similar Motion was agreed to last week in another place. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That Private Bill Standing Order No. 193 [Deposit of Bill under section 1(4) of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936] be considered in order to its being dispensed with to allow the Bill to be deposited on November 27.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EXPORT OF ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH BILL [H.L.]
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to prohibit the export of animals for vivisectional research abroad;

1037
and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. —(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

HOUSE OF LORDS REFORM
3.22 p.m.
Debate further resumed on the Motion moved on Tuesday last by the Lord Chancellor (on behalf of the Lord Shackleton); namely, That this House gives general approval to the proposals for the Reform of the House of Lords as set out in the White Paper, House of Lords Reform (Cmnd. 3799).
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I suppose that in a long debate of this kind we all have to accept a self-denying ordinance, and I thought I could perhaps best do this, and at the same time be most useful to the House in its consideration of the White Paper, if I confined my remarks to those matters in the White Paper that affect the responsibilities with which I have been charged by your Lordships.
I should like first to comment on the proposal in paragraph 70 of the White Paper that there should be
"a review of the functions and procedures of the two Houses… once the main reform had come into effect".
This review, of course, would be undertaken by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. I welcome this proposal because I believe that such a comprehensive review is long overdue, and could produce results which would be of real value to the efficiency of Parliament. It should be remembered that the procedures of both Houses have grown up piecemeal, in response—often a fairly tardy response —to the exigencies of the moment, and that as a rule they have developed along parallel rather than complementary lines. It will be essential, therefore, to look at them in their entirety, and from the point of view of the duties of Parliament as a whole. This would enable both Houses to adapt their procedures to meet the demands made on a limited amount of Parliamentary time by the increasing
1038
volume of public legislation, and by the need for constant vigilance over the actions of the Executive.
The Government state in paragraph 8 of the White Paper that the
"possibility of developing the functions of Parliament as a whole"
is
"the most positive ground for reform."
It is therefore rather surprising, I think, how little the White Paper has to say about the scope and purpose of such a review. It seems that more careful thought has been given to the reform of this House than to the purpose which this reform is intended to serve; namely, to increase the efficiency of Parliament. It is natural, of course, that noble Lords should be more interested in the reform of this House than in the reform of Parliament—and, indeed, that is the course this debate has taken. But, of course, the test of reform here will be the contribution it makes to the eighth century in the evolution of the Mother of Parliaments.
We find in Appendix II of the White Paper some examples of subjects that a Joint Select Committee might be expected to consider. I was very glad that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack drew our attention to some of these in his speech, when he gave us a tantalising, if cursory, glimpse of what the future might hold. They are mainly questions of finding better procedural methods for discharging existing Parliamentary functions. It is of course pointed out, with much force, that improved procedures could effect a large saving in Parliamentary time, and a better distribution of work between the two Houses. I do not think it can be doubted, in view of the increasing volume of work Parliament has to do, that these aims are both highly desirable, but they require for their achievement much closer co-operation, and more deliberate co-ordination between the two Houses, in appropriate areas of legislation, than we have been accustomed to in the past. I very much hope that this proposal for a review of the functions and procedures of both Noises will he acceptable to noble Lords in all Parties and, indeed, in whatever part of the House they may sit.
My Lords, I should like to conclude by drawing attention to a point affecting

1039
Private Bill legislation. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred to this matter in his opening speech. I agree with him that it might be useful for both Houses to review their present procedure for dealing with Private Bills. But the point I am on is much more limited. Paragraph 73(h) of the White Paper states:
"Non-voting peers would be able to ask questions and move motions and also to serve in committee; but not to vote on the floor of the House or in any committee for the consideration of legislation…".
If I have interpreted the word "legislation" correctly in this context as including Private Bills, as well as Public Bills, it is clear that the right of Peers by succession to vote in Select Committees on Private Bills is not to be preserved. It would be undesirable, I think, to invite non-voting Peers to serve as members of Private Bill Select Committees as, although, of course, not disqualified from serving, they could not exercise a vote in cases of disagreement. The parties concerned would have a legitimate grievance if Select Committees were composed of certain members with voting powers and others without.
The reform proposed will therefore have the effect of limiting to voting Peers the field of Private Legislation during the Committees. Quite apart from thus narrowing the field of choice, there is no guarantee that Peers granted the right to vote will include Peers by succession with experience of Select Committees. I am therefore putting forward for consideration a plea that Peers by succession should be allowed to vote in Select Committees on Private Bills. I was glad to note that this view had already been expressed by two noble Lords with much experience of this kind—the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell—and I entirely agreed with what they said.
Paragraph 46 of the White Paper, which deals with the size of the voting House, envisages at first a voting House of about 230 Peers, and states that this number should be sufficient for the business of the House, at least for the remainder of this Parliament. My Lords, I have some misgivings about this statement so far as Private Bills are concerned, and for the following reasons. Since the Peerage Act 1958 was passed 96 Peers
1040
who are alive to-day have served on Select Committees on Private Bills, and of these 73 are Peers by succession. The majority of Chairmen of Committees on Private Bills have also been drawn from these 73 Peers. I am in no way intending to diminish the valuable contribution made by created Peers to the scrutiny of Private Bills in Committee, but the fact is that at the moment the majority of Peers experienced in Select Committee work are Peers by succession. Should Peers by succession be allowed to vote in Select Committees they would not, of course, be able to vote in the House on any other stage or proceedings on a Private Bill. This would ensure that there would be no departure from the principle set out in the White Paper that ultimate control of all legislation is in the hands of voting Peers.
I would add that, in my opinion, the above arguments apply equally to Joint Select Committees on Opposed Special Procedure Orders. I will not go into detail about the procedure in connection with these Orders, but it is true to say that the type of inquiry carried out by such Committees is analogous to that into an Opposed Private Bill. The number of Special Procedure Orders is increasing, and, correspondingly, the call on Members of the House to serve on such Committees. Since the Peerage Act 1958. 43 Peers have served on these Committees (which are, of course, Joint Committees with Members of another place) of whom 26 are Peers by succession.
The number of Peers by succession as a component of the House will, under the terms of the White Paper, be steadily reduced until they are finally extinguished. But it would be a loss to the House if it were to be deprived of their services in tthe field of Private Legislation during the interim period. The proposal I am making, my Lords, would be of great assistance in the selection of Peers to sit on Select Committees, and would ensure that the high standard of such Committees is maintained. This matter could be put right in the Bill without abandoning any of the principles on which the White Paper is based.
3.34 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, listening to the

1041
debate for many hours, and conscientiously reading the speeches made at hours when I was not present, I have found myself reminded of the words of an old hymn, a hymn not very often sung nowadays, which contains the lines:
"There is room for fresh creations In that upper home of bliss".
Without arrogating to ourselves the claim that we are a "home of bliss", we have been spending three days discussing how fresh creations can best be made and how undesirable modes of creation may be eliminated. Listening to this debate has for me confirmed my own initial suspicions. They are three suspicions: first, that reform along the lines of an elected Chamber is no road; second, that a nominated Chamber, despite all the dangers attaching to nomination, is the best way; and, third, that the two-tier system proposed does give a chance of conserving some of the present values of the House of Lords as a Chamber and of carrying those values over into the new reformed régime.
First as to the possibilities of reform along the lines of an elected Chamber. I believe that to look that way is really to ask for the moon and that there is no possibility of agreement as to how an elected Chamber would be elected, even if it were true that an elected Chamber or Senate were the desirable course. I believe that to dream of an elected Chamber is probably to postpone the reform of our House indefinitely.
Second, I think that facts adduced during this debate have made it clear that the proposals of the White Paper would not involve any considerable increase in patronage and would, indeed, introduce certain restraints and restrictions on patronage. That being so, I believe that the bogey of enlarged patronage of the Prime Minister ought not to deter us from looking favourably at these proposals. But in the discussions that we have had it is very clear that the Cross-Bench Members of the House, the primarily non-political Members of the House, are going to have an important role, not as politicians in disguise but as persons representing many aspects of skill and knowledge of value to the country.
As Her Majesty's Government regard this debate as an opportunity for the collecting of opinions and advice, it
1042
might be worth while saying that the Prime Minister, or any Prime Minister, is likely to need a good deal of advice, possibly of advice that he does not normally get, in the appointment of Cross-Bench and non-political Peers. A Prime Minister inevitably knows a great deal about politicians and who are good politicians to pick; but a Prime Minister does not necessarily know about the qualifications of scientists, men of letters, educationalists, industrialists or those in many, many walks of life whose wisdom is valuable to us already and is going to be still more valuable in a reformed Chamber. The modes of advice collected by the Prime Minister in that field seem to me to need very important consideration.
Thirdly, I come to the matter of two tiers. I think it has been unfair to liken the proposed two tiers to two classes, a first class and a second class, because in considering the categories of Members of our House we have to consider the categories of our debates. This House, as at present constituted, has influence and authority through the variety of the character of debate which it conducts. There are the legislative debates which commonly include a good deal of voting; there are also the debates on big social issues and issues of public concern, commonly on a Wednesday, which generally include no voting at all. We have been told that if we were indiscreet enough to press for a vote on a Wednesday debate on a Motion for Papers nobody would know in the issue what Papers would need to be moved from where to where in fulfilment of the vote that was conducted.
It seems to me important that the influence of this House, both as a legislative Chamber and as a Chamber concerned with debates on big issues—nonvoting debates, but nevertheless very authoritative—should be carried into a reformed Chamber. It seems that the two-tier system proposed will facilitate that; and in that way it will be a good thing. Furthermore, I believe that the two-tier proposals will facilitate something about which strong desires have been expressed again and again in this debate; namely, the recruiting to the House of Lords of a good many younger Members. Many of us feel that to he of the very first importance. If a young I man is deeply politically inclined, his

1043
thoughts are likely to go first towards another place. If a young man is not deeply politically inclined—and, indeed, if he is—he is likely to be heavily employed earning his living, and the possibility of his qualifying to be a voting Member by a one-third attendance is rather precarious. Therefore I believe that the two-tier proposal will enable, or could enable, a good many more younger Members to be brought into this House for its great good and with the advantage to all of us of listening to younger Members, able to speak with knowledge and authority but possibly unable to give enough time to qualify as voters without jeopardy to their professions and careers.
Again, as the purpose of this debate is not only to make a decision but also to enable the Prime Minister to collect advice, let Her Majesty's Ministers take note of the advice given a good many times in this debate about the desire to see younger Members in this Chamber. It is no use saying that the two-tier system will facilitate that unless the powers-that-be act upon it and see that that is so. On those three counts, my Lords—dismissing the possibility of an elected Chamber as asking for the moon; seeing on balance the disadvantages of an elected Chamber and also seeing the advantages of the two-tier proposal—I greatly hope that the White Paper will be approved and that legislation will follow which I believe will give us a more effective and more authoritative House of Lords than we have at present.
The House will forgive me for adding a few words about the position of Bishops in your Lordships' House. My words need only be very few, because my right reverend friend the Bishop of Chester dealt with that subject very fully in his speech on the first day of the debate. I want to say how greatly I appreciate the consideration given to the Bishops' Bench by the members of the Inter-Party Conference in considering our role within the House of Lords; the great sympathy and understanding with which they listened to our views and also their understanding of our position as Spiritual Peers within your Lordships' House. In the course of the debate the preoccupation with the central issues has been so large that only a few references have been made to the role of the
1044
Bishops within a reformed Chamber. The noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, made some kind remarks about the Episcopal Bench. I want to thank him for those remarks which I appreciate greatly, coming as they did from a distinguished layman of a Church other than my own.
The noble Lord, Lord Reith—if we may round a little in the ecclesiastical spectrum—in a very brief intervention, asked why should not the Established Church of Scotland be represented in a reformed Chamber. I do not spy the noble Lord, Lord Reith, in his usual place, but let me say to my noble friend and neighbour and tenant that his remarks pose a dilemma. If representation of the Church of Scotland means ministers of the Church of Scotland in virtue of their ministerial office having a seat in the House of Lords, that may raise awkward questions for him, concerning the mode of nomination of those ministers to their office. On the other hand, if he desires, not the representation of the Church of Scotland through Ministers holding positions ex officio but through the exercise of nomination to Life Peerages, then I would say that I most heartily welcome the nomination to Life Peerages of members of other Churches than mine—of the Church of Scotland and of Churches in England as well—to play their part in this House.
This, my Lords, leads me to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen. He said the most kind and appreciative things about us and our performance, but then went on to ask, "But why must we have these Bishops in our House at all?" My Lords, I am ready to discuss why we have these Bishops in our House at all if, at the same time, we can discuss such maters as the nomination of Bishops to their Sees by the Crown; the role of Parliament in relation to Church legislation and the whole complex of balanced factors that constitute our Church and State relationship. I should be very glad indeed to discuss that matter at any time, and it is my belief that considerable changes in the form of Church and State relationship are desirable. But it is obviously impossible to deal with those matters in the context of these proposals concerning the reform of the House of Lords.
In that context it is only reasonable that in a reformed House diminished in

1045
number, the number of Bishops who are Members should be diminished. But I will end by saying that, diminished in number, whether as speakers or as voters, we shall still want, within the Constitution, to go on giving our service to the House, sharing that desire, I believe, with many noble Lords; and that we shall all give our service to the House with greater effectiveness within the general pattern of reform that the White Paper has set out.
3.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, this is not the first occasion on which I have had the pleasure of following the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in debate. In the course of my speech I shall have to disagree with him on certain of his general observations, but I do not intend to follow him in relation to the remarks which he made about Bishops and Scottish Ministers and matters of that sort; although, of course, I recognise that what he has said on the general matters will bring great comfort to the Government Front Bench and to my noble friend Lord Carrington.
My Lords, may I say at the outset that T should be very sorry indeed if the Bishops were no longer Members of this House. They contribute a very great deal, and not just colour, to our Assembly. Indeed, I regret that if these proposals go through, we shall see less of them in the future than we have done in the past. The two Archbishops and the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester are very busy men and naturally we see them here only when they are particularly interested in debates or in particular Bills—and I will not embarrass the most reverend Primate by reminding him of the Bills which attracted his particular interest in recent Sessions. But I regret that it will mean a smaller attendance on the Bishops' Benches, and I also regret that after the powerful plea we have just heard for having younger men in this House, this new system would seem to me to eliminate the younger Bishops and confine us to the older and more senior members of the Bishops' Benches. That I think is a pity and a little inconsistent with the theme advanced by the most reverend Primate.
1046
I cannot hope, at this stage of this long and extremely important debate, to put forward any new arguments or to make any points that have not already been made, but I would ask your Lordships to allow me to give the reasons why I do not find it possible to give general approval to the proposals contained in this White Paper. My noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden said yesterday that it would provide a "good, practical and working Upper House". I wish that I could take that view. I wish that I could agree with him. But my consideration of the White Paper has led me to a contrary conclusion. Except in relation to subordinate legislation, about which I shall say a few words later, I do not think that a case has yet been made out for changing our present powers at this time. We can no longer effectively reject legislation. We can delay its passage. We are told that the, will of the elected Chamber must prevail. That sounds nice, but in these day; that really means that the will of the Government must prevail.
As the powers of this House have diminished over the years, so have the powers of the Executive, the Government, increased. And I think that it is true to say that the House of Commons is no longer as effective a check on the Executive as it should be. There are a number of reasons for that and I shall not go into them, but one is that the influence and power of the Government Whips have increased over the years and with this the independence and freedom of action of Government supporters have been restricted. It was not so many years ago when Government supporters in another place were free to move and press Amendments to Bills, and if they carried them the Government did nor fall unless the matter had been declared to be one of confidence. But now it has become a regular thing for the Government to deny a free vote to their supporters. This occurred most regrettably last night, and we had another instance of it in another place this week. This is a debate which I should have thought is pre-eminently one in which the vote should be entirely free in this House and in another place.
If I understand these proposals correctly, the reality of them is to increase the power of the Government in this

1047
House. And when we have a Government who do not enjoy the confidence of the majority of the electorate—and I think few would dispute that that is the position to-day—it is surely even more important that our Constitution should provide an effective check on their activities. For if there is no such check, the road is open to the end of democracy. It is because these proposals, as I see them, in reality restrict our powers to provide a check that I am opposed to them.
I do not mind the proposal that the period of delay should run from the date of disagreement between the two Houses because I think that that is an improvement on the Parliament Act, but I do not think that six months is long enough. It is argued that a longer period might prevent the passage of a Government Bill introduced in the fourth year of a Parliament. I think that the argument really runs the other way—that there should be power to delay the passage of a highly controversial measure introduced by a Government whose time is running out and which is unpopular until after the electorate have had an opportunity of expressing their views upon it. It is the existence of the powers to impose some delay that is important. It must be a real power and I doubt if the proposed power is real.
No one can say—and I do not think that in the course of this long debate anyone has said—that this House, composed as it is, has abused its power to delay legislation. It has exercised it only once since 1914. I do not myself believe that if this House is reformed as is now proposed, it will be possible or right to use this delaying power more frequently in future than it has been used in the past. I know that the White Paper says that the reformed House must possess a real if limited power of delay whose use should not, as it would be with the present composition of the House, risk precipitating a constitutional crisis. I think that that is the sugar on the pill. I do not think that it has any reality, because directly that power is used we shall be accused of a breach of the principle stated in paragraph 4(a) of the White Paper. We shall be accused of rivalling the House of Commons. If the power of delaying legislation is used more fre-
1048
quently than it has been in the past, in my opinion this House will not enjoy that power very long.
I think it is an error for the White Paper to state that the failure to use that power in the past has been due to the composition of this House. The reason—and I would say the valid reason—for not using it more frequently is that its use brings this House directly into conflict with the other place. I desire to make it clear that I do not think that this power should be used more frequently in future. I do not think that these proposals will make it more easy to exercise that power, and I do not think it will be exercised more frequently. Every time it is used, there is a risk—and I think a very real risk —of a constitutional crisis, and that will be so no matter how this House is composed.
In my opinion, far more important than the power to delay legislation is the power to amend it during its passage through this House. There should be real and not just nominal power to do that. The White Paper recognises that this is one of our main functions, but it is singularly silent as to the way in which we are to be able to exercise this. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe, in his very able and persuasive speech in favour of these proposals, said that if they are accepted this House would be viable. I do not quite know what he meant by that—I suppose you could describe an amoeba as viable. But one thing of which I am certain is this. If this House is not able to carry an Amendment to a Bill in the face of Government opposition it will in future be a shadow of its present self. I believe that even the Front Bench opposite will admit that the Opposition did a very good job on the Transport Bill. Amendments were carried, despite Government opposition; and, as has been said, some of these Amendments, or variations of them, were ultimately accepted.
I would ask your Lordships to consider whether in the reformed House it would be possible for similar action to be taken. I do not think it would. To carry an Amendment against the Government, the Liberals and the Tories would have to agree—and that does not happen perhaps as often as it should. But that of

1049
itself would not suffice: they would then have to persuade a majority of Cross-Bench Peers to vote with them. And, as the Home Secretary said in another place last night in relation to Cross-Bench Peers (I do not think it was very complimentary) they tend to break evenly both ways. That sounds a curious operation to me.
My noble friend Lord Salisbury has already referred to the Cross-Benchers in this House. Many of them are extremely distinguished, and some of them, until they accepted various offices, have been extremely active Party politicians. Now they sit on the Cross-Benches, because to do otherwise would be inconsistent with the tenure of those offices. But I do not think they have changed their political views. Others of them have taken no part in politics, and I find it difficult to believe that they will be ready to take so much interest in the details of legislation in the future. But it is only if the Liberals and the Tories unite, and sufficient of the Cross-Benchers support them, that the Government majority will be overcome and an Amendment carried against the Government. And, my Lords, if the Cross-Benchers vote too often against the Government, they have been warned—they were warned last night—about what is likely to happen.
The Attorney General was asked this question about the Cross-Benchers:
"Supposing that some of them did not remain independent, how would they be dealt with?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 20/11/68 col. 1131]
His answer was:
"They would be dealt with very courteously, I am sure. If Party political loyalties were suddenly manifested by a sufficiently large number of Cross-Benchers at any moment"—
and that means if they voted with the Tories and the Liberals—
"to defeat the broad intention that the Government of the day should have a majority in another place, the Review Committee would no doubt so advise, and appropriate steps would be taken."
That same point was taken up by the Home Secretary in his speech at the conclusion of the debate last night in another place. When the point was being dealt with by him, he said:
"The Cross-Benchers' position is one which will clearly need very careful and continuous review."—[Col. 1424.]
So something will happen to the Cross-
1050
Benchers if they vote too frequently with the Opposition.
It is proposed that in normal circumstances the Government should be able to secure a reasonable working majority. This, it seems to me, can only mean that the power—and it is a salutory power—to carry Amendments against the Government will be restricted. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, takes a contrary view. She spoke of the procedure whereby we carry Amendments against the Goverment, they go to another place, where they are rejected, and then we partake in what she called the "ritual dance" and give way to the other place. But, seriously, my Lords, does not that procedure have great importance? I think it has. There have been cases, not only on the Transport Bill, where we have carried in this House Amendments against the Government and changes have taken place. I hope that he noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will not mind my saying that I have found him on occasions extremely obstinate. I can remember one occasion on which a Division was called, and the majority of this House expressed a view contrary to that of the Government. And it was very effective: it led without any further controversy between the two Houses, or anything of that sort, to a compromise which I think has generally been regarded as highly satisfactory. One could quote other instances.
I regard this power to carry Amendments as one of the most important powers that this House has, because it gives the other Chamber and the Government time for reflection and reconsideration. I do not mind a bit if a great many of these Amendments come back to this House and we then do not insist on them. But we ought to have the power to say to the Government: "You really must look again at this and reconsider it." Are the Government likely to be so receptive if they command a reasonable working majority in this House? If there is a disagreement here on a particular matter they will win it on a Division, and that will be the end of that. It is because this power of this House in that limited but most important field will, as I see it, be so severely restricted that I venture to say that if these proposals go through this House will be a vestige of its former self. I feel

1051
most strongly that this is the most important proposal contained in this White Paper. It is because I simply cannot agree with that, that I myself cannot give general approval to this White Paper.
My Lords, I think it is not without significance that in this very skilfully written White Paper little, if anything, is said about this, although a good deal is said about the delaying powers. I would go further and say (and I say this irrespective of which Party are in power) that in this Second Chamber, under our Constitution, the Government, whatever their colour, should not be in the majority, but in fact should be in the minority; and that is where I think the fundamental fallacy lies in the approach to this subject. That should be the case, in my view, whatever Party are in power. It must have been extremely frustrating for the Party opposite, when they were in Opposition, to know that they could not carry any Amendment without securing the support of Tory Peers—and that sometimes happened. I admired the way they fought then. They put up a great fight over the Greater London Bill.
This House has not—and I am glad of it—such strong Party affiliations as another place. Peers and Bishops are very independent, and it is a good thing. If this House is, and remains, a responsible body, composed largely of elder Statesmen and distinguished people, I do not think that the power to carry Amendments against the Government is one that will be exercised frivolously; and I do not think it has been in the past.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would the noble and learned Viscount be prepared to estimate how many Amendments unacceptable to the Government have been carried in this House and passed into law?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: There have been quite a considerable number that proved acceptable in due course. It has happened more than once that the Government have resisted an Amendment, and have then changed their minds. I should like to encourage them to do so more in the future. It happened when my Party were in power, and it has happened since the Labour Party have been in power.
1052
What I was saying is that I think it is a fundamental error to suppose that the Government Party should have a majority in this Chamber as they have in another place.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount for one moment? As I understand the White Paper, the Government Party will not have a majority: they will have a majority over the other two Parties, but not an overall majority in the House. Am I wrong?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Not at all. I was talking about a majority over the other two Parties. I have dealt with the alleged majority resting with the CrossBenchers, with their having the power to decide which way things will go, and I have quoted the Home Secretary as saying that "they tend to break pretty evenly both ways". I thought I had dealt with that point and passed on from it. I hope I have not failed to make myself dear. In my belief—and I put this forward in all seriousness—if a House of this kind, of elder statesmen, of distinguished people, however they are selected, is going to fulfil its role, the Government ought to be in a minority and the other Parties in the majority.
My Lords, I will pass on from that to one other matter. I am still dealing with powers. I agree that it is entirely anomalous that this House should have the power to kill subordinate legislation. But there is an increasing tendency—it has been going on for years; it is not confined to this Government but it has developed greatly under this Government—to secure the passage of an enabling Act and then legislate by subordinate legislation. That was. I remember, years ago strongly advocated by Sir Stafford Cripps as a way of getting legislation through. Many matters which in the old days would have been dealt with by Bills are nowadays dealt with by Statutory Instruments which we cannot amend. I think that as a general rule the delaying power of this House with regard to subordinate legislation should be comparable with its delaying power in relation to Bills.
But I recognise the difficulty, the practical difficulty, of distinguishing between different categories of subordinate legislation. Some, but by no means the majority,

1053
must come into force without delay. I recognise that. I am wondering—and I thought of this, and did not discuss it with my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn—whether there could not be some machinery, say by a certificate by Mr. Speaker, as we have for a Money Bill, or by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, identifying the Instruments which have to come into force immediately they are laid and exempting those Instruments from a delaying power exercisable by this House. I see that the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, put forward that proposal. I strongly support it. Perhaps we can pursue this matter further when the Bill is introduced. Further, I would say that since the Parliament Act this House has rejected only one Order, and personally I am of the opinion that the power to do so, if it remains, should be exercised only very exceptionally, for if it were frequently exercised then again I do not think this House would long retain the power. It really is the exercise of our powers which brings us into rivalry with the Commons; not our composition.
So far I have spoken almost entirely of the powers of the House and have said little, if anything, about composition. The voting membership is, we know, to be arranged so that the Government of the day have a majority over the Opposition Parties, and we are told that computers have shown that if Elections follow speedily one upon another with frequent changes of Government that would not mean that we should have an excessive number of voting Peers. Paragraph 29 of the White Paper makes it clear that the proposed retirement rule is designed to counteract the automatic increase of voting Peers, for it is there stated:
"the voting House could be kept, or soon restored, to an acceptable size if the older members retired as voting Peers at the end of each Parliament".
I know it is said at the end of paragraph 44 that it would be wrong for a working legislative Chamber to contain an indefinite number of Members, however distinguished, who were well beyond the normal age of retirement from active life. If that is wrong for this legislative Chamber, it is equally wrong for the Commons. That may well contain an indefinite number of Members over 72. Is it proposed, I ask, to introduce this rule in the Commons? I have no doubt there will be very
1054
great resistance in some quarters to that. Will this retirement age be included in the Bill? if so, we should try to remove it.
If that is a true principle which should be applied to both Houses, then surely it is anomalous and wrong that it should not be applied to Ministers as well as to voting Peers. But if it is applied to Ministers it will mean a restriction on the Prime Minister's Powers. He may want to retain power to have Ministers in this House—and I quote the words in the White Paper—
"well beyond the normal age of retirement from active life".
They would he the oldest voting Members in this House. Before leaving this matter, I should like to correct one thing that was said by my noble friend Lord Conesford in an otherwise excellent speech. He said that he had been officially declared to be "ga-ga" for four years. I should like to assure hint that those of us who know him do not think that that is in the least degree a correct description.
Reform of this House is not sought on account of abuse by this House of its powers, nor on account of its failure to do its job properly, but just to restrict its powers and alter the basis of membership. Many tributes have been paid to the quality of our debates; our work on Bills has been praised. I am sure that if it were left to the public to decide what they wanted, they would say that this House has been doing, and is doing, a first-rate job. There is, in my opinion, no ground for changing the composition of this House because of inefficiency. I agree that some criticism can fairly be made of the hereditary qualification. But one thing that can be said in its favour, so it seems to me, is that it produces Peers from all walks of life and Peers who make very valuable contributions to the work of the House. The Government have not sought, and have not obtained, any mandate from the people to abolish this right; and in my view we should not abolish it unless we are satisfied that another system would produce better results.
It is said that the choice lies between nomination by the Prime Minister and election, and the most reverend Primate has come down in favour of nomination. It is said that the latter, election, is ruled

1055
out on the ground that it would mean that this House competed with the Commons and that the Commons would not stand for it. My Lords, is this really true? Is it certain that, whatever system of election you had, it must be ruled out because it would have that consequence? I rather doubt it. I am not at all sure that one could not devise an elective system which would not have that result. But I cannot take up time now in developing that point, because we are discussing now, not what might be done (and I am sure it will be said that what I am saying to-day is entirely unconstructive), but the proposals put forward for our consideration.
I hold that the proposed system of nomination by the Prime Minister—and I mean by that, any Prime Minister—is no improvement on the present system. It is said that it does not mean any extension of a Prime Minister's powers of patronage. It is even said that his present powers will be restricted. I simply cannot accept that. I agree that there is theoretically no limit to the numbers he can recommend for Peerages; theoretically the Labour Party's majority in this House could be created overnight. But that has not happened, and it will not happen. But a large increase of patronage is sanctioned if these proposals are approved. Aided by the advice of the Leaders of the Parties, he will choose which of the hereditary Peers to recommend for Life Peerages. It is said in paragraph 38 of the White Paper that these hereditary Peers
"include some of the most active and experienced members of the present House".
—and some of those most active and experienced Members will no doubt in due course be eliminated by the retirement rule. Their nomination would be "after appropriate consultations", and the most reverend Primate made some reference to that. It was said yesterday, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, that the "usual channels" would be very useful in that connection. I recognise that in relation to Members who are in this House now, but when it comes to the choice of people to sit on the Cross-Benches, to hold the balance, how is that going to be done? With whom are consultations going to take place about them?
1056
I want to ask this further point—and again I want to make it clear that this question is not directed to the present Prime Minister but to the position of any Prime Minister. Supposing the Leader of one Party in opposition puts forward a name, will the Prime Minister of the day be able to give effect to his own personal likes and dislikes? Will he be able to say "Well, you have put forward that name, but it is not acceptable to me. I will not recommend him for a Peerage. You must put forward another." If a Prime Minister took that course what redress would there be? What will the position be of a member of a Party who is a thorn in the flesh of his Party? Is he likely to have his name put forward?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Yes.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I do not know, my Lords, but it seems to me that the result of this nomination procedure may well be that the independence of this House will be most seriously undermined. I think these questions should be answered.
Again, as I understand the position the Prime Minister of the day will decide on the number of Peers from each of the Opposition Parties who are to be voting Members of this House. I can see great difficulties looming ahead in regard to this. We are told that, so far as possible, the distribution of seats between the Opposition Parties will be determined in relation to their representation in the House of Commons and to the number of votes cast for them in recent General Elections. That seems to me to leave a wide discretion to the Prime Minister. He can not only select those who are to have voting rights, but can also determine the respective strengths of the Opposition Parties. Supposing he thinks that less violent opposition would come from the Liberal Party than from the Tory Party, might he not then be prompted to make an undue increase in the number of Liberal Peers, or vice versa?
There is one matter that has not been dealt with, and in my opinion it should be dealt with. It is this. Supposing that I and a few others left the Conservative Party and went and sat on the Cross-Benches. There would then

1057
be the demand that the number of Conservative Peers should be brought up to the stipulated figures. Perhaps six new Peers would be created and then, possibly because of a change in Conservative policy, I might find myself back on the Conservative Benches. What then would happen to this wonderful procedure for creating new Peers? The whole thing would be a muddle, and the only thing that would make it work properly would be for me to receive an invitation to sit on the Labour Benches—but I would not accept that.
My Lords, I do not think this extensive power of patronage should be given to any Prime Minister. In my opinion The Times was not far wrong when it headed its leader "The House of Nominees"; but, bearing in mind the restriction of our powers, it would perhaps be more accurate to call it, "The Emasculated House of Nominees". In my opinion the proposed system is so bad that, despite the criticism directed against it, I prefer the retention of the hereditary system for the time being. If we are to have a Royal Commission on the Constitution this matter should be referred to that Royal Commission. They can then consider all the possibilities and we can put before them for their consideration such constructive ideas as we have.
I do not oppose the division of this House into voting and non-voting Peers. It is clear to me that the total size of voting Members of this House must be reduced. But I should be sorry to find that such a reduction had eliminated a number of Peers who cannot attend the daily working of this House but who do attend and make most valuable contributions in our general debates. Therefore on that ground I welcome the division.
There are other points that I could mention, but I have spoken for long enough. There is only one other point I wish to make at the moment. It is said that if we do not accept this chance we shall not have the opportunity again and that the consequences may be worse for us. That is not an argument that appeals to me when, in my opinion, the proposals are bad and damaging to this House; and, what is more important, damaging to our Constitution. It is the sort of argument, is it not? that the Russians no doubt advanced to Mr.
1058
Dubcek, and I hope this House will give the answer that he would have liked to give.
What is the right course to f follow? I suggest it is to refuse to give approval to these proposals now; to say to the Government, "You are appointing a Royal Commission on the Constitution. Let them consider what reforms and changes should be made to this House. After all, it is not an unimportant part of the Constitution. Do not exclude this subject from their consideration". As I have said, we cannot now formulate detailed proposals, but we could put such proposals to the Royal Commission. If the Government had the wisdom to take this course I do not think they would have any reason to fear what the Opposition of this House, under the wise leadership of the Leaders of the Liberal and Conservative Parties, and in particular my noble friend Lord Carrington, would do.
I know that my noble friend Lord Carrington and my noble friend Lord Jellicoe have worked hard on this matter at the Conference which was interrupted. But I am sorry that on this occasion I simply cannot agree with the proposals which they find acceptable. Too great a price can be paid for agreement. But when the Royal Commission have reported. it may well be that their Report, and what it recommends, will command far greater general approval than the proposals contained in the White Paper that we have been discussing. We should not be in a hurry. Change there must be, but change which radically destroys the character of this House, restricts its powers and prevents the House from fulfilling its proper functions is not a change that I can support.
4.29 p.m.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, I hope I shall not add unduly to the flow of words that has accompanied this debate, but there are one or two points I should like to make. Let me say at once that I support the Motion now before the House. I do so because the scheme is sensible in itself, and because at long last we have a scheme which has achieved general all-Party agreement. By providing for the removal of the hereditary right to a place in your Lordships' House, and by providing against the

1059
permanent majority of one Party, the scheme lays a foundation for the future—a future which we hope will comprise a new and more productive relationship between the two Houses, on the basis of Appendix II of the White Paper.
In what I have now to say, I have one explanation to offer, two questions to ask and one regret to express. First, an explanation of the position of the Peers who sit on these Benches, the Cross-Bench Peers, to whom the scheme offers an essential role. It is very justly stated in paragraph 14 of the White Paper that the Cross-Bench Peers
"do not possess any sense of corporate identity or act in any way as an organised group, and they resist any tendency for them to be regarded as such."
That, my Lords, is true. Party is the life of politics, and your Lordships' House is, in one of its aspects, a political institution working on Party lines. It is true that Party controversy is here somewhat muted and that Party Whips wield less sway here than they do in another place. To that extent your Lordships' House has a greater measure of independence than another place.
It is true also that, unlike another place, your Lordships' House has a substantial independent element in its composition. The main characteristic of that independent element is its variety. There are those among the Cross-Bench Peers who are genuinely non-Party, genuinely unaligned, seeing some good in the programmes of all three Parties, looking for areas of agreement rather than emphasising points of difference. Then there are those who, because of the public offices they hold now or have held in the past, and whether they have Party leanings or not, prefer to maintain an independent position and not to take any Party Whip. Then again there are some who, though they may have Party leanings, prefer not to commit themselves to the whole of a Party programme, declining to be told by any Whip how they are to vote, and who choose to come and sit on these Benches. How far some of these Peers can be counted in a reformed House as genuine non-aligned Cross-Benchers may be a question, on which I do not propose to dilate at this moment.
Hard words have been spoken about the Cross-Benchers, particularly in respect
1060
of their political non-alignment. Those are the people who have been derisively called "neuters" or "mandarins" or "political vestal virgins" or "stooges", and who have been described as neither flesh, fowl nor good red herring. Hard words break no bones. Strong Party men, naturally enough, tend to have little patience with people who will not line up behind Mr. Wilson or Mr. Heath or even Mr. Jeremy Thorpe. But they do not use these terms of abuse when appealing to the floating vote from the hustings. The non-aligned Cross-Bench Peers are the floating vote of your Lordships' House, and if they are true to their independence they will not give their vote unless they have heard and weighed the argument. The noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, did well to emphasise this point in her speech yesterday.
It is clear that a group so composed cannot be an organised political body. It cannot have a Whip or a Leader. Its sole bond is its independence. No one knows how its members will vote. It is no one's business to try to find out. It is no one's business to try to persuade them to vote one way or another.
In fact, their voting record is interesting. It has been found, by checking the records over a period, that by and large their votes for and against the Government in Divisions have been fairly equally divided, about half for and about half against. The Home Secretary was right. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, was right— that is the case. That, statistically speaking, is how the Cross-Benchers have behaved in the past. But, of course, within that statistical computation there have been occasions when a good many more of them have voted for the Government than against the Government, and other occasions when a good many more of them have voted against the Government than for the Government. And in spite of what the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has said, there has not in the latter case, I think, been any expression of resentment from the Government Front Bench. They have been quite happy to take the rough with the smooth so far as we are concerned. I would suppose that that is about the way the Cross-Benchers might be expected to behave in the future in a reformed House, where their responsibility might on occasion be very great.

1061
The Cross-Benchers having this character, they were not invited, and I think rightly so, to take part in the discussions held by the three Parties. Nor were they in any formal sense consulted. There was in fact no one who could speak for them. But the Leader of the House thought it right, in May last, to invite the Cross-Bench Peers to meet him so that he could give them, in confidence, an outline of the way things were shaping in the three-Party talks, and for this they were most grateful.
The fact that we on these Benches have no political cohesion does not mean that we do not help ourselves and each other in an administrative way to play a part in the life of the House. Some while ago the main body of Cross-Bench Peers invited two or three of their number to act as their agents in order to help in this way. When a new Cross-Bench Peer arrives he is helped to find his way about the House and he is inducted into the ways of the House. Notes have been prepared for the general guidance of Cross-Bench Peers. Those who wish to do so receive a weekly notice of the forthcoming Order of Business, the so-called but ill-named "no-line Whip"—ill-named because it is not a Whip at all—kindly supplied by the office of the Government Chief Whip.
Those who wish to do so attend an informal weekly meeting of Cross-Bench Peers in the room which has been placed at our disposal. At those meetings we are in no way concerned with the attitude which any of us will adopt to this or that issue which is before the House; we are concerned rather to review the forthcoming Order of Business, and, for example, to assess the relative importance of the items on the Order Paper, so that we may be the better prepared to play our part in the proceedings, whatever our individual part may be. Finally, once each month we have a talk on some topical subject by an acknowledged authority. Thus we have recently had talks on the procedure of the House, upon the process of legislation and upon the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner by Sir Edmund Compton himself. Finally, it is, I think, a convenience to the Government Chief Whip if there are one or two people whom he can consult if it is a question of finding a Cross-Bencher to serve on a Committee or on a delegation.
1062
That, my Lords, is the extent of our organisation. So far as it goes, it is administrative and not political. The Cross-Bench Peers do not form a bloc and I can see no reason why they should ever do so.
May I now come to the White Paper itself? I have two questions to ask, or indeed I had two questions until I heard the speech of the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees. My first question related to the voting rights of nonvoting Peers in Committees, in particular the question whether or not they could vote on Select Committees on Private Bills. I do not now need to ask that question. It has been clearly put by the Lord Chairman of Committees, and I thoroughly support all that he said.
My second question relates to the initial selection of Cross-Bench Peers by succession to serve as new Life Peers. It is stated in paragraph 38 that:
"the new Life Peers would be created on the nomination of the Prime Minister after appropriate consultations as regards both those who accept allegiance to a political Party and those who do not."
It is further stated in paragraph 42:
"that new Peers are created by the Queen on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, who consults other Party Leaders in the case of nominations from their Parties."
So far, so good. But what will be the method of appropriate consultation as regards those who do not accept allegiance to any political Party? On this point, I fully support what has been said by the most reverend Primate and, like the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, I ask that question. It is one which, from the point of view of the Cross-Benchers, is extremely important.
I now come to my final point, which is an expression of regret. I remember once that Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, in his warm-hearted way, when Leader of the Opposition surveyed, with sympathy and appreciation, the young Peers whom he saw opposite him on the Government Benches. Like many another of your Lordships I should deeply regret if, as a result of the reform, this House were ultimately to come to be composed entirely of the elderly. I sincerely hope that, in the future, Prime Ministers will include in their recommendations for Life Peerages at any rate a sprinkling of promising

1063
younger men—that is, let us say, young men under 40—whether Peers by succession or not, who, if they were willing to serve, might begin as non-voting Peers, with the hope in due course of qualifying as voting Peers. Here again, I support what has been said by the most reverend Primate. I suggest that it might well be one of the duties of the Committee proposed in paragraph 31 of the White Paper to attend to this matter when reviewing periodically the composition of the reformed House and when reporting on any deficiencies in the balance and the range of the House.
My Lords, I have done. In conclusion, I should like to pay a warm tribute to the members of the Three-Party Committee for an outstanding piece of work, and to them and their advisers for the extreme care with which, by way of inquiry and research, the complex problems at issue were analysed and clarified. I think it would be a great pity if their work were now not to be brought to fruition.
4.44 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I rise from a seat between my two noble friends, Lord Salisbury and Lord Dilhorne, to defend the White Paper; so your Lordships will understand that I have to be careful in what I say. My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne made, as we should expect of him, a strong and impressive speech on the many drawbacks in the White Paper. But I must say that he left us in an impossible position, saying that it is better to do nothing than to accept the possibility of making progress with this reform. All through the debates here, and indeed in another place, too, one sensed that the speakers were divided between those who are pessimistic about the possibility of reviving our democratic institutions and those who are optimistic; and although the way forward is not at all clear yet, with faith and hope, I believe we can still make our Parliamentary institutions work as the people wish them to work.
Having listened to the speech of my noble and learned friend, I propose to omit some of the things I was going to say and to concentrate on our relations with another place and the political realities behind the proposal to reform your Lordships' House at this time. We
1064
must surely agree that great constitutional changes test the maturity of any society. More often in our own history than in the history of any other country we have had general agreement that a particular reform was overdue. Your Lordships will have noticed a peculiarity about a fair number of these major reforms. After they had been canvassed for some time it became evident that one of the two major Parties—and that not always the more obvious—was in a much better position than the other to get the measure through Parliament.
It was Peel, the Leader of the landed interest, who took the Corn Laws off the Statute Book. It was Disraeli who did away with the £10 franchise. It was Attlee who gave independence to India. Today, there are two institutions ripe for reform: your Lordships' House and the trade unions. But I would think it already clear that your Lordships' House has to be reformed by a Labour Government and the trade unions by a Conservative Government. Indeed, the extreme likelihood that only this Labour Government can get reform of this House accepted by a majority of all Parties in another place is quite clear from the closing stages of the debate last night in another place—an important point in favour of the White Paper. Had this House to be treated like the steel industry, which was nationalised in one Parliament, denationalised in the next, and nationalised again in the follwoing one, what chance would there be to redefine our powers and to settle down to a useful job of work?
If I am right that a Labour Government offers the only prospect in sight of reform by broad agreement, then we have good reason to be in a hurry. It may be a long time before there is another Labour Government, but there will always be a Labour Opposition; and would any of your Lordships care to speculate that that Opposition would be ready to agree to any acceptable reform of this House? If there is no doubt about the answer—and I venture to think that any of your Lordships who were sitting upstairs in the Gallery of another place last night will agree that there is no doubt about that answer—then by delaying now we risk sharing the fate of the steel industry. So, unless the scheme before us is thoroughly and irretrievably bad we should think hard before

1065
we reject it. How bad is it? We can all pick holes in the details but, taken together, its provisions represent a political compromise worthy of the British genius for evolution. The negotiators might so easily have arrived at no compromise at all: and what joy that would have given to the loud abolitionists in another place!
I turn for a moment or two to the composition of a reformed House and to our relationship with the Commons. Once the Commons were elected by universal suffrage, one head one vote, male or female, empty or full, limited only by age—now 21, soon to be lowered—it could have been only a matter of time before the contrast became too great between this indiscriminate, unqualified distribution of power and the narrow hereditary base to which the majority in this House is still anchored. Unfortunately, we are not able to draw the logical conclusion from this contrast. Universal franchise for the Commons should have led, as in other countries, to a different but none the less effective system of election for a large part of this House. But this we cannot have. The Commons fear that an elected Second Chamber—and they said it over and over again in their debate—would draw from them some of the prestige which they wish to hug to themselves.
It is the belief that the two Houses must always be afraid of each other, always jealous of each other that lies behind many of the arguments of my noble and learned friend and others who really think that the other place will never allow us to be a useful, workmanlike body. I have long felt that the fears of the Commons about your Lordships were exaggerated, but having sat for twenty years in another place I know that it would take an exceptionally calm, collected and self-confident House of Commons to admit the extent to which the prestige of Parliament is anything but a fixed quantity, in the sense that the more you have in this House the less you must have in the other. As a matter of history, the prestige of Parliament has gone up and down by large margins. I doubt whether the public to-day have any deep interest in the rivalry between the Lords and the Commons: what concerns them more and more is how well the two Houses, working together, manage
1066
the nation's affairs in accordance with the traditions and wishes of the people.
Here I must refer to a view expressed yesterday (I think it was by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, but I am not quite sure) that the power of the Executive has become very great and is likely to go on increasing; and also to the parallel argument by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that we must do nothing to weaken the power of the Executive which is, as he said, the happy result of caving no written Constitution. But, my Lords, while you would probably agree that strong government is something very much to be preferred to weak government, there is a world of difference between the strength of the Executive and the exercise of that strength in accordance with the wishes of the people.
What is wrong with our system of Government to-day? Why is there mounting dissatisfaction in many parts of the country? I believe it is because we have made the mistake of thinking that the Party system and Elections every five years resulting in a Government of over 100 Ministers and an Opposition ready to take their place are, by themselves, effective guarantees of a sound democracy. My Lords, they are not; they are only the apparatus of democracy. The essence of popular government, that which keeps it alive and healthy, is the accountability of those in power to the people; and this is where we are going wrong. It is not only the Scots and the Welsh who are insisting that Westminster and Whitehall should be more accountable to them, devolve more power to them, but the English also begin to feel equally frustrated, equally defrauded of that influence over what is done to them to which they consider their education and their rights as individuals entitle them; and the English, when they begin to object, can be much rougher than the Scots and the Welsh. There fore, the opportunity to reform your Lorships' House is, above everything, an opportunity to increase the accountability of Parliament to the people.
We talk a great deal about the processing of legislation being done much more efficiently when your Lordships' House is reformed. It is not more legislation that the electors want, but a greater share in the decisions which affect their daily

1067
lives. I am sorry, therefore, that, apart from the Bishops and the Law Lords, who must always be appointed, the rest of us cannot be elected. However, we must face the fact that Members of another place will not allow this, and therefore for the time being we must either continue to be suffocated by our present composition or be nominated.
Of those two evils nomination is manifestly the lesser, and I will give my reasons for this view. In the first place, if we do nothing and stay as we are, as my noble and learned friend would wish, there is no hope of a more satisfactory volume of work, no fresh scope for playing our considerable part in the revival of British Parliamentary institutions. Secondly, if we stay as we are— as has been said by many noble Lords in this debate—the Prime Minister could swamp this House with Life Peers. He and his successors have only to go on for another decade or so creating Life Peers at the rate of the past four years, and effective work in this House would be impossible. In this Chamber, in the Library, in the Dining-Room, even in the Bishops' Bar, everything would slow down to a crawl in the traffic jam of learner drivers. My Lords, it is quite essential to place a limit on the number of new Life Peers. The method of doing this proposed in the White Paper has very many drawbacks, but I agree with my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden that we cannot think of a better scheme; and if my noble friend cannot think of a more ingenious scheme, what can be expected of any of the rest of us?
Now Prime Ministers are the trouble. Prime Ministers, my Lords, may be a rum lot, but at least they have come through the most gruelling struggle open to any of us and reached the top of the tree, and that achievement is not to be despised in this cautious and colourless world. What, I confess, worries me is that I think it will be very difficult for any Prime Minister to choose inexperience against experience, political novices or independents against safe Party men and women. Even so, I have one crumb of comfort to offer those who sit on this side of the House. In this matter a Conservative Prime Minister will be at a distinct advantage.
1068
We all know that Socialists, young and middle-aged, as they advance in years quite often become Conservatives in fact, if not in name. But conversion the other way round? How many middle-aged Conservatives can your Lordships think of who have become Socialists? My noble friends may rest assured that the passage of time and the growth of experience will always add to our numbers.
As I observed earlier, the most important reason for giving the White Paper a trial is that the reform will provide an opportunity to discuss and to modify in one way or another the powers and duties of this House. It is quite true that the Bill will not define any extension to our present duties and will only contain, I suppose, the change in the delaying power. We have therefore to be content with paragraph 70 and Appendix II of the White Paper; and that is something which any old Parliamentarian knows is very inferior to a section inserted in an Act of Parliament. It is, of course, very unsatisfactory. The sensible, accepted procedure when redesigning a building or an institution is first to determine what the change of function is going to be and then to send for the architect. We cannot do this with your Lordships' House. The Commons, and I think the people at large, wish to see the composition of this House reformed before any changes in our functions are decided, other than the delaying power.
We then come to the test of whether we are pessimists or optimists about the future of British democracy. If we think that the power of the Executive must inevitably go on increasing and that the accountability of the Executive to Parliament and to the people must inevitably grow less and less, then we are moving towards a breakdown in our traditional way of governing ourselves and there is nothing your Lordships can do about it. But I do not hold that view. I remember that when it was suggested that the Board of Trade should build advance factories in development areas, opposition was raised by those who foresaw costly buildings standing empty because no one wanted to put any work in them. Much better, they said, either to make a firm bargain with a prospective tenant or not to build at all. That advice sounded

1069
like common sense, but in fact it was not. Advance factories proved a success, but it needed quite a lot of faith and courage to spend all that money with no occupiers in sight.
In the same way, in reforming the composition of your Lordships' House without really knowing what our powers are going to he, we also need faith and courage. We could easily lose heart at the prospect of such an upheaval with no certainty of adequate work being given to us. If I were afraid of the House of Commons, if I had such a low opinion of them that I thought they would never put our democratic institutions into better order, I should not bother to vote on this White Paper. But I have faith that, if the reform of the composition of your Lordships' House is made with broad agreement, the work will come and we shall see life and prestige returning to both Houses of Parliament. In that belief, I shall vote for the White Paper.
5.5 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for not being in my place for the first two days of this debate because I was overseas. However, through reading the Press and the OFFICIAL REPORT I have been able to follow and understand the many interesting contributions that have been made in the course of this very long discussion. Much of the public comment on the proposals in the White Paper have been unfavourable. As a member of the Inter-Party Conference I regret this, because I believe the proposals are workmanlike and can be made a success. But it is obvious that no practical alternatives, other than abolition or retaining the status quo, have been put forward with any confidence from any quarter.
I believe that one of the major problems of House of Lords reform stems from the widespread ignorance of what it does in fact achieve in its present condition. I say without hesitation that few members of the public or of another place really understand or appreciate the dedicated work which goes on in this House in the national interest. Having been in both Houses for some time, I realise how important a complement to the other place this House must be in the future. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, I see the reform of this
1070
House being the prelude to reform of the House of Commons. I see it as the beginning of a new era of both Houses working more closely together to share the legislative load and to improve the quality of legislation and public debate.
I became intimately involved with this subject in 1948 when, as Chief Whip of the Liberal Party in another place, I was closely involved with the late Mr. Clement Davies and the late Lord Samuel who were our representatives on the Inter-Party Conference at that time. I do not think people to-day realise how close we were in 1948 to reaching all-Party agreement. Agreement was reached on composition and functions but, unfortunately and regrettably, the talks broke down on the delaying power —in fact only three months, as I recall, separated the Parties at that time and we might yet have gone forward with some form of reform. The points of agreement in 1948 were interesting. For instance, it was agreed that the Second Chamber should be complementary to, and not a rival of, the Lower Home. It was therefore agreed in 1948 that the reform of the House of Lords should be based on a modification of the existing Constitution as opposed to the establishment of a Second Chamber of a completely new type based on some system of election. Election was ruled cut in 1948.
The second point which was made was that,
"the revised constitution of the House of Lords should be such, as far as practicable, that a permanent majority is not assured for any one political Party."
The third point agreed in 1948 was that,
"the right to attend and vote based solely on heredity should not, by itself, constitute a qualification for admission to a reformed Second Chamber."
There were a number of other points, some of which are included in the present proposals. Those of us who were involved in the recent inter-Party discussions started with a number of assumptions or prejudicies. Some of us, myself included, changed our minds and attitudes as we thought more deeply about the subject and researched into the problem. I should like to mention a few of these points.

1071
I have been impressed with the demand in my own Party for an elected Second Chamber, so I looked at the matter afresh, bearing in mind what we agreed in 1948. There are several objections. For instance, we have no fair system of electing a House of Commons. In my view there would be a less fair representation in the Lords if we used the present electoral system which we use for the Commons. The least that would be required, if we are to have any semblance of fairness at all, would be proportional representation in the large towns and the alternative vote in the scattered county seats.
I was very interested in the proposal made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. This is an interesting proposal. He wants a system of election which will guarantee to produce in this House a minority for the Government. It is a proposal worth examining, but I do not know how you would set about it. But I can tell the noble and learned Viscount that nobody has better experience of electoral systems which produce minorities than the Liberal Party. If he wants any help we are at his disposal.
But what would be the result of having an elected Second Chamber? It is bound to be a rival to the Lower House. I admit that it might even come to be superior to the Lower House. This surely would be quite monstrous. The power would be transferred to the Upper Chamber and the Commons would become second-class citizens. I do not rule out some form of election for part of the House to accommodate regional representaives, but total election means, I think, the death knell of the power of the Commons, in addition to the difficulty of maintaining in this House the vital independence of Members of the Lords.
The next point which has been raised by many speakers is the nominated nature of the House. Nomination is hated by The Times, it is hated by the Left-Wing of the Labour Party, and it has caused a great deal of misgiving in some sections of the Liberal Party. But if election is ruled out, then some form of nomination is surely the only practical alternative. I believe that the system which is now
1072
proposed provides better safeguards, perhaps, than we have at the moment. First, a voting Peer will have the freehold of his voting status for life, provided that he fulfils the attendance qualification.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD BYERS: I am sorry, my Lords; I meant until retirement. I really was not looking that far forward. I have just returned from Israel, where I discovered that all their Army officers retire at 40, even the Generals. So I have an entirely different view of what constitutes a proper retirement age.
In addition, there will be a review committee charged, among other things, with reporting publicly on imbalances or on unfairnesses, and I believe that this is important. We in the Liberal Party suffered quite considerably from the moment the Life Peerages Act came in. We were totally unable to get from Mr. Harold Macmillan or the Conservative Party any nominations to Life Peerages. It was only when the Labour Government came in that this was rectified. I would hope that such a situation could not recur if there was a review committee, which could call attention to the imbalance as a result of a Party with between 2 million and 3 million votes in the country not getting any representation whatsoever from a Conservative Prime Minister.
The other major criticism, perhaps, is of the proposal of the two-tier system. I saw nothing at all sinister in this when we were looking at it in depth. To me it is absolutely essential to preserve as Members of this House eminent people who cannot attend regularly, but whose contribution to debate, particularly specialist debates, is of paramount importance, and I think this is the right way to accommodate them. Of course, the scheme will not be accepted by anyone without some reservations. I have reservations about the refusal to allow Peers to vote in Select Committees and so on, and I think this is something which ought to be discussed by the House at large in the different stages of the Bill. But I think the scheme is a workmanlike attempt to improve the working of the Parliamentary machine as a whole, and this is where I so heartily agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has said. I believe it can be seen as an interim measure until regional

1073
government is established on a proper basis. At that point there will be a case for re-examining it, but in the meantime I say: Let us put the scheme into operation.
To me, my Lords, the logic of the matter is this. An elected Chamber would be a rival to the Commons and even, in time, might dominate it. The hereditary basis of membership is largely agreed to be unsatisfactory, and has been agreed to be unsatisfactory for over twenty years, in which case there must he some form of nomination. I doubt whether anything much better than nomination by the Prime Minister of the day, within agreed conventions and with the safeguard of a review committee, can be found. I believe it is essential to have a two-tier system which protects the people in this House who have a real contribution to make, but who cannot fulfil the attendance qualification.
So far as powers are concerned, I have had the feeling throughout my time in this House that we really have very little power under the present Constitution. I would much prefer to have some delaying capacity which could be used infrequently, and to know that when it was used it would not he the subject of resentment by the Government of the day or cause a constitutional crisis.
Finally, my Lords, on the point of timing I would make a special plea here that we should stick to the proposal to enact legislation as soon as possible, and to carry out the reform in the lifetime of this Parliament. This House has been working well since the last Election. There will be a considerable need for "give and take" in getting the new House into working order, and I am quite convinced that it can be done far better in this Parliament. T hope, therefore, that these proposals in the White Paper will be fully supported by your Lordships, and that by the end of this Parliament we shall have them working in a common-sense way.
5.16 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I suppose we have had, without question, the longest debate with the most speakers that I can ever remember in a fairly long experience of this House. It is not surprising, because we are debating a subject which affects all of us; and it is not surprising that there should have been
1074
so many differences of opinion and misgivings expressed on this White Paper. As your Lordships may know, those who sit on this side of the House have no Party Whip, and there is no direction upon them by the Leaders of the Conservative Party to vote in one way rather than the other on the White Paper.
My noble friend Lord Mansfield yesterday said that I was an "ignis fatuus" —and before I finish the quotation, I may say. for the benefit of those of your Lordships who were not educated at Winchester, that an "ignis fatuus" is an idiotic or insipid light. He said that I was,
"An ignis Palms that bewitches. And leads Peers into pools and ditches".
—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20/11/68, col. 974.]
I have absolutely no wish to lead anybody anywhere, least of all into my noble friend's late 18th century last ditch. It seems to me right that on a matter of this kind, which affects every Member personally but which is also a matter of great constitutional importance, no Party pressure should be put on any member of my Party to vote other than in the way he conscientiously feels he should.
Though I have not listened to all this debate—it would have been physically impossible to do so—I have listened to a very great many speeches; and I know that many of those who have spoken against the White Paper speak not only with great sincerity, but with a great knowledge of this House. I hope they will feel that I, who disagree with them, speak with as much sincerity and with as great a respect for this House in which I have sat and taken some little part since 1945.
As your Lordships may know, my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and I were members of the Inter-Party Conference which, over a number of months. discussed the reform of this House. The proposals which are now before us are, with one single exception, the proposals on which we had reached agreement and which were to be presented to our Parties. It follows from that that I am in broad agreement with them. However, at the risk of delaying your Lordships for not very long, I should like to say one or two things about how I personally came to these conclusions.
I am a believer, as I imagine are most of your Lordships, in a bicameral system. I do not think it is a good thing or a wise

1075
thing that total power should reside in one House, and over the last decade or so the power of the Executive has been getting stronger and stronger, while the independence from it of the House of Commons has been getting less and less. I hope that it will not be considered a criticism of the other place, or, rather, of the individuals who sit there, when I say that I think it is very unlikely, save in the most exceptional circumstances, that the Government of the day is in future likely to be defeated on the Floor of that House. This gives the Executive almost unlimited power for the five years of its election—not, I think, the intention of those generations who framed our unwritten Constitution. Ever since 1911 the House of Lords has been increasingly incapable of acting as a constitutional safeguard against the domination by the Executive of the House of Commons.
My Lords, I have on many occasions before outlined to your Lordships what I believe the role of a Second Chamber to be: revision of legislation; a forum with expert membership to debate the great issues of the day; and a check on the House of Commons by making it necessary, by delaying legislation, for second thoughts to be had and to give time for public opinion to form. It is in this third role that this House has not, in my view, been fulfilling its function. It seems to me that there are two reasons for this: first, because the composition of the House is still largely hereditary; and, secondly, because that hereditary element is largely Conservative and gives the Conservative Party a permanent majority in this House.
Now I have nothing whatever against the hereditary system; and it would be odd indeed if I had since I am an hereditary Peer. Indeed, I would go further than that and say that I think the mixture of Life Peers and hereditary Peers which form your Lordships' House makes an admirable assembly; and it works well. There are positive advantages in the hereditary system. Those of us who sit here because our fathers and grandfathers did before us are beholden to nobody for our seat; we are answerable to nobody for what we do or what we say; and if we displease our political superiors they have no remedy save to remove the Party Whip from us—a
1076
punishment which might perhaps sadden us but would not, I think, totally crush us. Nobody has chosen us for our merit, because nobody has chosen us. We are here with no axe to grind; and I hope it would not be too presumptuous of me to say that there are a very large number of hereditary Peers who come to this House out of a sense of inherited duty and obligation, and not for what they expect to get out of it. I do not think that any reformed House, whether it be elected or nominated, will be any better in composition than is the present one.
My Lords, I should be happy to see the continuation of the hereditary system were it not for one thing—and it is, of course, the most important thing. It is that heredity as a basis for sitting in one of the two legislative Houses in this country is no longer acceptable to the broad mass of the people. Though the hereditary element may be composed of admirable people, most of our fellow-countrymen do not see why we should be put in the special position of being able to reverse or delay legislation from the elected House. Some months ago your Lordships decided by a small majority to reject an Order on Rhodesia which was introduced by the Government. We may have been right or we may have been wrong—there were powerful arguments on both sides—but in no comment, either in the newspapers or on the radio, on the television or in private conversation, did I ever hear any discussion of the merits of that decision. The debate centred entirely upon whether or not the unelected hereditary Chamber was entitled to reject legislation which had been passed by the elected Chamber.
On every occasion in the life of this Labour Government when it has seemed possible that we, as Conservatives opposed to a Socialist measure, might throw it out, there has been an immediate talk of a constitutional crisis, of the abolition of the House of Lords for daring to defy the Government, and of a General Election if at that particular time the Labour Party seemed to be ahead in the Gallup Poll. As a result, not only has the House not fulfilled its third function, but its reputation has been weakened by its seeming impotence to use its powers, or to be prepared to use its powers. The moderate way in which, as I hope noble Lords opposite will agree, the Opposition

1077
has behaved in the last four years has, paradoxically, called into question the purpose of a Second Chamber, for its Conservative critics say, "How useless—a House which refuses to use its powers!"; its Socialist critics say, "How monstrous that these powers exist and could be used by Tory Peers!"; and the outside world, uninitiated in the complex conventions which have grown up in this House in order that government may be continued, are baffled both by our restraint and by our powers. As a result, the House loses in reputation and prestige.
My Lords, like it or not, most people in this country do not believe that in 1968 a man should sit in the Second Chamber because his father did; nor do they think it fair that one Party should have a permanent majority over the other—and I am bound to say that I find it impossible not to agree with them. I therefore some considerable time ago—long before the Inter-Party Conference—came to the conclusion, as I am sure did many of your Lordships on all sides of the House, that some reform was essential, and that it was essential that the composition of this House be made acceptable to the people of this country.
So far as I can judge, there are only three ways in which this House can be chosen. You can do it, as now, by heredity, which I discard—sadly, but I discard it—for the reasons which I have advanced. Or you can elect it; and I suppose that might very well be the most sensible thing to do, though I think it would bring with it numerous difficulties. Many of your Lordships have said—and I agree with them——that no-one can really suppose that the House of Commons would consider for one moment a House of Lords which would be a rival to them and which inevitably, if it were elected, would ask for more power and more say in Parliamentary affairs. I must say that I thought that, in his very interesting speech, my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne was much too optimistic on this point. There would be few Members of Parliament of any Party who would consider an elected House of Lords; and we must, above all things, be practical in what we seek to achieve.
So we are left with the third alternative, of nomination. My Lords, of
1078
course it has its drawbacks. Attention has been drawn to them over these past three days. So far as I am concerned, it would be quite unacceptable if the nomination were not for life. Any lesser period would mean a House of place-men responsible to and compliant with the man 'who nominated them. There have been criticisms about nominated Peers in this House, but I do not think that anybody who has sat in this House would venture the opinion that Life Peers have been easily manageable by their Whips. Indeed, I suspect that some nominated Peers who have come from another place and who have been staunch Party followers may even have surprised themselves by their independence. I also feel bound to say, having listened to and read something of what was said in another place about created Peers, that any impartial observer might very well think that the nominated Peers and Peers of the first creation in this House are not noticeably less independent or less responsible or less distinguished than those who make up the membership of another place.
My Lords, of course nomination entails patronage; but not nearly so much, I think, as some of its critics have advanced. The patronage of the Prime Minister is at the moment unlimited. Under this scheme, if the conventions are followed he would be restricted to a 10 per cent. majority over the other political Parties. Certainly I think that my noble friend and I came to the conclusion that the only possible alternative to the r resent scheme was nomination. I acknowledge, too, that at first sight the scheme appears rather complicated, and there are no doubt certain aspects of it which all of us will have to go into in very much greater detail if a Bill is produced. For example, there has been criticism of the proposal to allow the Government an overall majority over the other political Parties.
But how else will you do it? It would surely be absurd to give a majority to the Government over the whole House, since you would thereby only be creating a replica of the House of Commons. With great respect to my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, it would seem to be equally foolish to give the Opposition Parties a majority, since all you would be doing would be organising for future

1079
frustration. To arrange things so that if the Opposition Parties and the Cross-Benchers are all united they can and would defeat the Government, seems to me a compromise which is not unreasonable and which would I think, if it had been in operation in this House in the last four or five years, have had interesting results. Would the War Damage Act dealing with Burmah Oil have got through this House? Stansted certainly would not have. Would the Asians from Kenya have been allowed to come? Would the London Government Act, which postponed the election for a year, have got through? I wonder. I certainly do not accept the interpretation which has been put upon the words of the Attorney General and the Home Secretary about the attitude to Cross-Bench Peers. If these two right honourable gentlemen mean that if Cross-Bench Peers vote according to their consciences and by doing so defeat the Government they will be decapitated—and I hope that the Government do not mean that—I certainly would not be prepared to support this scheme when it is brought before your Lordships for Second Reading.
My Lords, no composition, good or bad, is of any significance unless the House is given adequate powers; and the proposals in the White Paper seem to me a not unhappy compromise. They enable the Government to say that they have reduced the delaying powers of the House of Lords from one year to six months. I have absolutely no objection to their saying that, since in fact they leave the powers of this House almost exactly as they are at the present time. I think that those of your Lordships who have criticised this scheme because these powers have been reduced are wrong. One year from the Second Reading in the House of Commons is much the same thing as six months from the point of disagreement in this House. For a Bill which takes a long time to go through the Commons the delaying power will he greater; for a short Bill it would probably be less. But it is, in my view, a sufficiently long period for the House to be able to disrupt the Government's time-table and to afford an opportunity for reflection.
I must say—and here I agree with much of what has been said over the last few days—that I am much less happy about
1080
the powers of the reformed House on subordinate legislation. This proved to be, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House knows, a very difficult problem; and since a great deal of subordinate legislation is urgent there must be a real effort to find some means of ensuring that the House of Lords is not circumvented by an unscrupulous Government using subordinate legislation when they should be legislating by a Public Bill. This is a matter which we must go into in great detail and certainly we on this side of the House shall insist on that.
My Lords, I said that there was one matter on which we in the Conference were not agreed. We cannot accept that this change should take place until after the next General Election. We believe that a change of this magnitude made in the dying days of a Parliament would not be right, and I hope that noble Lords opposite will see the force of this argument and will be prepared to pass the legislation but to postpone its operation until after the next Election. I must tell noble Lords opposite that we certainly attach great importance to this.
Of course, there are many other matters about which your Lordships have doubts. There is the question of the Watchdog Committee. I confess to having doubts about that myself. There is the problem of getting young people in the House, to which the most reverend Primate has referred. I think there are ways to do that, but that will to a large extent depend upon the Prime Minister of the day. There is the possibility of a two-Writ system. I agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn about that. There is the question of speaking Peers being able to vote on committees of which they are members. There are all sorts of problems that I hope we shall have the opportunity of discussing later on.
The future of this House has been in dispute for about sixty years. At various times agreement has been sought between the two Parties but no agreement has ever been found. Indeed, it has been very difficult to find any two individuals who agree about what should be done. What started out, as your Lordships will remember, as a matter so urgent that it brooked no delay became just another unsolved problem. Now, partly by chance, I think, as a result of the Inter-Party

1081
Conference, a measure of agreement has been reached between certain members of the three major Parties. It is, of course, apparent in the debates here and in the other place that on both sides there are misgivings and hesitations. On one side it was said that the House will not be able to use its powers, that it will consist of placemen; and on the other side that it will have too much power or that there should be no Second Chamber at all.
From the point of view of the Conservative Party—and I am speaking only for myself—it seems to me that a fundamental step forward has been taken. The Labour Party, for the first time, are on record as saying that they believe in a two-Chamber system and that they believe in a Second Chamber which has considerable power and which can use it. We for our part acknowledge that, whatever its virtues may be, it is no longer possible in 1968 to defend a system whereby membership of this House is based on the hereditary principle or a composition which gives the Conservative Party a permanent majority. I must honestly say that I find it encouraging and in many ways rather remarkable, that the Inter-Party Conference agreed on these proposals; for agreement should be for all of us who sit in this House and who are interested in the Constitution a great prize. We never looked like getting it in the past. A unilateral change by one or the other Party, as my noble friend Lord Eccles has said, would mean that this House would become a political shuttlecock and would consequently lose its character, its importance and its value.
Until a few years ago such an agreement would have been impossible, and it may be that in a few months' or a few years' time it may once again be out of reach. Not one of your Lordships in this House or anybody in another place has, to my knowledge, suggested an alternative scheme—much less any scheme proposed which is supported by any two of your Lordships or any two Members of another place. What are the critics proposing? I heard, or read, in the debate in another place no constructive proposals. Some said that they wanted to abolish the House of Lords; some wanted to leave the House as it is because they thought it worked satisfactorily; others wanted to keep it because it does not
1082
work. Still another section felt that no Second Chamber could work, so that this one might as well be left as, it is. I do not think that. I am an optimist like my noble friend Lord Eccles. I believe in bicameral Government. I want to see a check on the Executive. I do not believe that the Executive should dominate the Commons and that the Commons should be totally and absolutely powerful without any Second Chamber to moderate its opinion or to make it think again.
My Lords, there will be a number of your Lordships, I know, who will vote against this scheme, who will seek to reject it. But what do they wish to see? Do they wish to see the retention of the present House with its known and acknowledged drawbacks? Is it possible, after what has happened, that it can be retained? Are not the Government committed to making some legislative change? So far as I am concerned, it is not possible this evening for me to vote as to whether or not I should like the Reuse of Lords to remain as it is, because I do not think that it should and I do not think that anybody who really believes in bicameral Government should think so either. It is not enough to reject the scheme; it is necessary to say what you should do to reform the House.
As I say, I believe that, on the whole, this is a good scheme. I think it will work, because we have a way of making what to the outsiders may seem a curious compromise work. In my view the House will be a stronger House. It will rot consist of placemen. How many of your Lordships who are nominated consider yourselves as placemen? It will be more powerful because it will have more power not because it will have more powers but because it will have the ability and the authority to use them; and it will have the backing of the Leaders of the three main Parties.
My Lords, I should be most unwilling to throw away the prize of an agreement unless I had something better to put in its place. Your Lordships are not being asked to underwrite every word of the White Paper, or to agree with every line or comma. We are asked, as I understand it, broadly to accept these proposals. No doubt, if a Bill is introduced it will he the subject of much discussion: many Amendments will be proposed, and there will be plenty of time for that,

1083
But this evening I shall vote for these proposals because I believe in reform. I believe in a Second House and I believe that these proposals are workable and fair; and I must say that I hope there will be enough of your Lordships who agree with me to carry this Motion by a big majority.
5.41 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, in the course of this very lengthy debate so many of your Lordships have found that everything you had intended to say had already been said, and have cast your speeches aside, that I hope you will accept that I am following a good example in this matter; because after the last three speeches there is little more that can be added to the case for the approval of this White Paper.
It is of course my first duty to congratulate the three noble Lords who made their maiden speeches: the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, the noble Lord, Lord Sudeley, and the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. I think they can be satisfied, not only with their own performances but with the fact that they have taken part in a debate which has certainly been one of the most momentous that your Lordships' House has ever had. It has been momentous because, unlike so many of the great debates of the past in which the House of Lords has been engaged in acute constitutional issues, or on similar occasions, there has been a measure of unanimity and a measure of genuine understanding which has made it a very agreeable debate; and, if I may say so, an extremely constructive debate.
Many of your Lordships made points of the very greatest interest. It will not be possible for me to answer these in the course of a winding-up speech which I hope will be a very short one, but I would say to any noble Lord who has made a suggestion that it will be very carefully considered by the Government and, if necessary, there will be further consultations. At the same time, it seems to me that the main body of the proposals has come through this debate, I will not say unscathed, but pretty largely intact.
It is clear, and it has been clear to those of us who have worked on them,
1084
that the proposals are difficult for people to understand on a first reading. There seems always to be a view that anything good in life must be simple. On the whole we support our British form of Parliamentary democracy and nobody could call that anything but simple. We are now attempting to graft on to that ancient growth, the House of Lords, some mutations and variations of a kind which need the most subtle adjustment in order to make them fit on to the existing plant. That is why, inevitably, this scheme has had to be rather complex. I would not describe it simply as a package of proposals in the sense that it is a compromise package, although there are considerable areas of compromise. It is in fact a composite organic whole designed to provide the right sort of interfaces with the existing institution.
I listened to your Lordships debating at all hours of the day and night. I should like to pay tribute to the vitality of some noble Lords who were still determinedly and eloquently delivering their speeches around midnight and afterwards. It was a pity that there were not more of your Lordships present in the Chamber to listen to them. As I listened, I found myself giving marks for understanding. It was very clear to me that the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, got an alpha straight away. He not only understood the programme, but he gets an alpha plus for supporting it. Your Lordships will not be surprised when I say that those who, I think, understood it best are those with whom I happen to agree. This is perhaps a prejudice on the part of any examiner. But I must say to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that I am afraid he will have to sit his examination again. I must say, also, that certain noble Lords had grasped the essential outline but had none the less misconceived the purposes of certain of the proposals, and I should like to deal rather briefly with certain matters that caused concern.
My Lords, one area of concern was the two-tier system, the "fivepenny" and "fourpenny" Peers to which the noble Baroness, Lady Asquith of Yarnbury, referred. Of course,the proposal for a two-tier system is not new. It was proposed a very long time ago. King

1085
Edward VII proposed that there should be 50 Liberal voting Peers and 50 Conservative voting Peers at the time of the crisis in which the father of the noble Baroness played such a distinguished part. Actually we did not have a two-tier post then, but I Go not remember hearing it condemned in that sort of way. I want to say to the noble Baroness and to other Members of your Lordships' House, that the purpose of the two-tier system is not to create first-class and second-class citizens. It is intended to preserve to a non-elected House the services of people who cannot give their full time, or give adequate time to the very onerous tasks that this House is going to have to take on; and, above all, to preserve for us those who pass the age of retirement.
May I say something about the age of retirement. It is true, my Lords, that there is no age of retirement in the House of Commons, but the decision whether or not a Member of Parliament continues to sit there rests with the electors. We have carefully ensured in this scheme that anybody who is created a Peer is answerable only to himself. No Whip, no Prime Minister, no authority anywhere can tell him how he shall vote or what are his duties. He will, in fact, be there with a freehold which extends either until his death or until the age of retirement. Furthermore, if there is payment (this is by no means settled yet; the details have yet to be considered by a Committee) it would be quite impossible to consider paying a Peer up until any age, or indeed until his death.
There is a third reason, and I say this quite seriously to noble Lords. Anyone who has had experience of management or personnel work knows that the time comes when able men have to give way, possibly at the height of their powers, in order to make room for others. This is the purpose. My Lords, it is also an essential part of the scheme that there should be a retirement age in order that the composition of the House can vary as necessary according to changes in the Government.
There has been some reference to the mathematical studies that were carried out. Those studies indicated that, if the wrong age was chosen, the numbers of voting Peers in your Lordships' House would go right through the roof. In those studies
1086
we examined a number of variables and considered such ages as 80, 75 and 72; and 72 was indicated by those studies. It is arranged that retirement will take place at the end of a Parliament, not at the time the individual Peer reaches the agreed age. The purpose of this is to "bunch" these retirements so that, in the event of a change of Government, the Lumbers can be adjusted without too great difficulty. If the noble and learned Viscount is concerned about this, I am prepared to give him a tutorial on this one also.
I hope your Lordships will accept that this is not an anti-age measure. Anyone who is a Member of your Lordships' House cannot fail to be impressed by the quality and the youth of some of our older Members. When I first cane into your Lordships' House, there were men like Lord Beveridge, who sat on the Liberal Benches, Lord Pethick-Lawrence and Lord Samuel—men with the most beautiful and lucid minds, and a clarity and gentleness of thinking that could not fail to impress. It was in order to preserve those who are their successors today as much as for any other reason (and may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford that he is one of the Members of your Lordships' House t wish to preserve) that we adopted the two-tier system. I hope that this will be understood and that there will be less talk about a division into first-class and second-class Peers. This is deliberately planned in order to ensure uniquely, and, if I may say so, adventurously, that we preserve those who in any similar Second Chamber would inevitably be lost to us.
May I also say something about the attendance requirement? It has been suggested that the attendance re quirement of 33⅓ per cent. is either too high or too low, and, furthermore, that it would be wrong to pay Peers a considerable salary (I still do not know what it will be) for attending for such a short part of the time. It was the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, who last night raised particularly the question of how the House of Lords, in its reformed version, could hope to carry out the extra duties which we visualise for it, if Members were expected to turn up for only 33⅓ per cent. of the time. It is quite clear that if we are to fulfil the much greater duties which

1087
it is the purpose of this reform to impose on us—the extra Committee work and the strengthening of the scrutinising powers as a check on the Executive—it will be necessary for voting Peers to put in a great deal more time than even many of the most regular attenders today are able to do. This must be inherent in what I may call the contract, the declaration of intention, of any Peer who undertakes these duties.
The 33⅓ per cent. requirement is in this scheme for one purpose only. It is to provide an automatic drop-out to the Peer who for some reason or other totally fails to turn up. We rejected the idea that the Prime Minister, or the Party managers, or anyone else, should be in a position to say to a Peer, "You are not doing your job; you will lose your voting rights". It might well be that a Peer who failed to perform his duties might be pressed by his colleagues to give away his voting rights and allow somebody else to take his place, while he could carry on as a speaking Peer. But we felt it necessary to establish some criterion in order to establish the viability of the two-tier system. If we do not have this, then I would say that there is no case for a two-tier system at all. In that event it would be better to abandon it. But it would mean that we should have to have an age of retirement for all Members of the House. Therefore I ask your Lordships to consider the arguments, admittedly complicated, behind this particular proposal.
I was asked some questions about my attitude to the hereditary Peerage. The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, asked the reason for recommendation 5(a), that the hereditary basis of the House should he eliminated. Answers have already been given to this. I have to be careful in choosing my words here; I do not wish to give offence. On the other hand, I am bound to say that, like so many people, I do not regard the hereditary basis of this House as justifiable. We have had some interesting arguments and I was particularly charmed by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
The noble Lord, Lord Denham, put forward a powerful case on the ground of family tradition. I acknowledge the strength of family tradition, but I can
1088
not accept it as a rational basis in a democracy for establishing who the Members of Parliament should be. The noble Lords further argued that membership of this House provided a means of bringing "ordinary blokes" into Parliament. I suspect that hereditary Peers who believe this—and I do not think that all hereditary Peers believe this—are doing discredit to themselves. I do not believe that as a rule the general public regard them as "ordinary blokes"; and even if we do have the unique distinction—and we appreciate his presence—of having a noble Lord who was recently a bus driver, I still think that in certain respects he must have been regarded as a slightly unusual bus driver.
The real argument against the hereditary principle in this House is the degree of privilege that goes with it. I do not wish to press this point further. We shall have an opportunity to discuss it later when we come to the Bill. I know that the noble Lords concerned are well aware that I personally have an affection for them, and it is one of the difficulties that at times confuse our debates that we tend to have a rather better regard for one another than some Members of another place do. Nevertheless, there are principles to which a number of us are as strongly devoted as noble Lords opposite. I would ask them to consider that this is an ancient controversy. In 1636 two Members of your Lordships' House made certain proposals to the Colony of Massachusetts as conditions of their removing to New England. One of these conditions provided for an hereditary Upper Chamber. The New Englanders replied to the noble Lords:
"Hereditary honours both nature and Scripture doth acknowledge, but hereditary authority and power standeth only by the civil laws of some commonwealth."
That may have been a "dusty answer" to your Lordships in those days, but I hope that the answer I have given is not too dusty, bearing in mind that there will be ample opportunity to noble Lords to move Amendments at a later stage.
So many questions of importance have been asked that it would be inappropriate for me now to attempt to answer them. I am bound, though, to deal with one point which the noble Viscount. Lord De L'Isle, asked, because lie said that

1089
it would determine his vote tonight. He asked, in effect, whether I could give a guarantee that the Government would regard this as the final, or indeed definitive reform of the House of Lords. I can only say that I personally hope that this reform will stand, will work and will remain as a feature of our Parliamentary institutions for many years. But it would be quite wrong, and indeed impossible, for me to bind any future Government. It would be impossible for me to bind any future membership of Parliament; and, indeed, it would be impossible, also, to foresee what the Commission on the Constitution will recommend. Therefore, I am sorry, but I must honestly tell the noble Viscount that all I can say is that I hope this proposed reform will be a great, enduring and indeed permanent (so far as institutions are permanent) success.
The noble Viscount also asked that Government should stop "blackmailing" the House of Lords. I find it difficult to understand quite what he means by that. It is always possible, in the interplay of Party political warfare, that one side or another may threaten the other. But what I am saying to-day is that the proposals that we now put forward we put forward on their merits. We put them forward because we believe that they will add substantially to the effectiveness of your Lordships' House and to the strengthening of Parliament.
Any of your Lordships who has been a Minister in recent years knows the extraordinary difficulty of informing Parliament of the considerations that determine policy. It cannot be done simply by debates: there has to be a good deal more work and detailed scrutiny. It is because government gets more and more complicated, and stretches its tentacles inevitably more and more into all aspects of our national life, that I believe it is essential that Parliament should be strengthened. To those who are critics of these proposals, and to the noble Marquess, I must say with all sincerity that this is the main purpose behind this reform.
I hope that your Lordships will now be able to come to a decision on the broad principles. There are reservations, I know, in a number of minds; and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in par-
1090
ticular, reserved his position on the date on which this reform should come into effect. This, again, is something that we shall have an opportunity to discuss. I am bound to say that I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that if this reform is approved it will be in the interests of your Lordships' House to bring it into force at the earliest possible date. But I am not pressing this now. To-day we are taking a broad decision, and I hope that the work of my colleagues on this Inter-Party Conference will not prove abortive. I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who were my colleagues in a sub-committee. We had anything between 40 and 50 meetings; so no wonder, perhaps the proposals are a little complicated!
My Lords, I would end by expressing my thanks to a number of noble Lords who were good enough to pay tribute, not only to my colleagues but also 10 myself as Leader of your Lordships' House. It is a great honour to lead the House of Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and my noble friend Lord Longford (and, as we know, he is the father of these proposals) will know. I find it a very enjoyable, at times wearing, but certainly valuable experience to lead the House of Lords. It is because I believe that we can perform our duties even better and more effectively that I am now so convinced that this particular reform will serve the House of Lords well.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question about Scottish Bills? Do the Government recognise that these are a special problem and will need special treatment?
LORD SHACKLETON: I am grateful to the noble Earl. Anxious about the length of my speech, I failed to mention —not out of Sassenach indifference—the important question of the interest of Scotland. This applies also to Wales and Northern Ireland, although I appreciate that Scotland is in a special constitutional and legal position. I would only say that in our Committee we have given anxious study to this matter, and I have no doubt that in the reformed House special provision will have to be made.

1091
So far as the Government are concerned (and I apologise, also, for not referring to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee), we should be anxious to discuss any arrangements which provide properly for the discharge of Scottish business. But I think it is difficult to be
specific about it now. There will be opportunities at a later stage.
6.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 251; Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cromartie, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Abinger, L.

Crook, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Addison, V.

Crowther, L.

Ilford, L.

Albemarle, E.

De La Warr, E.

Inchyra, L.

Aldington, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Ingleby, V.

Alport, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Inglewood, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Denham, L.

Ironside, L.

Amory, L.

Derwent, L.

Jackson of Burnely, L.

Ampthill, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jacques, L.

Amulree, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Annan, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Jessel, E.

Arwyn, L.

Dundee, E.

Kahn, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Kennet, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Killearn, L.

Auckland, L.

Eccles, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Audley, Bs.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Kirkwood, L.

Balerno, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lansdowne, M.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Energlyn, L.

Leatherland, L.

Bathurst, E.

Enniskillen, E.

Leicester, L. Bp.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Essex, E.

Lindgren, L.

Belstead, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Ferrers, E.

Listowel, E.

Bessborough, E.[Teller.]

Fiske, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Beswick, L.

Foot, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Bethell, L.

Fortescue, E.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Birk, Bs.

Francis-Williams, L.

Long, V.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Longford, E.

Blackford, L.

Freyberg, L.

Lothian, M.

Blyton, L.

Furness, V.

Loudoun, C.

Boothby, L.

Gage, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Boston, L.

Gardiner, (L. Chancellor.)

Lytton, E.

Bowden, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Geddes of Epsom, L.

McLeavy, L.

Bradford, E.

Gisborough, L.

Mais, L.

Brecon, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Glasgow, E.

Mancroft, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Glendevon, L.

Mar, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Goschen, V.

Merrivale, L.

Buckton, L.

Gowrie, E.

Milford Haven, M.

Burden, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Mitchison, L.

Byers, L.

Gridley, L.

Molson, L.

Caccia, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hacking, L.

Moran, L.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Hailes, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Carnock, L.

Hall, V.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Carrington, L.

Hankey, L.

Morrison, L.

Carron, L.

Hastings, L.

Mottistone, L.

Champion, L.

Hawke, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chelmer, L.

Headfort, M.

Moyle, L.

Chester, L. Bp.

Helsby, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Henley, L.

Nathan, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hertford, M.

Netherthorpe, L.

Cobbold, L. (L.Chamberlain.)

Heycock, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Collison, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Colyton, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Congleton, L.

Hindlip, L.

Oakshott, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Ogmore, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Holford, L.

Peddie, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Howe, E.

Pender, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hughes, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Croft, L.

Hunt, L.

Perth, E.

Phillips, Bs.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Strathcarron, L.

Piercy, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Summerskill, Bs.

Plummer, Bs.

St. Helens, L. St.

Swanborough, Bs.

Poole, L.

St. Just, L.

Swansea, L.

Popplewell, L.

Salter, L.

Teviot, L.

Portman, V.

Saltoun, L.

Thurlow, L.

Raglan, L.

Sandford, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Scarbrough, E.

Truro, L. Bp.

Rathcavan, L.

Serota, Bs.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Reading, M.

Shackleton, L.

Vivian, L.

Reay, L.

Shannon, E.

Wade, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Shepherd, L.

Walston, L.

Redesdale, L.

Sherfield, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Ridley, V.

Silkin, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Sorensen, L.

Williamson, L.

Rochdale, V.

Stamp, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Rochester, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Woolley, L.

Rothermere, V.

Stonham, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs

Royle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Strad broke, E.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Strang, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Younger of Leckie, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Falkland, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Falmouth, V.

Monsell, V.

Airedale, L.

Ferrier, L.

Poltimore, L.

Allerton, L.

Foley, L.

Poulett, E.

Barnby, L.

Glendyne, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grantchester, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Gray, L.

Salisbury, M.

Bourne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandys, L.

Braye, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Silsoe, L.

Coleraine, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Simonds, V.

Conesford, L. [Teller.]

Kings Norton, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Spencer, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Lloyd, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lovat, L.

Sudeley, L.

Daventry, V.

MacAndrew, L.

Swinton, E.

Dilhorne, V. [Teller.]

Mansfield, E.

Terrington, L.

Dudley, L.

Margadale, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Effingham, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wolverton, L.

Elton, L.

Milverton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

GENOCIDE BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee: Clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING GENERAL DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1968
6.30 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order 1968 [SI 1968 No. 16231. laid before the House under Standing Order No. 62 on October
1094
21, 1968, be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a case where, in accordance with a good many of the speeches made from both sides of the House during the debate, it would seem proper, even under the proposals of the White Paper, that your Lordships' House should ask the Government to think again.
I speak to-day for the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the County Councils Association, the Greater London Council and the Association of Municipal Corporations. There is almost complete unanimity among the planning authorities that they deprecate this Statutory Instrument amending the General Development Order. In one sentence, the purpose of the Statutory Instrument is to exempt the British Airports Authority from normal planning control. It does so on the ground that the British Airports Authority is a statutory undertaker; but the exemption which is granted

1095
under this Order is substantially wider than the exemptions granted to other statutory undertakers.
My Lords, I proceed to give the history of this matter and to explain the Order. There were four major airports in this country which were owned and controlled by the Ministry of Aviation, and therefore enjoyed Crown exemption from control. Circular 100 of 1950 provided that although those possessions of the Crown were exempt from planning control the Ministry was in fact to consult the local planning authorities, and if a difference of opinion arose between them the dispute was to be referred to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. These arrangements worked well. The County Councils Association would be entirely happy if something analogous to that could be continued.
In 1965 the Airports Act was passed which vested these airports, and a number of others, in the British Airports Authority, and therefore Crown exemption ceased. It was some months after that that the Government—and I will describe it (not this Government more than a good many other Governments of recent years) as the overweening Executive—sought to give even greater independence of planning control to this statutory creature, the British Airports Authority than in fact the Ministry of Aviation itself had enjoyed. The Minister of Housing and Local Government consulted the local planning authorities about a draft Order which was what he described as the minimum that was required to enable them to discharge their functions.
The County Councils Association have been entirely reasonable in this matter, and writing to the Department on April 15, 1966, they said:
"Naturally the Association recognise that the Authority should have some freedom to carry out minor works on their operational land without having to apply to the local planning authority for permission. But the Association suggest that the freedom proposed by the draft Amendment Order as it stands goes much too far and they have concluded that its possible consequences do not seem to have been fully appreciated by the Department."
There was further discussion between the Government and the Planning Authorities, but they did not reach agreement.
1096
Some months ago, the present Order was suddenly produced. It is an interesting commentary upon the Minister's original view that the draft Order of some two years ago gave the minimum powers that were required, because two very substantial concessions have been made in the Order which is before your Lords-ships this evening.
In the first place the Authority will no longer have freedom to construct or enlarge runways without the consent of the planning authority; and secondly, the freedom which the Authority enjoy will not be extended to their lessees. We are naturally glad of those two very substantial concessions. In addition, the British Airports Authority have promised that when they exercise their powers under this Order they will consult the local authorities. I quote their words:
"The British Airports Authority recognise that development of an airport can have a marked effect on the amenity of the adjoining land and on other planning proposals for the area. It therefore gives the undertaking that notwithstanding the permission granted by the Amending Order it will consult with the local planning authority before carrying out any development for which permission is given by that Order save in the case of minor works urgently needed to enable the airport to function efficiently."
My Lords, what is the value of this promise of consultation? It is only consultation; and if after hearing the views of the planning authority, the B.A.A. choose to disregard the views of the planning authority they are completely free to do so. In the second place, they may in fact feel themselves obliged to disregard the views of the planning authority. They are a statutory undertaker set up by Parliament; they are under obligation to conduct their business on commercial lines, and they may consider that they would be able to make a larger profit if they disregarded the representations of the planning authority.
I now come to the actual wording of the Amendment to the General Development Order. Is it the case that the B.A.A. are being given only the powers that are necessary? Recently this Parliament has been a little distrustful of the extent of the privileges granted to statutory authorities; but your Lordships will remember that you carried an Amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act which substantially reduced the compensation which they could obtain; and Her

1097
Majesty's Government, to their great credit, regarded this as being a fair and reasonable Amendment and adopted it themselves. But, broadly speaking, why in other matters should not statutory undertakers be treated in much the same way as private enterprise?
Now I will ask your Lordships to bear with me if I refer your Lordships to the actual exemptions given to statutory authorities under the General Development Order of 1963. Gas and electricity undertakings are, speaking broadly, exempted from planning control for developments that are necessary for the purposes of the production of gas and electricity, but they do not enjoy any exemption in the case of buildings. This Order follows closely the precedent of the exemptions granted to dock, pier, harbour, water transport, canal and inland navigation undertakings; and if your Lordships turn to paragraph 19 you will find there that the exemption from planning control is subject to this important exception
"except the construction or erection, or the reconstruction or alteration so as materially to affect the design or external appearance 'thereof, of bridges or other buildings"—
and then
"(not being structures or erections required in connection with the handling of traffic)".
I think that exception to the exception refers to gantries and cranes and things of the sort, such as you expect to find in a port.
When we come to the freedom being granted under this Order to airports, we find that buildings are controlled, but not—and here I quote
"buildings required in connection with the movement or maintenance of aircraft, or with the embarking, disembarking, loading. discharge or transport of passengers, livestock or goods at an aerodrome."
I would ask the Government: when all that has been exempted, what is left? What else are you expecting to build on an aerodrome which is going to be controlled when all these buildings which in any way apparently relate to the activities of an airport are in fact freed from this control? Perhaps—this thought is based on a reply to a Question in another place the only thing is the duty-free liquor shop which the B.A.A. are intending to build at Stansted.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to explain more fully than his colleagues in another place did what exactly is the meaning of this Order. I have contrasted the single exception with regard to transport in the case of docks and harbours with this lengthy verbiage in the case of aerodromes. Will the Minister please explain whether this verbiage goes beyond the wording in the case or docks and harbours? One would naturally have supposed that when the General Development Order was being amended much the same words would be used in the case of airports as in the case of seaports, but different words were used. Will the Minister tell us whether this verbiage goes beyond what is provided for him in the case of docks and harbours?
If he says "No," then I would say to him that he really should take the Order back and have it redrafted. After all, it is a general principle of Parliamentary draftsmanship that if you mean to say the same things on two occasions you use the same, and not different, words. But I do not think he will say "No", because, obviously in the Order IN e are discussing now, there is reference to the maintenance of aircraft. That surely must mean workshops, and I do not think there is any provision for exempting anything in the nature of a workshop or anything that would amount to the maintenance of a ship in the case of the seaport.
If he says, "Yes, this verbiage was carefully used in order to increase the privileges of the British Airports Authority over those enjoyed by other statutory undertakers", then I would ask him to explain to us why. I should have thought that airports needed to be more strictly controlled than seaports or most other statutory undertakings. There are a number of reasons for that: first, the noise of the aircraft; secondly, because the aircraft, both taking off and landing, travel low over ground and over houses which are occupied; thirdly, on account of the large numbers employed. I believe I am right in saying that when a new goods-handling depot was built at Heathrow recently the number of workers there was increased by 2,500. That throws a great burden upon the local authority in the matter of housing and education, the provision of roads and so on. The fourth

1099
reason is because of the immensely large areas which are required by modern airports, and, large as is the land required for the airport itself, the area which is, let us say, blighted by the noise of aircraft coming in and going out is much greater than the area of the aerodrome itself.
Under the old procedure, with which we were entirely satisfied, the Surrey County Council had a joint committee with the airport authorities, and in the case of Gatwick they planned their planning permission in the county round about so that there should not be private houses in the immediate vicinity of the aerodrome or where there were runways, in order that people should not be troubled by the entirely proper development of Gatwick, which they recognised and for which they were willing to grant facilities.
My Lords, this amendment to the General Development Order is a familiar case of Her Majesty's Government (any Government, not only of this political Party) seeking for themselves or for their creatures, wide powers on which, when they are asked to justify them, they are prepared to give verbal undertakings that in fact those powers will not be used. So it was that in another place, when these things were pointed out, the Minister gave a number of assurances, and I will deal with each one of those.
First, as I have said, the B.A.A. will consult the local planning authority. But, of course, it can disregard the views of the planning authority. Secondly, if the planning authority is dissatisfied, it can issue an Article 4 direction under the General Development Order in which it purports to stop the B.A.A. from exercising the powers which it is given under this Statutory Instrument. But that is only valid if it is approved by the Minister, and of course there is not the slightest guarantee that the Minister, who will be subject no doubt to pressure from the B.A.A., will support it. If the Minister confirms, well and good; if he does not, then this so-called safeguard is found to be nugatory. In the third place, an assurance has been given in respect of Stansted that if planning development is refused compensation will not be claimed; but that does not apply anywhere except at Stansted, and it could
1100
involve the local authority in heavy expenditure.
I would ask the Government to explain, since they emphasise all these various safeguards, why this lengthy circumlocution? If it all worked satisfactorily, it comes back very nearly to the procedure which existed under Circular 100 of 1950. But we have an uneasy feeling that the obstinacy of the Government in refusing to amend this Order so as to incorporate in the law of the land the assurances that have been given is rather sinister. In the first place, can the British Airports Authority be trusted to consult the local authorities? Well, my Lords, after the experience of Stansted I am afraid that there is widespread distrust of assurances given by the British Airports Authority. Secondly, can Mr. Masefield's assurances be trusted? It was a remarkable thing that when this matter was first brought up he wrote a letter to The Times saying:
"Any necessary extensions to the interim terminal, during this time, will of course be subject to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act."
But that is exactly what this Statutory Instrument alters. It relieves the B.A.A. of the obligation to go through the procedure of the Town and Country Planning Act and, at the time—well, the Minister shakes his head. If he would like to explain why, I shall be most grateful. No, he will not. He will reserve his explanation to a later time when it will not be possible for people who are concerned about this statutory instruction to give him a reply.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Lord will agree that it will be as possible for him to interrupt me as it is now for me to interrupt him.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, that is quite true. What was said at that time certainly was understood. I repeat the words:
"Any necessary extensions to the interim terminal, during this time, will of course be subject to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act."
At that time this Statutory Instrument which exempted the British Airports Authority of so much of the control of the local planning authority was already under discussion between the B.A.A., the Government, and the local planning authorities.

1101
Finally, when it is a matter of an Article 4 direction, can the Board of Trade be trusted? Their primary concern is always with the greatest possible prosperity of the aircraft industry. Their point of view is entirely different from that of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. However, I would quote the opinion of Mr. Jenkins, the Member for Putney, who was speaking on this matter in another place, when he pointed out that in important matters involving the measurement of noise that had been recommended by the Ombudsman, no action has yet been taken. My Lords, surely this is a clear case where Her Majesty's Government are seeking very wide, I think unprecedented, and, I am quite sure, unjustified exemption for the B.A.A. from the general planning law of the land. They have given certain assurances, and if it is intended that those assurances should be effective, I would ask them to take back this Order and to reduce the powers given to the B.A.A. to those which they say they intend the B.A.A. to be free to exercise.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order 1968 [S.I. 1968 No. 1623], laid before the House under Standing Order No. 62 on the 21st of October 1968, be annulled.—(Lord Molson.)
6.57 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, appeared to think that all the ammunition would be reserved until right at the end, and I therefore thought it might be useful if I intervened at this point and dealt with one narrow issue; the point concerning Stansted. My noble friend Lord Kennet will reply to the general discussion at the end, and I am absolutely certain that he will deal quite satisfactorily with all the general propositions and the principles with which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has been concerned. But I want here to deal with Stansted.
There is the apprehension, as I would say the misapprehension—or as the noble Lord, Lord Molson said, the distrust—that this Order would enable the British Airports Authority to pre-empt the eventual findings of the Roskill Commission. I thought it would be helpful if I dealt
1102
with that anxiety at this point so that, if possible, we could get this out of the way.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, because I was proposing to raise certain questions with regard to Stansted to which I should like a positive answer? Not knowing what the noble Lord is going to say, I do not know whether he will answer them in the course of his speech. But if he does not, may I take it that an answer will be forthcoming from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Viscount may take it that he will get an answer to all the questions he puts, either here or at some time. He will, I think, agree that on this issue we have not, as yet, failed to give him all the information for which he has asked. But I take the opportunity of apologising now, if by intervening at this point, I spoil in any way the speech which the noble Viscount intends to deliver.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, it was not that. I did not know that the noble Lord was going to intervene at this stage. I was going to make certain observations in relation to Stansted. I can make them after he has spoken. They are not very pointed or very hostile but simply seeking information.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, it makes matters a little awkward when a list of speakers has been circulated in which the noble Lord, the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, was not mentioned as one of those who was to take part.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it was not my intention to speak, but as the list developed and questions were put I thought that this would be the most helpful way of giving the answers.
LORD MOLSON: I am much obliged.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the Opposition, asked me on November 6 whether I could give him an assurance that it would not be possible for the British Airports Authority to build at Stansted without waiting for the Report of the Roskill Commission—and by "build" I understand him to mean up to the point at which it would become the third London Airport. I then said that

1103
there were various safeguards, and I gave the noble Lord a categorical assurance that it would not be possible to develop Stansted in this way. I want now to state the reasons why I gave that assurance in those terms.
First, the Order, as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has already said, specifically excludes from the exempted items a new runway, extensions to present runways and work required on the Airport by any tenants of the Authority. Knowing a little about this subject, I say with some confidence that it will be quite impossible to bring Stansted into anything like a third London Airport if it is confined to one runway, and if the users of the Airport can construct supporting accommodation only with the express consent of the planning authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, quoted the letter from Mr. Peter Masefield published in The Times on September 14, and he made a point about it which I confess I could not quite follow. He quoted the extract which said:
"Any necessary extensions to the interim terminal, during this time, will of course be subject to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act."
I do not know, since I have not questioned Mr. Masefield on this matter, to what extent he is aware of the wording of the Order that is now before your Lordships, but what he said was quite right. Any extensions necessary to the building up of Stansted Airport to equip it as the third London Airport would be quite impossible under the provisions of this Order. I am bound to say, in passing, that I very much regret the effort which has been made—not in this House, but by some people—to try—I was going to say to twist the words of Mr. Masefield. He is a gentleman who has always believed in giving full information. I believe that he sometimes rushes too readily into print, if I may say so, but always with the best of intentions, always with the purpose of giving information. He was trying to be helpful, and I think that he was accurate. It will be impossible to extend the buildings of Stansted Airport in the way in which it would be necessary to extend them if it were seriously intended to bring Stansted to the position of the third London Airport.
1104
The question of the use of the Airport by the airline companies has been overlooked a little. It is just not possible to develop the traffic on an airport unless there is an intention on the part of the operating companies to build up the traffic there. There can be no serious development of Stansted unless the airline companies voluntarily decide to operate from there. To do that considerable capital expenditure would be needed on their part. Quite apart from the fact that this Order does not enable them, without consent, to spend money on new buildings, they just would not want to sink money in premises which, after the Roskill findings are known, are liable to be completely wasted. They might have to abandon them. It just does not make business sense on the part of the British corporations to embark on any major development of Stansted.
To emphasise this safeguard Ministers have given various assurances. A further safeguard is that the Ministry have undertaken that they will approach any proposal by a local authority request for approval of an Article 4 direction with great sympathy. Your Lordships will be aware that the general permission to put up operational buildings can be put into suspense if the Minister approves an Article 4 direction, and planning permission would then be required. As in the case of all statutory undertakings, such permission if refused by the local authority can only be granted, on appeal, by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister responsible for the undertaking. Of course, no assurance can be given that the Minister would on all occasions be willing to approve a local authority's Article 4 direction: it will be for the local authority to make its case as cogently as possible.
Then there is the point of compensation, upon which the noble Lord touched. He said that the B.A.A. were not claiming compensation in the case of Stansted. This was a delicate issue on which apprehensions were aroused. The B.A.A. have said that if the question of an Article 4 direction was refused, then they would not claim compensation. This in itself would give them very serious cause to think before rushing into any proposal designed to frustrate the findings of the Roskill Commission.

1105
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, about the kind of work for which this Order was required. It was a very fair point, and I agree with him that to some extent it was not adequately dealt with during the discussion in another place. I took the trouble to find out the sort of thing the B.A.A. had in mind. I take as examples the following buildings or developments which will be needed. The rules drawn up by the International Civil Aviation Authority about fire precautions require that the fire arrangements at Stansted be looked at again, and it will be necessary to re-site the fire station at Stansted Airport. Similarly, to bring the Heathrow fire station into line with the new I.C.A.O. rules it will be necessary to carry out certain modifications at its fire station. I understand that there are requirements for the enlargement of heating stations at Heathrow and work may require to be done there as well.
Then again, to keep pace with the demand of the tenants at the Authority's airports, there is a continual additional request for electric light and power supply. This in turn means that the Authority now have the need to extend the electricity sub-station on the Airport. Buildings may well be needed for new or additional apron service equipment. There was some requirement for accommodation for snow-clearing apparatus. All these things are small but important to the Authority. They require that action should be taken quite quickly. I should have thought that an airport authority is precisely the kind of statutory undertaking which ought to have proper exemption from planning requirements.
The noble Lord has said that the effect of an airport's operations is more serious on the surrounding area than in the case of those of a seaport. That may well be so, but one also appreciates that the kind of operation for which the B.A.A. are responsible requires speedy action. Many things on an airport need to be done quickly, and it is surely a matter of business efficiency that they should have the exemption which is granted to other statutory undertakings. I could give a number of other instances of the sort of work which is needed now, and may well be needed in the future—for
1106
example, the development of the internal road system; the extension of aprons at the airport. This is the sort of operation that will be covered by this Order.
Some references have been made to the theoretical figure which Mr. Masefield quoted, of 150,000 movements at Stansted. It was, I think, an unwise figure to quote; it gave rise to certain apprehensions—or, again, misapprehensions. That is a theoretical figure. I frankly cannot understand how he reached it, because the movements that might be accepted by a runway or by an airport need not necessarily beat any relation to the sort of movements which will be generated by the operations of the airline companies. But, in any case, I repeat here figures which have been given elsewhere and which indicate that by 1972 the expected movements at Stansted will be of the order of 50,000 a year; and that total compares with anticipated movements of 300,000 at Heathrow. So much, my Lords, for the possibility of building up Stansted as a third London Airport.
If I were asked to give another safeguard, I would refer to public opinion. Public opinion over Stansted has been quite a significant factor. I think the noble Viscount will accept that, so far as I am concerned, and so far as the Government are concerned in this House, we have not endeavoured to frustrate public opinion. We have listened to the expressions of public opinion by the noble Viscount and others, and we have tried to meet the legitimate apprehensions that have been expressed. But I really think it would be carrying anxiety or apprehension nearer to unworthy disbelief if all the assurances that have been given were turned down.
There are restrictions in the Order itself. Assurances have been given by the Minister. Assurances have been given by the Chairman of the British Airports Authority. We must have some good faith in public life. We are going to tie each other into complete inactivity if we are to insist upon cast-iron legal safeguards. I say nothing about the general principle of whether statutory undertakings should be put in line with other undertakings in the country: that is a matter which might well be the subject of

1107
a very useful discussion in your Lordships' House, and I know that there are different views. Let us ventilate them. Let us look at them again. But, so far as this particular Order is concerned, I do not believe there is any genuine reason why it should be opposed.
7.13 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, at the outset I should like to make it clear that I am speaking as a member of the Surrey County Council, an authority which is deeply concerned in the subject-matter covered by the Order. I think it would he a very great pity if the Stansted Airport tended to obscure the more important general issues involved in this Order. It would surely be something of a nonsense to suggest that the Order has been introduced in order to allow a backstairs expansion of Stansted and thereby a predetermination of the site for the third London Airport. But it is equally nonsense to equate the development of a freight terminal, such as is now under construction at Heathrow—costing some £12 million, covering some 160 acres and involving the total employment of some 8,000 persons—with other types of permitted development under the General Development Order; and, certainly, it is the view of the Surrey County Council that under the Order as it now stands a comparable freight terminal at Gatwick would be permitted development.
The Surrey County Council, as local planning authority, are vitally concerned, in so far as they have an interest in a substantial part of Heathrow and in the whole of Gatwick, with its recognised potential for growth and development. The local planning authority are responsible to the people of Surrey for determining the impact on their living conditions and environment which the development of these two airports will have, and until now the local planning authority have been in a position to discharge this responsibility. While the Ministry of Aviation were responsible for the airports, the normal Circular 100 procedure for development by Government Departments obtained, whereby there was consultation between the Government Department and the local planning authority, and in the event of a difference of view the matter was referred to the
1108
Minister of Housing and Local Government as final arbiter. This was a comparatively fast-moving machinery, and afforded an opportunity of a hearing between the two parties concerned when the balance between national and local issues could be argued.
When the British Airports Authority assumed responsibility for the airports they became subject to normal planning control, whereby an application for development by them was submitted to the local planning authority, who could either refuse or grant it subject to conditions. Immediately appeal again lay to the Minister of Housing and Local Government against any such refusal or onerous conditions. This, again, afforded an opportunity for an inquiry when any conflict between national and local interests could be argued.
The relationship between the Surrey County Council, as local planning authority, and the Ministry of Aviation and their successors—the British Airports Authority—has always been excellent. I believe the British Airports Authority would readily acknowledge the willing assistance in planning matters which has always been afforded to them, and the local planning authority have always been prepared to give due weight to national interests as well as to local interests. But it has been the experience of the local planning authority that any airports authority, naturally and inevitably, look on development within the airport boundaries with their blinkers on, concerned with its effects on their operational area and not contemplating the wider effects on the surrounding countryside. It was noticeable in the preliminary consultations on the Heathrow freight terminal that no consideration had been given to the traffic problems engendered by the terminal.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord is making rather a point of this. Is he aware that the freight terminal is constructed by the airline corporations, and that this Order specifically excludes building by the airline corporations?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I say that I am speaking advisedly here, and I want to make it quite clear

1109
that the interpretation which I am giving is the interpretation placed upon the Order by my authority. If my authority are incorrect, then of course they will be very pleased indeed to know that they are wrong. May I complete my point there?
It was found by the local planning authority that no consideration had been given to the traffic problems engendered by the terminal, as to how the vehicles going to and from the terminal were to be routed; nor, indeed, as to the need for some 6,000 car parking spaces. It was upon the insistence of the local planning authority that traffic consultants were appointed to assess the likely traffic flows to and from the airport and the amount of car parking spaces available within the area. It is of interest that their estimate showed that by 1970 the average daily traffic in and out of the airport would be some 20,000 vehicles per day, with hourly peak flows of 1,500 vehicles. This illustrates the need for detailed and careful study by the local planning authority and the highways authorities concerned in order to ensure that development is planned both within and without the airport so as to avoid congestion and extreme danger on the roads from the large volume of traffic to which such development may give rise.
It may be said that the undertaking given by the B.A.A. for prior consultation with the local planning authority about development other than urgent minor development will overcome this difficulty and enable a satisfactory solution to be found in all cases. The B.A.A., however, are primarily concerned with operational and commercial considerations. In the course of consultation they may share the view of the local planning authority as to the proper disposition of a proposed building on amenity grounds, but feel unable to accept their view by reason of operational or commercial reasons. The local planning authority would accept that the Minister is the proper arbiter to determine which of these views should prevail in any particular case, and under the procedure available in the past this is what has happened.
Now as to the future—and it should be remembered that one of the purposes of the Order is to enable the B.A.A. to fulfil their functions without the delays
1110
attributable to normal planning process. In the future, if, following consultation, the views of the local planning authority are not acceptable to the B.A.A., the local planning authority will have to consider whether they should challenge the proposals of the B.A.A. Having decided to challenge, the local planning authority will submit an Article 4 direction to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who has the discretion as to whether or not he should confirm such a direction. If he does not confirm the direction, the matter is finished and the B.A.A. proposals proceed. If he does confirm the direction, the B.A.A. are back to square one and have to submit a planning application for their proposal, and ultimately appeal to the Minister against a refusal or against onerous conditions. The loss of time and the uncertainty compared with previous practice is only too apparent.
The scope of development permitted to the B.A.A. under this Order is quite out of proportion to other types of permitted development under the General Development Order; and, even more, the effect of such development on the living conditions and environment of a large area is quite beyond the effect which may be created by any other type of permitted development. The local planning authority would accept that the B.A.A. should have a right to carry out, within their boundaries, free from planning control, minor development which would have no significant effect on the neighbourhood, but if the local planning authority are to fulfil their proper responsibilities to the people they represent they would expect to have the right to exercise full planning control over major airport development, which is more significant in its effect than any other type of development, whilst preserving the right of appeal to the Minister.
My Lords, I hope that when my noble friend Lord Kennet replies to the debate the misgivings of the Surrey County Council, if they are unjustified, will be put at rest by complete assurances, but I would ask him to understand and to accept that at the present time these misgivings are strongly held, and are felt by the Surrey County Council to be well based. I believe they merit urgent and sympathetic consideration.
7.25 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has explained to us in considerable detail the differences between the procedure under this Order and the procedure as it has been heretofore. I think he read out the whole of the brief that was delivered to him. I do not propose to follow him in that regard. It seems to me here—I scent it—that there has been a conflict and a bit of a battle behind the scenes. The Ministry of Aviation and the British Airports Authority naturally want to have the greatest freedom possible to carry on the activities which they are charged with by Parliament. At the same time, the planning authorities naturally want to see that there is no abuse of freedom which will upset the whole of the planning considerations.
The battle, I think, has been lost by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to this extent; that I suspect that the wording of this Order is wider than really is required or is desired. In the course of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, gave instances of the sort of things that the British Airports Authority might require to do: build a new place for the fire station, and so on. I do not think anyone would have the slightest objection to that kind of thing being done without any planning permission under the powers given by an Order like this. This is where the crux of the question comes, and it is probably only definition. Is not the language of this Order so wide that the British Airports Authority can not only do the kind of things to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, referred, but could in fact put up without planning permission a brand-new terminal building for their passengers and for dealing with passengers?
I may be wrong or I may be right, but, as I understand it, a vast new terminal building, employing many more staff, and meaning that much more use could be made of the existing runway, could be put up without any planning control. If that be so, it means a great development of traffic to and from the airport, the bringing of more workpeople to the airport, more use of the runway and more noise. All those are planning considerations. I should like a positive answer to my question, because I think it
1112
is a matter really of wording and that there is no difference of intent. Under the wording as it stands, as I understand the Order, that kind of work could be done without any planning permission at all.
I am sorry, in a way, that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, spoke before me, because I wanted to try to clear away some misconceptions in relation to Stansted. I agree it would be a pity if one considered this Order only in its relationship to Stansted, but there are misgivings and they ought to be cleared away. First of all, may I say to the noble Lord that I would certainly not suggest that Her Majesty's Government, having appointed the Roskill Commission, are now laying a Statutory Instrument with a view to providing a by-pass round the work that is being done by that Commission. I do not suggest that at all; but I do understand the misgivings which have been aroused, and, frankly, I think they are very largely due to what Mr. Masefield has said. Whether he is wise to have said it or not I do not profess to say, but what he said was this—and I think the actual words are important; they have been quoted before:
"Any necessary extension to the interim terminal during the time will of course be subject to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act".
I suppose he must have known that this Order was under contemplation, and I understand it is the case that an extension to the interim terminal will not be subject to the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act in the sense that planning permission will have to be obtained. This is where I think the trouble lies. You have one long runway at Stansted. I do not think anyone suggests that with only one runway you can make it into a third London airport which is intended to have four runways. But the suggestion and the fear—and this is what I would ask the noble Lord to face—is that you will so far develop Stansted, with its one runway and its theoretical capacity, that it becomes obviously much easier and less expensive to extend it then by adding three more runways. The fear is not that the whole third London airport will be built by backdoor methods, but that the position

1113
will be pre-empted by the development of Stansted.
If I may just follow this point up, the argument, as I understand it, is put this way. You have this one runway. It is a long runway. You have Mr. Masefield's estimate of the theoretical capacity. The noble Lord said it would go from the present 30,000 movements a year to, I think, 50,000. Mr. Masefield said that the theoretical capacity was five times as much. Taking his figure —for this is the figure which has caused alarm—that will mean something like five times as much noise as at present; it will mean five times as many passengers and five times as big a terminal as is now required——
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, let us be fair to Mr. Masefield. Some of the comments that have been made, both inside the House and outside, have been unfair. Mr. Masefield actually said that there is no prospect—this is where the 150,000 figure came in—that the existing runway at Stansted will attain anywhere near its theoretical capacity of 150,000 movements a year. That is what he said. And he went on to say that any necessary extensions would be——
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I do not want to take up your Lordships' time—I have spoken quite enough to-day—in discussing what Mr. Masefield said; he said many things. All I am trying to say is that this disquiet arose largely in consequence of what he said. It may have been misunderstood; but it is what he has said that has caused the alarm. I think the history shows that.
Obviously you can develop Stansted to a much greater extent and you can use it a great deal more than it is used to-day. You may have to do so pending the completion of a third London airport. That I recognise as a temporary measure. But there is planning permission now for a terminal building at Stansted. Permission has been obtained; the building is going up. But what would allay all the anxiety, I think, is this. Can the noble Lord say that there will be no major building development of any kind at Stansted other than the one for which planning permission has been given? If he could say that, I think, that would do it. There is worry about the word
1114
ing of the Order. As I read it, I do not think there is any intention of putting up any other major building at Stansted; but I think it would allay the anxiety if the noble Lord could say that that would not be done.
7.33 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I rise to support the Prayer which has been moved by my noble friend, and I shall detain your Lordships for only a few minutes. I should have thought that the language used in the Order was so wide that it would permit almost any form of development, and that is what has made the local authority apprehensive about this Order. Let us look at the language used. it refers to:
"Development required in connection with the provision by the Authority of services and facilities necessary or desirable for the operation of an aerodrome.…"
and so on. It would be difficult to find language more comprehensive or wider than that. That would really permit the erection of almost any building and almost any form of works without planning permission. So long as that wording remains in the Order, so long will the suspicions of the local authorities be aroused.
One of the things that astonished me about this Order has been the attitude of the Ministry towards it. Their attitude seems to be quite out of line with the latest manifestations of ministerial policy. The Minister is very anxious to secure for the new plans which his Department are preparing, or which the planning authorities are preparing, subject to the supervision of his Department, public participation in planning. What is meant by public participation in planning is that the ordinary members of the public—not the members of the local authority, but the ordinary members of the public—shall understand the importance of planning in their particular neighbourhood and should understand the purpose of the plans which are being prepared, and that they will co-operate with the planning authorities in carrying these plans into effect. I think that that view of the attitude of the public towards the planning authorities is a little sanguine. I was a member of a planning authority for a good many years and it is very unlikely that one is going to

1115
get an attitude of general co-operation on the part of the general public.
But what I want to say is this. If you translate that into ordinary terms, what may happen under this Order would produce rather disturbing results. The planning authorities will be encouraged to organise conferences in their neighbourhoods to which individuals of all sorts whom the planning authorities can contact will be invited to go. They will then be told something about the plans and invited to submit their own views upon what the plans arc going to do. Let us suppose that somebody goes to the next conference which the Greater London Council have organised and says, "At the place where I live the noise of aircraft is a great nuisance." Or he may say that the Airports Authority have built a very ugly building which completely defaces the neighbourhood in which he lives or that the airport will attract an excessive volume of traffic. What are the planning authorities going to do about this?
Under the terms of this Order the planning authority will have no authority to make any reply except to say, "We can do nothing about it at all because we have not been given powers to control the planning of these particular airports. It is all left in the hands of the air authority. They put up the buildings which suit their purposes best, and the effect that these buildings may have on the neighbourhood is only a secondary consideraion." That is how this Order is going to work out in practical terms. It is going to be a great disappointment to many people who have been encouraged to look upon the planning authority as some sort of guardian angel who will preserve them from the attacks of the dragon.
I have one other thing to say. There has been more than one arrangement between the Authority and the Ministry for consultation upon this process. There is an undertaking that there will be consultation on the development of airports. I do not think that this is worth very much. One knows very well that after a good deal of talk and many meetings one gets a letter from the Department saying that the Minister is not satisfied, or that it is not possible to carry out what has been asked for. Now at least two of these four airports which are controlled
1116
by the British Airports Authority were formerly Crown property; and, of course, as Crown property they were exempt from planning restrictions. But they had this great advantage: they came under the terms of Circular 100. Under the terms of Circular 100 the local planning authority were entitled to be consulted; they were entitled to formulate their proposals and their plans for the area, and if the Airports Authority and the planning authority were not able to reach agreement they could go to the Minister and get his decision.
With that arrangement the local authorities were quite content; indeed it worked very well from the time these airports were built until the time that the Act of 1935 was passed. I know how reluctant Government Departments are to change anything they have set their hands to. I think it is a pity myself, and I was rather gratified when, during the course of the proceedings on the Town and Country Planning Bill, a draft Amendment which I modestly formulated was actually accepted by the Minister and put into the Bill. I have never had that experience before. But it happened this time: whether it was by design or intent I do not know. In the case of these airports the Minister might well revive Circular 100 and wait to see whether that procedure will not be as effective in controlling the development of these airports as it was in controlling their development in the past.
7.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, if there is one thing that can be said about this Order it is that it is a little unfortunate in its timing. It is not intended to have anything specifically to do with Stansted although clearly Stansted is covered by it. But to introduce in the late 1960s any Order which frees British airport authorities from the control of local planning authorities will, I think, inevitably cause trouble. For that reason I was particularly glad to hear the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, this afternoon about Stansted in particular, and also to read the numerous assurances given in another place by the two Ministers who spoke on this Order.
My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to go a little further into the details of this Order. I have looked

1117
at Class XVII of the General Development Order. It is into this class that the British Airports Authority are now to be inserted on the analogy that they are now another statutory undertaker like the others there listed. My noble friend Lord Molson mentioned some of these, but those that are there already include railways and light railway undertakings. They are very limited in what they may do by way of the erection or reconstruction or alteration of buildings. Railway stations and bridges are referred to in particular and other buildings are mentioned. My noble friend Lord Molson mentioned the restriction in that respect on docks, piers, harbours, water transport, canal water and navigation undertakings. Exactly the same restrictions apply to hydraulic power undertakings under paragraph (c), because they cannot undertake development which is,
"the construction or erection, or the reconstruction or alteration so as materially to affect the desien or external appearance thereof, of buildings…"
Gas undertakings have precisely the same limitation on them, and so have electricity undertakings and tramway or road transport undertakings. The only statutory undertakings which have not this particular restriction on what they are allowed to do without express planning consent are lighthouse undertakings. It may be that your Lordships will think that that is reasonable, since lighthouse undertakings probably are not going to do very much except build lighthouses. They may be noisy things but they are comparatively rare in this country.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, owes a little more explanation than has hitherto been given either in this House or, I think, in another place as to why in the whole of this list of statutory undertakers, only the British Airport Authority is to get wider powers in relation to buildings. One can very well imagine a dock or harbour undertaking wishing to put up buildings. One can well imagine that the railways want to do so, and one can well imagine that the others want to as well; and yet they are not allowed to. It is perfectly clear that we cannot amend this Order, and therefore if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, cannot describe why it is that hangars or terminals, freight terminals, fuel depots, tank farms, or whatever it is are not to be controlled—as I think would be the case if they were
1118
under the control of any other statutory undertaking—he must go a little further in explaining the scope of the consultation procedure with the local planning authorities which is now covered by the undertaking; and also tell the House a little more about the view that the Ministry will hold on Article 4 directions.
My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne mentioned the sort of things that are going to worry local planning authorities; as indeed did the noble Lord Lord Garnsworthy. I can under-stand these things very well. Under this Order a noise will probably not come in a new place because the runways will stay as they are, but it could certainly intensify in degree and frequency. Traffic could certainly be increased as a result of operations which were not—except by the consultation machinery—under the control of the local planning authority, and so indeed could employment. I can also envisage that the services of the local authorities might have a greater burden put on them by the erection of some new buildings. I happen to know that Gatwick is either in the confirmed or in the proposed extension of the Surrey Green Belt, and I have no doubt that the Surrey County Council will wish to look with extreme care on any new development which is likely to attract a demand for more housing in the area. How many times have I been told that by the Surrey County Council when I have sought to do that very thing.
My Lords, those are the sort of services and departments of life which are of the greatest importance to local planning authorities and upon which they always express strong views—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, knows only too well—if anybody has to apply to them for planning permission. It is not just a matter of their views, it is their money too, because they may have to contribute either to the services or to making up roads or something of that nature. They are the people who will have to pay some or all of the resultant costs of development which could take place under this Order without planning permission. If the Minister is going to suggest to this House that the wording of the new paragraph in the Order should be so wide as to cover all these buildings, I think he should go as far as he possibly can to indicate the type of circumstances

1119
in which he is prepared to consider (I accept that he cannot say he will undertake to grant or to approve an article or direction) that an application could properly be made to him.
Have Article 4 directions ever been made in relation to development by other statutory undertakers? If so, how often? Were they general or were they specific? Can the noble Lord tell the House whether he is going to look with particular sympathy upon an application by a local planning authority for an Article 4 direction if the conflict between what the B.A.A. want and what the local planning authority does not want involves the liability of a burden on the local planning authority of the sort which has been mentioned? If we are to have these words, this seems to me to be the crux of the matter.
Since we cannot amend this Order, if the noble Lord can give some comfort on this I think that is probably the best alternative we have. I suspect, my Lords, that the noble Lord will be as helpful on this matter as he always is, because it is a matter which has plainly aroused a great deal of worry in the most responsible quarters. I hope that your Lordships will be satisfied with what he says. In view of the other assurances given, about Stansted in particular, and the general protection which has been explained by the Government in relation to the whole operation of this Order, I cannot imagine that it is really a matter on which (I hope that this is the case) my noble friend Lord Molson will wish to divide the House. At any rate, I think it would have to be a very unsatisfactory reply for the House to be justified in trying to object to this Order.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords, I intervene only very briefly because I happen to have the fortune to have lived at the end of a jet runway for ten years. I support my noble friend in his Prayer, and I hope that the Government will in no way weaken the authority of local planning committees and authorities in this airport menace.
7.49 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than one minute. As noble Lords will know, I have had a fairly long experience
1120
of local government and I am conscious of the jealousy with which local authorities prize their planning powers. At the same time, I feel that many of these State-run organisations, public utility organisations, are going to be very severely handicapped if they are not given the kind of powers, limited powers, that are suggested in this Order. Therefore I shall have no objection whatever to this Order. What I had felt very apprehensive about was the possibility of the powers which this Order seeks to grant being exploited by the British Airports Authority in order to establish at Stansted Airport buildings of a size and variety that would, so to speak, preempt the decision of the Commission which is now considering the future of the third London Airport. But I have listened very attentively to my noble friend Lord Beswick and I am completely satisfied with what he said. I am convinced that there is no attempt behind this Order to try to introduce a third London Airport at Stansted "by the back door". I hope that what my noble friend said will be widely reported, so that any doubts and fears which may have been aroused in the minds of people living in the Stansted area will be set at rest. I hope that the House will now pass the Order.
7.51 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I have many points to deal with, and they are of such interest and importance that I had better not scamp my reply to any of them. I apologise for detaining a thin House after three especially heavy days. Let me start with Stansted. The only way Stansted could be developed into a large airport before the Roskill Commission reports is either if the British Airports Authority do so or if the lessees of the Authority, the airlines, so develop it. If the lessees develop it, it will remain subject to planning control. As regards possible development by the British Airports Authority, we have heard the statements made by the Authority and I should like to repeat an assurance given in another place to the effect that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade will not authorise substantial

1121
capital expenditure involved in other than minor development at Stansted. There is no intention of any further major building at Stansted before the Roskill Report. Of course, the Authority cannot spend money without authorisation from the President of the Board of Trade.
Turning to the kinds of development which would be permitted under this Order, in comparison with the kinds of development already permitted to other statutory undertakings, I expect the House will agree that the nearest parallel to the British Airports Authority is the Docks and Harbours Authority, because they also deal with moving people and goods. On their operational land, the Docks and Harbours Authority have the right to build buildings, bridges and roads without planning permission in the normal sense, provided they are in connection with the handling of traffic. This Order would give the British Airports Authority the right to build on their operational land buildings, bridges and roads—but not runways, of course—provided they are in connection with the operation or maintenance of the Airport in handling passengers and freight. What is the difference? It is true that in the present Order there are somewhat more words, but their effect is exactly the same. The Authority can build these things provided they are in connection with the main purpose of the whole of the installation as it stands.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, may I intervene? Do I understand the Minister to say that these numerous words put into the Statutory Instrument we are considering will not be any wider or extend any further than the simpler words used in the General Development Order in respect of docks and harbours?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers, may I point out that there is this curious difference in the proposed paragraph (h) relating to the British Airports Authority which says
"… buildings, not being buildings erected in connection with …"
and the words, in talking about docks, piers and harbours:
"… buildings not being structures or erections required …"
When Parliament passes an Order which has this distinction between the two
1122
pieces of phraseology used, one would expect them to mean something different.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I should have thought it was the same. I know that the distinction between a building and a structure, between a building and an erection and between a structure and an erection is one which bristles with the possibility of litigation, but my understanding is that both these Authorities may built, without getting permission, buildings, bridges and so on to get on with their principal job, but ate not allowed to built without permission buildings, bridges and so on which are not connected with their principal job.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, made the point that other statutory undertakers did not have any freedom to build or put things up without planning permission. This is not quite so, because other statutory undertakers, in common with all industrial undertakings, have the right to put up, without specific permission, plant or machinery not more than 50 ft. high, and to build buildings within their existing curtilages up to 5,000 sq. ft. or to one-tenth of the cubic capacity of the original building they are beside. And I would remind the House that there is an entire industry—namely, agriculture—which does riot have to seek any planning permission for the siting on any land of any building or structure not more than 40 ft. high or 5,000 sq. ft. in area.
Turning to the question which I think is the main one—that is, the comparison between the old procedure in regard to Crown land and development operating under Circular 100 and the new proposed procedure as a statutory undertaker—the noble Lord, Lord Molson, asked about consultations and said that if the consultations did not work out the statutory undertaker would then be completely free to disregard the views and wishes of the planning authority. That is not so, my Lords. Under Circular 100 the Airport Authority would have to go to the local planning authority and say that they wanted to do certain building. If the planning authority said, "Yes", it was done and that was that. Under the new procedure, the B.A.A. will go to the local authority for permission and if the authority agree, it will be done exactly as it was before.

1123
The question arises of what happens when the local authority says, "No, we do not like this and we wish you would not do it." Under the old procedure, if the B.A.A. could not talk the planning authority out of it themselves they would have recourse to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who would come in to hold the ring and try to ajudicate between them and reach an agreement. This still happens in Crown development. Under the new procedure, this is exactly what will happen once again in the long run, because if the local planning authority do not like it, the Airports Authority can go to the Minister and ask his approval to make an Article 4 direction. If the Minister thinks that there may be something in it—he does not have to do more than that—he will allow them to make a direction. Like anyone else under any sort of development, the Authority will apply for permission, and if the planning authority refuse permission the Airports Authority then appeal to the Minister, who either allows or disallows the appeal.
That is really very much the same sort of thing that he used to do under Circular 100, only in this case it will be done in public, which is an advantage itself from the participation point of view. If he allows the appeal, that is that. If he disallows it, he thereby generates a right to claim compensation for the Airports Authority. But the Airports Authority have already promised, as in the case of Stansted, that if this were to happen they would not claim compensation; and whether or not they refrained from claiming compensation, both at Stansted and at all other airports, it would be open to the Minister to direct that compensation should not be paid in the case of a refusal. So it all comes out to the same in the end.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, said that he would deal with the list of guarantees and reassurances which were given by my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in the other place, but he did not actually finish the list. I think it is right to remind the House of all of them. First of all, on the question of the Article 4 direction he said—and I quote him, since one is allowed to quote the Minister speaking in the House of Commons. He said (column 228):
1124
"I cannot undertake to approve any direction which may be submitted, but if consultation has failed to produce an agreed solution. I would certainly approach any such direction with considerable sympathy and take into account the impact of airport development on the surrounding area."
I think that answers the question put by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, as to what kind of application would be properly made. In my opinion, any application is always properly made, but this is some indication of the thoughts that would be in my right honourable friend's mind when he set out to determine such an application.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I knew of these words. It is not just the impact of airport development on the surrounding area in narrow terms it is also a matter of finance and local government responsibility, which may be something rather beyond the surrounding area.
LORD KENNET: By "a matter of finance" does the noble Viscount mean compensation?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No. The services that the local authority may have to pay for— roads, sewers and other services.
LORD KENNET: Of course, those would be included. He would take into account all the factors.
The other assurances made were six in number. Some I have already mentioned, and I may be repeating myself here. First, the President of the Board of Trade controls capital expenditure of B.A.A. and would not authorise other than minor development of Stansted until the Roskill Report. Secondly, the Airports Authority themselves have assured the public and Parliament that there is neither the need nor the intention to carry out other than minor development of Stansted, pending the Roskill Report.
Thirdly, the Airports Authority will consult planning authorities in all cases, not only Stansted, which is the matter we have been discussing. Fourthly, if the Article 4 direction were made and planning permission were refused, the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Housing and Local Government would consider the merits of development on appeal. We have

1125
touched on that already. This also includes the possibility of the Minister ruling out compensation under Article 4. Fifthy, the Airports Authority have themselves undertaken not to claim compensation at Stansted. Sixthly, to remind the House of what I think it already well knows, the proposed freedoms in this Order do not extend to the lessees of the Authority; namely, the airlines.
My Lords, I should like for a moment, in conclusion, to stand back and look at the major arguments. Three years ago Parliament created a new statutory authority, the British Airports Authority, about which we arc talking. Statutory undertakers have had a special regime under the planning law. They are not exempt from planning law, and I have described the ways in which they are not exempt. But, as I say, they have a special regime under the planning law, and have had it since 1947 when our planning law came of age. Members of either House may dislike that regime as a whole. We must remember that we recently cut down the regime very severely when the Government accepted Lord Ilford's Amendment to the Town and Country Planning Bill (and once more I should like to to congratulate the noble Lord on this), and reduced sharply the number of circumstances in which compensation would be payable on a refusal of planning permission. In general, I should have thought that that was eonugh for the moment. But whether or not it is enough for the moment is a general question which relates to all statutory undertakers.
Whatever may be our opinions on the general question, I believe it would be quite absurd to run after the last entrant to the club and say: "No; you shall not come in because things have changed." Of course they should come in, and get broadly the same régime as the other six or eight do, unless and until Parliament, after full consideration of the whole field, decides that the regime itself is wrong. I think this is the way to look at it. I express no opinion in this debate on the merits on the general régime: it would be out of place to do so. I only hope that the House will agree with me that it would be right to admit the British Airports Authority to this regime unless and until there is a general change. I
1126
need hardly say that if any noble Lords want to come and talk to me about the general question in the next few months of this regime of the statutory undertakers, I shall be only too delighted if they will do so.
8.7 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I am not sure whether I have a right of reply, but at any rate I would ask your Lordships' indulgence to say just a few words in reply. I think that this debate is ending extraordinarily happily. I am most grateful for the assurances that have been given by the Government this evening. They go, I think, certainly in feeling, a good deal further than the assurances that were given in another place. I am sorry if, when referring to the assurances, I omitted one. I was in fact quoting from Mr. Rodgers, the Minister who replied, when I made my list of the assurances, and I am sorry to have missed one variable one which was given by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
The words which I am sure will be of immense comfort to the planning authorities are those nice, familiar words so typical of the Parliamentary Secretary: "All comes out the same in the end." So we have his assurance that, as a result of this Statutory Instrument, things are going to work exactly as they used to do under Circular 100 of 1950; and since the County Councils Association side have regarded that procedure as quite satisfactory, I am sure they will be entirely satisfied with the assurance which the Parliamentary Secetary has given. I am bound to say that all this long debate might have been avoided if either the Statutory Instrument had not been drafted in the form that it has or this elaborate procedure which has been described could have been cut a little shorter.
We have had a most interesting statement from the Parliamentary Secretary that it is his view (and no doubt he has been advised) that the entirely different wording used in this Statutory Instrument really means the same thing as the one word that was used in the original Development Order. I repeat what I said earlier: that normally the courts, and anybody else, assume that when Parliament uses different words on different occasions it means different things. But

1127
that will not be so in this case. A whole plethora of words and verbiage in this Statutory Instrument to-day will all come to the same thing as the shorter words which were used in the general Development Order 1950, which the Statutory Order is now amending. That is most valuable information, which I am sure will be of great help to the planning authorities.
I did not know of the power of the Minister to order that where planning permission was refused no compensation should be paid. We have had the voluntary assurance by the British Airports Authority that if planning permission was refused in the case of Stansted no compensation would be claimed. It is most valuable to be told in this connection that the Minister has a similar power to give a direction in the case of other airports; and the very fact that it has been brought out in this debate no doubt means that on suitable occasions he would exercise that power. I am very glad indeed to know that.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I should perhaps say, just to clarify the Record, that it is the Minister of Housing and the President of the Board of Trade jointly who have that power.
LORD MOLSON: I am very much obliged, my Lords. And so it is that this debate, which I suppose has lasted about an hour and twenty minutes, has ended so extremely happily. Again I quote "It all comes out the same in the end." In view of this assurance from the Government, I ask permission to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CIRENCESTER SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE
  CIRENCESTER SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE